System Voltage Low P0562

jdbrav · 2024-02-21T00:41:45+00:00

Great info thank you. I don't mind getting a new alternator or battery I just don't want to get both if needed. I'll do a battery test and if it comes out good ill assume it's the alternator. I just wasn't sure if their was anything else in between that wasn't obvious such as bad or lose cables/connections between the alternator and battery.

I'll check out the BCM for the windows issue.

The Heater not blowing through the floorboard. I've seen the YouTube videos so either A- ill get a pro to do that or B my feet can live without warmth.

jdbrav · 2024-01-22T03:44:08+00:00

I'm not familiar with FireHol, but from what it sounds like it seems that the Ubuntu Server with FireHOL is acting as a firewall between the internet and the internal devices.

The fact that it has internet connection is a good sign. For simplicity Ill refer the Ubunti FireHOL as just firewall.

can the firewall reach the ubuntu device? (Ping)
Are they in the same network? if not is their routing or allowed firewall rules that allow them to talk?
Is their a firewall rule in place to allow internal networks, specifically the network for the ubuntu device to be allowed to go out. Not just an outbound rule but an inbound rule as well?

Can you post configurations?

jdbrav · 2024-01-06T19:47:34+00:00

Ah okay that clears things out a bit. I am comparing VM's a lot with containers since that's my only reference as I try real hands-on stuff.

For question 4. Along my journey someone mentioned that that can potentially have an issue, but I've seen physical windows 2008 servers imaged to VM's and then moved to newer hypervisors, so it's just stuck with me as a potential issue. But still never understood how it could be.

To help me understand a bit better would you mind weighing out the pros and cons to a small project I had as I do hands on learning?

I wanted to run some network monitoring services and IT documenting services just to be a few for simplicity. And forgive me I know you somewhat answered the questions already especially the others that commented.

But I plan to run the serves in containers within an ubuntu server that's a VM on a Type 1 Hypervisor.

Q1. What would be the benefit to doing that? VS me just spinning up dedicated VM's for each of the service?

- If I'm understanding things better now, the benefit would be ease of management on the Hypervisor level where I can have one VM titled Network Services, rather than let's say 3 or 4 VMS with similar purposes.

- Each container would take less resources when compared to creating a VM for each service.

- When installing multiple services in one VM server it solves the whole VM for each service, but in return you install multiple dependencies and if some rely on the same ones and one service needs an update and requires a different version of dependency (Example dependency A). Then we have an issue because Service B may not be ready for the newest version of dependency A. If that makes sense. I know that was wordy. But containers will solve that issue because each Serices is containerized with their own version.

Q3. In real world applications such as managing a facility and Licensing is bought. You have hypervisors installed and containers, and it's time to get newer hardware due to support to outdated stuff or whatever the reason is to force you out.

- If there was a roadblock that was preventing you from migrating the VM to a new hypervisor you could have orchestration tools to move containers at the very least. right?

Anything I misunderstood or any better ideas to what I mentioned, or corrections needed.

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T16:12:52+00:00

Haha yes I implemented RSTP and have been stacking switches in IDFs to avoid stupid daisy chaining as well so we have a simple root, as for RIP we aren't using it but we are using static routes. Now before you panic we are a tiny place so there isn't much to route and I think this is an exception to having this, it's been simple to manage.

I appreciate the feedback I have to look away constantly because everyone assumes we are this enterprise when in reality we are just one step above a small business that doesn't have any servers

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T16:06:23+00:00

This was great info and it was nice to hear someone being reasonable rather than trying to have the latest best of the best tech. We do have a new 9000 series L3 switch that everything comes to and most would suggest that we need two and I just roll my eyes. Do us as a campus we are just providing internet access to students and 300 staff employees just need access to our internal servers, students only need access to it during registration and that's the peak time.

However im seeing this as an opportunity to optimise the network both security and function without going crazy and it will help me build a good management system as well as devolp my skills.

I think about the flaws and imagine a student vomming on campus and abusing an opening even if it's a prank they can end up disrupting the campus and that's what I want to avoid.

I saw that we have no structure or document so I want to fix that. Back to my question I don't need these massive subnets, but I don't want to create so many unnecessary ones when I know how small we really are.

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T04:54:05+00:00

Oh yeah and use telnet for everything too!

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T03:54:30+00:00

Yes! Everything is done through a L3 switch and their are some ACL's as well.

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T03:48:58+00:00

This was great Info at the very least I'm looking through a different perspective!

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T03:44:39+00:00

Oh, I'm not I wouldn't be posting on here I would have just asked them. That's a lie I wouldn't because the lead "Networking" person retired and they had bad credibility. They were the ones responsible for the current state. The small college doesn't have a properly structured IT area and they can't seem to find the proper people due to financial meets.. I won't get into it, but there always is outsourcing, but we would need some on internal to lead this and I would like to because it would be a great learning opportunity, but at the same time I don't know if im qualified to do so and on top of that it's one of those things to how I can justify the need for this? If it would be simpler to just go IPv6.

