[mrtg] Re: snr

[Thomas Elmer]

Hi!

After reading your mail, I got curious myself on how to do this. In theory this
should do the trick on a ubr7200 with 2 MC16C cards:

Target[Cable2_0_U0]: 
 
1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.4&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.4:xxx at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
/ 10000
	:
	:
Target[Cable2_0_U5]: 
 
1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.9&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.9:xxx at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
/ 10000
	:
	:
Target[Cable3_0_U0]: 
 
1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.11&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.11:xxx at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
/ 10000
	:	
	:
Target[Cabel3_0_U5]: 
 
1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.16&1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5.16:xxx at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
/ 10000

Didn't work. Apparently there is a bug in the snmp-software of the ubrs. Not
only does the query return values only for the first 3 upstreams, it also
compromises the SNR values of interface Cable3/0 (sets them all to 1677.7215
dB, actual values are only displayed after shutting down an reenabling the
interface). 

This is what SNMPwalk returned:

  root> snmpwalk xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx .1.3.6.1.2.1.10.127.1.1.4.1.5
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.4 = 295420
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.5 = 246080
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.6 = 324640
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.7 = 0
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.8 = 0
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.9 = 0
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.11 = 16777215
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.12 = 16777215
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.13 = 16777215
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.14 = 16777215
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.15 = 16777215
  10.127.1.1.4.1.5.16 = 16777215
(All upstreams were active at that time, showing an SNR around 30 dB each
before i made that query)

Maybee you can try this on your ubr and tell me if you do experince the same
results. 

Good luck. ;-)

Tom



drk at voyager.net schrieb:
> 
> Is anyone out there monitoring signal to noise ratio on a Cisco uBR?
> If so, how?

--
Unsubscribe mailto:mrtg-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/mrtg
FAQ         http://faq.mrtg.org    Homepage     http://www.mrtg.org
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi