RFC3291 日本語訳

Network Working Group                                         M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 3291                                    Consultant
Obsoletes: 2851                                              B. Haberman
Category: Standards Track                                     Consultant
                                                             S. Routhier
                                                Wind River Systems, Inc.
                                                        J. Schoenwaelder
                                                         TU Braunschweig
                                                                May 2002

コメントを求めるワーキンググループM.ダニエル要求をネットワークでつないでください: 3291年のコンサルタントは以下を時代遅れにします。 2851年のB.ハーバーマンカテゴリ: 標準化過程コンサルタントS.Routhier風の水系Inc.J.Schoenwaelder TUブラウンシュバイク2002年5月

           Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

インターネットネットワーク・アドレスのための原文のコンベンション

Status of this Memo

このMemoの状態

   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.

このドキュメントは、インターネットコミュニティにインターネット標準化過程プロトコルを指定して、改良のために議論と提案を要求します。 このプロトコルの標準化状態と状態への「インターネット公式プロトコル標準」(STD1)の現行版を参照してください。 このメモの分配は無制限です。

Copyright Notice

版権情報

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Copyright(C)インターネット協会(2002)。 All rights reserved。

Abstract

要約

   This MIB module defines textual conventions to represent commonly
   used Internet network layer addressing information.  The intent is
   that these textual conventions (TCs) will be imported and used in MIB
   modules that would otherwise define their own representations.

このMIBモジュールは、一般的に使用されたインターネット網層のアドレス指定情報を表すために原文のコンベンションを定義します。 意図はこれらの原文のコンベンション(TCs)がそうでなければそれら自身の表現を定義するMIBモジュールでインポートされて、使用されるということです。

   This document obsoletes RFC 2851.

このドキュメントはRFC2851を時代遅れにします。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[1ページ]。

Table of Contents

目次

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  The SNMP Management Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Usage Hints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.3 Multiple Addresses per Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.4 Resolving DNS Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Changes from RFC 2851  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. 序論. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2。 SNMP管理フレームワーク. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3。 定義. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4。 用法ヒント. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1は複数のDNS名. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5を決議するホスト. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4あたりのアドレスでアドレス. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3のインデックス. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2のユニークさを見送ります。 インデックスの例. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6を見送ってください。 セキュリティ問題. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7。 承認. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8。 知的所有権通知. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9。 RFC2851.16の参照箇所. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17の作者のアドレス. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19の完全な著作権宣言文. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20からの変化

1. Introduction

1. 序論

   Several standards-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
   [19].

いくつかの標準化過程MIBモジュールがIpAddress SMIv2ベースタイプを使用します。 IpAddress SMIv2ベースタイプが4バイトのIPv4アドレスを含むことができるだけであるので、これはこれらのMIBモジュールの適用性をIPバージョン4(IPv4)に制限します。 IpAddress SMIv2ベースタイプはIPバージョン6(IPv6)アドレス[19]の導入で問題が多くなりました。

   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 MIB modules SHOULD NOT use the SMIv2 IpAddress
   base type anymore.

このドキュメントは、MIBモジュール仕様の中にジェネリックインターネット網層のアドレスを表すために複数の原文のコンベンションをメカニズムと定義します。 ソリューションはSMIv2(STD58)とSMIv1(STD16)と互換性があります。 ネットワーク層インターネット・アドレスSHOULDを急送する必要がある新しいMIB定義がこのメモで定義された原文のコンベンションを使用します。 新しいMIBモジュールSHOULD NOTはそれ以上SMIv2 IpAddressベースタイプを使用します。

   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.

ジェネリックインターネットアドレスは2個のオブジェクト、構文がInetAddressTypeであるもの、および構文がInetAddressである別のものから成ります。 最初のオブジェクトの値は、第二目的語の値がどのようにコード化されるかを決定します。 InetAddressの原文のコンベンションは不透明なインターネットアドレス値を表します。 InetAddressType列挙は、アドレスタイプのために具体的な原文のコンベンションにInetAddress値を「投げかけること」に使用されます。 複数の原文のコンベンションのこの使用法で、それぞれのアドレスタイプのディスプレイの特性の式を許容して、定義されたインターネット・アドレスタイプのセットは広げることができるようになります。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[2ページ]。

   The textual conventions defined in this document can also be used to
   represent generic Internet subnets and Internet address ranges.  A
   generic Internet subnet is represented by three objects, one whose
   syntax is InetAddressType, a second one whose syntax is InetAddress
   and a third one whose syntax is InetAddressPrefixLength.  The
   InetAddressType value again determines the concrete format of the
   InetAddress value while the InetAddressPrefixLength identifies the
   Internet network address prefix.

