2009/12/3 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com:
And is there some particular reason you'd want to do this [SNMP-over-TCP]?
Seems like a bad idea if your network is unreliable and not needed if it is.
At the risk of aggravating Mike's blood pressure (and/or olfactory receptors),
you might like to
From: Dave Shield [mailto:d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:35 AM
2009/12/3 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com:
And is there some particular reason you'd want to do this [SNMP-over-
TCP]?
Seems like a bad idea if your network is unreliable and not needed
if
Mike Ayers wrote:
From: Dave Shield [mailto:d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:35 AM
2009/12/3 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com:
And is there some particular reason you'd want to do this [SNMP-over-
TCP]?
Seems like a bad idea if your network is unreliable
2009/12/4 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com:
I'm too lazy to do the math, but those graphs look fairly predictable just
from the number of packets and retry times involved - at least considering
the syn retransmit timing spec and tcp retry backoff.
It's been a while since that presentation,
Thorsten Frank wrote:
if I am not wrong, I can start the snmpd like this: snmpd.exe -f -d -c
c:\usr\bin\snmpd.conf tcp:4711 to tell the agent that it should listen
on the tcp-port 4711.
When I now try to query some information, doing something like this:
snmpwalk.exe -v1 -c public
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:58 AM
And is there some particular reason you'd want to do this? Seems like
a
bad idea if your network is unreliable and not needed if it is.
Please don't beat that festering horse corpse... all
