| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 980.1 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Wed May 07 1997 13:21 | 8 |
| No, although an IPMT has been entered regarding slow response time.
As indicated in the bug fix list in 914.4, there is one problem
which might get reported as a SNMP hang, but it is not intermittent,
and is actually ARPs to the GIGAswitch/FDDI system which are not
getting replies.
MDL
|
| 980.2 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Wed May 07 1997 13:23 | 8 |
| Usually intermittent SNMP failures indicate network losses (other
than the GIGAswitch/FDDI system). If you're doing a trace, make
absolutely certain that you are getting the trace immediately before
the GIGAswitch/FDDI system port, and immediately after the
GIGAswitch/FDDI system output port (which are not necessarily the
same).
MDL
|
| 980.3 | SNMP traffic ? | OPCO::NET_JPM | | Thu May 08 1997 04:58 | 13 |
| I have a GIGAswitch that is running 3.0 ,30 ports in use with
HPopenview collecting input/ouput packets for every port every 1min
that gets "holes" in its data collection. I was going to wait until
after it was upgraded to 3.12 to ask the same question as the base
note.
This GIGAswitch does fail some pings when the datacollection is running but
does not appear to drop user traffic. Are snmp querrys hard on the SCP?
Is the switch likely to drop packets if someone hits it hard with SNMP
querrys?
There are other GIGAswitchs in the network that do not have the same
problem but have a lot less traffic.
John Murphy
|
| 980.4 | No problems in BRS Clusters. | CHEFS::PADDICK | Michael Paddick - BRS Bristol, UK | Thu May 08 1997 10:40 | 17 |
| Richard,
In the BRS (Split site) FDDI Clusters I've worked with using
Gigaswitches, they all have status polling every 1:00 min,
on lots of entities, and as far as I know, there's no
problem at all.
This includes networks with up to 4 Gigaswitches.
Our GigaSwitch at Bristol is polled 24 hours a day at 1 minute
intervals, and there doesn't appear to be any problem with it.
Everything's at version 3.1, except clock module at 3.0.
Meic.
|
| 980.5 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Thu May 08 1997 13:36 | 53 |
| As with everything, at some point there is a limit to what can be
handled. If you have a single NMS doing the polling, I think it's
unlikely that you will see the GIGAswitch/FDDI system dropping SNMP
requests since they are limited to one at a time by the
request/response format. ...that is - unless the SCP is busy doing
other things like flooding, et cetera.
In a network, SNMP frames are data frames just like any other frame
and are subject to the same dangers of frame loss due to congestion.
SNMP does not get guaranteed delivery. If a frame is lost in transit,
it is lost.
The SCP does not handle forwarding of frames except for multicast
and flooded frames.
If you look at the MIB II counters, you'll find some counters which
may be helpful in identifying what is happening:
snmpInPkts = 5707
snmpOutPkts = 5700
snmpInBadVersions = 0
snmpInBadCommunityNames = 0
snmpInBadCommunityUses = 6
snmpInASNParseErrs = 0
snmpInTooBigs = 0
snmpInNoSuchNames = 0
snmpInBadValues = 0
snmpInReadOnlys = 0
snmpInGenErrs = 0
snmpInTotalReqVars = 15142
snmpInTotalSetVars = 0
snmpInGetRequests = 32
snmpInGetNexts = 5632
snmpInSetRequests = 0
snmpInGetResponses = 0
snmpInTraps = 0
snmpOutTooBigs = 0
snmpOutNoSuchNames = 29
snmpOutBadValues = 0
snmpOutGenErrs = 6
snmpOutGetRequests = 0
snmpOutGetNexts = 0
snmpOutSetRequests = 0
snmpOutGetResponses = 5699
snmpOutTraps = 0
CounterCreationTime = 2-MAY-1997 14:30:41.32
snmpEnableAuthenTraps = enabled
...as well as all the standard counters for dropped frames, et cetera.
Correlate increases in these counters with the times you're missing
data.
