Dave, If we remove the "engineID" from "snmptrap", I think the other end will reject due to engineID. I an anycase, I tried it and here is what I found. "snmptrapd" responds to the first message probably with the engineID which "snmptrap" is not responding to correctly.
At the "snmptrap" end: " snmptrap -d -Ci -v 3 -l noauth -u inter localhost 0 .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.0 t->local = t->remote = sock = 3 flags = 0x0 local_addr: 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 162 Sending 64 bytes to UDP: [127.0.0.1]:162->[0.0.0.0] 0000: 30 3E 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 59 02 03 00 0>...0...t..Y... 0016: FF E3 04 01 04 02 01 03 04 10 30 0E 04 00 02 01 ..........0..... 0032: 00 02 01 00 04 00 04 00 04 00 30 14 04 00 04 00 ..........0..... 0048: A0 0E 02 04 24 08 1F CF 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 00 ....$.........0. Received 108 bytes from UDP: [127.0.0.1]:162->[0.0.0.0] 0000: 30 6A 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 59 02 03 00 0j...0...t..Y... 0016: FF E3 04 01 00 02 01 03 04 1E 30 1C 04 0D 80 00 ..........0..... 0032: 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 02 01 01 02 02 ....t..}E.K..... 0048: 00 AE 04 00 04 00 04 00 30 32 04 0D 80 00 1F 88 ........02...... 0064: 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 04 00 A8 1F 02 04 24 ..t..}E.K......$ 0080: 08 1F CF 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 11 30 0F 06 0A 2B .........0.0...+ 0096: 06 01 06 03 0F 01 01 04 00 41 01 10 .........A.. Sending 138 bytes to UDP: [127.0.0.1]:162->[0.0.0.0] 0000: 30 81 87 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 58 02 03 0.....0...t..X.. 0016: 00 FF E3 04 01 04 02 01 03 04 23 30 21 04 0D 80 ..........#0!... 0032: 00 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 02 01 01 02 .....t..}E.K.... 0048: 02 00 AE 04 05 69 6E 74 65 72 04 00 04 00 30 4A .....inter....0J 0064: 04 0D 80 00 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 04 ........t..}E.K. 0080: 00 A6 37 02 04 24 08 1F CE 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 ..7..$.........0 0096: 29 30 0D 06 08 2B 06 01 02 01 01 03 00 43 01 00 )0...+.......C.. 0112: 30 18 06 0A 2B 06 01 06 03 01 01 04 01 00 06 0A 0...+........... 0128: 2B 06 01 06 03 01 01 05 04 00 +......... " At the "snmptrapd" end, I see: " snmp_parse: Parsed SNMPv3 message (secName:inter, secLevel:noAuthNoPriv): Received 64 bytes from UDP: [127.0.0.1]:37875->[127.0.0.1] 0000: 30 3E 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 59 02 03 00 0>...0...t..Y... 0016: FF E3 04 01 04 02 01 03 04 10 30 0E 04 00 02 01 ..........0..... 0032: 00 02 01 00 04 00 04 00 04 00 30 14 04 00 04 00 ..........0..... 0048: A0 0E 02 04 24 08 1F CF 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 00 ....$.........0. snmp_parse: Parsed SNMPv3 message (secName:, secLevel:noAuthNoPriv): USM unknown engineID Sending 108 bytes to UDP: [127.0.0.1]:37875->[127.0.0.1] 0000: 30 6A 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 59 02 03 00 0j...0...t..Y... 0016: FF E3 04 01 00 02 01 03 04 1E 30 1C 04 0D 80 00 ..........0..... 0032: 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 02 01 01 02 02 ....t..}E.K..... 0048: 00 AE 04 00 04 00 04 00 30 32 04 0D 80 00 1F 88 ........02...... 0064: 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 04 00 A8 1F 02 04 24 ..t..}E.K......$ 0080: 08 1F CF 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 11 30 0F 06 0A 2B .........0.0...+ 0096: 06 01 06 03 0F 01 01 04 00 41 01 10 .........A.. Received 138 bytes from UDP: [127.0.0.1]:37875->[127.0.0.1] 0000: 30 81 87 02 01 03 30 11 02 04 74 8D 82 58 02 03 0.....0...t..X.. 0016: 00 FF E3 04 01 04 02 01 03 04 23 30 21 04 0D 80 ..........#0!... 0032: 00 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 02 01 01 02 .....t..}E.K.... 0048: 02 00 AE 04 05 69 6E 74 65 72 04 00 04 00 30 4A .....inter....0J 0064: 04 0D 80 00 1F 88 80 D4 74 A6 01 7D 45 BF 4B 04 ........t..}E.K. 0080: 00 A6 37 02 04 24 08 1F CE 02 01 00 02 01 00 30 ..7..$.........0 0096: 29 30 0D 06 08 2B 06 01 02 01 01 03 00 43 01 00 )0...+.......C.. 0112: 30 18 06 0A 2B 06 01 06 03 01 01 04 01 00 06 0A 0...+........... 0128: 2B 06 01 06 03 01 01 05 04 00 +......... " Thanks, Fatima On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Dave Shield <d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > On 9 April 2010 11:53, Fatima Peter <fatima.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> snmptrap is sending inform message but is not getting inform response >> back. I enabled debug with -d and here is the exchange. If I entered >> just ".1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4.", I got an usage error: The t->local etc >> are output from snmptrap. It is sending INFORM(A6) but getting >> REPORT(A8) back: > > That seems to be an "usmStatsUnknownEngineID" report. > > What happens if you omit the '-e' flag from both the snmptrap > command, and the snmptrapd.conf file? > > Dave > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
