[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nv-l] ITSA port manage question

To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] ITSA port manage question
From: Jane Curry <jane.curry@skills-1st.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:16:16 +0000
Delivery-date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:17:12 +0000
Envelope-to: nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
In-reply-to: <1A1A54B7A0FB7D4C9CA35B85EB55B6F10BA69307@na1fcm57.dearborn.ford.com>
References: <1A1A54B7A0FB7D4C9CA35B85EB55B6F10BA69307@na1fcm57.dearborn.ford.com>
Reply-to: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208)
Hi Becki,
I think this was probably my original post and it was about ITSA 1.3. There was no Port Status Monitoring prior to that.

Since then, I have written a document with various scenarios around ITSA 1.3, especially looking at these parameters. You can pick it up from the NetView TUG site at http://www.nv-l.org/twiki/bin/view/Netview/ItSa


Kain, Becki (B.) wrote:

There was a post on July 7th about switch analyzer where the answer was:
poll_all_ports=n Use this only if you want to optimize polling - it has no effect on what
ports are being managed. All ports are managed - those not covered by
the passive method will be actively polled - it simply removes the
Is this still the case in 1.3 - that if we enroll a switch, all ports
are managed?  We have a request to have only the uplinks of switch
monitored, not all the unnumbered ports.

Thanks in advance.

Becki Kain

Tivoli Certified Consultant & Instructor
Skills 1st Limited, 2 Cedar Chase, Taplow, Bucks, SL6 0EU, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1628 782565
Copyright (c) 2005 Jane Curry <jane.curry@skills-1st.co.uk>.  All rights 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web