To: | nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [nv-l] Unmanaged things |
From: | "Christopher J Petrina" <cjp8@meadwestvaco.com> |
Date: | Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:27:47 -0500 |
Delivery-date: | Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:36:45 +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 |
Local Subnets only is what I have setup right now.
Christopher, It depends on the netmon options -X and -A. serversetup -> netmon -> Range of automatic discovery: Local Subnet Only, Backbone, All Networks Oliver |---------+----------------------------> | | "Christopher J | | | Petrina" | | | <cjp8@meadwestvac| | | o.com> | | | Sent by: | | | owner-nv-l@lists.| | | us.ibm.com | | | | | | | | | 19.02.2004 23:18 | | | Please respond to| | | nv-l | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com | | cc: | | Subject: [nv-l] Unmanaged things | | | | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Greetings Q1: Why on a fresh discovery with none of the switches in setup configured to laod something as unmanaged would I find an entire segment unmanaged. I was looking through the maps as the devices and segments were being found, and found 2 segments that were unmanaged since no one could have manually done this I assume it was generated by netview. My question is how did it do this and why? I know there is a switch in the serversetup -> config netmon daemon that says manage objects loaded by loadhost. We have that set to yes. Thanks Chris Petrina ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service._______________________________________________________________ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [nv-l] The use of HTTP for node up/down instead of ping or snmp?, James Shanks |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [nv-l] Loadhosts and other issues of interest, Christopher J Petrina |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] Unmanaged things, Oliver Bruchhaeuser |
Next by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] Unmanaged things, Oliver Bruchhaeuser |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web