doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1907 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4292.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4292.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..08dc770
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4292.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1907 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        B. Haberman
+Request for Comments: 4292                      Johns Hopkins University
+Obsoletes: 2096                                               April 2006
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+                        IP Forwarding Table MIB
+
+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 (2006).
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
+   (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
+   community.  In particular, it describes managed objects related to
+   the forwarding of Internet Protocol (IP) packets in an IP version-
+   independent manner.  This document obsoletes RFC 2096.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. Conventions Used In This Document ...............................2
+   3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
+   4. Overview ........................................................2
+      4.1. Relationship to Other MIBs .................................3
+           4.1.1. RFC 1213 ............................................3
+           4.1.2. RFC 1354 ............................................3
+           4.1.3. RFC 2096 ............................................3
+           4.1.4. RFC 2011 and 2465 ...................................3
+   5. Definitions .....................................................3
+   6. Security Considerations ........................................30
+   7. Changes from RFC 2096 ..........................................31
+   8. Normative References ...........................................32
+   9. Informative References .........................................32
+   10. Authors and Acknowledgements ..................................33
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
+   (MIB) for use in managing objects related to the forwarding of
+   Internet Protocol (IP) packets in an IP version-independent manner.
+
+   It should be noted that the MIB definition described herein does not
+   support multiple instances based on the same address family type.
+   However, it does support an instance of the MIB per address family.
+
+2.  Conventions Used In This Document
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+3.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework
+
+   For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
+   Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
+   RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
+
+   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
+   the Management Information Base or MIB.  MIB objects are generally
+   accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
+   Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
+   Structure of Management Information (SMI).  This memo specifies a MIB
+   module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
+   RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
+   [RFC2580].
+
+4.  Overview
+
+   The MIB consists of one current table and two current global objects.
+
+      1. The object inetCidrRouteNumber indicates the number of current
+         routes.  This is primarily to avoid having to read the table in
+         order to determine this number.
+
+      2. The object inetCidrRouteDiscards counts the number of valid
+         routes that were discarded from inetCidrRouteTable for any
+         reason.  This object replaces the ipRoutingDiscards and
+         ipv6DiscardedRoutes objects.
+
+      3. The inetCidrRouteTable provides the ability to display IP
+         version-independent multipath CIDR routes.
+
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+4.1.  Relationship to Other MIBs
+
+   This MIB definition contains several deprecated and obsolete tables
+   and objects.  The following subsections describe the relationship
+   between these objects and other MIB modules.
+
+4.1.1.  RFC 1213
+
+   The ipRouteTable object was originally defined in RFC 1213 [RFC1213].
+   It was updated by ipForwardTable in RFC 1354 [RFC1354].
+
+4.1.2.  RFC 1354
+
+   The ipForwardTable object replaced the ipRouteTable object from RFC
+   1213.  It was in turn obsoleted by the ipCidrRouteTable defined in
+   RFC 2096 [RFC2096].
+
+   In addition, RFC 1354 introduced ipForwardNumber.  This object
+   reflects the number of entries found in ipForwardTable.  It was
+   obsoleted by ipCidrRouteNumber, defined in RFC 2096.
+
+4.1.3.  RFC 2096
+
+   In RFC 2096, the ipCidrRouteTable and ipCidrRouteNumber were
+   introduced.  The ipCidrRouteTable object supports multipath IP routes
+   having the same network number but differing network masks.  The
+   number of entries in that table is reflected in ipCidrRouteNumber.
+   These objects are deprecated by the definitions contained in this MIB
+   definition.
+
+4.1.4.  RFC 2011 and 2465
+
+   RFC 2011 [RFC2011] contains the ipRoutingDiscards object, which
+   counts the number of valid routes that have been removed from the
+   ipCidrRouteTable object.  The corresponding ipv6DiscardedRoutes
+   object is defined in RFC 2465 [RFC2465].  These objects are
+   deprecated in favor of the version-independent object
+   inetCidrRouteDiscards defined in this MIB.
+
+5.  Definitions
+
+   IP-FORWARD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+   IMPORTS
+       MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE,
+       IpAddress, Integer32, Gauge32,
+       Counter32                          FROM SNMPv2-SMI
+       RowStatus                          FROM SNMPv2-TC
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP    FROM SNMPv2-CONF
+       InterfaceIndexOrZero               FROM IF-MIB
+       ip                                 FROM IP-MIB
+       IANAipRouteProtocol                FROM IANA-RTPROTO-MIB
+       InetAddress, InetAddressType,
+       InetAddressPrefixLength,
+       InetAutonomousSystemNumber         FROM INET-ADDRESS-MIB;
+
+   ipForward MODULE-IDENTITY
+       LAST-UPDATED "200602010000Z"
+       ORGANIZATION
+              "IETF IPv6 Working Group
+               http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html"
+       CONTACT-INFO
+              "Editor:
+               Brian Haberman
+               Johns Hopkins University - Applied Physics Laboratory
+               Mailstop 17-S442
+               11100 Johns Hopkins Road
+               Laurel MD,  20723-6099  USA
+
+               Phone: +1-443-778-1319
+               Email: brian@innovationslab.net
+
+               Send comments to <ipv6@ietf.org>"
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The MIB module for the management of CIDR multipath IP
+               Routes.
