---------------------
PatchSet 5991 
Date: 2007/10/22 20:52:56
Author: rmartinez
Branch: squid3-ipv6
Tag: (none) 
Log:
RFC on neutral IP addresses

Members: 
	doc/rfc/rfc4001.txt:1.1->1.1.2.1 

--- /dev/null	Tue Oct 23 00:20:51 2007
+++ squid3/doc/rfc/rfc4001.txt	Tue Oct 23 00:20:51 2007
@@ -0,0 +1,1235 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         M. Daniele
+Request for Comments: 4001                           SyAM Software, Inc.
+Obsoletes: 3291                                              B. Haberman
+Category: Standards Track                       Johns Hopkins University
+                                                             S. Routhier
+                                                Wind River Systems, Inc.
+                                                        J. Schoenwaelder
+                                         International University Bremen
+                                                           February 2005
+
+
+           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 (2005).
+
+Abstract
+
+   This MIB module defines textual conventions to represent commonly
+   used Internet network layer addressing information.  The intent is
+   that these textual conventions will be imported and used in MIB
+   modules that would otherwise define their own representations.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
+   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . .  4
+   3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
+   4.  Usage Hints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
+       4.1.  Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+       4.2.  Uniqueness of Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+       4.3.  Multiple Addresses per Host  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
+       4.4.  Resolving DNS Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
+   5.  Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
+   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+   8.  Changes from RFC 3291 to RFC 4001  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+   9.  Changes from RFC 2851 to RFC 3291  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
+       10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
+       10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
+   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Several standards-track MIB modules use the IpAddress SMIv2 base
+   type.  This limits the applicability of these MIB modules to IP
+   Version 4 (IPv4), as 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
+   [RFC3513].
+
+   This document defines multiple textual conventions (TCs) as a means
+   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 that have to express network
+   layer Internet addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined
+   in this memo.  New MIB modules SHOULD NOT use the SMIv2 IpAddress
+   base type anymore.
+
+   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 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.
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+   The textual conventions for well-known transport domains support
+   scoped Internet addresses.  The scope of an Internet address is a
+   topological span within which the address may be used as a unique
+   identifier for an interface or set of interfaces.  A scope zone (or,
+   simply, a zone) is a concrete connected region of topology of a given
+   scope.  Note that a zone is a particular instance of a topological
+   region, whereas a scope is the size of a topological region
+   [RFC4007].  Since Internet addresses on devices that connect multiple
+   zones are not necessarily unique, an additional zone index is needed
+   on these devices to select an interface.  The textual conventions
+   InetAddressIPv4z and InetAddressIPv6z are provided to support
+   Internet addresses that include a zone index.  To support arbitrary
+   combinations of scoped Internet addresses, MIB authors SHOULD use a
+   separate InetAddressType object for each InetAddress object.
+
+   The textual conventions defined in this document can also be used to
+   represent generic Internet subnets and Internet address ranges.  A
+   generic Internet subnet is represented by three objects: one whose
+   syntax is InetAddressType, a second one whose syntax is InetAddress,
+   and a third one whose syntax is InetAddressPrefixLength.  The
+   InetAddressType value again determines the concrete format of the
+   InetAddress value, whereas the InetAddressPrefixLength identifies the
+   Internet network address prefix.
+
+   A generic range of consecutive Internet addresses is represented by
+   three objects.  The first one has the syntax InetAddressType, and the
+   remaining objects have the syntax InetAddress and specify the start
+   and end of the address range.  Again, the InetAddressType value
+   determines the format of the InetAddress values.
+
+   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 MIB modules that only need to represent IPv4 or
+   IPv6 addresses SHOULD use the InetAddressType/InetAddress textual
+   conventions defined in this memo.
+
+   There are many widely deployed MIB modules that use IPv4 addresses
+   and that have to be revised to support IPv6.  These MIB modules can
+   be categorized as follows:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+   1.  MIB modules that define management information that is, in
+       principle, IP version neutral, but the MIB currently uses
+       addressing constructs specific to a certain IP version.
+
+   2.  MIB modules that define management information that is specific
+       to a particular IP version (either IPv4 or IPv6) and that is very
+       unlikely to ever be applicable to another IP version.
