Hi Dave i'm using net-snmp 5.7.1 version.
Can we create a session with SNMP Manger using net-snmp agent? For example, we
have configured certain IP addresses that are allowed to access the agent. Is
there a way we can create and maintain sessions with those managers?
IS the response to t
Suresh kumar writes:
> Can we create a session with SNMP Manger using net-snmp agent? For
> example, we have configured certain IP addresses that are allowed to
> access the agent. Is there a way we can create and maintain sessions
> with those managers?
SNMP doesn't typically operate over netwo
On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing
> for 16 bits of index values instead of the previous 8
+1
> Patch #2 is a bit more complex and creates new integer based index
> API for retrieving indexes and then ensure that they'r
On 18 June 2012 19:19, Niels Baggesen wrote:
> The attached patch is a modified version of the patch attached to the bug.
> In addition to finding the right data, it also uses atol to fetch the data
> instead of atoi. And then it adds the proper scaling to the cpu value ...
I'm inclined to vote f
This patch has been submitted as ID 3536420.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Tyler Olmstead
wrote:
> Here's a patch that fixes the problem. I have only tested it on my
> target (arm926ejs), so tests on other architectures would be
> worthwhile. Hope this helps, and let me know if I can do anythi
Den 19-06-2012 23:28, Dave Shield skrev:
> I'm inclined to vote for, but one question - why is the 'cpu' variable
> defined as "long long" rather than "long" ?
Because I need to multiply it by 100, and then it might exceed a long,
until I divide it down again by sc_clk_tck.
/Niels
--
Niels Bag
Den 19-06-2012 00:10, Wes Hardaker skrev:
> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing for 16
> bits of index values instead of the previous 8 (which wrapped >256 on
> some systems).
I would like to see this also masking the index to make sure it does not
overflow into the
Niels Baggesen writes:
> Den 19-06-2012 00:10, Wes Hardaker skrev:
>> Patch #1 is simple and just increases the shift variable allowing for 16
>> bits of index values instead of the previous 8 (which wrapped >256 on
>> some systems).
>
> I would like to see this also masking the index to make sur
Dave Shield writes:
> On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> It's a bit more complex than ideally I'd like at this stage,
> but in general I'm tempted to say yes.
> But there are a couple of points of concern:
>
> - in the various compatibility routines, there's a statement
>
>
Dave Shield writes:
> On 18 June 2012 23:10, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> - in the header file, mibII/interfaces.h, the declaration of
> Interface_Scan_NextInt has a first parameter of type 'Int'
> Shouldn't this be 'int' ?
(fixed in my copy, fyi)
--
Wes Hardaker
Please mail all replies to
On 19 June 2012 23:22, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Any reason for adding the extra api? I would say this is a private api
>> for snmpd, so we are free to change it
>
> I'm pretty sure the interface scanning APIs are heavily used in
> 3rd-party apps that extend the ifTable. There are zillions of MIBs t
11 matches
Mail list logo
