Tracking bug for Counter64-in-SNMPv1-response problems (RFC2576 sec 4.1.2.1)
Description
This bug is meant to track all bugs describing third-party SNMP agents that incorrectly include Counter64 varbinds in SNMPv1 response PDUs. This behavior is in violation of RFC2576 section 4.1.2.1, which states that:
4.1.2.1. Handling Counter64
The SMIv2 [7] defines one new syntax that is incompatible with SMIv1. This syntax is Counter64. All other syntaxes defined by SMIv2 are compatible with SMIv1.
The impact on multi-lingual command responders is that they MUST NOT ever return a variable binding containing a Counter64 value in a response to a request that was received using the SNMPv1 message version.
Multi-lingual command responders SHALL take the approach that object instances whose type is Counter64 are implicitly excluded from view when processing an SNMPv1 message. So:
On receipt of an SNMPv1 GetRequest-PDU containing a variable binding whose name field points to an object instance of type Counter64, a GetResponsePDU SHALL be returned, with an error- status of noSuchName and the error-index set to the variable binding that caused this error.
On an SNMPv1 GetNextRequest-PDU, any object instance which contains a syntax of Counter64 SHALL be skipped, and the next accessible object instance that does not have the syntax of Counter64 SHALL be retrieved. If no such object instance exists, then an error-status of noSuchName SHALL be returned, and the error-index SHALL be set to the variable binding that caused this error.
Any SNMPv1 request which contains a variable binding with a Counter64 value is ill-formed, so the foregoing rules do not apply. If that error is detected, a response SHALL NOT be returned, since it would contain a copy of the ill-formed variable binding. Instead, the offending PDU SHALL be discarded and the counter snmpInASNParseErrs SHALL be incremented.
Environment
Operating System: All
Platform: All
URL: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2576
This bug is meant to track all bugs describing third-party SNMP agents that incorrectly include Counter64 varbinds in SNMPv1 response PDUs. This behavior is in violation of RFC2576 section 4.1.2.1, which states that:
4.1.2.1. Handling Counter64
The SMIv2 [7] defines one new syntax that is incompatible with SMIv1.
This syntax is Counter64. All other syntaxes defined by SMIv2 are
compatible with SMIv1.
The impact on multi-lingual command responders is that they MUST NOT
ever return a variable binding containing a Counter64 value in a
response to a request that was received using the SNMPv1 message
version.
Multi-lingual command responders SHALL take the approach that object
instances whose type is Counter64 are implicitly excluded from view
when processing an SNMPv1 message. So:
On receipt of an SNMPv1 GetRequest-PDU containing a variable
binding whose name field points to an object instance of type
Counter64, a GetResponsePDU SHALL be returned, with an error-
status of noSuchName and the error-index set to the variable
binding that caused this error.
On an SNMPv1 GetNextRequest-PDU, any object instance which
contains a syntax of Counter64 SHALL be skipped, and the next
accessible object instance that does not have the syntax of
Counter64 SHALL be retrieved. If no such object instance
exists, then an error-status of noSuchName SHALL be returned,
and the error-index SHALL be set to the variable binding that
caused this error.
Any SNMPv1 request which contains a variable binding with a
Counter64 value is ill-formed, so the foregoing rules do not
apply. If that error is detected, a response SHALL NOT be
returned, since it would contain a copy of the ill-formed
variable binding. Instead, the offending PDU SHALL be
discarded and the counter snmpInASNParseErrs SHALL be
incremented.