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
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
Internet网络地址的文本约定
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
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.
此MIB模块定义文本约定来表示常用的Internet网络层寻址信息。其目的是将这些定义导入并在MIB中使用，否则MIB将定义它们自己的表示。
This work is output from the Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB" design team.
这项工作是运营和管理领域“IPv6MIB”设计团队的成果。
Table of Contents
目录
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
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
8. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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].
几个标准磁道MIB模块使用IpAddress SMIv2基类型。这限制了这些MIB模块对IP版本4（IPv4）的适用性，因为IpAddress SMIv2基类型只能包含4字节的IPv4地址。随着IP版本6（IPv6）地址的引入，IpAddress SMIv2基类型出现问题[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.
本文档将多个文本约定定义为在MIB模块规范中表示通用Internet网络层地址的机制。该解决方案与SMIv2（STD 58）和SMIv1（STD 16）兼容。需要表示网络层Internet地址的新MIB定义应使用本备忘录中定义的文本约定。新MIB不应再使用SMIv2 IpAddress基类型。
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.
通用Internet地址由两个对象组成，一个对象的语法为InetAddressType，另一个对象的语法为InetAddress。第一个对象的值决定了第二个对象的值是如何编码的。InetAddress文本约定表示不透明的Internet地址值。InetAddressType枚举用于将InetAddress值“强制转换”为地址类型的具体文本约定。使用多个文本约定可以表达每个地址类型的显示特征，并使定义的Internet地址类型集具有可扩展性。
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.
本文档中定义的文本约定可用于通过使用DNS域名以及IPv4和IPv6地址来定义Internet地址。MIB设计器可以编写符合性语句，以表示符合性实现只能支持可能的地址类型的子集。
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.
需要表示Internet地址的MIB开发人员应该在适用时使用这些定义，而不是定义自己的构造。即使只需要表示IPv4或IPv6地址的MIB也应使用本备忘录中定义的文本约定。
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
为了使现有广泛部署的仅IPv4的MIB适合IPv6，为不同的地址类型定义单独的表可能是一种有效的方法。这是MIB设计者的决定。例如，TCP-MIB[18]的TCPConTable保持不变
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.
并且在IPv6-TCP-MIB[19]中为IPv6上的TCP连接添加了一个新表。注意，即使在这种情况下，MIB也应该使用本备忘录中定义的文本约定。
Note that MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions defined in this document to represent transport layer addresses.
请注意，MIB开发人员不应使用本文档中定义的文本约定来表示传输层地址。
Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.
相反，传输层地址应使用SMIv2文本约定和相关定义。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“应该”、“不应该”和“可能”应按照RFC 2119[1]中的说明进行解释。
The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major components:
SNMP管理框架目前由五个主要组件组成：
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].
o RFC 2571[2]中描述的总体架构。o为管理目的描述和命名对象和事件的机制。这种管理信息结构（SMI）的第一个版本称为SMIv1，并在STD 16、RFC 1155[3]、STD 16、RFC 1212[4]和RFC 1215[5]中进行了描述。第二个版本称为SMIv2，在STD 58、RFC 2578[6]、STD 58、RFC 2579[7]和STD 58、RFC 2580[8]中进行了描述。o用于传输管理信息的消息协议。SNMP消息协议的第一个版本称为SNMPv1，在STD 15、RFC 1157[9]中进行了描述。SNMP消息协议的第二个版本不是互联网标准跟踪协议，称为SNMPv2c，在RFC 1901[10]和RFC 1906[11]中进行了描述。消息协议的第三个版本称为SNMPv3，在RFC 1906[11]、RFC 2572[12]和RFC 2574[13]中进行了描述。o访问管理信息的协议操作。STD 15、RFC 1157[9]中描述了第一组协议操作和相关PDU格式。RFC 1905[14]中描述了第二组协议操作和相关PDU格式。o RFC 2573[15]中描述的一组基本应用程序和RFC 2575[16]中描述的基于视图的访问控制机制。
A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [17].
有关当前SNMP管理框架的更详细介绍，请参见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.
