--> pera-snmp has joined #net-snmp
[2003/05/30 04:50:32] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> hi!
[2003/05/30 04:50:47] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> I am using the "examples.c" to do another mib module.
[2003/05/30 04:51:15] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> In function var_example(...) I find the following: if I use string and long_ret
[2003/05/30 04:51:33] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> as return variables, it works OK. Now assume I insert the following
[2003/05/30 04:51:42] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> static int boolean_;
[2003/05/30 04:51:48] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> and (below):
[2003/05/30 04:52:05] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> case BOOZERMYBOOLEAN
[2003/05/30 04:52:11] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> boolean_ = 1;
[2003/05/30 04:52:21] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> return (u_char *) & boolean;
[2003/05/30 04:52:37] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> ... if I try to snmpget ....MyBoolean.0
[2003/05/30 04:52:54] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> I get "No response"
[2003/05/30 04:53:03] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> while using long_ret etc... it works ok.
[2003/05/30 04:53:09] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> Is this an implementation issue?
[2003/05/30 04:53:11] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> tia!
[2003/05/30 05:07:17] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> Sorry, forget! (My fault, sorry again)
[2003/05/30 05:31:18] #net-snmp <pera-snmp> ACTION is away: cheers!
--> wes has joined #net-snmp
--> miike has joined #net-snmp
--> TrogL has joined #net-snmp
[2003/05/30 08:42:34] #net-snmp <wes> TrogL_fixit: noticed that Dave commited your patch.
--> miike has joined #net-snmp
--> wes has joined #net-snmp
--> benr has joined #net-snmp
[2003/05/30 12:08:48] #net-snmp <ua> Is there an SNMPv3 trap?
[2003/05/30 12:12:45] #net-snmp <wes> yes
[2003/05/30 12:12:51] #net-snmp <wes> see the tutorial for details
[2003/05/30 12:12:54] #net-snmp <wes> (command section)
--> miike has joined #net-snmp
[2003/05/30 13:39:24] #net-snmp <ua> This is great: one of our Cerents is sending SNMp traps with version=0.
[2003/05/30 14:12:37] #net-snmp <TrogL> wes, did you see my post on testing? I don't understand robert's answer
[2003/05/30 14:13:04] #net-snmp <wes> ua: version 0 is actually version 1. SNMPv1 is encoded as an integer 0.
[2003/05/30 14:13:15] #net-snmp <wes> Um, no I haven't...
[2003/05/30 14:13:24] #net-snmp <wes> I'll look at mail in a bit...
[2003/05/30 14:13:38] #net-snmp <ua> hmm
[2003/05/30 14:13:40] #net-snmp <rstory> TrogL: the first test didn't match.. i think that's why it's failing..
[2003/05/30 14:15:49] #net-snmp <ua> Can you tell if this is correct or not? http://nopaste.snit.ch:8001/4680
[2003/05/30 14:16:52] #net-snmp <rstory> TrogL: -n checking output for "NET-SNMP version"... 0 matches found.. it doesn't seem to recognize the agent starting.. i'm guessing *all* checks need to have matches for the test to pass..
[2003/05/30 14:18:00] #net-snmp <ua> wes: I'm not sure if the parsing tool in that URL is incorrectly representing the version number or not. What do you think?
[2003/05/30 14:18:32] #net-snmp <ua> (now my coworker's all excited too :-)
[2003/05/30 14:19:30] #net-snmp <ua> That dump also includes some other packet dump stuff too.
[2003/05/30 14:19:36] #net-snmp <ua> eth header, tcp, etc.
[2003/05/30 14:19:50] #net-snmp <wes> checking, one sec.
[2003/05/30 14:19:50] #net-snmp <ua> or rather eth/ip/udp/snmp
[2003/05/30 14:19:53] #net-snmp <wes> no its right.
[2003/05/30 14:19:55] #net-snmp <wes> well...
[2003/05/30 14:20:00] #net-snmp <wes> the output is misleading.
[2003/05/30 14:20:10] #net-snmp <ua> really?
[2003/05/30 14:20:22] #net-snmp <wes> The packet looks about right though. It is a SNMPv1 packet, and the encoded version number is 0 which is SNMPv1
[2003/05/30 14:20:46] #net-snmp <wes> The output is misleading, however, as it says the version is 0 which would confuse a lot of people into thinking its actually illegal
[2003/05/30 14:21:28] #net-snmp <ua> Weird. So if the packet is correct - but not the textual explanation there - then hmm.
[2003/05/30 14:22:24] #net-snmp <ua> Cerent has been claiming that it's legal but NetCool (our network management program) is dropping these traps on the floor. Both companies have been at one anothers' throats for two weeks now. Now we've been pulled into the mix and everybody's just pointing fingers.
[2003/05/30 14:23:59] #net-snmp <wes> heh.
[2003/05/30 14:24:07] #net-snmp <wes> I didn't analyize it entirely...
[2003/05/30 14:24:10] #net-snmp <wes> just the first few bytes.
[2003/05/30 14:24:40] #net-snmp <wes> (the snmp portion starts at 002A)
[2003/05/30 14:24:42] #net-snmp <TrogL> robert:...but...but...but...it's the same code everybody else is using
[2003/05/30 14:25:41] #net-snmp <wes> as an example, here's a SNMPv1 line from our snmpget:
[2003/05/30 14:25:48] #net-snmp <wes> Sending 40 bytes to 127.0.0.1
[2003/05/30 14:25:48] #net-snmp <wes> 0000: 30 26 02 01 00 04 03 78 78 78 A0 1C 02 04 50 58 0&.....xxx ...PX
[2003/05/30 14:26:02] #net-snmp <wes> note the 3-5 bytes: 02 01 00
[2003/05/30 14:26:05] #net-snmp <wes> 02 = integer
[2003/05/30 14:26:09] #net-snmp <wes> 01 = 1 byte long
[2003/05/30 14:26:11] #net-snmp <wes> 00 = value (0)
[2003/05/30 14:26:32] #net-snmp <ua> Gotcha
[2003/05/30 14:28:45] #net-snmp <ua> Thanks Wes
[2003/05/30 14:28:49] #net-snmp <wes> np
[2003/05/30 14:38:33] #net-snmp <TrogL> got it
[2003/05/30 14:38:54] #net-snmp <TrogL> you have to CHECK before you shut down
[2003/05/30 14:41:54] #net-snmp <TrogL> would you believe CHECKORDIE
[2003/05/30 14:48:03] #net-snmp <TrogL> OK, gimme a hint. You probably don't want the test to even exist if it isn't solaris. You don't want the test to run if non-root (why?). Where is this configured?
[2003/05/30 14:48:45] #net-snmp <TrogL> oh yeah, and you wanted HOST-RESOURCES-MIB to be there.
[2003/05/30 14:48:52] #net-snmp <TrogL> Check within my code? or someplace else?
--> rstory has joined #net-snmp
--> benr has joined #net-snmp
--> rstory has joined #net-snmp
--> rstory has joined #net-snmp
--> rstory has joined #net-snmp
--> rstory has joined #net-snmp
--> uathome has joined #net-snmp