Simply, if your DNS or network infrastructure start to fail, it's best to mange sure your monitoring doesn't also fall over and render you even more completely blind. It's a design / best practices decision you don't have to follow... you just better be 1000% sure you'll never see an instance where you zone is corrupt or DoS'd to the point that your resolver fails to work.
-- Russell M. Van Tassell russ...@geekoncall.net This message was sent from my wireless handheld device. On Jul 14, 2014 2:14 PM, "Alan Bunch" <ala...@swifttrip.com> wrote: > First of all Thank You to all who have created and contributed to Icinga. > I'm just getting here and hope to be helpful in the future. > > I have used Nagios for many years in smaller deployments and in the past I > have never had to set the address property in a host definition. I have > always > depended on DNS to resolve the address. I have found that all of the > command > definitions in Icinga2 use the address rather then the hostname. > > I was wondering if someone was aware of the thinking behind this decision. > Please note that I am NOT QUESTIONING the decision. I am just interested > in the rationale behind it. I do my best not to hard code ip addresses > anywhere but in DNS zone files and was wondering if I was missing some > requirement of Icinga to have the addresses in the config files. > > TIA > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > icinga-users mailing list > icinga-users@lists.icinga.org > https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users >
_______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list icinga-users@lists.icinga.org https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
