Correct getnext behavior?
"Webb, Eric" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I am using net-snmp 5.4.2.1 on Slackware Linux to query a hardware
appliance and have a question about what the correct, expected behavior
would be in a given situation when querying with snmpwalk or
snmpgetnext.
Suppose I have the following partial SNMP 'data tree' (all of my
examples intentionally leave off the first bits of the OID):
....9.1.1.13.1.0
....9.1.1.13.2.0
....9.1.1.13.3.0
....9.1.1.14.1.0
....9.1.1.14.2.0
....9.1.1.14.3.0
What would be the expected result set for a query on "...9.1.1.14",
given that there is no data object with the specific OID "...9.1.1.14"?
I am expecting a "walk" or "getnext" operation to yield the
"...9.1.1.14.1.0" OID. Instead, when I use snmpwalk I get "No such
instance currently exists at the OID", and when I use snmpgetnext I am
given OID "...9.1.1.1.1.0", which even though it is a valid OID, it
isn't lexicographically next in line.
Is either one of these results a normally expected behavior?
Eric C. Webb
Sr. Systems Analyst / Unix System Administrator
Cooper Industries IT Solutions & Services
(770) 486-4623 FAX: (770) 486-4677 CNET 61444623
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
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