| To: | nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [nv-l] discovery and limiting discovery |
| From: | "Christopher J Petrina" <cjp8@meadwestvaco.com> |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:46:51 -0500 |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:55:37 +0000 |
| Envelope-to: | nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk |
| Reply-to: | nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
| Sender: | owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
|
I am currently showing exactly what you described I see the Management vlan IP and not necessarily the ports that are connected to the edge switches. Sot his is working fine. Now will Switch Analyzer discover the switch ports? or simply report on their status? Would best practice then be to use a $ in front of the switch devices in the discovery file? Sot hat they are snmp polled not pinged? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [nv-l] Has anyone implemented the full TEC integration (correlation rules) NV 7.1.4 and TEC 3.9, Van Order, Drew \(US - Hermitage\) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [nv-l] creating maps with multiple maps open, Christopher J Petrina |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] discovery and limiting discovery, Leslie Clark |
| Next by Thread: | [nv-l] Recall: help, Bursik, Scott {PBSG} |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web