Re: excluding subtrees with views.

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 12:05 +0100, H. McManus wrote:
> let's pretend that I want to create a view that allows
> access to all of .1.3.6.1.* except .1.3.6.1.4
>
> If I specify nothing more than
> view notprivate excluded .1.3.6.1.4
> is this enough for it to give me access to everything except .1.3.6.1.4?

Correct.
That will give access to *everything* other than the .1.3.6.1.4 tree


> Or do I first need to specify the whole thing and then just
> exclude that one subtree thus:
> view notprivate included .1.3.6.1
> view notprivate excluded .1.3.6.1.4

That will give access to everything under .1.3.6.1 (other than the
..1.3.6.1.4 tree).


The difference between the two lies in how they treat any objects
*outside* .1.3.6.1. The first configuration would allow access,
the second would deny access.
Of course, if there are no such objects, then it's all a bit
irrelevant!

Dave


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=...486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...net-snmp-users