[Nagiosplug-devel] Re: nagiosplug- check_snmp

[Subhendu Ghosh]

Thanks Michael.

Looks like another change between v4.x and 5.x
(Also might look into supporting some IPv6 and TCP options in 5x)

As a side note: there was a change in r1.8 (line 326) where the "}else{"
clause was dropped.

Without out it, I can't seem to get my warning/critical range checking to 
work.  check_num() properly sets iresult but the lack of the "else" clause 
overrides it.

I have a patch - but wanted to confirm before applying it.

-subhendu


On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Michael Haro wrote:

> I can't find `-p port' documented in net-snmp 5.0.6.  man on
> snmpcmds and searching for `port' only results in `hostname:port',
> no `-p port' option.  man on snmpget shows nothing useful.  Maybe
> older versions of net-snmp have a -p port option or I'm missing something,
> but I can't find it.  I also tried `snmpget -p 161 -v1 hostname oid' and was
> returned the usage screen for snmpget.
> 
> I don't have any snmp devices not running on port 161 so I can't help fully
> test if it works, but doing hostname:161 does work for me.
> 
> Michael
> 
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:57:37PM -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 09:59, Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
> > > Hi Karl
> > > 
> > > Just about to merge my changes on check_snmp  - quick Q.
> > > 
> > > The cmdline port specification got changed from "-p port" to "host:port"
> > > This doesn't seem to be a documented option.
> > > 
> > > Any particular reason for the change?
> > 
> > I got a user patch that suggested it was required for newer net-snmp. I
> > tested with ucd and could not break it. But if it is not required for
> > net-snmp, probably we should stick wutrh what is documented.
> > 
> > Michael -- was that intentional or accidental?
> > 
> > I suspect the most important thing was that we had options after
> > arguments, which is not POSIX compliant, so -p in the right order might
> > work, where it did not before because of ordering.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Karl
> 

--