+
+               Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This version
+               of this MIB module is a part of RFC 4292; see the RFC
+               itself for full legal notices."
+
+       REVISION      "200602010000Z"
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "IPv4/v6 version-independent revision.  Minimal changes
+               were made to the original RFC 2096 MIB to allow easy
+               upgrade of existing IPv4 implementations to the
+               version-independent MIB.  These changes include:
+
+               Adding inetCidrRouteDiscards as a replacement for the
+               deprecated ipRoutingDiscards and ipv6DiscardedRoutes
+               objects.
+
+               Adding a new conformance statement to support the
+               implementation of the IP Forwarding MIB in a
+               read-only mode.
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               The inetCidrRouteTable replaces the IPv4-specific
+               ipCidrRouteTable, its related objects, and related
+               conformance statements.
+
+               Published as RFC 4292."
+
+       REVISION      "199609190000Z"
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "Revised to support CIDR routes.
+               Published as RFC 2096."
+
+       REVISION      "199207022156Z"
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "Initial version, published as RFC 1354."
+       ::= { ip 24 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Gauge32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of current inetCidrRouteTable entries that
+               are not invalid."
+   ::= { ipForward 6 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteDiscards OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Counter32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of valid route entries discarded from the
+               inetCidrRouteTable.  Discarded route entries do not
+               appear in the inetCidrRouteTable.  One possible reason
+               for discarding an entry would be to free-up buffer space
+               for other route table entries."
+       ::= { ipForward 8 }
+
+   --  Inet CIDR Route Table
+
+   --  The Inet CIDR Route Table deprecates and replaces the
+   --  ipCidrRoute Table currently in the IP Forwarding Table MIB.
+   --  It adds IP protocol independence.
+
+   inetCidrRouteTable OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF InetCidrRouteEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+              "This entity's IP Routing table."
+       REFERENCE
+              "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+       ::= { ipForward 7 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetCidrRouteEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "A particular route to a particular destination, under a
+               particular policy (as reflected in the
+               inetCidrRoutePolicy object).
+
+               Dynamically created rows will survive an agent reboot.
+
+               Implementers need to be aware that if the total number
+               of elements (octets or sub-identifiers) in
+               inetCidrRouteDest, inetCidrRoutePolicy, and
+               inetCidrRouteNextHop exceeds 111, then OIDs of column
+               instances in this table will have more than 128 sub-
+               identifiers and cannot be accessed using SNMPv1,
+               SNMPv2c, or SNMPv3."
+       INDEX {
+           inetCidrRouteDestType,
+           inetCidrRouteDest,
+           inetCidrRoutePfxLen,
+           inetCidrRoutePolicy,
+           inetCidrRouteNextHopType,
+           inetCidrRouteNextHop
+           }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteTable 1 }
+
+   InetCidrRouteEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+           inetCidrRouteDestType     InetAddressType,
+           inetCidrRouteDest         InetAddress,
+           inetCidrRoutePfxLen       InetAddressPrefixLength,
+           inetCidrRoutePolicy       OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+           inetCidrRouteNextHopType  InetAddressType,
+           inetCidrRouteNextHop      InetAddress,
+           inetCidrRouteIfIndex      InterfaceIndexOrZero,
+           inetCidrRouteType         INTEGER,
+           inetCidrRouteProto        IANAipRouteProtocol,
+           inetCidrRouteAge          Gauge32,
+           inetCidrRouteNextHopAS    InetAutonomousSystemNumber,
+           inetCidrRouteMetric1      Integer32,
+           inetCidrRouteMetric2      Integer32,
+           inetCidrRouteMetric3      Integer32,
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+           inetCidrRouteMetric4      Integer32,
+           inetCidrRouteMetric5      Integer32,
+           inetCidrRouteStatus       RowStatus
+       }
+
+   inetCidrRouteDestType OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAddressType
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The type of the inetCidrRouteDest address, as defined
+               in the InetAddress MIB.
+
+               Only those address types that may appear in an actual
+               routing table are allowed as values of this object."
+       REFERENCE "RFC 4001"
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 1 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteDest OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The destination IP address of this route.
+
+               The type of this address is determined by the value of
+               the inetCidrRouteDestType object.
+
+               The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
+               inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent.  When the value
+               of inetCidrRouteDest (excluding the zone index, if one
+               is present) is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
+               of x with the value of the mask formed from the
+               corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
+               equal to x.  If not, then the index pair is not
+               consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
+               returned on SET or CREATE requests."
+
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 2 }
+
+   inetCidrRoutePfxLen OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAddressPrefixLength
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "Indicates the number of leading one bits that form the
+               mask to be logical-ANDed with the destination address
+               before being compared to the value in the
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               inetCidrRouteDest field.
