Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions. [FWD because reply error]

2017-05-04 Thread Mark Atwood via devel
yes, this is to be an agentx implementation On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:43 PM Gary E. Miller via devel wrote: > Yo Ian! > > On Mon, 1 May 2017 21:09:08 -0500 > Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > > > > Do you intend to make this an snmp agent that would run under an > > > existing net-snmp daemon and c

Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions. [FWD because reply error]

2017-05-02 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Ian! On Mon, 1 May 2017 21:09:08 -0500 Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > > Do you intend to make this an snmp agent that would run under an > > existing net-snmp daemon and communicate via the AgentX (RFC2741) > > protocol? Or are you thinking of a stand-alone snmp daemon? > > I assumed a sta

Fwd: Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions. [FWD because reply error]

2017-05-01 Thread Ian Bruene via devel
Forwarded Message Subject:Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions. Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 21:08:17 -0500 From: Ian Bruene To: Matthew Selsky On 05/01/2017 08:50 PM, Matthew Selsky via devel wrote: Hey Ian, Do you intend to make this an snmp

Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions.

2017-05-01 Thread Matthew Selsky via devel
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:50:48PM -0400, Matthew Selsky via devel wrote: > Do you intend to make this an snmp agent that would run under an existing > net-snmp daemon and communicate via the AgentX (RFC2741) protocol? Or are > you thinking of a stand-alone snmp daemon? https://github.com/pief

Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions.

2017-05-01 Thread Matthew Selsky via devel
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:34:35PM -0500, Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > Ah, ok. The info I saw made it sound as if daemonization was > something even masters > found tricky. Conveniently there is a library and PEP on how to do > it right. :-) Hey Ian, Do you intend to make this an snmp agent

Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions.

2017-04-30 Thread Ian Bruene via devel
assert: if both exist, they should be bound at the same time If yu bind to the IPv6, you get the IPv4 for free. No need to bind both. TIL assert: the port(s) should be choosable Yes, but default to the snmp port in /etc/services. Knew it had a specific default, TIL /etc/services asser

Re: More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions.

2017-04-29 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Ian! On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:17:29 -0500 Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > assert: the daemon name should be ntpsnmpd Sure. > assert: both ipv4 and ipv6 should be implemented Yes. > assert: if both exist, they should be bound at the same time If yu bind to the IPv6, you get the IPv4 for free.

More SNMP dependency questions, also assertions.

2017-04-28 Thread Ian Bruene via devel
assert: the daemon name should be ntpsnmpd assert: both ipv4 and ipv6 should be implemented assert: if both exist, they should be bound at the same time assert: the port(s) should be choosable = SNMP version / security Accord