GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc2851

Network Working Group M. Daniele Request for Comments: 2851 Compaq Computer Corporation Category: Standards Track B. Haberman

                                                      Nortel Networks
                                                          S. Routhier
                                             Wind River Systems, Inc.
                                                     J. Schoenwaelder
                                                      TU Braunschweig
                                                            June 2000
         Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This MIB module defines textual conventions to represent commonly
 used Internet network layer addressing information. The intent is
 that these definitions will be imported and used in MIBs that would
 otherwise define their own representations.
 This work is output from the Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB"
 design team.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  The SNMP Management Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 4.  Usage Hints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 4.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 4.4 Resolving DNS Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 5.  Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 8.  Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction

 Several standard-track MIB modules use the IpAddress SMIv2 base type.
 This limits the applicability of these MIB modules to IP Version 4
 (IPv4) since the IpAddress SMIv2 base type can only contain 4 byte
 IPv4 addresses. The IpAddress SMIv2 base type has become problematic
 with the introduction of IP Version 6 (IPv6) addresses [21].
 This document defines multiple textual conventions as a mechanism to
 express generic Internet network layer addresses within MIB module
 specifications. The solution is compatible with SMIv2 (STD 58) and
 SMIv1 (STD 16). New MIB definitions which need to express network
 layer Internet addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined
 in this memo. New MIBs SHOULD NOT use the SMIv2 IpAddress base type
 anymore.
 A generic Internet address consists of two objects, one whose syntax
 is InetAddressType, and another whose syntax is InetAddress. The
 value of the first object determines how the value of the second
 object is encoded. The InetAddress textual convention represents an
 opaque Internet address value. The InetAddressType enumeration is
 used to "cast" the InetAddress value into a concrete textual
 convention for the address type. This usage of multiple textual
 conventions allows expression of the display characteristics of each
 address type and makes the set of defined Internet address types
 extensible.
 The textual conventions defined in this document can be used to
 define Internet addresses by using DNS domain names in addition to
 IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. A MIB designer can write compliance
 statements to express that only a subset of the possible address
 types must be supported by a compliant implementation.
 MIB developers who need to represent Internet addresses SHOULD use
 these definitions whenever applicable, as opposed to defining their
 own constructs. Even MIBs that only need to represent IPv4 or IPv6
 addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this memo.
 In order to make existing widely-deployed IPv4-only MIBs fit for
 IPv6, it might be a valid approach to define separate tables for
 different address types. This is a decision for the MIB designer.
 For example, the tcpConnTable of the TCP-MIB [18] was left intact

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 and a new table was added for TCP connections over IPv6 in the IPV6-
 TCP-MIB [19]. Note that even in this case, the MIBs SHOULD use the
 textual conventions defined in this memo.
 Note that MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions
 defined in this document to represent transport layer addresses.
 Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated
 definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.
 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in
 this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

2. The SNMP Management Framework

 The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
 components:
 o  An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [2].
 o  Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the
    purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of
    Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in STD
    16, RFC 1155 [3], STD 16, RFC 1212 [4] and RFC 1215 [5]. The
    second version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578
    [6], STD 58, RFC 2579 [7] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [8].
 o  Message protocols for transferring management information. The
    first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
    described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second version of the SNMP
    message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
    protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [10] and RFC
    1906 [11]. The third version of the message protocol is called
    SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [11], RFC 2572 [12] and RFC 2574
    [13].
 o  Protocol operations for accessing management information. The
    first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
    described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second set of protocol
    operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905
    [14].
 o  A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [15] and
    the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575
    [16].
 A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework
 can be found in RFC 2570 [17].
 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
 the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are
 defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A
 MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate
 translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically
 equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no
 translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable
 information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in
 SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine
 readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the
 MIB.

