question Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery in ITOM forum

Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:53:00 GMT

Hi All

I understand "Identified, ignored extra IP" is a warning in Discovery and supposed to be ignored , generally.

But during my discovery scans I have come across several "Identified, ignored extra IP" warning message which were not correct as in, when I try to discover the IP individually, it creates a new CI with all proper details. On the other hand, if I run discovery on a number of IP address in same segment, I again get the same warning.

Please guide, how to deal with this.

Thanks

Amit

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

tim_broberg — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:03:09 GMT

Amit, you're saying the machine has only one IP on the segment, but the identifier is complaining about multiple IPs?

If you look at the CI, there is only one IP on the segment?

- Tim.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:44:33 GMT

Hi Tim

Yes, I give you an example. I did a scan on /24 IP range and I got close to 20 IPs saying "Identified, ignored extra IP" for some 10 different IPs already added as CI in CMDB ( i.e. we are talking about 30 IPs, 20 as "Identified, ignored extra IP" and 10 as CIs).

But those 20 IPs were form different servers as I validated it with list of about 50+ IPs given by my AIX / UNIX support team.

Later on I did try to discover few IPs individually and all turned out to be new CI. Whenever i tried to run discovery on 5/ 6 IPs in one go, I used to get message "Identified, ignored extra IP".

Finally I had to discover then one by one and all were created as CI and I came up with this question.

Please advice.

Thanks

Amit

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

A Westervelt — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:18:02 GMT

I have had similar issues when dealing with AIX in our environment. The serial numbers are the exact same from the physical they are hosted on. I've had to mess around with the CI Identifiers to be able to effectively classify all of them. Once created they should be fine and recognize either from Network Adapter or Name.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 02:28:54 GMT

Hi Andrew

Thanks for this information. Could you please provide more insight on this.

Thanks

Amit

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

tim_broberg — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 04:21:45 GMT

I believe the issue is that it is identifying based on the hardware identifier, which is shared across LPAR's. You can try editing the AIX Serial Number probe to detect LPAR's, and if present read it with uname -L (uname -Ls?), strip away any crud you don't want, and append it to the machine ID. You want multiple LPAR's on the same hardware to get distinct serial numbers like 0694FCG_0, 0694FCG_1, ... where your modifications provide the _0 / _1 bit based on the partition ID and the existing logic provides the 0694FCG.

Discovery team does have plans to address this, and I will nudge them that it is creating customer pain.

Regrettably, my AIX box died of old age, so I'm not in a position to tinker one together for you at this time.

Hopefully pointing out a likely source of the problem will give you some ideas for working through the problem, but it only dashes your hopes, at least it will do so quickly.

We'd love to hear back from you on what results you find,

- Tim.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

tim_broberg — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:53:35 GMT

I got my hands on an AIX LPAR and tinkered with it a bit.

echo `lsattr -El sys0 -a systemid | cut -f 2 -d\ ` `uname -L` | sed -e 's/ /,/g'

Translated roughly to English: echo the system id, taking the second field, space, LPAR partition ID, replacing spaces with commas.

This works for me on an LPAR, but I have no way to try it on a physical AIX server.

- Tim.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:07:14 GMT

Thanks Tim.

I am checking on this here. As of now the plan for us in not to change any thing OOTB.

I am looking forward for doing some tests. I'll update as soon as I get chance to test it.

Thanks a lot again

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:09:02 GMT

In addition, it is really a wired issue. I did create CIs manually and after a whole scan on weekend it behaves same way.

Though CIs are there but does not show other details on BSM map.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:09:27 GMT

Hi Tim,

I investigated on AIX machines with our support guys and here is what they told me.

They have "N" LPARs sitting on a box (RAC) with same serial number. Each LPR has got a primary IP and Host name. For various other requirements they have creates "M" aliases (different IP and Hostname )for an individual LPR. This kind of LPAR configuration is done for all the LPARs on that box. They are interested to get details of all LPRs in CMDB ( alias can be ignored).

Discovery is doing its part by dropping the other IPs / aliases once it matches the serial number against those IPs. So I think first thing I need to do is to exclude the alias IPs on each LPARs from scan and use 1 IP as Primary for scan. Then I need to use script to append hostname of LPR in to serial number and use that serial number.

Please advise.

Thanks

Amit

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

tim_broberg — Sun, 03 May 2015 18:22:19 GMT

The identifier is already ignoring the extra IPs just fine, right? It's just that he can't tell the difference between LPARs because they share the same serial numbers. I think you need the identifier to get the partition ID in there as well so he can discriminate between LPARs, and the Out of the Box probes just don't handle that yet.

- Tim.

Re: Identified, ignored extra IP: False warning in Discovery

Amit Sharma4 — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:34:49 GMT

Hi Tim,

Over the time I found two work around for this.

1: Discovery of Solaris Zones : So far I did not try this.

2: Solaris Blades : Tried this and it worked fine.

Thanks

Amit