Den 02-07-2012 20:22, Bill Fenner skrev: > A related question: isn't it safer to pretend to the compatibility > functions that a given interface with ifIndex > 16 bits (or 15 bits) > doesn't exist, rather than returning a potentially-aliased value > (e.g., pretend I have two interfaces on my system: lo with ifIndex 1, > and foo1 with ifIndex 65537. The compatibility functions will see two > interfaces, both with ifIndex = 1.)
That is actually how Wes originally described it: > Patch #2 is a bit more complex and creates new integer based index API > for retrieving indexes and then ensure that they're < 2^SHIFT. If > they're greater than that, they're dropped as invalid indexes and the > data isn't reported (which is better than a crash). I would also prefer that behaviour > (On one of my test systems, I have 66 interfaces, with ifIndex values > from 1 to 2162175. Yes, lots of interfaces are getting deleted and > recreated.) Luckily the ifTable seems not to be affected, it is only the hrDeviceTable :-) /Niels -- Niels Baggesen -- @home -- Århus -- Denmark -- ni...@baggesen.net The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers -- R W Hamming ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
