Loss of BGP peering monitoring via SNMP

We have been caught several times lately with some of our border routers
loss of BGP peering going undetected for sometime. Is there a way
to enable BGP peering loss monitoring via SNMP from a CISCO router?
I've looked at both the public and private MIBS but haven't found anything.

I am aware of the 'nocol' package but really was hoping for an SNMP based
approach to tie into our net-mgmt packages (sunnet and hpov).



I have written a simple perl script that uses SNMP polling to check the
status of some of our BGP peerings from Cisco routers. Unfortunately, the
script is closely tied to our configuration information so it's not
appropriate to post as is. As I'm in Tampa, I don't have all my
documentation on the MIB variables I used.

To get you started, here are the hybrid text/numeric OIDs used by the
script to poll the applicable data out of the tables:

   .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib. BGP Peer Remote Address
   .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib. BGP Peer FSM State
   .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib. BGP Peer FSM Transitions

The premise of the script is to poll periodically for the state of each
peer. If the state is different than the last poll or the count of
transitions was incremented (indicating a peering went down and was
reestablished between polls) a warning message is sent to a list of
recipients. The Peer Remote Address table is used to dynamically discover
new peerings.

Other replies have mentioned the use of BGP traps. Traps are probably the
better way to go -- we, unfortunatly, have some issues with our current
trap collection that didn't allow us to easily add the BGP processing.

- Doug

/ Douglas A. Junkins | Network Engineering \
/ Sr. Network Engineer | NorthWestNet \
\ junkins@nwnet.net | Bellevue, Washington, USA /
\ +1-425-649-7419 | /

I do not know what particular MIB cisco *implements* but
the standard MIB for BGP4 includes the state of peers.
Standard OSPF mib also has neighbor state information.
Bay doesn't implement the standard OSPF mib, they have their
own enterprise mib. I hate that sort of thing.

Curtis Generous wrote: