Hi Mark,
Thanks so very much. There is not a lot out there about the right way to
do these things, much less sometimes any way to do them. Sorry if this
got a bit wordy, but I tried to organize it so that the questions were
discrete
I have been working from printed copies of the RFCs, in fact.
I have an internal service that returns a (variably indexed upon restart)
list of sensor readings. What I mean by "dual implementation" is one mib
requiring and referring to another. I used mib2c (not now at the office,
don't remember the config--I believe mfd) to generate code for an agentx
subagent to implement RFC4133 to read those values. That *basically*
works. However, I am not sure how to get what I need--or more precisely,
how to find the best model for doing so--from the 3433 mib.
Do I want to two make subagents if I want to start with mib2c mfd
invocations?
Is, indeed, mib2c -config mfd the way to go to start for this problem?
Is "subagent per mib" the way to go unless compelled to do otherwise?
In looking through some code in agent/mibgroup, I found what I believe are
hackable examples (in the tcp subdir, e.g.)-and those mostly in v4--but
not really how to go about it fresh from one (or two) "mib2c" invocations,
if that is even practical.
What is the best working model and best practice for implementing "sparse
augmentations" (4133 refers to itself as a "sparse augmentation" of 3433)
developed using netSNMP v5?
I may ultimately need to build in alarms, too. How do I best develop in
such a way that I am set
up to implement an alarm function when I need it? (subagent per mib?)
(I realized as I wrote this that it may have been clearer to me if I'd
implemented the prereq 3433
subagent first. Doh!)
The second part is pretty simple: suppose I wanted to add "Henrys" or
"VaR" to the list of valid entitySensorDataTypes (note: I am not at all
anxious to do this, but it may come up and I'll need to explain my "No"
answer with authority and conviction). I think the "other(1)" theory below
is the right one, but just wanted to confirm:
As I understand it, I can't just slam something into the middle of this
list (p. 5 of RFC 4133),
other(1): a measure other than those listed below
unknown(2): unknown measurement, or arbitrary,
relative numbers
...
rpm(10): shaft revolutions per minute
cmm(11),: cubic meters per minute (airflow)
truthvalue(12): value takes { true(1), false(2) }
and transpose the subsequent values up, e.g.:
...
henrys(10): inductance ## WRONG!
rpm(11): shaft revolutions per minute ## even
WRONGER!
cmm(12),: cubic meters per minute (airflow)
and *I don't think* I can append to the end of it.
So, do I just use "other(1)" and expect the end user to derive the meaning
from the UnitsDisplay field, or can I append "Henrys(13)" to the end of
that list, (which presumably somebody ELSE could do with "VaR(13)" in
their version at the same time)? According to the general MIB modification
rule (RFC1902 sec. 10 or thereabouts), it seems I can "append" but not
"reorder", but must there then be community wide follow through?
I'm presuming and ready to argue that it would be a MISTAKE to put out a
MIB with Henrys(13) in it, but is there a better way to do it than have
the end user derive it from the UnitsDisplay field and doc they'll never
read?
Dave
PS No need for the answers to be as wordy as the questions! I'm new to
snmp agent development, so it is possible some of my presumptions are
askew. I think things are probably simpler than I make them out to be.
Before a few weeks ago, all I'd ever seen of snmp was mrtg graphs on
sysadmin's screens, and the tech dialect challenges even XML and
SSL--that's saying something--for opacity.
. > Hi Dave,
> I have implemented both the ENTITY-MIB (RFC4133) and ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB
(RFC3433) multiple times. However, it is not clear what question you
are
> asking here. Rather than guess, I prefer to ask for some clarification.
I am not sure what you mean by the following:
> "dual implementation"
> "DataTypes"
> If you have a moment to re-frame your question in terms of the above
RFCs,
> then I am sure you will get the answers you need. What is the
applicable
> problem domain (your application)?
> Regards,
> Mark
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM, <d...@powerstandards.com> wrote:
>> Which is the best (v5) model for this kind of dual implementation in a
subagent?
>> What is the (social) procedure to follow if I want to add new
DataTypes,
>> i.e., (extend the Entity Sensor MIB)?
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
>> INSIGHTS What's next for parallel hardware, programming and related areas?
>> Interviews and blogs by thought leaders keep you ahead of the curve.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Net-snmp-users mailing list
>> Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
> --
> Mark Ellison
> Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.
> 38 Salem Road
> Atkinson, NH 03811, USA
> --
> voice: +1 (603) 362-9270
> skype: ellison.software
> --
> web: http://EllisonSoftware.com/
> twitter: @EllisonSoftware
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel:
TUNE You got it built. Now make it sing. Tune shows you how.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
