Details

    • Customer:
      OMAN-Tel

      Description

      As you suggested, I attempted a BONT Autoload for one of the nodes Yassin shared. However, I'm encountering the following error, and the OSP connection is also not updating.
      I spoke with Amir, and he suggested deleting the passive part, which he believes will allow the Autoload to succeed. My concern is that the node already has active subscribers.
      How can we delete the passive part in this situation?Snapshot are shared below for reference.
      Could you please review this and advise on the best course of action?

      1. 2621.png
        81 kB
      2. 2622.png
        19 kB
      3. 2623.png
        58 kB
      4. L31.png
        37 kB
      5. L32.png
        20 kB
      6. L33.png
        35 kB

        Activity

        Hide
        Salem Dannawi added a comment -

        L3 response:

        As I have checked, there is no issue now on BONT side all is configured correctly.

        But I figured out that the default template/configuration of MDFH type : MDFH_Huawei_2 has been changed, when trying to create osp connections and based on the configuration in code specification below, we are trying to fetch the port 1-1 and 1-9 on MDFH : XE22_02_H2_MH
        but as I checked, I couldn’t find the port 1-1, neither the port 1-9 on the mentioned MDFH, as you can see below port format is different.

        I checked all MDFHs to see the ports format and it matched the expected format:

        So kindly check how the default template configuration has been changed, and why? And you need to revert it back or change the configuration in code specification based on the start port of MDFH for each configuration.

        New Attached images from L3

        Show
        Salem Dannawi added a comment - L3 response: As I have checked, there is no issue now on BONT side all is configured correctly. But I figured out that the default template/configuration of MDFH type : MDFH_Huawei_2 has been changed, when trying to create osp connections and based on the configuration in code specification below, we are trying to fetch the port 1-1 and 1-9 on MDFH : XE22_02_H2_MH but as I checked, I couldn’t find the port 1-1, neither the port 1-9 on the mentioned MDFH, as you can see below port format is different. I checked all MDFHs to see the ports format and it matched the expected format: So kindly check how the default template configuration has been changed, and why? And you need to revert it back or change the configuration in code specification based on the start port of MDFH for each configuration. New Attached images from L3
        Hide
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment -

        Dawlat has highlighted an issue regarding the MDFH port format, specifically for the MDF model XE22_02_H2_MH (MDFH_Huawei_2).

        As you know, the template for MDFH_Huawei_2 doesn't enforce a specific naming rule, and the current configuration for XE22_02_H2_MH appears to be incorrect while MM44 is correct.

        Thus there exists a discrepancy in the node port pattern between XE22 and MM44, despite both nodes using the same MDFH_Huawei_2 model as shown below.

        My concern is:

        • Why are the node port patterns different for XE22 and MM44, given that they share the same MDFH model?

        This inconsistency needs to be resolved to ensure uniformity and prevent potential errors in future configurations.

        Could you please investigate this issue and provide a solution to ensure consistent port patterns across all nodes using the MDFH_Huawei_2 model?

        Please let me know if you require any further information.

        Thank you for your assistance.
        .

        Show
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment - Dawlat has highlighted an issue regarding the MDFH port format, specifically for the MDF model XE22_02_H2_MH (MDFH_Huawei_2). As you know, the template for MDFH_Huawei_2 doesn't enforce a specific naming rule, and the current configuration for XE22_02_H2_MH appears to be incorrect while MM44 is correct. Thus there exists a discrepancy in the node port pattern between XE22 and MM44, despite both nodes using the same MDFH_Huawei_2 model as shown below. My concern is: • Why are the node port patterns different for XE22 and MM44, given that they share the same MDFH model? This inconsistency needs to be resolved to ensure uniformity and prevent potential errors in future configurations. Could you please investigate this issue and provide a solution to ensure consistent port patterns across all nodes using the MDFH_Huawei_2 model? Please let me know if you require any further information. Thank you for your assistance. .
        Hide
        Diana Hamdouche added a comment -

        Please find the details below regarding the MDF configuration:
        MDF "XE22_02_H2_MH" was initially created on 13-DEC-22 with a specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine).
        The same node was later updated on 11-MAR-25, reflecting a new configuration.
        Ports with an incorrect format (count: 16) were created on 11-MAR-25.
        MDF "MM44_02_H2_MH" was created on 07-JAN-25 with its specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine, Ports).

