Hello.
If you try to register multiple items that fails as follows:
Try to register 1.3.6.1.3.4 - 1.3.6.1.3.6:
Using single registrations we end up with three items in agent_registry:
1.3.6.1.3.4 - 1.3.6.1.3.5
1.3.6.1.3.5 - 1.3.6.1.3.6
1.3.6.1.3.6 - 1.3.6.1.3.7
Using multiple registrations we
> "Soon" means that I will upload my implementations to netsnmp by the
> method of patches in two days. So you can load these codes from
> http://net-snmp.sourceforge.net/patches.
> For my method,I use the first.But I think the second is a good method.
> Later I could modify my implementations by t
Hi All,
I wud just like to seek a clarification as how do you make a query over
the Callback transport ? I'd seen that for all other transports we have
a transport specifier - for ex:
the transport specifiers for UDP, TCP, IPX, UNIX, TCPIPv6 , UDP6, ATMPVC
are udp, tcp, ipx, unix, tcpipv6, udp6, p
Hi Richard,
> Checking a few of the sourceforge compile farms hosts reveal that neither
> FreeBSD or OpenBSD have SCNuMAX defined in . So instead of an
> out-and-out replacement, we need to break down and use an ifdef on
> __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS to add the new 64-bit compatabile definitions.
> That
Hi,
I am trying to walk the column ifSpecific in ifTable, which always results in the
following:
IF-MIB::ifSpecific.1 = OID: SNMPv2-SMI::zeroDotZero
IF-MIB::ifSpecific.2 = OID: SNMPv2-SMI::zeroDotZero
(assume that instance 1 and 2 corresponds to "eth0" and "wlan0")
Apart from 0.0 in the result
> I am trying to walk the column ifSpecific in ifTable,
> Apart from 0.0 in the result, can we get some other response?
No.
Not without hacking the code.
Dave
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk S
There is a slightly out-of-date testing/README file,
perhaps adding a description of the proposed flag
to that README will help ?
>
> From: Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/08/24 Tue AM 02:20:14 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RUNTESTS - flags to subprograms
>
> Hello.
>
> In two testcases enough modules were stripped away to make the test
> impossible. The attached patch adds the usmConf module to the tests
> that send traps without the notification mib as they failed to
> evaluate the createUser item in their config.
Thanks for that - now updated in the CVS tr
> It seems as if the config reading have changed for snmptrapd recently.
> This caused the Print flag not to be set which in turn made some
> testcases fail. The attached patch papers over it by writing the logs
> if the Log flag is set as well.
Thanks for that - now applied to the CVS tree.
Dav
> This patch adds the -t flag, modeled after the existing -A flag, to
> RUNTESTS which is useful for passing arguments to snmptrapd.
Thanks for that - now applied to the CVS tree.
(Together with an update to the README file - don't
say I never do anything for you, Mike :-) )
Dave
-
Hi,
I am working on a management platform using SNMP. SNMP trap is a vital
part of this system because it notifies me all the events. In the mean
time, I am worried that what if my LAN is not secure and someone forges
these events? That would be devastating for the system.
Does anybody know
Hi Dave,
Did u mean to say that, we need to implement the ifSpecific with right OID's for each
interfaces?
If so, where do we get those object identifiers? In the description of ifSpecific
object, the line refers to some object description available for each interfaces.
where it is exactly ava
> Does anybody know if there are any kind of authentication built into the
> SNMP trap/informs?
With SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c - no.
With SNMPv3 - yes.
Have a look at
http://www.net-snmp.org/tutorial-5/commands/snmptrap-v3.html
Dave
---
SF.Net
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:14:46 +0200 Magnus wrote:
MF> This is an adapted version of Roberts patch which makes some more testcases
MF> pass for me.
MF> [...]
MF> Could this please be applyed to the head branch?
I think I'm going to wait on Dave for this one, as I believe I may have been
barking up
HI,
Please note. You should not use ifSpecific because it really
doesn't provide you with any useful info. This is a long known
problem, and is described in section 3.1.16 of RFC 2863.
So, the value of { 0 0 } is appropriate, and NOT A BUG.
The NETSNMP code MUST NOT be changed to return another v
HI,
Again. DO NOT ADD CODE FOR ifSpecific.
For what purpose do you plan on using it?
At 10:20 PM 8/24/2004 +0530, Karthikeyan N wrote:
>Hi Dave,
>
>Did u mean to say that, we need to implement the ifSpecific with right OID's for each
>interfaces?
>
>If so, where do we get those object identifie
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:32:33 +0200 (CEST) Jochen wrote:
JF> Yes. There seem to be some more cases where Counter32 or Counter64 aren't
JF> handled correctly. This one has also been reported:
JF>
JF> snmpd returns Counter32 values with more than 32 bits on alpha.
Ack! Is there a bug report for this
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:00:06 -0700 Fong wrote:
FT> Is there unknown memory leak in calling snmp_alarm_register()?
FT> In the code which I use snmp_alarm_register(), if I make it send traps
FT> every second for a while, it has a small memory leak. I wonder whether
FT> there is an known issue about
Sorry, the leak is not in sedning trap. It is in event log in RMON. Attached is the
fix. It is for 5.x version.
Thanks,
Fong
-Original Message-
From: Robert Story (Coders) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:48 PM
To: Fong Tsui
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:22:24PM -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:14:46 +0200 Magnus wrote:
> MF> This is an adapted version of Roberts patch which makes some more testcases
> MF> pass for me.
> MF> [...]
> MF> Could this please be applyed to the head branch?
>
> I think I'm
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 04:35, Robert Story wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:03:21 +0100 Richard wrote:
> RM> I did a bit of investigation on the issue and came up with the following
> RM> patch. It uses the C99 macro SCNuMAX to get the appropriate scan
> RM> specifier for uintmax_t. How does that loo
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 20:42, Robert Story wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:32:33 +0200 (CEST) Jochen wrote:
> JF> Yes. There seem to be some more cases where Counter32 or Counter64 aren't
> JF> handled correctly. This one has also been reported:
> JF>
> JF> snmpd returns Counter32 values with more
Which patch has this DISMAN-PING-MIB implementation?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kaj J.Niemi
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reï¼: Q: PING-MIB? Former: Re: Reï¼: Re: how to submit my codes to netsnm
[moved to coders list, since we've moved off the original topic and into
development issues]
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:41:44 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS>But I don't think that this is going to be ready for 5.2 somehow :-)
Sad but true.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:27:53 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Bruce> Of the
24 matches
Mail list logo
