8 Replies Latest reply on May 20, 2009 11:02 AM by bshopp

    Interface unmanage feature

    jeffnorton

      We need the ability to unmanage an interface on a Node just like the ability to unmanage a Node.  The reason behind this is we have construction areas where the node goes down during the construction period or we have planned maintenance on serial links for WAN circuits.  We don't want to put the interface in Admin down, we want it active so we can see if and when it comes back up and we don't want to unmanage the entire node.

        • Re: Interface unmanage feature
          denny.lecompte

          It's on the roadmap, but it won't be in Orion 9. 

            • Re: Interface unmanage feature
              BryanBecker

              Denny...any idea when this will be done?  I have a need for this now and would thought it would be in 9.1 by now.

              Thanks.

              BB

                • Re: Interface unmanage feature
                  denny.lecompte

                  I'd say that it's more likely than not to be in the next release.  But--and I've mentioned this before--no promises.

                    • Re: Interface unmanage feature
                      julrich

                      If it helps, I will re-itterate the importance of being able to un-manage an interface!

                        • Re: Interface unmanage feature
                          mdoering

                          I too would like to propose support for this feature.  We have several devices on our network with monitored interfaces that go down due to maintenance on other equipment.  We don't want the entire node in maintenance mode as it services several links that we still need reporting on.  Any chance it can be done in a maintenance release instead of waiting for a new full release?

                            • Re: Interface unmanage feature
                              denny.lecompte

                              Unmanaging interfaces is coming in the next release.  We will not put it into a maintenance release or a service pack.  I hear that a lot...can't you just slip it into a service pack?  Well, sure, we could do that in theory, but adding features without dropping a full release ends up with less stable and less flexible code.  Why?  Because the idea of a service pack is a focused change; touch as little as possible to reduce the risk of breaking things unintentionally.  Therefore, to add a feature in a service pack, you can't make any fundamental changes.  It's like tying one (sometimes both) hands behind your back. 

                              If you say "Maintenance release" instead of service pack, then that's just a release with bug fixes.  Sure you could slip a feature or two into it, but maintenace releases have almost the same overhead as regular releases.  That overhead is the time it takes to stabilize the release and ship it.  So, if we dribble features out in "maintenance" releases, then you'll get a few features a little sooner, but you'll end up with far fewer features overall. That's why we don't do it that way.

                              You are probably thinking, "Dude!  I was just sayin'"  And, it's true, you were just saying, so I'm just using your post as a vehicle because you're just the latest person to make some variation on the suggestion.  And it's not a bad thing to suggest.  It seems reasonable from the outside, which is why I thought I'd give you (and the many other folks who will read this post) some view into reasoning behind our decisions.