[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:TAEC::BEROUD
Created:Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:6497
Total number of notes:27359

4243.0. "strange duplicate rules created after EXTRACT." by ZPOVC::SINSPS () Mon Dec 14 1992 06:35

    Hi, I've a strange problem after running the alarm rule extract program.
    Each rule created in the command file seemed to be duplicated as follow
    :-
    
    Rules created as a result after running MCC_ALARMS_EXTRACT_RULES.EXE
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    !
    ! MCC Alarm Rules
    !
    Create Domain 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00:.cgin.singapore
    Rule pbtp_bridge1_unavailable -
    Expression	=  (bridge cgin.sin.pbtp_bridge1 device state <> operating,
    at every 00:15:00), -
    Severity	=  Major, -
    Category	=  "Configuration problem", -
    Description	=  "The bridge is either broken or initializing.
    		    Check the DEVICE BROKEN REASON attribute."
    !
    !					|
    					|
    				   other rules
                                   	|
    					|
    !
    Create Domain CITIBANK:.CGIN.SINGAPORE Rule pbtp_bridge1_unavailable -
    Expression  =  (bridge cgin.sin.pbtp_bridge1 device state <> operating,
    at every 00:15:00), -
    Severity    =  Major, -
    Category    =  "Configuration problem", -
    Description =  "The bridge is either broken or initializing.
    		    Check the DEVICE BROKEN REASON attribute."
    !
    !					|
    					|
    				   other rules
    					|
    					|
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any ideas what's the cause of the above ? Are there any remedy to it or
    have I done anything wrong ? Appreciate all advices/suggestions given.
    
    Thanks.
    
    - LEH
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
4243.1No reply ?ZPOVC::SINSPSTue Dec 29 1992 21:073
    Nobody've encounter this before ?
    
    - LEH
4243.2TOOK::MINTZErik MintzTue Dec 29 1992 23:235
I guess nobody has seen this before, but if it seems like a reproducible
problem, you might want to submit a QAR (see note 7)

-- Erik
4243.3Thanks for replyZPOVC::SINSPSWed Dec 30 1992 02:255
    re .2
    
    Thanks for suggesting the idea.
    
    - LEH
4243.4Rules were created twice using DNS and Local MIRTRM::KWAKWed Dec 30 1992 16:5369
    
    RE: .0
    
    I think that your Alarms Rules MIR files have 'similar' rules.
    
    A rule's name is associated with Domain name, and every rule name
    is unique in the Alarms Rules MIR file. In entity spec, the domain name
    is the global entity instance, and the rule name is the child entity.
    For example "domain .foo rule bar" is stored as a two level entity
    spec:
    		class: domain instance: .foo
    			     |
    		class: rule   instance: bar
    
    Since the domain name is a fullname data type, the namespace name
    is implied. If you are using Local MIR the real domain name is
    LOCAL_NS:.foo; if you are using DNS and your namespace name is
    CITIBANK, the real domain name is CITIBANK:.foo.
    The internal representation of a namespace name (called UID) usually 
    consists of an Ethernet address and timestamp in DNS.
    The LOCAL_NS: is a special UID consisting of 14 bytes of zeros.
    
    
    In your case (.0), you have two similar rules:
    
    	Domain 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00:.cgin.singapore
			    |
    		Rule pbtp_bridge1_unavailable
    
    	AND
     
    		Domain CITIBANK:.CGIN.SINGAPORE 
    			    |
    		Rule pbtp_bridge1_unavailable 
    
    
    The first rule is created using Local MIR; and the second was created
    using DNS. When the MCC_ALARMS_EXTRACT_RULES.EXE was run, the DNS
    was selected as the namespace (you can check logical MCC_DNS_SELECTION).
    When namespace UID for LOCAL_NS
    (00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00) was passed to DNS routine,
    the routine returned an error (since there is no DNS namespace name
    with such UID) and MCC-DNS routine translated the namespace name to
    the hex string 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00.
    
    These two rules are considered different in DECmcc since their entity
    specifications are different (domain names are different).
    
    I think that in your case some DCL command procedure for creating
    alarm rules were run twice - once with DNS and once with Local MIR.
    
    
    You can reproduce this problem as follows:
       $ define MCC_DNS_SELECTION MIR
       $ manage/ent
       MCC> create domain .foo rule bar -
            expression = (snmp bear ipReachability = down)
       MCC>! the rule's entity spec is "domain LOCAL_NS:.foo rule bar"
       MCC> exit
       $ define MCC_DNS_SELECTION DNS
       $ manage/ent
       MCC> create domain .foo rule bar -
            expression = (snmp bear ipReachability = down)
       MCC>! the rule's entity spec is "domain CITIBANK:.foo rule bar"
       MCC>! This is different from "domain LOCAL_NS:.foo rule bar", and
       MCC>! thus is allowed to be created.
       MCC> exit
    
    William
4243.5that was probably itZPOVC::SINSPSThu Jan 14 1993 07:209
    re .4
    
    I think that was exactly what my customer has done. He probably run 
    the EXTRACT rule utility twice; once using DNS and another time local 
    MIR.
    
    Thanks for your detailed analysis and reply.
    
    - LEH