23 Replies Latest reply on Feb 26, 2014 10:16 AM by mr.e

    What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?

    michal.hrncirik

      As usually, we are already working on more features to ship with IPAM. Here is what we are currently working on post 4.0:


      • Support for almost all Microsoft and Cisco DHCP options
      • ISC DHCP monitoring and management

       

      we have prepared also update on search improvements, however it's a significant change in database, that would extend the typical release period of IPAM. So even though we have the technical specs how to do that, I'm not putting it on this list. We are also working on the smaller IPAM improvements. Since ISC is a big chunk, I'll keep you informed during the implementation phase what else could appear in the near future.


      PLEASE NOTE:  We are working on these items based on this priority order, but this is NOT a commitment that all of these enhancements will make the next release.  We are working on a number of other smaller features in parallel.   If you have comments or questions on any of these items (e.g. how would it work?) or would like to be included in a preview demo, please let us know!

        • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
          dstj

          Would be nice to have 'auto fill in' for common fields when creating 'A' and 'PTR' and 'CNAME' records under 'Edit IP Address'...

          Would be nice to be able to create more than just an 'A' record when Editing IP Address (notice Type is grey'd out and can't be changed)...

          I am happy to see that 'Reverse & Forward DNS record pairing' is on your do to list !

           

          6-25-2013 9-51-50 AM.jpg

           

          Dave

          • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
            Deltona

            Hi Michal,

             

            Can we please get IPAM polling engines that can poll DHCP servers.

            We've got over a hundred domains that DON'T have a trust relationship and therefore, unable to be polled from the primary polling engine (which is in another domain).

            It is the greatest issue with IPAM right now...

             

            Regards,

            Deltona

              • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                michal.hrncirik

                Hi Deltona,

                 

                do you mean remote probes?

                  • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                    Deltona

                    Hi Michal,


                    If By Remote Probe you mean Additional Polling Engine then yes.

                    Here's a scenario of the issue with the latest version of IPAM (was also an issue in past versions).

                     

                    - Primary Polling Engine is monitoring DHCP server A (Node monitoring with NPM).

                    - Additional Polling Engine is monitoring DHCP server B (Node monitoring with NPM).

                    - IPAM is installed on both polling engines.

                     

                    When attempting to monitor DHCP server B, an error message is displayed informing me to move DHCP server B to the Primary Polling Engine in order to monitor DHCP.

                    This is naturally not possible since the Primary Polling Engine is located in a different network segment that has no access to DHCP server B.

                     

                    The issue is that the IPAM Additional Polling Engine module is not really a poller but just a compatibility pack. We really need it to be a "real" polling module so that we can poll or DHCP servers through Additional Polling Engines in many other, non accessible parts of the network.

                     

                    Regards,

                    Deltona

                • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                  deverts

                  Michal,

                   

                  I see you are working on the Forward/Reverse pairing, that will be nice.  What is the possibility of adding something that pairs internal IPs (IPv4 or IPv6) with a corresponding NAT (IPv4 or IPv6)?  Ex.: Server A has internal IP 10.1.1.1 in DNS Zone inside.com and is associated to external NAT 4.1.1.1 in DNS Zone outside.com.  This will definitely be a manual configuration, but we don't really have the ability today.  I use the comments field right now, I guess I could create a custom field as well; but that doesn't really "pair" them; it just provides a reference.  I guess my end goal would be to open a node in NPM or NCM and see an IPAM resource listing all the info (the node is paired with IPv4 10.1.1.1, NAT 4.1.1.1, and any IPv6 equivalents).  This is obviously more for infrastructure devices (servers, routers, etc.), than it is for end points (PCs, laptops or printers, etc.).

                   

                  Thanks for your consideration...

                   

                  D

                    • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                      michal.hrncirik

                      Hi deverts,

                      that's a good request and makes sense to me. I've heard this from multiple people running NAT/external IPs. Would you like to see there a "NAT/ext IP" pairing option. Or how would you like to use this/UI?

                      The only workaround that comes to my mind now is use custom property as a hyper link which can take you from one IP address detail page to another (from NAT subnet to ext. subnet).

                        • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                          deverts

                          That workaround makes sense, I'll investigate that as an option.  As for the NAT pairing, I don't know what the forward/reverse pairing will look like, but I imagine the NAT pairing will look similar.  I can think of a couple ways for the workflow to actually function.

                           

                          1.  A NAT field on the IP entry page that you can simply add an IP to, and a pop-up that asks you to verify you are selecting the correct corresponding IP.

                          2.  A NAT field that offers you a search mechanism, so you can search through your various lists for the correct corresponding IP.

