User Permissions

[bosecorp]

but my understanding is that if we disable notification on host/services then escalation won't be triggered. is that correct?

[jdalrymple]

Based upon what I'm seeing you're right. I wasn't planning on explicitly disabling notifications entirely, but rather removing all of the criteria for which notificaions would occurr such as timeperiod or state. In these instances the escalations don't happen either.

Combining the original problem with the solution in sight right now - are there any contacts/users for which you want to have access to hosts/services but you don't want them to receive any notifications? If not we could simply set the notification interval to 0.

[bosecorp]

any update on this

[Box293]

There has been a fair amount of different discussion in this thread. For sanity's sake, can you re-state what you need an answer for now or what you don't understand.

[bosecorp]

I want to setup multi-tenant

But I don; want to go to each host and add the contact or contact group that I want this user to have access to.

I want this be done via host group. meaning that I want to link host group to contact group and contact group should be link to contact. how do I do this

[Box293]

There is no direct way to apply "if this host is a member of this hostgroup then they get these contacts/contactgroups".

The only way you can do something like this is to configure the host object itself to use a template that defines the contact/contactgroup(s).

You still need to go to each host object and assign the template. With XI 5 and the Enterpise Edition License the Bulk Modification Tool allows you to apply templates to a host or hostgroup, so this might be your answer.

[bosecorp]

Right, but I don;t want to do that because then notification will work differently from the way I have setup it.

I think we are going in circles, here. I explained the same in my earlier responses and I felt like we were heading somewhere

[jdalrymple]

I reread through our thread and my brain died a little inside. I have no idea what we were talking about

So the problem to the best of my recollection was that we needed users to NOT be able to see hosts/services, but we needed them to get notified about them. Rereading through this I don't see the problem. We can always kick off the notifications to a bogus address then take care of everything else with escalations. With escalations there is no need (I don't think) for users to be contacts in that host/service for them to be able to get the escalation, and as a result they wouldn't be able to see the host/service in the UI.

Now I know we were talking about streamlining it a bit with templates, but that's a fairly trivial topic that we can discuss also... it is in no way a showstopper.

What did I miss? I know it must be something because I'm thinking back to when we originally worked on this thread and I remember being fairly stumped.

[bosecorp]

yes. that is what we talked about. manage notification through escalations

I think the plan was that you were going to test it. am I correct?

I think I remember you said that you were going to play with it and get back to me

[jdalrymple]

What I had to fiddle with was trying to see if escalations occurred when no notifications occurred. I did that and the consensus is they don't. I'm not sure I remember why we cared about that though. Even if we don't want any "real" notifications to go out, we could just create a bogus contact assigned to the host/service, make the notification commands /usr/bin/false... that should do it. Then escalations can take care of the rest.