RE: [nv-l] Has anyone implemented the full TEC integration (correlation rules) NV 7.1.4 and TEC 3.9

[James Shanks <jshanks@us.ibm.com>]

Drew -

I'm stumped about what is confusing to you.
There is no configuration for you to do, other than run the tec_its_upgrade script and create a new tecint.conf (which happens nicely if you rename your old one and create a new one from serversetup).

The script changes the configuration of the NetView events in trapd.conf so that they work with the new TEC rules.  It makes TEC_ITS_BASE the new default event class instead of the old Nvserverd_Event  class.  And it removes severity as passed field, because severity will be set dynamically by the new TEC rules, and they cannot do that correctly if you are sending your choice of severity instead.  The NetView ruleset is the same one we shipped in NetView 7.1.3 :  TEC_ITS.rs.  Bring it up in the NetView ruleset editor and you'll see that it just picks out specific NetView events and sends them to TEC.  If you want additional events, from Cisco or something, you'll have to add those, but those lie outside of the new integration.

That's all there is to the NetView side.

James Shanks
Level 3 Support  for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group

"Van Order, Drew \(US - Hermitage\)" <dvanorder@deloitte.com> Sent by: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com 01/15/2004 11:24 AM Please respond to nv-l

To:        <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: [nv-l] Has anyone implemented the full TEC integration (correlation rules) NV 7.1.4 and TEC 3.9

I started on it last night, and it does have some very useful information. Unfortunately the NV side is where I am struggling the most; namely the trap configurations and NV forwarding ruleset. Until that is understood and confirmed configured correctly to match what TEC expects it's tough to tell how well the TEC rule is working. I just opened a sev 3 PMR; also offered to help write any documentation that could be considered a guide. Like most IT folks, I don't have the luxury of focusing on one project at a time, and really need to slam and jam when solutions are deemed shrink wrap.
 
Thanks for looking into this!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com [mailto:owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Haynes
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 9:57 AM
To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Has anyone implemented the full TEC integration (correlation rules) NV 7.1.4 and TEC 3.9


Drew, 
        I don't know if you have looked at it yet but you might want to check out the TEC 3.9 Rule Set Reference 

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/tec/SC32-1282-00/en_US/PDF/ecosmst.pdf 

It goes into detail about what all the rulesets do (including netview.rls) 

thanks,
Chris Haynes
haynesch@us.ibm.com
Tivoli Quality Assurance Manager
(919) 224-1217

"Van Order, Drew \(US - Hermitage\)" <dvanorder@deloitte.com> Sent by: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com 01/14/2004 08:09 PM Please respond to nv-l

To:        <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>        cc:                Subject:        [nv-l] Has anyone implemented the full TEC integration (correlation rules) NV 7.1.4 and TEC 3.9

If there is a single document, can someone point me to it? I've found pieces and parts in the different manuals, but it's not working out of box (as advertised by our sales team):

• Netview.baroc and netview.rls in rulebase
• Netview6000 traps in NV ruleset TEC adapter uses
• Netview6000 traps have TEC_ITS event classes mapped in xnmtrap

  Events reach TEC, but severities do not make sense, and I'm sure this means any change rules in the ruleset will not execute. For example, TEC_ITS_INTERFACE_STATUS is HARMLESS at TEC, yet message is interface xxx is down. However, I have a SEGMENT_STATUS and NETWORK_STATUS event as WARNING in TEC, but the message indicates they are up. The netview6000 traps are set from previous versions where TEC classes were OV_. I directly edited TEC classes for each trap in xnmtrap, but I think this issue pertains to TEC slots that are not being passed in the trap or matching what the TEC rule expects.

  We are trying to replace TFNC, which has been worth every penny. Do I need to feed the netview6000 MIB through mib2trap again--and will this populate xnmtrap properly? What's the name of the mibfile that contains the netview6000 OID?

  Sorry for all the questions--since this integration crosses NV and TEC boundaries, I'm not sure if a PMR will get me anywhere. I think I'm getting close, but there has to be an easier way.

  Thanks--Drew

  Drew Van Order
  ESM Architect
  (615) 882-7836 Office
  (888) 530-1012 Pager

  This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

  This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.