                           

                          D

                      • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                        bluefunelemental

                        can I request filtering of UDT port column to only direct and active connections? This is becoming a confusing field for our users.

                        • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                          mr.e

                          How about additional polling engines for IPAM?  That would be a very nice improvement, especially since all other SW tools already have polling engines.

                            • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                              michal.hrncirik

                              so this is great question. What you would expect - as a user benefit from additional pollers for IPAM. Let's forget other modules have it, what benefit it should bring to you? To me, additional pollers are typically miss-matched for remote probes for IPAM to poll remote sites (like duplicate subnets to get the IP status) but you know that for other products it's mainly performance and this is related to the price of APs.

                                • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                  mr.e

                                  The way I envision it, getting additonal pollers could help IPAM by reducing the load on the core server.  For example, the main poller would handle the external subnets (we have very few external subnets).  Then, the additional pollers could the split the nation into four regions (i.e. East, MidAmerica, Central and West), handling internal subnets.  Each of these additional pollers would handle IP subnets designed for those regions.

                                   

                                  To be honest, I have not thought out the specifics of how this might work.  However, my main focus would be to reduce the load of the primary IPAM server.  In my view, these could help greatly by offloading the load and then result in better application performance.  This seems to work quite well for all the other modules, so I would think (and hope) that it can help w/IPAM as well.

                                   

                                  Thanks.

                                    • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                      michal.hrncirik

                                      Hi,

                                      your thoughts make sense. The problem of IPAM is, that the "polling load" is quite a low, it's typically DB that causing the issue. I think, what the people would like to see is for example, increase the parallel scans of their subnets (if many) or put remote poller into subnets that have duplicated IP ranges so they may get the real status of each IP address in it.

                                        • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                          Deltona

                                          Michal,

                                           

                                          I hope you can confirm the issue of monitoring a DHCP server that is currently assigned to an additional polling engine.

                                          Really need to get some attention to this a.s.a.p...

                                            • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                              michal.hrncirik

                                              Hi Deltona,

                                               

                                              I can confirm this is the current limitation of IPAM as it doesn't support additional polling engine. I'm looking on technical possibilities to let IPAM use existing additional polling engine for NPM that monitors your DHCP server already/Node without a need of having AP IPAM package.

                                              When you described that above, it looks you have two IPAM instances - each on separate machine/polling engine. And I assume if we would allow you to use existing Nodes from AP instance in the IPAM, you would not need two but just a single one, correct?

                                               

                                              thanks,

                                              Michal

                                                • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                                  Deltona

                                                  Hi Michal,

                                                  Thanks for getting back on this.

                                                  I may have misunderstood the idea behind an IPAM 4.0 Poller.

                                                  My issues is that we have IPAM pollers in other domains, where our primary IPAM poller can not reach due to lack of privileges.

                                                  What we need in order to monitor DHCP servers/scopes is the ability to

                                                   

                                                  1. Log in across domains from primary polling engine without using impersonation (not likely possible)

                                                   

                                                  or

                                                   

                                                  2. Log in to DHCP server from additional polling engine

                                                   

                                                  Attached is a quick diagram I put together explaining the issue.

                                                  There are many other benefits in having a "true" additional poller. Load balancing is one such benefit.

                                                   

                                                  DeltonaOrion IPAM 4.0 Poller Improvement.jpg

                                              • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                                mharvey

                                                Working with one client here, we actually have a polling engine in another domain and want to try to scan subnets that it has access to that the main poller does not.   This would be a great time to be able to assign subnets to different polling engines.  I know it may not be something that is widely done, but for this customer it's essential in order to be able to monitor their subnets in different locations.  Each location has it's own domain, and the systems are being added as additional polling engines and not stand alone installs.

                                                  • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                                    mr.e

                                                    I have been asking for the same for a couple of years. But you know what they say, there's strength in numbers. 

                                                     

                                                    By the way,  I know they tell me that the IPAM load on the core server is almost none, but I rather for it to be really none..  In my plan, all of the IPAM polling (i.e. ICMP, SNMP) and management of DNS and DHCP servers would be handled exclusively by my additional polling engines.  So, all IPAM would do on the core server is to process the requests, handle reports, alerts, etc.

                                          • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                            alind

                                            Hi Michal

                                             

                                            Can you give a specific update on a feature request for IPAM?

                                             

                                            It's mentioned in this topic already - Reverse & Forward DNS record pairing.

                                             

                                             

                                            It's something we need to deal with right now in a multi-hosting enviroment.

                                             

                                            Anything you can share?

                                             

                                            Thanks

                                            • Re: What We Are Working On Post IPAM 4.0?
                                              harrijs

                                              Infoblox support please....