So I recently found out the dependency feature (can't believe I never knew about this). So now I can create a dependency that sets up a parent object (in our case, a remote sites router) and the child object (in our case the sites group), so basically if the parent (router) goes down, the child (all the network nodes in the group) becomes 'unreachable' rather than down; suppressing alerts. Brilliant. This is exactly what we need. However, I had already set up groups for each remote site and the router (parent) sits inside of that group. The problem is, you can't do that. It states that the child can't be in the same group as the parent. Fair enough. Now I have found that if you remove the router from the group and set up the dependency, it works fine. Now... I am able to remove it from the group, set up the dependency and then add it back into the group, without it throwing up any errors that there is a dependency in place. My question is, does this nullify the dependency or will this still work?
I'm quite particular about my grouping and I've got it all set up neatly (finally) for each remote site (over 100 sites) and would like to leave the routers in the groups. If I can't, that's fine, i'll just create a group above the sites called 'routers' or something. But... if my above work around does work, i'd rather keep it like that.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thought I would throw this out there, before spending an age altering everything.