Subject: AgentX implementation report From: Dave Shield Just squeezing in before the "Desired due date". Sorry for cutting it so fine! Dave AgentX Implementation Report Report date: 10th May 2001 __________________________________ Submitted by: Dave Shield ___________________________________ Organization: Net-SNMP project ______________________________ E-mail address: _______ Implementation name: ucd-snmp (also known as net-snmp) ____________ Implementation type: X Master and/or X Sub-Agent and/or (X) Toolkit Runtime platform(s): Linux, *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, etc ______________ Reported version id: 4.2.1 _______________________________________ If Master Agent, did you implement: SNMPv1 support in master agent: X Yes ___ No SNMPv2c support in master agent: X Yes ___ No SNMPv3 support in master agent: X Yes ___ No If Sub-Agent, what MIB(s) did you implement: MIB-2, Host Resources, UCD-specifics Comments: The AgentX support was added to an existing agent, so all prior MIBs were immediately available as AgentX subagent(s). If Toolkit, please identify: Development languages supported: C Comments: It is possible to use the libraries as an AgentX toolkit, to instrument external applications, but the API is not currently as cleanly defined as we would like. Development platforms supported: Linux, *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, etc Comments: Should work on most Unix-style platforms Also reported to work on Windows Runtime platforms supported: Linux, *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, etc Comments: Should work on most Unix-style platforms Also reported to work on Windows For all implementations: Did you implement the following PDU types: agentx-Open-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Contexts not supported by master or subagent framework agentx-Close-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-Register-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Range registrations currently not handled correctly. It is intended to correct this - hopefully for the next release agentx-Unregister-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-Get-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-GetNext-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-GetBulk-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Master agent never generates GetBulk requests, but uses GetNext instead. Subagent handles GetBulk OK. agentx-TestSet-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-CommitSet-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-UndoSet-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-CleanupSet-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-Notify-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months agentx-Ping-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Implemented, but not used by the current release, though the development version does now make use of this. agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Not used by subagent MIB implementations agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Not used by subagent MIB implementations agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Not used by subagent MIB implementations agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Not used by subagent MIB implementations agentx-Response-PDU: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Does this implementation have interoperability experience with at least one other independent implementation with respect to: Registration operations: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Registration priorities: ___ Yes X No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Priorities have been implemented and are believed to be working, but have not been tested against an independent implementation. Index allocation operations: ___ Yes X No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Implemented, but not tested against an independent implementation, or currently used by MIB modules. Index deallocation operations: ___ Yes X No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Implemented, but not tested against an independent implementation, or currently used by MIB modules. Multiple sub-agent connections: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Connecting sub-agent(s) to multiple master agents: ___ Yes X No, but plan to within ___ months Detecting loss of connection of sub-agent(s): X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Detecting loss of connection with master agent(s): ___ Yes X No, but plan to within 6 months Comments: This functionality is present within the current development code. What transport mappings did you implement: TCP/IP on port 705: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Also TCP/IP on other ports UNIX Domain Sockets on "/var/agentx/master": X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: UNIX Domain Sockets on other endpoints: X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Other(s): X Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Comments: Transport mapping is implemented independently from AgentX support, so the suite will support AgentX over any implemented transport (e.g. definitely UDP/IP - possibly {TCP/UDP}/IPv6, etc) Did you implement the AgentX MIB (RFC2742): ___ Yes X No, but plan to within 6 months Did you satisfy the agentxMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE requirements:: ___ Yes ___ No, but plan to within ___ months Did you implement the MIB as an integral part of the master agent: ___ Yes X No Comments: Since we haven't implemented the MIB, strictly speaking the answer is No. But the intention is certainly to implement this within the master agent (only) Did you implement the MIB in an AgentX sub-agent: ___ Yes X No Comments: The necessary information does not appear to be available to the subagent (at least not without a private communication channel to the master agent, which rather defeats the point!) Please record any other comments or notes you deem useful for the record: Comments: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -