WUG does not allow inter-map dependencies.
Why not move the router from Map A to Map B? You can then set up the
dependency between the switch and the router entirely within Map B.
Alternatively, you could carry on monitoring the router on Map A via the
interface by which it is connected to the wider network (Interface A), and
monitor it again on Map B via its interface to the local network (Interface
B). If Interface A is down you know that Interface B will be unreachable.
Thus, if the Switch is defined as being Up Dependent on Interface B, you
will not generate an alert in this case. Additionally, it will be
possible for Interface A to be up whilst Interface B is down...the setup
described here actually gives you a bit more information about your network.
Mark Symons
Ipswitch, Inc
Augusta, GA
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Boynton
Sent: Friday, 25 May, 2001 11:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WhatsUp Forum] Inter-Map Dependencies?
Hi all!
I'm new to the list, so I apologize if this question has been asked before.
I was wondering if there was any way to prevent a device on one map from
alerting if a device on another map was down. Here's the basic setup:
Map A
---------
Router -> Subnet (Map B)
Map B
---------
Switch
So can I keep the switch on map B from alerting if I already know that the
Router is down (WhatsUp has to ping through this router.)
Thanks,
Dave
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/whatsup_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
