Hi Gary, hi Joe,

we also have this problem on our V5.1 and we are thinking of opening a
change request on this.

The problem is even more difficult if you have to move ip-ranges from
one box to another one.

If you make a demand-poll on a box (say box1) where you took away
ip-adresses, Netview first checks if these interfaces are still
responding. When you already moved the ip-adresses to another box (box2)
they are indeed responding (from this box2...) and Netview regards them
as still alive, but on box1!. Later during the demand-poll it recognises
that the corresponding interface(s) on box1 no longer has an ip-adress,
but it's not updating his databases, so also the icon for the ip-network
is connected to the wrong box (box1).
You have to look carefully at "duplicate ip-adress"-events coming from
netview to discover this situation. This trap will be sent by netmon
when it discovers the ip-adress on box2, which, according to the nv
database, is still valid on box1.

Maybe someone from the software developement team at tivoli reads this
....

Michael Seibold
debis Systemhaus CCS




Prokott, Joe wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I agree that I would think this should be done also.  I also want to ask why
> wouldn't/shouldn't this occur on NetView for UNIX, as well as the NetView
> for NT version?  Thanks,
>
> Joe Prokott - West Group
> Network Architect
> 610 Opperman Drive
> St. Paul, MN  55123
> Phone: 651-687-4536
> Fax: 651-687-6946
> E-mail: joe.prokott AT westgroup DOT com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boyles, Gary P [SMTP:gary.p.boyles AT INTEL DOT COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:04 AM
> > To:   NV-L AT UCSBVM.UCSB DOT EDU
> > Subject:      Interface Addr Change & Config Checks.
> >
> > This is a NetView NT question...
> >
> > When I change the address of an interface on a router, I can understand
> > that the old icon turns red... because NetView doesn't know whether
> > the address has been changed, or the interface is down.
> >
> > But... once NetView does a configuration check for the router, shouldn't
> > it
> > get rid of the old interface icon, and bring on a new one for the new
> > address.
> >
> > Shouldn't it do the delete on the old interface icon even if that
> > interface
> > has been set to unmanaged?
> >
> > Obviously, the reason I'm asking is.. that this doesn't always appear
> > to be the case.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gary Boyles, Intel