Antwort: Re: [nv-l] snmp on another pot than 161
Todd H. writes:
> "James Shanks" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
I can only second that!
> 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.
Just one more reason to avoid those boxes ;-).
That's exactly the reason why extensible SNMP deamon frameworks have been
developed. SMUX is available for centuries now and AgentX has come to
replace it. Both meachanisms are available for the UCD/NET SNMP deamon. On
AIX, SMUX is available by default. I wonder why Checkpoint/Nokia doesn't
want to use this. RFCs are there for a reason :-)
|<Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread>|
- Antwort: Re: [nv-l] snmp on another pot than 161,
Jochen . Friedrich <=
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web