托管对象通过虚拟信息存储（称为管理信息库或MIB）进行访问。MIB中的对象是使用SMI中定义的机制定义的。
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.
此备忘录指定了符合SMIv2的MIB模块。通过适当的翻译，可以生成符合SMIv1的MIB。生成的已翻译MIB必须在语义上等效，除非由于无法翻译而省略了对象或事件（使用计数器64）。在翻译过程中，SMIv2中的一些机器可读信息将转换为SMIv1中的文本描述。但是，这种机器可读信息的丢失不被认为会改变MIB的语义。
INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC;
从SNMPv2 TC导入模块标识、mib-2和SNMPv2 SMI文本约定；
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
inetAddressMIB模块标识最新更新的“20000608000Z”组织“IETF操作和管理区域”联系信息“美国NH 03062州纳舒亚市斯皮布鲁克路110号Mike Daniele Compaq计算机公司
Phone: +1 603 884-1423
EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
Phone: +1 603 884-1423
EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
Brian Haberman Nortel Networks 4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200 Durham, NC 27703, USA
Brian Haberman Nortel Networks美国北卡罗来纳州达勒姆市皇帝大道4039号200室，邮编27703
Phone: +1 919 992-4439
EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com
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
Shawn A.Routhier Wind River Systems，Inc.美国新罕布什尔州纳舒亚塔拉大道1号403室，邮编03062
Phone: +1 603 897-2000
EMail: sar@epilogue.com
Phone: +1 603 897-2000
EMail: sar@epilogue.com
Juergen Schoenwaelder TU Braunschweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
德国布埃尔滕韦格布伦瑞克大学74/75 38106
Phone: +49 531 391-3289
EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
Phone: +49 531 391-3289
EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org."
将评论发送到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."
DESCRIPTION“此MIB模块定义表示Internet地址的文本约定。Internet地址可以是IPv4地址、IPv6地址或DNS域名。”
REVISION "200006080000Z"
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
::= { mib-2 76 }
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.
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.
未知（0）未知的地址类型。如果对应InetAddress对象的值为零长度字符串，则必须使用此值。它也可用于指示IP地址，该IP地址不是以下定义的格式之一。
ipv4(1) An IPv4 address as defined by the InetAddressIPv4 textual convention.
ipv4（1）由InetAddressIPv4文本约定定义的ipv4地址。
ipv6(2) An IPv6 address as defined by the InetAddressIPv6 textual convention.
ipv6（2）由InetAddressIPv6文本约定定义的ipv6地址。
dns(16) A DNS domain name as defined by the InetAddressDNS textual convention.
dns（16）由InetAddressDNS文本约定定义的dns域名。
Each definition of a concrete InetAddressType value must be accompanied by a definition of a textual convention for use with that InetAddressType.
具体InetAddressType值的每个定义都必须附带一个用于该InetAddressType的文本约定的定义。
The InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be subtyped in object type definitions to support future extensions. It
InetAddressType文本约定不应在对象类型定义中进行子类型化，以支持将来的扩展。信息技术
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
}
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.
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.
InetAddress值始终在InetAddressType值的上下文中解释。定义上下文的InetAddressType对象必须在使用InetAddress文本约定的对象之前立即注册。换句话说，InetAddressType对象和InetAddress对象的对象标识符必须具有相同的长度，并且InetAddressType对象的最后一个子标识符必须比InetAddress对象的最后一个子标识符小1。
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))
当此文本约定用作索引对象的语法时，SMIv2，STD 58中指定的128个子标识符的限制可能会出现问题。在这种情况下，对象类型声明必须包含一个“SIZE”子句，以限制潜在实例子标识符的数量
InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an IPv4 network address:
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
八位字节内容编码1-4 IP地址网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1)." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
对应的InetAddressType值为ipv4（1）。“语法八位组字符串（大小（4））
InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an IPv6 network address:
“表示IPv6网络地址：
octets contents encoding 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order 17-20 scope identifier network-byte order
八位字节内容编码1-16 IPv6地址网络字节顺序17-20作用域标识符网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).
