Re: public accessible snmp devices?
It's OK to see any garbage in SNMP; I never got surprised (as I was not surprised when I killed firewall by snmpwalk). No one (in reality) makes good QA on SNMP functions (on routers or switches). I already have a few sanity checks in 'snmpstat', may be I should add one more (ignore answers with 0 counters). - Original Message - From: Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alexei Roudnev [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 7:18 AM Subject: Re: public accessible snmp devices? Jim Popovitch wrote: I think this could be relevant. a LOT of devices drop snmp requests when they get busy or when too many incoming requests occur. Are you sure that you were the only one polling that device? Perhaps someone else put it into a busy state. Too often with SNMP devices and tools a '0' can mean things other than zero. So you are saying that it's ok for a Cisco or Juniper router to return zero for a counter when they feel busy ? My RFC collection tells a different story. Pete
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Cisco drops SNMP requests but not return '0', I saw it (dropped requests because of _busy_) many times. - Original Message - From: Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Alexei Roudnev [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 7:18 AM Subject: Re: public accessible snmp devices? Jim Popovitch wrote: I think this could be relevant. a LOT of devices drop snmp requests when they get busy or when too many incoming requests occur. Are you sure that you were the only one polling that device? Perhaps someone else put it into a busy state. Too often with SNMP devices and tools a '0' can mean things other than zero. So you are saying that it's ok for a Cisco or Juniper router to return zero for a counter when they feel busy ? My RFC collection tells a different story. Pete
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Petri Helenius wrote: And lately, for reasons undetermined so far there has been instances of both vendor C and J where counters suddenly go to zero either temporarily (like 1,2,3,4,0,6,7,8,0,10,etc.) or reset altogether without any reason. Pete I am unclear as to what Vendors C and J are. Could you clarify please? thanks /vijay
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Hmm, good idea. I add my voice to this question.
But, btw, SNMP implementations are extremely buggy. Last 2 examples from my
experience (with snmpstat system):
- I found Cisco which have packet countters (on interface) _decreased_
instead of _increased_ (but octet counters are _increased_);
- I have Cisco and interface, which do not report type if you ask it by
exact request, but you can read type by requesting 'snmpwalk' ('get next
variable');
- many many devices can be kicked down by SNMP packets (I kicked down Pix
firewall in one point, and few 6509 switches in other).
So, it is not so easy - to have such publickly available devices. I hear
about companies whho rent you network systems (just full network, not a
separae cisco or 3-com) for learning purposes; may be, use them?
- Original Message -
From: Vicky Rode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:53 AM
Subject: public accessible snmp devices?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Just wondering if there are any pool of public accessible (read-only)
snmp enabled devices that one can access for testing purposes (such as
snmpwalk, polling devices via oid/mib, graphing chart..etc)?
I'm looking for a pool of devices that I run my test on.
Any pointers will be appreciated.
regards,
/virendra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCJzLfpbZvCIJx1bcRAqLcAJ95PzxXE4v51JgzTpeqfuEDZG6ibgCaAg20
WJxjcsJYroHriTPr635QOBE=
=SV3b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Alexei Roudnev wrote: Hmm, good idea. I add my voice to this question. But, btw, SNMP implementations are extremely buggy. Last 2 examples from my experience (with snmpstat system): - I found Cisco which have packet countters (on interface) _decreased_ instead of _increased_ (but octet counters are _increased_); And lately, for reasons undetermined so far there has been instances of both vendor C and J where counters suddenly go to zero either temporarily (like 1,2,3,4,0,6,7,8,0,10,etc.) or reset altogether without any reason. Pete
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 13:24 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: And lately, for reasons undetermined so far there has been instances of both vendor C and J where counters suddenly go to zero either temporarily (like 1,2,3,4,0,6,7,8,0,10,etc.) or reset altogether without any reason. Was the device restarted? Was the polled interface so overloaded that UDP was dropped and your tool/application just happened to show a zero instead? -Jim P.
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Jim Popovitch wrote: Was the device restarted? Was the polled interface so overloaded that UDP was dropped and your tool/application just happened to show a zero instead? That would be no on both counts. All packets got replies and while debugging the polling interval was fairly short. (on order of seconds) so restart would be out of question and it repeated frequently enough not to be a failover either. Pete
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:09 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: the polling interval was fairly short. (on order of seconds) I think this could be relevant. a LOT of devices drop snmp requests when they get busy or when too many incoming requests occur. Are you sure that you were the only one polling that device? Perhaps someone else put it into a busy state. Too often with SNMP devices and tools a '0' can mean things other than zero. -Jim P.
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Jim Popovitch wrote: I think this could be relevant. a LOT of devices drop snmp requests when they get busy or when too many incoming requests occur. Are you sure that you were the only one polling that device? Perhaps someone else put it into a busy state. Too often with SNMP devices and tools a '0' can mean things other than zero. So you are saying that it's ok for a Cisco or Juniper router to return zero for a counter when they feel busy ? My RFC collection tells a different story. Pete
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:18 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: So you are saying that it's ok for a Cisco or Juniper router to return zero for a counter when they feel busy ? Is it OK? No. Does it happen? Sure. The problem *could* be as simple as this: What do you return for an integer value when the requested data is either unavailable, corrupted, or a fault occurred in the collection process? Null? Maybe, except that NULL and zero can be perceived as the same by some programmatic functions and integer operators. Assuming that somewhere during the polling failure an error is generated Does it make sense to always check errno every poll? Constantly checking for errors is perceived as overhead by a LOT of programmers. Don't assume that I adhere to this line of thinking, I'm just explaining to you how others may, and probably do, think. My RFC collection tells a different story. My experiences show that no complete segment of business, education, or government ever implements systems and networks according to holistic RFC thinking. YMMV. -Jim P.
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
Jim Popovitch wrote: On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:18 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote: My RFC collection tells a different story. My experiences show that no complete segment of business, education, or government ever implements systems and networks according to holistic RFC thinking. YMMV. The important thing is to determine which RFCs are being implemented, and why. http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=2756 jc
Re: public accessible snmp devices?
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 09:12 -0800, JC Dill wrote: The important thing is to determine which RFCs are being implemented, and why. http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=2756 :-) Not that I am defending Juniper, but it seems to me that their response that the RFC wasnt serious is an indicator that they did in fact get the joke, however they didn't want to reply in a jovial fashion. -Jim P.
public accessible snmp devices?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, Just wondering if there are any pool of public accessible (read-only) snmp enabled devices that one can access for testing purposes (such as snmpwalk, polling devices via oid/mib, graphing chart..etc)? I'm looking for a pool of devices that I run my test on. Any pointers will be appreciated. regards, /virendra -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCJzLfpbZvCIJx1bcRAqLcAJ95PzxXE4v51JgzTpeqfuEDZG6ibgCaAg20 WJxjcsJYroHriTPr635QOBE= =SV3b -END PGP SIGNATURE-
