draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-transmap-08.txt   rfc3417.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Editor of this version: Network Working Group Editor of this version:
Request for Comments: -TMM R. Presuhn Request for Comments: 3417 R. Presuhn
STD: XXX BMC Software, Inc. STD: 62 BMC Software, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1906 Authors of previous version: Obsoletes: 1906 Authors of previous version:
Category: Standards Track J. Case Category: Standards Track J. Case
SNMP Research, Inc. SNMP Research, Inc.
K. McCloghrie K. McCloghrie
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Rose M. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
S. Waldbusser S. Waldbusser
International Network Services International Network Services
16 October 2001 December 2002
Transport Mappings for Transport Mappings for
the Simple Network Management Protocol the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-transmap-08.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
working documents as Internet-Drafts. and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the transport of SNMP messages over various This document defines the transport of Simple Network Management
protocols. This document obsoletes RFC 1906. Protocol (SNMP) messages over various protocols. This document
obsoletes RFC 1906.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Definitions ................................................. 4 2. Definitions ................................................. 3
3. SNMP over UDP over IPv4 ..................................... 8 3. SNMP over UDP over IPv4 ..................................... 7
3.1. Serialization ............................................. 8 3.1. Serialization ............................................. 7
3.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 8 3.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 7
4. SNMP over OSI ............................................... 8 4. SNMP over OSI ............................................... 7
4.1. Serialization ............................................. 8 4.1. Serialization ............................................. 7
4.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 9 4.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 8
5. SNMP over DDP ............................................... 9 5. SNMP over DDP ............................................... 8
5.1. Serialization ............................................. 9 5.1. Serialization ............................................. 8
5.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 9 5.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 8
5.3. Discussion of AppleTalk Addressing ........................ 10 5.3. Discussion of AppleTalk Addressing ........................ 9
5.3.1. How to Acquire NBP names ................................ 10 5.3.1. How to Acquire NBP names ................................ 9
5.3.2. When to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses ............... 11 5.3.2. When to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses ............... 10
5.3.3. How to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses ................ 11 5.3.3. How to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses ................ 10
5.3.4. What if NBP is broken ................................... 11 5.3.4. What if NBP is broken ................................... 10
6. SNMP over IPX ............................................... 12 6. SNMP over IPX ............................................... 11
6.1. Serialization ............................................. 12 6.1. Serialization ............................................. 11
6.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 12 6.2. Well-known Values ......................................... 11
7. Proxy to SNMPv1 ............................................. 13 7. Proxy to SNMPv1 ............................................. 12
8. Serialization using the Basic Encoding Rules ................ 13 8. Serialization using the Basic Encoding Rules ................ 12
8.1. Usage Example ............................................. 13 8.1. Usage Example ............................................. 13
9. Notice on Intellectual Property ............................. 14 9. Notice on Intellectual Property ............................. 14
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 15 10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 14
11. IANA Considerations ........................................ 16 11. IANA Considerations ........................................ 15
12. Security Considerations .................................... 16 12. Security Considerations .................................... 16
13. References ................................................. 17 13. References ................................................. 16
14. Editor's Address ........................................... 19 13.1. Normative References ..................................... 16
15. Changes from RFC 1906 ...................................... 19 13.2. Informative References ................................... 17
16. Issues ..................................................... 20 14. Changes from RFC 1906 ...................................... 18
17. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 22 15. Editor's Address ........................................... 18
16. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The SNMP Management Framework at the time of this writing consists of For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
five major components: Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
- An overall architecture, described in RFC -ARC [RFC-ARC].
- 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 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC
1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 1215 [RFC1215]. The second version,
called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578],
STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580].
- Message protocols for transferring management information.
The first version of the SNMP message protocol is called
SNMPv1 and is described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A
second version of the SNMP message protocol, which is not
an Internet standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and
is described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901] and this document. The
third version of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and
described in this document, RFC -MPD [RFC-MPD] and RFC -USM
[RFC-USM].
- Protocol operations for accessing management information.
The first set of protocol operations and associated PDU
formats is described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A
second set of protocol operations and associated PDU
formats is described RFC -PRO [RFC-PRO].
