path: root/doc/rfc/rfc2851.txt

Network Working Group                                        M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 2851                  Compaq Computer Corporation
Category: Standards Track                                   B. Haberman
                                                        Nortel Networks
                                                            S. Routhier
                                               Wind River Systems, Inc.
                                                       J. Schoenwaelder
                                                        TU Braunschweig
                                                              June 2000


           Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

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

   This work is output from the Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB"
   design team.

Table of Contents

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



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


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

1. Introduction

   Several standard-track MIB modules use the IpAddress SMIv2 base type.
   This limits the applicability of these MIB modules to IP Version 4
   (IPv4) since the IpAddress SMIv2 base type can only contain 4 byte
   IPv4 addresses. The IpAddress SMIv2 base type has become problematic
   with the introduction of IP Version 6 (IPv6) addresses [21].

   This document defines multiple textual conventions as a mechanism to
   express generic Internet network layer addresses within MIB module
   specifications. The solution is compatible with SMIv2 (STD 58) and
   SMIv1 (STD 16). New MIB definitions which need to express network
   layer Internet addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined
   in this memo. New MIBs SHOULD NOT use the SMIv2 IpAddress base type
   anymore.

   A generic Internet address consists of two objects, one whose syntax
   is InetAddressType, and another whose syntax is InetAddress. The
   value of the first object determines how the value of the second
   object is encoded. The InetAddress textual convention represents an
   opaque Internet address value. The InetAddressType enumeration is
   used to "cast" the InetAddress value into a concrete textual
   convention for the address type. This usage of multiple textual
   conventions allows expression of the display characteristics of each
   address type and makes the set of defined Internet address types
   extensible.

   The textual conventions defined in this document can be used to
   define Internet addresses by using DNS domain names in addition to
   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. A MIB designer can write compliance
   statements to express that only a subset of the possible address
   types must be supported by a compliant implementation.

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

   In order to make existing widely-deployed IPv4-only MIBs fit for
   IPv6, it might be a valid approach to define separate tables for
   different address types. This is a decision for the MIB designer.
   For example, the tcpConnTable of the TCP-MIB [18] was left intact




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


   and a new table was added for TCP connections over IPv6 in the IPV6-
   TCP-MIB [19]. Note that even in this case, the MIBs SHOULD use the
   textual conventions defined in this memo.

   Note that MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions
   defined in this document to represent transport layer addresses.

   Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated
   definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.

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

2. The SNMP Management Framework

   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
   components:

   o  An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [2].
   o  Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the
      purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of
      Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in STD
      16, RFC 1155 [3], STD 16, RFC 1212 [4] and RFC 1215 [5]. The
      second version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578
      [6], STD 58, RFC 2579 [7] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [8].
   o  Message protocols for transferring management information. The
      first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
      described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second version of the SNMP
      message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
      protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [10] and RFC
      1906 [11]. The third version of the message protocol is called
      SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [11], RFC 2572 [12] and RFC 2574
      [13].
   o  Protocol operations for accessing management information. The
      first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
      described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second set of protocol
      operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905
      [14].
   o  A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [15] and
      the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575
      [16].

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

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are
   defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.



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


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

3. Definitions

   INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN


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


   inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
     LAST-UPDATED "200006080000Z"
     ORGANIZATION
         "IETF Operations and Management Area"
     CONTACT-INFO
         "Mike Daniele
          Compaq Computer Corporation
          110 Spit Brook Rd
          Nashua, NH  03062, USA

          Phone: +1 603 884-1423
          EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com

          Brian Haberman
          Nortel Networks
          4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200
          Durham, NC  27703, USA

          Phone: +1 919 992-4439
          EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com

          Shawn A. Routhier
          Wind River Systems, Inc.
          1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403
          Nashua, NH  03062, USA

          Phone: +1 603 897-2000
          EMail: sar@epilogue.com



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


          Juergen Schoenwaelder
          TU Braunschweig
          Bueltenweg 74/75
          38106 Braunschweig, Germany

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

          Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org."

   DESCRIPTION
     "This MIB module defines textual conventions for
      representing Internet addresses. An Internet
      address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address
      or a DNS domain name."

   REVISION     "200006080000Z"
   DESCRIPTION
       "Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
   ::= { mib-2 76 }

   InetAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
         "A value that represents a type of Internet address.

          unknown(0)  An unknown address type. This value MUST
                      be used if the value of the corresponding
                      InetAddress object is a zero-length string.
                      It may also be used to indicate an IP address
                      which is not in one of the formats defined
                      below.

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

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

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

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

          The InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be subtyped
          in object type definitions to support future extensions. It



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


          MAY be subtyped in compliance statements in order to require
          only a subset of these address types for a compliant
          implementation."
     SYNTAX      INTEGER {
                     unknown(0),
                     ipv4(1),    -- these named numbers are aligned
                     ipv6(2),    -- with AddressFamilyNumbers from
                     dns(16)     -- IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS-MIB
                 }

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

          An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the
          context of an InetAddressType value. The InetAddressType
          object which defines the context must be registered
          immediately before the object which uses the InetAddress
          textual convention. In other words, the object identifiers
          for the InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object
          MUST have the same length and the last sub-identifier of
          the InetAddressType object MUST be 1 less than the last
          sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.

          When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
          index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
          sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
          the OBJECT-TYPE declaration MUST include a 'SIZE' clause
          to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."
     SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

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

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

          The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1)."
     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))

   InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
     DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
     STATUS       current
     DESCRIPTION



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


         "Represents an IPv6 network address:

            octets   contents         encoding
             1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order
            17-20    scope identifier network-byte order

          The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).

          The scope identifier (bytes 17-20) MUST NOT be present
          for global IPv6 addresses. For non-global IPv6 addresses
          (e.g. link-local or site-local addresses), the scope
          identifier MUST always be present. It contains a link
          identifier for link-local and a site identifier for
          site-local IPv6 addresses.

          The scope identifier MUST disambiguate identical address
          values. For link-local addresses, the scope identifier will
          typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the
          IF-MIB, RFC 2233) of the interface on which the address is
          configured.

          The scope identifier may contain the special value 0
          which refers to the default scope. The default scope
          may be used in cases where the valid scope identifier
          is not known (e.g., a management application needs to
          write a site-local InetAddressIPv6 address without
          knowing the site identifier value). The default scope
          SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in cases where
          the scope identifier for a non-global IPv6 is known."
     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (16|20))

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

          The corresponding InetAddressType is dns(16).

          The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that
          may have InetAddressDNS values must fully describe
          how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP
          addresses."
     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))

   END




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


4. Usage Hints

   One particular usage of InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs is to avoid
   over-constraining an object definition by the use of the IpAddress
   SMI base type. An InetAddressType/InetAddress pair allows to
   represent IP addresses in various formats.

   The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be subtyped.
   Subtyping binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may
   cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced.
   Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to
   express that only a subset of the defined address types must be
   implemented to be compliant.

   Internet addresses MUST always be represented by a pair of
   InetAddressType/InetAddress objects. It is not allowed to "share" an
   InetAddressType between multiple InetAddress objects. Furthermore,
   the InetAddressType object must be registered immediately before the
   InetAddress object. In other words, the object identifiers for the
   InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object MUST have the same
   length and the last sub-identifier of the InetAddressType object MUST
   be 1 less than the last sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.

4.1 Table Indexing

   When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the
   InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The
   InetAddressType object MUST come immediately before the InetAddress
   object in the INDEX clause. If multiple Internet addresses are used
   in the INDEX clause, then every Internet address must be represented
   by a pair of InetAddressType and InetAddress objects.

   The IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used for an object of type
   InetAddress in an INDEX clause. Instance sub-identifiers are then of
   the form T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetAddressType
   object, O1...On are the octets in the InetAddress object, and N is
   the number of those octets.

   There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed in
   this fashion. Command generator applications may lookup specific
   addresses of known type and value, issue GetNext requests for
   addresses of a single type, or issue GetNext requests for a specific
   type and address prefix.








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


4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses

   IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current usage
   notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to have different
   scopes and hence uniqueness [21]. In particular, IPv6 "link-local"
   and "site-local" addresses are not guaranteed to be unique on any
   particular node. In such cases, the duplicate addresses must be
   configured on different interfaces. So the combination of an IPv6
   address and an interface number is unique. The interface number may
   therefore be used as a scope identifier.

   The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent
   global and non-global IPv6 addresses. MIB designers who use
   InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need define
   additional objects in order to support link-local or site-local
   addresses.

