[AGENT++] Wrong exeption in GET-response to unavailable object instance

[Fehde, Marcus]

Hi Frank,

Sorry I was imprecise and of course it was a noSuchObject exception. So again the question, why the agent do not response a noSuchInstance exception?

-Marcus

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Fock [mailto:fock at agentpp.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 00:11
To: Fehde, Marcus
Cc: agentpp at agentpp.org
Subject: Re: [AGENT++] Wrong exeption in GET-response to unavailable object instance


Hi Marcus,

There are only three exception states in SNMPv2c and SNMPv3: noSuchObject noSuchInstance endOfMibView

With SNMPv1 all of the above exception states are mapped to the NO_SUCH_NAME error status. AGENT++ does not return the NO_SUCH_NAME error for SNMPv2c and SNMPv3 as you pointed out. Therefore I assume, that either you used SNMPv1 for the GET request or you used an AGENT++Win32 master agent in conjunction with a MS subagent DLL.

Unfortunately, those DLLs do not return proper error codes.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Frank

Fehde, Marcus wrote:

>Hi,
> 
>may be I discovered a non-compliance to RFC 3416 regarding the 
>exception in case of an unavailable object instance.
>Example:
>An GET-request to 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 works as expected.
>An GET-request to 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1 result in a "no-such-name" exception as well as
>an GET-requesz to 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.1.
> 
>Accordingly to RFC3416 the correct result would be an 
>"no-such-instance" exception:
> 
>RFC3416 (SNMPv2); pp. 10-11 states:
>"Upon receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity
>processes each variable binding in the variable-binding list 
>to produce a Response-PDU.  All fields of the Response-PDU 
>have the same values as the corresponding fields of the 
>received request except as indicated below.  Each variable 
>binding is processed as follows:
>   
>...
>   
>(2)  Otherwise, if the variable binding's name does not have an
>  OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix which exactly matches the OBJECT
>  IDENTIFIER prefix of any (potential) variable accessible by
>  this request, then its value field is set to "noSuchObject".
>   
>  (3)  Otherwise, the variable binding's value field is set to  
> "noSuchInstance".
>
>Please, can someone verify this.
>
>Best regards/Mit freundlichen Gruessen
>
>Marcus Fehde
>Dipl. Ing. Technische Informatik (FH)
>
>Research & Development
>Business Unit Anaesthesia 
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
>
>DRÄGER MEDICAL
>
>Dräger Medical AG & Co. KGaA
>Moislinger Allee 53-55 
>D-23542 Lübeck 
>
>Tel:  + 49-451-882-3646
>Fax: + 49-451-882-4410 
>E-mail: marcus.fehde at draeger.com 
>www.draeger-medical.com 
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
>
> 
> 
>  
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>
>_______________________________________________
>AGENTPP mailing list
>AGENTPP at agentpp.org http://agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/agentpp
>  
>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
Url: http://lists.agentpp.org/pipermail/agentpp/attachments/20041008/d732d740/attachment.txt