Re: [nv-l] Copying traps--could use an expert explanation

2004-08-05 17:25:35
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Copying traps--could use an expert explanation
From: James Shanks <jshanks AT us.ibm DOT com>
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:11:21 -0400

I'm confused about the mechanism here.
Copying traps in NetView and sending them as different TEC events or copying traps in TEC and sending them back to reception?

James Shanks
Level 3 Support  for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group

"Van Order, Drew \(US - Hermitage\)" <dvanorder AT deloitte DOT com>
Sent by: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com

08/05/2004 12:45 PM
Please respond to

<nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com>
[nv-l] Copying traps--could use an expert explanation

Hi all,

We are being asked to use NetView for more than device polling and up/down status. The big push is to save some $$ by using NV to receive traps from servers for HP Insight Manager events, and possibly expand to other applications that send traps, rather than using say NetIQ AppManager or MOM. Everything has to become a TEC event, so this means tying it into TEC_ITS, which we already do with other external trap sources. I have Compaq traps in, mib2trapped, are receiving test traps fine.

Here's where trap copying comes in. We send TEC events to a help desk system based on the event class only, no other method available at this time. We normally send all Compaq events to one team, so no problem, that means one event class will do. Now, we will need to send Compaq events for 98% of servers to one team, but 1% to a second, and 1% to a third. So, we can copy traps, change the name and TEC event class, and assign a source file for the small server groups. Since the trap number itself can't change (or can it) when you copy a trap I think we will now create 2 TEC events when traps from server group 2 come in--one in team one, one in team two. This is because the original trap has no source defined--which is not reasonable in this case because it's hundreds of servers. And the trap numbers are the same, so TEC_ITS will forward both, assuming I've added a node to the ruleset based on specific trap number, rather than a trap settings node.

I hope I explained this decently. I searched the archives, and haven't seen a post like this. I think it will all become clear when I understand how the trap coming in is matched to the trap name, number, etc. Maybe this can't be done, but I have to try because the cost savings are exceptional and I don't think OpenView can do any better.


Drew Van Order
Deloitte Services LP

Tel: +1 615 882 7836


This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>