Hi Frank,
That WrappedReportHandler is the following (because we otherwise don't
have visibility about reports in our logs):
private static class WrappedReportHandler implements ReportHandler {
private final ReportHandler m_inner;
private final SnmpTracer m_snmpTracer = new Log4jSnmpTracer();
public WrappedReportHandler(ReportHandler inner) {
m_inner = inner;
}
@Override
public void processReport(PduHandle pduHandle,
CommandResponderEvent event) {
m_snmpTracer.logReport(event);
m_inner.processReport(pduHandle, event);
}
}
I don't see how this can affect the processing (event is not modified in
the logReport method).
We are using the MessageDispatcherImpl from SNMP4J.
I'll debug further later today to verify the expectations that you have.
Thanks,
Peter.
On 12/10/2016 23:43, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
I just seem to have found the cause: The class
"SecureSnmpFactory$WrappedReportHandler" is not part of SNMP4J
and so I assume that this implementation is causing the issue.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 12.10.2016 um 16:29 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Hi Frank,
I found it suspicious that there was no real explanation, so I went
back to my test, and unfortunately that test had succeeded with
SNMP4J 2.5.2 because the agent was genuinely not reachable... When I
tested again with an agent that should be reachable, I found the same
problem, also with SNMP4J 2.5.2.
I debugged a little in the SNMP4J code. The cancel is really
happening after the report message, with the following stack trace:
Daemon Thread [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0] (Suspended
(breakpoint at line 1925 in Snmp$PendingRequest))
owns: Snmp$AsyncPendingRequest (id=36087)
Snmp$AsyncPendingRequest(Snmp$PendingRequest).cancel() line: 1925
Snmp$ReportProcessor.processReport(PduHandle,
CommandResponderEvent) line: 1409
SecureSnmpFactory$WrappedReportHandler.processReport(PduHandle,
CommandResponderEvent) line: 157
Snmp.processPdu(CommandResponderEvent) line: 1248
MessageDispatcherImpl.fireProcessPdu(CommandResponderEvent) line:
691
MessageDispatcherImpl.dispatchMessage(TransportMapping,
MessageProcessingModel, Address, BERInputStream,
TransportStateReference) line: 310
MessageDispatcherImpl.processMessage(TransportMapping, Address,
BERInputStream, TransportStateReference) line: 387
MessageDispatcherImpl.processMessage(TransportMapping, Address,
ByteBuffer, TransportStateReference) line: 347
DefaultUdpTransportMapping(AbstractTransportMapping<A>).fireProcessMessage(Address,
ByteBuffer, TransportStateReference) line: 76
DefaultUdpTransportMapping$ListenThread.run() line: 425
Thread.run() line: 745
Here is what I find (with SNMP4J 2.5.2):
- the 'usmStatsUnknownUserNames' report that we get here is handled
in ReportProcessor.processReport
- the resend variable stays false, because it is not one of the 3
special cases given there in lines 1364-1380
- as a consequence, the else is entered in line 1402, which cancels
the request
- the cancel request returns false here (apparently state of the
PendingRequest is VIRGIN at that time), so that 'intime' is false on
Snmp.java line 1414, which causes the listener not to be called
So the question is: why is the state of the PendingRequest equal to
VIRGIN? Is this unexpected?
Best regards,
Peter.
On 11/10/2016 0:14, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thank you for trying version 2.5.2, although it seems to be
inexplicable why the behavior changed.
