Re: Can We place Traps as part of Tables
"Dave Shield" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 13/10/06, Subrahmanya Hegde <[email protected]> wrote: > It is possible to define a TABLE of TRAPs(more appropriately Notifications > as per SMIv2) OIDs.. > > for ex: > xxxNotificationTable > .. > INDEX { someIndex } > > SEQUENCE > someIndex > xxxNotifOID OBJECT IDENTIFIER(AutonomousType) > > using above table, one can represent NOTIFICATION-TYPE OIDs Are you *SURE* this is valid? It seems completely contrary to everything I've ever understood about the definition of notifications and tables. I can't immediately find anything to forbid it in the SMI specifications, but it seems to be incompatible with last sentence of RFC 2578, section 8.5, first paragraph. I have *NEVER* seen any MIB files (either vendor supplied or IETF standards) that treat notifications in this way. Where did you come across the ideas supporting this structure? I'd also suggest that it's an unnecessary complicated arrangement. It's perfectly possible to implement a smaller set of individual (conventionally defined) traps, conveying the same information via suitable payload varbinds. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ 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