hai, > M> Currently we support GET and GETNEXT only. Anyway to support GET-BULK > M> using the table handler what should we do? Should we add bulk-to-next > M> handler? > > Yep. In fact, it's probably already being done for you. >
Does this mean that in our handler is it enough to have a case for MODE_GETBULK under switch(reqinfo->mode) and write the code? Or is it that the GETBULK requests will be converted to GETNEXT requests by the bulk-to-next handler itself and so we don't see GETBULK requests in our handler? Regarding avoiding queries for next column even though it violates the standard, can you suggest something? Particularly, why does setting the error SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHINSTANCE or SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHOBJECT with and without delegating behave differently? In the former case the request for the next subtree is sent but it is not the case with the latter. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
