Uploaded image for project: 'Observium'
  1. Observium
  2. OBS-4024

Juniper PTX with junos-evolution devices misidentified.

Details

    • Add New Device / OS
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Major
    • None
    • Enterprise Edition
    • Discovery, OS

    Description

      Hello,

       

      Using Observium 21.12.11831

      We have some new Juniper devices (PTX10001-36MR) with JunOS Evolution and they are identified as JunOS by Observium.

       

      This causes errors on rancid and pooling/graphs.

       

      Vendor/Hardware Juniper JNP10001-36MR
      Operating system Juniper JunOS

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            [OBS-4024] Juniper PTX with junos-evolution devices misidentified.

            OS definition added, mostly same as junos. Rancid option different.

            Fixed in r13176.

            landy Mike Stupalov added a comment - OS definition added, mostly same as junos. Rancid option different. Fixed in r13176.

            This is funny, but unusable compare..
            because show Oids compare, but not MIB. (Each MIB can have 1000+ Oids).
            I can't parse/get this lists.

            landy Mike Stupalov added a comment - This is funny, but unusable compare.. because show Oids compare, but not MIB. (Each MIB can have 1000+ Oids). I can't parse/get this lists.

            Hi, sorry for delay.
            I just looked into your snmpdump and there complete not exist Juniper Ent specific Oid tree.

            I not sure - this is complete not exist for this os or just missed in dump.
            Please make separate dump for this Oid tree:

            snmpwalk -v2c -c <community> -t 3 -Cc --hexOutputLength=0 -ObentxU <hostname> .1.3.6.1.4.1 > myagent-ent.snmpwalk

            landy Mike Stupalov added a comment - Hi, sorry for delay. I just looked into your snmpdump and there complete not exist Juniper Ent specific Oid tree. I not sure - this is complete not exist for this os or just missed in dump. Please make separate dump for this Oid tree: snmpwalk -v2c -c <community> -t 3 -Cc --hexOutputLength=0 -ObentxU <hostname> .1.3.6.1.4.1 > myagent-ent.snmpwalk

            Junos evolve  vs  Junos  diffs:

             

            https://apps.juniper.net/mib-explorer/compare?release1=Junos%20OS%7C23.2R1&release2=Junos%20OS%20Evolved%7C23.2R1

             

            it is important to differentiate the OS like i said before... the config automation also breaks (rancid)

            nuno Nuno Vieira added a comment - Junos evolve  vs  Junos  diffs:   https://apps.juniper.net/mib-explorer/compare?release1=Junos%20OS%7C23.2R1&release2=Junos%20OS%20Evolved%7C23.2R1   it is important to differentiate the OS like i said before... the config automation also breaks (rancid)

            Hello

            find attached a snmpwalk (trimmed, without routing info)

            nuno Nuno Vieira added a comment - Hello find attached a snmpwalk (trimmed, without routing info)

            Routes not required of course, this is unuseful data, but it's very hard for create full snmpdump without it.
            Probably you can create snmp view on hardware for exclude this Oids.

            Currently you are first who requested support for this OS and I can ask this dump only from you..

            As I see Juniper documentation Evolved have differences in supported MIBs, so access to snmp is highly desirable.

            landy Mike Stupalov added a comment - Routes not required of course, this is unuseful data, but it's very hard for create full snmpdump without it. Probably you can create snmp view on hardware for exclude this Oids. Currently you are first who requested support for this OS and I can ask this dump only from you.. As I see Juniper documentation Evolved have differences in supported MIBs, so access to snmp is highly desirable.

            For you it might not make sense.

             

            For people that use Juniper EVO devices it does.

             

            You can see two screenshots attached one for a Juniper EVO device (PTX10001-36MR)  other for a Juniper "normal" device, an MX204.

             

            There are some differences but this by example, impacts also on integrations, such as rancid.

             

            This has been patched +2y ago by them, see:

            https://shrubbery.net/pipermail/rancid-announce/2020-January/000037.html

            "add device type junos-evo for JunOS EVO"

             

            The difference is, by example when generating the router.db file via your integration we had to either manually fix it by adding junos-evo instead of junos to those devices (or fork and patch your code).

             

            There are plenty other differences, if you search on at your Jira by PTX there were already some reported stuff, but i am sure there's more.

             

            The dump you asked is simply DUMB, since this is an pure peering and transport device with millions of routes into it.  I processed it anyways, left if for over 1h and it generated 3GB data (without even completing).  I dont think you need the full data, as it contains millions of routing table entries.   I can process it and give it to you anyways if you feel necessary...   But in the end and for what we need sorted out is basically to parse correctly and add the info on observium that the host is junos-evo and not junos !!!

            a JunOS device and a JunOS-EVO device on router.db should look like this:

             

            xxx.xxx;junos;up
            yyy.yyy;junos-evo;up

             

            some more details about the junos vs junos-evo:

             

            https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/overview-evo/topics/concept/evo-top-differences.html

            https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html

             

            The ticket itself is +18 months old, i wasn't even expecting any interaction from Observium, but lets see how it goes.

             

            Thank you !

             

             

            nuno Nuno Vieira added a comment - For you it might not make sense.   For people that use Juniper EVO devices it does.   You can see two screenshots attached one for a Juniper EVO device (PTX10001-36MR)  other for a Juniper "normal" device, an MX204.   There are some differences but this by example, impacts also on integrations, such as rancid.   This has been patched +2y ago by them, see: https://shrubbery.net/pipermail/rancid-announce/2020-January/000037.html "add device type junos-evo for JunOS EVO"   The difference is, by example when generating the router.db file via your integration we had to either manually fix it by adding junos-evo instead of junos to those devices (or fork and patch your code).   There are plenty other differences, if you search on at your Jira by PTX there were already some reported stuff, but i am sure there's more.   The dump you asked is simply DUMB, since this is an pure peering and transport device with millions of routes into it.  I processed it anyways, left if for over 1h and it generated 3GB data (without even completing).  I dont think you need the full data, as it contains millions of routing table entries.   I can process it and give it to you anyways if you feel necessary...   But in the end and for what we need sorted out is basically to parse correctly and add the info on observium that the host is junos-evo and not junos !!! a JunOS device and a JunOS-EVO device on router.db should look like this:   xxx.xxx;junos;up yyy.yyy;junos-evo;up   some more details about the junos vs junos-evo:   https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/overview-evo/topics/concept/evo-top-differences.html https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/network-mgmt/topics/topic-map/snmp-mibs-and-traps-supported-by-junos-os.html   The ticket itself is +18 months old, i wasn't even expecting any interaction from Observium, but lets see how it goes.   Thank you !    

            People

              landy Mike Stupalov
              nuno Nuno Vieira
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: