Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

more ubiquiti and sharing sysObjectID between devices #185

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: maintenance-0.20.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gottaloveit
Copy link
Contributor

I think I committed my previous PR #184 too soon.

I just got a different model Ubiquiti switch and noticed they have the same sysObjectID.

.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.2.0 = OID: .1.3.6.1.4.1.4413
# snmpwalk -On -v 2c -c ** 10.10.14.196 sysObjectID.0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.2.0 = OID: .1.3.6.1.4.1.4413

# snmpwalk -On -v 2c -c ** 172.20.10.20 sysDescr.0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: EdgeSwitch 48-Port Lite, 1.6.0.4900860, Linux 3.6.5-f4a26ed5, 1.0.0.4857129
# snmpwalk -On -v 2c -c public 10.10.14.196 sysDescr.0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: EdgeSwitch 16-Port 10G, 1.6.0.4900860, Linux 3.6.5, 1.0.0.4872137

So I hacked up the code a bit and added what I think could work in this situation for any manufacturer. I do know that I tried to make it manufacturer agnostic and the code does work fine.

adding ES-16-XG 10gb switch
due to sysdescr oid being the same
for case when multiple different models share same sysdescr
@infrastation
Copy link
Member

Some obvious cleanups are due, but other than that maybe @adoom42 has an opinion about the proposed change?

@adoom42
Copy link
Member

adoom42 commented Feb 12, 2017

It looks like a novel approach which adds support for new models without affecting any existing ones. Once the code is adjusted for style/formatting standards, I'd merge it.

@infrastation
Copy link
Member

It may be simpler to keep the vendor-specific files as snmp-VENDOR.php (or likewise) in the usual directory, this way the custom pathname processing will not be required.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants