nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route table prefix monitoring
From: Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:57:25 -0400
On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Olsen, Jason wrote:Howdy all,What I'm left thinking is that it would have been great if we'd had asnapshot of our core routing table as it stood hours or even days priorto this event occurring, so that I could compare it with our current "broken" state, so the team could have seen that subnet in the core table and what the next hop was for the prefix. Are there any tools that people are using to track when/what prefixes are added/withdrawn from their routing tables, or to pull the routing table as a whole at regular intervals for storage/comparison purposes? It looks like there's a plugin for NAGIOS, but I'm looking for suggestions on anyother tools (commercial, open source, home grown) that we might take alook at. For reference, we are running Cisco as well as Juniper kit.Periodic table dumps, or even a log of the updates from a quagga routerinside your infrastructure could provide this information. That in anutshell is what routeviews and other collectors do for the dfz routingtable.
There is also an Internet draft for the BGP Monitoring Protocol (hhttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-02) . This draft provides for a method whereby the BGP speakers export their received updates to a central collector. This allows you to get route views in (more) real time, with no more screen scraping (and probably much lower CPU as well). Personally I think its an awesome idea and is something that we have need for a long long time (over the years I must have written 7-8 screen scrapers to get BGP RIB info, and they always suck).
Draft Abstract:This document proposes a simple protocol, BMP, which can be used to monitor BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a more convenient interface for obtaining route views for research purpose than the screen-scraping approach in common use today. The design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally service-affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing protocol.
W
Feel free to drop me your thoughts off-list. Thank you for any insight ahead of time, -Jason "Feren" Olsen
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
Current thread:
- Route table prefix monitoring Olsen, Jason (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Andree Toonk (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Matthew Walster (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Christopher Morrow (Sep 07)
- RE: Route table prefix monitoring Fouant, Stefan (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Paul Ferguson (Sep 07)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Joel Jaeggli (Sep 11)
- Re: Route table prefix monitoring Warren Kumari (Sep 11)