On 5 October 2012 15:55, Glenn Gagné <glenn.ga...@ssss.gouv.qc.ca> wrote: > But I have a problem with some equipments due to the lack of using an > alternative UDP port (non-standard UDP/161). I searched on the Internet to > known how to use an alternative port with snmpwalk and the answer was : This > option was removed in new versions !
I don't know where you found this information, but it's not correct. It is perfectly possible to specify an alternative port with snmpwalk and friends - this is something that most of the developers will be using all the time. Please see the man page for "snmpcmd" - in particular the section headed "AGENT SPECIFICATION". This describes how to give the destination to send queries to - including how to specify a non-default port with a variety of transport mechanisms. What was removed some time ago was the command-line option flag to specify an IPv4 port. This IPv4-specific option was essentially redundant, given the more powerful transport-address syntax described in the above man page. > I submit you this message to let my opinion that having an alternative port > option is almost necessary with any network application ! In hope that my > suggestion will be heard and you will add this option again in snmpwalk !!! This functionality was never removed. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