        This confirms that the MDF Model "MDFH_Huawei_2" is not the cause of this discrepancy. The main reason is that MDF "XE22_02_H2_MH" was originally created with an outdated configuration in 2022 and later updated in 2025.

        Show
        Diana Hamdouche added a comment - Please find the details below regarding the MDF configuration: MDF "XE22_02_H2_MH" was initially created on 13-DEC-22 with a specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine). The same node was later updated on 11-MAR-25, reflecting a new configuration. Ports with an incorrect format (count: 16) were created on 11-MAR-25. MDF "MM44_02_H2_MH" was created on 07-JAN-25 with its specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine, Ports). This confirms that the MDF Model "MDFH_Huawei_2" is not the cause of this discrepancy. The main reason is that MDF "XE22_02_H2_MH" was originally created with an outdated configuration in 2022 and later updated in 2025.
        Hide
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment -

        As discussed with shamim , he will be working with Amir to delete in batches BONT nodes without OSP connection and autoload again from FN side and check the outcome

        we will update this ticket once action completed

        Show
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment - As discussed with shamim , he will be working with Amir to delete in batches BONT nodes without OSP connection and autoload again from FN side and check the outcome we will update this ticket once action completed
        Hide
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment -

        Had to delete BONT nodes in bulk so that same will recreated through API properly.
        Although we have option to delete same in bulk from ONT report in NEP but unfortunately active node were getting deleted without deleting passive nodes because cabinet linked to that active node has OSP connection its not getting deleted.
        So deleting osp connection and deleting passive nodes is very time consuming process.Please need you suggestion for the same.

        Note::Some nodes has been created but still count is high for nodes need deletion and recreation.

        XD85_01_B650G
        XD87_01_B650G
        XO31_01_B650G
        XM70_01_B650G
        XS35_01_B650G
        XJ52_01_B650G
        XM75_01_B650G
        XB06_01_B650G
        OX14_01_B650G
        XG86_01_B650G
        XD72_01_B650G
        XK62_01_B650G
        XE33_06_B650G
        XS87_01_B650G
        XR50_01_B650G
        XJ31_01_B650G
        XR03_01_B650G
        XD41_01_B650G
        XE29_01_B650G
        XE19_03_B650G
        XC66_01_B650G

        Show
        Abir Messaikeh added a comment - Had to delete BONT nodes in bulk so that same will recreated through API properly. Although we have option to delete same in bulk from ONT report in NEP but unfortunately active node were getting deleted without deleting passive nodes because cabinet linked to that active node has OSP connection its not getting deleted. So deleting osp connection and deleting passive nodes is very time consuming process.Please need you suggestion for the same. Note::Some nodes has been created but still count is high for nodes need deletion and recreation. XD85_01_B650G XD87_01_B650G XO31_01_B650G XM70_01_B650G XS35_01_B650G XJ52_01_B650G XM75_01_B650G XB06_01_B650G OX14_01_B650G XG86_01_B650G XD72_01_B650G XK62_01_B650G XE33_06_B650G XS87_01_B650G XR50_01_B650G XJ31_01_B650G XR03_01_B650G XD41_01_B650G XE29_01_B650G XE19_03_B650G XC66_01_B650G

          People

          • Assignee:
            Marwan Kanaan
            Reporter:
            Shamim Ahmed
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Due:
              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:
              Planned Start:
              Planned End:
              Actual Start:
              Date of Baselining:

              Time Tracking

              Estimated:
              Original Estimate - Not Specified
              Not Specified
              Remaining:
              Remaining Estimate - 0 minutes
              0m
              Logged:
              Time Spent - 1 day
              1d

                Drag and Drop