Re: how should agents handle an 'out-of-range' index ?
Dave Shield <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 14 September 2010 16:55, Fulko Hew <[email protected]> wrote: > When I ran this test, the agent died and needed to be restarted. > The variable I was querying was: > > 1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.8.1.103.4294967295 aka 'UCD-SNMP-MIB:extIndex'. Do you get the same problem when querying 1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.8.1.103.4294967294 ? I'm somewhat suspicious that 4294967295 is 0xFFFFFFFF, i.e. the maximum possible 32-bit value. So incrementing this (to look for the next row) might well trigger 32-bit overflow issues. > a) The definition of the variable says that the valid range is: > SYNTAX Integer32 (0..65535) I doubt that the problem is related to the integer sub-range. But you could easily check this using an index greater than 65535 but less than 2^32-1 > b) the net-snmp's snmpgetnext command line tool prevents me > from using a BIG index $man snmpcmd INPUT OPTIONS -Ir disables checking table indexes .... against the relevant MIB definitions. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ 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