Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[nv\-l\]\s+Authentication\s+Failure\s+Trap\s+Argument\s+interpretation\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[nv\-l\]\s+Authentication\s+Failure\s+Trap\s+Argument\s+interpretation\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: "Treptow, Craig" <Treptow.Craig AT principal DOT com>; Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:47:46 -0500; Hi. We are running NV 7.1.3 on AIX. Some of our Cisco switches (and possibly routers), are sending us Authentication Failure traps. The problem is that Netview seems to be interpreting the second arg; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00371.html (13,721 bytes)
2. Re: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: James Shanks <jshanks AT us.ibm DOT com>; Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:01:12 -0400; Well, if that's the trap hex, it just says "OCTET STRING" (x04) and not "IP ADDRESS" (x40) 04 04 a2 83 26 3d means "octet string of 4 bytes" with that data. We would expect an IP Address to be 40 04; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00372.html (16,189 bytes)
3. RE: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: "Treptow, Craig" <Treptow.Craig AT principal DOT com>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:12:27 -0500; Well, if that's the trap hex, it just says "OCTET STRING" (x04) and not "IP ADDRESS" (x40) 04 04 a2 83 26 3d means "octet string of 4 bytes" with that data. We would expect an IP Address to be 40 04; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00386.html (13,150 bytes)
4. RE: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: James Shanks <jshanks AT us.ibm DOT com>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:26:53 -0400; That is exactly what I am saying. The tag they use determines how the variable will be processed. x'40' is the unique identifier for an IP address. x'04' is the unique identifier for a printable octe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00388.html (14,738 bytes)
5. RE: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: "Treptow, Craig" <Treptow.Craig AT principal DOT com>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:52:25 -0500; That is exactly what I am saying. The tag they use determines how the variable will be processed. x'40' is the unique identifier for an IP address. x'04' is the unique identifier for a printable octe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00390.html (13,051 bytes)
6. Re: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: Joe Fernandez <jfernand AT kardinia DOT com>; Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:29:48 +1000; James, The two objects that Craig lists are from the Cisco System MIB. 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.131.1.5.2.0 = csySnmpAuthFailAddressType Syntax=netAddressType 1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.131.1.5.3.0 = csySnmpAuthFailAddr; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00391.html (17,271 bytes)
7. Re: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: James Shanks <jshanks AT us.ibm DOT com>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:17:06 -0400; Perhaps so, Joe, but when you send an SNMP V1 trap about an IPv4 address, everybody expects it to be x'40", and not just us apparently, but those other tools as well. In trapd's case, he does not con; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00395.html (18,901 bytes)
8. RE: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: "Treptow, Craig" <Treptow.Craig AT principal DOT com>; Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:21:07 -0500; So this implies that sniffer, ethereal, and Netview have not been updated to handle this new way of sending an IP address? If so, then I guess it's time to see the release notes for 7.1.4 to see if s; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00396.html (13,304 bytes)
9. Re: [nv-l] Authentication Failure Trap Argument interpretation (score: 1): Author: Joe Fernandez <jfernand AT kardinia DOT com>; Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:07:58 +1000; other One would expect Cisco to not want the world restricted to a 32-bit name space for IP nodes, so one would expect them to be IPv6 supporters. As regards trapd performance, doesn't IBM sell serve; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/nv-l/2003-10/msg00410.html (12,930 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]