On 07/02/2008, Giuseppe Modugno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now I understand... your solution to my doubt is to use tables!
Yup. > If I have devices named A, B, C, D Assuming these are different types of device (dvdPlayer/dvdRecorder/VCR/oldFashionedFilmRememberThat) then yes. > enterprises > mycompany > devATable > devBTable > devCTable > devDTable > > In this way, it's the agent that says to the user how much devices and which > type of there are in the kit. By Jove, I think he's got it! > If I consider an agent inside each device, I would have a simple information > structure: > enterprises > mycompany > devA > devA<param1> > devA<param2> Nope. The agent within each device would be working with the same MIB structure. You've got to have a consistent representation of the information throughout. But the agent within each device would only be responsible for a single row within the relevant table. That agent would register a "slice" (consisting of that one row) rather than the full table. The master agent would then be responsible for handing requests off to the appropriate device/subagent. The AgentX protocol was deliberately designed to support this model of working. > So the information database structure (and so the MIB associated to it) > depends > on the "location" of the agent: if it's an "all devices agent" or a "single > device agent". > This is the paradox I can't simply accept. Because that's not how it would work. See above. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
