Apologies if this is terribly off topic. However its a very niche mib/snmp question I'm hoping someone can guide me on as to if a vendor is right or not.
Up till now all vendors I know have implemented the index for .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.ip.ipAddressTable.ipAddressEntry.ipAddressIfIndex.ipv4 or 1.3.6.1.2.1.4.34.1.3 as quad dotted decimal so type .ipv4. index is readable in the OID and for .ipv6. it is 16 dotted decimal conversion of the hex. examples iso.3.6.1.2.1.4.34.1.3.1.4.127.0.0.1 = INTEGER: 21 iso.3.6.1.2.1.4.34.1.3.2.16.254.128.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.255.254.0.0.4 = INTEGER: 18 a new whitebox router vendor drivenets is returning both as ascii encoded values like so which snmptranslate does a fine job handling snmptranslate -M /usr/share/snmp/mibs/ -Of 1.3.6.1.2.1.4.34.1.3.1.7.49.46.49.46.49.46.49 .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.ip.ipAddressTable.ipAddressEntry.ipAddressIfIndex.ipv4."1.1.1.1" What for the life of me I cant follow are the MIB RFCs to the point of telling if they did it in an annnoying but not illegal way or if this is the cool new way the RFCs suggest should be used. I'm stuck a lot on the wording of INET-ADDRESS-MIB.txt for things like InetAddressIPv4 as well as https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2578#section-7.7 Anyone have an informed opinion as to if I should push back on that kind of ascii encoded formatting of the index of the ipAddressTable. Are they simply equally valid? Or could one format be considered more valid. If this is too wildly off topic for the list please ignore me with my apologies. thanks -denis -- __________________________ Denis Alan Hainsworth denis.hainswo...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
