nv-l

Re: [nv-l] Dual NIC and subnets on Netview

2004-08-31 10:22:30
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Dual NIC and subnets on Netview
From: Francois Le Hir <flehir AT ca.ibm DOT com>
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:10:07 -0400



Hi Albert,

I have some Netview servers (I use AIX) with several nics and never had any
issue with it. My preferred scenario is with 4 nics: two nics on one subnet
(two different switches for redundancy) for the outgoing traffic and with
the default gateway on that subnet. And two other nics on a second subnet
for management of the box itself.
All the Netview traffic will use the default gateway (except for the local
traffic) so it doesn't really matter if there are other nics. However if
your goal is to balance the traffic between two subnets it won't do because
you can have only one default gateway. Having two nics on the same subnet
allow you to have redundancy as well as load balancing between the two (if
your OS allow it ... I don't know about Solaris).

Salutations, / Regards,

Francois Le Hir
Network Projects & Consulting Services
IBM Global Services
Phone: (514) 964 2145


                                                                           
             Albert Wong                                                   
             <[email protected]                                             
             om>                                                        To 
             Sent by:                  nv-l <nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com>      
  
             owner-nv-l@lists.                                          cc 
             us.ibm.com                                                    
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [nv-l] Dual NIC and subnets on      
             08/31/2004 09:50          Netview                             
             AM                                                            
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
                   nv-l                                                    
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Folks,

I ran a search of the nv-l archives and found the
following post with no response.

We are planning a similar scenario, install of NV7.1.4
on Solaris 2.8 server with 2 NICs. Each NIC will
connect to a separate subnet, we would like to have NV
be able to discover and manage devices through both
NICs/subnets.

I have also searched on the Tivoli Support site and
found Reference # 1067500 (circa 11-08-2002):

"Multiple NIC's with NetView.
Problem
Can NetView discover/manage devices across multiple
NIC cards at once?

Solution
No, NetView cannot discover/manage devices across
multiple NIC cards. The reason for this is that
NetView binds to only one IP address."


Has anybody been able to successfully run NV with dual
NICs as I described above?

Regards,
Albert Wong

---------------------------------------------
Subject:  [nv-l] Dual NIC and subnets on Netview
From:  "Qureshi, Fawad" <Fawad.Qureshi AT ssa DOT gov>
To:  nv-l AT lists.tivoli DOT com
Date:  Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:09:51 -0400

Netview 7.1.3 on AIX 4.3.3

I would like to understand the implications of adding
a second NIC in the Netview server connecting to a
different subnet. For example, the existing NIC on a
172.X.X.X and the second NIC on 192.X.X.X. We would
like to monitor some routers sitting on the 192
network and only way to get to this network would be
to connect directly by adding a second NIC in the
Netview server.

Appreciate any feedback.

Cheers,

Fawad Qureshi






_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush



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