On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:35:31 -0500 Olsson, wrote: OS> RS> Another good idea. My only question is, how is it published? As a PDU? OS> RS> the formatted text string? OS> OS> It publishes a PDU (netsnmp_pdu) that has been packed into a byte stream OS> and then can be unpacked on the other end.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:36:52 -0500 Olsson, wrote: OS> One last thing. Since the address and port of the trap publisher will OS> need to be configurable (snmpd.conf, etc...) Bad news. While trying to figure out better names for the tokens, I realized that there is already a 'forward' token for forwarding traps. This already allows specifying an IP address and a port. The big difference between it and your scheme is that it actually forwards a SNMP PDU, not a packed net-snmp pdu structure. In both cases, the client needs to listen for data and process it in some way. But if the existing forward method is simply passing through a received PDU, then time is saved on the snmptrapd side since no encoding is needed before sending. So now I'm thinking that your patch might be slightly redundant. Had you thought of using the existing mechanism? If so, why do you prefer the method you came up with? Opinions of the other core developers welcomed.. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
