On fre, 2007-10-05 at 18:11 -0500, Chris Abbey wrote:
> Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > Could you please try again using net-snmp r16714 or higher and tell
> > if that is how you wanted it to work?
>
> I'll be on holiday the first half of next week, but will attempt to
> try that out as soon as I get
Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Could you please try again using net-snmp r16714 or higher and tell if
> that is how you wanted it to work?
I'll be on holiday the first half of next week, but will attempt to try that
out
as soon as I get back. Looking at the code in that commit, I think this will
w
Could you please try again using net-snmp r16714 or higher and tell if
that is how you wanted it to work?
/MF
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Se
On fre, 2007-09-28 at 02:00 -0500, Chris Abbey wrote:
> Hmm. So here's my problem with this. On the client side, I might not know
> that I
> need to use IPv6 to get to the server. Say all I know is that I need to send
> traps to entrapment.example.com. Hand that name off to DNS and it only comes
On tor, 2007-09-27 at 12:08 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> but I agree I don't think it does.
>
> MF> Could you please elaborate? What do you think is missing?
>
> Oh, maybe it does... I was assuming the warning you mentioned was
>
On 28/09/2007, Chris Abbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any reason not to make the default switch to udp6 if dns returns *only* an
> record? (I'm not even going to go into the insanity that could result
> from
> trying to do both if DNS returns both an A and an address.)
That would
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MF> Could you please elaborate? What do you think is missing?
>
> Nope, my initial guess and memory was that it should work and Magnus is
> right, it does indeed work:
>
> # ./snmptrapd -f -Le --disableauthorization
> "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CA> Just curious if anyone has started to look at or think about making
CA> snmptrap and snmptrapd IPv6 aware? If not I'll be starting looking
CA> at it shortly, just didn't want to duplicate effort.
MF> Could you please elaborate? What d
> "MF" == Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> but I agree I don't think it does.
MF> Could you please elaborate? What do you think is missing?
Oh, maybe it does... I was assuming the warning you mentioned was
actually an error.
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
On ons, 2007-09-26 at 17:09 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > "CA" == Chris Abbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> CA> Just curious if anyone has started to look at or think about making
> CA> snmptrap and snmptrapd IPv6 aware? If not I'll be starting looking
> CA> at it shortly, just didn't want
> "CA" == Chris Abbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CA> Just curious if anyone has started to look at or think about making
CA> snmptrap and snmptrapd IPv6 aware? If not I'll be starting looking
CA> at it shortly, just didn't want to duplicate effort.
I believe it should already?
Ok, I was all
Just curious if anyone has started to look at or think about making snmptrap
and
snmptrapd IPv6 aware? If not I'll be starting looking at it shortly, just
didn't
want to duplicate effort.
--
6OB/7T -=- LTC Embedded Linux -=- Customer Architect and Cat Herder
The value of Open Standards is on
12 matches
Mail list logo