MDL
|
| 980.6 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Thu May 08 1997 16:58 | 10 |
| ....also worth mentioning is that since SNMP is a single threaded
process on the GIGAswitch/FDDI system, if it's busy handling another
SNMP request which takes a long time, it will not respond until it's
done. It would not be unusual for an NMS to time out before the
request actually gets handled.
An example of something which takes a long time is a SNMP SET like
changing the default filter matrix - this takes many seconds.
MDL
|
| 980.7 | More than one NMS | OPCO::NET_JPM | | Thu May 08 1997 21:59 | 16 |
| The key here may be that the GIGAswitch SNMP is a single threaded
process and there is more than one NMS. There is an NMS for faults ie
ports up/down , and one for Stats plus backup NMS's that are not ment
to poll but I will check. I will also check to see if the stats
collection is single threaded or not on HPOV.
Part of the problem is that there is a migration from DECmcc,SunNET
manager and Polycentre Netview to HPopenview so there is a lot of NMS's to
check here.
Of the customers five GIGAswitches there is only one that is doing this
but the others have no where near as many used ports so the stats
collection may finish quicker
Thanks,
John Murphy
OMS
|
| 980.8 | NMS timesout slow replies. | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Thu May 22 1997 07:45 | 10 |
| The traces show that sometimes the G/S takes over 5 seconds to respond
to SNMP gets. The NMS is polling for interface stats. It uses
multi-object GETs and polls multiple interfaces every poll cycle. When
the reply times are extended the NMS timesout.
The poll cycle time is large but the GETs are all sent together. Are
GETs that need line card counters particularly slow ? Any comment on
the performance, is 5-10 seconds typical for this type of operation.
R.
|
| 980.9 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Thu May 22 1997 13:27 | 16 |
| What is the time between responses from the GIGAswitch/FDDI system?
(I.E. *not* the time from when you send a request to when you receive a
response, but instead the time between GIGAswitch/FDDI responses..)
Remember - SNMP on the GIGAswitch/FDDI system is single threaded - if
you send it fifty responses, it will respond to them one at a time, and
the last one will be delayed due to the earlier responses.
5-10 seconds is certainly not typical for a response to a single
request. I have never seen such a delay, and expect that you are
queueing up requests, or the SCP is doing something else.
...but it is true that Interface MIB counters reside on the
linecards and require extra overhead between the SCP and linecards to
acquire that information.
MDL
|
| 980.10 | Odd SNMP response performance | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Fri May 23 1997 15:24 | 23 |
| Re .9
I tried to test this with a datascope sending a captured SNMP GET.
I found that if the GETs were too close together the G/S did not
respond at all to 2nd and subsequent GETs. The minimum delay was about
400 ms. This is odd as tracing a normal SNMP (hubwatch) operation the
G/S handles GETs much quicker.
I then tried changing the ID numbers but this made no difference.
If the scope sends identical (with or without different IDs) SNMP
GETs to the G/S it seems not to respond to all unless they are separted
in time.
The customers traces show a similar problem. The NMS sends 4 GET reqs
all together. Each has 13 objects. One example asks for
1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.n.14
The first GET gets a response 1.5 seconds later and the 3 others
timeout (3 3 seconds).
Rgds R.
|
| 980.11 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Fri May 23 1997 18:12 | 39 |
| Most likely, as was requested several times, the kludge to ignore
duplicate frames within a certain time period was extended to SNMP.
This is to avoid the duplication inherent with multiply connected
rings.
Can you identify any reason why someone would send duplicate
requests back to back in any normal usage?
..and please don't forget to get the original answer, which is to
identify the time between responses (to a *real* NMS stream, or at
least one which looks vaguely real).
Pounding the GIGAswitch/FDDI system with back-to-back SNMP requests
will most certainly result in getting some dropped - but it is a
completely artificial environment. There is no particular intent to
optimize the GIGAswitch/FDDI system for SNMP responses - it is
optimized for unicast frame switching. SNMP is necessary for
management, and if something is causing the GIGAswitch/FDDI system to
be unmanageable, then it will be addressed.
