Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Benny Amorsen writes: >Thank you, much prettier than what I would have done. Thanks, and I managed to plug juise along the way ;^) Thanks, Phil ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Phil Shafer writes:
> ---
> version 1.0;
>
> ns jcs extension = "http://xml.juniper.net/junos/commit-scripts/1.0";;
>
> import "../import/junos.xsl";
>
> match configuration {
> for-each (interfaces/interface[description]/unit[not(description)]) {
> var $content = ../description;
> call jcs:emit-change($content, $tag = "transient-change");
> }
> }
> ---
Thank you, much prettier than what I would have done.
/Benny
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Benny Amorsen writes:
>You could publish a commit script to handle that... That way people can
>install it or not, and it should be a nice example script.
I'd rather not copy the interface description to the unit, since
that will have bigger impact than just SNMP, and there's no existing
way to set an snmp-specific description. But if you are willing
to affect all non-snmp descriptions, the script would look like:
---
version 1.0;
ns jcs extension = "http://xml.juniper.net/junos/commit-scripts/1.0";;
import "../import/junos.xsl";
match configuration {
for-each (interfaces/interface[description]/unit[not(description)]) {
var $content = ../description;
call jcs:emit-change($content, $tag = "transient-change");
}
}
---
So I'm finding all units without descriptions whose parent have
descriptions, and emitting a change to add the description. I'm
doing this as a transient change, so they won't appear in the
configuration, but SNMP (and other components) will see them.
Using juise for testing against my local box, I see:
% ./juise/juise -c --output-format compare @dent ~/trash/desc.slax
...
Results from script:
[edit interfaces fe-0/0/0 unit 0]
+description "RLab Mgmt interface";
[edit interfaces fe-0/0/1 unit 0]
+description "Link to SJC (10.5.10.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/0/2 unit 0]
+description "Link to LAX (10.5.13.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/0/3 unit 0]
+description "Link to carolina-gw";
[edit interfaces so-0/1/0 unit 0]
+description "Link to RDU (10.5.22.2)";
[edit interfaces so-0/1/1 unit 0]
+description "Second link to IAD (10.5.114.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/2/3 unit 0]
+description "Second link to IAD (10.5.150.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/3/0 unit 0]
+description "Link to IAD (10.5.14.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/3/1 unit 0]
+description "Link to AUS (10.5.12.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/3/2 unit 0]
+description "Link to ORD (10.5.18.2)";
[edit interfaces fe-0/3/3 unit 0]
+description "Second link to ORD (10.5.118.2)";
Thanks,
Phil
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Phil Shafer writes: > Cool. Consider it not done. You could publish a commit script to handle that... That way people can install it or not, and it should be a nice example script. /Benny ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Jared Mauch writes: >This will break many systems that I know of. Please don't do this :-) Cool. Consider it not done. Thanks, Phil ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
This will break many systems that I know of. Please don't do this :-) Jared Mauch On May 29, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 05:45:25PM -0400, p...@juniper.net wrote: >> Should SNMP have the description for units default to the description >> for the interface? Would that be helpful or just confusing? > > I don't see value in that, and possible confusion indeed (and makes > automated systems checking for missing descriptions more complicated). > > Best regards, > Daniel > > -- > CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 05:45:25PM -0400, p...@juniper.net wrote: > Should SNMP have the description for units default to the description > for the interface? Would that be helpful or just confusing? I don't see value in that, and possible confusion indeed (and makes automated systems checking for missing descriptions more complicated). Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
>On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 04:14:11 PM Daniel Roesen wrote: >> Given that most management applications discover the SNMP >> interface instance with the IP address attached to it >> and display the interface description of that ifIndex >> only, I usually only use the logical interface (unit) >> description. Unless with multi-unit interfaces, where I >> document the physical remote side in physical interface >> level description, and the service description on the >> unit. Should SNMP have the description for units default to the description for the interface? Would that be helpful or just confusing? Thanks, Phil ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 04:14:11 PM Daniel Roesen wrote: > Given that most management applications discover the SNMP > interface instance with the IP address attached to it > and display the interface description of that ifIndex > only, I usually only use the logical interface (unit) > description. Unless with multi-unit interfaces, where I > document the physical remote side in physical interface > level description, and the service description on the > unit. > > Same goes for switches - using the unit-level description > generally, with addition physical interface description > for trunk remote system/port documentation. Same here. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Hi, On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:00:25PM +0400, Nick Kritsky wrote: > One additional question: do you use the same approach (description on both > levels) for switch-ports inside DC or in campus network? Assuming that we > talk about regular access level ports that only have unit 0 with "family > eth" on them. I mean - in this case, descriptions on unit-level and > interface-level will be pretty much the same? Given that most management applications discover the SNMP interface instance with the IP address attached to it and display the interface description of that ifIndex only, I usually only use the logical interface (unit) description. Unless with multi-unit interfaces, where I document the physical remote side in physical interface level description, and the service description on the unit. Same goes for switches - using the unit-level description generally, with addition physical interface description for trunk remote system/port documentation. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Thank you all for your answers. That gave me a lot to think about. One additional question: do you use the same approach (description on both levels) for switch-ports inside DC or in campus network? Assuming that we talk about regular access level ports that only have unit 0 with "family eth" on them. I mean - in this case, descriptions on unit-level and interface-level will be pretty much the same? Does it make sense to let go of interface-level descriptions and use only unit-level? Because from what I remember, majority of internal reporting stuff uses sub-interfaces in their output (from top of my head - "show ethernet-switching table" and "show lldp ne") thanks nick ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
On 28/05/2013, at 12:58 AM, Nick Kritsky wrote: > Hi fellow J-users, > > I hope I will not trigger some long-forgotten flame-war by that question. > But I do wonder: what are the best practices for interface/unit > descriptions? > Do you put them on interface-level or unit-level? Especially when you have > pure-L3 interface that only has "unit 0" with "family inet" on it. > > Do you put description to interface level? Unit level? Or both levels? Or > do you put it on both levels but different descriptions? > > I've seen people using different approaches, and I am just curious what's > driving them. For external links I tend to roll with: set interfaces ge-0/0/0 description "Connected to (Device X Port Y)" set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0 description "Circuit ID / Carrier Description" Where I'm talking to kit I control/where available, I tend to leave the physical stuff to something more accurate and self-updating like LLDP. On my to do list is writing an event-script that checks interfaces with LLDP neighbours every 24 hours or so and updates interface descriptions appropriately. Driving my approach is being 6 stanzas deep in a config and being able to run "top show interfaces ?" and getting a nicely summarised list of the ports I should be referencing. Ben ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
On (2013-05-27 18:58 +0400), Nick Kritsky wrote: Hi, > Do you put description to interface level? Unit level? Or both levels? Or > do you put it on both levels but different descriptions? Both for interfaces with just unit 0. For interfaces with multiple units, I guess issues is lot clearer, physical information and logical information. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] [OT] unit-level vs interface-level description
Hi fellow J-users, I hope I will not trigger some long-forgotten flame-war by that question. But I do wonder: what are the best practices for interface/unit descriptions? Do you put them on interface-level or unit-level? Especially when you have pure-L3 interface that only has "unit 0" with "family inet" on it. Do you put description to interface level? Unit level? Or both levels? Or do you put it on both levels but different descriptions? I've seen people using different approaches, and I am just curious what's driving them. To be completely honest, this question is not entirely theoretical. Recently I was writing some reporting scripts for my NetFlow data. And I have noticed that InterfaceIn and InterfaceOut fields are populated with unit-level ifIndex. And in my case that meant - no description. That made me wonder if I am actually "doing it right" (TM) thanks nick ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
