Conference azur::mcc

5399.0. "Map problems for bridges" by CERN::BOTHNER (Tor Bothner (CERN account consultant)) Wed Jul 28 1993 05:45

Hi,

My client has up till now been using his own, home-grown network manager, but
I'm now trying to convince him to use MCC. However, he's got the following
complaints. Since I know very litle about MCC, I'd appreciate some comments.

Is he doing something wrong, or are these bugs/features?

thanks,
--tor

==============================================================================
        PROBLEM 1
==============================================================================

MCC> REGISTER SNMP BHCRLE$PS10 ADDRESS = 128.141.249.117

MCC> show SNMP BHCRLE$PS10
Using default ALL IDENTIFIERS

SNMP LOCAL_NS:.bhcrle$ps10
AT 23-JUL-1993 16.32 Identifiers

Examination of attributes shows:
                        Registered Name = LOCAL_NS:.bhcrle$ps10
                                Address = 128.141.249.117
                                   Name = bhcrle$ps10.cern.ch

In POLYCENTER DECwindow's interface

 --> New Domain
     --> info<CR>

     --> open up
     --> edit -- toolbox
         ---> select double line ethernet
         ---> toolbox, SNMP -- IP -- BHCRLE$PS10<CR>
              ---> move the pointer to the map and clic mouse button two
         ---> select single line and connect bridge to the ethernet
     --> close
     --> save map

 --> Open Domain
     --> info<CR> (same one as above)
     --> extra window pops up which tells:

         Entities found in map file, but not in domain:
         +------
         |SNMP LOCAL_NS:.bhcrle$ps10.cern.ch
         |
         Entities found in domain, but not in map file:
         +------
         |SNMP bhcrle$ps10.cern.ch
         |

         pressing "Acknowledged"

     --> On the map, the bridge moved to the upper left corner and
         the connected lines (one double and one single) moved up
         to the top of the display.

     --> Double clicking on the bridge WORKS on the other hand...

     ALL information can be retrieved.  The only problem is that there
     is a mismatch between the 'name' in the map and the 'name' in the
     domain; and as a result, the dessinated picture is completely
     deformed.

==============================================================================
        PROBLEM 2
==============================================================================

  When one wants to perform a cleanup of the database, by deregistering
  all bridges and snmp's, after which one registers them again with the
  same name and addresses, then ALL bridges disappear completely from the
  map and the following popup window is displayed:

      Entities found in map file, but not in domain:
      +------
      |Bridge LOCAL_NS:.bl31l1$5131
      |Bridge LOCAL_NS:.bfgp3$5131
      |...
      |SNMP LOCAL_NS:.bhmedia$31l2.cern.ch
      |...
      |

  Question: is there any possibility to remember the information of the
            map layout of bridges?

==============================================================================
        PROBLEM 3
==============================================================================

  It seems that the 'map' is only a toy to make drawings and NOTHING else...
  There seems to be no relation with connectivity on the network.

  In this context, 'domain' is only a logical subset of machines with a
  drawing associated with it.  The only restriction is that a machine can
  at most appear once in each domain.

  Is this true, and will it probably change in the future?

==============================================================================
        PROBLEM 4
==============================================================================

  On the map, lines connected onto machines are 'glued' (they move with
  the box when tracked).  On the other hand, lines can NOT be glued onto
  other lines or double-lines.

==============================================================================

  Especially Problem 1 is quite annoying...

  If Problem 1 can not be solved and if problems 3 and 4 are normal, then
  there is no sense in having drawings at all.