- A set of fundamental applications described in RFC -APL
[RFC-APL] and the view-based access control mechanism
described in RFC -ACM [RFC-ACM].
A more detailed introduction to the SNMP Management Framework at the
time of this writing can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570].
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. 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].
This document, Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Management This document, Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Management
Protocol, defines how the management protocol [RFC-PRO] may be Protocol, defines how the management protocol [RFC3416] may be
carried over a variety of protocol suites. It is the purpose of this carried over a variety of protocol suites. It is the purpose of this
document to define how the SNMP maps onto an initial set of transport document to define how the SNMP maps onto an initial set of transport
domains. At the time of this writing, work was in progress to define domains. At the time of this writing, work was in progress to define
an IPv6 mapping, described in [WIP-TADDR]. Other mappings may be an IPv6 mapping, described in [RFC3419]. Other mappings may be
defined in the future. defined in the future.
Although several mappings are defined, the mapping onto UDP over IPv4 Although several mappings are defined, the mapping onto UDP over IPv4
is the preferred mapping for systems supporting IPv4. Systems is the preferred mapping for systems supporting IPv4. Systems
implementing IPv4 MUST implement the mapping onto UDP over IPv4. To implementing IPv4 MUST implement the mapping onto UDP over IPv4. To
maximize interoperability, systems supporting other mappings SHOULD maximize interoperability, systems supporting other mappings SHOULD
also provide for access via the UDP over IPv4 mapping. also provide for access via the UDP over IPv4 mapping.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
2. Definitions 2. Definitions
SNMPv2-TM DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN SNMPv2-TM DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-IDENTITY, MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-IDENTITY,
snmpModules, snmpDomains, snmpProxys snmpModules, snmpDomains, snmpProxys
FROM SNMPv2-SMI FROM SNMPv2-SMI
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; FROM SNMPv2-TC;
snmpv2tm MODULE-IDENTITY snmpv2tm MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200110161727Z" LAST-UPDATED "200210160000Z"
ORGANIZATION "IETF SNMPv3 Working Group" ORGANIZATION "IETF SNMPv3 Working Group"
CONTACT-INFO CONTACT-INFO
"WG-EMail: snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com "WG-EMail: snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com
Subscribe: snmpv3-request@lists.tislabs.com Subscribe: snmpv3-request@lists.tislabs.com
Co-Chair: Russ Mundy Co-Chair: Russ Mundy
NAI Labs, Network Associates Laboratories
Network Associates, Inc. postal: 15204 Omega Drive, Suite 300
postal: 3060 Washington Rd. Rockville, MD 20850-4601
Glenwood, MD 21738
USA USA
EMail: mundy@tislabs.com EMail: mundy@tislabs.com
phone: +1 301 854-6889 phone: +1 301 947-7107
Co-Chair: David Harrington Co-Chair: David Harrington
Enterasys Networks Enterasys Networks
postal: 35 Industrial Way postal: 35 Industrial Way
P. O. Box 5005 P. O. Box 5005
Rochester, NH 03866-5005 Rochester, NH 03866-5005
USA USA
EMail: dbh@enterasys.com EMail: dbh@enterasys.com
phone: +1 603 337-2614 phone: +1 603 337-2614
Editor: Randy Presuhn Editor: Randy Presuhn
BMC Software, Inc. BMC Software, Inc.
postal: 2141 North First Street postal: 2141 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95131 San Jose, CA 95131
USA USA
EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com
phone: +1 408 546-1006" phone: +1 408 546-1006"
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The MIB module for SNMP transport mappings." "The MIB module for SNMP transport mappings.
REVISION "200110161727Z"
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). This
version of this MIB module is part of RFC 3417;
see the RFC itself for full legal notices.
"
REVISION "200210160000Z"
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Clarifications, published as RFC -TMM." "Clarifications, published as RFC 3417."
REVISION "199601010000Z" REVISION "199601010000Z"
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Clarifications, published as RFC 1906." "Clarifications, published as RFC 1906."
REVISION "199304010000Z" REVISION "199304010000Z"
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The initial version, published as RFC 1449." "The initial version, published as RFC 1449."
