Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Non-reference index in entSensorValueTable for MDS & Nexus

Hi,

I have a couple of MDS & Nexus frames, and I encounter some non reference indexes for the

entSensorValueTable under the  CISCO-ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB.

Table sais the Index are reference at entPhysicalIndex, which is true, but not for all elements in the table (only physical sensors are reference correctly, not FC ports for example).

The funny thing, is that it contains values for the FC ports, but just non reference index, so it's very hard to identify which rows belows to which ports...

Example:

[root@foobar ~]# snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 10.1.1.1  sysdesc

SNMPv2-MIB::sysDescr.0 = STRING: Cisco NX-OS(tm) m9500, Software (m9500-sf2ek9-mz), Version 5.0(4d), RELEASE SOFTWARE Copyright (c) 2002-2010 by Cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled 4/14/2011 18:00:00

Working... for Outlet sensors...

[root@foobar ~]# snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 10.1.1.1  .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.91.1.1.1.1 | head -n 10

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21718 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21719 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21720 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21721 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21722 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21723 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21724 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21725 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21782 = INTEGER: 8

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.1.21783 = INTEGER: 8

[root@foobar ~]# snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 10.1.1.1  .1.3.6.1.2.1.47.1.1.1.1.2.21718

SNMPv2-SMI::mib-2.47.1.1.1.1.2.21718 = STRING: "module-3 Outlet1 "

Then, let's check some others (they look like FC ports...)

[root@foobar ~]# snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 10.1.1.1  .1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.91.1.1.1.1 | tail -n 10

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38744 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38746 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38749 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38755 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38756 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38760 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38762 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38765 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38771 = INTEGER: 0

SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.9.9.91.1.1.1.1.7.38772 = INTEGER: 0

[root@foobar ~]# snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 10.1.1.1  .1.3.6.1.2.1.47.1.1.1.1.2.38744

SNMPv2-SMI::mib-2.47.1.1.1.1.2.38744 = No Such Instance currently exists at this OID

And index 38744 is never defined into any other table.. (i've check the full walk from .1...)

Any clue?

  • Storage Networking
Everyone's tags (3)
464
Views
0
Helpful
0
Replies