On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:28:24AM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2009-05-09, Grant Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> What I'd like a pointer on is the interface numbering in SNMP > >>> OIDs. Are the interfaces supposed to be numbered 1..N with > >>> interface 0 being non-existent? Or are eCos interface numbers > >>> off by one and they should really be 0,1 instead of 1,2?
[ snip] I was AWK. Now, It seems for me that I can pass your question, What is known issue? : -- "get" might want that the OID ends in .0 NMS can bomb even _the_tables_ using OID.0. Why? (the below) > What I'm now wondering is how many problems are waiting to pop > up when a similar requests received for "index 0" of other > table objects? > > There also remains the open question of why well-known, > brand-name, hideously-expensive SNMP managers are sending out > that invalid OID... There were (are?) a lot SNMP devices on the market which had the broken compiled-in MIBs. It's not possible to upgrade it for some reasons. A logic of NMS (managers) is: it's better to get something, it's better to notice something than to get nothing. The managers bomb the important tables as the scalars in a hope to get something from the defective by design devices. It's better to notify sysadmin about a broken MIB and even to interpret and to show a misplaced MAC than quite to ignore the break (i.e. to be RFC stricted). Sergei -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