::= { snmpModules ?? } -- to be assigned by IANA?? ::= { snmpModules 19 }
-- SNMP over UDP over IPv4 -- SNMP over UDP over IPv4
snmpUDPDomain OBJECT-IDENTITY snmpUDPDomain OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The SNMP over UDP over IPv4 transport domain. "The SNMP over UDP over IPv4 transport domain.
The corresponding transport address is of type The corresponding transport address is of type
SnmpUDPAddress." SnmpUDPAddress."
::= { snmpDomains 1 } ::= { snmpDomains 1 }
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 28
END END
3. SNMP over UDP over IPv4 3. SNMP over UDP over IPv4
This is the preferred transport mapping. This is the preferred transport mapping.
3.1. Serialization 3.1. Serialization
Each instance of a message is serialized (i.e., encoded according to Each instance of a message is serialized (i.e., encoded according to
the convention of [ASN1]) onto a single UDP [RFC768] over IPv4 the convention of [BER]) onto a single UDP [RFC768] over IPv4
[RFC791] datagram, using the algorithm specified in Section 8. [RFC791] datagram, using the algorithm specified in Section 8.
3.2. Well-known Values 3.2. Well-known Values
It is suggested that administrators configure their SNMP entities It is suggested that administrators configure their SNMP entities
supporting command responder applications to listen on UDP port 161. supporting command responder applications to listen on UDP port 161.
Further, it is suggested that SNMP entities supporting notification Further, it is suggested that SNMP entities supporting notification
receiver applications be configured to listen on UDP port 162. receiver applications be configured to listen on UDP port 162.
When an SNMP entity uses this transport mapping, it must be capable When an SNMP entity uses this transport mapping, it must be capable
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 10, line 23
An SNMP entity supporting a command generator application may decide An SNMP entity supporting a command generator application may decide
to prime its cache of names prior to actually communicating with to prime its cache of names prior to actually communicating with
another SNMP entity. In general, it is expected that such an entity another SNMP entity. In general, it is expected that such an entity
may want to keep certain mappings "more current" than other mappings, may want to keep certain mappings "more current" than other mappings,
e.g., those nodes which represent the network infrastructure (e.g., e.g., those nodes which represent the network infrastructure (e.g.,
routers) may be deemed "more important". routers) may be deemed "more important".
Note that an SNMP entity supporting command generator applications Note that an SNMP entity supporting command generator applications
should not prime its entire cache upon initialization - rather, it should not prime its entire cache upon initialization - rather, it
should attempt resolutions over an extended period of time (perhaps should attempt resolutions over an extended period of time (perhaps
in some pre- determined or configured priority order). Each of these in some pre-determined or configured priority order). Each of these
resolutions might, in fact, be a wildcard lookup in a given zone. resolutions might, in fact, be a wildcard lookup in a given zone.
An SNMP entity supporting command responder applications must never An SNMP entity supporting command responder applications must never
prime its cache. When generating a response, such an entity does not prime its cache. When generating a response, such an entity does not
need to confirm a cache entry. An SNMP entity supporting need to confirm a cache entry. An SNMP entity supporting
notification originator applications should do NBP lookups (or notification originator applications should do NBP lookups (or
confirms) only when it needs to send an SNMP trap or inform. confirms) only when it needs to send an SNMP trap or inform.
5.3.3. How to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses 5.3.3. How to Turn NBP names into DDP addresses
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 4
command generator applications issuing a retrieval operation could command generator applications issuing a retrieval operation could
also retrieve the relevant objects from the NBP group [RFC1742] for also retrieve the relevant objects from the NBP group [RFC1742] for
the SNMP entity supporting the command responder application. This the SNMP entity supporting the command responder application. This
information can then be correlated with the source DDP address of the information can then be correlated with the source DDP address of the
response. response.
