Re: rulessets

1999-08-06 10:37:21
Subject: Re: rulessets
From: "Boyles, Gary P" <gary.p.boyles AT INTEL DOT COM>
To: nv-l AT lists.tivoli DOT com
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 07:37:21 -0700
I'm not sure if you're talking about switches or routers... but here's
the solution I use for routers.

1)  Write a script that gets the next-hop address from every
    non-router node you're monitoring.
2)  When that node goes down... you ping the next-hop address
    to see if its up.
3)  If the next-hop address is down, then you just toss out
    the original event... because you're assuming the router
    interface is down, and not the node.
    If the next-hop does respond... then you assume the
    event is real... and process it like you would any other
    real event.

The next-hop address is a MIB-II variable, and just about
every agent supports it.


Gary Boyles, Intel Corp.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dillard, Anthony G [mailto:anthony.g.dillard AT LMCO DOT COM]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 6:48 AM
Subject: rulessets

I have what may be a simple problem, but need asst. in getting a correct
fix. I have several sites that I'am unable to ping any routers, and I what
netview to forward to TEC just the switch down without reporting all the
nodes assoc. with the the switch. I tried having a rule query the database
field for a normal status on the switch but this is the answer because
several nodes will come in before the switch is reported. This becomes a
problem when these node down are forwarded to TEC and several problem tkts
are open for one true problem

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • rulessets, Dillard, Anthony G
    • Re: rulessets, Boyles, Gary P <=