对应的InetAddressType值为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.
全局IPv6地址的作用域标识符（字节17-20）不得存在。对于非全局IPv6地址（例如链路本地或站点本地地址），范围标识符必须始终存在。它包含本地链路的链路标识符和本地IPv6地址的站点标识符。
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.
作用域标识符必须消除相同地址值的歧义。对于链路本地地址，作用域标识符通常是配置地址的接口的接口索引（IF-MIB、RFC 2233中定义的ifIndex）。
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))
作用域标识符可能包含引用默认作用域的特殊值0。在有效范围标识符未知的情况下（例如，管理应用程序需要在不知道站点标识符值的情况下写入站点本地InetAddressIPv6地址），可以使用默认范围。在已知非全局IPv6的作用域标识符的情况下，不应使用默认作用域作为简单的解决方法
InetAddressDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "255a"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a DNS domain name. The name SHOULD be
fully qualified whenever possible.
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).
对应的InetAddressType是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))
可能具有InetAddressDNS值的InetAddress对象的DESCRIPTION子句必须完全描述如何（以及何时）将此类名称解析为IP地址。“语法八位组字符串（大小（1..255））
END
终止
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.
InetAddressType/InetAddress对的一个特殊用途是避免使用IpAddress SMI基类型过度约束对象定义。InetAddressType/InetAddress对允许以各种格式表示IP地址。
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.
InetAddressType和InetAddress对象不应为子类型。子类型将MIB模块绑定到特定的地址格式，如果需要引入新的地址格式，这可能会导致严重的问题。请注意，可以编写符合性声明，以表示只有已定义的地址类型的子集必须实现才能符合要求。
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.
Internet地址必须始终由一对InetAddressType/InetAddress对象表示。不允许在多个InetAddress对象之间“共享”InetAddressType。此外，必须在InetAddress对象之前立即注册InetAddressType对象。换句话说，InetAddressType对象和InetAddress对象的对象标识符必须具有相同的长度，并且InetAddressType对象的最后一个子标识符必须比InetAddress对象的最后一个子标识符小1。
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.
当通用Internet地址用作索引时，必须同时使用InetAddressType和InetAddress对象。InetAddressType对象必须紧跟在INDEX子句中InetAddress对象的前面。如果索引子句中使用了多个Internet地址，则每个Internet地址必须由一对InetAddressType和InetAddress对象表示。
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.
INDEX子句中的InetAddress类型的对象不能使用隐含关键字。实例子标识符的形式为T.N.O1.O2…On，其中T是InetAddressType对象的值，O1…On是InetAddress对象中的八位字节，N是这些八位字节的数目。
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.
以这种方式索引的表有一个有意义的字典顺序。命令生成器应用程序可以查找已知类型和值的特定地址，对单个类型的地址发出GetNext请求，或对特定类型和地址前缀发出GetNext请求。
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.
IPv4地址是全球唯一的，尽管目前使用。IPv6地址被设计为具有不同的作用域，因此具有唯一性[21]。特别是，IPv6“链路本地”和“站点本地”地址不保证在任何特定节点上都是唯一的。在这种情况下，必须在不同的接口上配置重复的地址。因此，IPv6地址和接口号的组合是唯一的。因此，接口号可用作范围标识符。
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.
InetAddressIPv6文本约定已定义为表示全局和非全局IPv6地址。因此，使用InetAddressType/InetAddress对的MIB设计器不需要定义其他对象来支持链接本地或站点本地地址。
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].
已选择范围标识符的大小，以便它与RFC 2553[22]中定义的sockaddr_in6结构的sin6_scope_id字段相匹配。
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.
单个主机系统可以配置多个地址（IPv4或IPv6），也可能配置多个DNS名称。因此，单个主机系统可以由多个InetAddressType/InetAddress对表示。
If this could be an implementation or usage issue, then the DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe required behavior.
如果这可能是一个实现或使用问题，那么相关对象的DESCRIPTION子句必须完全描述所需的行为。
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?
