Good day,
I'm fairly certain there's a problem with the ssIORawSent and
ssIORawReceived counter objects on my net-snmp 5.2.1.rc2 agent, so, I think
that this is the right forum to bring this up in. The agent is running on a
Linux 2.6.8 host (Fedora Core 2).
It looks like the objects are switched
[ First - *please* don't mail me directly. Keep discussions on
the list, where others can both learn and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:22:05 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WC> I have finally completed my analysis of the IF-MIB implementation,
WC> though I now find
I vote go for it (with something in README or NEWS explaining the issue).
WH>5.2 currently contains code to support the inetCidrRouteTable from the
WH>IP-FORWARD-MIB. However, the updated mib isn't from an RFC yet though
WH>it's in the RFC editor's queue to become one (IE, its [sic]done being
WH>
Sure, why not.
Wes Hardaker wrote:
5.2 currently contains code to support the inetCidrRouteTable from the
IP-FORWARD-MIB. However, the updated mib isn't from an RFC yet though
it's in the RFC editor's queue to become one (IE, its done being
revised) and thus I think we should publish it with 5.2.1
In my opinion granularity is a good thing in this particular case. As
long as it does not make the agent API overly complex to the point of
reduced usability I have to vote b.
Andy
Dave Shield wrote:
[...]
Regarding the proposal to switch the SET processing model used by
the core agent internals
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 20:54, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> It's simpler to understand the detail of each individual step,
> DS> but it's much harder to understand how it all fits together.
> DS>
> DS> I think the existing model is much easier to understand, but needs
> DS> more thought as to the clos
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 22:19, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> 1) Robert's goal with the baby steps (as part of what was needed for
>the MFD stuff) was to make it possible to write small constrained
>pieces of code. From the admittedly little bit I've played with
>it, I think he's accomplished th
DS> Just to check - this should also work if you start by creating a file
DS> default-table-X.m2d containing "@set $m2c_irreversible_commit=1@'
DS> and the generate the code (for the first time) - yes?
RS> Errr... yes. However, the disadvantage would be that if the
RS> default-table-X.m2d file exi
