[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On 20 June 2012 20:45, Bob O'Neil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dave, thanks for the help as usual.
>
> I have this working now with the trapsess keyword. To do so, I had to
> eliminate the trap2sink statement, which I guess makes sense since
> the two behaviors need to be mutually exclusive. Is this correct?
Not really.
The various trapsink/trapinform/trapsess directives each define a
location to which notifications should be sent. It's perfectly valid
to have more than one trap destination (using either different or
the same versions of SNMP).
They're not mutually exclusive - they're independent.
The one thing that I'd say *is* wrong, would be to have two
or more trap destinations, all pointing to the same host
trapsink localhost
trap2sink localhost
informsink localhost
is Just Plain Wrong (and shows a complete misunderstanding of
how this works).
> I did not do anything special in terms of specifying an engine id for the
> trap sender In my trapsess statement.
If you're working with Inform notifications (-Ci), then this is fine.
The agent will do the usual EngineID discovery, just as with client-side
SNMPv3 requests, and everything Should Just Work.
If you're working with Trap notifications, then this may or may not
be a problem. Either you should set the trapsess engineID to
match the trap receiver, or you should configure the trap receiver
with information about the sender(s). (Or else configure both manually
to use the same engineID)
Bottom line - the two sides need to agree about which engineID to use.
There's more about this in the on-line documentation.
> A sample SNMP client (Snmpb) was able to properly receive and
> decode the trap I sent from my subagent.
Sounds good.
> Are there any special considerations that an SNMP Manager
> needs in terms of managing engine ids from client as part of
> some discovery process, or it is part of the protocol itself?
If you're working with Informs, then it's all taken care of
(by the Net-SNMP code, at least).
If you're working with Traps, then yes, there *are* special considerations.
See above.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
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