+
+               The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
+               inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent.  When the value
+               of inetCidrRouteDest (excluding the zone index, if one
+               is present) is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
+               of x with the value of the mask formed from the
+               corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
+               equal to x.  If not, then the index pair is not
+               consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
+               returned on SET or CREATE requests."
+
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 3 }
+
+   inetCidrRoutePolicy OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "This object is an opaque object without any defined
+               semantics.  Its purpose is to serve as an additional
+               index that may delineate between multiple entries to
+               the same destination.  The value { 0 0 } shall be used
+               as the default value for this object."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 4 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteNextHopType OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAddressType
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The type of the inetCidrRouteNextHop address, as
+               defined in the InetAddress MIB.
+
+               Value should be set to unknown(0) for non-remote
+               routes.
+
+               Only those address types that may appear in an actual
+               routing table are allowed as values of this object."
+       REFERENCE "RFC 4001"
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 5 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "On remote routes, the address of the next system en
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               route.  For non-remote routes, a zero length string.
+
+               The type of this address is determined by the value of
+               the inetCidrRouteNextHopType object."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 6 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InterfaceIndexOrZero
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The ifIndex value that identifies the local interface
+               through which the next hop of this route should be
+               reached.  A value of 0 is valid and represents the
+               scenario where no interface is specified."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 7 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteType OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     INTEGER {
+                   other    (1), -- not specified by this MIB
+                   reject   (2), -- route that discards traffic and
+                                 --   returns ICMP notification
+                   local    (3), -- local interface
+                   remote   (4), -- remote destination
+                   blackhole(5)  -- route that discards traffic
+                                 --   silently
+                }
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The type of route.  Note that local(3) refers to a
+               route for which the next hop is the final destination;
+               remote(4) refers to a route for which the next hop is
+               not the final destination.
+
+               Routes that do not result in traffic forwarding or
+               rejection should not be displayed, even if the
+               implementation keeps them stored internally.
+
+               reject(2) refers to a route that, if matched, discards
+               the message as unreachable and returns a notification
+               (e.g., ICMP error) to the message sender.  This is used
+               in some protocols as a means of correctly aggregating
+               routes.
+
+               blackhole(5) refers to a route that, if matched,
+               discards the message silently."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 8 }
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+
+   inetCidrRouteProto OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IANAipRouteProtocol
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The routing mechanism via which this route was learned.
+               Inclusion of values for gateway routing protocols is
+               not intended to imply that hosts should support those
+               protocols."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 9 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteAge OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Gauge32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of seconds since this route was last updated
+               or otherwise determined to be correct.  Note that no
+               semantics of 'too old' can be implied, except through
+               knowledge of the routing protocol by which the route
+               was learned."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 10 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     InetAutonomousSystemNumber
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.  The
+               semantics of this object are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  When this object is unknown or not relevant, its
+               value should be set to zero."
+       DEFVAL { 0 }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 11 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The primary routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 12 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 13 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 14 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 15 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               protocol specified in the route's inetCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 16 }
+
+   inetCidrRouteStatus OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     RowStatus
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The row status variable, used according to row
+               installation and removal conventions.
+
+               A row entry cannot be modified when the status is
+               marked as active(1)."
+       ::= { inetCidrRouteEntry 17 }
+
+   --  Conformance information
+
+   ipForwardConformance
+        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForward 5 }
+
+   ipForwardGroups
+        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForwardConformance 1 }
+
+   ipForwardCompliances
+        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForwardConformance 2 }
+
+   --  Compliance statements
+
+   ipForwardFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "When this MIB is implemented for read-create, the
+               implementation can claim full compliance.
+
+               There are a number of INDEX objects that cannot be
+               represented in the form of OBJECT clauses in SMIv2,
+               but for which there are compliance requirements,
+               expressed in OBJECT clause form in this description:
+
+               -- OBJECT      inetCidrRouteDestType
+               -- SYNTAX      InetAddressType (ipv4(1), ipv6(2),
+               --                              ipv4z(3), ipv6z(4))
+               -- DESCRIPTION
+               --     This MIB requires support for global and
+               --     non-global ipv4 and ipv6 addresses.
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               --
+               -- OBJECT      inetCidrRouteDest
+               -- SYNTAX      InetAddress (SIZE (4 | 8 | 16 | 20))
+               -- DESCRIPTION
+               --     This MIB requires support for global and
+               --     non-global IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
+               --
+               -- OBJECT      inetCidrRouteNextHopType
+               -- SYNTAX      InetAddressType (unknown(0), ipv4(1),
+               --                              ipv6(2), ipv4z(3)
+               --                              ipv6z(4))
+               -- DESCRIPTION
+               --     This MIB requires support for global and
+               --     non-global ipv4 and ipv6 addresses.