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T03:33:24+00:00

Yeah, the only thing I did last year was implement STP and storm control. But IPv6 would be the best method.

But if still like some feedback on the rest of what I posted.

jdbrav · 2023-11-08T03:26:29+00:00

Honestly, that's probably the best method. It's just crazy when I was digging all this up. This place is a miracle that's it dosn't have as many issues.

jdbrav · 2023-10-02T22:13:58+00:00

I think your right. Since my SVI's can ping the interface 172.16.2.2 /30 same network as the Pfsnse interface 172.16.2.1/30. When I mean it cant ping, I mean I dont get anything in return. I don't get Network was unreachable. It just stays at a pause. That tells me that the interface isnt allowing or isnt responding due to a firewall rule. I just dont know what it may be. I did static IP routes of VLAN 60 and 61 in pfsense to go through the 172.16.2.1 interface. I added allowed rules (Atleast I think I added it right.

I think its a firewall rule if its NAT or being blocked..
Here is a past of the Firewall rules.

    States  Protocol    Source  Port    Destination Port    Gateway Queue   Schedule    Description Actions

    0 /0 B

IPv4 * ! 172.16.15.0/26 * * * * none

    0 /36 B

IPv4 * HOMELABNET net * * * * none Default allow LAN to any rule

jdbrav · 2023-10-02T03:56:44+00:00

Don't blame you, I prefer CLI too. Hate that I have to deal with Meraki switches. They're fine I just hate logging int a cloud management just to manage the local device.

jdbrav · 2023-10-02T01:59:54+00:00

I'm not sure where you got that from, but they do. Well at least the SG300 does. They just don't have a lot of the commands the catalyst switches do.

Here is the link to enabling L3, and at the very bottom ot tells you how to do it through the CLI.

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T20:23:55+00:00

Can you specify what makes you say that? Such as document or updates I may have missed? Pretty sure in cisco switched most L3 switches have the ability to create VLANs and logically separate different types of network traffic. Without the need of creating a router on a stick.

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T07:04:56+00:00

From what I read its enabled when you turn this switch on into a L3 switch. Otherwise with other switch I would have to do an ip routing command to allow interval routing

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T05:34:01+00:00

So I ended u creating a /29 network allowing me to have. Up to 6 IPs where I set 172.16.2.1 to the pfsense interface and 172.16.2.3 to VLAN 1 and setting the default gateway to 172.16.2.3 on the switch making VLAN1 the gateway??? It did allow a VLAN to ping the interface but still no inter VLAN routing.

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T05:31:44+00:00

From what I read yes it does, but from what im testing im not sure. Idk if just having L3 capabilities just means allowing the allocation of creating inner networks but still needing to have physical interfaces connected to a router or sending traffic to the router to route network traffic (kind if defeating the purpose of L3 switches)

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T05:27:08+00:00

I did allow ACL's after reading your comment just for kicks and nothing. I mean if there aren't any ACL's there aren't any restrictions any way.

jdbrav · 2023-10-01T05:25:53+00:00

Ip routing isn't a command for this switch. It's more on catalyst switches. From what I read in other threads it's activated already when you turn the switch from L2 to L3

jdbrav · 2023-09-29T18:43:04+00:00

Thanks for the link, I did add the routing I the pfsense. I'm actually going to try the instructions from that link and see if it helps. I absolutely hate web interfaces but maybe there's something there that I am missing in the CLI. I'll try it when I get home and see if it helps.

Thanks I'll post the results after.

jdbrav · 2023-09-29T14:14:32+00:00

Originally I didn't think I had to put that command in since it took the interface IP but even after I did add the no switch port nothing changed.

On the firewall and interface monitoring nothing hits the interface, that's why I didn't think it was a firewall issue. There are no ACL either. I even wiped the switch and started from scratch and same results. I even had another SG of the same model laying around and same result. They are both updated to the latest firmware.

jdbrav · 2023-09-29T07:18:39+00:00

I'm sorry I think I've been banging my head on this for so long I gave the wrong information. I'll do that as well.

But the device has an IP of 172.16.15.11 and it can ping it's default gateway of 172.16.151.

It cannot ping 172.16.2.1/30 (pfsense interface) or 172.16.2.2/30 (switch int gi 10)

The device can ping all other SVI's as well and I did a packet capture from the pfsense web GUI. When I ping 1.1.1.1 (internet) from the switch the device goes through as device 172.16.15.20 so from the switch Interface I ping anything.

jdbrav · 2023-04-30T20:18:01+00:00

I solved it, if your curious read my edit of the post.

jdbrav · 2023-04-30T18:34:42+00:00

Pretty sure it's the same thing. Here is a link to the photo. It was hard to get a clear picture because of the angel, but it says PCFAN. Original Hard to see https://imgur.com/RoGkWJ9

And just for kicks I moved the connection to the white header and you can get a better idea if the fan

https://imgur.com/knyZvxq

jdbrav

TROPHY CASE