Network Working Group M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 3291 Consultant
Obsoletes: 2851 B. Haberman
Category: Standards Track Consultant
S. Routhier
Wind River Systems, Inc.
J. Schoenwaelder
TU Braunschweig
May 2002
Network Working Group M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 3291 Consultant
Obsoletes: 2851 B. Haberman
Category: Standards Track Consultant
S. Routhier
Wind River Systems, Inc.
J. Schoenwaelder
TU Braunschweig
May 2002
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 (2002). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002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 textual conventions (TCs) will be imported and used in MIB modules 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。其目的是将这些文本约定（TC）导入并在MIB模块中使用，否则MIB模块将定义它们自己的表示。
This document obsoletes RFC 2851.
本文件淘汰了RFC 2851。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The SNMP Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Usage Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 Multiple Addresses per Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4 Resolving DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Changes from RFC 2851 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The SNMP Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Usage Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 Multiple Addresses per Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4 Resolving DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Changes from RFC 2851 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Several standards-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 [19].
一些标准跟踪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[19]。
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 MIB modules 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。新的MIB模块不应再使用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 also be used to represent generic Internet subnets and Internet address ranges. A generic Internet subnet is represented by three objects, one whose syntax is InetAddressType, a second one whose syntax is InetAddress and a third one whose syntax is InetAddressPrefixLength. The InetAddressType value again determines the concrete format of the InetAddress value while the InetAddressPrefixLength identifies the Internet network address prefix.
本文档中定义的文本约定也可用于表示通用Internet子网和Internet地址范围。通用Internet子网由三个对象表示，一个对象的语法为InetAddressType，第二个对象的语法为InetAddress，第三个对象的语法为InetAddressPrefixLength。InetAddressType值再次确定InetAddress值的具体格式，而InetAddressPrefixLength标识Internet网络地址前缀。
A generic range of consecutive Internet addresses is represented by three objects. The first one has the syntax InetAddressType while the remaining objects have the syntax InetAddress and specify the start and end of the address range. The InetAddressType value again determines the format of the InetAddress values.
连续Internet地址的通用范围由三个对象表示。第一个对象具有语法InetAddressType，而其余对象具有语法InetAddress，并指定地址范围的开始和结束。InetAddressType值再次确定InetAddress值的格式。
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 MIB modules that only need to represent IPv4 or IPv6 addresses SHOULD use the InetAddressType/InetAddress 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模块也应使用本备忘录中定义的InetAddressType/InetAddress文本约定。
There are many widely deployed MIB modules that use IPv4 addresses and which need to be revised to support IPv6. These MIBs can be categorized as follows:
有许多广泛部署的MIB模块使用IPv4地址，需要修改以支持IPv6。这些MIB可分为以下几类：
1. MIB modules which define management information that is in principle IP version neutral, but the MIB currently uses addressing constructs specific to a certain IP version.
1. MIB模块定义的管理信息原则上与IP版本无关，但MIB当前使用特定于某个IP版本的寻址结构。
2. MIB modules which define management information that is specific to particular IP version (either IPv4 or IPv6) and which is very unlikely to ever be applicable to another IP version.
2. MIB模块，用于定义特定于特定IP版本（IPv4或IPv6）的管理信息，并且不太可能适用于其他IP版本。
MIB modules of the first type SHOULD provide object definitions (e.g., tables) that work with all versions of IP. In particular, when revising a MIB module which contains IPv4 specific tables, it is suggested to define new tables using the textual conventions defined in this memo which support all versions of IP. The status of the new tables SHOULD be "current" while the status of the old IP version specific tables SHOULD be changed to "deprecated". The other approach of having multiple similar tables for different IP versions is strongly discouraged.
第一种类型的MIB模块应提供适用于所有IP版本的对象定义（如表）。特别是，在修改包含IPv4特定表的MIB模块时，建议使用本备忘录中定义的支持所有IP版本的文本约定定义新表。新表的状态应为“当前”，而旧IP版本特定表的状态应更改为“已弃用”。强烈反对为不同的IP版本使用多个类似表的另一种方法。
MIB modules of the second type, which are inherently IP version specific, do not need to be redefined. Note that even in this case, any additions to these MIB modules or new IP version specific MIB modules SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this memo.
