On 22/01/07, Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If one look in RFC 2741 7.1.10 point 3 then it refers to RFC > > > 2089, but I am uncertain about the meaning of that. > > > > That seems to be referring to how a *sub*agent should deal with a request > > to send a notification, when that notification is provided in SNMPv1 form. > > I do not agree here.
Yes - You're quite correct. Sorry. > > > Another question is if one should update the proxy handling to > > > follow the recommendations of RFC 2576 or 3584 instead. > Thus a 2089 proxy removes values of type Counter64 from a v2->v1 trap > conversion while a 2576/3584 proxy doesn't retransmit v2->v1 traps > containing Counter64's OK - I've just committed a patch (to all active branches) that fixes this. > > PS: Has anyone ever suggested to you that you've got a warped mind? :-) > > Not quite that up front, but I suppose that the fact that I twiddle with > net-snmp for fun is suggesting something. Hmmm... so ten years of twiddling with this code probably makes me subclinically neurotic (or as a psychiatrist would say, stark staring bonkers) Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
