|To:||"Nv-L (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Subject:||RV: [nv-l] Snmpwalk failure|
|From:||"Federico Vidal" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:28:22 -0300|
|Delivered-to:||mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Delivery-date:||Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:25:11 +0100|
|Mailing-list:||contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm|
|Thread-topic:||[nv-l] Snmpwalk failure|
It appears to be that the firewall is blocking port 161 UDP from server 1 to the router.... Have you checked on that?
Anyway, you must be certain that the fw lets port 161 to go and to come fbetween the server 1 and the router. It is recommened that you also let port UDP 162 (traps) pass from the router to server 1.
You say that nmdemandpoll succeeds, and that is not false because it could ping the router.... but it couldn't reach it by SNMP (watch nmdemandpoll output closely and it should say SNMP timed out or something like that"). The proof is that it didn't recognize it as a Cisco Router, as the server 2 did. The ovobjprint you show says that. Server2 does not have any problem due to being on the same subnet.
I'm pretty sure that is a Firewall issue, the proof is that (when using the correct community) snmpwalk/snmpget does not respond. At least you know the ports to tell to the fw people....(161,162)...
IBM Certified Deployment Professional
Tel: (5411)-4814-2770 ext. 120
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [nv-l] Dpid2 daemon, Hendrik Zahn|
|Next by Date:||RE: [nv-l] Loading SNMP v2 MIBs, Edwards, JT - ESM|
|Previous by Thread:||[nv-l] Peter Raig/Raleigh/IBM is out of the office., Peter Raig|
|Next by Thread:||[nv-l] Test, Meyos Yemveng|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web