[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nv-l] PIX interface issues

To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] PIX interface issues
From: Franck Mercier <franck.mercier@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:40:45 +0100
Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:40:38 +0000
Envelope-to: nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
In-reply-to: <OF8E2C3D3A.3C7ECA6C-ON86257138.005E6D6F-86257138.005FD16D@bluecrossmn.com>
Reply-to: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Have you another map , other than "default"  ?

Cordialement ,

PS Specialist (Tivoli Support)
Information Technology Services France

 Mailto  : franck.mercier@fr.ibm.com
*..  the only way to do great work is to love what you do .. *

             Sent by:                                                   To 
             owner-nv-l@lists.         nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com               
             us.ibm.com                                                 cc 
             21/03/2006 18:26          [nv-l] PIX interface issues         
             Please respond to                                             

Hi list

Netview 7.1.3 FP4 Solaris 2.8

I am having great difficulty getting one of my Cisco PIX firewalls to
Scenario: I have the inside interface as xxx.xxx.xxx.10 and external as
xxx.xxx.xxx.11 These two are fine and report up always.
I have 6 additional interfaces on each side of the firewall. This is the
problem, these interfaces come and go almost daily(not all at once) for
whatever reason, when they drop they report as their internal or external
interface IP.
Either .10 or .11 respectively. I have unmanaged them all ( these 12
additional ) they still report as down to Netview as the .10 or .11
interface as being down.

I have them designated as do not discover in the seed file,editing it
directly with vi and adding a ! in front of all these interfaces except for
the primaries .10 and .11.
I have added the > character in front of these two primaries as well.

I have deleted everything from the maps via Edit>delete>object>from all
submaps numerous times to no avail

The security folks are becoming a bit miffed at me when they get paged on
this for no apparent reason.

ANY suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


Mike Noonkesser
 Important news about email communications:                                 
 If our business rules identify sensitive information, you will receive a   
 ZixMail Secure Message with a link to view your message. First-time        
 recipients will be asked to create a password before they are granted      
 access. To learn more about ZixMail, ZixCorp Secure Email Message Center,  
 and other ZixCorp offerings, please go to                                  
 The information contained in this communication may be confidential,       
 and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above.          
 If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you           
 are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or               
 copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly         
 prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,              
 please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original         
 message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have          
 any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender.          
 Unencrypted, unauthenticated Internet e-mail is inherently insecure.       
 Internet messages may be corrupted or incomplete, or may incorrectly       
 identify the sender.                                                       

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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web