On 16/04/07, srikrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But INDEX less table is still holds good for SMIv1 tables right?
No.
SMIv1 tables still require an indication of how the table should
be indexed. Either in a machine-parsable form (the INDEXES
clause), or as a free-text description.
But you can't have a table without some form of index.
> Then in that case, how a manager applications can handle this ?
In well over ten years working with SNMP, I have *never* come
across a MIB table definition that didn't include an INDEX clause.
It appears that an informally-indexed table might technically be
legal - in which case the manager application would have to be
specially coded to know about this implicit index information.
But in practise, it just doesn't happen.
> Any insight will be appreciated ?
The insight is to stop being perverse, and do things the same
way as the rest of the world.
SMIv1 is dead, and tables include an INDEX clause
End of Story.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
