rfc3291.txt

RFC 的详细文档！

   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
       DESCRIPTION
           "The Internet address for the peer. The type of this
            address is determined by the value of the peerAddressType
            object. 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.








Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


            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 compliant
   implementations need only support IPv4/IPv6 addresses without a zone
   indices.  Support for DNS names or IPv4/IPv6 addresses with zone
   indices is not required.

   peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
       STATUS      current
       DESCRIPTION
           "The compliance statement of 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 without zone indices."

       ::= { somewhere 2 }

   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.











Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


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 MIB
   modules that define management objects.  This document has therefore
   no impact on the security of the Internet.

7. Acknowledgments

   This document was produced by the Operations and Management Area
   "IPv6MIB" design team.  The authors would like to thank Fred Baker,
   Randy Bush, Richard Draves, Mark Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro
   Hagino, Mike Heard, 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.

9. Changes from RFC 2851

   The following changes have been made relative to RFC 2851:

   o  Added new textual conventions InetAddressPrefixLength,
      InetPortNumber, and InetAutonomousSystemNumber.



Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


   o  Rewrote the introduction to say clearly that in general, one
      should define MIB tables that work with all versions of IP.  The
      other approach of multiple tables for different IP versions is
      strongly discouraged.

   o  Added text to the InetAddressType and InetAddress descriptions
      which requires that implementations must reject set operations
      with an inconsistentValue error if they lead to inconsistencies.

   o  Removed the strict ordering constraints.  Description clauses now
      must explain which InetAddressType object provides the context for
      an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object.

   o  Aligned wordings with the IPv6 scoping architecture document.

   o  Split the InetAddressIPv6 textual convention into the two textual
      conventions (InetAddressIPv6 and InetAddressIPv6z) and introduced
      a new textual convention InetAddressIPv4z.  Added ipv4z(3) and
      ipv6z(4) named numbers to the InetAddressType enumeration.
      Motivations for this change: (i) enable the introduction of a
      textual conventions for non-global IPv4 addresses, (ii) alignment
      with the textual conventions for transport addresses, (iii)
      simpler compliance statements in cases where support for IPv6
      addresses with zone indices is not required, (iv) simplify
      implementations for host systems which will never have to report
      zone indices.

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.



Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


   [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.

   [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. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB",
        RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [19] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
        Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.




Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


   [20] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic
        Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.

   [21] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., Onoe, A.
        and B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", Work in
        Progress.

Authors' Addresses

   Mike Daniele
   Consultant
   19 Pinewood Rd
   Hudson, NH  03051
   USA

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Brian Haberman

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Shawn A. Routhier
   Wind River Systems, Inc.
   500 Wind River Way
   Alameda, CA 94501
   USA

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]


   Juergen Schoenwaelder
   TU Braunschweig
   Bueltenweg 74/75
   38106 Braunschweig
   Germany

   Phone: [phone]
   EMail: [e-mail]








Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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 20]