On Friday 18 April 2008 17:47:21 Robert Holden wrote:
I have noticed quite a bit of (unnecessary) redundancy when it comes to the cisco templates.
Why do you think it is specific to cisco templates? E.g., the if_load template works just as well with any device that supports the RFC-standard IFMIB (e.g. the linux-openwrt template has the if_load test taken almost directly from a cisco device). The only differences are really how devices are named, and thus maybe default device patterns that should be ignored.
I have been able to reduce nearly all the cisco devices down to two templates: cisco-switch and cisco-common I still have a few minor issues to deal with, but should have something to post to the group in about a weeks time. The biggest of these issues is finding something in the specs "model" that is common to the cisco-switch (2811, 4003, 5500, & 6506), that is not found in all the other devices. Simularily, I would like to find something in the specs "model" that is common to all other cisco devices (cisco-common).
note: Many switches are still able to use cisco-common (2900, 3500, 3550, etc), so I probably have to come up with a better name for cisco-switch.
Well, the issue is that you shouldn't really distinguish features on a device based on the hardware model in the first place.
If we stick to the Cisco topic, is a 6500 a switch? Is a 7600 a router? What if I put a better supervisor in the 6500 ? If I put a CSM blade into a 6500, or into a 7600, is one a load balancer and the other not?
Moving on, if I run a RADIUS server (which supports the RADIUS MIB) on a HP ProLiant, is a Dell PowerEdge *not* a RADIUS server?
So, yes, I think we need a new approach to: 1)Which tests are done on a specific device 2)Which tests are done by default on a device of a specific kind of hardware
I will see what I can find on your subinterfaces issue.
IMHO, if the device lies over SNMP, you should report it to the vendor, rather than workaround the problem in an SNMP manager.
I am also working on an idea (change to devmon) to allow for "default" templates depending on vendor.
I would prefer that you discuss any design issues on the development list ...
Robert Holden
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Chris Wopat <chrisw at supranet.net> wrote:
Hello,
Chiming in on some info on Devmon. While primarily targeted to the Devmon list, it may be useful to hobbit/devmon users who don't subscribe to that list.
The cisco-7206 template works perfectly fine on a Cisco 7500. I'm sure it works on a 7200 as well. I also have an old 7000 here, but I don't want to boot it up to test. Anyway, it may be in the best interest to rename 7206 to 7200, and just copy its templates to a 7500 folder, or genericly rename the whole thing cisco-7000.
Also, there is a typo in the USING doc:
http://devmon.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/devmon/trunk/docs/USING?revision =3&view=markup
This line is listed: DEVMON:tests(cpu),thresh(cpu;CPUTotal5Min;y=50;r=90)
But it should be: DEVMON:tests(cpu),thresh(cpu;CPUTotal5Min;y:50;r:90)
It's correct in the details furter down the page, but the equal symbols should be colons near the top when it first mentions thresh().
Lastly, and this is very minor, Devmon doesn't properly detect administratively down interfaces in all cases. On one router, I am using subinterfaces as follows:
GigabitEthernet0/2 GigabitEthernet0/2.1 GigabitEthernet0/2.2 GigabitEthernet0/2.3 ..etc..
If I shut down Gi0/2, 'sh ip int br' shows its subinterfaces administratively down, but devmon doesn't detect that- one has to go into each subinterface and shut them down as well. It does appear that the OID that checks admin status (.1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.7) does indeed say up, which is why it's showing red:
ifAdminStatus.89 = INTEGER: up(1)
I couldnt find any alternate OID to report ifAdminStatus, so short of putting in code to check parent interface status, it probably couldn't be considered a bug, but I thought I'd mention it.
--Chris
To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to hobbit-unsubscribe at hswn.dk