+               --
+               -- OBJECT      inetCidrRouteNextHop
+               -- SYNTAX      InetAddress (SIZE (0 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 20))
+               -- DESCRIPTION
+               --     This MIB requires support for global and
+               --     non-global IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
+               "
+
+      MODULE -- this module
+      MANDATORY-GROUPS { inetForwardCidrRouteGroup }
+
+      OBJECT        inetCidrRouteStatus
+      SYNTAX        RowStatus { active(1), notInService (2) }
+      WRITE-SYNTAX  RowStatus { active(1), notInService (2),
+                                createAndGo(4), destroy(6) }
+      DESCRIPTION  "Support for createAndWait is not required."
+
+      ::= { ipForwardCompliances 3 }
+
+   ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+      STATUS     current
+      DESCRIPTION
+              "When this MIB is implemented without support for read-
+               create (i.e., in read-only mode), the implementation can
+               claim read-only compliance."
+      MODULE -- this module
+      MANDATORY-GROUPS { inetForwardCidrRouteGroup }
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteIfIndex
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteType
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteNextHopAS
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteMetric1
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteMetric2
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteMetric3
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteMetric4
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteMetric5
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      OBJECT      inetCidrRouteStatus
+      SYNTAX      RowStatus { active(1) }
+      MIN-ACCESS  read-only
+      DESCRIPTION
+         "Write access is not required."
+
+      ::= { ipForwardCompliances 4 }
+
+   -- units of conformance
+
+   inetForwardCidrRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+       OBJECTS { inetCidrRouteDiscards,
+                 inetCidrRouteIfIndex, inetCidrRouteType,
+                 inetCidrRouteProto, inetCidrRouteAge,
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+                 inetCidrRouteNextHopAS, inetCidrRouteMetric1,
+                 inetCidrRouteMetric2, inetCidrRouteMetric3,
+                 inetCidrRouteMetric4, inetCidrRouteMetric5,
+                 inetCidrRouteStatus, inetCidrRouteNumber
+           }
+       STATUS     current
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The IP version-independent CIDR Route Table."
+       ::= { ipForwardGroups 4 }
+
+   --  Deprecated Objects
+
+   ipCidrRouteNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Gauge32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of current ipCidrRouteTable entries that are
+               not invalid.  This object is deprecated in favor of
+               inetCidrRouteNumber and the inetCidrRouteTable."
+       ::= { ipForward 3 }
+
+   --  IP CIDR Route Table
+
+   --  The IP CIDR Route Table obsoletes and replaces the ipRoute
+   --  Table current in MIB-I and MIB-II and the IP Forwarding Table.
+   --  It adds knowledge of the autonomous system of the next hop,
+   --  multiple next hops, policy routing, and Classless
+   --  Inter-Domain Routing.
+
+   ipCidrRouteTable OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF IpCidrRouteEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "This entity's IP Routing table.  This table has been
+               deprecated in favor of the IP version neutral
+               inetCidrRouteTable."
+       REFERENCE
+              "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+       ::= { ipForward 4 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpCidrRouteEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "A particular route to a particular destination, under a
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               particular policy."
+       INDEX {
+           ipCidrRouteDest,
+           ipCidrRouteMask,
+           ipCidrRouteTos,
+           ipCidrRouteNextHop
+           }
+          ::= { ipCidrRouteTable 1 }
+
+   IpCidrRouteEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+           ipCidrRouteDest       IpAddress,
+           ipCidrRouteMask       IpAddress,
+           ipCidrRouteTos        Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteNextHop    IpAddress,
+           ipCidrRouteIfIndex    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteType       INTEGER,
+           ipCidrRouteProto      INTEGER,
+           ipCidrRouteAge        Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteInfo       OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+           ipCidrRouteNextHopAS  Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteMetric1    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteMetric2    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteMetric3    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteMetric4    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteMetric5    Integer32,
+           ipCidrRouteStatus     RowStatus
+       }
+
+   ipCidrRouteDest OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The destination IP address of this route.
+
+               This object may not take a Multicast (Class D) address
+               value.
+
+               Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an instance
+               of this object to a value x must be rejected if the
+               bitwise logical-AND of x with the value of the
+               corresponding instance of the ipCidrRouteMask object is
+               not equal to x."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 1 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMask OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "Indicate the mask to be logical-ANDed with the
+               destination address before being compared to the value
+               in the ipCidrRouteDest field.  For those systems that
+               do not support arbitrary subnet masks, an agent
+               constructs the value of the ipCidrRouteMask by
+               reference to the IP Address Class.
+
+               Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an instance
+               of this object to a value x must be rejected if the
+               bitwise logical-AND of x with the value of the
+               corresponding instance of the ipCidrRouteDest object is
+               not equal to ipCidrRouteDest."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 2 }
+
+   -- The following convention is included for specification
+   -- of TOS Field contents.  At this time, the Host Requirements
+   -- and the Router Requirements documents disagree on the width
+   -- of the TOS field.  This mapping describes the Router
+   -- Requirements mapping, and leaves room to widen the TOS field
+   -- without impact to fielded systems.