5.3.4. What if NBP is broken 5.3.4. What if NBP is broken
Under some circumstances, there may be connectivity between two SNMP Under some circumstances, there may be connectivity between two SNMP
entities, but the NBP mapping machinery may be broken, e.g., entities, but the NBP mapping machinery may be broken, e.g.,
o the NBP FwdReq (forward NBP lookup onto local attached network) o the NBP FwdReq (forward NBP lookup onto local attached network)
mechanism might be broken at a router on the other entity's mechanism might be broken at a router on the other entity's
network; or, network; or,
o the NBP BrRq (NBP broadcast request) mechanism might be broken o the NBP BrRq (NBP broadcast request) mechanism might be broken at
at a router on the entity's own network; or, a router on the entity's own network; or,
o NBP might be broken on the other entity's node. o NBP might be broken on the other entity's node.
An SNMP entity supporting command generator applications which is An SNMP entity supporting command generator applications which is
dedicated to AppleTalk management might choose to alleviate some of dedicated to AppleTalk management might choose to alleviate some of
these failures by directly implementing the router portion of NBP. these failures by directly implementing the router portion of NBP.
For example, such an entity might already know all the zones on the For example, such an entity might already know all the zones on the
AppleTalk internet and the networks on which each zone appears. AppleTalk internet and the networks on which each zone appears.
Given an NBP lookup which fails, the entity could send an NBP FwdReq Given an NBP lookup which fails, the entity could send an NBP FwdReq
to the network in which the SNMP entity supporting the command to the network in which the SNMP entity supporting the command
responder or notification originator application was last located. responder or notification originator application was last located.
If that failed, the station could then send an NBP LkUp (NBP lookup If that failed, the station could then send an NBP LkUp (NBP lookup
skipping to change at page 13, line 8 skipping to change at page 12, line 8
supporting notification receiver applications be configured to listen supporting notification receiver applications be configured to listen
on IPX socket 36880 (9010 hexadecimal). on IPX socket 36880 (9010 hexadecimal).
When an SNMP entity uses this transport mapping, it must be capable When an SNMP entity uses this transport mapping, it must be capable
of accepting messages that are at least 546 octets in size. of accepting messages that are at least 546 octets in size.
Implementation of larger values is encouraged whenever possible. Implementation of larger values is encouraged whenever possible.
7. Proxy to SNMPv1 7. Proxy to SNMPv1
Historically, in order to support proxy to SNMPv1, as defined in Historically, in order to support proxy to SNMPv1, as defined in
[RFC-COEX], it was deemed useful to define a transport domain, [RFC2576], it was deemed useful to define a transport domain,
rfc1157Domain, which indicates the transport mapping for SNMP rfc1157Domain, which indicates the transport mapping for SNMP
messages as defined in [RFC1157]. messages as defined in [RFC1157].
8. Serialization using the Basic Encoding Rules 8. Serialization using the Basic Encoding Rules
When the Basic Encoding Rules [BER] are used for serialization: When the Basic Encoding Rules [BER] are used for serialization:
(1) When encoding the length field, only the definite form is used; (1) When encoding the length field, only the definite form is used;
use of the indefinite form encoding is prohibited. Note that use of the indefinite form encoding is prohibited. Note that
when using the definite-long form, it is permissible to use more when using the definite-long form, it is permissible to use
than the minimum number of length octets necessary to encode the more than the minimum number of length octets necessary to
length field. encode the length field.
(2) When encoding the value field, the primitive form shall be used (2) When encoding the value field, the primitive form shall be used
for all simple types, i.e., INTEGER, OCTET STRING, and OBJECT for all simple types, i.e., INTEGER, OCTET STRING, and OBJECT
IDENTIFIER (either IMPLICIT or explicit). The constructed form IDENTIFIER (either IMPLICIT or explicit). The constructed form
of encoding shall be used only for structured types, i.e., a of encoding shall be used only for structured types, i.e., a
SEQUENCE or an IMPLICIT SEQUENCE. SEQUENCE or an IMPLICIT SEQUENCE.
