nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nv-l] snmp on another pot than 161

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] snmp on another pot than 161
From: netview@toddh.net (Todd H.)
Date: 05 Mar 2002 15:48:53 -0600
Reply-to: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
"James Shanks" <jshanks@us.ibm.com> writes:
> All SNMP agents should be able to use 161/udp.  That is still the 
> standard.  So your Checkpoint Firewall should permit reconfiguration to 
> the standard.

The problem here comes if the host system (e.g. Nokia hardware
firewall running Checkpoint) agent answers on that port too and you
need that info too.

> snmpCollect will not let you specify a port in any fashion that I am
> aware of.

Yeah, we've run into this limitation which is a bummer since they seem
to be getting more common.  Another situation arises when say a web
server OS is listening on 161, but a 3rd party agent that monitors the
web server processes answers on another port.

> You could write your own script to run snmpget commands (snmpget
> will let you specify a port) but that's all I can think of

That's the usual workaround for us too.  

Then, hopefully the MIB variable being polled is compatible with (and
the agent answers) snmpv1 GET requests and datatypes.  :-)


-- 
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web