[ipxe-devel] Custom syslog port

Michael Schaller misch at google.com
Wed Nov 18 11:46:22 UTC 2020

Geert, I think you have a point here. Let me try to answer that as well...

My motivation for this mail thread was to test the waters if this is a
valid feature request before I actually spend too much time
implementing it.
My expectations were to have a good discussion whether this feature
request makes sense and on how this could be implemented, particularly
the needed change/addition to iPXE settings. Michael does a good job
so far on that front. ;-)
I didn't expect that anyone would do the work for me though, however
that would be very welcome. ;-)

Michael, a syslog URI sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm not aware of any RFC other than
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-ietf-syslog-uri-00, which
proposes a rather odd URI syntax IMHO.
Others seem to use URIs like `[tcp/udp]://host:port` or they have
their own schemes.
I personally find a standard URI more idiomatic and it looks like this
could be nicely handled by `uribase`, which is currently an open iPXE
pull request: https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/pull/114

URI examples:
* https://www.netiq.com/documentation/securelogin-88/installation_guide/data/b1hxlq7p.html
* https://docs.newrelic.com/docs/logs/enable-log-management-new-relic/enable-log-monitoring-new-relic/forward-your-logs-using-infrastructure-agent

Custom schemes examples:
* https://www.grandmetric.com/knowledge-base/design_and_configure/syslog-configure-syslog-server-logging-cisco/
* https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/ch05s03.en.html#installer-args

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:05 AM Michael Brown <mcb30 at ipxe.org> wrote:
> On 17/11/2020 20:44, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Michael Schaller wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:08 PM "Please elaborate" wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 05:54:04PM +0100, Michael Schaller wrote:
> >>>> So are there any comments or opinions on this feature request?
> >>>
> >>> Please elaborate
> >>
> >> I thought I did that with the previous reply:
> >> https://lists.ipxe.org/pipermail/ipxe-devel/2020-November/007331.html
> >>
> >> I'm happy to go into further detail or answer further questions...
> >
> > Reveal your agenda    :-)
> Geert,
> I personally find the explanation as already provided to be perfectly
> adequate.  There is no need to demand anything further.
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> ipxe-devel mailing list
> ipxe-devel at lists.ipxe.org
> https://lists.ipxe.org/mailman/listinfo/ipxe-devel

More information about the ipxe-devel mailing list