3. Definitions

 INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
 IMPORTS
   MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI
   TEXTUAL-CONVENTION     FROM SNMPv2-TC;
 inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
   LAST-UPDATED "200006080000Z"
   ORGANIZATION
       "IETF Operations and Management Area"
   CONTACT-INFO
       "Mike Daniele
        Compaq Computer Corporation
        110 Spit Brook Rd
        Nashua, NH  03062, USA
        Phone: +1 603 884-1423
        EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
        Brian Haberman
        Nortel Networks
        4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200
        Durham, NC  27703, USA
        Phone: +1 919 992-4439
        EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com
        Shawn A. Routhier
        Wind River Systems, Inc.
        1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403
        Nashua, NH  03062, USA
        Phone: +1 603 897-2000
        EMail: sar@epilogue.com

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

        Juergen Schoenwaelder
        TU Braunschweig
        Bueltenweg 74/75
        38106 Braunschweig, Germany
        Phone: +49 531 391-3289
        EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
        Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org."
 DESCRIPTION
   "This MIB module defines textual conventions for
    representing Internet addresses. An Internet
    address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address
    or a DNS domain name."
 REVISION     "200006080000Z"
 DESCRIPTION
     "Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
 ::= { mib-2 76 }
 InetAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
       "A value that represents a type of Internet address.
        unknown(0)  An unknown address type. This value MUST
                    be used if the value of the corresponding
                    InetAddress object is a zero-length string.
                    It may also be used to indicate an IP address
                    which is not in one of the formats defined
                    below.
        ipv4(1)     An IPv4 address as defined by the
                    InetAddressIPv4 textual convention.
        ipv6(2)     An IPv6 address as defined by the
                    InetAddressIPv6 textual convention.
        dns(16)     A DNS domain name as defined by the
                    InetAddressDNS textual convention.
        Each definition of a concrete InetAddressType value must be
        accompanied by a definition of a textual convention for use
        with that InetAddressType.
        The InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be subtyped
        in object type definitions to support future extensions. It

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

        MAY be subtyped in compliance statements in order to require
        only a subset of these address types for a compliant
        implementation."
   SYNTAX      INTEGER {
                   unknown(0),
                   ipv4(1),    -- these named numbers are aligned
                   ipv6(2),    -- with AddressFamilyNumbers from
                   dns(16)     -- IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS-MIB
               }
 InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS       current
   DESCRIPTION
       "Denotes a generic Internet address.
        An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the
        context of an InetAddressType value. The InetAddressType
        object which defines the context must be registered
        immediately before the object which uses the InetAddress
        textual convention. In other words, the object identifiers
        for the InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object
        MUST have the same length and the last sub-identifier of
        the InetAddressType object MUST be 1 less than the last
        sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.
        When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
        index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
        sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
        the OBJECT-TYPE declaration MUST include a 'SIZE' clause
        to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."
   SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
 InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
   STATUS       current
   DESCRIPTION
       "Represents an IPv4 network address:
          octets   contents         encoding
           1-4     IP address       network-byte order
        The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1)."
   SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
 InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
   STATUS       current
   DESCRIPTION

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

       "Represents an IPv6 network address:
          octets   contents         encoding
           1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order
          17-20    scope identifier network-byte order
        The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).
        The scope identifier (bytes 17-20) MUST NOT be present
        for global IPv6 addresses. For non-global IPv6 addresses
        (e.g. link-local or site-local addresses), the scope
        identifier MUST always be present. It contains a link
        identifier for link-local and a site identifier for
        site-local IPv6 addresses.
        The scope identifier MUST disambiguate identical address
        values. For link-local addresses, the scope identifier will
        typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the
        IF-MIB, RFC 2233) of the interface on which the address is
        configured.
        The scope identifier may contain the special value 0
        which refers to the default scope. The default scope
        may be used in cases where the valid scope identifier
        is not known (e.g., a management application needs to
        write a site-local InetAddressIPv6 address without
        knowing the site identifier value). The default scope
        SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in cases where
        the scope identifier for a non-global IPv6 is known."
   SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (16|20))
 InetAddressDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   DISPLAY-HINT "255a"
   STATUS       current
   DESCRIPTION
       "Represents a DNS domain name. The name SHOULD be
        fully qualified whenever possible.
        The corresponding InetAddressType is dns(16).
        The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that
        may have InetAddressDNS values must fully describe
        how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP
        addresses."
   SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))
 END