また、ジェネリックインターネットサブネットを表すのに本書では定義された原文のコンベンションは使用できます、そして、インターネット・アドレスは及びます。 3個のオブジェクト(構文がInetAddressTypeと、構文がInetAddressである2番目のものと構文がInetAddressPrefixLengthである3番目のものであるもの)によってジェネリックインターネットサブネットは表されます。 InetAddressPrefixLengthはインターネット網アドレス接頭語を特定しますが、InetAddressType値は再びInetAddress価値の具体的な形式を決定します。

   A generic range of consecutive Internet addresses is represented by
   three objects.  The first one has the syntax InetAddressType while
   the remaining objects have the syntax InetAddress and specify the
   start and end of the address range.  The InetAddressType value again
   determines the format of the InetAddress values.

連続したインターネット・アドレスのジェネリック範囲は3個のオブジェクトによって表されます。 最初のものには、残っているオブジェクトは、構文InetAddressを持って、アドレスの範囲の始めと端を指定しますが、構文InetAddressTypeがあります。 InetAddressType値は再びInetAddress値の形式を決定します。

   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.

IPv4とIPv6アドレスに加えてDNSドメイン名を使用することによってインターネット・アドレスを定義するのに本書では定義された原文のコンベンションは使用できます。 MIBデザイナーは表す可能なアドレスの部分集合だけが対応する実装でサポートしなければならないのをタイプする承諾声明を書くことができます。

   MIB developers who need to represent Internet addresses SHOULD use
   these definitions whenever applicable, as opposed to defining their
   own constructs.  Even MIB modules that only need to represent IPv4 or
   IPv6 addresses SHOULD use the InetAddressType/InetAddress textual
   conventions defined in this memo.

適切であるときはいつも、インターネット・アドレスSHOULDを表す必要があるMIB開発者がこれらの定義を使用します、それら自身の構造物を定義することと対照的に。 IPv4を表す必要性だけかIPv6がSHOULDを扱うMIBモジュールさえこのメモで定義されたInetAddressType/InetAddressの原文のコンベンションを使用します。

   There are many widely deployed MIB modules that use IPv4 addresses
   and which need to be revised to support IPv6.  These MIBs can be
   categorized as follows:

IPv4アドレスを使用して、IPv6をサポートするために改訂される必要がある多くの広く配布しているMIBモジュールがあります。 以下の通りこれらのMIBsを分類できます:

   1. MIB modules which define management information that is in
      principle IP version neutral, but the MIB currently uses
      addressing constructs specific to a certain IP version.

1. 原則としてIPバージョン中立である経営情報を定義するMIBモジュール、MIBだけが現在、あるIPバージョンに特定のアドレシング構造物を使用します。

   2. MIB modules which define management information that is specific
      to particular IP version (either IPv4 or IPv6) and which is very
      unlikely to ever be applicable to another IP version.

2. 特定のIPバージョン(IPv4かIPv6のどちらか)に特定の経営情報を定義して、別のIPバージョンに非常に適切でありそうにないMIBモジュール。

   MIB modules of the first type SHOULD provide object definitions
   (e.g., tables) that work with all versions of IP.  In particular,
   when revising a MIB module which contains IPv4 specific tables, it is
   suggested to define new tables using the textual conventions defined
   in this memo which support all versions of IP.  The status of the new
   tables SHOULD be "current" while the status of the old IP version
   specific tables SHOULD be changed to "deprecated".  The other
   approach of having multiple similar tables for different IP versions
   is strongly discouraged.

最初のタイプSHOULDのMIBモジュールはIPのすべてのバージョンで働いているオブジェクト定義(例えば、テーブル)を提供します。 IPv4の特定のテーブルを含むMIBモジュールを改訂するとき、特に、新しいテーブルを定義するために原文のコンベンションを使用するのが、このメモでどれがIPのすべてのバージョンをサポートするかを定義したと示唆されます。 新しさの状態は古いIPの状態である間の「電流」バージョンの特定のテーブルがSHOULDであったならSHOULDをテーブルの上に置きます。「推奨しなく」変えます。 異なったIPバージョンのための複数の同様のテーブルを持つもう片方のアプローチは強くお勧めできないです。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[3ページ]。

   MIB modules of the second type, which are inherently IP version
   specific, do not need to be redefined.  Note that even in this case,
   any additions to these MIB modules or new IP version specific MIB
   modules SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this memo.