第二种类型的MIB模块本质上是特定于IP版本的，不需要重新定义。请注意，即使在这种情况下，对这些MIB模块或新的IP版本特定MIB模块的任何添加都应使用本备忘录中定义的文本约定。
MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions defined in this document to represent generic transport layer addresses. Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.
MIB开发人员不应使用本文档中定义的文本约定来表示通用传输层地址。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 RFC 2571[2]中描述的总体架构。
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 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 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 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 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 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 A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [15] and the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575 [16].
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, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC;
从SNMPv2 TC导入SNMPv2 SMI文本约定中的MODULE-IDENTITY、mib-2、Unsigned32；
inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200205090000Z" ORGANIZATION "IETF Operations and Management Area" CONTACT-INFO "Juergen Schoenwaelder (Editor) TU Braunschweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
inetAddressMIB模块标识最新更新的“20020509000Z”组织“IETF运行和管理区域”联系方式“Juergen Schoenwaeld（编辑）TU Braunchweig Bueltenweg 74/75 38106 Braunchweig，德国
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>." DESCRIPTION "This MIB module defines textual conventions for representing Internet addresses. An Internet address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS domain name. This module also defines textual conventions for Internet port numbers, autonomous system numbers and the length of an Internet address prefix." REVISION "200205090000Z" DESCRIPTION "Second version, published as RFC 3291. This revisions contains several clarifications and it
将评论发送到<mibs@ops.ietf.org>“说明”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。本模块还定义了互联网端口号、自主系统号和互联网地址前缀长度的文本约定。“修订版”200205090000Z“说明”第二版，发布为RFC 3291。本修订版包含若干澄清，并且
introduces several new textual conventions:
InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber,
InetAutonomousSystemNumber, InetAddressIPv4z,
and InetAddressIPv6z."
REVISION "200006080000Z"
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
::= { mib-2 76 }
introduces several new textual conventions:
InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber,
InetAutonomousSystemNumber, InetAddressIPv4z,
and InetAddressIPv6z."
REVISION "200006080000Z"
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
::= { mib-2 76 }
InetAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value that represents a type of Internet address.
unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value MUST
be used if the value of the corresponding
InetAddress object is a zero-length string.
It may also be used to indicate an IP address
which is not in one of the formats defined
below.
InetAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value that represents a type of Internet address.
unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value MUST
be used if the value of the corresponding
InetAddress object is a zero-length string.
It may also be used to indicate an IP address
which is not in one of the formats defined
below.
ipv4(1) An IPv4 address as defined by the InetAddressIPv4 textual convention.
ipv4（1）由InetAddressIPv4文本约定定义的ipv4地址。
ipv6(2) A global IPv6 address as defined by the InetAddressIPv6 textual convention.
ipv6（2）由InetAddressIPv6文本约定定义的全局ipv6地址。
ipv4z(3) A non-global IPv4 address including a zone index as defined by the InetAddressIPv4z textual convention.
ipv4z（3）一个非全局IPv4地址，包括InetAddressIPv4z文本约定定义的区域索引。
ipv6z(4) A non-global IPv6 address including a zone index as defined by the InetAddressIPv6z textual convention.
ipv6z（4）一个非全局IPv6地址，包括InetAddressIPv6z文本约定定义的区域索引。
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。
To support future extensions, the InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in compliance statements in order to require only a subset of these address types for a compliant implementation.
为了支持将来的扩展，InetAddressType文本约定不应在对象类型定义中进行子类型化。它可以在符合性声明中进行子类型化，以便在符合性实现中只需要这些地址类型的子集。
Implementations must ensure that InetAddressType objects
实现必须确保InetAddressType对象
and any dependent objects (e.g. InetAddress objects) are
consistent. An inconsistentValue error must be generated
if an attempt to change an InetAddressType object would,
for example, lead to an undefined InetAddress value. In
particular, InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs must be
changed together if the address type changes (e.g. from
ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2),
ipv4z(3),
ipv6z(4),
dns(16)
}
and any dependent objects (e.g. InetAddress objects) are
consistent. An inconsistentValue error must be generated
if an attempt to change an InetAddressType object would,
for example, lead to an undefined InetAddress value. In
particular, InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs must be
changed together if the address type changes (e.g. from
ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2),
ipv4z(3),
ipv6z(4),
dns(16)
}
InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a generic Internet address.
InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a generic Internet address.
An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the context of an InetAddressType value. Every usage of the InetAddress textual convention is required to specify the InetAddressType object which provides the context. It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically registered before the object(s) which use the InetAddress textual convention if they appear in the same logical row.
InetAddress值始终在InetAddressType值的上下文中解释。每次使用InetAddress文本约定都需要指定提供上下文的InetAddressType对象。如果InetAddressType对象出现在同一逻辑行中，则建议在使用InetAddress文本约定的对象之前对其进行逻辑注册。
The value of an InetAddress object must always be consistent with the value of the associated InetAddressType object. Attempts to set an InetAddress object to a value which is inconsistent with the associated InetAddressType must fail with an inconsistentValue error.
InetAddress对象的值必须始终与关联的InetAddressType对象的值一致。尝试将InetAddress对象设置为与关联的InetAddressType不一致的值必须失败，并出现不一致值错误。
When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128 sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case, the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers." 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，对象定义必须包含一个“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 IPv4 address network-byte order
八位字节内容编码1-4 IPv4地址网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1).
对应的InetAddressType值为ipv4（1）。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format. However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
此文本约定不应直接用于对象定义，因为它将地址限制为特定格式。但是，如果使用它，它可以单独使用，也可以与InetAddressType成对使用
InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an IPv6 network address:
InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an IPv6 network address:
octets contents encoding 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order
八位字节内容编码1-16 IPv6地址网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).
对应的InetAddressType值为ipv6（2）。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format. However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (16))
此文本约定不应直接用于对象定义，因为它将地址限制为特定格式。但是，如果使用它，它可以单独使用，也可以与InetAddressType成对使用
InetAddressIPv4z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a non-global IPv4 network address together
with its zone index:
InetAddressIPv4z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a non-global IPv4 network address together
with its zone index:
octets contents encoding 1-4 IPv4 address network-byte order 5-8 zone index network-byte order
八位字节内容编码1-4 IPv4地址网络字节顺序5-8区域索引网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4z(3).
对应的InetAddressType值为ipv4z（3）。
The zone index (bytes 5-8) is used to disambiguate identical address values on nodes which have interfaces attached to different zones of the same scope. The zone index may contain the special value 0 which refers to the default zone for each scope.
区域索引（字节5-8）用于消除节点上相同地址值的歧义，这些节点的接口连接到同一作用域的不同区域。区域索引可能包含特殊值0，该值表示每个范围的默认区域。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object
此文本约定不应直接用于对象
definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format. However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (8))
定义，因为它将地址限制为特定格式。但是，如果使用它，它可以单独使用，也可以与InetAddressType成对使用
InetAddressIPv6z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a non-global IPv6 network address together
with its zone index:
InetAddressIPv6z ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a non-global IPv6 network address together
with its zone index:
octets contents encoding 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order 17-20 zone index network-byte order
八位字节内容编码1-16 IPv6地址网络字节顺序17-20区域索引网络字节顺序
The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6z(4).
对应的InetAddressType值为ipv6z（4）。
The zone index (bytes 17-20) is used to disambiguate identical address values on nodes which have interfaces attached to different zones of the same scope. The zone index may contain the special value 0 which refers to the default zone for each scope.
区域索引（字节17-20）用于消除节点上相同地址值的歧义，这些节点的接口连接到同一作用域的不同区域。区域索引可能包含特殊值0，该值表示每个范围的默认区域。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format. However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (20))
此文本约定不应直接用于对象定义，因为它将地址限制为特定格式。但是，如果使用它，它可以单独使用，也可以与InetAddressType成对使用
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.
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。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object definitions since it restricts addresses to a specific format. However, if it is used, it MAY be used either on its own or in conjunction with InetAddressType as a pair." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))
此文本约定不应直接用于对象定义，因为它将地址限制为特定格式。但是，如果使用它，它可以单独使用，也可以与InetAddressType成对使用
InetAddressPrefixLength ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
prefix. A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
which has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
bit (MSB) and all other bits set to 0.
InetAddressPrefixLength ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
prefix. A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
which has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
bit (MSB) and all other bits set to 0.
