Subject: [USR-TC] abt 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (total modem in use)

From: pankaj <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:48:36 +0000

Hi all,

I am monitoring total number of modems in use using mrtg, and using
this OID for that
1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (using HiperArc,6 Hiperdsp-e1r2)
Its giving me some more values than actual modems in use( i.e I am
manually doing 'list connections' on hiperarc than 48 connections are
there and the same time doing snmpwalk using this OID giving me 64 . )
Is this problem of snmp or something wrong with the modems???
And day by day this differance is increases.......After rebooting the
chassis , again its working ok,,,,,, and after passing days again day
by day it increasing.

I am also observing per slot using this OID
1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.10.35.1.3.0 and the total of all the 6 slots is
mathing exactly with the list connections result.

Thanks
pankaj

---

From: Mike Wilker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 17:48:32 +0000

Do a 'list sessions' and you'll probably see some telnet sessions in
addition to the modem calls.  Those are being counted as well.  Telnet
sessions that aren't exited out of properly get stuck in there.

Mike Wilker
Director of Network Operations
Tiger Communications & Local Link USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "pankaj" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:41 AM
Subject: [USR-TC] abt 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (total modem in use)

Hi all,

Thanks
pankaj

_______________________________________________
USR-TC mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

---

From: Support <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:00:07 +0000

Is there a way to clear these left over telnet sessions without reseting the
ARC?

---

From: Todd Bertolozzi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:03:40 +0000

list sessions

disconnect user <username>

Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Support
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [USR-TC] abt 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (total modem in
use)

---

From: pankaj <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:54:03 +0000

Thanks Mike,

NO there are no much more telnet sessions, only two telnet
sessions(both are mine).
But I found 12-15 more users in 'list sessions' than  'list
conncetions' .And they are my customers(wan-ppp) not telnet users.
Is this means users was not able to logout properly??
Or is the problem of my modems or telco lines or customer's end??
How will it effect to that users billing,, I mean will that hanged
session effect anyway in billing??

And what is the workaround ???

Thanks
pankaj

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Wilker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [USR-TC] abt 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (total modem in
use)

---

From: pankaj <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:30:08 +0000

using disconnect user xxxx   disconnecting the telnet session,
But not really clearing the users session,
I mean if I do  disconnect user abc (abc=non telnet user, wan-ppp) ,
than after user appering in
'list sessions'
How to clear that??

Thanks
pankaj

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Bertolozzi" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:33 AM
Subject: RE: [USR-TC] abt 1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.2.1.10.0 (total modem in
use)

use)

---

From: Lisa Casey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:35:08 +0000

Hi,

Got a question for you folks. On my USR Total Control, when I do a "show
netconns" I get the following:

Command> sh netconn
Hnd Port Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address          Foreign Address
(state)
 20 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 17 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      65.207.130.8.64477
ESTABLISHED
 19 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 18 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 15 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 12 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 11 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 10 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
  8 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 52 net       0      2 65.207.130.222.23      65.207.130.213.1186
ESTABLISHED
  2 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.1069    65.207.130.8.53        UDP
  3 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.1645    65.207.130.2.1813      UDP
 16 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
  9 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      65.207.130.58.3231     FIN
WAIT 1
 26 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
 22 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.23      0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
  6 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.1633    0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
  7 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.434     0.0.0.0.0              UDP
  5 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.1026    0.0.0.0.0              UDP
  4 net       0      0 65.207.130.222.1723    0.0.0.0.0              LISTEN
  0 S71      24      0 65.207.130.222.520     65.207.130.1.520       UDP

This is after  I cleared a bunch of hung telnet sessions. My questions are
these:

1) Why is this NAS listening so many times on port 23? My other NAS'es
(Cisco AS5200's and Portmasters) only show them listening once on port 23.

2) What is this last entry about? It shows one of our dial-up users who is
currently connected on port S71 as the local address and the IP of our
gateway router as the foreign address. We have several users connected right
now to this NAS, so why is this one connection shown here?

Thanks for the insight,

Lisa Casey, Webmaster
Netlink 2000, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: Jeff McAdams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:42:25 +0000

Also Sprach Lisa Casey
>Got a question for you folks. On my USR Total Control, when I do a
>"show netconns" I get the following:

>(Cisco AS5200's and Portmasters) only show them listening once on port

Weird...its like it should be in CLOSE_WAIT (I think that's what its
called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't have a way to designate that
state?  That would be weird...not sure on this part.