2番目のタイプのMIBモジュールは再定義される必要はありません。(本来、タイプはIPバージョン特有です)。 この場合さえそれに注意してください、これらのMIBモジュールか原文のコンベンションがこのメモで定義した新しいIPのバージョン特定のMIBモジュールSHOULD使用へのどんな追加。

   MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions defined in this
   document to represent generic transport layer addresses.  Instead the
   SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated definitions should
   be used for transport layer addresses.

MIB開発者SHOULD NOTはジェネリックトランスポート層アドレスを表すために本書では定義された原文のコンベンションを使用します。 代わりに、SMIv2 TAddressの原文のコンベンションと関連定義はトランスポート層アドレスに使用されるべきです。

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

キーワード“MUST"、「必須NOT」“SHOULD"、「」 「5月」はRFC2119[1]で説明されるように本書では解釈されることになっているべきです。

2. The SNMP Management Framework

2. SNMP管理フレームワーク

   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
   components:

SNMP Management Frameworkは現在、5個の主要コンポーネントから成ります:

   o  An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [2].

o RFC2571[2]で説明された総合的なアーキテクチャ。

   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 オブジェクトを説明して、命名するためのメカニズムと管理の目的のためのイベント。 Management情報(SMI)のこのStructureの最初のバージョンは、STD16、RFC1155[3]、STD16、RFC1212[4]、およびRFC1215[5]でSMIv1と呼ばれて、説明されます。 SMIv2と呼ばれる第2バージョンはSTD58、RFC2578[6]、STD58、RFC2579[7]、およびSTD58(RFC2580[8])で説明されます。

   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 経営情報を移すためのメッセージプロトコル。 SNMPメッセージプロトコルの最初のバージョンは、STD15、RFC1157[9]でSNMPv1と呼ばれて、説明されます。 SNMPメッセージプロトコルの第2のバージョンは、RFC1901[10]とRFC1906[11]でSNMPv2cと呼ばれて、説明されます。(プロトコルはインターネット標準化過程プロトコルではありません)。 メッセージプロトコルの第3バージョンは、RFC1906[11]、RFC2572[12]、およびRFC2574[13]でSNMPv3と呼ばれて、説明されます。

   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 経営情報にアクセスするための操作について議定書の中で述べてください。 プロトコル操作と関連PDU形式の第一セットはSTD15、RFC1157[9]で説明されます。 2番目のセットのプロトコル操作と関連PDU形式はRFC1905[14]で説明されます。

   o  A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [15] and
      the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575
      [16].

o 1セットの基礎的応用はRFCで2573[15]について説明しました、そして、視点ベースのアクセス管理機構はRFCで2575[16]について説明しました。

   A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework
   can be found in RFC 2570 [17].

RFC2570[17]で現在のSNMP Management Frameworkへの、より詳細な紹介を見つけることができます。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[4ページ]。

   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.

管理オブジェクトはManagement Information基地と呼ばれた仮想情報店かMIBを通してアクセスされます。 MIBのオブジェクトは、SMIで定義されたメカニズムを使用することで定義されます。

   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.

このメモはSMIv2に対応であるMIBモジュールを指定します。 適切な翻訳でSMIv1に従うMIBは生産できます。 どんな翻訳も可能でないので(Counter64の使用)、結果として起こる翻訳されたMIBはオブジェクトかイベントが省略されるところで意味的に同等でなければなりません。 SMIv2の何らかのマシンの読み込み可能な情報が翻訳プロセスの間、SMIv1の原文の記述に変換されるでしょう。 しかしながら、マシンの読み込み可能な情報のこの損失がMIBの意味論を変えると考えられません。

3. Definitions

3. 定義

INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

INETアドレスMIB定義:、:= 始まってください。

IMPORTS
    MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI
    TEXTUAL-CONVENTION                 FROM SNMPv2-TC;

IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY、mib-2、Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC。

inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
    LAST-UPDATED "200205090000Z"
    ORGANIZATION
        "IETF Operations and Management Area"
    CONTACT-INFO
        "Juergen Schoenwaelder (Editor)
         TU Braunschweig
         Bueltenweg 74/75
         38106 Braunschweig, Germany

inetAddressMIBモジュールアイデンティティは「ユルゲンSchoenwaelder(エディタ)TUブラウンシュバイクBueltenweg74/75 38106ブラウンシュバイク(ドイツ)」という"200205090000Z"組織「IETF操作と管理領域」コンタクトインフォメーションをアップデートしました。

         Phone: +49 531 391-3289
         EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

以下に電話をしてください。 +49 531 391-3289 メールしてください: 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. This module also defines
         textual conventions for Internet port numbers,
         autonomous system numbers and the length of an
         Internet address prefix."
    REVISION     "200205090000Z"
    DESCRIPTION
        "Second version, published as RFC 3291. This
         revisions contains several clarifications and it

