cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SNMPTRAPS Config DNS syntax

MattAnderson
05 Base Camper

SNMPTRAPS Config DNS syntax

Is there a way to have more than one DNS server in the SNMPTRAPS config?  We are alerting on traps but need the hostname to filter via regix to alert only on specific devices.  Sadly, our DNS server stopped working so the traps came over with only IP and we missed some alerts.  Also, why not just use the Server's DNS?

Tags (2)
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: SNMPTRAPS Config DNS syntax

Hi @MattAnderson,

 

I've had a look through the source code of the irsnmptr collector and there apperas to have been an issue that prevented use of the product's core DNS implementation for name resolution (blocking issue) and this appears to be why the irsnmptr process uses its own cut down implementation for name resolution. One of the limitations with this implementation is it isn't able to perform a recursive search and it's limited to using a single DNS server, which was considered to be adequate for the collector at the time it was developed (according to comments I found in the code).

 

The issue you've described does sound like a viable use-case that might justify an update to the current design, but this would need to be submitted as an enhancement if you would like to request an update to existing functionality. I'd recommend submitting a support case to request a change to the current design and we can submit this to R&D for their assessment and/or work with your account manager if we find it needs to be submitted to our Product team for consideration as a roadmap item.

 

Regards,

Scott Clement

View solution in original post

1 REPLY 1

Re: SNMPTRAPS Config DNS syntax

Hi @MattAnderson,

 

I've had a look through the source code of the irsnmptr collector and there apperas to have been an issue that prevented use of the product's core DNS implementation for name resolution (blocking issue) and this appears to be why the irsnmptr process uses its own cut down implementation for name resolution. One of the limitations with this implementation is it isn't able to perform a recursive search and it's limited to using a single DNS server, which was considered to be adequate for the collector at the time it was developed (according to comments I found in the code).

 

The issue you've described does sound like a viable use-case that might justify an update to the current design, but this would need to be submitted as an enhancement if you would like to request an update to existing functionality. I'd recommend submitting a support case to request a change to the current design and we can submit this to R&D for their assessment and/or work with your account manager if we find it needs to be submitted to our Product team for consideration as a roadmap item.

 

Regards,

Scott Clement

View solution in original post

Webinar: Keep the modern workforce connected

Unified Communications has always been an important part of companies' digital transformation efforts due to its ability to enable rich virtual collaboration and communication. But with COVID-19, we've reached a break-through point.

Join Bill Haskins, Sr. Analyst & Partner, Unified Communications at Wainhouse Research, and John Ruthven, CEO at IR discuss UC challenges companies are experiencing due to the COVOID-19 crisis.

Join webinar
Top Liked Members