+
+   ipCidrRouteTos OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32 (0..2147483647)
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The policy specifier is the IP TOS Field.  The encoding
+               of IP TOS is as specified by the following convention.
+               Zero indicates the default path if no more specific
+               policy applies.
+
+               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+               |                 |                       |     |
+               |   PRECEDENCE    |    TYPE OF SERVICE    |  0  |
+               |                 |                       |     |
+               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+
+                            IP TOS                IP TOS
+                  Field     Policy      Field     Policy
+                  Contents    Code      Contents    Code
+                  0 0 0 0  ==>   0      0 0 0 1  ==>   2
+                  0 0 1 0  ==>   4      0 0 1 1  ==>   6
+                  0 1 0 0  ==>   8      0 1 0 1  ==>  10
+                  0 1 1 0  ==>  12      0 1 1 1  ==>  14
+                  1 0 0 0  ==>  16      1 0 0 1  ==>  18
+                  1 0 1 0  ==>  20      1 0 1 1  ==>  22
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+                  1 1 0 0  ==>  24      1 1 0 1  ==>  26
+                  1 1 1 0  ==>  28      1 1 1 1  ==>  30"
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 3 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "On remote routes, the address of the next system en
+               route; Otherwise, 0.0.0.0."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 4 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The ifIndex value that identifies the local interface
+               through which the next hop of this route should be
+               reached."
+       DEFVAL { 0 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 5 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteType OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     INTEGER {
+                   other    (1), -- not specified by this MIB
+                   reject   (2), -- route that discards traffic
+                   local    (3), -- local interface
+                   remote   (4)  -- remote destination
+                }
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The type of route.  Note that local(3) refers to a
+               route for which the next hop is the final destination;
+               remote(4) refers to a route for which the next hop is
+               not the final destination.
+
+               Routes that do not result in traffic forwarding or
+               rejection should not be displayed, even if the
+               implementation keeps them stored internally.
+
+               reject (2) refers to a route that, if matched,
+               discards the message as unreachable.  This is used in
+               some protocols as a means of correctly aggregating
+               routes."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 6 }
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+
+   ipCidrRouteProto OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     INTEGER {
+                   other     (1),  -- not specified
+                   local     (2),  -- local interface
+                   netmgmt   (3),  -- static route
+                   icmp      (4),  -- result of ICMP Redirect
+
+                           -- the following are all dynamic
+                           -- routing protocols
+                   egp        (5),  -- Exterior Gateway Protocol
+                   ggp        (6),  -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol
+                   hello      (7),  -- FuzzBall HelloSpeak
+                   rip        (8),  -- Berkeley RIP or RIP-II
+                   isIs       (9),  -- Dual IS-IS
+                   esIs       (10), -- ISO 9542
+                   ciscoIgrp  (11), -- Cisco IGRP
+                   bbnSpfIgp  (12), -- BBN SPF IGP
+                   ospf       (13), -- Open Shortest Path First
+                   bgp        (14), -- Border Gateway Protocol
+                   idpr       (15), -- InterDomain Policy Routing
+                   ciscoEigrp (16)  -- Cisco EIGRP
+                }
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The routing mechanism via which this route was learned.
+               Inclusion of values for gateway routing protocols is
+               not intended to imply that hosts should support those
+               protocols."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 7 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteAge OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of seconds since this route was last updated
+               or otherwise determined to be correct.  Note that no
+               semantics of `too old' can be implied, except through
+               knowledge of the routing protocol by which the route
+               was learned."
+       DEFVAL  { 0 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 8 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteInfo OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "A reference to MIB definitions specific to the
+               particular routing protocol that is responsible for
+               this route, as determined by the value specified in the
+               route's ipCidrRouteProto value.  If this information is
+               not present, its value should be set to the OBJECT
+               IDENTIFIER { 0 0 }, which is a syntactically valid
+               object identifier, and any implementation conforming to
+               ASN.1 and the Basic Encoding Rules must be able to
+               generate and recognize this value."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 9 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.  The
+               semantics of this object are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  When this object is unknown or not relevant, its
+               value should be set to zero."
+       DEFVAL { 0 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 10 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The primary routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 11 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 12 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 13 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 14 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipCidrRouteProto
+               value.  If this metric is not used, its value should be
+               set to -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 15 }
+
+   ipCidrRouteStatus OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     RowStatus
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+              "The row status variable, used according to row
+               installation and removal conventions."
+       ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 16 }
+
+   -- compliance statements
+
+   ipForwardCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The compliance statement for SNMPv2 entities that
+               implement the ipForward MIB.
+
+               This compliance statement has been deprecated and
+               replaced with ipForwardFullCompliance and
+               ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance."