   The size of the scope identifier has been chosen so that it matches
   the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC
   2553 [22].

4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host

   A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4
   or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. Thus it is possible
   for a single host system to be represented by multiple
   InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.

   If this could be an implementation or usage issue, then the
   DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe
   required behavior.

4.4 Resolving DNS Names

   DNS names must be resolved to IP addresses when communication with
   the named host is required. This raises a temporal aspect to defining
   MIB objects whose value is a DNS name: When is the name translated to
   an address?

   For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding
   destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the forwarding
   entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? Once, when
   the object was instantiated?

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





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


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

5. Table Indexing Example

   This example shows a table listing communication peers that are
   identified by either an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS name.
   The table definition also prohibits entries with an empty address
   (whose type would be "unknown"). The size of a DNS name is limited to
   64 characters.

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

   peerEntry OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX      PeerEntry
     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
         "An entry containing information about a particular peer."
     INDEX       { peerAddressType, peerAddress }
     ::= { peerTable 1 }

   PeerEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
     peerAddressType     InetAddressType,
     peerAddress         InetAddress,
     peerStatus          INTEGER }

   peerAddressType OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX      InetAddressType
     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
         "The type of Internet address by which the peer
          is reachable."
     ::= { peerEntry 1 }

   peerAddress OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX      InetAddress (SIZE (1..64))
     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
     STATUS      current



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


     DESCRIPTION
         "The Internet address for the peer. Note that
          implementations must limit themselves to a single
          entry in this table per reachable peer.

          The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE
          restriction.

          If a row is created administratively by an SNMP
          operation and the address type value is dns(16), then
          the agent stores the DNS name internally. A DNS name
          lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS
          name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.
          If a row is created by the managed entity itself and
          the address type value is dns(16), then the agent
          stores the IP address internally. A DNS reverse lookup
          must be performed on the internally stored IP address
          whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."
     ::= { peerEntry 2 }

   The following compliance statement specifies that implementations
   need only support IPv4 addresses and globally unique IPv6 addresses
   to be compliant. Support for DNS names or scoped IPv6 addresses is
   not required.

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

     MODULE      -- this module
     MANDATORY-GROUPS    { peerGroup }

     OBJECT  peerAddressType
     SYNTAX  InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
     DESCRIPTION
         "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
          and IPv6 addresses."

     OBJECT  peerAddress
     SYNTAX  InetAddress (SIZE(4|16))
     DESCRIPTION
         "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
          and globally unique IPv6 addresses."

     ::= { somewhere 2 }





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


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

6. Security Considerations

   This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MIB
   modules to define management objects.

   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the modules
   that define management objects.

7. Acknowledgments

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

8. Intellectual Property Notice

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

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.






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


References

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

   [2]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for
        Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 1999.

   [3]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
        Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC
        1155, May 1990.

   [4]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16,
        RFC 1212, March 1991.

   [5]  Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the
        SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.

   [6]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information
        Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [7]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,
        RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [8]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD
        58, RFC 2580, April 1999.

   [9]  Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple
        Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.

   [10]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
         "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January
         1996.

   [11]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
         "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network
         Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996.

   [12]  Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message
         Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
         Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999.

   [13]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM)
         for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
         (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999.



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


   [14]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
         "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network
         Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.

   [15]  Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", RFC
         2573, April 1999.

   [16]  Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access
         Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management
         Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999.

   [17]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction
         to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
         Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.

   [18]  McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
         Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012, November
         1996.

   [19]  Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the
         Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452, December 1998.

   [20]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB
         using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997.

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

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





















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


Authors' Addresses

   Mike Daniele
   Compaq Computer Corporation
   110 Spit Brook Rd
   Nashua, NH  03062
   USA

   Phone: +1 603 884-1423
   EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com

   Brian Haberman
   Nortel Networks
   4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200
   Durham, NC  27703
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 992-4439
   EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com

   Shawn A. Routhier
   Wind River Systems, Inc.
   1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403
   Nashua, NH  03062
   USA

   Phone: +1 603 897-2000
   EMail: sar@epilogue.com

   Juergen Schoenwaelder
   TU Braunschweig
   Bueltenweg 74/75
   38106 Braunschweig
   Germany

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














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


Full Copyright Statement

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

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

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



















Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L