On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 01:46:46AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > nice :-)
Thanks! > a couple of things I think it really needs: > > - allow the socket to be specified (bgpctl -r), for people who want > to use the r/o socket or people running multiple daemons That sounds like a better idea than sudo, working on it. > - handle the output format with max-prefix in use e.g. > > testpeer 41103 403389 34611 0 01:17:35 > 299345/500000 I never configured a max-prefix, so I never saw the output. Now fixed in my test version. > also I have a short wish-list if you're interested and have time > to add more features: > > - option to change the alarm given when a peer exists in the > bgpctl output but not on the command line (none/warn/critical) Sounds like a good thing. I am thinking -A for Automatic peers, with any unknown peers getting the last checks specified. If you were to: check_openbgpd -A It would add 'automatic' checks for all peers, but with no actual checks so it would not find any errors. Could probably: check_openbgpd -w UNKNOWN -A and that would change unknown peers to be a WARNING (only because UNKNOWN never shows up under state) > - alarm if > X% of max-prefix paths are received. e.g. warn if you > get 75/100, critical if you get 90/100. very useful for IX-facing > routers and it would be really nice if this could work automatically > for all peers, rather than having to list them one-by-one. check_openbgpd -w 50%:70% -c 10%:90% -A would then work for all peers, checking percentages. However, it would error if a peer does not have 'max-prefix' specified. I have percentages working in a test version now. > - maybe a check for nexthops too...I imagine it would be saner > done as a separate script though. You mean a check for bgpctl show nexthop and whether they are 'valid'? I will consider implementation, seems like a good check, although as you say, possibly a different program. l8rZ, -- andrew - ICQ# 253198 - Jabber: and...@rraz.net BOFH excuse of the day: Sysadmins busy fighting SPAM.
