We are about to incorporate IPV6 into our network switching products.

I have been working on net-snmp vs 5.3.0.1 for the past several years, 
adding in our
specific needs for our hardware, enterprise mibs, fixing some bugs etc.

I am pushing for us to move to the latest available version of net-snmp to 
capture the
past few years of bug fixes, improvements etc.  I would also expect the 
IPV6 support
would be more advanced in the later version and I saw the posts about 
including it by 
default soon.

My question is what are the plans for 5.5.  I see that 5.4 was release in 
Aug last year so
given past history am thinking that 5.5 may not be that far off.  I expect 
it will take me
over a month to port my changes forward,  some of which have been long ago 
fixed
such as ifNumber support and some memory leaks.   I would not want to do 
all the work and
then have 5.5 release as soon as I am completed.   I may have the option 
of delaying
the port for a little while but not for more than a few months.

Any guidance on this topic would be extremely helpful.

Also, I have been remiss in posting my bug fixes due to extreme product 
launch
schedule pressures.  My intention is to post whatever fixes I have after 
porting to 5.4-5.5
and incorporating all that has occurred since 5.3.0.1
 
Cheers,
tjs
---
Timothy J. Spires
Performance Technologies, Inc.
205 Indigo Creek Drive
Rochester, NY 14626 
Phone:  585-256-0200 Ext 7346
Direct: 585-784-7346
Fax:    585-256-0791
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website:www.pt.com
        
 
Visit www.pt.com/mailing.html to subscribe to our Packets & Signals 
eLetter
 

<<image/gif>>

<<image/gif>>

<<image/gif>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to