RESTCONF node fails on X450 stack

[jc_ryan]

I’ve got several X450 stacks on site, and one X450 non-stacked unit. All units are running EXOS 31.3.1.3

If I go to the following RESTCONF URL on the unstacked switch everything comes up fine:

http://<ip>/rest/restconf/data/openconfig-network-instance:network-instances

If I go to that URL on any of my stacked switches I get a 500 Internal Server error.

Is this a configuration issue?  Do I need to allow for larger amounts of data to be returned somehow?

Or is this a firmware issue?  Is the output too much for the firmware to handle?

[jc_ryan]

Well, you aren’t getting one.  I explained to GTAC that this was a bug report and I got this lovely yet useless response:

Thanks for your update.

Sorry to be informed that an active service contract is required before we could assign your case to the technical team for further assistance.
Could you please let us know whether you have any contracts renewal which is in progress?

If yes, please provide us with the SO/PO copy so that we can check/validate with our contracts team & make it get updated in the database.

[jc_ryan]

I opened a GTAC (#02434117) but the first level techs won’t pass it up the chain without a service contract. 

[CThompsonEXOS · Accepted solution]

Hi,

We might need a GTAC case going on this one.  

In my local test I get a 200 response in my non stacked switch:

non stacked:
08/13/2021 20:16:25.995288 [11548] <thttpd:apis> restconf_xos_2.1.1.27.pyz:OUT 2021-08-13 20:16:25,994:DEBUG:.restconf:base.py:db_dbapi:205:: mod=cfgmgr obj=cfgMgmt index=['slotId'] data=[] param={}
08/13/2021 20:16:26.002651 [11549] <thttpd:apis> restconf_xos_2.1.1.27.pyz:ERR 127.0.0.1 - - [13/Aug/2021 20:16:26] "GET /data/openconfig-network-instance%3Anetwork-instances HTTP/1.1" 200 -

On my stacked switch I get the following:

8/13/2021 20:25:50.269250 [2258] <thttpd:apis> restconf_xos_2.1.1.41.pyz:ERR   
08/13/2021 20:25:50.269466 [2259] <thttpd:apis> restconf_xos_2.1.1.41.pyz:ERR ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: '1:1'

That COULD be a stacking limitation but I don’t(yet) see that documented anywhere.

Thanks,

Chris Thompson