+
+   MIB modules of the first type SHOULD provide object definitions
+   (e.g., tables) that work with all versions of IP.  In particular,
+   when revising a MIB module that contains IPv4 specific tables, it is
+   suggested to define new tables using the textual conventions defined
+   in this memo that support all versions of IP.  The status of the new
+   tables SHOULD be "current", whereas the status of the old IP version
+   specific tables SHOULD be changed to "deprecated".  The other
+   approach, of having multiple similar tables for different IP
+   versions, is strongly discouraged.
+
+   MIB modules of the second type, which are inherently IP version
+   specific, do not need to be redefined.  Note that even in this case,
+   any additions to these MIB modules or to new IP version specific MIB
+   modules SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this memo.
+
+   MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions defined in this
+   document to represent generic transport layer addresses.  A special
+   set of textual conventions for this purpose is defined in RFC 3419
+   [RFC3419].
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY",
+   in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
+   [RFC2119].
+
+2.  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].
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+3.  Definitions
+
+INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+IMPORTS
+    MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI
+    TEXTUAL-CONVENTION                 FROM SNMPv2-TC;
+
+inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
+    LAST-UPDATED "200502040000Z"
+    ORGANIZATION
+        "IETF Operations and Management Area"
+    CONTACT-INFO
+        "Juergen Schoenwaelder (Editor)
+         International University Bremen
+         P.O. Box 750 561
+         28725 Bremen, Germany
+
+         Phone: +49 421 200-3587
+         EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
+
+         Send comments to <ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org>."
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "This MIB module defines textual conventions for
+         representing Internet addresses.  An Internet
+         address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address,
+         or a DNS domain name.  This module also defines
+         textual conventions for Internet port numbers,
+         autonomous system numbers, and the length of an
+         Internet address prefix.
+
+         Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This version
+         of this MIB module is part of RFC 4001, see the RFC
+         itself for full legal notices."
+    REVISION     "200502040000Z"
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Third version, published as RFC 4001.  This revision
+         introduces the InetZoneIndex, InetScopeType, and
+         InetVersion textual conventions."
+    REVISION     "200205090000Z"
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Second version, published as RFC 3291.  This
+         revision contains several clarifications and
+         introduces several new textual conventions:
+         InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber,
+         InetAutonomousSystemNumber, InetAddressIPv4z,
+         and InetAddressIPv6z."
+    REVISION     "200006080000Z"
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+    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
+                     that 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.
+
+         ipv4z(3)    A non-global IPv4 address including a zone
+                     index as defined by the InetAddressIPv4z
+                     textual convention.
+
+         ipv6z(4)    A non-global IPv6 address including a zone
+                     index as defined by the InetAddressIPv6z
+                     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.
+
+         To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual
+         convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions.
+         It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to
+         require only a subset of these address types for a compliant
+         implementation.
+
+         Implementations must ensure that InetAddressType objects
+         and any dependent objects (e.g., InetAddress objects) are
+         consistent.  An inconsistentValue error must be generated
+         if an attempt to change an InetAddressType object would,
+         for example, lead to an undefined InetAddress value.  In
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         particular, InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs must be
+         changed together if the address type changes (e.g., from
+         ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
+    SYNTAX       INTEGER {
+                     unknown(0),
+                     ipv4(1),
+                     ipv6(2),
+                     ipv4z(3),
+                     ipv6z(4),
+                     dns(16)
+                 }
+
+InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    STATUS      current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Denotes a generic Internet address.
+
+         An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the context
+         of an InetAddressType value.  Every usage of the InetAddress
+         textual convention is required to specify the InetAddressType
+         object that provides the context.  It is suggested that the
+         InetAddressType object be logically registered before the
+         object(s) that use the InetAddress textual convention, if
+         they appear in the same logical row.
+
+         The value of an InetAddress object must always be
+         consistent with the value of the associated InetAddressType
+         object.  Attempts to set an InetAddress object to a value
+         inconsistent with the associated InetAddressType
+         must fail with an inconsistentValue error.
