Transceivers should have their own class instead of counting as modules

Bug #1169154 reported by Morten Brekkevold
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Network Administration Visualized
New
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Transceivers such as GBICs are classified in ENTITY-MIB::entPhysTable as modules, and are therefore detected by NAV as such. We've received a lot of feedback that transceivers do not quite fit with NAV's module concept. A suggestion is that Transceiver should be a new model in NAV, and be exempt from the typical moduleUp/down alerts that NAV generates. The rationale for this is that these units are plugged in and out at will and failures would be detected using other means.

A suggest way around this in the collection phase is to use the entPhysTable hierarchy to "see" that a transceiver module is connected to a port instead of a slot, and call this module a transceiver, rather than a module.

Conversely, with some vendors/models, modules may actually connect to ports, such the case is with FEX modules on the Cisco Nexus platform. How can we differentiate between the two? This will likely be a difficult balance to strike.

Changed in nav:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers