Conference azur::mcc

1389.0. "BRIDGE alarm rule ACCVIOs" by CUJO::HILL () Sun Aug 25 1991 20:54

    There is a very nice command in the ELM_AM that allows you to determine
    the port on which a physical address is last seen.  Works with DECelms,
    too, although with a slightly different syntax.
    
    MCC> SHOW BRIDGE * FORW DATA PHYS ENTRY AA-00-04-00-08-0C ALL STATUS, -
    _MCC> WITH LAST PORT = 2
    
    This will search the forwarding databases of all bridges and provide
    the answer.   I wrote a quick a dirty command procedure using DECelms
    that includes my LAN topology by port number, so I can find out which
    segment a node is on by supplying its physical address.  This is great
    for narrowing down to the segment when looking for an unknown address.
    
    *****
    I tried to produce a rule that would alarm me when an address was found
    on a different segment other that where it should be.  Problem is, I
    get a nasty access violation when I try to create it.  See below:
    
    (For purposes of this 80 column format, "~" indicates "line wraparound")
    
    $ MANAGE/ENTERPRISE
    CREATE MCC 0 ALARMS RULE NODE_NOT_ON_SEGMENT -
     EXPRESSION = (BRIDGE .mybridge FORW DATA PHYS ENTRY AA-00-04-00-08-0C~
    ALL STATUS, WITH LAST PORT = 2 ,-
       AT EVERY 00:01:00) ,-
     PROCEDURE  = MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_ALARM.COM ,-
     EXCEPTION HANDLER = MCC_COMMON:MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_EXCEPTION.COM ,-
     CATEGORY = "Configuration Problem" ,-
     DESCRIPTION = "Node has been moved to another segment." ,-
     QUEUE = "MCC_ALARMS_BATCH" ,-
     PARAMETER = "MYNODE::NETMANAGER" ,-
     PERCEIVED SEVERITY = WARNING ,-
     IN DOMAIN = .mydomain
    
    %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=~
    00000000, PC=0043FA58, PSL=03C00005
    %SYSTEM-E-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=~
    0000000A, PC=0000000A, PSL=0000000F
    %DCL-W-SKPDAT, image data (records not beginning with "$") ignored
    
    
    
    Any ideas??
    
    -Dan

I don't thik you can use the WITH clause in the Rule Expression...Try the
command again without the WITH and see if it still ACCVIO's.

However - you shouldn't be getting the ACCVIO - This problem should be QAR'd
by the Alarms team.

/keith