+
+         When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
+         index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
+         sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58.  In this case,
+         the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
+         limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers;
+         otherwise the applicable constraints MUST be stated in
+         the appropriate conceptual row DESCRIPTION clauses, or
+         in the surrounding documentation if there is no single
+         DESCRIPTION clause that is appropriate."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
+
+InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents an IPv4 network address:
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+           Octets   Contents         Encoding
+            1-4     IPv4 address     network-byte order
+
+         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1).
+
+         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
+         definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format.
+         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
+         conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
+
+InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents an IPv6 network address:
+
+           Octets   Contents         Encoding
+            1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order
+
+         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).
+
+         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
+         definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format.
+         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
+         conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (16))
+
+InetAddressIPv4z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d%4d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents a non-global IPv4 network address, together
+         with its zone index:
+
+           Octets   Contents         Encoding
+            1-4     IPv4 address     network-byte order
+            5-8     zone index       network-byte order
+
+         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4z(3).
+
+         The zone index (bytes 5-8) is used to disambiguate identical
+         address values on nodes that have interfaces attached to
+         different zones of the same scope.  The zone index may contain
+         the special value 0, which refers to the default zone for each
+         scope.
+
+         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format.
+         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
+         conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (8))
+
+InetAddressIPv6z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents a non-global IPv6 network address, together
+         with its zone index:
+
+           Octets   Contents         Encoding
+            1-16    IPv6 address     network-byte order
+           17-20    zone index       network-byte order
+
+         The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6z(4).
+
+         The zone index (bytes 17-20) is used to disambiguate
+         identical address values on nodes that have interfaces
+         attached to different zones of the same scope.  The zone index
+         may contain the special value 0, which refers to the default
+         zone for each scope.
+
+         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
+         definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format.
+         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
+         conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (20))
+
+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)
+         these names are to be resolved to IP addresses.
+
+         The resolution of an InetAddressDNS value may require to
+         query multiple DNS records (e.g., A for IPv4 and AAAA for
+         IPv6).  The order of the resolution process and which DNS
+         record takes precedence depends on the configuration of the
+         resolver.
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
+         definitions, as it restricts addresses to a specific format.
+         However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in
+         conjunction with InetAddressType, as a pair."
+    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))
+
+InetAddressPrefixLength ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
+         prefix.  A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
+         that has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
+         bit (MSB), with all other bits set to 0.
+
+         An InetAddressPrefixLength value is always interpreted within
+         the context of an InetAddressType value.  Every usage of the
+         InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention is required to
+         specify the InetAddressType object that provides the
+         context.  It is suggested that the InetAddressType object be
+         logically registered before the object(s) that use the
+         InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention, if they appear
+         in the same logical row.
+
+         InetAddressPrefixLength values larger than
+         the maximum length of an IP address for a specific
+         InetAddressType are treated as the maximum significant
+         value applicable for the InetAddressType.  The maximum
+         significant value is 32 for the InetAddressType
+         'ipv4(1)' and 'ipv4z(3)' and 128 for the InetAddressType
+         'ipv6(2)' and 'ipv6z(4)'.  The maximum significant value
+         for the InetAddressType 'dns(16)' is 0.
+
+         The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as
+         part of the description of any object that uses this
+         syntax.  Examples of the usage of zero might include
+         situations where the Internet network address prefix
+         is unknown or does not apply.
+
+         The upper bound of the prefix length has been chosen to
+         be consistent with the maximum size of an InetAddress."
+    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..2040)
+
+InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents a 16 bit port number of an Internet transport
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         layer protocol.  Port numbers are assigned by IANA.  A
+         current list of all assignments is available from
+         <http://www.iana.org/>.
+
+         The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as
+         part of the description of any object that uses this
+         syntax.  Examples of the usage of zero might include
+         situations where a port number is unknown, or when the
+         value zero is used as a wildcard in a filter."
+    REFERENCE   "STD 6 (RFC 768), STD 7 (RFC 793) and RFC 2960"
+    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..65535)
+
+InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents an autonomous system number that identifies an
+         Autonomous System (AS).  An AS is a set of routers under a
+         single technical administration, using an interior gateway
+         protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
+         and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
+         other ASes'.  IANA maintains the AS number space and has
+         delegated large parts to the regional registries.
+
+         Autonomous system numbers are currently limited to 16 bits
+         (0..65535).  There is, however, work in progress to enlarge the
+         autonomous system number space to 32 bits.  Therefore, this
+         textual convention uses an Unsigned32 value without a
+         range restriction in order to support a larger autonomous
+         system number space."
+    REFERENCE   "RFC 1771, RFC 1930"
+    SYNTAX       Unsigned32
+
+InetScopeType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "Represents a scope type.  This textual convention can be used
+         in cases where a MIB has to represent different scope types
+         and there is no context information, such as an InetAddress
+         object, that implicitly defines the scope type.
+
+         Note that not all possible values have been assigned yet, but
+         they may be assigned in future revisions of this specification.
+         Applications should therefore be able to deal with values
+         not yet assigned."
+    REFERENCE   "RFC 3513"
+    SYNTAX       INTEGER {
+                     -- reserved(0),
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+                     interfaceLocal(1),
+                     linkLocal(2),
+                     subnetLocal(3),
+                     adminLocal(4),
+                     siteLocal(5), -- site-local unicast addresses
+                                   -- have been deprecated by RFC 3879
+                     -- unassigned(6),
+                     -- unassigned(7),
+                     organizationLocal(8),
+                     -- unassigned(9),
+                     -- unassigned(10),
+                     -- unassigned(11),
+                     -- unassigned(12),
+                     -- unassigned(13),
+                     global(14)
+                     -- reserved(15)
+                 }
+
+InetZoneIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+    STATUS       current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "A zone index identifies an instance of a zone of a
+         specific scope.
+
+         The zone index MUST disambiguate identical address
+         values.  For link-local addresses, the zone index will
+         typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the
+         IF-MIB) of the interface on which the address is configured.
+
+         The zone index may contain the special value 0, which refers
+         to the default zone.  The default zone may be used in cases
+         where the valid zone index is not known (e.g., when a
+         management application has to write a link-local IPv6
+         address without knowing the interface index value).  The
+         default zone SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in
+         cases where the zone index for a non-global IPv6 address
+         is known."
+    REFERENCE   "RFC4007"
+    SYNTAX       Unsigned32
+
+InetVersion ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+    STATUS  current
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "A value representing a version of the IP protocol.
+
+         unknown(0)  An unknown or unspecified version of the IP
+                     protocol.
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         ipv4(1)     The IPv4 protocol as defined in RFC 791 (STD 5).
+
+         ipv6(2)     The IPv6 protocol as defined in RFC 2460.
+
+         Note that this textual convention SHOULD NOT be used to
+         distinguish different address types associated with IP
+         protocols.  The InetAddressType has been designed for this
+         purpose."
+    REFERENCE   "RFC 791, RFC 2460"
+    SYNTAX       INTEGER {
+                     unknown(0),
+                     ipv4(1),
+                     ipv6(2)
+                 }
+END
+
+4.  Usage Hints
+
+   The InetAddressType and InetAddress textual conventions have been
+   introduced to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the use
+   of the IpAddress SMI base type, which is IPv4 specific.  An
+   InetAddressType/InetAddress pair can represent IP addresses in
+   various formats.
+
+   The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be sub-typed
+   in object definitions.  Sub-typing binds the MIB module to specific
+   address formats, which may cause serious problems if new address
+   formats need to be introduced.  Note that it is possible to write
+   compliance statements indicating that only a subset of the defined
+   address types must be implemented to be compliant.
+
+   Every usage of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual
+   conventions must specify which InetAddressType object provides the
+   context for the interpretation of the InetAddress or
+   InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.
+
+   It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically
+   registered before the object(s) that use(s) the InetAddress or
+   InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.  An InetAddressType
+   object is logically registered before an InetAddress or
+   InetAddressPrefixLength object if it appears before the InetAddress
+   or InetAddressPrefixLength object in the conceptual row (which
+   includes any index objects).  This rule allows programs such as MIB
+   compilers to identify the InetAddressType of a given InetAddress or
+   InetAddressPrefixLength object by searching for the InetAddressType
+   object, which precedes an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength
+   object.
