nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

[nv-l] node discovery and submap display

To: NetView Discussion <nv-l@lists.tivoli.com>
Subject: [nv-l] node discovery and submap display
From: Robin James <robin.james@thalesatm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:20:35 +0000
We have a seed file for some 100+ nodes. Each node has two entries
because a node has two interfaces, an ethernet interface and an FDDI DAS
interface.

When the Netview databases are cleared and the GUI is started we are
getting different results on the submaps. Sometimes the maps show
everything as expected. Other times the maps show that a large part of
the maps is unmanaged.

When it does not work properly the output from ovtopodump shows there
are ethernet and FDDI networks:

CLASS    OBJECT ID      OBJECT               STATUS    IP ADDRESS
TOPOINFO    967         IP Internet
NETWORKS   1289         sws.onl.ip           Up        10.5.0.0
           1499         ods.onl.ip           Marginal  10.0.0.0

The output also shows the segments:

SEGMENTS   1290         sws.onl.ip.Segment1  Up
           1500         ods.onl.ip.Segment1  Unmanaged
           1503         ods.onl.ip.Segment2  Down
           1610         omc.onl.ip.Segment1  Unmanaged
           1622         sws.onl.ip.Segment2  Up
           1638         ods.onl.ip.Segment3  Up

The output for the nodes shows a lot of the nodes as unmanaged - here's
a selection:

NODES       969/968     od02u.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.34.12
            969/1199    od02u.sws.onl.ip     Down      10.0.34.12
            969/1200    od02u.sws.onl.ip     Down      10.0.98.12
            969/976     od02u.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.162.12
           1132/1131    o2222.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.176
           1132/1135    o2222.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.176
           1134/1133    o2192.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.152
           1134/1141    o2192.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.152
           1144/1143    o2262.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.212
           1144/1137    o2262.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.212
           1146/1145    o2152.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.120
           1146/1147    o2152.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.120
           1150/1149    o2212.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.168
           1150/1129    o2212.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.168
           1152/1151    o2202.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.160
           1152/1139    o2202.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.160
           1164/1163    o2132.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.108
           1164/1159    o2132.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.108
           1168/1167    o2142.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.112
           1168/1157    o2142.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.112
           1170/1169    o2122.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.96
           1170/1171    o2122.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.96
           1174/1173    o2112.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.88
           1174/1165    o2112.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.88
           1176/1175    o2032.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.28
           1176/1161    o2032.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.28

When we select the segment that is unmanaged and force Netview to manage
it the status for all the nodes goes to managed.

Anyone have any ideas why we would get wildly different results with the
same seed file? 

We are using Netview 5.1.3 on Digital/Compaq TRU 64 UNIX.

Thanks
-- 
Robin
email: robin.james@thalesatm.com
tel:   +44 (0) 1633-862020
fax:   +44 (0) 1633-868313

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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web