Hello, When i say cat /proc/net/dev iam able to get all interface name and other information but if i query using SNMP manager or snmpwalk command iam able to get only three values from interface mib. They are as follows 1. interfaces.IfNumber.0 6 2. interface.IfTable.ifentry.ifIndex.1 :1
It seems that the udpTable is not getting populated on the sf compile farm
nightly builds. I did some debugging, and have some fixes. However, the fixes
are completely contrary to the current code comments, so someone needs to look
into it further to see if the fixes will break other systems. Teste
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:52:15 +0100 xavier wrote:
XD> i use Net-Snmp 5.2.1 on FreeBSD 4.11.
XD> Net-SNMP always return the maximum interface speed (which may be
XD> return with ifHighSpeed) and not the nominal bandwith.
This is true for all releases and all platforms. In general, the OS does not
tr
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:15:20 -0800 Fong wrote:
FT> RS> I'm guessing there is another leak in 5.0.9 that has been fixed in
FT> 5.0.10.x
FT> RS> that you need to back-port.
FT>
FT> Do you mean line: 5327 SNMP_FREE(isp->packet) in snmp_api.c (v5.0.10.2)?
FT> That part seems correct since when NETSNMP
-Original Message-
From: Robert Story [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:42 PM
RS> I'm guessing there is another leak in 5.0.9 that has been fixed in
5.0.10.x
RS> that you need to back-port.
Do you mean line: 5327 SNMP_FREE(isp->packet) in snmp_api.c (v5.0.10.2
Hi,
i use Net-Snmp 5.2.1 on FreeBSD 4.11.
Net-SNMP always return the maximum interface speed (which may be
return with ifHighSpeed) and not the nominal bandwith.
ifSpeed OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Gauge32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An estimate
Robert Story wrote:
The latest change int 5.3.pre3 was to *restore* backwards compatibility by
- changing the get-next loop condition to "while(netsnmp_running)"
- declaring netsnmp_running in the agent library
- updating snmpd/snmptrapd to use the library globa netsnmp_running instead of
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 10:22 -0500, Robert Story wrote:
> The latest change int 5.3.pre3 was to *restore* backwards compatibility by
>
> - changing the get-next loop condition to "while(netsnmp_running)"
> - declaring netsnmp_running in the agent library
> - updating snmpd/snmptrapd to use the
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:14:15 + Dave wrote:
DS> I've also re-read this thread, and am somewhat confused as to
DS> exactly:
DS>
DS> a) what the original problem was
DS> (esp. this get-next loop that went bad)
It seems one of the examples (don't recall which) wasn't indicating a
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 10:09 -0500, Robert Story wrote:
> DS> (And probably update 5.1.x first, or at least simultaneously).
>
> 5.1.3.1 doesn't have the same potential leak, so it's
> really a matter of whether or not the license issue
> warrants an immediate release.
A release - yes.
An immediat
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:12:57 + Dave wrote:
DS> Are you sitting down, Robert?
DS> I'm about to agree with you - I think we probably
DS> should plan to cut another 5.0.x release.
DS>
DS> But that's only partly because of this problem - I'm
DS> not convinced it warrants opening up a closed line
D
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 01:33 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
> > But I'll get the main man page documentation finished first.
>
> I like what you did.
Not "did" - "doing".
I haven't finished yet - there's a limit to how much documentation
I can rewrite when I'm out at concerts, an
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:22 -0500, Robert Story wrote:
> I've filed a bug report as well, though I'm not sure how
> we'll ever fix the problem if this is too large a change.
Just to be clear, I was suggesting that this was perhaps too
large a change at this point in the release cycle.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 09:16 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:58:03 +, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
>
> >> But does the behaviour do what the MIB says it should?
>
> Dave> In most cases - yes. (E.g. not generating a mteTrigger*
> Dave> notification u
[ 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 Mon,
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:29 -0500, Robert Story wrote:
> So, then the question to coders and the admins is, does
> this qualify as a DOS, worth a 5.0.10.3 release? I'd lean
> towards yes.
Are you sitting down, Robert?
I'm about to agree with you - I think we probably
should plan to cut another 5.0
16 matches
Mail list logo
