Hi,
I think you may have been wrong on this one, Frank. A look in the RFCs will
show that snmpNotifyFilterProfileEntry and snmpNotifyEntry don't share an
index.
snmpNotifyFilterProfileEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SnmpNotifyFilterProfileEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An entry in this table indicates the name of the filter
profile to be used when generating notifications using
the corresponding entry in the snmpTargetParamsTable.
Entries in the snmpNotifyFilterProfileTable are created
and deleted using the snmpNotifyFilterProfileRowStatus
object."
INDEX { IMPLIED snmpTargetParamsName } <-- associated with
snmpTargetParamsName
::= { snmpNotifyFilterProfileTable 1 }
snmpNotifyEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SnmpNotifyEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An entry in this table selects a set of management targets
which should receive notifications, as well as the type of
notification which should be sent to each selected
management target.
Entries in the snmpNotifyTable are created and
deleted using the snmpNotifyRowStatus object."
INDEX { IMPLIED snmpNotifyName } <-- Isn't referenced anywhere but for its
own table
::= { snmpNotifyTable 1 }
.....
For anyone's benefit, the code that accomplished the task I was looking to do
is below. You'll notice that the only thing in the snmpNotifyEntry that needs
to match anything else is its tag.
I've included my previous incorrect filter (commented out), and indicated the
line that was incorrect.
Thanks for your effort
@Override
protected void addNotificationTargets(SnmpTargetMIB targetMIB,
SnmpNotificationMIB notificationMIB) {
targetMIB.addDefaultTDomains();
targetMIB.addTargetAddress(new OctetString("notificationV2c"),
TransportDomains.transportDomainUdpIpv4,
new OctetString(new
UdpAddress("127.0.0.1/162").getValue()),
200, 1,
new OctetString("notify"),
new OctetString("v2c"),
StorageType.permanent);
targetMIB.addTargetParams(new OctetString("v2c"),
MessageProcessingModel.MPv2c,
SecurityModel.SECURITY_MODEL_SNMPv2c,
new OctetString("cpublic"),
SecurityLevel.NOAUTH_NOPRIV,
StorageType.permanent);
notificationMIB.addNotifyEntry(new OctetString("default"),
new OctetString("notify"),
SnmpNotificationMIB.SnmpNotifyTypeEnum.trap,
StorageType.permanent);
// Add Filter profile
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().addRow(
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().createRow(
new OctetString("v2c").toSubIndex(true), // true -
implied length
new Variable[]{
new OctetString("onlyDefault"),
new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
// Add Filter to allow standard notifications
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().addRow(
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().createRow(
new
OctetString("onlyDefault").toSubIndex(false).append(new OID(new
int[]{1,3,6}).toSubIndex(true)),
new Variable[]{
new OctetString(),
new Integer32(1), // Included
new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
// *INCORRECT version of above filter*
//notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().addRow(
//
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().createRow(
// // false -
Not implied length true - Implied length
// new
OctetString("onlyDefault").toSubIndex(false).append(new OID(new
int[]{1,3,6}).toSubIndex(true)),
// new Variable[]{
// new OID(new int[]{1,3,6}), <--
*SHOULD NOT BE HERE*
// new OctetString(),
// new Integer32(1), // Included
// new
Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
// new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
// Block custom notification 1,3,6,1,4,1,8888,2,2,1,20,0,10
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().addRow(
notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().createRow(
new
OctetString("onlyDefault").toSubIndex(false).append(new OID(new
int[]{1,3,6,1,4,1,8888,2,2,1,20,0,10}).toSubIndex(true)),
new Variable[]{
new OctetString(),
new Integer32(2), // Excluded
new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
}
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:48:46 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [SNMP4J] Please Help, Notification Filtering (code included)
>
>
> Hi,
>
> From the code you posted the mapping is broken.
> snmpNotifyFilterProfileEntry and snmpNotifyEntry have different indexes.
> You will see that easily if you debug it.
> Also try to request the content of the tables via SNMP to see if there
> are other entries created
> from persistent storage, etc.
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>
> Am 07.03.2013 03:30, schrieb m k:
> >>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().addRow(
> >>>>
> >>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().createRow(
> >>>> new OctetString("v2c").toSubIndex(true), //
> >>>> true - implied length <---- INDEX ???