There are no changes in 2.5.2 and 2.5.1 in the class Snmp.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 10.10.2016 um 13:27 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Traces now, for info:
2016-10-10 13:25:54,180 DEBUG
[JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.UsmUserTable] Adding user
verthezp_wrong2 =
UsmUser[secName=verthezp_wrong2,authProtocol=1.3.6.1.6.3.10.1.1.3,authPassphrase=12345678,privProtocol=null,privPassphrase=null,localizationEngineID=null]
2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
[JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b
Outgoing message is not encrypted
2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
[JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Adding cache entry:
StateReference[msgID=16001,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM@137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Running pending async request with handle PduHandle[922855848] and
retry count left 1
2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
[JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
Sending message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 61:
30:3b:02:01:03:30:0f:02:02:3e:81:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:04:02:01:03:04:10:30:0e:04:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:13:04:00:04:02:6e:74:a0:0b:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:00
2016-10-10 13:25:58,187 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b Outgoing message
is not encrypted
2016-10-10 13:25:58,187 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
Adding cache entry:
StateReference[msgID=16002,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM@137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
Adding previous message IDs [16001] to new entry
StateReference[msgID=16002,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM@137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Running pending async request with handle PduHandle[922855848] and
retry count left 0
2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping] Sending
message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 61:
30:3b:02:01:03:30:0f:02:02:3e:82:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:04:02:01:03:04:10:30:0e:04:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:13:04:00:04:02:6e:74:a0:0b:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:00
2016-10-10 13:26:06,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Request timed out: 922855848
2016-10-10 13:26:06,188 INFO [SNMP4J
Timer]-[com.alcatel.util.net.snmp.SnmpUserTarget] Received response
org.snmp4j.event.ResponseEvent[source=org.snmp4j.Snmp@dbb54af]
2016-10-10 13:26:06,189 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Cancelling pending request with handle PduHandle[922855848]
Best regards,
Peter.
On 10/10/2016 13:25, Peter Verthez wrote:
Hi Frank,
I've tried now with SNMP4J 2.5.2 (downloaded by manually changing
the download URL), and with that version I also can't reproduce
the problem anymore: the ResponseListener is now called.
So we'll upgrade to that version.
Thanks,
Peter.
On 10/10/2016 8:19, Peter Verthez wrote:
Hi Frank,
Apparently the download page is not updated yet for SNMP4J 2.5.2?
http://www.snmp4j.org/html/download.html
Best regards,
Peter.
On 10/10/2016 7:58, Peter Verthez wrote:
Hi Frank,
Answers on your possibilities:
1. No, the code that I showed in a previous mail is verbatim
copy/pasted from our source code, the snmp.send method call
comes directly after the creation of the ResponseListener.
2. No, we don't have an explicit cancel anywhere in our code,
except inside the ResponseListener, as I showed in the code in
the previous mail (which isn't reached).
3. No, we are using the original SNMP4J source code.
I'll try with SNMP4J 2.5.2 to see whether that makes a difference.
Best regards,
Peter.
On 9/10/2016 16:36, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
Sorry, my statement in my previous message was wrong. Please
ignore it, because
setting the request-id field to 0 in a REPORT PDU is OK: If
the request was encrypted
the command responder would have no chance to decode the
request-id field.
That's is why the command generator has to be able to match the
request anyway
by the message-id field. SNMP4J is capable of that, so far, no
problem.
With SNMP4J 2.5.2 (current release) I still could not reproduce
the issue.
My unit test works as expected and calls the ResponseListener.
From the code analysis, I see only three possibilities how the
behavior you observed
could happen:
1. The ReponseListener parameter is null (please check for a
typo in the parameter name
or a null assignment before the send call)
2. The pending request was cancelled by closing the Snmp
session or cancelling the request
(Normally this would have been reported in the log, but...)
3. You did not use the original SNMP4J source code.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 09.10.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Frank Fock:
Hi Peter,
The command responder is not setting the request-id correctly
in the REPORT PDU.
This is causing the issue on the SNMP4J side. Nevertheless,
SNMP4J should behave more
robust and should call the response listener after the request
times out.
I will add a corresponding unit test for that and fix it.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 07.10.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Peter Verthez:
OK, my apologies: I was copying the wrong traces. Here are
the correct ones. I've also added a logging message
"Received response " + event in the first line of the
ResponseListener.onResponse(), and the traces below show that
it is not coming.