We have received *one* report apart from yours that SNMP is unable
to keep up with a NMS (Cabletron Spectrum with a fully loaded
GIGAswitch/FDDI platform). It is under investigation, but it appears
to be caused by the way their application is designed (they create
multiple processes which all send multiple gets without waiting for
responses) - i.e. even though the GIGAswitch/FDDI system is answering
in a reasonable timeframe, since the GIGAswitch/FDDI system SNMP agent
is single threaded, there is only one process to receive n processses
worth of requests. After a few seconds, these multiple processes
retransmit the same requests assuming they have been lost, causing a
even larger backlog of requests - repeat ad infinitum.
The question (which is the same as in your case) is whether the
GIGAswitch/FDDI system slows down the response rate, or is just being
sent requests faster than it can handle. Some GETs take longer - those
which require information from the linecard. But they don't take
forever.
MDL
|
| 980.12 | Trace info to follow. | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Tue May 27 1997 09:08 | 42 |
| Re .11
>Most likely, as was requested several times, the kludge to ignore
>duplicate frames within a certain time period was extended to SNMP.
I tried using packets with different request ID's the G/S still ignored
the 2nd and subsequent GET requests, if sent before the 1st response.
>Can you identify any reason why someone would send duplicate
>requests back to back in any normal usage?
No, I was trying to use this as a test to measure the response time.
>.and please don't forget to get the original answer, which is to
>identify the time between responses (to a *real* NMS stream, or at
>least one which looks vaguely real).
I have a real trace, it shows what I tried to describe in .10.
" The customers traces show a similar problem. The NMS sends 4 GET reqs
all together. Each has 13 objects. One example asks for
1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.n.14
The first GET gets a response 1.5 seconds later and the 3 others
timeout (3 3 seconds). "
The problem seems to be that the customer traces and my testing are
consistent but tracing a normal SNMP GET sequence from Hubwatch goes
much faster than this. It could be that the difference is that hubwatch
sends one request at a time and waits for the response before sending
the next. Testing and the customer's NMS uses multiple outstanding
requests.
The real trace is large but it can be easily searched by
request/response ID. I will send you a copy.
Thanks R.
|
| 980.13 | How about this scenario? | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Tue May 27 1997 20:12 | 38 |
| ....well, you create SNMP PDUs which have thirteen GETs in it. The
GIGAswitch/FDDI system SNMP responder is single threaded. You have a three
second timeout period from your SNMP manager sending the requests. ...assume
it takes 1.5 seconds for the GIGAswitch/FDDI system to process one of those
PDUs:
Sequence of events
Elapsed time Event (What is happening)
0.0 Send frame 1 (13 objects requiring linecard response)
Send frame 2 ""
Send frame 3 ""
Send frame 4 ""
0.1-1.6 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 1)
1.6 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 1
1.7-3.2 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 2)
3.1 SNMP manager times out frame 2,3,4
3.2 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 2
3.2 SNMP manager retransmits frames 2,3,4 (now called 5,6,7)
3.3-4.8 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 3)
4.8 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 3
4.9-5.4 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 4)
5.4 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 4
5.5-7.0 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 5)
6.3 SNMP manager times out frames 5,6,7
6.4 SNMP manager retransmits 5,6,7 (now called 8,9,10)
7.0 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 5
7.1-8.6 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 6)
8.6 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 6
8.7-10.2 GIGAswitch/FDDI system processing PDU (frame 7)
9.5 SNMP manager times out 8,9,10
10.2 GIGAswitch/FDDI system sends response to frame 7
...I think you get the idea - it can't work. You are doing retransmissions
before the GIGAswitch/FDDI system has finished handling your original requests.
I haven't looked at your trace yet, but I don't expect any surprises...
MDL
|
| 980.14 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Tue May 27 1997 20:59 | 4 |
| P.S. In case you're wondering, from the perspective of the
GIGAswitch/FDDI system design, 1.5 seconds to respond to a SNMP PDU
containing 13 GETs which require linecard polling is quite reasonable.
