Re: [Nagios-devel] Feature or bug?

[Thomas Guyot-S. <Th...@za...>]

It is of course easy to work around this - in my case I forgot the -n switch
when I restarted snmptrapd - but I'd really like to see it as a nagios
options. It could make life much easier for many.

Does it make sense? Could it be at least made low-priority, or set for
Nagios 3 ?

Thanks,

Thomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:ae...@op...] 
> Sent: September 26, 2006 4:19
> To: Thomas Guyot-Sionnest
> Cc: Nagios-Devel
> Subject: Re: [Nagios-devel] Feature or bug?
> 
> Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote:
> > While implementing traps I recently noticed that you can 
> report status as
> > passive check using either the sort name (matching 
> "host_name" entry) or the
> > IP Address (matching "address" entry), but not using the 
> "alias" entry.
> > 
> > In the Nagios documentation it is recommended to use the 
> FQDN in the "alias"
> > entry, and it makes sense as it's useless to have the 
> domain name appended
> > to each host, which is in many setups probably the same.
> > 
> > Is there any good reasons why we can't use the "alias" 
> entry to match hosts?
> > If the alias entry have to be unique I don't see where this 
> could be a
> > problem...
> > 
> 
> The alias entry doesn't have to be unique, and so can't be used to 
> submit passive checks. In all fairness, the address field 
> doesn't have 
> to be unique either, although for the passive check feature to work 
> checks are expected to arrive from a particular host and the 
> admins are 
> expected to not have more than one host-entity in nagios with 
> the same 
> address (that accepts passive service-checks anyway).
> 
> Iow, the "match on $HOSTADDRESS$" feature is reasonable because the 
> IP-addresses are generally unique anyways, and it saves passive check 
> submitters the trouble of looking up the host_name entry in 
> the nagios 
> config.
> 
> The alias field is used much more freely and often contains 
> things like 
> "SQL server 2 - mirrored from sql-srv1" which really doesn't 
> make sense 
> to use.
> 
> On the other hand, nothing prevents you from either using the FQDN in 
> the address field, resolving the inbound fqdn to the IP-address, or 
> stripping the domainname from the fqdn when you submit the passive 
> checks. All three are relatively simple solutions, and all are much 
> better than allowing passive checks to be entered using the 
> host-entity's alias field.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Ericsson                   and...@op...
> OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
> Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231
>