First of all, thanks for the info. I wanted to use two different maps in
order to keep the maps small. The switch on "Map B" actually connects to
about 40 other devices... Then I have other subnets coming off the router.
I was hoping to be able to keep the maps down to one screen full of
information. I think I may have to implement something like your second
idea. I was trying to come up with something like that, it just hadn't
popped into my head yet. :)
Thanks again,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Symons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WhatsUp Forum] Inter-Map Dependencies?
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
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/