> >>>> new Variable[]{
> >>>> new OctetString("onlyDefault"),
> >>>> new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
> >>>> new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
> > "Both need to have the same index. You are using "v2c"
> > for the Params row and "default" for the NotifyProfile row."
> >
> > If you see the above, how am I using "default" as the index for
> > notifyFilterProfile? Is it not set to "v2c"? I'm sorry
> > if I forgot to include the line of debug just before what I've given, but
> > it clearly says it DOES "find" a matching
> > profile entry for params "v2c" (so mapping worked fine), then it checks the
> > filters for its profile ("onlyDefault"),
> > finally it fails. I can include the extended debug tomorrow.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > What I'm trying to do is the below programmatically. Just like
> > SampleAgentConfig.properties. Exactly like it.
> >
> > # exclude authenticationFailure trap
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.oid.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1=2:4
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.index.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.0={o}8.'filtered'.1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.5
> > <--- exclude a trap, in my case - coldstart
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.0.0={s}
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.0.1={i}2
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.0.2={i}4
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.0.3={i}1
> > # include the rest
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.index.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.1={o}8.'filtered'.1.3.6 <--
> > include all others
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.1.0={s}
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.1.1={i}1
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.1.2={i}4
> > snmp4j.agent.cfg.value.1.3.6.1.6.3.13.1.3.1.1.3={i}1
> >
> >
> > ....
> >
> > I am not getting any sort of noSuchView errors, and I already defined an
> > associated view which the target has access to
> >
> >
> > // Doesn't this include 1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.1?
> >
> > vacm.addViewTreeFamily(new OctetString("fullReadView"), new OID("1.3"),
> > new OctetString(), VacmMIB.vacmViewIncluded,
> > StorageType.nonVolatile);
> > vacm.addViewTreeFamily(new OctetString("fullWriteView"), new
> > OID("1.3"),
> > new OctetString(), VacmMIB.vacmViewIncluded,
> > StorageType.nonVolatile);
> > vacm.addViewTreeFamily(new OctetString("fullNotifyView"), new
> > OID("1.3"),
> > new OctetString(), VacmMIB.vacmViewIncluded,
> > StorageType.nonVolatile);
> >
> >
> >
> > ....
> >
> > I just want to be 100% sure we are diagnosing this right.
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:49:44 +0100
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [SNMP4J] Please Help, Notification Filtering (code included)
> >>
> >> The mapping between targetParam and notifyEntry is wrong.
> >> Both need to have the same index. You are using "v2c"
> >> for the Params row and "default" for the NotifyProfile row.
> >>
> >> Regarding VACM, the RFC 3415 explains the details. Basically
> >> you need to define a view for notifications that includes the coldStart
> >> OID.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> Am 07.03.2013 00:34, schrieb m k:
> >>> "Notification filters are associated with targets. Did you setup that
> >>> relationship properly?"
> >>>
> >>> I believe so. Here is the relevant code:
> >>>
> >>> targetMIB.addTargetAddress(new OctetString("notificationV2c"),
> >>>
> >>> TransportDomains.transportDomainUdpIpv4,
> >>> new OctetString(new
> >>> UdpAddress("127.0.0.1/162").getValue()),
> >>> 200, 1,
> >>> new OctetString("notify"),
> >>> new OctetString("v2c"),
> >>> StorageType.permanent);
> >>>
> >>> targetMIB.addTargetParams(new OctetString("v2c"),
> >>> MessageProcessingModel.MPv2c,
> >>>
> >>> SecurityModel.SECURITY_MODEL_SNMPv2c,
> >>> new OctetString("cpublic"),
> >>> SecurityLevel.NOAUTH_NOPRIV,
> >>> StorageType.permanent);
> >>>
> >>> notificationMIB.addNotifyEntry(new OctetString("default"),
> >>> new OctetString("notify"),
> >>>
> >>> SnmpNotificationMIB.SnmpNotifyTypeEnum.trap,
> >>> StorageType.permanent);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Without trap filtering, I can receive the coldstart fine this way. The
> >>> notificationFilterProfile is connected to the target address only by the
> >>> "v2c" targetParamsName (implied), and I *think* I got that right.
> >>>
> >>> "Second, there is no VACM access to the coldStart OID. This will block
> >>> the notification too."
