RE: [nv-l] Copying traps--could use an expert explanation

["Colin Mulkerrins" <Colin.Mulkerrins@anpost.ie>]

Drew,

 

I may have missed your point entirely, but if not... would you not look into using the HP Insight Manager integration module for TEC (I think the latest version is 2.0) and processing the events through the TEC rulebase? 

 

Regards

Colin Mulkerrins
Enterprise Systems Management
An Post

Ph.     +353 (0)1 7057375
FAX     +353 (0)1 8090711
E-Mail  colin.mulkerrins@anpost.ie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com [mailto:owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com] On Behalf Of Van Order, Drew (US - Hermitage)
Sent: 05 August 2004 17:46
To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: [nv-l] Copying traps--could use an expert explanation

Hi all,

We are being asked to use NetView for more than device polling and up/down status. The big push is to save some $$ by using NV to receive traps from servers for HP Insight Manager events, and possibly expand to other applications that send traps, rather than using say NetIQ AppManager or MOM. Everything has to become a TEC event, so this means tying it into TEC_ITS, which we already do with other external trap sources. I have Compaq traps in, mib2trapped, are receiving test traps fine.

Here's where trap copying comes in. We send TEC events to a help desk system based on the event class only, no other method available at this time. We normally send all Compaq events to one team, so no problem, that means one event class will do. Now, we will need to send Compaq events for 98% of servers to one team, but 1% to a second, and 1% to a third. So, we can copy traps, change the name and TEC event class, and assign a source file for the small server groups. Since the trap number itself can't change (or can it) when you copy a trap I think we will now create 2 TEC events when traps from server group 2 come in--one in team one, one in team two. This is because the original trap has no source defined--which is not reasonable in this case because it's hundreds of servers. And the trap numbers are the same, so TEC_ITS will forward both, assuming I've added a node to the ruleset based on specific trap number, rather than a trap settings node.

I hope I explained this decently. I searched the archives, and haven't seen a post like this. I think it will all become clear when I understand how the trap coming in is matched to the trap name, number, etc. Maybe this can't be done, but I have to try because the cost savings are exceptional and I don't think OpenView can do any better.

Thanks--Drew

Drew Van Order
Deloitte Services LP
Tel: +1 615 882 7836
www.deloitte.com

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 e-mail and its attachments, is confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, distribution or any action taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that any information expressed in this message or its attachments is not given or endorsed by An Post unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independently of this message. An Post does not accept responsibility for the contents of this message and although it has been scanned for viruses An Post will not accept responsibility for any damage caused as a result of a virus being passed on.
***********************************************************************************