Movatterモバイル変換

[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

Obsoleted by:3291 PROPOSED STANDARD

Network Working Group                                        M. DanieleRequest for Comments: 2851                  Compaq Computer CorporationCategory: Standards Track                                   B. Haberman                                                        Nortel Networks                                                            S. Routhier                                               Wind River Systems, Inc.                                                       J. Schoenwaelder                                                        TU Braunschweig                                                              June 2000Textual Conventions for Internet Network AddressesStatus 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 Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  The SNMP Management Framework  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.  Usage Hints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84.2 Uniqueness of Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94.4 Resolving DNS Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95.  Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 20008. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161. 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 intactDaniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000   and a new table was added for TCP connections over IPv6 in the IPV6-   TCP-MIB [19]. Note that even in this case, the MIBs SHOULD use the   textual conventions defined in this memo.   Note that MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions   defined in this document to represent transport layer addresses.   Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated   definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in   this document are to be interpreted as described inRFC 2119 [1].2. The SNMP Management Framework   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major   components:   o  An overall architecture, described inRFC 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] andRFC 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 inRFC 1901 [10] andRFC1906 [11]. The third version of the message protocol is called      SNMPv3 and described inRFC 1906 [11],RFC 2572 [12] andRFC 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 inRFC 1905      [14].   o  A set of fundamental applications described inRFC 2573 [15] and      the view-based access control mechanism described inRFC 2575      [16].   A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework   can be found inRFC 2570 [17].   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed   the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are   defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000 This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the MIB.3. Definitions INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200006080000Z" ORGANIZATION "IETF Operations and Management Area" CONTACT-INFO "Mike Daniele Compaq Computer Corporation 110 Spit Brook Rd Nashua, NH 03062, USA Phone: +1 603 884-1423 EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com Brian Haberman Nortel Networks 4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200 Durham, NC 27703, USA Phone: +1 919 992-4439 EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com Shawn A. Routhier Wind River Systems, Inc. 1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403 Nashua, NH 03062, USA Phone: +1 603 897-2000 EMail: sar@epilogue.comDaniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000 Juergen Schoenwaelder TU Braunschweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Phone: +49 531 391-3289 EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org." DESCRIPTION "This MIB module defines textual conventions for representing Internet addresses. An Internet address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS domain name." REVISION "200006080000Z" DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published asRFC 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. ItDaniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000          MAY be subtyped in compliance statements in order to require          only a subset of these address types for a compliant          implementation."     SYNTAX      INTEGER {                     unknown(0),                     ipv4(1),    -- these named numbers are aligned                     ipv6(2),    -- with AddressFamilyNumbers from                     dns(16)     -- IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS-MIB                 }   InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION     STATUS       current     DESCRIPTION         "Denotes a generic Internet address.          An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the          context of an InetAddressType value. The InetAddressType          object which defines the context must be registered          immediately before the object which uses the InetAddress          textual convention. In other words, the object identifiers          for the InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object          MUST have the same length and the last sub-identifier of          the InetAddressType object MUST be 1 less than the last          sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.          When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an          index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128          sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,          the OBJECT-TYPE declaration MUST include a 'SIZE' clause          to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."     SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))   InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION     DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"     STATUS       current     DESCRIPTION         "Represents an IPv4 network address:            octets   contents         encoding             1-4     IP address       network-byte order          The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1)."     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))   InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION     DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"     STATUS       current     DESCRIPTIONDaniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000 "Represents an IPv6 network address: octets contents encoding 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order 17-20 scope identifier network-byte order The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2). The scope identifier (bytes 17-20) MUST NOT be present for global IPv6 addresses. For non-global IPv6 addresses (e.g. link-local or site-local addresses), the scope identifier MUST always be present. It contains a link identifier for link-local and a site identifier for site-local IPv6 addresses. The scope identifier MUST disambiguate identical address values. For link-local addresses, the scope identifier will typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the IF-MIB,RFC 2233) of the interface on which the address is configured. The scope identifier may contain the special value 0 which refers to the default scope. The default scope may be used in cases where the valid scope identifier is not known (e.g., a management application needs to write a site-local InetAddressIPv6 address without knowing the site identifier value). The default scope SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in cases where the scope identifier for a non-global IPv6 is known." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (16|20)) InetAddressDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "255a" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Represents a DNS domain name. The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever possible. The corresponding InetAddressType is dns(16). The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that may have InetAddressDNS values must fully describe how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP addresses." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255)) ENDDaniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 20004. Usage Hints One particular usage of InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs is to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the use of the IpAddress SMI base type. An InetAddressType/InetAddress pair allows to represent IP addresses in various formats. The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be subtyped. Subtyping binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced. Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to express that only a subset of the defined address types must be implemented to be compliant. Internet addresses MUST always be represented by a pair of InetAddressType/InetAddress objects. It is not allowed to "share" an InetAddressType between multiple InetAddress objects. Furthermore, the InetAddressType object must be registered immediately before the InetAddress object. In other words, the object identifiers for the InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object MUST have the same length and the last sub-identifier of the InetAddressType object MUST be 1 less than the last sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.4.1 Table Indexing When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The InetAddressType object MUST come immediately before the InetAddress object in the INDEX clause. If multiple Internet addresses are used in the INDEX clause, then every Internet address must be represented by a pair of InetAddressType and InetAddress objects. The IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used for an object of type InetAddress in an INDEX clause. Instance sub-identifiers are then of the form T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetAddressType object, O1...On are the octets in the InetAddress object, and N is the number of those octets. There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed in this fashion. Command generator applications may lookup specific addresses of known type and value, issue GetNext requests for addresses of a single type, or issue GetNext requests for a specific type and address prefix.Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 20004.2 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 inRFC2553 [22].4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. Thus it is possible for a single host system to be represented by multiple InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs. If this could be an implementation or usage issue, then the DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe required behavior.4.4 Resolving DNS Names DNS names must be resolved to IP addresses when communication with the named host is required. This raises a temporal aspect to defining MIB objects whose value is a DNS name: When is the name translated to an address? For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the forwarding entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? Once, when the object was instantiated? The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define how and when any required name to address resolution is done.Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000   Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely   define how and when a reverse lookup is being done if an agent has   accessed instrumentation that knows about an IP address and the MIB   or implementation requires to map the address to a name.5. Table Indexing Example   This example shows a table listing communication peers that are   identified by either an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS name.   The table definition also prohibits entries with an empty address   (whose type would be "unknown"). The size of a DNS name is limited to   64 characters.   peerTable OBJECT-TYPE     SYNTAX      SEQUENCE OF PeerEntry     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible     STATUS      current     DESCRIPTION         "A list of communication peers."     ::= { somewhere 1 }   peerEntry OBJECT-TYPE     SYNTAX      PeerEntry     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible     STATUS      current     DESCRIPTION         "An entry containing information about a particular peer."     INDEX       { peerAddressType, peerAddress }     ::= { peerTable 1 }   PeerEntry ::= SEQUENCE {     peerAddressType     InetAddressType,     peerAddress         InetAddress,     peerStatus          INTEGER }   peerAddressType OBJECT-TYPE     SYNTAX      InetAddressType     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible     STATUS      current     DESCRIPTION         "The type of Internet address by which the peer          is reachable."     ::= { peerEntry 1 }   peerAddress OBJECT-TYPE     SYNTAX      InetAddress (SIZE (1..64))     MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible     STATUS      currentDaniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000     DESCRIPTION         "The Internet address for the peer. Note that          implementations must limit themselves to a single          entry in this table per reachable peer.          The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE          restriction.          If a row is created administratively by an SNMP          operation and the address type value is dns(16), then          the agent stores the DNS name internally. A DNS name          lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS          name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.          If a row is created by the managed entity itself and          the address type value is dns(16), then the agent          stores the IP address internally. A DNS reverse lookup          must be performed on the internally stored IP address          whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."     ::= { peerEntry 2 }   The following compliance statement specifies that implementations   need only support IPv4 addresses and globally unique IPv6 addresses   to be compliant. Support for DNS names or scoped IPv6 addresses is   not required.   peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE     STATUS      current     DESCRIPTION         "The compliance statement the peer MIB."     MODULE      -- this module     MANDATORY-GROUPS    { peerGroup }     OBJECT  peerAddressType     SYNTAX  InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }     DESCRIPTION         "An implementation is only required to support IPv4          and IPv6 addresses."     OBJECT  peerAddress     SYNTAX  InetAddress (SIZE(4|16))     DESCRIPTION         "An implementation is only required to support IPv4          and globally unique IPv6 addresses."     ::= { somewhere 2 }Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 2851 TCs for Internet Network Addresses June 2000 Note that the SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of not-accessible objects in an object group (seesection 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 inBCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000References   [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,RFC1155, May 1990.   [4]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16,RFC 1212, March 1991.   [5]  Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the        SNMP",RFC 1215, March 1991.   [6]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information        Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58,RFC 2578, April 1999.   [7]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,RFC 2579, April 1999.   [8]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD        58,RFC 2580, April 1999.   [9]  Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple        Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,RFC 1157, May 1990.   [10]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,         "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2",RFC 1901, January         1996.   [11]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,         "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network         Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",RFC 1906, January 1996.   [12]  Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message         Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management         Protocol (SNMP)",RFC 2572, April 1999.   [13]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM)         for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol         (SNMPv3)",RFC 2574, April 1999.Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000   [14]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,         "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network         Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",RFC 1905, January 1996.   [15]  Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications",RFC2573, April 1999.   [16]  Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access         Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management         Protocol (SNMP)",RFC 2575, April 1999.   [17]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction         to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management         Framework",RFC 2570, April 1999.   [18]  McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the         Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2",RFC 2012, November         1996.   [19]  Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the         Transmission Control Protocol",RFC 2452, December 1998.   [20]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB         using SMIv2",RFC 2233, November 1997.   [21]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing         Architecture",RFC 2373, July 1998.   [22]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic         Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",RFC 2553, March 1999.Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 14]

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

RFC 2851           TCs for Internet Network Addresses          June 2000Full 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]

[8]ページ先頭