On 01/15/18 18:32, Fulko Hew wrote:
Yes, you could, but...
If the definition of the trap doesn't include the fields that you want,
you are not (technically) allowed to add them.
This is important because the receivers are designed to expect what
the definitions (in the MIB files) specify. No more, no less, and in
the order defined.
Hello Fulko,
Can you provide a reference to a standard that backs your claim that it
is not allowed to include more varbinds in a trap than specified in the
corresponding MIB?
I think that RFC 1902 suggests the opposite, namely that any additional
number of varbinds may be included in a trap. From
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1902:
8.1. Mapping of the OBJECTS clause
The OBJECTS clause, which need not be present, defines the ordered
sequence of MIB object types which are contained within every
instance of the notification. An object type specified in this
clause may not have an MAX-ACCESS clause of "not-accessible".
Bart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
