On 2/23/08, Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | > | Dear Folks, > | > | I am writing to request comments on a proposal to reduce the risk of > | loss of Network visibility/spurious alerts etc caused by the failure of > | the Nagios host's default gateway. > > Hmmm. It is my rather simple view that if monitoring is deemed vital it > should rely on redundant paths. Wether you do that with VRRP or some > routing protocol is not that important. > > Then there remains the issue of how Nagios can establish if it still has > connectivity. I would create a dummy host for this and use passive > checks instead so you can pretty much write your own code to write the > status. > > If you use VRRP you can simply ping thr VRRP address but if you use OSPF > for example you need to your OSPF status to see if you still have > communication abilities. Perhaps the OSPF plugin might even work for > that. But I would priopably write my own code to write a passive check > result. > > I have written something similar for an SMTP loopback test. It fires a > test message tracks each step and in the end writes the last known state > as a passive check. I used sec to do the correlation required between > events for that but that is propably fully outside the scope of this > message. > > Hugo. > > - -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/ > PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc > > A: Yes. > >Q: Are you sure? > >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. > >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? > > Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD4DBQFHv9XcBvzDRVjxmYERAvqQAJi1P0LhPld0PGOx3rJiE4wjUmDZAKCsdiLz > +5d5H64nuqTkc1sjMGm16Q== > =w47u > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Nagios-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users > ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting > any issue. > ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null >
Hi, It is my opinion that you shouldn't dismiss Link teaming/bonding I implemented it at my last work place in active/passive mode 18 months ago and it worked a charm. Saved our bacon when we lost a core switch and would failover completly reliable in all our tests. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null
