[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SNMP over Ethernet
Thanks, this helps, now I got it.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SNMP over Ethernet
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>