RE: [nv-l] status cascade linux

["Karl Prinelle" <Karl.Prinelle@elyzium.co.uk>]

Don,

Thanks for that - it was kick I needed to start thinking again.  Netview wasn't seeing the networks as related since there was no gateway between them.

What I thought I'd done was setup a test router on my w2k server, although actually I'd only setup the two interfaces.  What I expected to see (which is what I'd seen before) was the node connecting the two networks.  Of course I hadn't done that, I've just configured the router on my server now, demand poll & it's appearing as I wanted since netview sees it as a gateway which it wasn't before - duh!

Thanks again

 

Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Donald [mailto:donald.davis@firstcitizens.com]
Sent: 21 May 2003 20:51
To: 'Karl Prinelle'; nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] status cascade linux

Karl,

It's all perspective.

From the 192.168.1 subnet perspective, the node is OK - working just fine on this subnet

Form the 10.253 subnet perspective, the node is Critical - Dead on this subnet

From the Internet perspective, the "router" is marginal.

 

Don Davis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Prinelle [mailto:Karl.Prinelle@elyzium.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:31 PM
To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: [nv-l] status cascade linux

Hi,

 

Maybe I'm loosing it/too late, but I'm seeing something simple/weird I can't explain....

Using RedHat 7.2, nv 7.1.3 fp1

 

I've got a node (w2k) with two interfaces (one real 192.168.1 and one a loopback adapter 10.253 with static ipaddr). 

The status propagation doesn't seem right to me;

 

Internet (yellow)

->192.168.1 (green)

-->> Segment1 (green)

--->>> MyNode (green)

---->>>> 10.253.1.50 (red)

---->>>> 192.168.1.10 (green)

->10.253 (red)

-->> Segment1 (red)

--->>> MyNode (red)

---->>>> 10.253.1.50 (red)

---->>>> 192.168.1.10 (green)

 

 

The map is the default and is set (unchanged) to default propogation.

 

The status of MyNode seems wrong under both networks - shouldn't it show marginal since only one interface is down?

The status of the two networks also seems wrong - shouldn't they both be marginal too - they would be cascading the severity up?

The root Internet seems right - at least one contained object is down so it is marginal.

 

Anyone got any views - I've just been doing this with multiple nested submaps on AIX and I know it worked ok - I've got screenshot to prove it (that being the only way to stave off madness I reckon...).  I'm sure I didn't change any status propogation there....

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

Karl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This electronic mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the electronic mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this electronic mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by return mail.

==============================================================================