the "%" says this is a redundant (re: HSRP or similar) interface.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bursik [mailto:tivoliesm@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:09 PM
To: nv-l@tkg.com
Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
Very inreresting. So I should delete the nodes and add them to the seed file
with the % sign to fix this? What does the % indicate?
Scott
>From: "Tremblay, David A." <dtremblay@JHANCOCK.COM>
>Reply-To: IBM NetView Discussion <nv-l@tkg.com>
>To: "'IBM NetView Discussion'" <nv-l@tkg.com>
>Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:55:57 -0400
>
>We experienced something similar a few months back, it was related to a
>few
>of our boxes (SUN) on our network that were setup in a cluster for failover
>purposes. Each box contained a NICs configured with a duplicate IP
>address in case one box went down the other interface could be brought
>administratively up to take its place. NetView would discover the first
>NIC on box A , add the interface then later on, box B would be polled, the
>interface was deleted from box A and then added to box B.
>
>SOLUTION:
>
>We had to find out what boxes had the same IP in these failover
>configurations and then place both of the boxes in the seedfile with % in
>front of them. This let NetView know of the duplicate IP addresses on
>these cards and took care of the problem. Usually, the % is used for
>HSRP
>on routers but also works servers for this type of condition.
>
>NOTE: We are running NetView 6.0.2 on Solaris and even had to get a efix
>that included a replacement netmon which fixed the problem.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Dave
>
>David A. Tremblay
>John Hancock Financial Services
>Lead Systems Analyst
>Boston, MA 02117
>
>E-Mail: dtremblay@jhancock.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barr, Scott [SMTP:Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:38 PM
> To: 'IBM NetView Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
>
> sorry I forgot part of the reply - when the first box is config
>polled it
> will find another box has one of those non routable interfaces and
>delete it
> from the second box. When the config poll runs on the second box, it
>will
> delete the interface from the first box and so on.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barr, Scott [mailto:Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:34 PM
> To: 'IBM NetView Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
>
>
> The reason this usually happens is because there are duplicate IP
>addresses
> on the non-routable networks. For instance, if you have an SP2
>complex, some
> of the switch interfaces (internal) participate in a 1.1.1 or 2.2.2
>network.
> If some other box in the network has a secondary interface with the
>same
> address (again - a subnet not reachable by netview or else the
>machine would
> report duplicate IP as soon as it was put on the network).
>
> The only solution I know of is to re-ip the offender.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bursik [mailto:tivoliesm@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: nv-l@tkg.com
> Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
>
>
>
> The issue is, he will change back and forth throughout the day. The
>name
> cahnges back to the original en3 name from the longer name. Its like
>it is
> rediscivering the node several times a day with different interface
>names.
> If I unmanage one of the non-pingable interfaces (we will call it
>en3) later
>
> in the day it will become managed again and the name will be the
>en3;
> Product: PCI Ethernet Adapter........ So NetView thinks its a new
>interface
> and adds it and removes the other interface. Then later on it doesit
>again,
> naming the interface back to en3 adn thus creating more interface
>traps and
> changing the status of the node back to marginal. Hope this makes
>sense.
>
> Scott
>
>
> >From: "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com>
> >Reply-To: IBM NetView Discussion <nv-l@tkg.com>
> >To: "'IBM NetView Discussion'" <nv-l@tkg.com>
> >Subject: RE: [NV-L] Interface name/ip status Changing?
> >Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:56:02 -0500
> >
> >
> >1003176713 1 Mon Oct 15 15:11:53 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >css0 Added
> >
> >===> Discovery adds it
> >
> >1003176713 1 Mon Oct 15 15:11:53 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >en0 Added
> >
> >===> Discovery adds it
> >
> >1003176714 3 Mon Oct 15 15:11:54 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >css0 down.
> >
> >===> Unpingable interface - first status poll fails this interface
> >
> >1003176714 7 Mon Oct 15 15:11:54 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
>Node
> >marginal.
> >
> >===> Box is now marginal because one or more of its interfaces are
>down.
> >
> >1003176714 3 Mon Oct 15 15:11:54 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >en0 down.
> >
> >===> Status poll fails to this interface as well - probably non
>pingable
> >
> >1003177212 7 Mon Oct 15 15:20:12 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com n
>Demand
> >polling on node pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com.
> >
> >===> User initiates demand poll
> >
> >1003177227 4 Mon Oct 15 15:20:27 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >Descriptor for en3 changed to "en3; Product: PCI Ethernet Adapter
> >(23100020)
> >
> > Manufacturer: not available! Part Number: 091H0397 FRU Number:
>091H0397
> >".
> >
> >===> Demand poll finds the en3 interface (snmp get of interface
>table I
> >assume)
> >
> >1003177227 4 Mon Oct 15 15:20:27 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >Descriptor for en1 changed to "en1; Product: PCI Ethernet Adapter
> >(23100020)
> >
> >
> >===> Demand poll finds en1 inteface information (snmp get of
>interface
> >table)
> >
> >1003177227 4 Mon Oct 15 15:20:27 2001 pbsxd200009stby.pepsi.com N
> >Interface
> >
> >Descriptor for en0 changed to "en0; Product: PCI Ethernet Adapter
> >(23100020)
> >
> > Manufacturer: not available! Part Number: not available! FRU
>Number: not
> >available! ".
> >
> >===> again en0 information obtained via the demand poll.
> >
> >I don't see anything wrong here? The only issue may be that the
>node will
> >be
> >degraded unless you unmanage the non-pingable interfaces OR you
>must use
> >"$"
> >in the seed file for this box so he uses SNMP status polls. I
>assume at
> >least some of these interfaces are non-pingable.
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
>
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
>
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
> NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
> NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
> NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
>_________________________________________________________________________
>NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|