I would have expected worse times, myself.
|
| 980.15 | Could be just taking a long time | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Wed May 28 1997 12:06 | 15 |
| Re .13
The scenario looks OK, this could be what's happening. I would like
to be able to explain to the customer why 1.5s doesn't seem like a long
time. It was as much a surprise to them as me.
I'm still left with my testing which sends 3 Get reqs with different
ID's back to back and counts the number of responses. Consistently I send
3 and get 1 response. When the time between GETs is large enough to allow
a response BEFORE the next GET it works as expected. I'll recheck this
to make sure I don't have a scope programing error.
Thanks R.
|
| 980.16 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Wed May 28 1997 13:44 | 40 |
| You are sending 13 SNMP GET requests, each of which requires
separate actions from the SNMP process on the GIGAswitch/FDDI system.
In the sample you gave, the OID was from one of the interface
tables in MIB II. Interface counters are kept on the line cards. When
you do a GET request on an interface counter, the SCP has to send ICCs
(intercard command packets) to the linecard to obtain this information.
If a copy were stored on the SCP, it would be out of date. Caching
this information would yield invalid results.
SNMP is not a high priority. Forwarding frames is a high priority.
The process of exchanging ICCs with the linecard is quite expensive
in time. In your example, where you had 13 GETs in a single SNMP PDU,
which took 1.5 seconds, this means it took about 0.1 second per ICC
exchange (rough approximation) - this is quite good. It would not be
unexpected for an ICC to take 0.5 seconds.
Your problem is that you are piggybacking lots of SNMP requests in
a single PDU and seem to expect it to take the same amount of time. It
doesn't work that way.
Going back to your trace - are you quite positive that you are
waiting and capturing all the responses, and not cutting them off?
I will examine your trace today when I get a few minutes.
You still haven't answered the question as to the separation in
times on the GIGAswitch/FDDI system responses. ***IGNORE THE TIME THE
REQUESTS WERE SENT***. They don't much matter if you are stacking up
requests. What is important is to determine if the GIGAswitch/FDDI
system is consistently sending responses on a regular basis, which is
what I expect you are seeing. The problem is most likely that you are
sending requests faster than the GIGAswitch/FDDI system is capable of
answering.
This is hardly a surprise - I'll repeat myself - the
GIGAswitch/FDDI system is designed to forward frames quickly, not to
answer as many SNMP requests as possible.
MDL
|
| 980.17 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Wed May 28 1997 20:59 | 74 |
| Richard,
From your trace - you sent out the following SNMP GETs:
Frame: 60366 Time: May 19@19:07:14.9844978 Length: 108 GET request
Frame: 60383 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1459357 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60384 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1533301 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60385 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1570308 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60386 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1605157 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60434 Time: May 19@19:07:15.8563303 Length: 95 GET request
Frame: 60578 Time: May 19@19:07:16.6516760 Length: 94 GET request
Frame: 60691 Time: May 19@19:07:17.9210365 Length: 94 GET request
Frame: 60727 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1617624 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60728 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1633124 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60730 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1650077 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 60938 Time: May 19@19:07:19.6610133 Length: 94 GET request
Frame: 60997 Time: May 19@19:07:20.2529824 Length: 95 GET request
Frame: 61064 Time: May 19@19:07:21.1718987 Length: 289 GET request
Frame: 61066 Time: May 19@19:07:21.1735261 Length: 289 GET request
..and got the following responses:
Frame: 60367 Time: May 19@19:07:14.9860001 Length: 145 GET response
Frame: 60576 Time: May 19@19:07:16.6151022 Length: 328 GET response
