http://jira.mobinets.com/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 6.1.4 6159 19-11-2013 http://jira.mobinets.com/jira/browse/LS-249 L3 Support <p>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.<br/> 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. <br/> How can we delete the passive part in this situation?Snapshot are shared below for reference.<br/> Could you please review this and advise on the best course of action?</p> LS-249

Active node not found B650G

Bug Normal Open Bug Not Fixed Marwan Kanaan Shamim Ahmed FN Wed, 26 Feb 2025 10:39:42 +0200 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:16:35 +0200 Fri, 9 May 2025 10:55:37 +0300 NEP Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0200 0 3 0 minutes 1 day <p>L3 response:</p> <p>As I have checked, there is no issue now on BONT side all is configured correctly. </p> <p>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<br/> 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. </p> <p>I checked all MDFHs to see the ports format and it matched the expected format:</p> <p>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. </p> <p>New Attached images from L3</p> <p>Dawlat has highlighted an issue regarding the MDFH port format, specifically for the MDF model XE22_02_H2_MH (MDFH_Huawei_2).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>My concern is:</p> <p>• Why are the node port patterns different for XE22 and MM44, given that they share the same MDFH model?</p> <p>This inconsistency needs to be resolved to ensure uniformity and prevent potential errors in future configurations.</p> <p>Could you please investigate this issue and provide a solution to ensure consistent port patterns across all nodes using the MDFH_Huawei_2 model?</p> <p>Please let me know if you require any further information.</p> <p>Thank you for your assistance.<br/> .</p> <p>Please find the details below regarding the MDF configuration:<br/> MDF "XE22_02_H2_MH" was initially created on 13-DEC-22 with a specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine).<br/> The same node was later updated on 11-MAR-25, reflecting a new configuration.<br/> Ports with an incorrect format (count: 16) were created on 11-MAR-25.<br/> MDF "MM44_02_H2_MH" was created on 07-JAN-25 with its specific configuration (Cabinet, Magazine, Ports).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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</p> <p>we will update this ticket once action completed</p> <p>Had to delete BONT nodes in bulk so that same will recreated through API properly.<br/> 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.<br/> So deleting osp connection and deleting passive nodes is very time consuming process.Please need you suggestion for the same.</p> <p>Note::Some nodes has been created but still count is high for nodes need deletion and recreation.</p> <p>XD85_01_B650G<br/> XD87_01_B650G<br/> XO31_01_B650G<br/> XM70_01_B650G<br/> XS35_01_B650G<br/> XJ52_01_B650G<br/> XM75_01_B650G<br/> XB06_01_B650G<br/> OX14_01_B650G<br/> XG86_01_B650G<br/> XD72_01_B650G<br/> XK62_01_B650G<br/> XE33_06_B650G<br/> XS87_01_B650G<br/> XR50_01_B650G<br/> XJ31_01_B650G<br/> XR03_01_B650G<br/> XD41_01_B650G<br/> XE29_01_B650G<br/> XE19_03_B650G<br/> XC66_01_B650G</p> Actual Start Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0200 Baseline End Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0200 Baseline Start Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0200 Customer Date of Baselining Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:46:26 +0200 Dev. Actual Duration Gantt Options Last Comment <p style="display:inline"><b>Evaluation License Error:</b> EXPIRED</p> Original Estimate PDM Actual Duration Planned End Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0200 Planned Start Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0200 Rank 0|xtikm9: Rank (Obsolete) 9223372036854775807 VTDirections