An InetAddressPrefixLength value is always interpreted within the context of an InetAddressType value. Every usage of the InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention is required to specify the InetAddressType object which provides the context. It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically registered before the object(s) which use the InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention if they appear in the same logical row.
InetAddressPrefixLength值始终在InetAddressType值的上下文中解释。每次使用InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定都需要指定提供上下文的InetAddressType对象。如果InetAddressType对象出现在同一逻辑行中，则建议在使用InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定的对象之前对其进行逻辑注册。
InetAddressPrefixLength values that are larger than the maximum length of an IP address for a specific InetAddressType are treated as the maximum significant value applicable for the InetAddressType. The maximum significant value is 32 for the InetAddressType 'ipv4(1)' and 'ipv4z(3)' and 128 for the InetAddressType 'ipv6(2)' and 'ipv6z(4)'. The maximum significant value for the InetAddressType 'dns(16)' is 0.
大于特定InetAddressType的IP地址最大长度的InetAddressPrefixLength值被视为适用于InetAddressType的最大有效值。InetAddressType“ipv4（1）”和“ipv4z（3）”的最大有效值为32，InetAddressType“ipv6（2）”和“ipv6z（4）”的最大有效值为128。InetAddressType“dns（16）”的最大有效值为0。
The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as part of the description of any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where the Internet network address prefix is unknown or does not apply." SYNTAX Unsigned32
值零是特定于对象的，必须定义为使用此语法的任何对象描述的一部分。使用零的示例可能包括Internet网络地址前缀未知或不适用的情况。”语法Unsigned32
InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a 16 bit port number of an Internet transport
layer protocol. Port numbers are assigned by IANA. A
current list of all assignments is available from
<http://www.iana.org/>.
InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a 16 bit port number of an Internet transport
layer protocol. Port numbers are assigned by IANA. A
current list of all assignments is available from
<http://www.iana.org/>.
The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as part of the description of any object which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where a port number is unknown, or when the value zero is used as a wildcard in a filter." REFERENCE "STD 6 (RFC 768), STD 7 (RFC 793) and RFC 2960" SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)
值零是特定于对象的，必须定义为使用此语法的任何对象描述的一部分。使用零的示例可能包括端口号未知的情况，或者在筛选器中将值零用作通配符。“参考”STD 6（RFC 768）、STD 7（RFC 793）和RFC 2960“语法Unsigned32（0..65535）
InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an autonomous system number which identifies an
Autonomous System (AS). An AS is a set of routers under a
single technical administration, using an interior gateway
protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
other ASs'. IANA maintains the AS number space and has
delegated large parts to the regional registries.
InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an autonomous system number which identifies an
Autonomous System (AS). An AS is a set of routers under a
single technical administration, using an interior gateway
protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
other ASs'. IANA maintains the AS number space and has
delegated large parts to the regional registries.
Autonomous system numbers are currently limited to 16 bits (0..65535). There is however work in progress to enlarge the autonomous system number space to 32 bits. This textual convention therefore uses an Unsigned32 value without a range restriction in order to support a larger autonomous system number space." REFERENCE "RFC 1771, RFC 1930" SYNTAX Unsigned32
自治系统编号目前限制为16位（0..65535）。然而，将自治系统编号空间扩大到32位的工作正在进行中。因此，此文本约定使用无符号32值，无范围限制，以支持更大的自主系统编号空间。“参考”RFC 1771，RFC 1930“语法无符号32
END
终止
The InetAddressType and InetAddress textual conventions have been introduced to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the use of the IpAddress SMI base type which is IPv4 specific. An InetAddressType/InetAddress pair can represent IP addresses in various formats.
引入了InetAddressType和InetAddress文本约定，以避免使用特定于IPv4的IpAddress SMI基类型过度约束对象定义。InetAddressType/InetAddress对可以以各种格式表示IP地址。
The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object definitions. Sub-typing binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced. Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to express that only a subset of the defined address types must be implemented to be compliant.
InetAddressType和InetAddress对象不应在对象定义中为子类型。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。
Every usage of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual conventions must specify which InetAddressType object provides the context for the interpretation of the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.