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

4. Usage Hints

 One particular usage of InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs is to avoid
 over-constraining an object definition by the use of the IpAddress
 SMI base type. An InetAddressType/InetAddress pair allows to
 represent IP addresses in various formats.
 The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be subtyped.
 Subtyping binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may
 cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced.
 Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to
 express that only a subset of the defined address types must be
 implemented to be compliant.
 Internet addresses MUST always be represented by a pair of
 InetAddressType/InetAddress objects. It is not allowed to "share" an
 InetAddressType between multiple InetAddress objects. Furthermore,
 the InetAddressType object must be registered immediately before the
 InetAddress object. In other words, the object identifiers for the
 InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object MUST have the same
 length and the last sub-identifier of the InetAddressType object MUST
 be 1 less than the last sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.

4.1 Table Indexing

 When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the
 InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The
 InetAddressType object MUST come immediately before the InetAddress
 object in the INDEX clause. If multiple Internet addresses are used
 in the INDEX clause, then every Internet address must be represented
 by a pair of InetAddressType and InetAddress objects.
 The IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used for an object of type
 InetAddress in an INDEX clause. Instance sub-identifiers are then of
 the form T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetAddressType
 object, O1...On are the octets in the InetAddress object, and N is
 the number of those octets.
 There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed in
 this fashion. Command generator applications may lookup specific
 addresses of known type and value, issue GetNext requests for
 addresses of a single type, or issue GetNext requests for a specific
 type and address prefix.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses

 IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current usage
 notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to have different
 scopes and hence uniqueness [21]. In particular, IPv6 "link-local"
 and "site-local" addresses are not guaranteed to be unique on any
 particular node. In such cases, the duplicate addresses must be
 configured on different interfaces. So the combination of an IPv6
 address and an interface number is unique. The interface number may
 therefore be used as a scope identifier.
 The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent
 global and non-global IPv6 addresses. MIB designers who use
 InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need define
 additional objects in order to support link-local or site-local
 addresses.
 The size of the scope identifier has been chosen so that it matches
 the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC
 2553 [22].

4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host

 A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4
 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. Thus it is possible
 for a single host system to be represented by multiple
 InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.
 If this could be an implementation or usage issue, then the
 DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe
 required behavior.

4.4 Resolving DNS Names

 DNS names must be resolved to IP addresses when communication with
 the named host is required. This raises a temporal aspect to defining
 MIB objects whose value is a DNS name: When is the name translated to
 an address?
 For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding
 destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the forwarding
 entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? Once, when
 the object was instantiated?
 The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define how
 and when any required name to address resolution is done.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely
 define how and when a reverse lookup is being done if an agent has
 accessed instrumentation that knows about an IP address and the MIB
 or implementation requires to map the address to a name.

5. Table Indexing Example

 This example shows a table listing communication peers that are
 identified by either an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS name.
 The table definition also prohibits entries with an empty address
 (whose type would be "unknown"). The size of a DNS name is limited to
 64 characters.
 peerTable OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      SEQUENCE OF PeerEntry
   MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
       "A list of communication peers."
   ::= { somewhere 1 }
 peerEntry OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      PeerEntry
   MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
       "An entry containing information about a particular peer."
   INDEX       { peerAddressType, peerAddress }
   ::= { peerTable 1 }
 PeerEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
   peerAddressType     InetAddressType,
   peerAddress         InetAddress,
   peerStatus          INTEGER }
 peerAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      InetAddressType
   MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
       "The type of Internet address by which the peer
        is reachable."
   ::= { peerEntry 1 }
 peerAddress OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      InetAddress (SIZE (1..64))
   MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
   STATUS      current

