nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

[nv-l] Location.conf again

To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: [nv-l] Location.conf again
From: "Christopher J Petrina" <cjp8@meadwestvaco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:03:40 -0500
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:10:17 +0100
Envelope-to: nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
Reply-to: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com

Hello all,

Clarification requested please.  In reading through all the new information about lcoation.conf and the enhancements to it in 7.1.4 for UNIX, I understand where it says in order for a router to be placed in a specific container all segments of that router must be in the same container as well.  I understand this and find it perfectly acceptable.   However, my only quesiton is, that automatically NV will place networks on the highest most map (Generally the IP Internet MAP) that link two devices.   This is our case when dealing with WAN links.   Every site we have has a primary router with a WAN link.  and the main WAN routers are back here in Dayton.   The only map that WAN segments should be placed on in our case is the main IP Internet map becase all the other "FARSIDE" routers ont he wan are in different cities states and countries.  So I guess I get confused because in order to have the ! routers automatically placed in a container all the segments must be in that container, but NV will never put a WAN segment at a particular site since the highest map level between the containers would be the IP Internet map.

Am I reading into this incorrectly?

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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web