T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
3209.1 | Some answers... | SLINK::HOOD | They call me MISTER Dilbert. | Mon Jan 29 1996 10:04 | 16 |
| 1. Maybe some other people can give a more full explaination, but many
of the repeaters/portswitches have a MAC (Ethernet address). Using
that check-box, you can assign the MAC to whichever port/group you want.
2. To manage a DECserver 900TM, do the required setup using one of the
DECserver's ports (SNMP enabled, IP address assigned, etc). That's it.
It doesn't need to be in the agents file and you don't have to do any-
thing else to manage it. From that point on, just treat it like any
other hub module. (From the hub's front panel view in HUBwatch, double
click on the DECserver, and you're there.)
3. I don't think that will work - you also need at least a 90TS repeater
in the same hub if the DECagent 90 is in a different hub. If I'm wrong,
I'm sure some helpful people will correct me :-)
Tom
|
3209.2 | See notes 1131.11 and 1131.13 for more info | NETCAD::PAGLIARO | Rich Pagliaro, Networks BU, HPN | Mon Jan 29 1996 10:57 | 7 |
| >> 1. In the "Hubwatch for Windows - Use" manual (V4) there is on page
>> 6-38 a picture of a port switching module (maybe PORTswitch 900CP).
>> There is a check on a MAC field. For what is that. I do'nt have a
>> Portswitch module, i just want to know.
Notes 1131.11 and 1131.13 provide some more detail on this topic.
|
3209.3 | | NETCAD::BRANAM | Steve, Hub Products Engineering, LKG2-2, DTN 226-6043 | Thu Feb 01 1996 12:42 | 8 |
| The 90T-16 is a "dumb" repeater, with no in-band management capability. The only
way to manage it is to put it on the same management bus as a DECagent 90, 90TS,
or 90FS (or in a DEChub900), which are all capable of acting as management
agents for it. By management bus, I mean the async management bus built into a
DEChub90 or DEChub900, or the async management bus in a MultiStack; this is
*not* the LAN wire. Which is all the long-winded way to say it has to be in the
same hub or stack as its management agent, it is not manageable over the LAN as
you have illustrated.
|
3209.4 | Thanks | VNAED2::SEIDLER | | Wed Feb 07 1996 04:49 | 1 |
| Many thnaks, it's clear now
|