Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name
Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com Tue, 05 August 2008 21:56 UTC
Return-Path: <pmp-owner@pwg.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E74828C340
for <ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.235
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8-T3rcklsXNK
for <ietfarch-printmib-archive@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pwg.org (www.pwg.org [192.146.101.49])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F4728C2A1
for <printmib-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by pwg.org with ESMTP id m75LusX7022893
for <printmib-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:56:56 -0400
Received: from localhost (mail@localhost)
by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with SMTP id m75LuswZ022890
for <printmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:56:54 -0400
Received: by pwg.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:56:29 -0400
Received: from pwg.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by pwg.org with ESMTP id m75LuQKB022738
for <pmp-out@pwg.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:56:28 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by pwg.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m75LuQT7022735
for pmp-out; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:56:26 -0400
X-SEF-Processed: 5_0_0_816__2008_08_05_17_56_22
In-Reply-To: <OF56CCE999.88216C0A-ON8725749C.0075E405-8725749C.0076228E@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name
To: Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com>
Cc: PMP@pwg.org, pmp-owner@pwg.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF35EA5D96.860DC023-ON8825749C.0076A94A-8825749C.00788354@ricoh-usa.com>
From: Ron.Bergman@ricoh-usa.com
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:56:19 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on NJWC02/RCUS(Release 7.0.2FP1|January 10,
2007) at 08/05/2008 05:56:22 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=07BBFE0FDFE52FDA8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBFE0FDFE52FDA"
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: pmp-owner@pwg.org
Harry,
A more appropriate interpretation would be:
"SNMP needs the Community Name" and "for MS the Community Name must be
"public" for the Port Mon MIB"
Harry Lewis
<harryl@us.ibm.co
m> To
Sent by: PMP@pwg.org
pmp-owner@pwg.org cc
Subject
08/05/2008 02:30 PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name
PM
I accessed the archived report on Port Mon MIB interop testing which
says...
Discussion of use of Community Name
Must be “public” for Port Monitor MIB to work
MS indicated that the Community Name at the logical port level is needed to
be compatible with the existing applications.
Is it correct to interpret this as "MS needs the Community Name" and "the
Community Name must be "public"?
Regards,
Harry
Harry Lewis
Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
Phone: 303-924-5337
e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
infoprint.com
(Embedded image moved to file: pic04734.gif)
P Think before you print
- PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Harry Lewis
- Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Ron.Bergman
- Re: PMP> Port Mon MIB - Community Name Harry Lewis