NetXMS Support Forum

Hi,
I am running latest stable NetXMS 2.x.
I have few locations/clients, with one public IP, and in local area network there are only local routers and switches, without local server where I can place NetXMS agent.
I want to SNMP pool all local switches and routers using one public IP, but using different SNMP port (I have configured NAT and port forwarding).

The problem is that NetXMS says that I have IP conflict.

What is solution, without new feature requests?

Thank you

Solution without new feature request would be to put a Raspberry Pi (or a similiar SBC) into the network and use it as a proxying agent.

Wish I could help in another way, but without a proxy in the network, not much can be done in this case.

Quote from: tomaskir on June 06, 2016, 08:21:47 PM
Solution without new feature request would be to put a Raspberry Pi (or a similiar SBC) into the network and use it as a proxying agent.

Wish I could help in another way, but without a proxy in the network, not much can be done in this case.

Ok, thank you for the info, I will search for the raspbian (.deb) package of netxms agent.

I hoped for native NetXMS solution

Here you go
https://www.netxms.org/forum/installation/raspberry-pi-3-compile-agent/msg19784/#msg19784

Quote from: hkusulja on June 06, 2016, 08:44:31 PM
I hoped for native NetXMS solution

Site-to-site VPN? TBH the cheapest VPN-capable router will be about the same price as an SBC to run nxagent on, so not much difference either way.

Can you fool NetXMS with multiple DNS/hosts entries pointed at the same IP address?

Quote from: troffasky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:07 PM

Quote from: hkusulja on June 06, 2016, 08:44:31 PM
I hoped for native NetXMS solution

Site-to-site VPN? TBH the cheapest VPN-capable router will be about the same price as an SBC to run nxagent on, so not much difference either way.

Can you fool NetXMS with multiple DNS/hosts entries pointed at the same IP address?

I can not change routers.
The problem is not network connectivity, I have NAT with port forwarding and connection is possible.

The problem is in NetXMS configuration, which always translates the DNS hostname to IP , and then I have multiple same IPs for more nudes/devices.

One of solutions can be creation of zones and add devices with same IP in different zones.

Quote from: Tatjana Dubrovica on July 07, 2016, 01:07:55 PM
One of solutions can be creation of zones and add devices with same IP in different zones.

thank you for the option, I am aware of it.

So if I have about 10 local network switches, behind one router with nat/public ip, i need to have 10 different zones, one for each switch, which is annoying and destroying the organization of netxms nodes.
but thank you for the info.

Another option besides source code change is to create local port mappings on NetXMS server itself on some fake subnet, different local virtual IP for each NAT'ed device.

Best regards,
Victor

I have the same problem. I have many clients and for some of them are technically impossible or it is a security problem to run VPN tunnels.

Now I use CactiEZ - I just add as many nodes as I need with the same host/ip but different SNMP port and it works just fine, and with Graph Trees I group my clients visually in "Monitoring" module so I can see from the first look where is the problem if some alarm is triggered. I miss automated maps, but this is more important for our support needs.

I like NetXMS more, but it is just very hard to use it without this functionality. The same problem have LibreNMS, it works OK for one big network, but it is very hard to use it with devices behind NAT (you must generate different host names for each node behind NAT).

So now zones are very good step ahead, can we hope of possibility to use host/ip flagged as "NAT address" and allow us to have many nodes with the same host/ip that way? Maybe with additional "internal host/ip" that must be unique in the zone?

So basically you need some "exclude from network topology" option for the node (we have it already for interfaces). I think it won't be that hard to implement, I'll try to make it in 2.1. I've registered it as feature request - https://dev.raden.solutions/issues/1287.

Best regards,
Victor

Hi
Any news about this request?