z)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Process id in UDP/TCP mibs?
>
> Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > Obviously that is less than desirable, but just because
> some platforms
> > may be unable to provide useful information doesn't mean we just
> >
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
Obviously that is less than desirable, but just because some platforms
may be unable to provide useful information doesn't mean we just
deprecate it for all. Implementers of SNMP agents for this MIB will thus
need to decide whether they return a value for this item or no
what caveats may exist for it. The text already has "or zero if
there is no such process."
- Bernie
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:20 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.or
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
It seems to me that having some process identified with a endpoint
(socket) has value. Yes, it may not be the actual process now using the
endpoint, but it still provides some meaningful information (such as the
process that originally created the endpoint).
Even after
rgen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 3:44 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Process id in UDP/TCP mibs?
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:51:57PM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > >So my preference would be to d
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:51:57PM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> >So my preference would be to deprecate them since what we really would
> >need is a n:m mapping table between process ids and transport endpoints.
>
> Any other comments?
>
> If not, how do we go about deprecating them?
On the t
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
So my preference would be to deprecate them since what we really would
need is a n:m mapping table between process ids and transport endpoints.
Any other comments?
If not, how do we go about deprecating them?
Erik
-
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:55:49AM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Both RFC 4113 (UDP MIB) and RFC 4022 (TCP MIB) have a process ID for
> each endpoint (udpEndpointProcess and tcpConnectionProcess).
>
> Was there any discussion how this can be implemented? Due to fork etc
> there can be more than
