[c-nsp] snmpwalk for switch port status

[Matlock, Kenneth L]

Well, what I meant.. :)

They COULD expose a NEW OID for those values :)

I agree that their hands are tied as far as the RFC, but that doesn't
preclude a new OID tree.

Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlockk at exempla.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Jones [mailto:howie at thingy.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:42 AM
To: Matlock, Kenneth L
Cc: Eric Hoelzle; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] snmpwalk for switch port status

Matlock, Kenneth L wrote:
> Seeing this script reminded me of a pet peeve I have with Cisco. Why
oh
> why did they use a 32-bit int for the uptime of the switch and port,
and
> use 1/100th second resolution, so after 497 days the counter rolls
over
> back to 0? Was a 64 bit int (or 1/10 a second resolution) not good
> enough? :)
>
> The chassis knows the real uptime (a 'show ver' shows it), why not
> expose that value to SNMP, and the same for the port last changed
state?
>   
Because then it would not be following RFC 1907/3418, which specify it's
a 32-bit int. It's not Cisco's fault (leaving aside that they are one of
the authors of RFC 1907 :-) ). You wouldn't want Cisco to not follow
standards, would you? ;-)