On 20/03/2008, Tim Spires wrote:
> Would you suggest that I port to the current 5.4 line or grab the 5.5 dev image?

If you're looking for a relatively stable code base, then you'd be better off
working with 5.4.x. It obviously difficult to predict future development,
but I suspect that the current MAIN trunk may well see significant
changes before 5.5 is released.

> Also before I do this port and move to IPV6 I have to resolve our current problems
> with RMON alarms and events MIB.

Do you mean RMON alarms/events, or DisMan alarms/events?
I've got no experience with the RMON implementation.
But as I understand it, the DisMan Event MIB is basically a
more flexible re-working of the earlier RMON functionality.

> I saw a post a while back that indicated one could only monitor oids registered
> with the old API. This is what I determined as well.

As far as the DisMan Event MIB is concerned, the API used to implement
a given MIB should make absolutely no difference to internal monitoring.
There may be issues relating to monitoring remote agents (and possibly
information provided by subagents). But I can't see how old API vs new
API registrations could make any difference whatsoever.

> I see some posts about a new alarm table implementation but not sure if
> this is the correct path to follow.

If you are talking about the new DisMan Event MIB re-write, then this
is definitely the way forward. This has superseded the original code.

If you are talking about the RMON Alarm table, then pass.

> Do you know if 5.4 or the dev 5.5 intends to address the RMON
> alarms / events area?

Not as far as I know.
My belief is that the DisMan work has taken over from the similar
RMON tables. But I could easily be wrong.


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Net-snmp-coders mailing list