On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:31:05 +0530 (IST) madanagopal wrote: M> > M> Currently we support GET and GETNEXT only. Anyway to support GET-BULK M> > M> using the table handler what should we do? Should we add bulk-to-next M> > M> handler? M> > M> > Yep. In fact, it's probably already being done for you. M> M> Does this mean that in our handler is it enough to have a case for M> MODE_GETBULK under switch(reqinfo->mode) and write the code? Or is it that M> the GETBULK requests will be converted to GETNEXT requests by the M> bulk-to-next handler itself and so we don't see GETBULK requests in our M> handler?
The latter. You have to explicity register for GETBULK requests. M> Regarding avoiding queries for next column even though it violates the M> standard, can you suggest something? Particularly, why does setting the M> error SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHINSTANCE or SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHOBJECT with and without M> delegating behave differently? In the former case the request for the next M> subtree is sent but it is not the case with the latter. It is a bug. The result should be the same in all cases (moving on to the next request). It will likely be fixed in a future release, so you shouldn't depend on this behaviour. -- 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
