On 23 March 2011 10:26, Naama Bar Menachem
<[email protected]> wrote:
> We understand that there is a way to respond immediately, perform the action
> and than a-synchronically answer the real answer for the “set” request.
No - that's not possible.
Once the agent has responded to the client,
the client application won't be expecting another response
"Sorry, I know that I said that the request succeeded,
but actually it failed"
That simply isn't part of the SNMP processing model.
(Unless you used a trap to indicate failure)
The best approach would probably be to have a MIB object
that reported the status of any configuration change requests
(something like 'noChange', 'inProgress', 'succeeded', 'failed')
Maybe in conjunction with a timestamp field, or a TestAndSet
object, to indicate which change was being reported.
A successful response to the SET request would mean
"I've accepted the change request, and am trying to act on it"
The onus would then be on the client to query the status object,
in order to tell whether the change was successful or not.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
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