(3) When encoding an object whose syntax is described using the BITS (3) When encoding an object whose syntax is described using the
construct, the value is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in which all BITS construct, the value is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in
the named bits in (the definition of) the bitstring, commencing which all the named bits in (the definition of) the bitstring,
with the first bit and proceeding to the last bit, are placed in commencing with the first bit and proceeding to the last bit,
bits 8 (high order bit) to 1 (low order bit) of the first octet, are placed in bits 8 (high order bit) to 1 (low order bit) of
followed by bits 8 to 1 of each subsequent octet in turn, the first octet, followed by bits 8 to 1 of each subsequent
followed by as many bits as are needed of the final subsequent octet in turn, followed by as many bits as are needed of the
octet, commencing with bit 8. Remaining bits, if any, of the final subsequent octet, commencing with bit 8. Remaining bits,
final octet are set to zero on generation and ignored on if any, of the final octet are set to zero on generation and
receipt. ignored on receipt.
These restrictions apply to all aspects of ASN.1 encoding, including These restrictions apply to all aspects of ASN.1 encoding, including
the message wrappers, protocol data units, and the data objects they the message wrappers, protocol data units, and the data objects they
contain. contain.
8.1. Usage Example 8.1. Usage Example
As an example of applying the Basic Encoding Rules, suppose one As an example of applying the Basic Encoding Rules, suppose one
wanted to encode an instance of the GetBulkRequest-PDU [RFC-PRO]: wanted to encode an instance of the GetBulkRequest-PDU [RFC3416]:
[5] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE { [5] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE {
request-id 1414684022, request-id 1414684022,
non-repeaters 1, non-repeaters 1,
max-repetitions 2, max-repetitions 2,
variable-bindings { variable-bindings {
{ name sysUpTime, { name sysUpTime,
value { unSpecified NULL } }, value { unSpecified NULL } },
{ name ipNetToMediaPhysAddress, { name ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
value { unSpecified NULL } }, value { unSpecified NULL } },
skipping to change at page 15, line 19 skipping to change at page 14, line 32
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
This document is the product of the SNMPv3 Working Group. Some This document is the product of the SNMPv3 Working Group. Some
special thanks are in order to the following Working Group members: special thanks are in order to the following Working Group members:
Randy Bush Randy Bush
Jeffrey D. Case Jeffrey D. Case
Mike Daniele Mike Daniele
Rob Frye Rob Frye
Lauren Heintz Lauren Heintz
Keith McCloghrie Keith McCloghrie
Russ Mundy Russ Mundy
David T. Perkins David T. Perkins
Randy Presuhn Randy Presuhn
Aleksey Romanov Aleksey Romanov
Juergen Schoenwaelder Juergen Schoenwaelder
Bert Wijnen Bert Wijnen
This version of the document, edited by Randy Presuhn, was initially This version of the document, edited by Randy Presuhn, was initially
based on the work of a design team whose members were: based on the work of a design team whose members were:
Jeffrey D. Case Jeffrey D. Case
Keith McCloghrie Keith McCloghrie
David T. Perkins David T. Perkins
Randy Presuhn Randy Presuhn
Juergen Schoenwaelder Juergen Schoenwaelder
The previous versions of this document, edited by Keith McCloghrie, The previous versions of this document, edited by Keith McCloghrie,
was the result of significant work by four major contributors: was the result of significant work by four major contributors:
Jeffrey D. Case Jeffrey D. Case
Keith McCloghrie Keith McCloghrie
Marshall T. Rose Marshall T. Rose
Steven Waldbusser Steven Waldbusser
Additionally, the contributions of the SNMPv2 Working Group to the Additionally, the contributions of the SNMPv2 Working Group to the
previous versions are also acknowledged. In particular, a special previous versions are also acknowledged. In particular, a special
thanks is extended for the contributions of: thanks is extended for the contributions of:
Alexander I. Alten Alexander I. Alten
Dave Arneson Dave Arneson
Uri Blumenthal Uri Blumenthal
Doug Book Doug Book
Kim Curran Kim Curran
Jim Galvin Jim Galvin
Maria Greene Maria Greene
Iain Hanson Iain Hanson
Dave Harrington Dave Harrington
Nguyen Hien Nguyen Hien
Jeff Johnson Jeff Johnson
Michael Kornegay Michael Kornegay
Deirdre Kostick Deirdre Kostick
David Levi David Levi
Daniel Mahoney Daniel Mahoney
Bob Natale Bob Natale
Brian O'Keefe Brian O'Keefe
Andrew Pearson Andrew Pearson
Dave Perkins Dave Perkins
Randy Presuhn Randy Presuhn
Aleksey Romanov Aleksey Romanov
Shawn Routhier Shawn Routhier
Jon Saperia Jon Saperia
Juergen Schoenwaelder Juergen Schoenwaelder
Bob Stewart Bob Stewart
Kaj Tesink Kaj Tesink
Glenn Waters Glenn Waters
Bert Wijnen Bert Wijnen
11. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
The SNMPv2-TM MIB module requires the allocation of a single object The SNMPv2-TM MIB module requires the allocation of a single object
identifier for its MODULE-IDENTITY. IANA should allocate this object identifier for its MODULE-IDENTITY. IANA has allocated this object
