Not a problem. I thought that I did CC the list. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying > any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time > or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy. > Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn > and offer advice. Thanks. ] > > > 2008/4/30 ntwrkd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hey David, > > Thank you for these helpful tips. > > I have one question about your response: > > > > > The simplest way would probably be to use the "extend" mechanism > > > to run a suitable command, which would report the information you > > > are interested in. > > > That would allow you to retrieve this information, without having > > > to define and implement a MIB. > > > > If I can extend the agent without redefining the MIB, why would I need > > to have a MIB at all? > > If you are using the extend (or exec) mechanisms, then the results > are structured to match the MIB definitions for these two formats. > In particular, all output is reported as string values (even if they are > actually numbers) > The onus is on your client-side tools to interpret this standard > structure in a way that is appropriate for the data that you are > working with. > > If the "client side tool" is a person, then this isn't typically a problem, > since such applications are incredibly sophisticated :-) > But if you want to do automated processing of the results, then > this standard framework can sometimes prove an obstacle. > That tends to be where defining and implementing a more > dedicated MIB can be helpful, since the structure can more closely > match the characteristics of the data. > > > > > Are MIB's intended to work with extending the agent? > > MIBs essentially describe the information being reported, in a standard > manner. They act as a design document for both the agent and the > client tools, and help ensure that the two sides agree about what > information is actually being worked with. > > > > > Or to create a MIB, my application would have to have a copy of the > > default IETF OID tree with my own extensions included? > > No - your extensions would typically be defined as a (more-or-less) > self-contained MIB. Your application would only need access to > those MIB definitions that were relevant to what it actually needs > to do - it can safely ignore anything else. > > Note that this "access to MIB definitions" doesn't have to be the > actual MIB file. It's equally as valid to have the relevant MIB OIDs > hard-wired into the application code. The MIB file definitions can be > used at the design stage (to know which OIDs to work with), > as well as/instead of at run time. > > Dave >
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
