On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:44:48 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> Jeff> I've just opened bug 1038616 against this problem, which WH> Jeff> also seems related to bugs 860414 and 865415. The bug description WH> Jeff> follows. A patch has been attached to the bug. WH> WH> Out of curiosity, have you tried the 5.2.pre1 code as I *thought* that WH> problem had been fixed... May be wrong though.
It was fixed in the two rewrites, but not back-ported to the original interface handler. WH> Jeff> In order to fix this, the interfaces MIB code must be modified to use WH> Jeff> the SIOCGIFINDEX values instead of the ordinal order in /proc/nt/dev WH> Jeff> when determining the ifIndex of a given interface. WH> WH> I believe the fix that I thought Dave? wrote actually cached the names WH> and used previously cached numbers based on interface names. No, that is what he did. I think the SIOCGIFINDEX method is probably cleaner (and it what the ipAddr table was using to determine ifIndexes, which was causing a numbering inconsistency). A side effect of this fix is that you can no longer expect ifIndex numbers to be 1-N, even if interfaces are not added and removed. For example, after a clean reboot, I have interfaces 1,2,5,6,7. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
