Re: Comments on SNMP/SMP Coexistence...
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com> Thu, 24 September 1992 04:12 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20007;
24 Sep 92 0:12 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20003;
24 Sep 92 0:12 EDT
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03350;
24 Sep 92 0:16 EDT
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA11795> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Thu, 24 Sep 92 00:16:53 EDT
Received: from lanslide.hls.com by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA11787> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fsnmp2-request X-snmp2;
Thu, 24 Sep 92 00:16:51 EDT
Received: from nms.netman (nms.hls.com) by lanslide.hls.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA15238; Wed, 23 Sep 92 21:17:12 PDT
Received: by nms.netman (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04127; Wed, 23 Sep 92 21:14:16 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com>
Message-Id: <9209240414.AA04127@nms.netman>
Subject: Re: Comments on SNMP/SMP Coexistence...
To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 21:14:15 PDT
Cc: snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com
In-Reply-To: <0D15DDF1.ed83bg@bir.bir.com>;
from "Michael L. Kornegay" at Sep 23, 92 10:30 pm
Organization: Hughes LAN Systems
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
> In this case, I think you both are saying that a SMP protocol entity acting > in the manager role must handle these non SMP response PDUs. Not quite. I'm saying: the responses are legal SMP PDUs, and thus a SMP entity acting in the manager role must handle them. Keith.
- Re: Comments on SNMP/SMP Coexistence... Marshall Rose
- Re: Comments on SNMP/SMP Coexistence... Keith McCloghrie
- Re: Comments on SNMP/SMP Coexistence... Keith McCloghrie