「 to <mibs@ops.ietf.org をコメントに送ってください、gt;、」 「このMIBモジュールはインターネット・アドレスを表しながら、原文のコンベンションを定義する」記述。 インターネット・アドレスは、IPv4アドレス、IPv6アドレスまたはDNSドメイン名であるかもしれません。 「また、このモジュールはインターネット・アドレス接頭語のインターネットポートナンバー、自律システム番号、および長さのために原文のコンベンションを定義します。」 「第2バージョンであって、RFC3291として発行された」REVISION"200205090000Z"記述。 この改正はいくつかの明確化とそれを含んでいます。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[5ページ]。

         introduces several new textual conventions:
         InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber,
         InetAutonomousSystemNumber, InetAddressIPv4z,
         and InetAddressIPv6z."
    REVISION     "200006080000Z"
    DESCRIPTION
        "Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
    ::= { mib-2 76 }

数人の新しい原文のコンベンションを導入します: 「InetAddressPrefixLength、InetPortNumber、InetAutonomousSystemNumber、InetAddressIPv4z、およびInetAddressIPv6z.」 「初期のバージョンであって、RFC2851として発行された」REVISION"200006080000Z"記述。 ::= 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.

InetAddressType:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUSの現在の記述、「インターネット・アドレス未知のアドレスがタイプする未知(0)のタイプの代理をするA値。」 対応するInetAddressオブジェクトの値がゼロ長ストリングであるならこの値を使用しなければなりません。 また、それは、以下で定義された書式の1つにはないIPアドレスを示すのに使用されるかもしれません。

         ipv4(1)     An IPv4 address as defined by the
                     InetAddressIPv4 textual convention.

InetAddressIPv4の原文のコンベンションによって定義されるようにIPv4が扱うipv4(1)。

         ipv6(2)     A global IPv6 address as defined by the
                     InetAddressIPv6 textual convention.

InetAddressIPv6の原文のコンベンションによって定義されるようにグローバルなIPv6が扱うipv6(2)。

         ipv4z(3)    A non-global IPv4 address including a zone
                     index as defined by the InetAddressIPv4z
                     textual convention.

InetAddressIPv4zの原文のコンベンションによって定義されるゾーンインデックスを含む非グローバルなIPv4が扱うipv4z(3)。

         ipv6z(4)    A non-global IPv6 address including a zone
                     index as defined by the InetAddressIPv6z
                     textual convention.

InetAddressIPv6zの原文のコンベンションによって定義されるゾーンインデックスを含む非グローバルなIPv6が扱うipv6z(4)。

         dns(16)     A DNS domain name as defined by the
                     InetAddressDNS textual convention.

InetAddressDNSの原文のコンベンションによって定義されるdns(16)A DNSドメイン名。

         Each definition of a concrete InetAddressType value must be
         accompanied by a definition of a textual convention for use
         with that InetAddressType.

原文のコンベンションの定義でそのInetAddressTypeとの使用のために具体的なInetAddressType価値の各定義に伴わなければなりません。

         To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual
         convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions.
         It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to
         require only a subset of these address types for a compliant
         implementation.

今後の拡大、InetAddressTypeが原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOTであるとサポートするためには、オブジェクト・タイプでサブタイプされた定義になってください。 それは、対応する実装のためにこれらのアドレスタイプの部分集合だけを必要とする承諾にサブタイプされた声明であるかもしれません。

         Implementations must ensure that InetAddressType objects

実装はそのInetAddressTypeにオブジェクトを確実にしなければなりません。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[6ページ]。

         and any dependent objects (e.g. InetAddress objects) are
         consistent.  An inconsistentValue error must be generated
         if an attempt to change an InetAddressType object would,
         for example, lead to an undefined InetAddress value.  In
         particular, InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs must be
         changed together if the address type changes (e.g. from
         ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
    SYNTAX      INTEGER {
                    unknown(0),
                    ipv4(1),
                    ipv6(2),
                    ipv4z(3),
                    ipv6z(4),
                    dns(16)
                }

そして、どんな依存するオブジェクト(例えば、InetAddressオブジェクト)も一貫しています。 例えば、InetAddressTypeオブジェクトを変える試みが未定義のInetAddress値につながるなら、inconsistentValue誤りを生成しなければなりません。 「アドレスタイプが変化するなら特に、InetAddressType/InetAddress組を一緒に変えなければならない、(例えば、ipv6(2)からipv4(1))、」 構文整数未知(0)、ipv4(1)、ipv6(2)、ipv4z(3)、ipv6z(4)、dns(16)

InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Denotes a generic Internet address.

