You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As far as I understand it this is just a convenience improvement I'm suggesting....
A switch can start (e.g. after an snmp update) with many/all ports listed as Type = Unset/Unknown, but when editing the port to untick it as active I can't save it unless I set the port type to something other than Unset/Unknown (obviously there is a hard restriction in place that no updates to the port can be saved with type = Unset/Unknown). This leads to the slightly non-intuitive situation where active ports can be Unset/Unknown but inactive ports can't. When router-admins are in a real hurry and see that they need to also set each port-type in order to mark it inactive, they instead just leave it as active, which is probably less desirable(?). I suggest being able to set a port to inactive without needing to also categorise it yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As far as I understand it this is just a convenience improvement I'm suggesting....
A switch can start (e.g. after an snmp update) with many/all ports listed as
Type = Unset/Unknown
, but when editing the port to untick it asactive
I can't save it unless I set the port type to something other thanUnset/Unknown
(obviously there is a hard restriction in place that no updates to the port can be saved withtype = Unset/Unknown
). This leads to the slightly non-intuitive situation where active ports can beUnset/Unknown
but inactive ports can't. When router-admins are in a real hurry and see that they need to also set each port-type in order to mark itinactive
, they instead just leave it asactive
, which is probably less desirable(?). I suggest being able to set a port toinactive
without needing to also categorise it yet.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: