How are people finding LMS 3.2. Is it a big improvement on LMS 2.6?

[marc-james]

Hello.

Ive been using LMS 2.6. I believe the following LMS 2.6 issues are resolved from what I can see....

DFM -no SNMP v3 encryption.     (I believe this is now supported)

CAMpus map no HSRP support    ( I believe this is now supported)

CAmpus map CDP (security issues).   ( I believe 3.2 has OSPF for Layer 2 ?)

I noticed when you deployed configs on LMS 2.6 it would do a 'diff' first and this created problems in complext network -not sure if this is resolved yet?

Any other improvements new features? What are you guys finding the best features of the product?

[Joe Clarke · Accepted solution]

DFM 3.2 does support SNMPv3 polling (but not traps).  Campus doesn't support HSRP in the mapping sense.  Campus is focused on layer 2 mapping.  Campus still requires CDP, but Discovery (which is now part of Common Services) supports other protocols such as ping sweeps, ARP table lookups, routing table lookups, etc. to find new devices in the network.

Beyond that, LMS 3.2 includes a number of changes and improvements.  The most noticeable is the Portal UI.  The CiscoWorks Portal allows you to build dashboards to show off both dynamic and static data.  These dashboards replace the static CiscoWorks Homepage.

There were also many improvements made in terms of baseline compliance support, the ability to track users in near real-time in User Tracking, support for VRF-lite networks, EnergyWise devices, more inventory custom report attributes, less client-sided Java in Campus Manager, and more.  The individual product release notes will tell the whole tale.

If you have a spare machine, you can also install a 90-day eval of LMS 3.2, and see these features for yourself.  The eval can be downloaded from http://www.cisco.com/go/lms .

[marc-james]

Many Thanks Joe.

So DFM still cant receive SNMP v3 traps (i.e. it cant support encyption) -thats a bit shocking. ? Only polling authentication is the same as the last version 2.

-My big beef with CDP is the security implications. My thoughts were you could use OSPF instead of CDP on the Campus map?

-Good news about the java client! Are you saying that the installation of a java client is no longer necessary?

[Joe Clarke]

While DFM can poll devices with SNMPv3 authPriv or authNoPriv, it cannot receive v3 traps from devices.

CDP is still very much required to build the topology map.  It is no longer required, however, to discover new devices on the network.

A Java client is still required to view the topology map for Campus.  All other Campus reports are HTML/Javascript, and IPM no longer requires client-sided Java.

[Marvin Rhoads]

I have used both and would say that 3.2 is generally an improvement, it continues to have usability issues. Ever since Cisco introduced DCR it has perpetuated confusion to parameters being set in one place or the other. The home page is more gee whiz but doesn't add much value IMO without some significant customization. L2/L3 trace tool is gone altogether from Campus.

Yes there are a lot more of the esoteric/cutting edge features that Joe cited. If those are important in your enterprise, I suppose they could be useful. Personally 'd rather the development team focused more on basic usability.

The new release of User Tracking Utility (UTU 2.0) is pretty slick. But that's really distinct from LMS per se.

Re Java, at least we are no longer required to run a back level version, that a plus.

Re CDP, is there a specific real security concern you have or just the general reaction that security managers everywhere have had these past so many years that CDP is a Bad Thing because it allows a non-authenticated user to map a network?

One thing - put in lots of RAM. All the cwjava process eat it up. Ever since I bumped my machine (Windows server 2008 x64 R1) from 4 GB to 12 GB it is a very happy server. Filling your server with all the RAM it will take is only adding a couple % to the cost of your installation and it will make use a much more pleasant experience.