<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>question CMDB Design Decision:  Ping probes in CMDB forum</title>
    <link>https://www.servicenow.com/community/cmdb-forum/cmdb-design-decision-ping-probes/m-p/3566036#M21121</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;CMDB Design Decision&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would you make the same call?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;During onboarding, we found a ScienceLogic export containing approximately 2,300 "devices."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After reviewing the records, 419 of them appeared to be Ping/ICMP probe artifacts rather than actual configuration items.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Characteristics included:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No serial number&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No MAC address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hostname was simply the IP address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No additional identifying attributes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;The design question became:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Would you allow these records to become CIs, or would you exclude them before they entered the CMDB?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our conclusion was to exclude them because they represented monitoring artifacts rather than managed configuration items. In this case, that reduced the candidate population by roughly 18%.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm curious how others approach this. Is this something you would treat as a discovery configuration issue, an identification issue, or simply an upstream governance decision?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:59:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jrbockrath</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-06-29T14:59:19Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CMDB Design Decision:  Ping probes</title>
      <link>https://www.servicenow.com/community/cmdb-forum/cmdb-design-decision-ping-probes/m-p/3566036#M21121</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;CMDB Design Decision&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would you make the same call?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;During onboarding, we found a ScienceLogic export containing approximately 2,300 "devices."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After reviewing the records, 419 of them appeared to be Ping/ICMP probe artifacts rather than actual configuration items.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Characteristics included:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No serial number&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No MAC address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hostname was simply the IP address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P&gt;No additional identifying attributes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;The design question became:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Would you allow these records to become CIs, or would you exclude them before they entered the CMDB?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our conclusion was to exclude them because they represented monitoring artifacts rather than managed configuration items. In this case, that reduced the candidate population by roughly 18%.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm curious how others approach this. Is this something you would treat as a discovery configuration issue, an identification issue, or simply an upstream governance decision?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:59:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.servicenow.com/community/cmdb-forum/cmdb-design-decision-ping-probes/m-p/3566036#M21121</guid>
      <dc:creator>jrbockrath</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-06-29T14:59:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

