| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4051.1 | Have you configured the NAT box properly? | YAHEY::BOSE | | Sat Nov 07 1992 12:30 | 8 |
|
Try setting a read-write community for the DECmcc station. Obviously
the NAT box is thinking that the DECmcc station is not authorized
for read access, although you have a read-trap community set up for
it. We have seen some really strange behaviour from the NAT
Ethermeter agent we have here in our lab.
/rb
|
| 4051.2 | Pb still exists... | ZTOIS1::VISTA | Renato VISTA, SIS Strasbourg, France | Mon Nov 09 1992 05:16 | 33 |
|
Hi,
So we've defined DECmcc HOST as "community public read_write" on NAT
ETHERmodem remote agent.
The problem is still existing :
MCC>show snmp <nat_ethermodem> all char
==> NO RESPONSE from ENTITY (NO TRAP sent...)
MCC>show snmp <nat_ethermodem> all char, by pass = hjklhjkl
==> NO RESPONSE from ENTITY (Authentication Traps sent
to DECmcc)
We've also used the /usr/mcc/mmexe/mcc_tcpip_mq utility
#/usr/mcc/mmexe/mcc_tcpip_mq <nat-ethermodem> 1 0
IOD>1.3.6.1.4.1.86.2.1.6 <-- NAT variable cfDevIPAddr
==> A GOOD VALUE is RETURNED (ie IPaddress of NAT agent)
We've assumed (without any confirmation) that community "public" is
used by default by /usr/mcc/mmexe/mcc_tcpip_mq.
Any other suggestion ?
Regards,
Renato
|
| 4051.3 | | YAHEY::BOSE | | Mon Nov 09 1992 18:31 | 12 |
|
I just remembered that NAT had some problem handling requests for
objects it did not implement. Instead of returning a NoSuchName
error, it would pretend that it never received a request, thus
causing a time out on the management station.
My guess is that the NAT agent is not responding to requests for
objects it does not implement. Do you get back a response when you
use the SNMP AM to ask for the object cfDevIPAddr? The question is
do you get a response at all for any mib II or NAT private mib object ?
Rahul.
|
| 4051.4 | NAT snmp traces | ZTOIS1::VISTA | Renato VISTA, SIS Strasbourg, France | Tue Nov 10 1992 09:21 | 187 |
|
Rahul,
The problem is still existing. Nevertheles, I've got traces about what
NAT remote Agent answer to DECmcc.
Regards,
Renato
PS : NAT remote agent seems to return correctly, via public community
name, the SysDescr variable...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCC> show snmp em-cd all char
<< Called with state = 0 >>
<< Verb Code = 1 >>
<< EAS dump: Class Wildcard >>
<< ----- --------
18 1
<< Attribute code = 4 >>
<< Received SNMP message: >>
[ 16 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 4 ] 70 75 62 6c 69 63 -- public
[ 2 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000001
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 16 ] (
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ APPLICATION 3 ] 05 93 f4 18
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 4 ] 4e 41 54 20 4c 41 4e 42 2f 31 35 30 20 45 74 68 65 72 4d 65
74 65 72 -- NAT LANB/150 EtherMeter
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 04 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 56 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
)
)
)
)
<< General status: 0 >>
<< MCC status: 52854793 >>
<< VMS status: 0 >>
<< Exception index 3 >>
<< Current CVR: 0 >>
<< Clearing Handle... >>
SNMP em-cd
AT 1992-11-10-11:16:45.824 Characteristics
No response from entity.
MCC>
MCC> show snmp em-cd nat natmib configuration all char
<< Called with state = 0 >>
<< Verb Code = 1 >>
<< EAS dump: Class Wildcard >>
<< ----- --------
18 1
5086 1
2 1
1 1
<< Attribute code = 4 >>
<< Received SNMP message: >>
[ 16 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 4 ] 70 75 62 6c 69 63 -- public
[ 2 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000001
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 16 ] (
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ APPLICATION 3 ] 05 94 cc d0
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 4 ] 4e 41 54 20 4c 41 4e 42 2f 31 35 30 20 45 74 68 65 72 4d 65
74 65 72 -- NAT LANB/150 EtherMeter
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 04 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 56 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
)
)
)
)
<< General status: 0 >>
<< MCC status: 52854793 >>
<< VMS status: 0 >>
<< Exception index 3 >>
<< Current CVR: 0 >>
<< Clearing Handle... >>
SNMP em-cd nat natmib configuration
AT 1992-11-10-11:25:47.344 Characteristics
No response from entity.
