On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:39:47 -0400 John wrote: JJR> > It's worse than that - this is not possible without breaking the JJR> > AgentX protocol. JJR> JJR> JJR> I see this passage in the agentx rfc - sec 6.1.1: JJR> JJR> "In the SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c, the community string may be used as an JJR> index into a local repository of configuration information that may JJR> include community profiles or more complex context information. In JJR> SNMPv3 this notion of "context" is formalized (see section 3.3.1 in JJR> RFC 2571 [1]. JJR> JJR> AgentX provides a mechanism for transmitting a context specification JJR> within relevant PDUs, but does not place any constraints on the JJR> content of that specification." JJR> JJR> So I am a bit puzzled that this could break the AgentX protocol. Can't I JJR> chose to put the original pdu's community string into the context field JJR> if I want to? There are no constraints on that field so it doesn't break JJR> the protocol, does it? This point is a bit moot for me anyway - because JJR> my client has a goal of using an unmodified net-snmp agent.
True, it wouldn't break the protocol, but you introduce a dependency on the behaviour of a particular master agent. If the master agent is changed, your sub-agent may break. -- 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. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
