|Subject:||RE: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state|
|From:||Gareth Holl <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Thu, 12 May 2005 13:11:30 -0400|
|Delivery-date:||Thu, 12 May 2005 18:12:02 +0100|
Just want to cover two items to make sure they are not the cause of your problem:
1) Do a "ps -ef |grep netmon" and confirm that netmon is using the seedfile you are expecting it to use
2) Adding negative entries will not remove nodes that are already discovered. You would need to delete "object" from "all" submaps (and "all" maps if you have more than one) first.
3) netmon will not partial discover a device, so if a device as multiple interfaces and was discovered with an interface that is not negated in the seedfile, all interfaces will be discovered regardless of negative entries.
If netmon is truely using a seedfile with negative entries (and the nodes are not already discovered), netmon should not discover them.....if they are being wrongly discovered, then I would suggest turning on full netmon tracing, capturing the rediscovery of these devices, and providing the netmon.trace, trapd.log , and netmon seedfile to NetView Support to help you debug.
Staff Software Engineer
ITIL Foundations Certified
IBM Certified Deployment Professional
--Tivoli Data Warehouse v1.2
--Tivoli Enterprise Console v3.8 Network Management
IBM Software Group - Tivoli Software
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
I've actually tried putting them in both ways:
!10.10.10.25-35 (as an example)
Neither seem to make Netview ignore them. I am assuming the
#Workstations is a comment on the end of line for admin purposes - if
that is wrong please let me know.
PEMCO Corporation Computer Services (PCCS)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state
If its a range of addresses you can add something like this to the
Or something like that. Im not sure how the "limit discovery" puts it
int the seedfile off the top of my head.
Glen Warn wrote:
>Good point. I've tried adding them to the netmon.seed "limit
>but they still keep getting discovered. Any ideas?
>PEMCO Corporation Computer Services (PCCS) firstname.lastname@example.org
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>On Behalf Of Paul
>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 4:10 AM
>Subject: Re: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state
>Why discover them in the first place?
>Glen Warn wrote:
>>I have several remote access subnets (a few dial, some vpn) where
>>remote users are allocated DHCP addresses. I do not want to manage
>>these nodes and set them to unmanaged - but Netview keeps setting them
>>back to managed (and inevitably changes their state to down) - I
>>suspect because it detects the connection as new (different MAC
>>address perhaps) even though the IPs are the same. Is there way to
>>permanently set a block of addresses to unmanaged?
>>Thanks for your time,
>>PEMCO Corporation Computer Services (PCCS) email@example.com
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state, Paul|
|Next by Date:||RE: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state, Glen Warn|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state, Paul|
|Next by Thread:||RE: [nv-l] How to permanently set nodes to unmanged state, Glen Warn|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web