[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SNMP over Ethernet
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.
/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,
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com] 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