This project has moved and is read-only. For the latest updates, please go here.


Unable to get Value with "bits" data type



i am currently trying to get an value of an OID from the Intel Modular Server MIB.
Its an OID from the table

Its an BITS datatype, but no matter what i do, i always get an timeout for this value.
Messenger.Get failes, an Walk on this table fails completely, all because of an timeout exception (no matter how high).

All other OIDs in this table works fine.. :(

I am currently skipping this OID , but sadly its an important health value , so i am asking for your help.

I am using the latest .NET 3.5 supported Version..

heres an image from my used snmp browser

file attachments

Closed Dec 28, 2013 at 11:01 AM by lextm


lextm wrote Dec 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

You might capture some network packets and attach here. Then I can take a look.

SearchForTheCode wrote Dec 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Here is my output of wireshark..

i added an text file with the packet protocol and added the raw bytes to import in wireshark..!

Hope this helps you!

lextm wrote Dec 8, 2013 at 10:53 AM

What you capture is not useful. Please try to recapture.

If you are not familiar with Wireshark, try to learn it first.

Simplest steps are,
  1. Start capture.
  2. Reproduce the issue.
  3. Stop capture and save the packets to a file (via File | Save menu item).

SearchForTheCode wrote Dec 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Here is my capture

lextm wrote Dec 28, 2013 at 11:01 AM

This agent is not standard compliant, and it uses 0x03 to encode BITS. Thus, the end of the agent response message "0x03 0x01 0x30" cannot be parsed by #SNMP library. The proper encoding should be "0x04 0x01 0x30".

If you cannot modify the agent, you will have to modify #SNMP accordingly, such as modifying DataFactory.cs. I don't have time to show you how but it should be easy to do so on your own.

For #SNMP, the goal is to support only standard compliant scenarios. I will close this issue as by design.

SearchForTheCode wrote Jan 2, 2014 at 6:46 AM

Thank you for your answer..

That makes sense and i dont know what reason INTEL has to ignore that standard...