On 05/06/2012 10:53 AM, Magnus Fromreide wrote: > On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 10:51 +0200, Magnus Fromreide wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 09:26 +0100, Dave Shield wrote: >>> On 6 May 2012 06:25, Magnus Fromreide <ma...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 09:05 +0000, Durga Sree wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Is it possible to set specified source port no. instead of available >>>>> source port no.? >>>> >>>> It depends on the protocol. For UDPIPv4 the answer is no. >>> >>> Are you sure, Magnus? >> >> Yes. >> >>> I haven't played with this myself, but I thought that was the purpose >>> of the 'clientAddr' config directive. The documentation certainly talks >>> about setting the "transport address", which would normally cover >>> the source port as well as IP address. >> >> As a matter of fact the first version of my reply did mention clientAddr >> but then I looked in the code and saw that we are setting >> client_addr.sin_port to 0, and that kills any address binding. > ^^^^^^^
I now have a request to bind to a port too, someone wants to have very strict firewall + SELinux rules and wants snmpd to send traps from fixed port. Would anyone be against extending clientaddr to (optionally) bind to a given port? Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