Frame: 60681 Time: May 19@19:07:17.7570057 Length: 328 GET response
Frame: 60831 Time: May 19@19:07:18.9252834 Length: 329 GET response
Frame: 60970 Time: May 19@19:07:19.8964039 Length: 329 GET response
..combined and massaged:
Frame: 60366 Time: May 19@19:07:14.9844978 GET request 20435
Frame: 60367 Time: May 19@19:07:14.9860001 GET response 20435
Frame: 60383 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1459357 GET request 20437
Frame: 60384 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1533301 GET request 20442
Frame: 60385 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1570308 GET request 20443
Frame: 60386 Time: May 19@19:07:15.1605157 GET request 20444
Frame: 60434 Time: May 19@19:07:15.8563303 GET request 43822
Frame: 60576 Time: May 19@19:07:16.6151022 GET response 20437
Frame: 60578 Time: May 19@19:07:16.6516760 GET request 20678
Frame: 60681 Time: May 19@19:07:17.7570057 GET response 20437
Frame: 60691 Time: May 19@19:07:17.9210365 GET request 20028
Frame: 60727 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1617624 GET request 20442
Frame: 60728 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1633124 GET request 20443
Frame: 60730 Time: May 19@19:07:18.1650077 GET request 20444
Frame: 60831 Time: May 19@19:07:18.9252834 GET response 20442
Frame: 60938 Time: May 19@19:07:19.6610133 GET request 20678
Frame: 60970 Time: May 19@19:07:19.8964039 GET response 20442
Frame: 60997 Time: May 19@19:07:20.2529824 GET request 44140
Frame: 61064 Time: May 19@19:07:21.1718987 GET request 20443
Frame: 61066 Time: May 19@19:07:21.1735261 GET request 20444
...and the last frame in your trace had a time of 19:07:21.2143821
...the incremental response times were:
Frame 60367-60576 1.6291012 seconds
Frame 60576-60681 1.1419035 seconds
Frame 60681-60831 1.1682777 seconds
Frame 60831-60970 0.9711295 seconds
...and I expect it continued after you stopped the trace.
My analysis is that for some reason the GIGAswitch/FDDI system appears to
have processed two copies of some of your SNMP GET requests, or duplicated the
requests internally. It was responding to the requests in order, and
probably responded to the others after the trace ended.
If you want to pursue this, I suggest you confirm that there is only a
single connection to the GIGAswitch/FDDI system. Also, this time, continue
the trace for several minutes past when you stop sending SNMP frames. It
would be easier if you filtered the frames on the analyzer to eliminate the
non-SNMP frames.
MDL
|
| 980.18 | Thanks , More later | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Thu May 29 1997 13:21 | 8 |
| Michael
Thanks for the work you have done on this.
I hope to post the traces from my local testing here next week.
R.
|
| 980.19 | It does reply, if you wait. | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Mon Jun 02 1997 13:52 | 16 |
| Re .18
I have re-written the test program and agree that the G/S will
eventually respond to differnet SNMP GETs if all sent back to back. Sorry
for the inacurate info posted previously. As was, I think previously stated
, the G/S will not respond to SNMP GET messages it considers to be
duplicates, I think that my problem was incorrect editing the message
sequence numbers on the datascope.
The base note problem was the NMS 3sec timeout is too short for the
type of operation being performed.
Many thanks R.
|
| 980.20 | | NPSS::MDLYONS | Michael D. Lyons DTN 226-6943 | Mon Jun 02 1997 20:19 | 4 |
| ...incidently, the kludge I discussed earlier regarding duplicate
frames has not at this point been extended to SNMP frames.
MDL
|
| 980.21 | Back to back duplicate SNMP gets | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Thu Jun 05 1997 07:44 | 110 |
| Re .20
Test 1 with SNMP Gets sent back to back. 16.200.0.28 is G/S ,
16.182.96.55 is the message from the datascope.
When the gets are sent together I only get 1 response. (SCP and FGL V 3.10)
Frame ID Arrival Time Size Source Node Dest Node Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Jun 03 12:18:35.250 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
2 Jun 03 12:18:35.250 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
3 Jun 03 12:18:35.250 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
4 Jun 03 12:18:35.250 0212 16.200.0.28 16.182.96.55 SNMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test 2 with frames sent 1 sec apart. Same packet, 3 responses.