+
+      MODULE  -- this module
+      MANDATORY-GROUPS { ipForwardCidrRouteGroup }
+
+      ::= { ipForwardCompliances 1 }
+
+   -- units of conformance
+
+   ipForwardCidrRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+       OBJECTS { ipCidrRouteNumber,
+                 ipCidrRouteDest, ipCidrRouteMask, ipCidrRouteTos,
+                 ipCidrRouteNextHop, ipCidrRouteIfIndex,
+                 ipCidrRouteType, ipCidrRouteProto, ipCidrRouteAge,
+                 ipCidrRouteInfo,ipCidrRouteNextHopAS,
+                 ipCidrRouteMetric1, ipCidrRouteMetric2,
+                 ipCidrRouteMetric3, ipCidrRouteMetric4,
+                 ipCidrRouteMetric5, ipCidrRouteStatus
+           }
+       STATUS     deprecated
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The CIDR Route Table.
+
+               This group has been deprecated and replaced with
+               inetForwardCidrRouteGroup."
+       ::= { ipForwardGroups 3 }
+
+   -- Obsoleted Definitions - Objects
+
+   ipForwardNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Gauge32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 22]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+              "The number of current ipForwardTable entries that are
+               not invalid."
+       ::= { ipForward 1 }
+
+   --  IP Forwarding Table
+
+   --  The IP Forwarding Table obsoletes and replaces the ipRoute
+   --  Table current in MIB-I and MIB-II.  It adds knowledge of
+   --  the autonomous system of the next hop, multiple next hop
+   --  support, and policy routing support.
+
+   ipForwardTable OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF IpForwardEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "This entity's IP Routing table."
+       REFERENCE
+              "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+       ::= { ipForward 2 }
+
+   ipForwardEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpForwardEntry
+       MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "A particular route to a particular destination, under a
+               particular policy."
+       INDEX {
+           ipForwardDest,
+           ipForwardProto,
+           ipForwardPolicy,
+           ipForwardNextHop
+           }
+       ::= { ipForwardTable 1 }
+
+   IpForwardEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+           ipForwardDest       IpAddress,
+           ipForwardMask       IpAddress,
+           ipForwardPolicy     Integer32,
+           ipForwardNextHop    IpAddress,
+           ipForwardIfIndex    Integer32,
+           ipForwardType       INTEGER,
+           ipForwardProto      INTEGER,
+           ipForwardAge        Integer32,
+           ipForwardInfo       OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+           ipForwardNextHopAS  Integer32,
+           ipForwardMetric1    Integer32,
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 23]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+           ipForwardMetric2    Integer32,
+           ipForwardMetric3    Integer32,
+           ipForwardMetric4    Integer32,
+           ipForwardMetric5    Integer32
+       }
+
+   ipForwardDest OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The destination IP address of this route.  An entry
+               with a value of 0.0.0.0 is considered a default route.
+
+               This object may not take a Multicast (Class D) address
+               value.
+
+               Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an instance
+               of this object to a value x must be rejected if the
+               bitwise logical-AND of x with the value of the
+               corresponding instance of the ipForwardMask object is
+               not equal to x."
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 1 }
+
+   ipForwardMask OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "Indicate the mask to be logical-ANDed with the
+               destination address before being compared to the value
+               in the ipForwardDest field.  For those systems that do
+               not support arbitrary subnet masks, an agent constructs
+               the value of the ipForwardMask by reference to the IP
+               Address Class.
+
+               Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an instance
+               of this object to a value x must be rejected if the
+               bitwise logical-AND of x with the value of the
+               corresponding instance of the ipForwardDest object is
+               not equal to ipForwardDest."
+       DEFVAL { '00000000'H }      -- 0.0.0.0
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 2 }
+
+   -- The following convention is included for specification
+   -- of TOS Field contents.  At this time, the Host Requirements
+   -- and the Router Requirements documents disagree on the width
+   -- of the TOS field.  This mapping describes the Router
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 24]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+   -- Requirements mapping, and leaves room to widen the TOS field
+   -- without impact to fielded systems.
+
+   ipForwardPolicy OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32 (0..2147483647)
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The general set of conditions that would cause
+               the selection of one multipath route (set of
+               next hops for a given destination) is referred
+               to as 'policy'.
+
+               Unless the mechanism indicated by ipForwardProto
+               specifies otherwise, the policy specifier is
+               the IP TOS Field.  The encoding of IP TOS is as
+               specified by the following convention.  Zero
+               indicates the default path if no more specific
+               policy applies.
+
+               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+               |                 |                       |     |
+               |   PRECEDENCE    |    TYPE OF SERVICE    |  0  |
+               |                 |                       |     |
+               +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+
+
+
+                            IP TOS                IP TOS
+                  Field     Policy      Field     Policy
+                  Contents    Code      Contents    Code
+                  0 0 0 0  ==>   0      0 0 0 1  ==>   2
+                  0 0 1 0  ==>   4      0 0 1 1  ==>   6
+                  0 1 0 0  ==>   8      0 1 0 1  ==>  10
+                  0 1 1 0  ==>  12      0 1 1 1  ==>  14
+                  1 0 0 0  ==>  16      1 0 0 1  ==>  18
+                  1 0 1 0  ==>  20      1 0 1 1  ==>  22
+                  1 1 0 0  ==>  24      1 1 0 1  ==>  26
+                  1 1 1 0  ==>  28      1 1 1 1  ==>  30
+
+               Protocols defining 'policy' otherwise must either
+               define a set of values that are valid for
+               this object or must implement an integer-instanced
+               policy table for which this object's
+               value acts as an index."
