FreeBSD Port: net-snmp-5.2.1_1

[Andy Hall]

Hello Kuriyama-san

Did you receive this?

thanks

/andy

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Hall [mailto:andyh at hall.gl] 
>Sent: 28 March 2005 12:11
>To: 'kuriyama at FreeBSD.org'
>Cc: 'ports at FreeBSD.org'
>Subject: FreeBSD Port: net-snmp-5.2.1_1
>
>Greetings 
> 
>I have installed the net-snmp 5.21 port on FreeBSD 5.3 and am 
>finding that a query to the machine does not produce all of 
>the expected variables.
>  
>For example:
>  
>snmpwalk -v 1 -c public localhost interface 
>  
>does not return the expected
>  
>interfaces.ifTable.ifEntry.ifPhysAddress.x
>  
>  
>Others are - for example:
>  
>IF-MIB::ifDescr.1 = STRING: dc0
>  
>  
>I"ve tried compiling with an option of --with-dummy-values 
>which would appear to force snmpd to insert dummy values for 
>missing parameters, but it
>makes no difference.    I also tried the older ucd 4.x port, 
>but no luck
>there either.
>I should add that if I run snmpwalk on this machine and use 
>other machines"
>agents I do get the missing information, and equally, when 
>targetting the FreeBSD 5.3 machine from other machines I still 
>get missing variables as above
>
>I have tried other combinations:
>
>- snmpwalk on FreeBSD5.3 machine accessing net-snmp 5.21 agent 
>on Linux 2.6.8 kernel (Mandrake 10.1) - works OK.
>
>- Opposite way round to above.  Doesn't work.
>
>- SNMP client on other platforms pointing to agent on FreeBSD 
>5.3. Doesn't work
>
>- Net-snmp 5.09 built on FreeBSD 4.11 and 5.3. Doesn't work.
>
>So it seems to be reasonably independent of FreeBSD and 
>net-snmp builds as far as I can tell. 
>
>I'm not an expert on how net-snmp is glued into the kernel, 
>but had wondered if mac addresses are not available when 
>certain calls are made. However, the strange thing is that the 
>machine's mac addresses do seem to be present in other 
>variables obtained from it - e.g. in some of the IP tables.
>
>I searched in the obvious net-snmp and FreeBSD places for 
>information but haven't found anything.   It seems surprising, 
>because I would have thought that this would have noticed 
>before in applications using SNMP.
>
>thanks for any assistance.
>
>
>.andy
>