On 30/11/06, Dana Burns wrote:
> If one was to implement the snmp-community-mib, would the following be a
> reasonable approach?

I'll have a proper look at this tomorrow, but one thing immediately
springs to mind:

> - define formats for new snmpd.conf directives for each of the
> implemented transports corrosponding to
> the nonVolatile com2sec rows, e.g. comm2SecUdp, comm2SecUdp6,
> comm2SecUnix, or a single
> "commCommunity" with bits to specify the transport info (extensible?)

I would definitely suggest the second approach - probably using the same
syntax as for specifying transport end-points.


Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
Net-snmp-coders mailing list