When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that net-snmp
is calling handlers for tables that are next in the oid table sequence.
This can take a long time to respond if the subsequent tables are also empty.
Is there a reason why net-snmp goes to the next table - when a
On 19 October 2012 18:50, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that
net-snmp is
calling handlers for tables that are next in the oid table sequence.
That is correct.
Is there a reason why net-snmp goes to the
Landry
Cc: net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: get-next question
On 19 October 2012 18:50, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that
net-snmp is calling handlers for tables that are next in the oid table
, 2012 2:22 PM
To: Joan Landry
Cc: net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: get-next question
On 19 October 2012 18:50, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that
net-snmp is calling handlers for tables
On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:53, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
Dave,
If you start a walk on a column in table, the walk ends when it reaches the
end of that table.
The *walk* does, but the underlying GetNext request doesn't. Try turning on
packet dumps for a walk. You
