Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-23 Thread Andrew Hood
Dave Shield wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 08:22 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > >>Dave>I'd actually be rather >>Dave> surprised (and somewhat disappointed) if SNMP tools were still >>Dave> being made that *only* understood SMIv1. >> >>Unfortunately this is

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread David T. Perkins
HI, Part of the problem is that unfortunately many believe that you must use MIB modules in SMIv1 format to use SNMPv1. And, SNMPv1 has still wider deployment than SNMPv2c or SNMPv3. Regards, /david t. perkins On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Dave Shield wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 08:22 -0700, Wes Harda

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Dave Shield
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 08:22 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Dave>I'd actually be rather > Dave> surprised (and somewhat disappointed) if SNMP tools were still > Dave> being made that *only* understood SMIv1. > > Unfortunately this is actually the case Dave. T

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Wes Hardaker
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:49:12 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Dave> That's the point I was trying to make. I'd actually be rather Dave> surprised (and somewhat disappointed) if SNMP tools were still Dave> being made that *only* understood SMIv1. How would they handle Dave> most

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Dave Shield
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 23:26 +1000, Andrew Hood wrote: > Dave Shield wrote: > -- snippage has occurred -- > > > There is *NO* good reason to be using SMIv1 to define *ANY* new MIB. > > There hasn't been for years. SMIv1 is obsolete, past it, defunct, > > dead, buried (I wish!), irrelevant. Life

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Andrew Hood
Dave Shield wrote: -- snippage has occurred -- > There is *NO* good reason to be using SMIv1 to define *ANY* new MIB. > There hasn't been for years. SMIv1 is obsolete, past it, defunct, > dead, buried (I wish!), irrelevant. Life has moved on, it has earned > its retirement, Do Not Use It! >

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Dave Shield
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:58 +0530, Nithin wrote: > We have written MIB by using SMIv1. Why? SMIv1 has been obsolete for over six years! > We want to write MIB for SNMPv3 > for that which version of SMI we have to use and what the changes to be > made in MIB file None. The version

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Nithin
Hello All We have written MIB by using SMIv1.We want to write MIB for SNMPv3 for that which version of SMI we have to use and what the changes to be made in MIB file Nithin --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Dave Shield
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 10:25 +0530, toby sebastian wrote: >We have already implemented a MIB file for SNMPv2, > this same thing we have to implement by using SNMPv3, > could you please tell what are the changes we have > to make for that. The SMI version used to define the MIB object structure,

Re: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-20 Thread Thomas Anders
toby sebastian wrote: We have already implemented a MIB file for SNMPv2, this same thing we have to implement by using SNMPv3, could you please tell what are the changes we have to make for that. Perhaps search list archives before posting (twice)? SNMPv3 is unlikely to affect your *MI

Fw: MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-19 Thread toby sebastian
  - Original Message - From: toby sebastian To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:25 AM Subject: MIB for SNMPv3 Hello All,      We have already implemented a MIB file for SNMPv2, this same thing we have to implement by using SNMPv3

MIB for SNMPv3

2005-10-19 Thread toby sebastian
Hello All,      We have already implemented a MIB file for SNMPv2, this same thing we have to implement by using SNMPv3, could you please tell what are the changes we have to make for that.   Thanks in Advance Regards Toby Sebastian