RE: How to differentiate snmpwalk & snmpgetnext request ??

This is a discussion on RE: How to differentiate snmpwalk & snmpgetnext request ?? within the SNMP Users forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; Thanks Dave for the detailed explanation. I overlooked the limitation of snmpwalk even after Valantina has given the example. Thanks, ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Networking and Network Related > SNMP Users

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 4 Days Ago
Pamidipati Suresh-G20238
 
Posts: n/a
Default RE: How to differentiate snmpwalk & snmpgetnext request ??


Thanks Dave for the detailed explanation.
I overlooked the limitation of snmpwalk even after Valantina has given
the example.

Thanks,
Suresh.




-----Original Message-----
From: dave.shield@googlemail.com [mailto:dave.shield@googlemail.com] On
Behalf Of Dave Shield
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:40 PM
To: Pamidipati Suresh-G20238
Cc: valantina arumugam; net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: How to differentiate snmpwalk & snmpgetnext request ??


2008/5/8 Pamidipati Suresh-G20238
<venkatasuresh.pamidipati@emerson.com>:
> Regarding the example you mentioned, why do you want to gather all the


> instances of the table in the 1st getnext itself when snmpwalk is
> given.?


I believe that Valantina is concerned about the data changing while the
walk is taking place.

For example, consider a table containing two columns and (initially) two
columns. Walking this table would look like:

GETNEXT table --> this.1
GETNEXT this.1 --> this.2
GETNEXT this.2 --> that.1[*]
GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> endOfTable

The client could then display the two rows quite happily:

this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2


But suppose that a new row (3) was created at exact moment that the walk
had got to the point marked[*] The remaining sequence of GETNEXT
requests would then be

GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> that.3
GETNEXT that.3 --> endOfTable

leaving the client with the inconsistent table

this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2
(?) that.3


Alternatively, suppose the second row was deleted at[*]
The walk would then finish

GETNEXT that.1 --> endOfTable

giving the client a table:

this.1 that.1
this.2 (?)


Loading all the data at the start of the walk would allow the client to
retrieve a consistent set of information (albeit one that was slightly
out of date).

Dave

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757...un.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0