InetAddress:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUSの現在の記述は「ジェネリックインターネットアドレスを指示します」。

         An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the context
         of an InetAddressType value. Every usage of the InetAddress
         textual convention is required to specify the InetAddressType
         object which provides the context.  It is suggested that the
         InetAddressType object is logically registered before the
         object(s) which use the InetAddress textual convention if
         they appear in the same logical row.

InetAddress値はInetAddressType価値の文脈の中でいつも解釈されます。 InetAddressの原文のコンベンションのあらゆる使用法が、文脈を提供するInetAddressTypeオブジェクトを指定するのに必要です。 船をこぐ前にInetAddressTypeオブジェクトが論理的に登録されることが提案されます。

         The value of an InetAddress object must always be
         consistent with the value of the associated InetAddressType
         object. Attempts to set an InetAddress object to a value
         which is inconsistent with the associated InetAddressType
         must fail with an inconsistentValue error.

InetAddressオブジェクトの値はいつも関連InetAddressTypeオブジェクトの値と一致しているに違いありません。 inconsistentValue誤りに応じて、関連InetAddressTypeに矛盾した値にInetAddressオブジェクトを設定する試みは失敗しなければなりません。

         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 definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
         limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."
    SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

この原文のコンベンションがインデックスオブジェクトの構文として使用されるとき、SMIv2(STD58)で指定された128のサブ識別子の限界には問題があるかもしれません。 「この場合、オブジェクト定義は潜在的インスタンスサブ識別子の数を制限するために'SIZE'節を含まなければなりません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(0 .255))

InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents an IPv4 network address:

InetAddressIPv4:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-ヒントの"1d.1d.1d.1d"STATUSの現在の記述、「IPv4ネットワーク・アドレスを表します:、」

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[7ページ]。

           octets   contents         encoding
            1-4     IPv4 address     network-byte order

1-4 IPv4アドレスネットワークバイトオーダーをコード化する八重奏コンテンツ

         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1).

対応するInetAddressType値はipv4(1)です。

         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
         definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format.
         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
         conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair."
    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))

この原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOT、アドレスを特定の形式に制限するので、直接オブジェクト定義では、使用されてください。 「しかしながら、使用されているなら、それは対にしそれ自身かInetAddressTypeに関連して使用されるかもしれません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(4))

InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents an IPv6 network address:

InetAddressIPv6:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-ヒントの「2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x: 2x」STATUSの現在の記述、「IPv6ネットワーク・アドレスを表します:、」

           octets   contents         encoding
            1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order

1-16 IPv6アドレスネットワークバイトオーダーをコード化する八重奏コンテンツ

         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).

対応するInetAddressType値はipv6(2)です。

         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
         definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format.
         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
         conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair."
    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (16))

この原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOT、アドレスを特定の形式に制限するので、直接オブジェクト定義では、使用されてください。 「しかしながら、使用されているなら、それは対にしそれ自身かInetAddressTypeに関連して使用されるかもしれません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(16))

InetAddressIPv4z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d%4d"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents a non-global IPv4 network address together
         with its zone index:

InetAddressIPv4z:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-ヒントの「1d.1d.1d.1d%4d」STATUSの現在の記述、「ゾーンインデックスと共に非グローバルなIPv4ネットワーク・アドレスを表します:、」

           octets   contents         encoding
            1-4     IPv4 address     network-byte order
            5-8     zone index       network-byte order

1-4 IPv4アドレスネットワークバイトオーダー5-8ゾーンインデックスネットワークバイトオーダーをコード化する八重奏コンテンツ

         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4z(3).

対応するInetAddressType値はipv4z(3)です。

         The zone index (bytes 5-8) is used to disambiguate identical
         address values on nodes which have interfaces attached to
         different zones of the same scope. The zone index may contain
         the special value 0 which refers to the default zone for each
         scope.

ゾーンインデックス(バイト5-8)は、同じ範囲の異なったゾーンにインタフェースを付けるノードの同じアドレス値のあいまいさを除くのに使用されます。 ゾーンインデックスはそれぞれの範囲についてデフォルトゾーンを示す特別な値0を含むかもしれません。

         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object

この原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOT、直接オブジェクトで使用されてください。

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[8ページ]。

         definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format.
         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
         conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair."
    SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (8))

アドレスを特定の形式に制限して以来の定義。 「しかしながら、使用されているなら、それは対にしそれ自身かInetAddressTypeに関連して使用されるかもしれません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(8))

InetAddressIPv6z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents a non-global IPv6 network address together
         with its zone index:

InetAddressIPv6z:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-ヒントの「2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x: 2x%4d」STATUSの現在の記述、「ゾーンインデックスと共に非グローバルなIPv6ネットワーク・アドレスを表します:、」

           octets   contents         encoding
            1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order
           17-20    zone index       network-byte order

1-16 IPv6アドレスネットワークバイトオーダー17-20ゾーンインデックスネットワークバイトオーダーをコード化する八重奏コンテンツ

         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6z(4).

