I agree for the reasons outlined in mails before. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 7:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus > > Hi, > > [speaking as co-chair] > > Finally, we are getting discussion of the issues of what needs to be > modeled by more than two people with opposing ideas. > > I would like to reach consensus on this question: > > Is it acceptable practice to have more than one syslog application > (sender, receiver, relay) running on a server/host/system > simultaneously? > > At this point, based on Glenn's suggestion of having an experimental > and a production syslogd running at the same time, and Rainer's > description of syslog in a Windows environment, I think that having > more than one active syslog application (sender/receiver/rerlay) is a > reasonably common scenario in some environments and not in others. > > The current MIB interface is designed to support multiple syslog > sender or receivers on the same server/host. I believe this is a valid > requirement. > > If you agree with this, please say so. > If you disagree with this, please say so. > > The chairs will make a determination of consensus, and this issue will > be closed. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > co-chair, Syslog WG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:30 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Syslog] The SIMPLE SyslogMIB > > > > Hi, > > I will try to address David's concern about the complexity > > and utility of the MIB. > > The basic design principle has been to keep the MIB simple. > > It has gone through several iterations, each one making it > > simpler than the earlier version :-) > > At present the MIB basically allows the NMS to manage the > > syslog entity (sender, receiver, relay) by looking at its > > (a) status ( up/down/suspended/unknown) > > (b) configuration > > (c) macro statistics > > total number of messages (sent, received, relayed) > > total number of exceptions > > ( drops, discards, malforms) > > The notifications will tell the NMS about change in the > > syslog entity's status. > > That in a nutshell is what one will want to or need to do > > for basic monitoring/management. > > > > The MIB can provide information on multiple syslog entities. > > [Scenario: two syslogd's are running on a syslog server - one > > for experiments one for regular operations.] > > > > So if we want we may get a table like the following from the MIB. > > > > Syslog Status and Statistics Summary > > ==================================== > > > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > |Index|Type | Description |Status| Messages | > > | |rsR* | | |Sent | Recd| Dropped | > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > | 1 |r-- | SecuritySys | Up | - | 120| - | > > | 2 |r-- | Operations | Up | - | 1234| - | > > | 3 |r-- | Experiment-1 | Up | - | 9890| - | > > | 4 |-s- | SenderExpt-1 | Up | 99| - | 0 | > > | 4 |rsR | Experiment-2 | Down | 1200| 2345| 0 | > > +-----+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > * r: Receiver , s: Sender, R: relay > > > > Note that this is a sample. Several other columns are possible. > > In a similar manner the address and port of the syslog receiver, > > the number of malformed messages received etc. can be obtained. > > > > In more advanced usage, a syslog entity can be started [on a > > specific address and port, if it is receiver] or an existing > > syslog entity can be stopped or suspended. [I will not try to > > explain how that can be done.] > > > > I think that is simple as it can be. Let me know if > > a. it can be made simpler. > > b. it is too simple and more detailed information is necessary. > > e.g. facility wise statistics as follows. > > > > Facility-wise Syslog Statistics Summary > > ======================================= > > +-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > |Index|Facility|Type | Description |Status| Messages | > > | | |rsR* | | |Sent | Recd| malformd| > > +-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > | 1 | 51 |r-- | SecuritySys | Up | - | 123| - | > > | 1 | 52 |r-- | SecuritySys | Up | - | 45| 45 | > > | 1 | 53 |r-- | SecuritySys | Up | - | 6| - | > > | 2 | 51 |r-- | Operations | Up | - | 789| - | > > | 2 | 52 |r-- | Operations | Up | - | 10| 10 | > > +-----+--------+-----+--------------+------+-----+-----+---------+ > > > > * r: Receiver , s: Sender, R: relay > > > > I will not recommend tables for > > - facility-wise and severity-wise statistics > > - facility-wise, severity-wise and host-wise statistics. > > for details like that one should probably use custom applications. > > > > Now, talking of MIB complexity. The present MIB is simple and its > > implementation is simple. ( Yes. I have implemented it.) We need to > > hear - something like "I want to do 'XYZ' - how do I do it with > > the MIB?". > > > > Glenn > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
