[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recommendation on the path forward for EOS




>>>>> David T Perkins writes:

David> I think that Juergen's memory is a little cloudy on the issue
David> below...

Sure. This was several years ago and I had several beers since then...

David> Secondly, RFC 2572 contains a mechanism that is used to report
David> non-support for "new" (or old) PDU types. That is, counter
David> snmpUnknownPDUHandlers is incremented and a report
David> returned. 

Section 4.2.2.1. or RFC 2572 is fine. I think the discussion was under
which conditions you actually get to section 4.2.2.1. Implementations
will probably increment snmpInASNParseErrs and drop the packet if the
PDU looks like something they do not expect. Section 7.2 step 7) says:

     Treating an unknown PDU type is treated as a parse error is an
     implementation option.

[This sentence itself is interesting to read and probably documents
 the logic of the debate behind it... ;-]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>