That ends up being just plain down. I see this every time they
mess up the community string on the pix which I can only
talk to via snmp. If RFI is on it will kick in and may decide that
it is unreachable as well.
Cordially,
Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
Detroit
"Key, Chris"
<Chris.Key@hq.doe To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
.gov> cc:
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Netview
Traps - Time to post
05/17/2002 09:57
AM
Scott,
When using SNMP to poll, and the SNMP address interface is the one that is
down, will the other interfaces on the Router show Unreachable, or will all
interfaces on the Router show critical?
I am in a environment where we can only ping certain interfaces as well,
and agree that SNMP is a much cleaner way of managing these issues, but I
am concerned at how clearly a problem is isolated if the SNMP address
interface is down.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Barr, Scott [mailto:Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:37 AM
To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Netview Traps - Time to post
Expense can be measured in many ways.
The problem is having to keep track of which interfaces need to be up and
managed and which ones are not reachable/pingable. I know of several
situations where pinging just doesn't get the job done. Why use a
management platform that only manages a subset of important resources? In
our environment many, many interfaces are not reachable by pings since we
are the center of a "hub" of client networks. Its just a nightmare, and I
speak from help desk experience, to know what should be up and what should
unmanaged. There are several ways to control the amount of SNMP data and
lets be realistic and suggest that most networks now are not suffering from
bandwidth restrictions they were a few years ago. (Yes, some obviously will
be).
If you want monitoring groups to be 100% autonomous from having to ask
which links should be reachable/up and which are unmanaged/unreachable,
SNMP fills the bill much better and will ultimately reduce the cost of
managing an enterprise.
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd H.
To: Barr, Scott
Cc: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Sent: 5/16/02 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Netview Traps - Time to post
"Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com> writes:
> SNMP status polling is set automatically for any router with
un-numbered
> serial interfaces OR it is coded in the seedfile:
>
> routername
> $routername
>
> The dollar sign forces the previous entry to use SNMP status polling.
You
> will probably have to delete and re-discover the node. I highly
recommend
> SNMP status polling whereever possible on the basis that it is FAR
less work
> to manage interfaces since you don't have to ping all of them (or
unmanage
> them).
On the other hand, as James has said, network bandwidth wise, isn't
ICMP pinging cheaper?
An ICMP echo and ICMP echo-reply pair are pretty tiny in comparison to
individual SNMP GET requests. IIRC NetView isn't particularly
efficient at aggregating GET's.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: nv-l-unsubscribe@lists.tivoli.com
For additional commands, e-mail: nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com
*NOTE*
This is not an Offical Tivoli Support forum. If you need immediate
assistance from Tivoli please call the IBM Tivoli Software Group
help line at 1-800-TIVOLI8(848-6548)
|