Re: Best way to limit discovery

1999-12-09 00:10:50
Subject: Re: Best way to limit discovery
From: Leslie Clark <lclark AT US.IBM DOT COM>
To: nv-l AT lists.tivoli DOT com
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 00:10:50 -0500
Yes, I am (pretty) sure that a positive oid entry overrides a negative
address range.

That said, I suspect that you will find that your hubs take a long time to
show up. Hubs often need to be pinged to be found quickly. What I
have been doing lately (I'm always on short-term contracts and can't
afford to wait around) is to define rules such as you have, and then
make a script that pings (-c 1) every address that might conceivably
be a hub, just to make some noise from them. No 'ping-spray' in Netview
for Unix, only on NT.

Then once they are discovered,  I make a collection and dump the
contents (nvUtil l Hubs) and save that for an addition to the seedfile
in case I need to rediscover some day (count on it...)


Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking


We are building a Netview server which will exclusively manage routers,
switches and hubs on our network - and I need some advice on the best way
setup for initial discovery.

We have build a seedfile which contains an entry for each our routers &
switches.  The first 5 address of a subnet is reserved for router
so we limit discovery of other nodes in the network (servers and
workstations) by excluding all other addresses, ie:


One problem is that we do not have a well defined list of IP addresses for
all of the hubs on the network.  They are a combination of Cisco and Bay
hubs.  Could I also add two @OID entries into the seedfile to discover
nodes?  I know if you list an snmp reachable IP address in the seedfile, it
will ignore the ! range exclusion and discover the node.  Does the @OID

Thanks, in advance

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