Hi everybody,
We are bundling netsnmp 5.4.1 with our product. While there is a default
path to which we recommend the installation to be done, we don't have
(and don't wish to have) any control on the path to which the
installation is being made.
Out problem is that at least on HPUX (and proba
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Shield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wes Hardaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: DisMan Event MIB selection
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 09:51 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Dave> The definitions of mteTriggerRising e
Thanks all, in the end what I was looking for was
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/net-snmp/net-snmp/ChangeLog . (I'm too
lazy to install cvs tools)
Mark.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Shield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "mark kaplun" <[EMA
Hi,
Is there any simple way to know what changes were made since pre1 except
for diffing the files?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/159 - Release Date: 02.11.2005
---
Hi,
While compiling the 5.2.2.pre1 source, I have run
into a compilation error in snmp_client.c line 37. The compiler complains that
the term "long long" is illeagal, and actually by VC documentation 64 bits
integers should be declared as __int64.
So instead of
else
if (vars
Hi coder,
Currently the agent (5.1) on windows system which have multiple IP addresses
returns a response for which the source address is different then the
destination address in the request message (using udp ipv4), this creates
problems with firewalls.
1. Is there anything I've missing? W
It is unclear to me what you are trying to achive. If you hard code a
community configuration into the VACM table (this is what your test code is
doing), then there is no need to save it in a file.
Mark.
- Original Message -
From: "Koren Ofer-BOK016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Mo
What you are probably looking for is the error code which are contained in
the pdu. After verifying that the status==0 (a response was recieved inside
the defined time frame) you have to look inside the returned pdu to check
for error by inspecting the response->errstat field.
Mark.
- Origi
5) thus, I would choose one of:
a) have the new behaviour to probe later with a new flag to probe immed.
b) have the new behaviour to have a new flag to probe later
c) leave as existing
Obviously c is what we're trying to avoid, b is probably safer but I
think we should do a because I doubt
Permanent is used to indicate rows which can not be delete, but still have
some settable properties. something like a hardware port should probably be
permanent. in contrast nonVolatile rows can be deleted.
Mark.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Shield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Th
In 5.1 when an agent rejects a snmp v3 packet because it is not in the time
window frame, the manager utilities will resend the packet, which seems to
be pointless because the timiming error will most likely still ocour for the
retransmitted packet as well.
The code in question is in snmp_api f
11 matches
Mail list logo
