I find it strange that NATkit is like 400 times faster than CW2K.
Can anyone explain this? If you are going to get CiscoWorks
and count on it to actually work half the time, just go with
Cisco's Network Supported Accounts (NSA) if you can afford it.
Then you can get all your spiffy inventory lists, CiscoView dials,
and configuration management all packaged up with nothing to
worry about.
CW2k is not expensive though. You get what you pay for. This
is a basic, non-scalable element management system geared
towards Enterprise customers -- not Service Providers. It is
a EMS, not meant to be a NMS. The hardware requirements
are lax, and the fact that it runs under a Windows NT/2000
environment means that anyone who takes the CW2k courses
can use it very effectively. Cost efficient, with some tradeoffs.
If you want a good NMS (with fault management in mind), you
can look at a few of them. In a Cisco network, it's nice to have
your management data encrypted over the wire, so think in terms
of either SNMPv3 with authPriv using 56-bit DES (only in Cisco
IOS 12.1T) or IPSEC. Think about the SNMP trap server's
security and high-availability first. Using SNMPv2 INFORM's
is a good alternative to using SNMPv1 TRAP's. Using SNMP
over TCP instead of UDP may also help. Configuring your
network elements, and adding bandwidth couldn't hurt either.
If you add up the cost of a NMS, it is significantly higher than
that of an EMS. Assuming you went with a solution that could
provide higher availability than your network (6 nines?), so that
you could always monitor your network in case of failure, the
costs would be very significant. You are talking about two
physically separated networks connected via BGP coming
from two different network types, as well as the server layers
which would include at least 6 Sun E4500's (or equivalent)
under Veritas control and Clustering control (VCS or Integratus
UHA or similar) with redundant SAN architecture. Add Cisco
InfoCenter or Veritas NerveCenter or RiverSoft OpenRiver
(best-of-class NMS tools) or possibly even HPOV/Spectrum/CA
and your costs are going to add up. Then you will need to scale
the servers, SAN, and networks N+1 or "n to many". Put that
all together and that's about $20 million dollars (assuming you
do it all yourself, and not including the implementation time).
For a quick decision chart on what to choose for actual
NMS software:
NetCool OMNIbus 4.0 ***** (great for Manager-of-Manager - MoM) ~$200k
(varies)
(not out yet; also OEM'd by Cisco as CIC/InfoCenter)
http://www.micromuse.com/
OpenRiver 3.0 *** (great for Autodiscovery) $per
port/interface monitored (varies)
(not out yet)
http://www.riversoft.com/
NerveCenter 3.7 ** (great for Thresholding) $18k flat rate
http://www.veritas.com/
(available now)
NNM 6.2 * (great for knowledgebase) ~$300k (varies,
need VP or ITO, too)
(available now) (plus SNMP Research's Security Option for SNMPv3)
http://www.openview.hp.com/
Spectrum 6.0 * (kind of combines NNM and NerveCenter
capabilities) $100k flat rate
http://www.aprisma.com/
(available now)
Now I am talking strictly NMS here. Other management systems (point
solutions, element
managment systems, server management systems, ticket systems, CRM, OSS, etc)
aren't
to be compared to the above products.
-dre
""John Neiberger"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, you'd think it should, but I don't think it can. I'm certain it
> can't deliver Guiness-on-Demand, unfortunately!
>
> CW2000 seems to be more geared toward device management, software
> management, and configuration management but not fault management like
> HP Network Node Manager, for instance. That's probably why it doesn't
> process traps. It doesn't really have an application that would use
> them well. Besides, since it's all in java, unless you have a 1.5 GHz
> machine with 8192GB RAM it would be too slow as a fault management
> platform. :-)
>
> CW2000 is sloooooooooooooooooooooooowwwww.... it's cool, but they need
> to do something about the speed. Especially if using Netscape, good
> grief. I could launch Ciscoview, walk downstairs and configure the
> switch from the console port, walk back upstairs and the thing would
> still be loading! That's not very productive. But if it could pour
> Guiness, I suppose I wouldn't mind as much.
>
> >>> "Jeff Duchin" 4/12/01 5:59:52 AM >>>
> Has anyone been able to manipulate CW2000 to process traps? I don't
> understand the logic at all... it can accept and display Syslog
> messages
> from devices but not Traps.
>
> So if anyone has pulled this off, please let me know as I'm trying to
> avoid
> having another NMS just to send Traps to. You'd think by the price that
> it
> would be able to do this and pour you a pint of Guinness at the same
> time!
>
> Any help appreciated,
> Jeff
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=365&t=322
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
