f5-appsvcs-extension
f5-appsvcs-extension copied to clipboard
Is it possible to set the "Node Name" in AS3 Pool_Member
Hi
I'm implementing an external monitor in which I do a HTTP request to the member to check if the member is available.
In this case, I need to check the hostname instread of "AddressDiscovery"-ed auto<IP>, because http get IP may get 404. For example: http://www.example.org -> 200, http://93.184.216.34 -> 404.
So I need to know the hostname instead of resolved IP that bigip gives to me in monitor checking.
A way to get the hostname is the node name:
'NODE_NAME': '/Common/www.example.org' instead of 'NODE_NAME': '/Common/_auto_93.184.216.34'

In general AS3 declaration, it always resolve the passed hostname to _auto<IP>:
"web_pool-1637673434": {
"class": "Pool",
"members": [
{
"servicePort": 80,
"hostname": "www.example.org",
"addressDiscovery": "fqdn",
"autoPopulate": true
}
]
}
How can I set node_name?
More information about context of running external monitors FYI:
external monitor arguments:
['/config/ex_monitors/my_monitor_executable', '::ffff:93.184.216.34', '80', '/']
external monitor environments:
environ({'MON_TMPL_NAME': '/Common/Shared/http_ex-1637673434-for-web_pool', 'ts_port': '6514',
'ARGS_I': '/', 'PROBE_TIMEOUT': '16', 'SECURITY_COMMONCRITERIA': 'false',
'PATH': '/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/contrib/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/contrib/sbin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/libexec',
'NODE_PORT': '80', 'logging_level': 'DEBUG', 'PWD': '/run',
'MON_INST_LOG_NAME': '/var/log/monitors/Common_Shared_http_ex-1637673434-for-web_pool-Common__auto_93.184.216.34-80.log',
'pool_name': 'web_pool', 'SHLVL': '1', 'NODE_IP': '::ffff:93.184.216.34', 'ts_host': '127.0.0.1',
******** 'NODE_NAME': '/Common/_auto_93.184.216.34', ***************
'RUN_I': '/Common/http_ex', 'SECURITY_FIPS140_COMPLIANCE': 'false', 'probing_timeout': '3', 'logging_file': '/var/log/monitors/ex_monitors.log',
'_': '/config/ex_monitors/http_ex', 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH': '/config/ex_monitors'})
This is related to #161. For now I am not considering this a duplicate since this issue focuses on FQDN, while #161 focuses on static nodes.