Re: [ECOS] Re: SNMP lockup

[Sergei Gavrikov <sergei dot gavrikov at gmail dot com>]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 10:28:24AM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-05-09, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> 
> >>> What I'd like a pointer on is the interface numbering in SNMP
> >>> OIDs.  Are the interfaces supposed to be numbered 1..N with
> >>> interface 0 being non-existent?  Or are eCos interface numbers
> >>> off by one and they should really be 0,1 instead of 1,2?

[ snip]

I was AWK. Now, It seems for me that I can pass your question, What is
known issue? :

   -- "get" might want that the OID ends in .0

NMS can bomb even _the_tables_ using OID.0. Why? (the below)


> What I'm now wondering is how many problems are waiting to pop
> up when a similar requests received for "index 0" of other
> table objects?
> 
> There also remains the open question of why well-known,
> brand-name, hideously-expensive SNMP managers are sending out
> that invalid OID...

There were (are?) a lot SNMP devices on the market which had the broken
compiled-in MIBs.  It's not possible to upgrade it for some reasons. A
logic of NMS (managers) is: it's better to get something, it's better to
notice something than to get nothing. The managers bomb the important
tables as the scalars in a hope to get something from the defective by
design devices.  It's better to notify sysadmin about a broken MIB and
even to interpret and to show a misplaced MAC than quite to ignore the
break (i.e. to be RFC stricted).

Sergei

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss