jlixfeld wrote: > > Bill Fisher wrote: > > 1. Sometimes a switch port is labeled with a Subnet list (usually ifIndex > > 1). The L2 engine does not automatically change network labels to the port > > number - you can do this manually. > > > > > So what I hear you saying is that those ovals never disappear. They show a > subnet it's a layer 3 connection and they (are normally supposed to) show a > port number of it's a layer 2 connection. > > That said, if I manually change the label, it will be persistent regardless > as to whether it is a layer 3 connection or a layer 2 connection? >
There's no distinction between layer 3 and layer 2 connections internally. The ovals (aka network objects) may be hidden, but they remain persistent. The only case where a network oval may be deleted is when it's not connected to anything *and* the label is empty. Note that the lines connected to the network object may change. jlixfeld wrote: > > > Bill Fisher wrote: > > > > 2. It is possible for devices to exist on your map that L2 cannot locate. > > When this happens, the connection logic defaults to layer 3. In the Status > > window for an interface, look for the "Interface Connection" section. If > > this section exists, it will provide the L2 data used to locate the device. > > > > > This section does not exist, so it seems that it is defaulting to layer 3. > > Fast forwarding down the thread a bit, is it possible that if I'm hitting the > limited mode bug, that might account for why L2 might not be able to locate > some of the connections? > Yes -- that's a symptom of the bug. jlixfeld wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, is there a release schedule for 5.4.5? > I expect we will put a 5.4.5b1 up on the beta download page soon. jlixfeld wrote: > > I do indeed have limited mode set because I don't use spanning-tree on my > network. Our network is completely routed, but we use CDP everywhere so from > my perspective, limited mode is all we need. Besides, I'm a little leary > about certain layer 2 detection mechanisms. I already know that there is a > bug in the switch software I use that rears it's head if something polls > dotidTpFdbTable. It will immediately crash any devices running the affected > software, so I try to keep layer 2 detection limited to CDP, although I'm > certainly amenable to enabling LLDP if the feeling is that it will help. > CDP should be more than sufficient; LLDP will just supply redundant information in a slightly more verbose manner. -------------------- m2f -------------------- Read this topic online here: http://forums.dartware.com/viewtopic.php?p=3523#3523 ____________________________________________________________________ List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]
