Re: clarification request: V2->V1 Trap conversion
Chris Elliott <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.snmpv3 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Dave Shield wrote:
>
> > Look at section 3, which states:
> >
> > ...
> > - A list of variable-bindings (VarBindList). This refers to all
> > but the first two variable-bindings in an SNMPv2-Trap-PDU or
> > InformRequest-PDU.
> > ...
> >
> > This is the list that 3.2 is refering to. So, from this it is clear that
> > this list does not include sysUpTime or snmpTrapOID.
>
> OK - that seems fair enough.
> It would certainly seem more natural not to include this duplicated
> information in the v1 trap. And given Mike Daniel's comments about 2089
> and coex-v2-01, it seems that this was the intended behaviour all along.
> Time for some re-coding, methinks....
>
> Thanks to you and Paul for pointing this out this clause.
>
>
>
> > There is not a snmpTrapEnterprise varbind.
>
> Ummm.... are you sure?
>
> Section 3.2 includes:
>
> (1) If the SNMPv2 snmpTrapOID parameter is one of the standard
> traps as defined in RFC1907 [12], then the SNMPv1 enterprise
> parameter SHALL be set to the value of the variable-binding in
> the SNMPv2 variable-bindings whose name is snmpTrapEnterprise.0
> if that variable-binding exists.....
>
> and the V1->V2 mapping in section 3.1 concludes with:
>
> (4) The SNMPv2 variable-bindings SHALL be the SNMPv1 variable-
> bindings. In addition..... The name portion of the
> third additional variable binding SHALL contain
> snmpTrapEnterprise.0 [12], and the value SHALL be the SNMPv1
> enterprise parameter.
>
>
> So it's at least *possible* that there could be an snmpTrapEnterprise
> varbind. which either needs to be removed, or will end up duplicating
> the v1 enterprise parameter.
> RFC 2089 talks about removing this, so I presume coex-v2-01 does too.
> (Or at least, that's probably the intended behaviour).
You deleted the critical portion of (4), which states:
...
In addition, if the translation is being performed by
a proxy in order to forward a received trap, three additional
variable-bindings will be appended, if these three additional
variable-bindings do not already exist in the SNMPv1 variable-
bindings
...
>
>
>
> But thanks for the clarification anyway.
>
> Dave
> --
> Dave Shield [email protected]
> Dept. of Computer Science,
> Liverpool University, "He who brings [computers] on to his premises
> PO Box 147, should be absolutely liable ... for any mischief
> Liverpool, L69 7ZF that ensues." Haddock v. Computer 1578/32/W1
>
>
Chris Elliott CCIE# 2013 | |
Customer Diagnostic Engineer ||| |||
RTP, NC, USA ||||| |||||
919-392-2146 .:|||||||||:|||||||||:.
[email protected] c i s c o S y s t e m s