Thanks - I understand - a retry within the ping for noisy connections and a reference to a device on another submap.
Regards, Adrian Ferrier aferrier at alpha.ipswitch.com WhatsUp Development Manager, R&D Ipswitch, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luz Berger Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WhatsUp Forum] User Stories on Dependencies - research request Hi There, During my time in corporate IT, we had to alert receivers of alerts to the fact, that they might get a false positive. This was happening quite often from remote sites. Dependencies did remove a lot of alarms caused by downstream devices. However, false positives still remained. Digging a bit further into the issue revealed a common scenario for larger frame relay based networks. In a typical corporate environment with mostly bursty traffic, you will see any given link (unless it is a fat pipe) being saturated on and off for a short while one way or another. This means, traffic above a certain threshold gets flagged for discard eligible, means it can be dropped without notice. ICMP traffic is not very high on the priority list anyway. Many times, carriers will drop ICMP traffic in favor of "real" data traffic adding to the issue. One could alter the polling engine such a way, that ICMP pings will get issued more then once if a single miss. This will of cause mean a redesign of the polling system as this could lengthen the polling cycle beyond the map cycle. Perhaps a special repolling queue ore something similar would do the trick. This would also enhance the value of dependencies. Downstream sites who receive alarms very often do not know the state of the central routing system. It would be beneficial if this can be placed on the submap without the need of a complete new device object. It should be possible to call an objects interfaces programmatically regardless of the current polling cycle. If this sounds a bit to technical, it should be possible to place an existent device on a submap. I hope this is not to complexly worded. In short, handling of dropped ICMP packets and reuse of map items on several maps. Luz Berger Berger Network Consult http://www.bergerl.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Ferrier Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 9:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WhatsUp Forum] User Stories on Dependencies - research request Hey All, I'm interested in gathering end user stories on how you are using Up (and Down) Dependencies on your maps. What is the basic value you gain from this feature? (don't worry it's not going away) We already know that there is a desire to be able to create dependencies that span maps (although feel free to discuss further). And we already know that it is a challenge to resolve invalid dependencies through manipulating poll order. Those things aside - how are you using them? - what's your polling dependency story? Feel free to respond to the list if you would like others to view and comment or feel free to just respond directly to me. Regards, Adrian Ferrier aferrier at alpha.ipswitch.com WhatsUp Development Manager, R&D Ipswitch, Inc. 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/ 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/ 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/
