Klaus, please tell us what version of the code you are running, and on
which platform. I am pretty sure that I have seen this work reasonably well
at both 6.0 and 6.01, provided snmp access was available to the devices
involved. It tries to move the interface to the node on which it is up. At
netmon startup, or config poll time, this will often result in the
interface
being moved one or more times (deleted and added), but then it should
settle down. I believe there may be an open problem, though, regarding
the re-calculation of status of the parent node after the down interface
is removed, although I thought that involved HSRP. Also, it would
probably help if the duplicate intefaces were Administratively Down.
The case of duplicate addresses when one is Admin Down has
been handled well for several releases of the code.
Cordially,
Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
Detroit
Klaus.Wich@spb.de@tkg.com on 12/18/2000 01:27:13 PM
Please respond to IBM NetView Discussion <nv-l@tkg.com>
Sent by: owner-nv-l@tkg.com
To: nv-l@tkg.com
cc:
Subject: [NV-L] Troubles with duplicate ip-adresses
Dear colleagues;
We are at present in the process of applying Tivoli NetView to our
present network surveillance which is running under a static routing
system.
Due to our configuration of a 2 stepped ISDN-Backup, for which 2 routers
each are defined for the same IP-Address the corresponding interfaces
are set to ?down?.
Since these interfaces, under normal circumstances, would be deactivated,
res.,
under backup conditions only one may be active, there can be no IP-Address
conflict when operating normally.
NetView recognizes with every Configuration-Poll, the corresponding
ISDN-Interfaces with the same IP-Address on different routers, which
results
in an ?Interface xx deleted? for Router A, followed by an ?Interface xx
added?
for Router B.
Our problem is that the ?discovered? Interfaces, which after being
recognized
as having a ?down? status, appear under the corresponding Router in
NetView,
are flagged with an error status of ?marginal?.
For us, at the moment, there isn?t any possibility to identify the
condition of
a
Router in NetView.
We would be grateful if there were anyone who could help to solve our
problem.
A WorkAround which would prevent the new ?discovery? of this Interface,
res.,
that
the Interfaces ?discovered? are recognized as unmanaged, would be
certainly of
great
service to us.
Thanking you in advance,
Klaus Wich
Sparda Datenverarbeitung eG
_________________________________________________________________________
NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
|