Wireless Access

Reply
Occasional Contributor II

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

I don't recall ever turning it on (why would I?), but if the manual says that it is disabled by default I am not really certain anymore.

Super Contributor I

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Do this in your MD that causes the arp issue, if the state is "Disabled", you are good to go:

(LAB7005) #show openflow-profile

Openflow-profile "default"
--------------------------
Parameter                        Value
---------                        -----
controller-ip                    masterip:6633
State                            Disabled
Openflow mode                    passive
Openflow version                 v1.3
Auxiliary State                  Disabled
Auxiliary Channel Port           6633
VLAN ID or range(s) of VLAN IDs  1-4094
certificate-file                 none
key-file                         none
ca-certificate-file              none
openflow tls                     Disabled

 

~Trinh Nguyen~
Boys Town
Super Contributor I

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

It looks like this bug ID 169151 is resolved in 8.3.0 that just released on Apr 29th. 

 

 

~Trinh Nguyen~
Boys Town
Occasional Contributor I

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Thanks for contributing your post.  It saved me a call to the TAC.

 

My Rockwell PLC's were throwing duplicate IP address errors, and at first I thought it was the Cisco switches, but I quickly ruled the Ciscos out.  The Rockwell PLC's actually show the MAC address of the conflicting device, in the duplicate IP error message they display, so it was eay to track the problem to the Aruba Controllers.  the right search on the Airheads and I've got my solution.

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

I couldn't find this bug id in the release notes for 8.3.0.0 or 8.3.0.1, but does anyone know if this is fixed in 8.2.1.1? Found it in the 8.3.0.0 Release Notes (thought 8.3.0.1 had contained previous resolved versions for 8.3.0.0 as well. I can't seem to find any reference to Bug 169151 in the 8.2.X.X code path. We just ran into this problem a couple weeks ago. OpenFlow is enabled for AirGroup Centralized Mode. Concerning though that during the time we hit this IP Address conflict, we were on 8.3.0.0 already at that time, but have since downgraded to 8.2.1.1. Will have to investigate further.

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Aruba TAC informed me that Bug ID 169151 is not fixed in the 8.2.x.x iterations currently. Currently working with them further as we downgraded to 8.2.1.1 (Conservative Release) per recommendation from TAC for another issue to get this patched in 8.2.X.X - as we were running into issues with AirGroup (Centralized/Distributed Mode) in 8.3.0.1.

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Unfortunately it appears the fix missed the PR cut-off date for 8.2.2.1 release. I couldn't get any more details beyond that for 8.2.X.X - possibly it will be patched in the next code-version after 8.2.2.1 for Conservative Release.

Occasional Contributor II

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Thanks for the update, cbjohns.  We tried out 8.3.0.1 a month back and it didn't solve our problems with the IP conflicts (at least from what I coudld tell), so I have openflow and centralized turned off until this is figured out.

Occasional Contributor II

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0

Has this issue been fixed in 8.2.2.2?  Have been waiting patiently for over 10 months...

Moderator

Re: Aruba OS 8.2 - IP conflict on 0.0.0.0


@Bobberson wrote:

Has this issue been fixed in 8.2.2.2?  Have been waiting patiently for over 10 months...


The fix of 169151 to date has not been requested for back prop to 8.2.2.x, I'll file a request for 8.2.2.4 which is due mid January 2019 but I cannot control if it will be accepted or not as fixes in 8.2.2.x are being considered case by case now.

 

In the short term you would have to consider either disabling openflow or moving to 8.3.0.4.

 

 

Search Airheads
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: