idnits 2.17.1 draft-ops-endpoint-mib-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 640 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 17 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 16 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 88 instances of lines with control characters in the document. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2119]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 179 has weird spacing: '... octets cont...' == Line 195 has weird spacing: '... octets cont...' == Line 196 has weird spacing: '...address net...' == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'SMIv2' is mentioned on line 157, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2233 (Obsoleted by RFC 2863) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2571 (Obsoleted by RFC 3411) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1215 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1157 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1901 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1906 (Obsoleted by RFC 3417) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2572 (Obsoleted by RFC 3412) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2574 (Obsoleted by RFC 3414) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1905 (Obsoleted by RFC 3416) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2573 (Obsoleted by RFC 3413) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2575 (Obsoleted by RFC 3415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2570 (Obsoleted by RFC 3410) Summary: 19 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet-Draft M. Daniele 2 Expires May, 2000 Compaq Computer Corporation 3 B. Haberman 4 Nortel Networks 5 S. Routhier 6 Integrated Systems, Inc. 7 J. Schoenwaelder 8 TU Braunschweig 10 November, 1999 12 Internet Endpoint MIB 14 16 Status of this Memo 18 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 19 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 41 Abstract 43 This MIB module defines constructs to represent commonly used 44 addressing information. The intent is that these definitions 45 will be imported and used in the various MIBs that would otherwise 46 define their own representations. This work is output from the 47 Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB" design team. 49 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "SHOULD" in this document 50 are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 52 1. The SNMP Management Framework 54 The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major 55 components: 57 o An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571]. 59 o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the 60 purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of 61 Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in 62 STD 16, RFC 1155 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 63 1215 [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described 64 in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and RFC 2580 65 [RFC2580]. 67 o Message protocols for transferring management information. The 68 first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and 69 described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of the 70 SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track 71 protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901] 72 and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the message 73 protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [RFC1906], 74 RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574]. 76 o Protocol operations for accessing management information. The 77 first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is 78 described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of 79 protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in 80 RFC 1905 [RFC1905]. 82 o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 83 [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described 84 in RFC 2575 [RFC2575]. 86 A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework 87 can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570]. 89 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 90 the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are 91 defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. 93 This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A 94 MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate 95 translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically 96 equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no 97 translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable 98 information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in 99 SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine 100 readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the 101 MIB. 103 2. Definitions 105 INET-ENDPOINT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 107 IMPORTS 108 MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI 109 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; 111 inetEndpointMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 112 LAST-UPDATED "9910210000Z" 113 ORGANIZATION "IETF OPS Area" 114 CONTACT-INFO "Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org" 115 DESCRIPTION 116 "A MIB module for Internet address definitions." 117 ::= { XXX } 119 -- 120 -- 121 -- New TCs for representing generic Internet endpoints. 122 -- These are roughly equivalent to TDomain and TAddress... 123 -- 124 -- 126 -- 127 -- Internet endpoints types 128 -- 129 InetEndpointType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 130 STATUS current 131 DESCRIPTION 132 "A value that represents a type of Internet endpoint. 134 Note that it is possible to sub-type objects defined with 135 this syntax by removing one or more enumerated values. 136 The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects (or their corresponding 137 InetEndpoint object) must document specific usage." 138 SYNTAX INTEGER { 139 other(0), 140 ipv4(1), 141 ipv6(2), 142 dns(3) 143 } 145 InetEndpoint ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 146 STATUS current 147 DESCRIPTION 148 "Denotes an generic Internet endpoint. 150 A InetEndpoint value is always interpreted within the context of a 151 InetEndpointType value. Thus, each definition of a InetEndpointType 152 value must be accompanied by a definition of a textual convention 153 for use with that InetEndpointType. 155 When this Textual Convention is used as the syntax of an index object, 156 there may be issues with the limit of 128 sub-identifiers specified 157 in [SMIv2]. In this case, it is recommended that the OBJECT-TYPE 158 declaration include a 'SIZE' clause to limit the number of potential 159 instance sub-identifiers." 160 REFERENCE "See the TAddress TC in std58." 161 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) 163 -- 164 -- 165 -- TCs for specific Internet endpoint values. 166 -- 167 -- 169 -- 170 -- IPv4 Address 171 -- 173 InetEndpointIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 174 DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d" 175 STATUS current 176 DESCRIPTION 177 "Represents an IPv4 network address: 179 octets contents encoding 180 1-4 IP address network-byte order 182 The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv4(1)." 183 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) 185 -- 186 -- IPv6 Address 187 -- 189 InetEndpointIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 190 DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x" 191 STATUS current 192 DESCRIPTION 193 "Represents an IPv6 network address: 195 octets contents encoding 196 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order 198 The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv6(2)." 199 REFERENCE "See the Ipv6Address TC in RFC 2465." 200 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (16)) 202 -- 203 -- DNS Name 204 -- 206 InetEndpointDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 207 DISPLAY-HINT "255a" 208 STATUS current 209 DESCRIPTION 210 "Represents a fully qualified DNS host name. 211 The corresponding InetEndpointType is dns(3). 213 The DESCRIPTION clause of InetEndpoint objects that 214 may have InetEndpointDNS values must fully describe 215 how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP 216 addresses." 217 REFERENCE "RFCs 952 and 1123." 218 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255)) 220 END 222 3. Usage 224 These definitions provide a mechanism to define generic 225 Internet-accessible endpoints within MIB specifications. 226 It is recommended that MIB developers use these definitions 227 when applicable, as opposed to defining their own constructs. 229 A generic Internet endpoint consists of two objects, 230 one whose syntax is InetEndpointType, and another whose 231 syntax is InetEndpoint. The value of the first object 232 determines how the value of the second object is encoded. 234 One particular usage of InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs 235 is to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the 236 use of the IpAddress syntax. IpAddress limits an implementation 237 to using IPv4 addresses only, and as such SHOULD only be used 238 when the object truly is IPv4-specific. 240 4. Indexing 242 When a generic Internet endpoint is used as an index, both 243 the InetEndpointType and InetEndpoint objects MUST be used, and 244 the InetEndpointType object MUST come first in the INDEX clause. 246 The InetEndpointType object may be subtyped such that the resulting 247 index is of fixed length. But the more common usage will result 248 in variable-length indexes. 250 For variable length indexes, the IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used 251 in the INDEX clause. Instance subidentifiers are then of the form 252 T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetEndpointType object, 253 O1...On are the octets in the InetEndpoint object, and N is the 254 number of those octets. 256 There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed 257 in this fashion. Command generator applications may 259 o lookup specific endpoints of known type and value 260 o issue GetNext requests for endpoints of a single type 261 o issue GetNext requests for specific type and address prefix 263 It should be pointed out that another valid approach is to 264 define separate tables for different address types. For example, 265 one table might be indexed by an IpAddress object, and the other 266 table indexed by an Ipv6Address object. This is a decision for the 267 MIB designer. (For example, the tcpConnTable was left intact and a new 268 table added for TCP connections over IPv6, see RFC 2452.) 270 5. Uniqueness of Addresses 272 IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current 273 usage notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to 274 have different scopes and hence uniqueness. In particular, 275 IPv6 "link-local" and "site-local" addresses are not guaranteed 276 to be unique on any particular node. In such cases, the duplicate 277 addresses must be configured on different interfaces, so the combination 278 of IPv6 address/interface is unique. 280 For tables indexed by InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs, where 281 there may be non-unique instances of InetEndpointIPv6, the recommended 282 approach is to add a third index object to ensure uniqueness. 284 It is recommended that the syntax of this third index object be 285 InterfaceIndexOrZero, imported from IF-MIB [RFC2233]. The value 286 of this object SHOULD be 0 when the value of the InetEndpointType 287 object is not ipv6(2). 289 6. Multiple InetEndpoints per Host 291 Note that a single host system may be configured with multiple 292 addresses (IPv4 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. 293 Thus it is possible for a single host system to be represented 294 by multiple (unique) InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs. 296 If this could be an implementation or usage issue the DESCRIPTION 297 clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe required 298 behavior. 300 7. Resolving DNS Names 302 DNS names are translated to IP addresses when communication with 303 a host is required. This raises a temporal aspect to defining MIB 304 objects whose value is a DNS name; when is the name translated to 305 an address? 307 For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding 308 destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the 309 forwarding entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? 310 Once, when the object was instantiated? 312 The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define 313 how (when) any required name to address resolution is done. 315 8. Usage Examples 317 Example 1: 319 fooTable OBJECT-TYPE 320 SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF FooEntry 321 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 322 STATUS current 323 DESCRIPTION 324 "The foo table." 325 ::= { bar 1 } 327 fooEntry OBJECT-TYPE 328 SYNTAX FooEntry 329 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 330 STATUS current 331 DESCRIPTION 332 "A foo entry." 333 INDEX { fooPartnerType, fooPartner } 334 ::= { fooTable 1 } 336 FooEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 337 fooPartnerType InetEndpointType, 338 fooPartner InetEndpoint, 339 fooStatus INTEGER, 340 fooDescr OCTET STRING 341 } 343 fooPartnerType ::= OBJECT-TYPE 344 SYNTAX InetEndpointType 345 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 346 STATUS current 347 DESCRIPTION 348 "The type of Internet endpoint by which the partner is reachable." 349 ::= { fooEntry 1 } 351 fooPartner ::= OBJECT-TYPE 352 SYNTAX InetEndpoint (SIZE (0..64)) 353 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 354 STATUS current 355 DESCRIPTION 356 "The Internet endpoint for the partner. Note that implementations 357 must limit themselves to a single entry in this table per reachable 358 partner. Also, if an Ipv6 endpoint is used, it must contain a globally 359 unique IPv6 address." 360 ::= { fooEntry 2 } 362 Example 2: 364 sysAddrTable OBJECT-TYPE 365 SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SysAddrEntry 366 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 367 STATUS current 368 DESCRIPTION 369 "The sysAddr table." 370 ::= { sysAddr 1 } 372 sysAddrEntry OBJECT-TYPE 373 SYNTAX SysAddrEntry 374 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 375 STATUS current 376 DESCRIPTION 377 "A sysAddr entry." 378 INDEX { sysAddrType, sysAddr, sysAddrIfIndex } 379 ::= { sysAddrTable 1 } 381 SysAddrEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 382 sysAddrPartnerType InetEndpointType, 383 sysAddrPartner InetEndpoint, 384 sysAddrIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, 385 sysAddrStatus INTEGER, 386 sysAddrDescr OCTET STRING 387 } 389 sysAddrType ::= OBJECT-TYPE 390 SYNTAX InetEndpointType { 391 ipv4(1), 392 ipv6(2) 393 } 394 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 395 STATUS current 396 DESCRIPTION 397 "The type of system address." 398 ::= { sysAddrEntry 1 } 400 sysAddr ::= OBJECT-TYPE 401 SYNTAX InetEndpoint (SIZE (4 | 16)) 402 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 403 STATUS current 404 DESCRIPTION 405 "The system address." 406 ::= { sysAddrEntry 2 } 408 sysAddrIfIndex ::= OBJECT-TYPE 409 SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero 410 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 411 STATUS current 412 DESCRIPTION 413 "The system address interface. This object is used to 414 disambiguate duplicate system IPv6 addresses, and 415 should be 0 for non-duplicate addresses." 416 ::= { sysAddrEntry 3 } 418 9. Security Considerations 420 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, 421 it defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by 422 other MIB modules to define management objects. 424 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in 425 the modules that define management objects. 427 10. References 429 [RFC2233] K. McCloghrie, and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB 430 using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997 432 [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture 433 for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 434 1999 436 [RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification 437 of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 438 16, RFC 1155, May 1990 440 [RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 441 16, RFC 1212, March 1991 443 [RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the 444 SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991 446 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 447 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management 448 Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999 450 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 451 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for 452 SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999 454 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 455 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for 456 SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999 458 [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple 459 Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. 461 [RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 462 "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 463 1996. 465 [RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 466 "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network 467 Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. 469 [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message 470 Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management 471 Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999 473 [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model 474 (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management 475 Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999 477 [RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 478 "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network 479 Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. 481 [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", 482 RFC 2573, April 1999 484 [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based 485 Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network 486 Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999 488 [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 489 "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network 490 Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999 492 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirements 493 Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997. 495 11. Authors' Addresses 497 Mike Daniele 498 Compaq Computer Corporation 499 110 Spit Brook Rd 500 Nashua, NH 03062 502 Phone: +1-603-884-1423 503 EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com 505 Brian Haberman 506 Nortel Networks 507 4039 Emperor Blvd. 508 Suite 200 509 Durham, NC 27703 511 Phone: +1-919-992-4439 512 Email: haberman@nortelnetworks.com 514 Shawn A. Routhier 515 Integrated Systems, Inc. 516 1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403 517 Nashua, NH 03062 519 Phone: +1-603-897-2000 x2072 520 Email: sar@epilogue.com 522 Juergen Schoenwaelder 523 TU Braunschweig 524 Bueltenweg 74/75 525 38106 Braunschweig 526 Germany 528 Phone: +49-531-391-3683 529 EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de 531 12. Notices 533 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 534 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 535 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 536 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 537 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 538 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 539 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 540 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 541 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 542 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 543 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such propritary 544 rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained 545 from the IETF Secretariat. 547 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 548 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 549 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 550 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 551 Director. 553 13. Full Copyright Statement 555 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 557 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 558 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 559 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 560 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 561 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 562 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 563 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 564 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 565 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 566 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 567 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 568 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 569 English. 571 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 572 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 574 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 575 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 576 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 577 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 578 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 579 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 581 14. Appendix A 583 This appendix lists the issues raised over common addressing 584 MIB constructs, and the reasoning for the decisions made in 585 this module. 587 1. Efficient table lookups 589 Some existing MIBs have tables of generic addresses, indexed 590 by a random integer. This makes it impossible to lookup 591 specific addresses, or issue meaningful GetNext operations. 593 2. Common addressing should be defined such that no SMI changes 594 are required. 596 For example, the use of the ASN.1 CHOICE would really be an SMI 597 change. 599 3. TCs and DISPLAY-HINTS 601 A single object that contains both address type and value 602 does not provide a way to express the display characteristics 603 of each type. 605 (Also, such a single object requires code changes to handle updates, 606 whereas the solution chosen requires only MIB updates.) 608 4. Document the possible non-uniqueness of IPv6 addresses, and the 609 impact on indexing tables. 611 5. TDomain/TAddress limited to transport services 613 It was unclear if network layer addresses were appropriate 614 for use in TAddress values, since std58 refers specifically to 615 "transport addresses". 617 This point is less important than std58's definition that 618 TAddress values always be defined in the context of TDomain 619 values. Since did not want to index by OIDs, we did not 620 use TDomain and hence cannot use TAddress. 622 6. Harness the use of IpAddress 624 Several standard-track MIBs have used IpAddress syntax 625 inadvertently, needlessly limiting implementations to IPv4. 627 The specification under development should address this. 629 7. DNS names in addition to addresses 631 It is useful to be able to specify a system via a DNS name, 632 so the common addressing mechanism should support them. 634 Expires May, 2000