当需要与指定主机通信时，DNS名称必须解析为IP地址。这为定义值为DNS名称的MIB对象提出了一个时间方面：名称何时转换为地址？
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?
例如，考虑定义一个转发目的地的对象，其值是DNS名称。转发实体何时解析DNS名称？每次发生转发时？一次，当对象被实例化时？
The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define how and when any required name to address resolution is done.
此类对象的DESCRIPTION子句应该精确定义如何以及何时完成任何所需的名称到地址解析。
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.
类似地，如果代理访问了了解IP地址的检测，并且MIB或实现需要将地址映射到名称，则此类对象的DESCRIPTION子句应该精确定义如何以及何时执行反向查找。
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.
此示例显示了一个表，其中列出了由IPv4地址、IPv6地址或DNS名称标识的通信对等方。表定义还禁止具有空地址（其类型为“未知”）的条目。DNS名称的大小限制为64个字符。
peerTable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PeerEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A list of communication peers."
::= { somewhere 1 }
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 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 }
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 }
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
PeeradAddress对象类型语法InetAddress（大小（1..64））MAX-ACCESS不可访问状态当前
DESCRIPTION "The Internet address for the peer. Note that implementations must limit themselves to a single entry in this table per reachable peer.
DESCRIPTION“对等方的Internet地址。请注意，实现必须在此表中限制每个可访问对等方的单个条目。
The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE restriction.
由于尺寸限制，peerAddress可能不是空的。
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 }
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.
以下符合性声明指定实现只需支持IPv4地址和全局唯一IPv6地址即可符合要求。不需要支持DNS名称或作用域IPv6地址。
peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement the peer MIB."
peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS当前描述“对等MIB的符合性声明”
MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { peerGroup }
MODULE——此模块是必需的-GROUPS{peergroups}
OBJECT peerAddressType SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
对象peerAddressType语法InetAddressType{ipv4（1），ipv6（2）}说明“实现仅需要支持ipv4和ipv6地址。”
OBJECT peerAddress SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and globally unique IPv6 addresses."
对象对等地址语法InetAddress（大小（4 | 16））说明“实现仅需要支持IPv4和全局唯一IPv6地址。”
::= { somewhere 2 }
::= { somewhere 2 }
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.
请注意，SMIv2不允许在对象组中包含不可访问的对象（见STD 58，RFC 2580[8]第3.1节）。因此，不可能正式细化不可访问的辅助对象的语法。在这种情况下，建议在MODULE-COMPLIANCE宏调用的DESCRIPTION子句中非正式地表达细化。
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.
此模块不定义任何管理对象。相反，它定义了一组文本约定，其他MIB模块可以使用这些文本约定来定义管理对象。
Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the modules that define management objects.
只有在定义管理对象的模块中才能编写有意义的安全注意事项。
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.
作者要感谢兰迪·布什、理查德·德拉维斯、马克·埃里森、比尔·芬纳、朱一郎·哈吉诺、蒂姆·詹金斯、格伦·曼斯菲尔德、基思·麦克洛格里、托马斯·纳滕、埃里克·诺德马克、彼得·克莱尔。Norgaard、Randy Presohn、Andrew Smith、Dave Thaler、Kenneth White、Bert Wijnen和Brian Zill感谢他们的评论和建议。
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何努力来确定任何此类权利。有关IETF在标准跟踪和标准相关文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP-11。可从IETF秘书处获得可供发布的权利声明副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果。
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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涉及实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送给IETF执行董事。
References
工具书类
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[1] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[2] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 1999.
[2] Harrington，D.，Presohn，R.和B.Wijnen，“描述SNMP管理框架的体系结构”，RFC 2571，1999年4月。
[3] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[3] Rose，M.和K.McCloghrie，“基于TCP/IP的互联网管理信息的结构和识别”，STD 16，RFC 1155，1990年5月。
[4] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
[4] Rose，M.和K.McCloghrie，“简明MIB定义”，STD 16，RFC 1212，1991年3月。
[5] Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
[5] Rose，M.“定义用于SNMP的陷阱的约定”，RFC1215，1991年3月。
[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.
