On 13/10/06, Subrahmanya Hegde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is possible to define a TABLE of TRAPs(more appropriately Notifications
> as per SMIv2) OIDs..
>
> for ex:
> xxxNotificationTable
> ..
> INDEX { someIndex }
>
> SEQUENCE
> someIndex
> xxxNotifOID OBJECT IDENTIFIER(AutonomousType)
>
> using above table, one can represent NOTIFICATION-TYPE OIDs
Are you *SURE* this is valid?
It seems completely contrary to everything I've ever understood about
the definition of notifications and tables. I can't immediately find
anything to forbid it in the SMI specifications, but it seems to be
incompatible with last sentence of RFC 2578, section 8.5, first
paragraph.
I have *NEVER* seen any MIB files (either vendor supplied or IETF
standards) that treat notifications in this way. Where did you come
across the ideas supporting this structure?
I'd also suggest that it's an unnecessary complicated arrangement.
It's perfectly possible to implement a smaller set of individual
(conventionally defined) traps, conveying the same information via
suitable payload varbinds.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
