
MatlockK at exempla
Nov 18, 2009, 8:18 AM
Post #10 of 10
(1883 views)
Permalink
|
And that's what I resorted to using (CLI access using expect, and then pipe it to another script to parse it) Unfortunately in my world, 500 days uptime is on the low side. We have multiple chassis that have been up and running (and stable) for 6+ years uptime now (and yes, we've mitigated the security issues on the code revisions we're running). I manage the network for 3 hospitals, and 30+ clinics, so as you can imagine getting a downtime to 'upgrade' the code is problematic (let alone the whole testing/validation process). It's a lot more complicated to parse the CLI output, instead of just getting a single value via SNMP. Doable? Yes. More work than necessary? Yes. :) Ken Matlock Network Analyst Exempla Healthcare (303) 467-4671 matlockk [at] exempla -----Original Message----- From: Eric Hoelzle [mailto:eric.hoelzle [at] gmail] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:04 AM To: Matlock, Kenneth L Cc: Howard Jones; cisco-nsp [at] puck Subject: Re: [c-nsp] snmpwalk for switch port status If you have CLI access as well, you can get the box uptime that way and do some math. In my world, 500 days uptime is an exception so a reboot is acceptable. Scripts like this are usually for access layer capacity planning or cleanup. -- Eric On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L <MatlockK [at] exempla> wrote: > Well, what I meant.. :) > > They COULD expose a NEW OID for those values :) > > I agree that their hands are tied as far as the RFC, but that doesn't > preclude a new OID tree. > > Ken Matlock > Network Analyst > Exempla Healthcare > (303) 467-4671 > matlockk [at] exempla > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Jones [mailto:howie [at] thingy] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:42 AM > To: Matlock, Kenneth L > Cc: Eric Hoelzle; cisco-nsp [at] puck > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] snmpwalk for switch port status > > Matlock, Kenneth L wrote: >> Seeing this script reminded me of a pet peeve I have with Cisco. Why > oh >> why did they use a 32-bit int for the uptime of the switch and port, > and >> use 1/100th second resolution, so after 497 days the counter rolls > over >> back to 0? Was a 64 bit int (or 1/10 a second resolution) not good >> enough? :) >> >> The chassis knows the real uptime (a 'show ver' shows it), why not >> expose that value to SNMP, and the same for the port last changed > state? >> > Because then it would not be following RFC 1907/3418, which specify it's > a 32-bit int. It's not Cisco's fault (leaving aside that they are one of > the authors of RFC 1907 :-) ). You wouldn't want Cisco to not follow > standards, would you? ;-) > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
|