identifier in the snmpModules subtree, defined in the SNMPv2-SMI MIB identifier in the snmpModules subtree, defined in the SNMPv2-SMI MIB
module. module.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
SNMPv1 by itself is not a secure environment. Even if the network SNMPv1 by itself is not a secure environment. Even if the network
itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no
control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and
GET/SET (read/change) the objects accessible through a command GET/SET (read/change) the objects accessible through a command
responder application. responder application.
It is recommended that the implementors consider the security It is recommended that the implementors consider the security
features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework. Specifically, the use features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework. Specifically, the use
of the User-based Security Model RFC -USM [RFC-USM] and the of the User-based Security Model STD 62, RFC 3414 [RFC3414] and the
View-based Access Control Model RFC -ACM [RFC-ACM] is recommended. View-based Access Control Model STD 62, RFC 3415 [RFC3415] is
recommended.
It is then a customer/user responsibility to ensure that the SNMP It is then a customer/user responsibility to ensure that the SNMP
entity giving access to a MIB is properly configured to give access entity giving access to a MIB is properly configured to give access
to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
rights to indeed GET or SET (change) them. rights to indeed GET or SET (change) them.
13. References 13. References
[APPLETALK] Sidhu, G., Andrews, R., and A. Oppenheimer, Inside 13.1. Normative References
AppleTalk (second edition). Addison-Wesley, 1990.
[BER] Information processing systems - Open Systems [BER] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules
for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), International for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), International
Organization for Standardization. International Standard Organization for Standardization. International Standard
8825, December 1987. 8825, December 1987.
[IS8072] Information processing systems - Open Systems [IS8072] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Transport Service Definition, Interconnection - Transport Service Definition,
International Organization for Standardization. International Organization for Standardization.
International Standard 8072, June 1986. International Standard 8072, June 1986.
[IS8072A] Information processing systems - Open Systems [IS8072A] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Transport Service Definition - Addendum Interconnection - Transport Service Definition - Addendum
1: Connectionless-mode Transmission, International 1: Connectionless-mode Transmission, International
Organization for Standardization. International Standard Organization for Standardization. International Standard
8072/AD 1, December 1986. 8072/AD 1, December 1986.
[NOVELL] Network System Technical Interface Overview. Novell,
Inc, June 1989.
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981. September 1981.
[RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based
Internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157,
May 1990.
[RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions",
STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
[RFC1215] Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with
the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
[RFC1742] Waldbusser, S. and K. Frisa, "AppleTalk Management
Information Base II", RFC 1742, January 1995.
[RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
"Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901,
January 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard
Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management
Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April
1999. 1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for
SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for
SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[RFC-TMM] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "The User-Based Security
Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Model (USM) for Version 3 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol", Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-transmap-08.txt>, October 2001. 2002.
[RFC-PRO] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. [RFC3415] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based
Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network
Management Protocol", Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415, December
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-update-proto-08.txt>, October 2001. 2002.
[RFC-ARC] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An [RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
Architecture for describing SNMP Management Frameworks", Waldbusser, "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-arch-v2-02.txt>, October 2001. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
3416, December 2002.
[RFC-MPD] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, 13.2. Informative References
"Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-mpd-v2-02.txt>, October 2001.
