...thanks, Dave for the exhaustive answer and of course, other guys (Robert,
Thomas,...)
Today is sun over my land again. :) My boss put gun away and saved bullets
for some other opportunity. :
> TA> > The easiest approach would probably to blitz the bug database
> TA> > for both 5.2.x and t
Hi,
I plan on upgrading from the UCD v4.2.6 to the latest version of NET-SNMP. I
have the following questions, and hope you can help:
- What is the latest version of the stack recommended for use? Is it v5.1.3.1 or
v5.2.1.2? Both versions are listed on sourceforge.net. Logically, I'll jus
Robert Story wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is wh
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:16 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> OK, so 8 is just reserved for 5.1.x "just in case"? I'd be fine with
TA> that, as opposed to change 5.1.x immediately (which also Dave and Jochen
TA> voted against). Did we reach consensus here? =:o
Well, the issue is whether or not there is a
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:51:26 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> > The easiest approach would probably to blitz the bug database
TA> > for both 5.2.x and the main development line in parallel,
TA> > and run the two release cycles more-or-less together.
TA> >
TA> > Does that sound sensible?
TA>
TA> Yes, 5.2.2
>Just wanted to check for objections to augmenting the default mib list. I'd
like to:
>- add host to the default list
agreed
>- add disman/even-mib to the default list
"disman event/mib"
agreed
>- default the mfd-rewrites to enabled
What is the impact of this?
This communication is intende
Robert Story wrote:
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
Because that's what Wes proposed. Initially, I thought of just going to 6:0:0,
since everything currently uses lib*.so.5, but if you look at the previous
version, you'll see that 5 is determined
Title: Message
Hi
all,
I want to manage a
software using snmp. This software manages values like for example
track_Number
I have extended my
private mib to add the new values. My extented values are read-only because I
wanted that only my sub-agent is allow to modifyt this
values.
I have
Dave Shield wrote:
That sounds a sensible timescale.
What about the 5.2.x line?
The last "real" release of that code was back in January.
(OK, we released 5.2.1.2 in June, but that wasn't a proper
release in quite the same way).
The easiest approach would probably to blitz the bug database
for
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:29 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> The other thing that might help is a move towards greater use of
> DS> the Hardware Abstraction Layer that I started to put in place a
> DS> couple of months ago. It currently only covers CPU and memory
> DS> (and only for Linux boxes),
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:23 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> So you're probably right: for
> DS> 5.3, just enable it on known good architectures.
>
> Do we know what those are?
Ummm:
$ cd agent/mibgroup/host
$ $ grep ifdef *.c | grep -v '[A-Z]' | sort -k 2 | uniq
hr_swrun.
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:55:52 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:22 +1000, Elisabeth Gloria wrote:
DS> > We are discovering some MIB. It would have an
DS> > object with syntax OCTET STRING (SIZE (512)).
DS> > The question is: will it be a problem from points of
DS> > view of SNMP and net
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 10:19 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> But we seem to be making noises about releasing the current
> DS> development code as version 5.3,
>
> It's a pretty safe bet that pre-releases for 5.3 will start in early October
> for a November release. This should be considered fair
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:14:43 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> Robert Story wrote:
TA> > move to libtool recommended versioning scheme
TA>
TA> Why jump up to c:r:a==9:0:0?
Because that's what Wes proposed. Initially, I thought of just going to 6:0:0,
since everything currently uses lib*.so.5, but if you lo
DS> The other thing that might help is a move towards greater use of
DS> the Hardware Abstraction Layer that I started to put in place a
DS> couple of months ago. It currently only covers CPU and memory
DS> (and only for Linux boxes), but it's a step in the right direction.
I noticed this when i
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:21:45 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:50 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
DS> > I'd argue
DS> > that it should be in the default list, and config_require used to weed
DS> > out bits that don't have OS support. That's probably too much work, so
DS> > it might just be
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:52:59 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > However, when is planned next version?
DS>
DS> Not sure (see above).
DS> But we seem to be making noises about releasing the current
DS> development code as version 5.3,
It's a pretty safe bet that pre-releases for 5.3 will start in early Octob
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 11:15 +0200, Grasic Igor wrote:
> ...now is next to me standing my boss with gun at my hand and I am writing
> my last message to 'net-snmp-coders'... he insist to find out, when will be
> next release of net-snmp...
No idea, sorry.
It was nice knowing you.
What flowers would
...now is next to me standing my boss with gun at my hand and I am writing
my last message to 'net-snmp-coders'... he insist to find out, when will be
next release of net-snmp...
...:))) just kidding. But now, I have pretty unstable snmp system (because
of known bugs).
However, when is planned n
Rafael Garabato wrote:
I increased the tcpdump's snaplen as you asked. This time I didn't get
the same problem as the time before. Only 2 packets are transmited each
time the session is opened.
That's exactly how the engineID discovery is supposed to work.
So what happens now if you actually
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:04 +0530, Poojan Tanna wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:38 +0100, Dave Shield wrote:
> > Assuming that these traps used the enterprise OID .1.2.3.4.5,
> > then you'd need snmptrapd.conf settings along the lines of:
> >
> >
> >forward .1.2.3.4.5.0.110.10.10.1
>
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 12:38 -0300, Rafael Garabato wrote:
> I tried both versions in the computer where the client is but the
> program is still unsuccessful. Do you think that the snmp version
> 5.1.3.1, or 5.2.1.2 shoul be installed where the agent is?
No - this change was concerned with how a c
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:50 -0400, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> > - add host to the default list
> DS>
> DS> Globally, or on specific architectures?
>
> You mean there are still architectures which don't support it?
Almost certainly.
Much of the HostRes code is just as O/S-specific as the MIB-II
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:06 +0530, Ravi, Rajagopal Shanmugam (Rajagopal
Shanmugam)** CTR ** wrote:
> But is it possible to proxy the incoming request to different hosts
> based on a defined set of OID values?
Yes.
That's how the proxy mechanism has always worked.
The context-based selection is a
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 09:12 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> 99.9% of the time people want to do that is because they want to do
> something that contexts let you do or that VACM already lets you do.
> Find a case where this isn't true ;-)
DisMan :-)
Dave
-
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:22 +1000, Elisabeth Gloria wrote:
> We are discovering some MIB. It would have an
> object with syntax OCTET STRING (SIZE (512)).
> The question is: will it be a problem from points of
> view of SNMP and net-snmp?
Shouldn't be - no.
The SMI syntax supports octet strings up
26 matches
Mail list logo
