On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 09:54:58AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2024/01/02 19:48, Denis Hainsworth wrote: > > 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. <snip> > > Are they simply equally valid? Or could one format be considered more > > valid. > > They're doing it wrong, the inetAddressType is ipv4, so this applies > > InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d" > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "Represents an IPv4 network address: > > Octets Contents Encoding > 1-4 IPv4 address network-byte order > > The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1). > > This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object > definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format. > However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in > conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair." > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
I appreciate the double check Stuart. That seemed right to me but the snmp RFCs are dense enough I'm never 100% sure I'm reading them right :) -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
