Re: relation between 'interface' and 'physical port'

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Lee wrote: > On 9/15/10, Abraham Varricatt > > > wrote: > > I've done some more investigation/study into this and well, could > someone > > please confirm if I've got my facts right below? > > I'll try :) > > Thank you VERY much for your response Lee !! You hav

Re: sysObjectID still returns an incorrect value

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Fulko Hew wrote: > As long as I was testing 5.6.rc2, I thought I'd test it to > see if the 'sysObjectID is truncated' issue was resolved. > > What I see is that the value is now returned as padded with zeros. > I.e. > > 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.2.0: > 1.3.6.1.4.1.8072.3.2.10

Re: CFV: let 'make test' always invoke RUNTESTS on MinGW

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:09:32 +0200, Bart Van Assche > said: BVA> No matter which Perl package is installed, RUNFULLTESTS (which BVA> needs Perl) does not work. The patch below makes sure that on MinGW BVA> 'make test' always invokes RUNTESTS (which does not use Perl). +1 -- Wes Harda

Re: CFV: ifAlias support

> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:28:31 -0400, Robert Story > said: WH> 1) the last value set for that interface WH> 2) the super-cool string created from kernel info (from the patch) if possible WH> 3) an empty string RS> I'm not a big fan of this idea. If we pull data from the kernel, RS> the

Re: Multiple init_snmp calls.

init_snmp checks to make sure that it hasn't been called before, so it'll just return without doing anything if you call it multiple times. -- Wes Hardaker Please mail all replies to [email protected] --

sysObjectID still returns an incorrect value

As long as I was testing 5.6.rc2, I thought I'd test it to see if the 'sysObjectID is truncated' issue was resolved. What I see is that the value is now returned as padded with zeros. I.e. 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.2.0: 1.3.6.1.4.1.8072.3.2.10.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 and

Re: relation between 'interface' and 'physical port'

On 9/15/10, Abraham Varricatt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Abraham Varricatt < > [email protected]> > wrote: >> What is the relationship between the SNMP reported "interfaces" (in >> MIB-II, I think) and the physical ports on a system? I'm having a hard >> time fi

Re: how should agents handle an 'out-of-range' index ?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Dave Shield > wrote: > >> On 14 September 2010 16:55, Fulko Hew wrote: >> > When I ran this test, the agent died and needed to be restarted. >> > The variable I was querying was: >> > >> > 1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.8.

hi, how to install net-snmp on hp-unix11 for 64bits, thanks!

Hi, I am try to install net-snmp on hp-unix11 for 32bits, it works correct, but when I install it for 64bits(compile it with +DD64), and it running error, no matter where I send a request to the snmpd, the snmpd print the sender's IP and port always 0.0.0.0:0. How can I solve it? thanks!

Re: how should agents handle an 'out-of-range' index ?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Dave Shield wrote: > On 14 September 2010 16:55, Fulko Hew wrote: > > When I ran this test, the agent died and needed to be restarted. > > The variable I was querying was: > > > > 1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.8.1.103.4294967295 aka 'UCD-SNMP-MIB:extIndex'. > > Do you get th

Re: how should agents handle an 'out-of-range' index ?

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Fulko Hew wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Fulko Hew wrote: > > ... snip ... > >> When I ran this test (snmpgetnext), the agent died and needed to be >> restarted >> >> snmpgetnext -v1 -cpublic -Ir localhost 1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.8.1.103.4294967295 ... snip

Re: relation between 'interface' and 'physical port'

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Abraham Varricatt < [email protected]> wrote: > What is the relationship between the SNMP reported "interfaces" (in > MIB-II, I think) and the physical ports on a system? I'm having a hard > time finding anything on the web. I've done some more