To: | "'James Shanks '" <jshanks@us.ibm.com>, "'nv-l@lists.tivoli.com '" <nv-l@lists.tivoli.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | RE: [nv-l] Illegal trap - They're Everywhere |
From: | "Davis, Donald" <donald.davis@firstcitizens.com> |
Date: | Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:50:33 -0500 |
Delivered-to: | mailing list nv-l@lists.tivoli.com |
Delivery-date: | Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:13:30 +0000 |
Envelope-to: | nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk |
List-help: | <mailto:nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com> |
List-post: | <mailto:nv-l@lists.tivoli.com> |
List-subscribe: | <mailto:nv-l-subscribe@lists.tivoli.com> |
List-unsubscribe: | <mailto:nv-l-unsubscribe@lists.tivoli.com> |
Mailing-list: | contact nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com; run by ezmlm |
Here are my "unusual" traps.
Don Davis -----Original Message-----
In my opinion, it cannot be right if the enterprise id does not define a vendor (usually 1.3.6.1.4.1.xx . etc) , because the generic trap-type is "6", which means "enterprise specific". And MIB-II does not identify a
How is trapd displaying this in trapd.log?
James Shanks
"Philippe Menard" <PME@fr.ibm.com>
All, Slightly off topic, sorry. A network device is sending the following trap to our NetView box :
I couldn't find this trap in the RFCs. Has anyone seen it before ?
Regards,
- - - Philippe MÉNARD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [nv-l] Illegal trap ?, James Shanks |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [nv-l] SNMP Configuration, Proxy Field, Davis, Donald |
Previous by Thread: | [nv-l] Illegal trap ?, Philippe Menard |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web