対応するInetAddressType値はipv6z(4)です。

         The zone index (bytes 17-20) is used to disambiguate
         identical address values on nodes which have interfaces
         attached to different zones of the same scope. The zone index
         may contain the special value 0 which refers to the default
         zone for each scope.

ゾーンインデックス(バイト17-20)は、同じ範囲の異なったゾーンにインタフェースを付けるノードの同じアドレス値のあいまいさを除くのに使用されます。 ゾーンインデックスはそれぞれの範囲についてデフォルトゾーンを示す特別な値0を含むかもしれません。

         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
         definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format.
         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
         conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair."
    SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (20))

この原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOT、アドレスを特定の形式に制限するので、直接オブジェクト定義では、使用されてください。 「しかしながら、使用されているなら、それは対にしそれ自身かInetAddressTypeに関連して使用されるかもしれません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(20))

InetAddressDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "255a"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents a DNS domain name. The name SHOULD be fully
         qualified whenever possible.

InetAddressDNS:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-ヒントの"255a"STATUSの現在の記述は「DNSドメイン名を表します」。 存在という可能であるときはいつも、完全に資格があった名前SHOULD。

         The corresponding InetAddressType is dns(16).

対応するInetAddressTypeはdns(16)です。

         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.

InetAddressDNS値を持っているかもしれないInetAddressオブジェクトの記述節はIPアドレスに決議されるそのような(そして、いつ)名がことである方法を完全に説明しなければなりません。

         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
         definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format.
         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
         conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair."
    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))

この原文のコンベンションSHOULD NOT、アドレスを特定の形式に制限するので、直接オブジェクト定義では、使用されてください。 「しかしながら、使用されているなら、それは対にしそれ自身かInetAddressTypeに関連して使用されるかもしれません。」 構文八重奏ストリング(サイズ(1 .255))

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[9ページ]。

InetAddressPrefixLength ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
         prefix. A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
         which has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
         bit (MSB) and all other bits set to 0.

InetAddressPrefixLength:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUSの現在の記述は「ジェネリックインターネット網アドレス接頭語の長さを指示します」。 nの値は隣接の大部分から1ビットの重要なnビット(MSB)と他のすべてのビットを0に設定するIPアドレスマスクに対応しています。

         An InetAddressPrefixLength value is always interpreted within
         the context of an InetAddressType value. Every usage of the
         InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention is required to
         specify the InetAddressType object which provides the
         context.  It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is
         logically registered before the object(s) which use the
         InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention if they appear in
         the same logical row.

InetAddressPrefixLength値はInetAddressType価値の文脈の中でいつも解釈されます。 InetAddressPrefixLengthの原文のコンベンションのあらゆる使用法が、文脈を提供するInetAddressTypeオブジェクトを指定するのに必要です。 船をこぐ前にInetAddressTypeオブジェクトが論理的に登録されることが提案されます。

         InetAddressPrefixLength values that are larger than
         the maximum length of an IP address for a specific
         InetAddressType are treated as the maximum significant
         value applicable for the InetAddressType. The maximum
         significant value is 32 for the InetAddressType
         'ipv4(1)' and 'ipv4z(3)' and 128 for the InetAddressType
         'ipv6(2)' and 'ipv6z(4)'. The maximum significant value
         for the InetAddressType 'dns(16)' is 0.

特定のInetAddressTypeのためのIPアドレスの最大の長さより大きいInetAddressPrefixLength値はInetAddressTypeに、適切な最大の重要な値として扱われます。 最大の重要な値は、InetAddressType'ipv4(1)'と'ipv4z(3)'のための32とInetAddressType'ipv6(2)'と'ipv6z(4)'のための128です。 InetAddressType'dns(16)'のための最大の重要な値は0です。

         The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as
         part of the description of any object which uses this
         syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include
         situations where the Internet network address prefix
         is unknown or does not apply."
    SYNTAX      Unsigned32

値ゼロをオブジェクト特有であり、この構文を使用するどんなオブジェクトの記述の一部とも定義しなければなりません。 「ゼロの用法に関する例は、インターネット網アドレス接頭語が未知である状況を含むかもしれないか、または適用されません。」 構文Unsigned32

InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents a 16 bit port number of an Internet transport
         layer protocol. Port numbers are assigned by IANA. A
         current list of all assignments is available from
         <http://www.iana.org/>.

