Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Flatly)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

NetXMS Forum

  1. Home
  2. Support
  3. Unable to retrieve forwarding database

Unable to retrieve forwarding database

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Support
2 Posts 2 Posters 15.5k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J
    J
    Jared
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Hello there! We have been trying out NetXMS and are mostly very impressed! Keep up the good work!

    That being said, we are having an issue showing topology information. It seems that this stems from a problem retrieving the forwarding database from a Force10 switch. If I attempt to show the forwarding table, it is always empty.

    It seems from the source code that you are retrieving as follows:
        node->CallSnmpEnumerate(_T(".1.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1"), FDBHandler, fdb);
    However, that is dot1dTpFdbAddress which seems to only contain the forwarding information for the default VLAN. For us, that OID is empty on those particular switches.
    It seems like I am missing something.

    According to the documentation that I have read, it seems that we need dot1qTpFdbPort (.1.3.6.1.2.1.17.7.1.2.2.1.2) to retrieve the full forwarding table for non-default VLANs. If I walk that part of the tree, I see values that appear to be correct for building the FDB.

    On other switches that we have, such as 3Com, this behavior seems to be confirmed... The dot1dTpFdbTable contains a subset (or none) of the entries needed to complete the FDB, but the dot1qFdbTable seems to be more complete.

    Am I missing something for how this should work?

    Any thoughts on how we can get this topology mapping to work properly for us?

    Thanks for your help!

    -- Jared

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • V
      V
      Victor Kirhenshtein
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Hi!

      Your findings are correct. I'm personally only encounter switches reporting full FDB via dot1dTpFdbTable, but using dot1qTpFdbTable when possible seems more correct. I'll fix that for next release.

      Best regards,
      Victor

      1 Reply Last reply
      0

      Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

      Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

      With your input, this post could be even better 💗

      Register Login
      Reply
      • Reply as topic
      Log in to reply
      • Oldest to Newest
      • Newest to Oldest
      • Most Votes


      • Login

      • Don't have an account? Register

      • Login or register to search.
      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
      • First post
        Last post
      0
      • Categories
      • Recent
      • Tags
      • Popular
      • Users
      • Groups