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 3 }
+
+   ipForwardNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 25]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       SYNTAX     IpAddress
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "On remote routes, the address of the next system en
+               route; otherwise, 0.0.0.0."
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 4 }
+
+   ipForwardIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The ifIndex value that identifies the local interface
+               through which the next hop of this route should be
+               reached."
+       DEFVAL { 0 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 5 }
+
+   ipForwardType OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     INTEGER {
+                   other    (1), -- not specified by this MIB
+                   invalid  (2), -- logically deleted
+                   local    (3), -- local interface
+                   remote   (4)  -- remote destination
+                }
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The type of route.  Note that local(3) refers to a
+               route for which the next hop is the final destination;
+               remote(4) refers to a route for which the next hop is
+               not the final destination.
+
+               Setting this object to the value invalid(2) has the
+               effect of invalidating the corresponding entry in the
+               ipForwardTable object.  That is, it effectively
+               disassociates the destination identified with said
+               entry from the route identified with said entry.  It is
+               an implementation-specific matter as to whether the
+               agent removes an invalidated entry from the table.
+               Accordingly, management stations must be prepared to
+               receive tabular information from agents that
+               corresponds to entries not currently in use.  Proper
+               interpretation of such entries requires examination of
+               the relevant ipForwardType object."
+       DEFVAL { invalid }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 6 }
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 26]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+
+   ipForwardProto OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     INTEGER {
+                   other     (1),  -- not specified
+                   local     (2),  -- local interface
+                   netmgmt   (3),  -- static route
+                   icmp      (4),  -- result of ICMP Redirect
+
+                           -- the following are all dynamic
+                           -- routing protocols
+                   egp       (5),  -- Exterior Gateway Protocol
+                   ggp       (6),  -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol
+                   hello     (7),  -- FuzzBall HelloSpeak
+                   rip       (8),  -- Berkeley RIP or RIP-II
+                   is-is     (9),  -- Dual IS-IS
+                   es-is     (10), -- ISO 9542
+                   ciscoIgrp (11), -- Cisco IGRP
+                   bbnSpfIgp (12), -- BBN SPF IGP
+                   ospf      (13), -- Open Shortest Path First
+                   bgp       (14), -- Border Gateway Protocol
+                   idpr      (15)  -- InterDomain Policy Routing
+                }
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The routing mechanism via which this route was learned.
+               Inclusion of values for gateway routing protocols is
+               not intended to imply that hosts should support those
+               protocols."
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 7 }
+
+   ipForwardAge OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-only
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The number of seconds since this route was last updated
+               or otherwise determined to be correct.  Note that no
+               semantics of `too old' can be implied except through
+               knowledge of the routing protocol by which the route
+               was learned."
+       DEFVAL  { 0 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 8 }
+
+   ipForwardInfo OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 27]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "A reference to MIB definitions specific to the
+               particular routing protocol that is responsible for
+               this route, as determined by the value specified in the
+               route's ipForwardProto value.  If this information is
+               not present, its value should be set to the OBJECT
+               IDENTIFIER { 0 0 }, which is a syntactically valid
+               object identifier, and any implementation conforming to
+               ASN.1 and the Basic Encoding Rules must be able to
+               generate and recognize this value."
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 9 }
+
+   ipForwardNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.  When
+               this is unknown or not relevant to the protocol
+               indicated by ipForwardProto, zero."
+       DEFVAL { 0 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 10 }
+
+   ipForwardMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The primary routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+               If this metric is not used, its value should be set to
+               -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 11 }
+
+   ipForwardMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+               If this metric is not used, its value should be set to
+               -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 12 }
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 28]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+
+   ipForwardMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+               If this metric is not used, its value should be set to
+               -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 13 }
+
+   ipForwardMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+               If this metric is not used, its value should be set to
+               -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 14 }
+
+   ipForwardMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+       SYNTAX     Integer32
+       MAX-ACCESS read-create
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "An alternate routing metric for this route.  The
+               semantics of this metric are determined by the routing-
+               protocol specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+               If this metric is not used, its value should be set to
+               -1."
+       DEFVAL { -1 }
+       ::= { ipForwardEntry 15 }
+
+   -- Obsoleted Definitions - Groups
+   -- compliance statements
+
+   ipForwardOldCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "The compliance statement for SNMP entities that
+               implement the ipForward MIB."
