Web Interface showing -111 Ports available on a Distributed switch... causes manually assigned IP address but it is self assigning an automatic IP (168.254.x.x)

[etieseler]

So my issue has changed slightly. I think my original question was more of a symptom of a different problem. I'll leave the original one below but give an update to what I found. I had rebuilt the server and connected it to the same network and I ran into the same issue, where I manually assign an IP address but the server assigns itself an automatic address (169.254.x.x). I moved the server to another network and it works without an issue. The only thing I can see that looks wrong is that in the Web Client the Distributed Switch shows it has -111 ports. The vDS I plugged it into now that works shows a positive number of ports.

Has anyone run into this one before?

(See original message below)

~Ed

As the subject says, its a Server 2008R2 server with 1 vNIC (VMXNET3) and vSphere shows its connected. I have manually assigned an IP address but it is self assigning an auto address.

vSphere reports it has 2 IP Addresses. I moved the connected network to a network with a DHCP server and it obtained an IP address, I then moved it back to the correct network, reassigned the address, and it was good... until I reboot the server, then suddenly its getting the auto assigned address again.

It is running on ESXi5.1 Build 1063329, vHW v9, connected to a distributed switch.

The kind of odd thing is in the vSphere Web Client it shows that are -111 ports used on the distributed switch... although all other servers connected to the switch work. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it. I have removed and added a vNIC again and I removed the old non-existing hardware from device manager, still no luck.

Any ideas? Was this a known issue and I need to update the software?

Also, an ipconfig shows the manually coded default gateway and DNS servers.

Let me know if any further information is needed to help solve this.

-Ed

[HernanMaslowski]

I have this problem once and it was pre migration from standard switch to distributed and it was the presence of a snapshot, i deleted the snapshot and re migrate from standard to distribute and this remove the primary aleatory IP you are getting.

Hope hits helps

[mikejroberts · Accepted solution]

After you get the automatic address does ipconfig /all show "Duplicate" next to the static IP address?

[etieseler]

It didn't show a duplicate address. There also were no snapshots, however it was connected to a standard switch and then I changed its connection to the distributed switch, not exactly a migration however.

I ended up deleting the VM and will try with a new one. I found some articles on TechNet that suggested resetting the TCP/IP stack may resolve an issue like this but it didn't do a thing to fix it.

I have installed many 2008R2 servers and never ran into this issue, and since it was a fresh install I am going to try to re-install it and see what happens.

I'll post back here if it happens a second time. Thanks for the suggestions received

~Ed

[etieseler]

So I have rebuilt the server, attached it to the same network, assigned an IP... and once again, I had the same issue.

I think it has to do with the interface reporting -111 ports on that distributed switch. In the mean time I attached it to another network that does not show a negative number and it connects just fine to that network.. so it seems my question has changed slightly.

Has anyone else run into this where the Web Client shows a negative number of ports on a distributed switch?

[etieseler]

So it turned out that there was another system using the same IP. The strange thing is that this server did not report it at all to me, and before I assigned the IP address I pinged the address to check if it was free and all my pings timed out. Very unusual.

But I did find another system using this IP address, so I used a different address on the server and there are no problems... however the interface still reports a negative number of ports available. Maybe I'll open a ticket with VMware if its still there after I apply the couple of missing patches.

Anyways thanks for the input everyone!

~Ed