Conference netcad::hub_mgnt

The DECagent 90 does not manage the DEFMI/DETMI.  Only auto-discovery of these
devices is supported.  However, the DECagent 90 does provide enough information
to HUBwatch so that they can be managed as standalone devices, provided an IP
address is set on the device.  In this scenario, the device appears in the
HUBwatch hub view and seems to be managed by the DECagent 90, but in reality it
is being managed directly by HUBwatch using its own IP address and community
string.  The DEChub 900 Hub Manager can perform the same function if the device
has an IP address, or it can manage it without an IP address over the backplane
management channel.

If your customer does not have a problem with setting an IP address on a
DEFMI/DETMI that is in a DEChub 90 and then creating a standalone community in
HUBwatch to manage it, then that's OK.  It will work.

...Roger...

    Thanks for your reply,
    
    The customer has 15-20 DH90s filled with DETMI/DEFMI He says that no
    way he can afford IP addresses for them all and therefore his opinion
    is that the repeaters are in practice unmanageable from HUBwatch.
    
    Does anyone know if the IP-address requirement lies in hardware (that
    is, the management bus) in the DH90 or if there is any possibility
    that it will be fixed in the future?
    
    Any argument that could calm this customer wil be appreciated.
    
    Nils.

    Do you have anything but repeaters modules in all these hubs?
    
    						John

    re .3: 
    
    I'll find out, but I havent been able to reach the customer yet!
    
    Nils.
    

    I just talked to the customer.
    
    Some of the hubs are old and have a variety of modules, they are no
    problem as they requires few IP addresses.
    
    But some are newly installed and equipped mostly with DEFMI/DETMI and
    some DECserver 90M. These seems to require one IP address per repeater to
    be manageable, and that's what the customer didn't like.
    
    Nils.

The devices you described (DEFMI/DETMI/DS90M) all need their own IP address in a
DEChub 90 in order to be manageable.  There is no workaround.  The "problem" of
needing one IP address per device will not be fixed in the DEChub 90
environment.  That's one of the key features of the DEChub 900 and a good reason
to encourage your customer to migrate to that platform.

...Roger...

    Well, some background info if it is of any interest to someone:
    
    The customer is a bank that considered using DEChub 90 at around
    500 remote offices (apart from the head office) with 10-50 users per
    site. They said they are not motivated to use up all their IP
    adresseses for managing their hubs and that DEChub 900 is `overkill'
    for this configuration, and probably too expensive (I don't know the
    prices, I'm at MCS!).
    
    I asked them to look at DEChub One, but I'll leave the arguing to
    the salespersons that are already involved.
    
    Regards,
    
    Nils.

    
    Am I all wrong, or is it not the idea that you install ONE DETMI and
    all the rest 'dumb' repeaters, and manage the whole package using the
    agent in the DETMI instead of using DENMA ??
    
    Gullik
    

RE: Nils

I don't think I can state this any clearer than this:

With the exception of auto-discovery in the local hub, the DECagent 90 *NEVER
HAS AND NEVER WILL* manage the DETMI/DEFMI.  If someone told your customer
otherwise, they were seriously mistaken and I would like to know their source of
information.

RE: Gullik

Your statement will be correct with the next release of the DETMI/DEFMI
firmware.  It is not correct with V1.x firmware.

...Roger...

    Nobody has promised the customer anything, and that's the problem.
    They say they `want to use DETMI/DEFMI because of the better manageability
    compared with DETMR/DEFMR' and `they want to manage them without putting
    an IP address at each module as this would eat up all (their) addresses'
    
    This was a big opportunity but it sounds that we are loosing it. I
    don't think I've got the whole picture, but the customer said that
    the need for more than one IP address per hub was a major drawback.
    The customer is `Svenska Handelsbanken' in Stockholm, by the way, a
    major swedish bank.
    
    Thanks for all the answers,
    
    Nils.

Nils,

>>    They say they `want to use DETMI/DEFMI because of the better manageability
>>    compared with DETMR/DEFMR' and `they want to manage them without putting
>>    an IP address at each module as this would eat up all (their) addresses'

Unfortunately, you can't have both.  "Better manageability" comes from the
integral SNMP agent, which requires that you give it an IP address.  As I said,
this is only the case in the DEChub 90.  The DEChub 900 does not suffer from
this restriction.

>>   don't think I've got the whole picture, but the customer said that
>>   the need for more than one IP address per hub was a major drawback.

This is one of the reasons the DEChub 900 was created!

Now where's that "trade in your DEChub 90 for a DEChub 900 program" when you
need it?  :-)

...Roger...

    I'll talk to these guys...
    
    I need to get some things straight though...
    
    
    Is there any difference in repeater management capabilities with the
    
    DETMI as opposed to DETMR for the individual repeater? ( I.e. better
    statistics, security etc. etc. ) cause otherwise the solution is
    obvious, just use the modules as they were intended.
    
    Please elaborate, I need to talk to these guy's real soon...
    
    Gullik
    
    

    The DETMR/DECMR were our very first hub form factor repeaters. They
    were designed at the time to be as low cost as possible. They used an
    internally designed ASIC as the repeater engine. While the ASIC kept
    count of some counts such as collisions, it did not make those counters
    accessible - the design assumption was that there would not be a CPU on
    board to read the counters anyway. These repeaters are managed in the
    backplane using an internal DEChub protocol that we call LH. 
    
    Whether in a DEChub 90 or a DEChub 900, all modules initially identify
    themselves using the LH protocol. The MAM in the DEChub 900 then
    looks in a table to see if a module supports a more advanced protocol
    we call compressed SNMP or CSNMP. Most 900 modules plus the DETMI and
    DEFMI (90TS and 90FS) support CSNMP. For modules which do not support
    CSNMP, such as the DETMR, it manages those as best as possible using 
    the LH protocol. Newer modules only speak enough LH to identify
    themselves; they expect to be managed using CSNMP over a DEChub 900
    backplane, or directly using SNMP.
    
    Because of the backplane management implementation differences 
    between the DEChub 90 and DEChub 900, there are limitations on how much
    we can use a common management scheme. In the DEChub 90, the management
    channel is bus structured, so any communications heard by one module
    will be heard by all. Therefore we cannot use a mixture of LH and
    CSNMP, on the backplane, because non-CSNMP modules might get confused. 
    In the DEChub 900, the management channel is star wired to the MAM, so
    the MAM can talk to each slot independently of the others. This allows
    the MAM to first identify the module using LH, then switch over to
    CSNMP as appropriate.
    
    Does this help? While our strategy is CSNMP now, we have to live with
    the confines of the DEChub 90 and its management architecture, and the
    limitations of the older modules. Now don't get mad, but there are
    exceptions to the strategy; we are still developing LH only modules in
    the DEChub 90 form factor.
    
    jack

    
    Ok, now I know.
    
    So, the customer will not be able to use the DEChub 90 for their
    small offices, (5-60 employees) and get a mixture of 90'type 
    modules, including repeaters, agent(?), router and manage the
    whole thing remotely using hubwatch, without resorting to setting
    up individual adresses and wasting all their IP address space
    (you know, they cannot get enough new adresse now, it's a fight 
    to prove to an undergraduate student that you have used your
    space efficiently)
    
    No, I'm not mad, just sad...
    
    Gullik