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 29]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+
+      MODULE  -- this module
+      MANDATORY-GROUPS { ipForwardMultiPathGroup }
+
+      ::= { ipForwardCompliances 2 }
+
+   ipForwardMultiPathGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+       OBJECTS { ipForwardNumber,
+                 ipForwardDest, ipForwardMask, ipForwardPolicy,
+                 ipForwardNextHop, ipForwardIfIndex, ipForwardType,
+                 ipForwardProto, ipForwardAge, ipForwardInfo,
+                 ipForwardNextHopAS,
+                 ipForwardMetric1, ipForwardMetric2, ipForwardMetric3,
+                 ipForwardMetric4, ipForwardMetric5
+           }
+       STATUS     obsolete
+       DESCRIPTION
+              "IP Multipath Route Table."
+       ::= { ipForwardGroups 2 }
+
+   END
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module
+   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create.  Such
+   objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network
+   environments.  The support for SET operations in a non-secure
+   environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on
+   network operations.  These are the tables and objects and their
+   sensitivity/vulnerability:
+
+      1. The inetCidrRouteTable contains routing and forwarding
+         information that is critical to the operation of the network
+         node (especially routers).  Allowing unauthenticated write
+         access to this table can compromise the validity of the
+         forwarding information.
+
+   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a
+   MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
+   vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus important to
+   control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly
+   to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over
+   the network via SNMP.  These are the tables and objects and their
+   sensitivity/vulnerability:
+
+      1. The inetCidrRouteTable contains routing and forwarding
+         information that can be used to compromise a network.
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 30]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+         Specifically, this table can be used to construct a map of the
+         network in preparation for a denial-of-service attack on the
+         network infrastructure.
+
+      2. The inetCidrRouteProto object identifies the routing protocols
+         in use within a network.  This information can be used to
+         determine how a denial-of-service attack should be launched.
+
+   SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
+   Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),
+   even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is
+   allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects
+   in this MIB module.
+
+   It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as
+   provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8),
+   including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for
+   authentication and privacy).
+
+   Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT
+   RECOMMENDED.  Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to
+   enable cryptographic security.  It is then a customer/operator
+   responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an
+   instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to
+   the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
+   rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them.
+
+7.  Changes from RFC 2096
+
+   This document obsoletes RFC 2096 in the following ways:
+
+      1. Replaces ipCidrRouteTable with inetCidrRouteTable.  This
+         applies to corresponding objects and conformance statements.
+
+      2. Utilizes the InetAddress TC to support IP version-independent
+         implementations of the forwarding MIB.  This gives common
+         forwarding MIB support for IPv4 and IPv6.
+
+      3. Creates a read-only conformance statement to support
+         implementations that only wish to retrieve data.
+
+      4. Creates the inetCidrRouteDiscards object to replace the
+         deprecated ipRoutingDiscards and ipv6DiscardedRoutes objects.
+
+   The inetCidrRouteTable retains the logical structure of the
+   ipCidrRouteTable in order to allow the easy upgrade of existing IPv4
+   implementations to the version-independent MIB.
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 31]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+8.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+             "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
+             STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
+
+   [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual
+             Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
+
+   [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+             "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April
+             1999.
+
+   [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
+             MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
+
+   [RFC4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
+             Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
+             Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.
+
+   [RFC4293] Routhier, S., Ed., "Management Information Base for the
+             Internet Protocol (IP), RFC 4293, April 2006.
+
+   [RTPROTO] IANA, "IP Route Protocol MIB",
+             http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiprouteprotocol-mib,
+             September 2000.
+
+9.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
+             for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
+             RFC 1213, March 1991.
+
+   [RFC1354] Baker, F., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 1354, July 1992.
+
+   [RFC2011] McCloghrie, K., Editor, "SNMPv2 Management Information Base
+             for the Internet Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2011, November
+             1996.
+
+   [RFC2096] Baker, F., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 2096, January
+             1997.
+
+   [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
+             "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
+             Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 32]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+   [RFC2465] Haskin, D. and S. Onishi, Management Information Base for
+             IP Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group", RFC
+             2465, December 1998.
+
+
+10.  Authors and Acknowledgements
+
+   This document was based on RFC 2096 [RFC2096].
+
+   The following people provided text for this version of the document,
+   or were authors of previous versions:
+
+   Fred Baker, Cisco
+   Bill Fenner, AT&T Research
+   Brian Haberman, Johns Hopkins University - Applied Physics Laboratory
+   Juergen Schoenwalder, TU Braunschweig
+   Dave Thaler, Microsoft
+   Margaret Wasserman, Thingmagic
+
+   Dario Accornero, Mark Adam, Qing Li, and Shawn Routhier reviewed the
+   document and provided helpful feedback.
+
+   Mike Heard provided valuable feedback as the MIB Doctor for this
+   document.
+
+Editors' Contact Information
+
+   Comments or questions regarding this document should be sent to:
+
+   Brian Haberman
+   Johns Hopkins University - Applied Physics Laboratory
+   Mailstop 17-S442
+   11100 Johns Hopkins Road
+   Laurel MD,  20723-6099  USA
+
+   Phone: +1-443-778-1319
+   EMail: brian@innovationslab.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 33]
+
+RFC 4292                IP Forwarding Table MIB               April 2006
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+   retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
+   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Haberman                    Standards Track                    [Page 34]
+