>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:43:09 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Robert> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:53:49 -0400 Robert wrote: RS> The fix is very easy, but it is a definite change in behaviour. I see it as RS> in-line with the MIB description (and it's how my gigabit switch works). RS> Objections to classifying as a bug fix, and putting in 5.1.3 and above? Robert> Since there seem to be no objections, I'm leaning towards Robert> making this change... Robert> Going once.... I'd object if its not too late (mail catchup day). I understand that the wording *could* be interpreted that way, but I don't think that's the intent nor does it make sense from an operator. Lets think about the user instead. Do you think they might want to know the speed without turning the interface on? I would. Do you think they'll get any benefit out of turning it zero? I don't. Do you think there is a chance that broken code out there will divide by it somewhere somehow? Wouldn't surprise me! The problem, of course, will come when you can't predict it because it's not reported unless up. In that case, I'd guess or at least make it 1 or something... Though I'd guess at the normal 10Mb min standard these days. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
