Re: [Agentx] Some confusion, while watching AgentX-Register-PDU in net-snmp 5.4

[Mark Atwood <me at mark.atwood.name>]

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> writes:
> 
> > The AgentX-Register-PDU sent was
> >   flags = 0x01 (INSTANCE_REGISTRATION, !NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER)
> >   range_subid = 13
> >     {shouldn't this be 14?}
> 
> I'd have expected 9, based on the text on page 24 of RFC 2257,
> as well as the example on page 25, since it's using the prefix kludge.
> It might be worth looking at the actual byte stream, rather than
> a pretty-printed version; it's possible that the pretty-printer is
> obscuring what's really happening.

I think the RFC is reasonably clear here.

| Note that r.range_subid indicates the (1-based) index of
| this sub-identifier within the OID represented by r.subtree,
| regardless of whether or not r.subtree is encoded using a
| prefix. (See the example below.)

"within the OID represented by r.subtree" tells me that the index is
into the *actual* complete OID.  r.subtree is just a representation of
the complete OID.

I supposed it could be more clear.  The proof of the pudding would be
an interop-fest, I supposed.

-- 
Mark Atwood                 When you do things right, people won't be sure
me at mark.atwood.name         you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/   http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/