Subject: Re: Alarm MIB et al; identifying a Trap

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:40:42 +0100

David

Thanks for that; I had forgotten the contents of RFC2576.  I would
suggest that if and when the opportunity arises, a reference
to RFC2576 is inserted in the Alarm MIB for the creation of
OIDs for SNMP v1 traps.

But with the community string, the Alarm MIB talks of
placing the community string directly into eg
alarmActiveContextName, not of translating it via the
RFC2576 SNMP-COMMUNITY-MIB, so I think truncation is
possible and again, should be mentioned if and when
opportunity arises.

Tom Petch, Network Consultant
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins <[email-masked]>
To: Tom Petch <[email-masked]>; disman
<[email-masked]>
Date: 16 April 2002 21:02
Subject: Re: Alarm MIB et al; identifying a Trap

>HI,
>
>An SNMPv1 community string value and a CONTEXT name are not
>necessarily identical. That is, you cannot say the mapping
>is "always" one-to-one.
>
>For both the context name and the OID for the notification,
>you would follow the instructions found in RFC 2576
>
>At 01:23 PM 4/16/2002 +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
>>Two thoughts on identifying a SNMPv1 Trap in the Alarm MIB
>>and others.
>>1) The community name is an OCTET STRING of up to 255
>>octets;this gets stored in an SnmpAdmin String eg
>>alarmActiveContextName which is limited to 32 octets; does
>>the community name get truncated?
>>2) What is the OID for an SNMPv1 trap such as linkUp eg as
>>in alarmActiveNotificationID?  Does the Alarm MIB agent
used
>>the SNMPv2/3 definitions eg .1.3.6.1.6.3.1.1.5.4 ?
>>
>>Tom Petch, Network Consultant
>>[email-masked]
>
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins
>