0

I am having one MIB SAF-CKPT-MIB When I am trying the command 

snmpget -v2c -c public -mALL (IP_address) SAF-CKPT-MIB::saCkptCheckpointMaxSectionSize.14.118.100.115.95.118.100.101.115.116.95.100.98.95.49 SAF-CKPT-MIB::saCkptNodeReplicaType.14.118.100.115.95.118.100.101.115.116.95.100.98.95.49.14.115.97.102.78.111.100.101.61.83.67.95.50.95.50

I am getting the message "Timeout: No Response from IP_address"

When I am changing the order like 

snmpget -v2c -c public -mALL (IP_address) SAF-CKPT-MIB::saCkptNodeReplicaType.14.118.100.115.95.118.100.101.115.116.95.100.98.95.49.14.115.97.102.78.111.100.101.61.83.67.95.50.95.50 SAF-CKPT-MIB::saCkptCheckpointMaxSectionSize.14.118.100.115.95.118.100.101.115.116.95.100.98.95.49

It is working fine .....

My question is how this changing the order is making difference here ?? I hope my question is clear ...

Ilmari Karonen
  • 49,047
  • 9
  • 93
  • 153
Arpit
  • 4,259
  • 10
  • 38
  • 43

2 Answers2

1

The message "Timeout: No Response from IP_address" is indicating that the snmp server at IP_address is not responding within the timeout period that snmpget is using (iirc it's 5 seconds by default).

Either the snmp server at IP_address is not responding at all in the first instance or is responding too slowly. This can be tested by increasing the timeout. eg:

snmpget -v2c -c public -mALL -t 60 (IP_address)

Of course it could also be tested by capturing the packets using Wireshark as suggested by Lex Li.

Any change in behaviour due to the order of the MIB variables in the request sounds like a problem in the implementation of this MIB at the snmp server.

Andrew Edgecombe
  • 39,594
  • 3
  • 35
  • 61
0

Rarely saw such order related issue, as generally speaking the order does not have an impact on the resulting SNMP packets. But of course, capturing network traffic with either Wireshark or Microsoft Network Monitor can show some hints under the hood.

Lex Li

http://sharpsnmplib.codeplex.com

Lex Li
  • 60,503
  • 9
  • 116
  • 147