On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:36:43 -0600, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >I was beginning to warm to the idea that the traditional, V1, SNMP >structure >had been extended to allow traps, sorry, notifications, >to flow in a peer-to-peer manner between daemons which otherwise >performed the function of SNMP mangers in that they relied upon >SNMP agents in a "client-server" manner. However sending >notifications to the SNMP agent just doesn't fit!!! Maybe my familiarity with the SNA world is getting in my way of correctly understanding the intended use of a trap or notify, but I assume the agent simply performs a forwarding function here. I assume use of the trap or inform is simply to get a report of an exceptional event to a platform that can either perform a notification (like displaying an NPDA Alert in the SNA world) or invoking some automated function (like automating an MSU in the SNA world). An SNMP agent often include a definition of a target for SNMP traps. Generating a trap and giving it to the local SNMP agent means the generator does not need to know where the trap is going. >... >So, like you, I'm going to have to read up on these "super-traps" in >order to see what they're all about. >... I have not looked into "notify" except to notice that it uses TCP rather than UDP. I have no idea what other advantages it has over a trap. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
