--- Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:16, gg gg wrote:
> >Was wondering why you would implement
> 2233(proposed
> > standard) instead of 2863(draft standard and
> obsoletes
> > 2233)?
>
> But is there actually any significant difference
> between
> the two? A
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:16, gg gg wrote:
>Was wondering why you would implement 2233(proposed
> standard) instead of 2863(draft standard and obsoletes
> 2233)?
But is there actually any significant difference between
the two? A brief scan through the "Changes since 2233"
section of RFC 2863
Hello,
Was wondering why you would implement 2233(proposed
standard) instead of 2863(draft standard and obsoletes
2233)?
Robert Wilcox
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Produ
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:56:57 +0100 (BST), Mayuresh Dhagamwar <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Mayuresh> I want to know whether net-snmp package supports RFC2233
Mayuresh> MIB? If not, could you please tell me, if I want to
Mayuresh> implement/support RFC2233 using net-snmp then how should I
Hi,
I want to know whether net-snmp package supports RFC2233 MIB? If not, could you please tell me, if I want to implement/support RFC2233 using net-snmp then how should I go about doing it? Do I have to implement it from scratch?
From scratch here I mean using net-snmp library of course, but j