> >>>
> >>> Right, I agree. But I don't know what change I need to make in order to
> >>> add the VACM access to the coldStart OID. If possible, I'm wondering if
> >>> you could tell me how to change the
> >>> code I've given to allow that access. I'd like to give free access to any
> >>> notification that starts with "1.3.6" (which I'm failing at, as you can
> >>> see). After that, I'd like to add exclusion filters to
> >>> specify a few individual traps I don't want.
> >>>
> >>> To be clear, I'm only looking for the specific change to the filter to
> >>> allow all traps (1.3.6...), for now. If I messed up the appending or
> >>> implied portions somewhere, the mask, etc, it would
> >>> be great if you might kindly point that out as well.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again for the help
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:57:20 +0100
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [SNMP4J] Please Help, Notification Filtering (code included)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Notification filters are associated with targets. Did you setup that
> >>>> relationship properly?
> >>>> Second, there is no VACM access to the coldStart OID. This will block
> >>>> the notification too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Frank
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 06.03.2013 16:20, schrieb m k:
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm trying to figure out notification filtering, and only having a bit
> >>>>> of success. I managed to set up a notification profile that is checked,
> >>>>> but it turns out that no matter what I do,
> >>>>> ALL notifications are blocked. In this example, I'm trying to ALLOW
> >>>>> the coldstart notification to notify--and its not working. I'd really
> >>>>> appreciate some help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following is the code, but this might look mangled on the mailing
> >>>>> list, so I'm including a pastebin, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://pastebin.com/ti0efAMv
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Code:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Works. Creates filter profile */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().addRow(
> >>>>>
> >>>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterProfileTable().createRow(
> >>>>> new OctetString("v2c").toSubIndex(true), //
> >>>>> true - implied length
> >>>>> new Variable[]{
> >>>>> new OctetString("onlyDefault"),
> >>>>> new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
> >>>>> new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Fails. Matches nothing, blocks everything */
> >>>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().addRow(
> >>>>> notificationMIB.getNotifyFilterTable().createRow(
> >>>>> // false -
> >>>>> Not implied length true - Implied length
> >>>>> new
> >>>>> OctetString("onlyDefault").toSubIndex(false).append(new OID(new
> >>>>> int[]{1,3,6}).toSubIndex(true)),
> >>>>> new Variable[]{
> >>>>> new OID(new int[]{1,3,6}),
> >>>>> new OctetString(),
> >>>>> new Integer32(1), // Included
> >>>>> new Integer32(StorageType.permanent),
> >>>>> new Integer32(RowStatus.active)}));
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 109 [LexBeanRunInterruptable(LexLocalHostBean):Thread-15] INFO
> >>>>> org.snmp4j.agent.mo.snmp.NotificationOriginatorImpl - Notification
> >>>>> 1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.1 reported with [] for context
> >>>>> 109 [LexBeanRunInterruptable(LexLocalHostBean):Thread-15] INFO
> >>>>> org.snmp4j.agent.mo.snmp.NotificationOriginatorImpl - Notification
> >>>>> 1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.1 did not pass filter 118.50.99
> >>>>> 109 [LexBeanRunInterruptable(LexLocalHostBean):Thread-15] WARN
> >>>>> org.snmp4j.agent.mo.snmp.NotificationOriginatorImpl - Access denied by
> >>>>> VACM for 1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> SNMP4J mailing list
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
> >>>> --
> >>>> ---
> >>>> AGENT++
> >>>> Maximilian-Kolbe-Str. 10
> >>>> 73257 Koengen, Germany
> >>>> https://agentpp.com
> >>>> Phone: +49 7024 8688230
> >>>> Fax: +49 7024 8688231
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> SNMP4J mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> SNMP4J mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
> >> --
> >> ---
> >> AGENT++
> >> Maximilian-Kolbe-Str. 10
> >> 73257 Koengen, Germany
> >> https://agentpp.com
> >> Phone: +49 7024 8688230
> >> Fax: +49 7024 8688231
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> SNMP4J mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SNMP4J mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
>
> --
> ---
> AGENT++
> Maximilian-Kolbe-Str. 10
> 73257 Koengen, Germany
> https://agentpp.com
> Phone: +49 7024 8688230
> Fax: +49 7024 8688231
>
> _______________________________________________
> SNMP4J mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
_______________________________________________
SNMP4J mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
