RE: SNMP over Ethernet

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Now, it's good to have those defined as we did for other
> transports in 3417, but from a technical point of view the
> content of RFC 1089 still applies, right? RFC 1089 defines a
> distinct Ethertype for packets carrying SNMP over Ethernet. Does
> anybody see a need to change this or define a distinct Ethertype
> for SNMPv3?

It shoudn't be necessary to have a distinct Ethertype, for the same
reason that it was not necessary to allocate new port numbers when
SNMPv2 and SNMPv3 were added ... each SNMP PDU itself has a means to
tell what version you are dealing with.

//cmh