2016-10-07 12:51:17,934 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.UsmUserTable] Adding
user verthezp_wrong2 =
UsmUser[secName=verthezp_wrong2,authProtocol=1.3.6.1.6.3.10.1.1.3,authPassphrase=12345678,privProtocol=null,privPassphrase=null,localizationEngineID=null]
2016-10-07 12:51:17,950 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Context engine ID of
scoped PDU is empty! Setting it to authoritative engine ID:
80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc
2016-10-07 12:51:17,956 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM]
getUser(engineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,
securityName=verthezp_wrong2)
2016-10-07 12:51:17,964 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b
Outgoing message is not encrypted
2016-10-07 12:51:17,965 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Adding cache entry:
StateReference[msgID=46925,pduHandle=PduHandle[1444975050],securityEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM@529c7488,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=2,contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
2016-10-07 12:51:17,972 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running pending async
request with handle PduHandle[1444975050] and retry count left 1
2016-10-07 12:51:17,973 DEBUG
[JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
Sending message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 357:
30:82:01:61:02:01:03:30:10:02:03:00:b7:4d:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:05:02:01:03:04:38:30:36:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:02:01:08:02:03:02:86:91:04:0f:76:65:72:74:68:65:7a:70:5f:77:72:6f:6e:67:32:04:0c:c2:71:d3:1c:34:43:4a:bb:b8:ba:b2:93:04:00:30:82:01:0e:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:04:02:6e:74:a0:81:fa:02:04:56:20:91:ca:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
2016-10-07 12:51:18,125 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
Received message from /135.249.41.7/161 with length 103:
30:65:02:01:03:30:10:02:03:00:b7:4d:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:00:02:01:03:04:1d:30:1b:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:02:01:08:02:03:02:86:92:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:2f:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:04:02:6e:74:a8:1c:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:11:30:0f:06:0a:2b:06:01:06:03:0f:01:01:03:00:41:01:44
2016-10-07 12:51:18,125 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
SNMPv3 header decoded: msgId=46925, msgMaxSize=65535,
msgFlags=00, secModel=3
2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM]
Accepting zero length security name
2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
Removed cache entry:
StateReference[msgID=46925,pduHandle=PduHandle[1444975050],securityEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM@529c7488,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=2,contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
RFC3412 §7.2.10 - Received PDU (msgID=46925) is a response or
an internal class message. PduHandle.transactionID = 1444975050
2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
MPv3 finished
2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Searching pending request with handlePduHandle[1444975050]
2016-10-07 12:51:18,128 INFO
[DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
Received late report from 135.249.41.7/161 with request ID 0
2016-10-07 12:51:21,973 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] PendingRequest canceled key=null,
pdu=null, target=null, transport=null, listener=null
Best regards,
Peter.
On 7/10/2016 8:18, Peter Verthez wrote:
Ah, maybe I copied the wrong traces then and that is the
source of the confusion (we have a mix of SNMPv2 and v3
agents).
Let me check...
Thanks,
Peter.
On 6/10/2016 21:45, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
The PDU that is send is a SNMPv2c GET request and not a v3
request.
So this cannot be an issue with the USM or other v3
processing.
To be able to reproduce the issue I might need more
details. If it is indeed
a v3 request, I would like to have the log for it. In
addition,
is the "unknown user" locally unknown the the USM of the
command
sender or remotely unknown to the command responder.
If locally unknown, a exception is thrown during the send
call.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 06.10.2016 um 09:45 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Hi Frank,
The PDU instance is not used in another thread, only in
this one. All normal functionality works properly (we
started to use async requests 1.5 years ago), except for
this timeout due to a wrong security name being used. I'm
not sure whether that is a new regression or something
that wasn't tested before by our test team.
I'm not sure which further information I have to give, I
can't provide the full source code as this is a
proprietary product. If you want me to debug something
specific I can do that.
Best regards,
Peter.
On 5/10/2016 22:55, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
From the provided send call alone, I cannot verify if the
parameters are correctly
setup. The SnmpUserTarget.this, for example, might not
work if called in a constructor
of that class.
The pdu instance might be used concurrently by another
thread (with same or different
request ID), which would corrupt the pending request
management.
