The seedfile entries are to prevent the discovery of nodes. You
cannot prevent the discovery of interfaces on a node if any interface
on that node qualifies it for discovery. Netview is intent on giving you
a complete picture of any device it is allowed to discover.
What you can do with these types of devices is tell Netview to
treat them as non-snmp. This is done in /usr/OV/conf/oid_to_type
with the I (capital i) flag. At configuration poll time, netmon will not
go looking for more addresses on the device.
Cordially,
Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
Detroit
"Kenney, John"
<jkenney@jhanc To: IBM NetView Discussion
<nv-l@tkg.com>
ock.com> cc: "Lemire, Mark"
<mlemire@jhancock.com>
Sent by: Subject: [NV-L] vpn virtual
addresses
owner-nv-l@tkg
.com
11/20/01 09:11
AM
Please respond
to IBM NetView
Discussion
We have a Cisco VPN3030 concentrator installed on our network. When
someone
establishes a session he/she is assigned an address in a pool from n.n.n.11
to n.n.n.254. We have put a negative entry in our seedfile to prevent
discovery of these 'virtual' addresses (i.e. !nnn.nnn.nnn.11-254), however
Netview occasionally discovers one of these addresses (despite the seedfile
entry) and adds it as an interface on the VPN. When the person logs off, a
IFDOWN alert is generated. The IF remains red on the map until it is
demandpolled, at which time Netview deletes the entry and issues a NODEUP.
Any ideas? Why isn't the negative seedfile entry working in this case?
Thanks,
jtk
Jack Kenney, MCP+I, MCSE
Consultant
CTS/Enterprise Management Tools
Phone: (617) 572-1031
Email: jkenney@jhancock.com
_________________________________________________________________________
NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
|