[RFC-APL] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", [APPLETALK] Sidhu, G., Andrews, R. and A. Oppenheimer, Inside
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-appl-v3-01.txt>, October 2001. AppleTalk (second edition). Addison-Wesley, 1990.
[RFC-USM] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "The User-Based Security [NOVELL] Network System Technical Interface Overview. Novell,
Model for Version 3 of the Simple Network Management Inc., June 1989.
Protocol (SNMPv3)",
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-usm-v2-rfc2574bis-01.txt>, October
2001.
[RFC-ACM] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin,
Access Control Model for the Simple Network Management "Simple Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157,
Protocol (SNMP)", <draft-ietf-snmpv3-vacm-v2-01.txt>, May 1990.
October 2001.
[RFC-COEX] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen, [RFC1742] Waldbusser, S. and K. Frisa, "AppleTalk Management
Information Base II", RFC 1742, January 1995.
[RFC2576] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S. and B. Wijnen,
"Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3
of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", of the Internet-Standard Network Management Framework",
<draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-01.txt>, October 2001. RFC 2576, March 2000.
[WIP-TADDR] Daniele, M., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
for Transport Addresses", "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
<draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt>, September, 2001. Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
14. Editor's Address [RFC3419] Daniele, M. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions
for Transport Addresses", RFC 3419, November 2002.
14. Changes from RFC 1906
This document differs from RFC 1906 only in editorial improvements.
The protocol is unchanged.
15. Editor's Address
Randy Presuhn Randy Presuhn
BMC Software, Inc. BMC Software, Inc.
2141 North First Street 2141 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95131 San Jose, CA 95131
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 546-1006 Phone: +1 408 546-1006
EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com
15. Changes from RFC 1906 16. Full Copyright Statement
These are the changes from RFC 1906:
- Corrected typo in IPR statement;
- Updated copyright date;
- Updated with new editor's name and contact information;
- Cosmetic fixes to layout and typography;
- Changed title, headers and footers;
- Fixed typo in SnmpNBPAddress;
- Clarified that one of the BER SEQUENCEs in the example is
generated from the ASN.1 SEQUENCE OF construct;
- Updated acknowledgements section;
- Filled in the Security Considerations section;
- Replaced manager/agent terminology with terms from
architecture;
- Updated references section;
- Added MODULE-IDENTITY;
- Re-wrote introduction section using current boilerplate;
- Added recommendation for larger message size support;
- Added historical background on use of rfc1157Domain with
proxy and changed status to "deprecated";
- Added an abstract;
- Strengthened conformance requirement for support of the UDP
over IPv4 mapping;
- Updated working group mailing list address;
- Added address of working group co-chair;
- Corrected error in BER example;
Added IANA considerations section;
Added non-normative reference to work-in-progress on IPv6
mapping.
16. Issues
This section is to be deleted when it is time to publish this
document as an RFC. The issue labels are the same as those used in
the on-line issues list at
ftp://amethyst.bmc.com/pub/snmpv3/Update567/rfc1906/index.html
1906-01 Done; title changed.
1906-02 Done; introduction clause replaced.
1906-03 Done; no action taken.
1906-04 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-05 Done; typo in SnmpNBPAddress fixed.
1906-06 See issue 1906-10.
1906-07 Done; use of manager/agent terminology replaced with
terms from architecture.
1906-08 Done; added recommendation for support of 1472 byte
messages.
1906-09 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-10 Done; resolved by deprecating the definition.
1906-11 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-12 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-13 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-14 Done; clarified that BER SEQUENCE comes from ASN.1
SEQUENCE OF.
1906-15 Done; security considerations text added.
1906-16 Done; references and acknowledgments updated.
1906-17 Done; IPR and copyright notices updated.
1906-18 Done; resolution required no changes.
1906-19 Done; MODULE-IDENTITY added.
1906-20 Done; resolution was to the mapping onto UDP over IPv4
mandatory for systems which support IPv4.
1906-21 Done; resolution was to make no change.
1906-22 Done; resolution was to make no change.
1906-23 Done; added abstract.
17. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
skipping to change at line 996 skipping to change at page 19, line 32
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 59 change blocks. 
365 lines changed or deleted 201 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/