Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[receivers/syslog] Support RFC6587 for message framing #8390

Closed
geoffreytran opened this issue Mar 11, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #15358
Closed

[receivers/syslog] Support RFC6587 for message framing #8390

geoffreytran opened this issue Mar 11, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #15358
Assignees

Comments

@geoffreytran
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

When using TCP, messages can be framed in a variety of ways. Historically, servers have accepted messages terminated with a newline, carriage return, newline and carriage return, or nul. More fully-featured syslog servers also support a more transparent framing method, where each message is prefixed with its length. This 'octet-counting' method is described in RFC5425 and RFC6587.

Describe the solution you'd like
Add support for RFC6587 octet-counting method in addition to new line method for framing each log message.

@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member

cc @djaglowski

@djaglowski djaglowski added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 14, 2022
@djaglowski
Copy link
Member

This makes sense to me. We should aim to eventually support all common use cases for syslog.

I don't anticipate that I'll have time to work on this in the near future, but I'm happy to review a PR. Presumably, log-collection's syslog_input operator would need enhancement, to provide special handling for TCP messages.

@Dylan-M
Copy link

Dylan-M commented Oct 17, 2022

We're encountering this currently with syslog coming from a Palo Alto firewall. Could really use this enhancement, if anyone has time to work on it.

@Dylan-M
Copy link

Dylan-M commented Oct 17, 2022

Would it also, while this is being worked on, be useful to implement RFC5848? We do encounter this from time to time as well. So far, what we've done is talk customers into changing to straight RFC5424. It would be nice not to need to do that.

@cpheps
Copy link
Contributor

cpheps commented Oct 17, 2022

@djaglowski Can you assign this to me. I'll take a a stab at adding support for RFC6587.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants