Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TP link issue - Vendor unknown #485

Open
nmersi opened this issue Jun 19, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

TP link issue - Vendor unknown #485

nmersi opened this issue Jun 19, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@nmersi
Copy link

nmersi commented Jun 19, 2023

I have TP Linj Jetstream switches and I have a problem because Netdisco do not identificate vendor.
In my switch LLDP and SNMP are enabled and if I query 1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.7 ( found here: https://static.tp-link.com/en/configuration-guides/pdf/q_a_supported_public_mibs_for_tp-link_switches.pdf ) I get LLDP Remote port ID etc.
As I have understood if netdisco do not understand the vendor it cannot use right MIBS (tplink mibs seams to be in netdisco)

How can I solve this problem?

I can only add that the switch seems not to give "vendor"

netdisco-do show -DI -d 172.16.20.116 -e vendor
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:56 info App::Netdisco version 2.047002 loaded.
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:56 info show: [172.16.20.116]/vendor started at Mon Jun 19 09:39:56 2023
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug show: running with timeout 600s
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug => running workers for phase: check
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug -> run worker check/base/0
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug Show is able to run
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug => running workers for phase: main
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug -> run worker main/base/100
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug snmp reader cache warm: [172.16.20.116]
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 debug [172.16.20.116:161] try_connect with ver: 2, class: SNMP::Info::Layer2, comm:
SNMP::Info::_global uptime : DISMAN-EVENT-MIB::sysUpTimeInstance : .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0
SNMP::Info::_global layers : SNMPv2-MIB::sysServices.0 : .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.7.0
SNMP::Info::_global description : SNMPv2-MIB::sysDescr.0 : .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0
SNMP::Info::_global id : SNMPv2-MIB::sysObjectID.0 : .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.2.0
SNMP::Info 3.71
SNMP::Info::device_type() layers:00000011 id:11863 sysDescr:"JetStream 24-Port Gigabit L2+ Managed Switch with 4 SFP Slots"
undef
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 info show: finished at Mon Jun 19 09:39:57 2023
[23658] 2023-06-19 09:39:57 info show: status done: Showed vendor response from 172.16.20.116

@nmersi
Copy link
Author

nmersi commented Jun 25, 2023

I have seen that this issue was assigned to Vendor-support.
If you need any other detail let me know.
Thank you,
Nicola

@nmersi
Copy link
Author

nmersi commented Jul 4, 2023

any news?

@ollyg ollyg transferred this issue from netdisco/netdisco Jul 12, 2023
@ollyg
Copy link
Member

ollyg commented Jul 12, 2023

it looks like SNMP::Info does not have a more specific device class for TP-Link, and maybe this is needed to extract some things like Vendor or other details.

Hi @nmersi can you let us know what is missing from Netdisco? The ports, or port aggregates, or VLAN info, or other device info for example?

@nmersi
Copy link
Author

nmersi commented Jul 13, 2023

Thank you foe your answer.
I have really few info, just vendor model (enterprises.11863.5.122); SNMP::Info::Layer2; location; port number and name, port status (up/down)
No connected devices, no connected nodes, no VLAN info at all.
The switch has LLDP enabled, Vlan configured and SNMP working.
If you need any other info let me know

Thank you,
Nicola

@nmersi
Copy link
Author

nmersi commented Aug 24, 2023

No news about it?
Thank you,
Nicola

@inphobia
Copy link
Member

see netdisco/netdisco-mibs#196
i addad most of what i would say here to that issue.

the tl;dr is: if you have a more recent mib collection for tp-link (i found 2022-08-31) i'll start by adding that.

to add the most basic support see:
netdisco/netdisco-mibs#196 (comment)
swing by irc anytime if you have questions.

they seem to be pretty standard compliant, chances are that we can get a long way without to much custom work. no promises however.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants