Re: SNMP
Boris Pavlov wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>> Andrew Miehs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/03/2009, at 11:00 AM, Alex <trace.localhost@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could you be more specific? I don't see how this thread is related
>>>> to BGP
>>>> Boris Pavlov wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is a router with a full bgp feed you will end up with a lot of
>>> routes which you will also hit with your snmpwalk
>> It's not a router, i specified that it's a switch ( L2 )
> the problem is not with the bgp itself but trying to walk too many
> objects, without expecting it.
> it showed up first with bgp routers and (in my case) OV, with the
> default discovery. it was a long time ago, about the last millennium,
> and is kinda funny answer - 'you've got bgp problem', when used in
> SNMP context.
>
> sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> so, you can have BGP problem with your SNMP, please, share back what
> results you've got with tcpdump.
>
> edi.
I don't think a tcpdump would be relevant , from my point of view it's
clear there are to many MAC's and interrogating the switch over and over
just kills the switch cpu
Reply to: