12/2012 12:40 AM JR01 10.254.0.72 : KERN-4 Aug 12 04:40:08 /kernel: %KERN-4: so-0/1/0 link 0: Asserting SONET alarm(s) RDI-L
What does it mean?
The follwoing is the out put of sho aps group command
JR01> show aps group SN-OC3 Interface Group Circuit Intf state so-0/1/0 SN-OC3 Protect disabled, up Neighbor 0.0.0.0, adj up, neighbor interface enabled, dead 2.861 Channel state Working Working circuit is on interface so-0/1/1 Local-mode bidirectional(5), neighbor-mode bidirectional(5) Req K1 0x80, rcv K1 0xc0, xmit K1 0x20, nbr K1 0x80 , rcv K2 0x05, xmit K2 0x05, nbr paired req 0 Revert time 0, neighbor revert time 0 Hello due in 0.707
so-0/1/1 SN-OC3 Working enabled, up Neighbor 0.0.0.0, adj up, neighbor interface disabled, dead 2.775 Channel state Working Protect circuit is on interface so-0/1/0 Local-mode bidirectional(5), neighbor-mode bidirectional(5) Req K1 0x80, rcv K1 0xc0, xmit K1 0x00, nbr K1 0x80 , rcv K2 0x15, xmit K2 0x00, nbr paired req 0 Revert time 0, neighbor revert time 0 Hello due in 0.779
My protect and active sonet interfaces are on the same FPC. Is that an issue perhaps?
Also please see teh out put below from the backup sonet port (port acting as protect port)
show interfaces so-0/1/0 Physical interface: so-0/1/0, Administratively down, Physical link is Down
Should not this be saying Physical link is UP instead?
When you configure aps on an interface, it will by default be disabled and "wait for instructions" from the aps daemon (apsd). Later on, apsd needs to decide the action to be taken based on neighbor status and so on.
When both the active/working and protect circuits are on the same FPC, or even the same router, there's not really a concept of the/a remote neighbor, so the adjacency is internal. Other than that, the principle of aps is the same.
Hope this clarifies it.
____________________________________________ If you think your question's answered, please mark the respective post as "Accepted Solution".
Kudos are an excellent way of showing appreciation, too.