On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:53:00PM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020-11-06, Winfred Harrelson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am running OpenBSD 6.7 and am having a strange issue with snmpd(8).
> >
> > The issue is that it doesn't have all the arp entries but this was
> > working before.  I don't know exactly when this started happening
> > but I just noticed today.
> >
> > Here is the machine in question and what I get:
> >
> > wharrels@styx1:/home/wharrels$ uname -a
> > OpenBSD styx1 6.7 GENERIC.MP#3 amd64
> >
> > wharrels@styx1:/home/wharrels$ arp -a | wc -l
> >      985
> >
> > Box is acting as a firewall so that is normal.  Actually normal to
> > have many more than that.  But if I do a query from another machine
> > via snmpwalk I get a completely different number of machines in
> > the arp table:
> >
> > [wharrels@newtron ~]$ snmpwalk -v2c -c public styx1 
> > ip.ipNetToMediaTable.ipNetToMediaEntry.ipNetToMediaPhysAddress | wc -l
> > 456
> >
> > Not even close to the same number of machines.  The above OID translates to
> > 1.3.6.1.2.1.4.22.1.2 if you want to try this and see what you get.
> >
> > Should I be using a different OID to get the arp table or is there
> > another way to do this?  It might be that this was not working quite
> > right before but I don't remember it being off like this.
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
> >
> > Winfred
> >
> >
> 
> If you have set "filter-routes yes" then this is expected as it will
> stop snmpd from seeing route updates and thus new additions to the
> ARP table.

I do not have that in my config file.  Man page says the default is "no"
so this should not be it correct?  I will try adding the line with a
"no" just to see if that changes anything though.

> If you have not then I'd say this is a bug and best reported to
> bugs@ rather than misc@.

I am running 6.7 on this box so I may wait until I can get it updated
to 6.8 before reporting to bugs@.

> BTW you can see this table in a nicer output format:
> 
> $ snmptable -v2c -c pulic host ip.ipNetToMediaTable

I did not know that, thanks for the info.  Doesn't look to be much
different though.

Winfred

Reply via email to