RE: SNMP over Ethernet

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

In the target table found in RFC 3413, there is object
snmpTargetAddrTDomain, which has base type of OID.

To do anything (for example, to send a notification), you
need an OID value defined which tells you how to interpret
the address value found in object snmpTargetAddrTAddress.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> That's what I thought. So, sorry to insist, what are defining a
> snmpEthernetDomain OID and maybe a snmpEthernetAddress TC good for -
> excepting being consistent with RFC 3417?
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:54 PM
> > To: Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: SNMP over Ethernet
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>