Re: how to return no such instance for delegated requests

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:31:05 +0530 (IST) madanagopal wrote:
M> > M> Currently we support GET and GETNEXT only. Anyway to support GET-BULK
M> > M> using the table handler what should we do? Should we add bulk-to-next
M> > M> handler?
M> >
M> > Yep. In fact, it's probably already being done for you.
M>
M> Does this mean that in our handler is it enough to have a case for
M> MODE_GETBULK under switch(reqinfo->mode) and write the code? Or is it that
M> the GETBULK requests will be converted to GETNEXT requests by the
M> bulk-to-next handler itself and so we don't see GETBULK requests in our
M> handler?

The latter. You have to explicity register for GETBULK requests.

M> Regarding avoiding queries for next column even though it violates the
M> standard, can you suggest something? Particularly, why does setting the
M> error SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHINSTANCE or SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHOBJECT with and without
M> delegating behave differently? In the former case the request for the next
M> subtree is sent but it is not the case with the latter.

It is a bug. The result should be the same in all cases (moving on to the next
request). It will likely be fixed in a future release, so you shouldn't depend
on this behaviour.

--
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>
Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders>

You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...et-snmp-coders