Re: Ruleset Question

["James Shanks" <SHANKS@us.tivoli.com>]

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

The short answer to your question is that the Node Up events are not 
forwarded to TEC because they are set to BLOCK by the initial event stream 
node and that is never changed to PASS later.  The Node Down events which 
come out of your Reset-On-Match have their BLOCK attribute changed to PASS 
by the Forward node.  But your Node Up events are not connected to the 
Forward. 

The Input 2 node in a Reset-On-match node is just used as a template to 
determine whether the event held in the Reset-On-Match  events cache 
should be passed on to the next ruleset node or not.  The Input 2 event is 
discarded unless you explicitly do something with it.  If you want all 
your Node Up events to go to TEC, along with the Node Downs that come out 
of the Reset, then you will have to draw the connection between the Node 
Ups and the Forward. 

James Shanks
Level 3 Support 
Tivoli NetView for UNIX and NT
Tivoli Software
IBM Software Group
Please note that my new id is jshanks@us.ibm.com






Michel.Grossenbacher@coop.ch
Sent by: owner-nv-l@tkg.com
10/19/2001 09:18 AM
Please respond to IBM NetView Discussion

 
        To:     nv-l@tkg.com
        cc: 
        Subject:        [NV-L] Ruleset Question

 


Hi together
Im Running NetView 6.0.2 on AIX 4.3.3.
I use a Ruleset to send some Events to our TEC and it should work, at last
what I know, the way that ruleset is written.
I want to send the Interface and Node down/up events but anyhow it keeps 
all
up events back and just forwards the not reseted down events.
The ruleset is included below and should work this way:

1. just get the Node/Interface down/up events (NetView6000 Events)
2. dont use the servers and hubs (smartset)
3. reset the node down/up events and the interface down/up events on 
match,
else forward it

for testing I use a hold time for 10 seconds and I send the evens manualy 
by
the event command.

Any help or sugestion would be appreciated

thank you a lot

Michel






#### TEC.rs has been removed from this note on October 19 2001 by James 
Shanks


The short answer to your question is that the Node Up events are not forwarded to TEC because they are set to BLOCK by the initial event stream node and that is never changed to PASS later.  The Node Down events which come out of your Reset-On-Match have their BLOCK attribute changed to PASS by the Forward node.  But your Node Up events are not connected to the Forward.   

The Input 2 node in a Reset-On-match node is just used as a template to determine whether the event held in the Reset-On-Match  events cache should be passed on to the next ruleset node or not.  The Input 2 event is discarded unless you explicitly do something with it.  If you want all your Node Up events to go to TEC, along with the Node Downs that come out of the Reset, then you will have to draw the connection between the Node Ups and the Forward.  

James Shanks
Level 3 Support  
Tivoli NetView for UNIX and NT
Tivoli Software
IBM Software Group
Please note that my new id is jshanks@us.ibm.com

Michel.Grossenbacher@coop.ch Sent by: owner-nv-l@tkg.com 10/19/2001 09:18 AM Please respond to IBM NetView Discussion

To:        nv-l@tkg.com         cc:                 Subject:        [NV-L] Ruleset Question

Hi together
Im Running NetView 6.0.2 on AIX 4.3.3.
I use a Ruleset to send some Events to our TEC and it should work, at last
what I know, the way that ruleset is written.
I want to send the Interface and Node down/up events but anyhow it keeps all
up events back and just forwards the not reseted down events.
The ruleset is included below and should work this way:

1. just get the Node/Interface down/up events (NetView6000 Events)
2. dont use the servers and hubs (smartset)
3. reset the node down/up events and the interface down/up events on match,
else forward it

for testing I use a hold time for 10 seconds and I send the evens manualy by
the event command.

Any help or sugestion would be appreciated

thank you a lot

Michel






#### TEC.rs has been removed from this note on October 19 2001 by James Shanks