RE: Traps and frequency
"Mike Ayers" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <83E753BE7B6A324ABB336245BAF1DAAC08E25D55@mailserver.metatv-ds.metatv.com> |
> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of José Eduardo Martins > Is it right to trust snmp-v2 informs to have a certain degree > of trust that the message was received? Like so: if the inform succeeds, then the notification *was* delivered to the application, but if the inform fails, the notification *may have* been delivered to the notification (the only certainty is that an ack was not received). General practice is to use high values for retry and timeout (a high value here prevents flooding after a network outage), which translates to "keep trying until you get acknowledgement". Setting up secure informs is difficult, but the results tend to be worth it. If the receiver cannot handle all the traffic, there will always be a problem. If the receiver goes down for timeout*retry seconds, notifications will timeout If the sender crashes/reboots, notifications may be lost. Other than that, informs are pretty darn reliable - more reliable than one should reasonably expect for a system without an accounting mechanism. HTH, Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ 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