InetPortNumber:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUSの現在の記述は「インターネットトランスポート層プロトコルの16ビットのポートナンバーを表します」。 ポートナンバーはIANAによって割り当てられます。 すべての課題の現在のリストは<http://www.iana.org/>から利用可能です。

         The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as
         part of the description of any object which uses this
         syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include
         situations where a port number is unknown, or when the
         value zero is used as a wildcard in a filter."
    REFERENCE  "STD 6 (RFC 768), STD 7 (RFC 793) and RFC 2960"
    SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (0..65535)

値ゼロをオブジェクト特有であり、この構文を使用するどんなオブジェクトの記述の一部とも定義しなければなりません。 「ポートナンバーが未知である、または値ゼロがワイルドカードとしてフィルタで使用されるとき、ゼロの用法に関する例は状況を含むかもしれません。」 参照「STD6(RFC768)、STD7(RFC793)、およびRFC2960」構文Unsigned32(0..65535)

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

etダニエル、アル。 規格は2002年5月にインターネットネットワーク・アドレスのためにRFC3291TCsを追跡します[10ページ]。

InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents an autonomous system number which identifies an
         Autonomous System (AS). An AS is a set of routers under a
         single technical administration, using an interior gateway
         protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
         and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
         other ASs'. IANA maintains the AS number space and has
         delegated large parts to the regional registries.

InetAutonomousSystemNumber:、:= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUSの現在の記述は「Autonomous System(AS)を特定する自律システム番号を表します」。 'ASはただ一つの技術的な管理の下で、1セットのルータです、ASの中でパケットを発送するのに内部のゲートウェイプロトコルと一般的な測定基準を使用して、他のASsにパケットを発送するのに外のゲートウェイプロトコルを使用して'。 IANAはAS数のスペースを維持して、かなりの部分を地方の登録へ代表として派遣しました。

         Autonomous system numbers are currently limited to 16 bits
         (0..65535). There is however work in progress to enlarge the
         autonomous system number space to 32 bits. This textual
         convention therefore uses an Unsigned32 value without a
         range restriction in order to support a larger autonomous
         system number space."
    REFERENCE  "RFC 1771, RFC 1930"
    SYNTAX      Unsigned32

自律システム番号は現在、16ビット(0 .65535)に制限されます。 しかしながら、自律システム数のスペースを32ビットに拡大するために、処理中の作業があります。 「したがって、この原文のコンベンションは、より大きい自律システム番号がスペースであるとサポートするのに範囲制限なしでUnsigned32値を使用します。」 参照「RFC1771、RFC1930」構文Unsigned32

END

終わり

4. Usage Hints

4. 用法は暗示します。

   The InetAddressType and InetAddress textual conventions have been
   introduced to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the use
   of the IpAddress SMI base type which is IPv4 specific.  An
   InetAddressType/InetAddress pair can represent IP addresses in
   various formats.

IPv4特有のIpAddress SMIベースタイプの使用でオブジェクト定義を抑制し過ぎるのを避けるためにInetAddressTypeとInetAddressの原文のコンベンションを導入しました。 InetAddressType/InetAddress組は様々な形式でIPアドレスを表すことができます。

   The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be sub-typed
   in object definitions.  Sub-typing 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.

The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object definitions. Sub-typing 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.

   Every usage of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual
   conventions must specify which InetAddressType object provides the
   context for the interpretation of the InetAddress or
   InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.

Every usage of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual conventions must specify which InetAddressType object provides the context for the interpretation of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.

   It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically
   registered before the object(s) which uses the InetAddress or
   InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.  An InetAddressType
   object is logically registered before an InetAddress or
   InetAddressPrefixLength object if it appears before the InetAddress
   or InetAddressPrefixLength object in the conceptual row (which

It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically registered before the object(s) which uses the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention. An InetAddressType object is logically registered before an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object if it appears before the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object in the conceptual row (which

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

Daniele, et. al. Standards Track [Page 11]  RFC 3291 TCs for Internet Network Addresses May 2002

   includes any index objects).  This rule allows programs such as MIB
   compilers to identify the InetAddressType of a given InetAddress or
   InetAddressPrefixLength object by searching for the InetAddressType
   object which precedes an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength
   object.

includes any index objects). This rule allows programs such as MIB compilers to identify the InetAddressType of a given InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object by searching for the InetAddressType object which precedes an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object.

4.1 Table Indexing

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 be listed before the InetAddress object
   in the INDEX clause.

When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The InetAddressType object MUST be listed before the InetAddress object in the INDEX clause.

   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.

