Cisco 6513 Bug (was Re: hey had eric sent you

joej at Rocknyou.com joej at Rocknyou.com
Mon Mar 15 20:39:35 UTC 2004



Scott,

	Yep, we had to send in the line cards to get them
upgraded, didn't have any information on upgrading the s/w
on the Line cards and TAC wanted me to RMA them back. So.
Boy this one was a real pain because it only seemed protocol
specific at the time.


Here's the referenced Bug for those interested.

CSCeb67650 Bug Details 
   
 
Headline  WS-X6548-GE-TX & WS-X6148-GE-TX may drop frames on egress 
Product  cat6000 Model  x6548 
Component  hw-1000tx Duplicate of   
Severity  2  Severity help Status  Resolved  Status help 
First Found-in Version  8.1   All affected versions  First Fixed-in Version  8.1(1.8), 8.1(1.9), 8.2(0.18)DEL, 7.6(2.3), 12.1(19.4)E, 12.2(17a)SX  Version help 
Release Notes
 
Packets destined out the WS-X6548-GE-TX or the WS-X6148-GE-TX that are 
less than 64 bytes will be dropped. This can occur when a device forwards a 
packet that is 60 bytes and the 4 byte dot1q tag is to added to create a valid 
64 byte packet. When the tag is removed the packet is 60 bytes. If the 
destination is out a port on the WS-X6548-GE-TX or the WS-X6148-GE-TX it will 
be dropped by the linecard.

Additionally, if packets are received on an interface that does not have a 
minimum MTU of 64 bytes (e.g. ATM,POS) and are destined out the WS-X6548-GE-TX 
or the WS-X6148-GE-TX it will be dropped by the linecard.

No current workaround other than moving the recieving device to a different 
model linecard.



Cheers!
-Joe


----------
From: 	owner-nanog at merit.edu[SMTP:owner-nanog at merit.edu] on behalf of Scott McGrath[SMTP:mcgrath at fas.harvard.edu]
Sent: 	Monday, March 15, 2004 11:07 AM
To: 	joe
Cc: 	Riley, Marty; nanog at merit.edu
Subject: 	Re: hey had eric sent you



Bit hard by same bug.  What version of code are you running on the 6513
8.1(2) fixes the bug on the 6x48 line cards.  What happens is that packets
of 64 bytes or less are silently dropped.  Replacing linecards will not
help unless there is another bug of which I am not aware.   With a little
digging I can dredge up the relevant DDTS.

                            Scott C. McGrath

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, joe wrote:





More information about the NANOG mailing list