Frame ID Arrival Time Size Source Node Dest Node Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Jun 03 12:37:31.960 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
2 Jun 03 12:37:31.970 0212 16.200.0.28 16.182.96.55 SNMP
3 Jun 03 12:37:32.970 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
4 Jun 03 12:37:32.970 0212 16.200.0.28 16.182.96.55 SNMP
5 Jun 03 12:37:33.970 0198 16.182.96.55 16.200.0.28 SNMP
6 Jun 03 12:37:33.970 0212 16.200.0.28 16.182.96.55 SNMP
Full details of frame sent.
Frame 1 Size 198 Absolute Time Jun 03 12:18:35.250 ASCII MODE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Level # 1 is ETHERNET Offset: 0 Size: 14
Dest Address : DEC -a5-c2-0c 08 00 2b a5 c2 0c ..+...
Source Address : DEC -a0-ae-88 08 00 2b a0 ae 88 ..+...
Type : DoD IP 08 00 ..
----- Level # 2 is DoD IP Offset: 14 Size: 20
Version : 4 4 .
Header Length : 20 5 .
Type Of Service: 0 00 .
: 000..... Routine
: ...0.... Normal Delay
: ....0... Normal Throughput
: .....0.. Normal Reliability
Total Length : 180 00 b4 ..
Identification : 39817 9b 89 ..
Flags : 0
: 0.. Reserved
: .0. May Fragment
: ..0 Last Fragment
Fragment Offset: 0 00 00 ..
Time To Live : 30 1e .
Protocol : 17 (DODUDP) 11 .
Header Checksum: 32479 7e df ~.
Source Address : [16.182.96.55] 10 b6 60 37 ..`7
Dest Address : [16.200.0.28] 10 c8 00 1c ....
----- Level # 3 is DoD UDP Offset: 34 Size: 8
Source Port : 2129 08 51 .Q
Dest Port : 161 (SNMP) 00 a1 ..
Length : 160 00 a0 ..
Checksum : 55332 d8 24 .$
----- Level # 4 is SNMP Offset: 42 Size: 152
PDU Length : 149 30 81 95 0..
Version : 0 02 01 00 ...
Community : 08002bxxxxxx 04 0c 30 38 30 30 ..0800
: 32 62 61 35 63 32 2bxxxx
: 30 30 xx
PDU Type : GETNEXT Request a1 81 81 ...
Request Id : -1282348033 02 04 cc 6f 14 01 ...o..
Error Status : 0 (noError) 02 01 00 ...
Error Index : 0 02 01 00 ...
VarBind : 30 73 0s
: 30 15 0.
Object Name : {1.3.6.1.4.1.36.2.15.3.3.3.1.4. 06 11 2b 06 01 04 ..+...
: 3.1.1.2} 01 24 02 0f 03 03 .$....
: 03 01 04 03 01 01 ......
: 02 .
Object Value : NULL 05 00 ..
: 30 15 0.
Object Name : {1.3.6.1.4.1.36.2.15.3.3.3.1.4. 06 11 2b 06 01 04 ..+...
: 3.1.2.2} 01 24 02 0f 03 03 .$....
: 03 01 04 03 01 02 ......
: 02 .
Object Value : NULL 05 00 ..
: 30 15 0.
Object Name : {1.3.6.1.4.1.36.2.15.3.3.3.1.4. 06 11 2b 06 01 04 ..+...
: 3.1.3.2} 01 24 02 0f 03 03 .$....
: 03 01 04 03 01 03 ......
: 02 .
Object Value : NULL 05 00 ..
: 30 15 0.
Object Name : {1.3.6.1.4.1.36.2.15.3.3.3.1.4. 06 11 2b 06 01 04 ..+...
: 3.1.4.2} 01 24 02 0f 03 03 .$....
: 03 01 04 03 01 04 ......
: 02 .
Object Value : NULL 05 00 ..
: 30 15 0.
Object Name : {1.3.6.1.4.1.36.2.15.3.3.3.1.4. 06 11 2b 06 01 04 ..+...
: 3.1.5.2} 01 24 02 0f 03 03 .$....
: 03 01 04 03 01 05 ......
: 02 .
Object Value : NULL 05 00 ..
|