Another possibility to consider is the use of the new "attended MLM"
functionality of Netview 5.1 for NT for the 5 major sites. If each region
will be responsible for its own maps, anyway, this would give them full
functionality of managing their region without taxing a WAN link to pull the
data from the central server.
And I second Art's comment about the web browser...5.1 is greatly enhanced
and is the best way to connect any operator-type folks who will be
monitoring the network.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView
[mailto:NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU]On Behalf Of Art DeBuigny
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 11:07 AM
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
Subject: Re: NetView design recommendations
Sounds like you've thought this one out. That is almost exactly how we are
deploying our NetView server across our enterprise. The only difference is
we want to deemphasize the use of the GUI altogether, and point support
persons to the Web browser. We will still have to have some GUI users, but
we can save alot of performance that way.
I would note that if you intend to have your NetView running several
different maps, you will have to be aware of the support issues. If you
delete an object from one map, it must be deleted from all other maps before
the object will truly be deleted from NetView.
I see you work for Nortel (BayNetworks). I assume that you will be
installing Optivity as well. you'll need to remember that when sizing your
server. I would also recommend a backup platform to operate as the server
in case the primary fails. It will fail sometime, and you also get a semi
development environment (as long as you can bring it up like its primary
quickly if need be)
Also, If this is not already the case, I would start bringing up the issue
of DNS naming standards and IP addressing ranges. It makes sense for
support personnel to be able to tell the location just by looking at the
name, or the IP address, and it makes it so much easier to specify
collections to give to your MLM's to poll for you. We do it, but I
constantly have to fight the battle because every now and then new equipment
comes on line which is not standardized, and we have no idea who owns it, or
where its located. Most large networks were built over a long period of
time, and were not designed with centralized management in mind. Its a big
job to convert, but it is worth it in the end.
Hope this helps!
Art DeBuigny
debuigny@dallas.net
NationsBank Network Management Systems Support
Steyland White wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Overview:
> I'm currently working with a customer who has purchased several
> NetView servers and MLM's to provide enterprise network management
> for five major sites. As it stands right now, each server will be
> responsible for its own region. Smaller sites in a particular
> region will also need access to the NetView server to manage
> their site.
>
> Proposed design:
> The proposed design calls for one NetView server and five NetView
> clients. One client would be placed at each of the five major sites. The
> MLM's would be placed throughout the country to poll and collect SNMP
> traps. The MLM's would rollup to the NetView Server and the
> NetView clients will receive database information from the NetView
> Server.
>
> Additional connections in the field would be made through an XClient
> session to the NetView client workstation in a particular region.
> Each region would be responsible for creating and maintaining its
> own maps.
>
> I would greatly appreciate your comments and recommendations.
>
> THX in advance
>
> Steyland White
> Network Engineer
> Nortel Networks, Inc. - How the world shares ideas
> swhite@baynetworks.com
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|