Best regards,
Frank
Am 05.10.2016 um 08:14 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Hi Frank,
The call of the send method was in the last line of my
code snippet: session is an Snmp object.
Best regards,
Peter.
On 4/10/2016 20:12, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
How do call the send method? Is the listener set there?
All fields null should not happen normally....
Best regards,
Frank
Am 04.10.2016 um 11:18 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Hi Frank,
Our code is simply:
ResponseListener respListener = new ResponseListener() {
@Override
public void
onResponse(ResponseEvent event) {
// canceling is required
as per SNMP4J documentation
((Snmp)event.getSource()).cancel(event.getRequest(),
this);
PDU response =
event.getResponse();
updateStats(session, agentId, startTime, response);
listener.onResponse(response, event.getUserObject());
}
};
session.send(pdu, SnmpUserTarget.this, userContext,
respListener);
It doesn't reach even the first line of the onResponse
method.
I've been debugging a little, and the
PendingRequest.run() method in the Snmp class is
always being exited because all fields are null, and
so it never calls the onResponse method on the
listener. This is also what the debug message says:
2016-09-28 16:43:36,861 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] PendingRequest canceled
key=null, pdu=null, target=null, transport=null,
listener=null
I've then put a breakpoint in the cancel() method, and
it gets run when the following report is coming in
(copied from the debugger):
REPORT[{contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,
contextName=nt}, requestID=0, errorStatus=0,
errorIndex=0, VBS[1.3.6.1.6.3.15.1.1.3.0 = 18]]
Best regards,
Peter.
On 3/10/2016 23:06, Frank Fock wrote:
Hi Peter,
Yes, the ResponseEvent should be returned after the
timeout with a null response.
From the log, it is unclear why you do not get the
event. Is there an if-statement
that ignores the ResponseEvent with null response in
your code?
Best regards,
Frank
Am 30.09.2016 um 10:12 schrieb Peter Verthez:
Hi Frank,
If we are using asynchronous SNMP calls with SNMPv3,
what should be the behaviour in case of timeout,
when you used wrong credentials such as a wrong user
name. Should the ResponseListener always be
triggered, with event.getResponse() = null, after
the timeout?
I would expect that, but it looks like this is not
what I'm seeing: the ResponseListener does not seem
to be triggered in that case. So this means that our
application never knows that a timeout occurred. We
are using currently SNMP4J 2.5.0. Debug logging from
SNMP4J:
2016-09-28 16:43:31,768 DEBUG
[JM-49-Ping-Ping-4]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running
pending async request with handle
PduHandle[1071987217] and retry count left 1
2016-09-28 16:43:31,768 DEBUG
[JM-49-Ping-Ping-4]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
Sending message to 135.249.41.44/161 with length
268:
30:82:01:08:02:01:01:04:06:70:75:62:6c:69:63:a0:81:fa:02:04:3f:e5:3a:11:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
2016-09-28 16:43:35,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running pending async
request with handle PduHandle[1071987217] and retry
count left 0
2016-09-28 16:43:35,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
Sending message to 135.249.41.44/161 with length
268:
30:82:01:08:02:01:01:04:06:70:75:62:6c:69:63:a0:81:fa:02:04:3f:e5:3a:11:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
2016-09-28 16:43:36,861 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] PendingRequest canceled
key=null, pdu=null, target=null, transport=null,
listener=null
2016-09-28 16:43:43,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Request timed out: 1071987217
2016-09-28 16:43:43,772 DEBUG [SNMP4J
Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Cancelling pending request
with handle PduHandle[1071987217]
Best regards,
Peter.
_______________________________________________
SNMP4J mailing list
SNMP4J@agentpp.org
https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
--
Peter Verthez
Systems Engineer Network Mgt.
Tel: (+32) 3 240 84 50 | Alcanet:
Fax: (+32) 3 240 84 59 | (6)2605
Nokia Corporation
Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Fortis 220-0002334-42
VAT BE 0404 621 642 Register of Legal Entities Antwerp
***
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of its
author.
_______________________________________________
SNMP4J mailing list
SNMP4J@agentpp.org
https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