[6] McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，Schoenwaeld，J.，Case，J.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“管理信息的结构版本2（SMIv2）”，STD 58，RFC 2578，1999年4月。
[7] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[7] McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，Schoenwaeld，J.，Case，J.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“SMIv2的文本约定”，STD 58，RFC 2579，1999年4月。
[8] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[8] McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，Schoenwaeld，J.，Case，J.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“SMIv2的一致性声明”，STD 58，RFC 25801999年4月。
[9] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.
[9] Case，J.，Fedor，M.，Schoffstall，M.和J.Davin，“简单网络管理协议（SNMP）”，STD 15，RFC 1157，1990年5月。
[10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996.
[10] Case，J.，McCloghrie，K.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“基于社区的SNMPv2简介”，RFC 19011996年1月。
[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.
[11] Case，J.，McCloghrie，K.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“简单网络管理协议（SNMPv2）版本2的传输映射”，RFC 1906，1996年1月。
[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.
[12] Case，J.，Harrington，D.，Presohn，R.和B.Wijnen，“简单网络管理协议（SNMP）的消息处理和调度”，RFC 2572，1999年4月。
[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.
[13] Blumenthal，U.和B.Wijnen，“简单网络管理协议（SNMPv3）第3版的基于用户的安全模型（USM）”，RFC 2574，1999年4月。
[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.
[14] Case，J.，McCloghrie，K.，Rose，M.和S.Waldbusser，“简单网络管理协议（SNMPv2）版本2的协议操作”，RFC 1905，1996年1月。
[15] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", RFC 2573, April 1999.
[15] Levi，D.，Meyer，P.和B.Stewart，“SNMP应用”，RFC2573，1999年4月。
[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.
[16] Wijnen，B.，Presuhn，R.和K.McCloghrie，“用于简单网络管理协议（SNMP）的基于视图的访问控制模型（VACM）”，RFC2575，1999年4月。
[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.
[17] Case，J.，Mundy，R.，Partain，D.和B.Stewart，“互联网标准网络管理框架第3版简介”，RFC 25701999年4月。
[18] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2012, November 1996.
[18] McCloghrie，K.，“使用SMIv2的传输控制协议的SNMPv2管理信息库”，RFC 2012，1996年11月。
[19] Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 2452, December 1998.
[19] Daniele，M.，“传输控制协议的IP版本6管理信息库”，RFC 2452，1998年12月。
[20] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997.
[20] McCloghrie，K.和F.Kastenholz，“使用SMIv2的接口组MIB”，RFC 2233，1997年11月。
[21] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[21] Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 23731998年7月。
[22] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.
[22] Gilligan，R.，Thomson，S.，Bound，J.和W.Stevens，“IPv6的基本套接字接口扩展”，RFC2553，1999年3月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Mike Daniele Compaq Computer Corporation 110 Spit Brook Rd Nashua, NH 03062 USA
迈克·达涅利·康柏计算机公司美国新罕布什尔州纳舒亚市斯皮布鲁克路110号，邮编03062
Phone: +1 603 884-1423
EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
Phone: +1 603 884-1423
EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com
Brian Haberman Nortel Networks 4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200 Durham, NC 27703 USA
Brian Haberman Nortel Networks美国北卡罗来纳州达勒姆市皇帝大道4039号200室，邮编27703
Phone: +1 919 992-4439
EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com
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
美国新罕布什尔州纳舒亚塔拉大道1号403室Shawn A.Routhier Wind River Systems，Inc.美国新罕布什尔州03062
Phone: +1 603 897-2000
EMail: sar@epilogue.com
Phone: +1 603 897-2000
EMail: sar@epilogue.com
Juergen Schoenwaelder TU Braunschweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunschweig Germany
德国布埃尔滕韦格布伦瑞克大学74/75 38106
Phone: +49 531 391-3289
EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
Phone: +49 531 391-3289
EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
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.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。