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.

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.

4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses

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 [19].  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 a zone index is unique [21].

IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current usage notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to have different scopes and hence uniqueness [19]. 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 a zone index is unique [21].

   The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent
   global IPv6 addresses and non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where no
   zone index is needed (e.g., on end hosts with a single interface).
   The InetAddressIPv6z textual convention has been defined to represent
   non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where a zone index is needed
   (e.g., a router connecting multiple zones).  MIB designers who use
   InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need to define
   additional objects in order to support non-global addresses on nodes
   that connect multiple zones.

The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent global IPv6 addresses and non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where no zone index is needed (e.g., on end hosts with a single interface). The InetAddressIPv6z textual convention has been defined to represent non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where a zone index is needed (e.g., a router connecting multiple zones). MIB designers who use InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need to define additional objects in order to support non-global addresses on nodes that connect multiple zones.

   The InetAddressIPv4z is intended for use in MIBs (like the TCP-MIB)
   which report addresses in the address family used on the wire, but
   where the entity instrumented obtains such addresses from

The InetAddressIPv4z is intended for use in MIBs (like the TCP-MIB) which report addresses in the address family used on the wire, but where the entity instrumented obtains such addresses from

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

Daniele, et. al. Standards Track [Page 12]  RFC 3291 TCs for Internet Network Addresses May 2002

   applications or administrators in a form which includes a zone index,
   such as v4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

applications or administrators in a form which includes a zone index, such as v4-mapped IPv6 addresses.

   The size of the zone index has been chosen so that it is consistent
   with (i) the numerical zone index defined in [21] and (ii) the
   sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC 2553
   [20].

The size of the zone index has been chosen so that it is consistent with (i) the numerical zone index defined in [21] and (ii) the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC 2553 [20].

4.3 Multiple Addresses per Host

4.3 Multiple Addresses 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 accessible by multiple
   InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.

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 accessible by multiple InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.

   If this could be an implementation or usage issue, the DESCRIPTION
   clause of the relevant objects must fully describe which address is
   reported in a given InetAddressType/InetAddress pair.

If this could be an implementation or usage issue, the DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects must fully describe which address is reported in a given InetAddressType/InetAddress pair.

4.4 Resolving DNS Names

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?

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 or just
   once when the object was instantiated?

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 or just 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.

The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define how and when any required name to address resolution is done.

   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
   module or implementation requires it to map the IP address to a DNS
   name.

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 module or implementation requires it to map the IP address to a DNS name.

5. Table Indexing Example

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 in order to satisfy OID length constraints.

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 in order to satisfy OID length constraints.

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

Daniele, et. al. Standards Track [Page 13]  RFC 3291 TCs for Internet Network Addresses May 2002

   peerTable OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX      SEQUENCE OF PeerEntry
       MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
       STATUS      current
       DESCRIPTION
           "A list of communication peers."
       ::= { somewhere 1 }

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 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
   }

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 }

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.

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

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 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 }

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.

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."

peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement of the peer MIB."

       MODULE      -- this module
       MANDATORY-GROUPS    { peerGroup }

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."

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 }

::= { 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.

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

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

6. Security Considerations

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

9. Changes from RFC 2851

   The following changes have been made relative to RFC 2851:

The following changes have been made relative to RFC 2851:

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

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

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 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 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 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 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.

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

References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

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

Authors' Addresses

Authors' Addresses

   Mike Daniele
   Consultant
   19 Pinewood Rd
   Hudson, NH  03051
   USA

Mike Daniele Consultant 19 Pinewood Rd Hudson, NH 03051 USA

   Phone: +1 603 883-6365
   EMail: md@world.std.com

Phone: +1 603 883-6365 EMail: md@world.std.com

   Brian Haberman

Brian Haberman

   Phone: +1 919 949-4828
   EMail: bkhabs@nc.rr.com

Phone: +1 919 949-4828 EMail: bkhabs@nc.rr.com

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

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

   Phone: +1 510 749 2095
   EMail: sar@epilogue.com

Phone: +1 510 749 2095 EMail: sar@epilogue.com

   Juergen Schoenwaelder
   TU Braunschweig
   Bueltenweg 74/75
   38106 Braunschweig
   Germany

Juergen Schoenwaelder TU Braunschweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunschweig Germany

   Phone: +49 531 391-3289
   EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

Phone: +49 531 391-3289 EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3291           TCs for Internet Network Addresses           May 2002

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

Full Copyright Statement

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

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.

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.

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.

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

Acknowledgement

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

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

Daniele, et. al.            Standards Track                    [Page 20]

Daniele, et. al. Standards Track [Page 20]