Bill, Harish,
I should have made the point in my reply that SNMPv2 and SMIv2 are
unreleated. I just assumed that what Harish ment was SMIv2. I believe
that Bill is absolutely correct (Not that I am a guru).
--Matt
Bill Wagner wrote:
>> Perhaps some SNMP guru will correct me, but my understanding is that
> RFC1759 presented a MIB in compliance with SMI v2 not SNMPv2. I
> believe that a VI agent does just fine with the MIB. Indeed the trap
> is defined in both SNMPv1 and v2 form. A management application
> unfamiliar with SMI V2 does have problems compiling the MIB. The
> Printer Working Group did disseminate an unguaranteed VI version of
> the MIB about 1-1/2 years ago and this should be in the PWG archives.
>> Bill Wagner
>> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: PMP> Questions on RFC1759
> Author: emking at lexmark.com at Internet
> Date: 3/17/97 8:44 AM
>> Harish nachnani wrote:
> >
> > 1. RFC1759 follows snmpv2 format conventions. What if the
> > agent only supported snmpv1. Is there a v1 version of 1759.mib ?
>> I don't think there has been one published, however, I believe that
> there are a few tools out there that will convert MIBs to v1 format.
> The Pro version of SMICng is supposed to (www.snmpinfo.com) and I
> believe that there used to be some agents on the internet to which you
> could send a MIB to have it converted. Also, a few well written emacs
> macros will do the trick (that is how I converted the MIB to v1 format
> some time back).
>> Can anyone else help on this?
><Lines erased>
--
Matt King Opinions are my own and
Staff Engineer are not necessarily
Lexmark International, Inc. those of Lexmark
emking at lexmark.com