RE: [nv-l] ATM problem

To:	nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject:	RE: [nv-l] ATM problem
From:	Stephen Hochstetler <shochste@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:35:27 -0600
Delivery-date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:41:26 +0000
Envelope-to:	nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
In-reply-to:	<80650330980231449B38090CAC84317303197922@exch1.dot.state.az.us>
Reply-to:	nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender:	owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com

For this device, does your 6.0 and v7 NetView have the same number of interfaces discovered? I just wonder if 6.x did not discover the interface and thus will never say it is down.

Is NetView 7.x doing a SNMP status poll of the device or using ICMP? Does it really have an IP address ... or are you actually pinging an address on the other side of the link when you are doing a 'ping' while it is reported down. Could it be that this box is low on CPU power and thus responds with a timeout on the SNMP status polls (SNMP has lowest priority) when NetView is reporting it down?

Stephen Hochstetler shochste@us.ibm.com
International Technical Support Organization at IBM
Office - 512-838-6198 (t/l 678) FAX - 512-838-6931
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Stephen Hochstetler <= RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Alan E. Hennis RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Stephen Hochstetler RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Erdey, Raymond M RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Erdey, Raymond M RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger

Previous by Date:	RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger
Next by Date:	[nv-l] NetView Tivoli User Group first "meeting", Jane Curry
Previous by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, DSullinger
Next by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] ATM problem, Alan E. Hennis
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]