From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22596 invoked by alias); 9 May 2009 09:20:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 22588 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2009 09:20:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_65,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-fx0-f220.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f220.google.com) (209.85.220.220) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 09 May 2009 09:19:59 +0000 Received: by fxm20 with SMTP id 20so1936539fxm.26 for ; Sat, 09 May 2009 02:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.74.1 with SMTP id w1mr273628fga.53.1241860796810; Sat, 09 May 2009 02:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com ([93.84.56.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm592205fgb.4.2009.05.09.02.19.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 09 May 2009 02:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 09:20:00 -0000 From: Sergei Gavrikov To: Grant Edwards Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20090509091954.GA25557@ubuntu.local> References: <20090508221045.GA13907@ubuntu.local> <20090508230957.GA18135@ubuntu.local> <4A04BD1C.7000207@mlbassoc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: SNMP lockup X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 08:48:12AM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: [snip] > 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? [I > tried looking through the OID/ASN.1 docs, but got lost rather > quickly.] > > If SNMP interface numbers are supposed to start at #1, why do > HP and Cisco SNMP managers ask for attributes of interface #0? > Not only those Network managers... Any hacker can hang a "stupid" device then I tried it on my ADSL modem snmpwalk -c public -v1 bridge.local IF-MIB::ifPhysAddress.0 IF-MIB::ifPhysAddress.0: Unknown Object Identifier (Index out of range: 0 (ifIndex)) But it still ping itself :-) > I looked at network traces for one customer site using, I > believe, HP Insight. It does read the interface attributes for > interfaces 1 and 2. I don't see it attempt to read attributes > for interface 3 (which doesn't exist). I do see it attempt to > read attributes for interface 0 (which also doesn't exist). > > If interface numbers are supposed to start at #0, will > renumbering the interfaces at this point (after product has > been shipping for 7 years) cause more problems that it will > solve? That's known SNMP "issue" -- “get” might want that the OID ends in .0 Example: snmpget -c public -O X -v2c bridge.local sysDescr SNMPv2-MIB::sysDescr = No Such Instance currently exists at this OID snmpget -c public -O X -v2c bridge.local sysDescr.0 SNMPv2-MIB::sysDescr.0 = STRING: Foo bar baz So, IMHO, it's better to fix the agent than to make managers work "properly". 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