RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces

To:	nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces
From:	Stephen Hochstetler <shochste@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:10:06 -0600
Delivery-date:	Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:20:12 +0000
Envelope-to:	nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
In-reply-to:	<OFEEFBBFFE.6A1A5198-ON85256E58.0072DCB0-85256E58.0072F9C0@mead.com>
Reply-to:	nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender:	owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com

Chris,

Two quick reasons to use ICMP status polling as the default polling engine:

SNMP packets are larger than ICMP packets...so you put more overhead on your network by doing only SNMP status polling.

It takes more CPU for a device to process a SNMP request than an ICMP packet, so you have adding more CPU overhead to all managed devices.

Stephen Hochstetler shochste@us.ibm.com
International Technical Support Organization at IBM
Office - 512-838-6198 (t/l 678) FAX - 512-838-6931
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, James Shanks [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Klingensmith, Debra L. RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Klingensmith, Debra L. RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Christopher J Petrina RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Stephen Hochstetler <= RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, James Shanks

Previous by Date:	Re: [nv-l] /etc/hosts, Stephen Hochstetler
Next by Date:	[nv-l] Another newbie Question - SNMP vs ICMP polling (setup), John Sobrinho
Previous by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Christopher J Petrina
Next by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]