Cheshire Cat Computing

This is a great idea - it should even be possible, with a little work, to add a routers.cgi*Link[] definition for each interface that points to the corresponding ports on the graphs for the attached device, if you stick to a naming scheme for the cfg files...

_________________
Steve Shipway
UNIX Systems, ITSS, University of Auckland, NZ
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning... -- Isaiah 5:11

The remote-router-target is the identifier in the [] of the Target definition for the graph you want to link to, so in your example you could use 'switch2.7'. However, it does not HAVE to be the port at the other end of the link (which would of course show identical traffic). Instead, you could make it point to the CPU graph, or even to one of the metatargets such as _incoming, __first, __summary, __info or a userdefined graph (see the preferences page for a list of possible metatargets)

_________________
Steve Shipway
UNIX Systems, ITSS, University of Auckland, NZ
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning... -- Isaiah 5:11

I did look some more into this, but I think it would be hard to create links the right way from a template file using lldp information.

The problem is that the interface pages are named something like:

name_3.html

...where "name" is the name of the switch or the computer and "3" is the interface number. The problem is that for some, but not all switches, the interface number might match the port name given by lldp information (in the example above "3"), but some switches might alter the name slightly (like in my picture example "g5" instead of "5"). Also, computers usually name their interfaces completely different, something like "eth0" which might be interface 2 in mrtg. There are also other switches which name their interfaces completely different.

For now the template will only show some information about what is at the other end, there will be no links going to the other interface page.

regards Henrik