>2) What is this last entry about? It shows one of our dial-up users who
>is currently connected on port S71 as the local address and the IP of
>our gateway router as the foreign address. We have several users
>connected right now to this NAS, so why is this one connection shown
>here?

520/udp is RIP routing protocol.  Do you have routing turned on for that
user?
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

---

From: Lisa Casey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 08:13:03 +0000

Hi Jeff,

I changed the subject on here, shoulda done that on my first post since I
was changing the topic of the thread.

> Weird...its like it should be in CLOSE_WAIT (I think
> that's  what its called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't
> have a way to designate that state?  That would be weird...
> not sure on this part.

I'ld have thought the same thing. Maybe since I did just clear a bunch of
hung telnets the "listens" will eventually clear up on their own. I could
probably clear them  up by power cycling the box but won't do that since it
would disconnect quite a few users  :-)

> 520/udp is RIP routing protocol.  Do you have routing
> turned on for that user?

Now this is what bothers me. Call me paranoid, but I'm always watching out
for users doing weird things (or doing things that are against our
Acceptable Use Policy). No, I don't have any kind of special routing turned
on for any customer, they are all (except for a few ISDN users which this
guy is not) normal 56K analog dial-ups authenticating via a standard
implementation of Cistron Radius. Now I'm wondering what this guy is up
to... (if anything).

Lisa Casey, Webmaster
Netlink 2000, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: Todd Bertolozzi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:17:53 +0000

On a side note....can you please indicate the code revision you are using
when asking for help.

Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Casey
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [USR-TC] Changed subject: listening on port 23

Hi Jeff,

Lisa Casey, Webmaster
Netlink 2000, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: Casen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:39:07 +0000

And on an even sider side note:

Some people were recently asking about what codes to upgrade.  We
upgraded to the following code about two weeks ago and so far haven't
experienced any problems for our users:

HiperNMC: 8.6.3 (Was 6.something)
HiperARC: 5.3.3 (Was 5.0.9)
HiperDSP: 3.5.105 (Was 2.0.19)

v.92 is enabled, and we have verified v.92 connections establish
correctly.  Also, we've done some extensive tests with Lucent WinModems,
all of which connected solidly.  Most customers/tests have
reported/shown less line noise disconnects and slightly increased
transfer speeds.

Just an FYI for the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Todd Bertolozzi
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [USR-TC] Please identify code running

On a side note....can you please indicate the code revision you are
using when asking for help.

Todd

-----Original Message-----

Hi Jeff,

I changed the subject on here, shoulda done that on my first post since
I was changing the topic of the thread.

> that's  what its called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't have a way 
> to designate that state?  That would be weird... not sure on this 
> part.

I'ld have thought the same thing. Maybe since I did just clear a bunch
of hung telnets the "listens" will eventually clear up on their own. I
could probably clear them  up by power cycling the box but won't do that
since it would disconnect quite a few users  :-)

> 520/udp is RIP routing protocol.  Do you have routing

Now this is what bothers me. Call me paranoid, but I'm always watching
out for users doing weird things (or doing things that are against our
Acceptable Use Policy). No, I don't have any kind of special routing
turned on for any customer, they are all (except for a few ISDN users
which this guy is not) normal 56K analog dial-ups authenticating via a
standard implementation of Cistron Radius. Now I'm wondering what this
guy is up to... (if anything).

Lisa Casey, Webmaster
Netlink 2000, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: WebMaster <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:50:37 +0000

3.5.105? I thought 3.5.100 was the newest DSP code. Or has there been another
ER release?

Thanks,

Allen

> correctly.  Also, we've done some extensive tests with Lucent WinModems, all
> of which connected solidly.  Most customers/tests have
>> that's  what its called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't have a way  to
>> designate that state?  That would be weird... not sure on this  part.
>

---

From: Terry Kennedy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 18:00:24 +0000

There is also 3.5.107
----- Original Message -----
From: "WebMaster" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [USR-TC] Please identify code running

> > correctly.  Also, we've done some extensive tests with Lucent WinModems,
all
> > On a side note....can you please indicate the code revision you are
using
> > I changed the subject on here, shoulda done that on my first post since
I
> >> that's  what its called), but maybe the NETServer doesn't have a way
to
> > I'ld have thought the same thing. Maybe since I did just clear a bunch
of
> > Now this is what bothers me. Call me paranoid, but I'm always watching
out
> > Acceptable Use Policy). No, I don't have any kind of special routing
turned