MCC>
MCC> show snmp em-cd nat natmib configuration cfDevIPAddr
<< Called with state = 0 >>
<< Verb Code = 1 >>
<< EAS dump: Class Wildcard >>
<< ----- --------
18 1
5086 1
2 1
1 1
<< Attribute code = 4 >>
<< Received SNMP message: >>
[ 16 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 4 ] 70 75 62 6c 69 63 -- public
[ 2 ] (
[ 2 ] 00000001
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 2 ] 00000000
[ 16 ] (
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ APPLICATION 3 ] 05 94 f5 16
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 4 ] 4e 41 54 20 4c 41 4e 42 2f 31 35 30 20 45 74 68 65 72 4d 65
74 65 72 -- NAT LANB/150 EtherMeter
)
[ 16 ] (
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[ 6 ] 01 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 04 00 00 00
01 00 00 00 56 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00
)
)
)
)
<< General status: 0 >>
<< MCC status: 52854793 >>
<< VMS status: 0 >>
<< Exception index 3 >>
<< Current CVR: 0 >>
<< Clearing Handle... >>
SNMP em-cd nat natmib configuration
AT 1992-11-10-11:27:43.621 Characteristics
No response from entity.
MCC>
|
| 4051.5 | | YAHEY::BOSE | | Tue Nov 10 1992 10:36 | 14 |
|
Renato,
The trace you got is for the "hello" message which consists
of the sysDescr, sysObjID and sysUptime, which the NAT agent sent
back correctly. You might have noticed that no PDU was received for
the actual requests made to the box. That's why the SNMP AM is timing
out.
You might want to use the mib query utility to walk through
all the objects in the NAT mib and see which are supported.
Then you can use the SNMP AM to do show operations on those objects.
Let me know what you find.
Rahul.
|
| 4051.6 | Yes, but... (cf .2 and .4) | ZTOIS1::VISTA | Renato VISTA, SIS Strasbourg, France | Tue Nov 10 1992 11:06 | 19 |
|
Rahul,
If I understand what you mean, you suggest that I test each Cisco
private variables both via mcc_tcpip_mq and manage/snmp command.
That's what I've done. In replies .2 and .4, cfDevIPaddr is requested
using :
1) mcc_tcpip_mq (cf .2) --> a GOOD value is returned
2) manage/show... command (cf .4) --> NO response from entity
What do you think about this behavior ?
Regards,
Renato
|
| 4051.7 | | YAHEY::BOSE | | Tue Nov 10 1992 11:28 | 12 |
|
Renato,
You mean NAT, not Cisco, right ? :-)
The mib query utility asks for one object at a time, while the SNMP
AM asks for all the attributes in a particular partition in a single
request. So if the NAT agent did not implement any of the other
attributes in the partition, you will face the same problem. You
will have to find a partition where all the attributes are implemented
by the NAT agent. Then you might see a different behaviour.
Rahul.
|
| 4051.8 | Finally NAT or DEC problem ? | ZTOIS1::VISTA | Renato VISTA, SIS Strasbourg, France | Tue Nov 10 1992 12:08 | 26 |
|
Rahul,
NAT/CHIPCOM/CISCO, you're right : same SNMP environment !!! But, for
me, it's the end of a hard-work-day...
In conclusion, about this problem, do you think there is a problem a
implementation restriction of NAT/NMS-NAT Remote Agent versus
DECmcc/SNMP-NAT Remote Agent ? Is there any problem of RFC definitions
used differently by NAT and Digital (particularly about Error Handling
when some variables are not gettable, available nor defined) ?
The final question is : is this a NAT problem or a DEC problem ? The
correcting action will depend on the answer...
Regards,
Renato
PS : I will be ONsite next week. Maybe it will be possible to detail
DECmcc partitions versus NAT/NMS variable set, to discover if there is
effectively a complete DECmcc partition corresponding to a complete
variable set. I will post some results of my onsite investigations in a
dozen of days. I would appreciate your opinion about the current reply.
Thank you.
|
| 4051.9 | | YAHEY::BOSE | | Tue Nov 10 1992 15:11 | 16 |
|
Renato,
This is definitely a problem with the NAT agent. We have
a NAT Ethermeter right here which demonstrates a similar behaviour.
RFC 1157 (SNMP) states that when an agent does not implement a
particular object it should return a NoSuchName error. Instead
the NAT agent is dropping the request and not responding at all,
causing a time out on the management station. If the NAT agent
was implemented correctly, you would see an "Attribute Not Gettable"
message instead of No Response from Entity. The problem is compounded
by the fact that when send a request for a bunch of objects, some of
which are implemented, and some of whic aren't, the NAT agent drops
everything, including the good values.
Rahul.
|