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

   DESCRIPTION
       "The Internet address for the peer. Note that
        implementations must limit themselves to a single
        entry in this table per reachable peer.
        The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE
        restriction.
        If a row is created administratively by an SNMP
        operation and the address type value is dns(16), then
        the agent stores the DNS name internally. A DNS name
        lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS
        name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.
        If a row is created by the managed entity itself and
        the address type value is dns(16), then the agent
        stores the IP address internally. A DNS reverse lookup
        must be performed on the internally stored IP address
        whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."
   ::= { peerEntry 2 }
 The following compliance statement specifies that implementations
 need only support IPv4 addresses and globally unique IPv6 addresses
 to be compliant. Support for DNS names or scoped IPv6 addresses is
 not required.
 peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
   STATUS      current
   DESCRIPTION
       "The compliance statement the peer MIB."
   MODULE      -- this module
   MANDATORY-GROUPS    { peerGroup }
   OBJECT  peerAddressType
   SYNTAX  InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
   DESCRIPTION
       "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
        and IPv6 addresses."
   OBJECT  peerAddress
   SYNTAX  InetAddress (SIZE(4|16))
   DESCRIPTION
       "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
        and globally unique IPv6 addresses."
   ::= { somewhere 2 }

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 Note that the SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of not-accessible
 objects in an object group (see section 3.1 in STD 58, RFC 2580 [8]).
 It is therefore not possible to formally refine the syntax of
 auxiliary objects which are not-accessible.  In such a case, it is
 suggested to express the refinement informally in the DESCRIPTION
 clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro invocation.

6. Security Considerations

 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MIB
 modules to define management objects.
 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the modules
 that define management objects.

7. Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to thank Randy Bush, Richard Draves, Mark
 Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro Hagino, Tim Jenkins, Glenn
 Mansfield, Keith McCloghrie, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Peder Chr.
 Norgaard, Randy Presuhn, Andrew Smith, Dave Thaler, Kenneth White,
 Bert Wijnen, and Brian Zill for their comments and suggestions.

8. Intellectual Property Notice

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
 Director.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

References

 [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [2]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for
      Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 1999.
 [3]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
      Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC
      1155, May 1990.
 [4]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16,
      RFC 1212, March 1991.
 [5]  Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the
      SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
 [6]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
      M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information
      Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
 [7]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
      M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,
      RFC 2579, April 1999.
 [8]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
      M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD
      58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
 [9]  Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple
      Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.
 [10]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
       "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January
       1996.
 [11]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
       "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network
       Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996.
 [12]  Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message
       Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
       Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999.
 [13]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM)
       for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
       (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

 [14]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
       "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network
       Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.
 [15]  Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", RFC
       2573, April 1999.
 [16]  Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access
       Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management
       Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999.
 [17]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction
       to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
       Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.
 [18]  McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
       Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012, November
       1996.
 [19]  Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
       Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452, December 1998.
 [20]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB
       using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997.
 [21]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
       Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
 [22]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic
       Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

Authors' Addresses

 Mike Daniele
 Compaq Computer Corporation
 110 Spit Brook Rd
 Nashua, NH  03062
 USA
 Phone: +1 603 884-1423
 EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
 Brian Haberman
 Nortel Networks
 4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200
 Durham, NC  27703
 USA
 Phone: +1 919 992-4439
 EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com
 Shawn A. Routhier
 Wind River Systems, Inc.
 1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403
 Nashua, NH  03062
 USA
 Phone: +1 603 897-2000
 EMail: sar@epilogue.com
 Juergen Schoenwaelder
 TU Braunschweig
 Bueltenweg 74/75
 38106 Braunschweig
 Germany
 Phone: +49 531 391-3289
 EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc2851.txt · Last modified: 2000/06/13 23:11 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki