💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc2851.gmi captured on 2023-06-14 at 19:55:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obsoleted by:
Keywords: layer, management, information, base, inet, address mib
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 (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]
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]
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]
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]
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]