| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1778.1 | Not in EFT version... | CHRISB::BRIENEN | DECmcc Bridge|Station|SNMP Management. | Thu Nov 07 1991 11:57 | 7 |
| DECbridge 90 / DECrepeater 90 management from the Bridge AM is NOT
in the (DECmcc ELM AM V1.1 : layers on DECmcc V1.2) EFT code.
The possibility of doing this in the short/medium term is being
looked at (we received a DECbridge 90 this week with the current
version of RBMS firmware - which isn't finished yet).
|
| 1778.2 | See Note 1768.2 | CHRISB::BRIENEN | DECmcc Bridge|Station|SNMP Management. | Thu Nov 07 1991 12:06 | 6 |
| See note 1768.2 for "better" information.
It would appear that support for DECbridge 90 / DECrepeater 90 from
Bridge AM is no longer needed.
Chris
|
| 1778.3 | Not From Where I'm Sitting | SEDOAS::BEST | | Fri Nov 08 1991 05:32 | 5 |
|
Not from where I'm sitting. Customers don't see the Ethernet AM
as providing sufficiant capability for any of the HUB products.
Cheers...
|
| 1778.4 | Ethernet AM or Bridge AM ? | CHRISB::BRIENEN | DECmcc Bridge|Station|SNMP Management. | Fri Nov 08 1991 10:15 | 8 |
| RE: 1778.3 SEDOAS::BEST
> Not from where I'm sitting. Customers don't see the Ethernet AM
> as providing sufficiant capability for any of the HUB products.
Are you saying that the Bridge AM (which previous replies reference)
doesn't provide sufficient functionality, or that the Ethernet AM
doesn't?
|
| 1778.5 | What They Want Is.. | SEDOAS::BEST | | Wed Nov 13 1991 09:03 | 13 |
|
Customers don't see the Ethernet Station AM as providing sufficiant
management functionality for the DECbridge 90. It's OK for the
DECrepeater 90 obviously. What their asking for is for the ELM AM
to be able to manage all models of DECbridges (ethernet, FDDI,-
Hub's).
Customers will welcome management of the DECserver 90 via the
TSAM, it's a shame it's a bit slow coming.
Regards....
Peter B
|
| 1778.6 | Why ELM when can manage thru hub view? | EMDS::SEAVER | LENAC Net Mgnt Mktg 223-4573 | Tue Nov 19 1991 17:39 | 2 |
| Why do you want to manage the hub thru ELM when you can manage it thru
SNMP and a "hub view"?
|
| 1778.7 | | QUIVER::CHILDS | Ed Childs | Wed Nov 20 1991 08:51 | 7 |
| | Why do you want to manage the hub thru ELM when you can manage it thru
| SNMP and a "hub view"?
Just a guess, but if a customer has a bunch of other DEC bridges (100s,
200s, 500s, 600s) wouldn't she want to manage her DECbridge 90 through
the same management tool with the same commands?
|
| 1778.8 | Agree | SEDOAS::BEST | | Wed Nov 20 1991 10:20 | 7 |
|
I agree with Ed exactly. Not all customers want to bother with
separate AM's and some FM's to manage what is theoretically
the same device. On the other hand some people may want to
standardise on SNMP only for their environment. I hope not.
Regards.....
|
| 1778.9 | Don't want to buy TCP/IP AM & UCX aswell.. | SEDOAS::BEST | | Wed Nov 20 1991 10:36 | 8 |
|
In addition to my last reply, not all customers want to by the
TCP/IP AM and UCX especially when they have ELM AM and or the
Bridge AM already in with DECmcc. I think this is really a Sales
& Marketing issue, don't you?
Cheers....
|
| 1778.10 | | ENUF::GASSMAN | | Wed Nov 20 1991 17:03 | 13 |
| Shortly after the DEChub 90 supports SNMP, the SNMP AM will be included
with all MCC packages, and a run time version of UCX will be available
for very little money, so the cost issue is not as big a deal as it is
today (as long as packaging plans stay as is). One issue though is
that by support of multiple protocols for the DEChub 90, you have
alternate ways of talking to the device. TCP/IP networks are much more
fragile than Ethernet networks. If you have different subnets or masks
in place, two devices on the same LAN may not be able to talk IP to
each other, while protocols using only 802 addressing will get thru.
Also, ELMS can set the IP address of a FDDI bridge, and will eventually
provide ring mapping, where the SNMP AM won't.
bill
|