> "ss" == santhosh sundarasamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ss> In 5.2.1 source code
ss> (usmDHUserKeyTable/usmDHUserKeyTable_data_?et.c), I noticed that
ss> DH_generate_key() is called for both get & set request on
ss> usmDHUserKeyTable.
ss> GET:usmDHGetUserKeyChange()->usmDHGetUserDHptr()->
er'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected];
'Dave Shield'
Subject: RE: Sharing modifications done in Net-SNMP source
Wes Hardaker,
From RFC2786 section 2.1, I understood that EMS should send SET
request on usmUserTable / usmDHUserKeyTable to trigger the
- Broadband Networks)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sharing modifications done in Net-SNMP source
>>>>> "ss" == santhosh sundarasamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
ss> We are trying to do the modification in USM implemen
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "ss" == santhosh sundarasamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ss> We are trying to do the modification in USM implementation to
> ss> support rfc2786 in version 5.2.1. Once it done, I will let you know.
>
> Um... Version 5.2 already supports that RFC.
Um... to what ext
> "ss" == santhosh sundarasamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ss> We are trying to do the modification in USM implementation to
ss> support rfc2786 in version 5.2.1. Once it done, I will let you know.
Um... Version 5.2 already supports that RFC.
BTW, also: many people submit patches back becau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are trying to do the modification in USM implementation to
> support rfc2786 in version 5.2.1. Once it done, I will let you know.
We'd definitely appreciate to see the result being submitted to
http://www.net-snmp.org/patches.
If it'd get integrated into the ma
sday, February 20, 2007 6:51 PM
To: SANTHOSH S (WT01 - Broadband Networks)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sharing modifications done in Net-SNMP source
On 20/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do I need to share the code modifications
> done in Net-SNMP sour
On 20/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do I need to share the code modifications
> done in Net-SNMP source code to support higher version of RFC,
> customizations etc..? Is it mandatory?
No - it is not mandatory.
We would *prefer* that you fed back any changes to the
code, so that ot
