Re: Ports 32768 & 32769

Dave,

Thanks. The "offending" directives were "trapsink 127.0.0.1 public" 
ones. However, I would not have expected these to listen on ports 
32768(9) on all interfaces, ie "0.0.0.0:32768  LISTEN" when the 
directives contain 127.0.0.1. Is this bug?

Kevin.

Dave Shield wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 18:19 +0000, Kevin Conway wrote:
>  
>
>>Does anyone know why the snmpd daemon opens these hi-ports (UDP)?
>>    
>>
>
>Have you got any "trapsink" (or similar) directives.
>I have a vague recollection that the agent will open
>one port for each notification sink that it defines.
>
>Try commenting out any such lines and restarting the agent
>(or define an extra one).  Does the number of open ports
>change accordingly?
>
>Dave
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
>for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Net-snmp-users mailing list
>[email protected]
>Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users