On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Leslie Clark wrote:
|Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:23:16 -0500
|From: Leslie Clark <lclark@US.IBM.COM>
|Reply-To: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView
| <NV-L@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu>
|To: NV-L@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu
|Subject: Re: Netview and NAT
|
|Not a comprehensive answer, but some clues, maybe....
|
|You will end up with an array of interfaces on the gateway router that you
|cannot ping,
|and the matching set of red subnets. There will be a finite number of
|these interfaces,
|and if you delete them they will come back. All I have been able to figure
|out to to
|with them is to unmanage and hide them. Usually I can define a collection
|of those
|interfaces to remind the customer which ones to keep unmanaged and hidden.
But even, if you unmanage them, they will be rediscoverd on a demand
poll. I'm fighting against a managed dial-in router. Every day we have to
unmanage new RED interfaces and after a few days we start this procedure
from the beginning. We don't know how to keep this router managed with all
known interfaces unmanaged for a long time. We've tried to change the poll
interval with no success. Any ideas how to handle such a beast?
Kind Regards
Guenter
|
|Putting addresses that you cannot ping in the seedfile does not cause them
|to be
|discovered. Netview will only add the addresses it finds in the address
|table for
|the gateway router. That will include the address(es) on the local side of
|the router.
|The local address is the one you would put in the seedfile.
|
|No snmpget is done during discovery until AFTER Netview is able to ping an
|address. Therefore no attempt will be made on the unregistered addresses
|because
|Netview cannot ping them. Even if they are in the seedfile.
|
|Netview will discovery and create nodes for any unique adddresses it finds
|on
|devices with duplicates, and then complain about the duplicates. But I
|don't think
|you will get into that situation with the unregistered addresses.
|
|Cordially,
|
|Leslie A. Clark
|IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
|
|
|
|Hello,
|
|First let me thank you for your numerous answers about map copying. We'll
|need
|to check with this customer how he can change his whole procedure.
|
|I have found this post in the internal IBM Netview forum. As it still
|didn't get
|any answers or comments and I think this question is quite interesting,
|please
|let me ask it on behalf of the original sender.
|
|Hi,
|
|I am investigating the possibility of using Network Address Translation
|to allow management of multiple networks with overlapping (unregistered)
|IP address space. I am curious how the NV discovery process will behave
|when using NAT to map the addresses to registered ones (1-to-1, no pool).
|
|What will happen if we put a registered address in the seedfile and let
|NV discover the system? The answer to the SNMP get request during the
|discovery will only contain interfaces with unregistered addresses, and
|will NOT contain the registered address it sent the SNMP request to, so
|will NV still add an interface with the registered address to the node?
|
|Because of the overlap in the unregistered address space of the networks
|NV will discover (through the SNMP get request) duplicate unregistered
|addresses (although it cannot ping them). Earlier experiences with
|NV4 and NV5.0 have made clear that this means that the entire node
|with the duplicate address (not just the offending interface) is not
|added to the object database, or, when the node does get added, it leads
|to database corruption. Has this been improved in NV5.1?
|
|Does anybody have any experience with these issues?
|
|Best regards,
|
|Frederic Mottiat
|
_____________________________________________________________________________
Guenter Mueller gmueller@uni-freiburg.de Phone: +49 761 203 -4622
University of Freiburg - Computing Center FAX: -4643
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|