|
|
| − | That's a difficult question. | + | That's not easy to answer in general. |
| | + | |
| | + | If there's an existing agent that already implements the desired new |
| | + | MIB, then it makes sense to re-use that, via whatever extension protocol |
| | + | that agent might support. Note that the SMUX protocol has essentially |
| | + | been superceded by AgentX, which provides a fuller and more reliable |
| | + | mechanism than either SMUX or proxied SNMP. So ideally, this would |
| | + | be the preferred extension approach. |
| | + | But if the target subagent only supports SMUX or basic SNMP, then that |
| | + | would dictate the extension protocol to use. |
| | + | |
| | + | Implementing the module in C within the main agent (directly or via |
| | + | dlmod) is probably the most efficient and reliable, closely followed |
| | + | by embedded perl (or python) extensions. These have the advantage of |
| | + | minimal overheads between the code implementing the MIB module, and |
| | + | the agent framework, and no inter-process communication issues. But |
| | + | this does assume that there's a suitable mechanism for retrieving the |
| | + | necessary information. |
| | | | |
Exception encountered, of type "Error"