RE: [IM-Talk] VLAN or physical interfaces.. or both?

[Hill, Paul]

Lack of serious layer 2 capabilities is one thing that keeps InterMapper from being our sole monitor. Other software must fill this glaring gap. So, yes, anything to improve layer 2 capabilities would be welcome.   -----Original Message----- From: InterMapper-Talk@list.dartware.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jakob Peterh�nsel Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:14 AM To: InterMapper Discussion Subject: [IM-Talk] VLAN or physical interfaces.. or both?   Hi All,   Just a small query to the masters on the list, as to how you set up your IM maps..   Do you map VLAN's, physical interfaces or both?   I'm asking because I'm thinking we have physical interfaces serving 1-n VLANs and currently there is no 'smart' way to 'sub-interface' VLAN's on the physical interfaces in InterMapper.   It makes it hard to layout the physical wiring along with the virtual infrastucture. If you ask a Cisco switch via SNMP you can get the VLAN's active on a given physical interface, so would it make sence for InterMapper to automatically sub-interface VLANs active on a given physical interface this way?   It would also move the IP networks to possible subinterfaces and spawn IP ranges on a VLAN to any physical interface where it's enabled.     So, what's the thoughts from user and Dartware?         Jakob Peterh�nsel   "Tell me why, don't we try, not to break our hearts    and make it so hard for our selfs" P.S.B. 1987   Email:     [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM:         Marook Phone:     +45 22684961