On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 18:05 +0530, Prakash wrote:
> Thanks M/F,
>
> I tried your suggested code but it won't compile...
>
> netsnmp_init_watcher_info6â was not declared in this scope
>
> I am using net-snmp 5.4.2.1
Yes, netsnmp_init_watcher_info6 was new in 5.5.
Unless upgrading is an option f
The returned value of handler is MFD_SUCCESS.
Besides that the stack also says: ioctl 23512 returned -1
After that no more data will be returned.
2010/6/10 Magnus Fromreide
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 09:48 +0800, Weiwei Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have developed one subagent for returnning data for
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 09:48 +0800, Weiwei Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> I have developed one subagent for returnning data for snmpwalk
> request.
> But after data received, the following error occur:
> It is strange that all the data are correct, but the last column
> ifSpecific is wrong.
>
> us...@lin
Hi,
I have developed one subagent for returnning data for snmpwalk request.
But after data received, the following error occur:
It is strange that all the data are correct, but the last column ifSpecific
is wrong.
us...@linux:~$ snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 147.128.19.39 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1
IF-MIB::ifI
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:08:43 +0200, "Eberhard, Sven"
> said:
SE> The configuration functions well enough, however I need for myself
SE> the assurance or rather a âStamp of Approvalâ for the activation
SE> of the SNMP. I would gladly place the configuration file for
SE> verificatio
Thanks M/F,
I tried your suggested code but it won't compile...
netsnmp_init_watcher_info6â was not declared in this scope
I am using net-snmp 5.4.2.1
Thanks
Prakash
The problems I see are:
* You are telling the agent that you are returning a buffer of 256
bytes but you are only
Hello,
I would like to know whether a SNMP configuration
with a Mac OS X 10.5.8 (NET-SNMP version: 5.4.2.1) causes a high CPU or
effects other functions within the server.
The configuration functions well enough, however I need for myself the
assurance or rather a „Stamp of Approval“ for the ac
On 8 June 2010 22:00, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> * You are telling the agent that you are returning a buffer of 256
> bytes but you are only initializing about ten of those bytes,
> the rest you are leaving unspecified.
That's probably more of a design flaw, rather than broken c
