switch host definition: no IP

[Tedman Eng]

You can approach monitoring an IP-less unmanaged switch a few ways:

1) Hang a device with and IP address off the switch.  This device's sole
purpose would be to provide reliable monitorable status through the switch
(ie via ping, embedded web server, etc).  Such a device would need to  be
more reliable than the switch, otherwise you're not monitoring the switch
for failure, you're monitoring the IP device for failure.

For suggestions of very small IP devices for this purpose, see this
discussion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/07/2111240


2) Monitor link status of some device connected to the switch.  Again, this
device is standing in for the switch, so you're actually monitoring the
connected device, it's ethernet cable, it's ethernet card, and only that one
particular switch port.


3) Create a cluster object (ie. check_cluster) that's tied to numerous hosts
behind the switch.  If all those hosts are out at the same time, then your
cluster object would signal a problem, most likely the switch, but it could
be your whole computer room went down too.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: dick at uchicago.edu [mailto:dick at uchicago.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:20 PM
> To: nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Nagios-users] switch host definition: no IP
> 
> 
> i want some advice on if and how i should add an IP-less 
> switch into my host
> definitions. the templates i've found for switches always 
> have an IP associated
> with them, like so:
> 
> define host{
> 	use			generic-host
> 	host_name		switch1
> 	alias			Switch #1
> 	address			192.168.1.230
> 	check_command		check-host-alive
> 	max_check_attempts	10
> 	notification_interval	60
> 	notification_period	24x7
> 	notification_options	d,u,r
> 	contact_groups		switch-admins
> 	}
> 
> but my switches do not have an IP associated with them, being 
> setup thusly:
> 
> (firewall)---(switch1)----(mailserver)
>  10.9.0.1       |          10.9.0.3
>                 |
>            (wifi AP)
>             10.9.0.2
> 
> in this case, would i want to make a host named switch1 and 
> have it be the
> parent of the mailserver and wifi AP machines, or should i 
> omit the switch1 host
> and have firewall be the parent of the two machines behind switch1?
> 
> i would like to be able to detect if the switch has burned 
> out, not just that
> the hosts are both down. perhaps my switch is too crappy?
> 
> thx for reading.
> 
> cheers,
> jake
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking 
> scripting language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend 
> the live webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new 
> coding territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&
dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
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


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
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