On 28/09/2007, Alef T. Veld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. I didn't know the current snmp-daemon supported snmpv3, i thought
> it was a very separate beast from snmpv2 and earlier. I will try do
> dissect snmptrapd again then.
The basic protocol is essentially the same as SNMPv2 - the admini
On 28/09/2007, Chris Abbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any reason not to make the default switch to udp6 if dns returns *only* an
> record? (I'm not even going to go into the insanity that could result
> from
> trying to do both if DNS returns both an A and an address.)
That would
Hi Wes,
Thanks. I didn't know the current snmp-daemon supported snmpv3, i thought
it was a very separate beast from snmpv2 and earlier. I will try do
dissect snmptrapd again then.
If someone could assist me though, i would most appreciate it. One more
thing about snmpv3 then; Can i use snmpget v2
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MF> Could you please elaborate? What do you think is missing?
>
> Nope, my initial guess and memory was that it should work and Magnus is
> right, it does indeed work:
>
> # ./snmptrapd -f -Le --disableauthorization
