[Xymon] IPv6 debugging on xymon 4.4 (was Re: Roadmap/GitHub?/IPv6)

[Japheth Cleaver]

The first is the correct way of writing it, however the second really 
should be accepted as well IMO since it's not uncommon for things to be 
written that way.

Most of the response in 
https://lists.xymon.com/archive/2016-October/043993.html is about using 
both a 4.3.# and a 4.4-x xymon server as the destination points 
simultaneously. The 4.3 branch won't recognize or record the IPv6 IPs 
properly. So long as you're running 4.4-alpha in a normal fashion 
(talking to itself) it should work fine -- no separate hosts file needed 
or anything.

Can you send the relevant sections of xymmonet.log when running it in 
--debug mode?
Also, what version of fping are you running on the system?

-jc


On 4/9/2019 12:12 AM, Christian Herzog wrote:
> Hi JC,
>
> I now compiled 4.4 alpha and set up a test server. IPv4 monitoring is working
> as expected. Can you remind me how to specify IPv6 tests? I found
> https://lists.xymon.com/archive/2016-October/043993.html but can't make much
> sense of it.
>
> in particular:
> - do I need any compile switches to enable IPv6 support?
> - how to specify a v6 host? I tried
>      2a01:4f8:162:464::113 testhost and
>      [2a01:4f8:162:464::113] testhost
>    the first yields conn red and the second doesn't work at all
> - separate v6 hosts file ok, how to make it known then?
>
>
> thanks,
> -Christian
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 08:53:39AM -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> That's actually really great to hear. The current 4.4 alpha would be
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/xymon/code/HEAD/tree/branches/4.x-master/
>>
>> I'll probably branch that after forward porting these patches coming in to
>> 4.3.29, and trying to reduce some of the warnings I'm seeing in compiles. In
>> the meantime, any validation from snapshots off that branch would be
>> helpful.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -jc
>>
>> On 4/5/2019 4:47 AM, Christian Herzog wrote:
>>> hey JC,
>>>
>>> thanks for the status update. I've done some pretty extensive IPv6 xymon
>>> testing 6 years ago ([1] and later private emails with Henrik) and found IPv6
>>> support to be in pretty good shape in then 4.3.99.tgz. However, none of this
>>> seems to be in 4.3.28.
>>> Since we're now once again (and for reals this time!) on the verge of
>>> introducing IPv6 into our networks, I'll have to come back to working on xymon
>>> IPv6. I'd be happy to do all sorts of testing, but where to start? I can't
>>> even find any 4.4 (alpha) tree out there.
>>> Can you advise?
>>>
>>> thanks and best regards,
>>> -Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://xymon.xymon.narkive.com/BbXHR8kH/status-of-ipv6-support
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 06:46:52AM -0800, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
>>>> I think a larger discussion on Xymon's roadmap in terms of Docker and
>>>> container analysis is definitely something warranted. A host-based approach
>>>> tends to invite individualized responses to coordination among varying
>>>> levels of architecture (including both host -> hypervisor, baremetal (eg,
>>>> DRAC) -> host, and hypervisor "status" reporting), but containers' typically
>>>> ephemeral nature could merit a distinct reference point -- or not, if it's
>>>> desired to have them persistently reportable. Host-Svc may or may not make
>>>> sense there.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to agree that a move to Github may be helpful here at this point -
>>>> athough with the various community issues people have had with GH since MS's
>>>> purchase, it seems there has been a bit of an outcry, I'm not sure there's
>>>> much SF will end up being able to capitalize on. It would certainly make
>>>> PR's easier to coordinate and invite more interaction.
>>>>
>>>> The largest stalling point on the roadmap here was indeed the IPv6
>>>> transition. I think things are releasable in an Alpha state, and that was
>>>> the intent at the last release, but it's been difficult to find any site
>>>> using IPv6 at sufficient scale who could help with the testing process.
>>>> That's a bit of a Catch-22 though, and perhaps it would be best to release
>>>> an easy reference point for future testing and go from there - along with
>>>> the various other patches that I've received. (And this does raise the
>>>> question of what the next highest priorities out there will be.)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -jc
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xymon mailing list
>> Xymon at xymon.com
>> http://lists.xymon.com/mailman/listinfo/xymon