On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 15:21, Robert Story wrote: > 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.
Actually, the existing forwarding mechanism is probably slightly *less* efficient, since it will recode the outgoing notification (rather than re-using the incoming request, which I'm not sure is available to the handler anyway). But the reason I had it send out an SNMP formatted PDU is for improved interoperability. If you're passing on our internal format, then effectively becomes a proprietary mechanism. By sending out a SNMP notification, this can be used with *any* trap receiver - not just Net-SNMP-based code. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