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+4.1.  Table Indexing
+
+   When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the
+   InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used.  The
+   InetAddressType object MUST be listed before the InetAddress object
+   in the INDEX clause.
+
+   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 look up specific
+   addresses of known type and value, issue GetNext requests for
+   addresses of a single type, or issue GetNext requests for a specific
+   type and address prefix.
+
+4.2.  Uniqueness of Addresses
+
+   IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current usage
+   notwithstanding.  IPv6 addresses were architected to have different
+   scopes and hence uniqueness [RFC3513].  In particular, IPv6 "link-
+   local" unicast addresses are not guaranteed to be unique on any
+   particular node.  In such cases, the duplicate addresses must be
+   configured on different interfaces.  So the combination of an IPv6
+   address and a zone index is unique [RFC4007].
+
+   The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent
+   global IPv6 addresses and non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where no
+   zone index is needed (e.g., on end hosts with a single interface).
+   The InetAddressIPv6z textual convention has been defined to represent
+   non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where a zone index is needed
+   (e.g., a router connecting multiple zones).  Therefore, MIB designers
+   who use InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs do not need to define
+   additional objects in order to support non-global addresses on nodes
+   that connect multiple zones.
+
+   The InetAddressIPv4z is intended for use in MIB modules (such as the
+   TCP-MIB) which report addresses in the address family used on the
+   wire, but where the entity instrumented obtains these addresses from
+   applications or administrators in a form that includes a zone index,
+   such as v4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+   The size of the zone index has been chosen so that it is consistent
+   with (i) the numerical zone index, defined in [RFC4007], and (ii) the
+   sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure, defined in RFC
+   2553 [RFC2553].
+
+4.3.  Multiple Addresses per Host
+
+   A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4
+   or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names.  Thus it is possible
+   for a single host system to be accessible by multiple
+   InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.
+
+   If this could be an implementation or usage issue, the DESCRIPTION
+   clause of the relevant objects must fully describe which address is
+   reported in a given InetAddressType/InetAddress pair.
+
+4.4.  Resolving DNS Names
+
+   DNS names MUST be resolved to IP addresses when communication with
+   the named host is required.  This raises a temporal aspect to
+   defining MIB objects whose value is a DNS name: When is the name
+   translated to an address?
+
+   For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding
+   destination, and whose value is a DNS name.  When does the forwarding
+   entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs, or just
+   once when the object was instantiated?
+
+   The DESCRIPTION clause of these objects SHOULD precisely define how
+   and when any required name to address resolution is done.
+
+   Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clause of these 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 if the
+   MIB module or implementation requires it to map the IP address to a
+   DNS 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 in order to satisfy OID length constraints.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+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
+    DESCRIPTION
+        "The Internet address for the peer.  The type of this
+         address is determined by the value of the peerAddressType
+         object.  Note that implementations must limit themselves
+         to a single entry in this table per reachable peer.
+         The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE
+         restriction.
+
+         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
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+         lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS
+         name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.
+
+         If a row is created by the managed entity itself and
+         the address type value is dns(16), then the agent
+         stores the IP address internally.  A DNS reverse lookup
+         must be performed on the internally stored IP address
+         whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."
+    ::= { peerEntry 2 }
+
+
+   The following compliance statement specifies that compliant
+   implementations need only support IPv4/IPv6 addresses without zone
+   indices.  Support for DNS names or IPv4/IPv6 addresses with zone
+   indices is not required.
+
+   peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+       STATUS      current
+       DESCRIPTION
+           "The compliance statement of the peer MIB."
+
+       MODULE      -- this module
+       MANDATORY-GROUPS    { peerGroup }
+
+       OBJECT  peerAddressType
+       SYNTAX  InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
+       DESCRIPTION
+           "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
+            and IPv6 addresses without zone indices."
+
+       ::= { somewhere 2 }
+
+   Note that the SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of objects that are not
+   accessible in an object group (see section 3.1 in STD 58, RFC 2580
+   [RFC2580]).  It is therefore not possible to refine the syntax of
+   auxiliary objects that are not accessible.  It is suggested that the
+   refinement be expressed 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
+   modules that define management objects.  This document has therefore
+   no impact on the security of the Internet.
+
+7.  Acknowledgments
+
+   This document was produced by the Operations and Management Area
+   "IPv6MIB" design team.  For their comments and suggestions, the
+   authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Randy Bush, Richard Draves,
+   Mark Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro Hagino, Mike Heard, Tim
+   Jenkins, Allison Mankin, Glenn Mansfield, Keith McCloghrie, Thomas
+   Narten, Erik Nordmark, Peder Chr.  Norgaard, Randy Presuhn, Andrew
+   Smith, Dave Thaler, Kenneth White, Bert Wijnen, and Brian Zill.
+
+8.  Changes from RFC 3291 to RFC 4001
+
+   The following changes have been made relative to RFC 3291:
+
+   o  Added a range restriction to the InetAddressPrefixLength textual
+      convention.
+
+   o  Added new textual conventions InetZoneIndex, InetScopeType, and
+      InetVersion.
+
+   o  Added explicit "d" DISPLAY-HINTs for textual conventions that did
+      not have them.
+
+   o  Updated boilerplate text and references.
+
+9.  Changes from RFC 2851 to RFC 3291
+
+   The following changes have been made relative to RFC 2851:
+
+   o  Added new textual conventions InetAddressPrefixLength,
+      InetPortNumber, and InetAutonomousSystemNumber.
+
+   o  Rewrote the introduction to say clearly that, in general, one
+      should define MIB tables that work with all versions of IP.  The
+      other approach of multiple tables for different IP versions is
+      strongly discouraged.
+
+   o  Added text to the InetAddressType and InetAddress descriptions
+      requiring that implementations must reject set operations with an
+      inconsistentValue error if they lead to inconsistencies.
+
+   o  Removed the strict ordering constraints.  Description clauses now
+      must explain which InetAddressType object provides the context for
+      an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object.
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+   o  Aligned wordings with the IPv6 scoping architecture document.
+
+   o  Split the InetAddressIPv6 textual convention into the two textual
+      conventions (InetAddressIPv6 and InetAddressIPv6z) and introduced
+      a new textual convention InetAddressIPv4z.  Added ipv4z(3) and
+      ipv6z(4) named numbers to the InetAddressType enumeration.
+      Motivations for this change: (i) to enable the introduction of a
+      textual conventions for non-global IPv4 addresses, (ii) alignment
+      with the textual conventions for transport addresses, (iii)
+      simpler compliance statements in cases where support for IPv6
+      addresses with zone indices is not required, and (iv) to simplify
+      implementations for host systems that will never have to report
+      zone indices.
+
+10.  References
+
+10.1.  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.
+
+   [RFC3513]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
+              (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
+
+   [RFC4007]  Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
+              B.  Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
+              February 2005.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+10.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC2553]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., and W. Stevens,
+              "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553,
+              March 1999.
+
+   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
+              MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
+
+   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
+              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
+              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
+
+   [RFC3419]  Daniele, M. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for
+              Transport Addresses", RFC 3419, December 2002.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Michael Daniele
+   SyAM Software, Inc.
+   1 Chestnut St, Suite 3-I
+   Nashua, NH 03060
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 603 598-9575
+   EMail: michael.daniele@syamsoftware.com
+
+
+   Brian Haberman
+   Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
+   11100 Johns Hopkins Road
+   Laurel, MD  20723-6099
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1-443-778-1319
+   EMail: brian@innovationslab.net
+
+
+   Shawn A. Routhier
+   Wind River Systems, Inc.
+   500 Wind River Way
+   Alameda, CA  94501
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 510 749-2095
+   EMail: shawn.routhier@windriver.com
+
+
+   Juergen Schoenwaelder
+   International University Bremen
+   P.O. Box 750 561
+   28725 Bremen
+   Germany
+
+   Phone: +49 421 200-3587
+   EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 4001          Internet Network Address Conventions     February 2005
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, 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 ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC 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 currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Daniele, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 22]
+