每次使用InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定时，都必须指定哪个InetAddressType对象为解释InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定提供上下文。
It is suggested that the InetAddressType object is logically registered before the object(s) which uses the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention. An InetAddressType object is logically registered before an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object if it appears before the InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object in the conceptual row (which
建议在使用InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定的对象之前逻辑注册InetAddressType对象。如果InetAddressType对象出现在概念行中的InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象之前，则该对象在逻辑上注册在InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象之前（其中
includes any index objects). This rule allows programs such as MIB compilers to identify the InetAddressType of a given InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object by searching for the InetAddressType object which precedes an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object.
包括任何索引对象）。此规则允许诸如MIB编译器之类的程序通过搜索InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象之前的InetAddressType对象来识别给定InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象的InetAddressType。
When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The InetAddressType object MUST be listed before the InetAddress object in the INDEX clause.
当通用Internet地址用作索引时，必须同时使用InetAddressType和InetAddress对象。InetAddressType对象必须在INDEX子句中列在InetAddress对象之前。
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 [19]. 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 a zone index is unique [21].
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[19]。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地址和区域索引的组合是唯一的[21]。
The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent global IPv6 addresses and non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where no zone index is needed (e.g., on end hosts with a single interface). The InetAddressIPv6z textual convention has been defined to represent non-global IPv6 addresses in cases where a zone index is needed (e.g., a router connecting multiple zones). MIB designers who use InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need to define additional objects in order to support non-global addresses on nodes that connect multiple zones.
InetAddressIPv6文本约定已定义为在不需要区域索引的情况下（例如，在具有单个接口的终端主机上）表示全局IPv6地址和非全局IPv6地址。InetAddressIPv6z文本约定已定义为在需要区域索引（例如，连接多个区域的路由器）的情况下表示非全局IPv6地址。因此，使用InetAddressType/InetAddress对的MIB设计人员不需要定义其他对象来支持连接多个区域的节点上的非全局地址。
The InetAddressIPv4z is intended for use in MIBs (like the TCP-MIB) which report addresses in the address family used on the wire, but where the entity instrumented obtains such addresses from
InetAddressIPv4z用于MIB（如TCP-MIB），该MIB报告线路上使用的地址族中的地址，但插入指令的实体从中获取此类地址
applications or administrators in a form which includes a zone index, such as v4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
包含区域索引的表单中的应用程序或管理员，例如v4映射的IPv6地址。
The size of the zone index has been chosen so that it is consistent with (i) the numerical zone index defined in [21] and (ii) the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC 2553 [20].
已选择区域索引的大小，以使其与（i）在[21]中定义的数字区域索引和（ii）在RFC 2553[20]中定义的sockaddr_in6结构的sin6_scope_id字段一致。
A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. Thus it is possible for a single host system to be accessible by multiple InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.
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，可以通过多个InetAddressType/InetAddress对访问单个主机系统。
If this could be an implementation or usage issue, the DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects must fully describe which address is reported in a given InetAddressType/InetAddress pair.
如果这可能是一个实现或使用问题，则相关对象的DESCRIPTION子句必须完全描述在给定的InetAddressType/InetAddress对中报告的地址。
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 or just 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？每次转发发生，还是仅在实例化对象时发送一次？
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 module or implementation requires it to map the IP address to a DNS name.
类似地，如果代理访问了了解IP地址的检测，并且MIB模块或实现要求它将IP地址映射到DNS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 in order to satisfy OID length constraints.
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，以满足OID长度限制。
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 DESCRIPTION "The Internet address for the peer. The type of this address is determined by the value of the peerAddressType object. Note that implementations must limit themselves to a single entry in this table per reachable peer. The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE restriction.
PeeradAddress对象类型语法InetAddress（大小（1..64））MAX-ACCESS不可访问状态当前描述“对等方的Internet地址。此地址的类型由peerAddressType对象的值确定。请注意，实现必须将自身限制为该表中每个可访问对等方的一个条目。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.
如果一行是通过SNMP操作以管理方式创建的，且地址类型值为dns（16），则代理会在内部存储dns名称。当内部存储的DNS名称用于联系对等方时，必须对其执行DNS名称查找。
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 by the managed entity itself and
the address type value is dns(16), then the agent
stores the IP address internally. A DNS reverse lookup
must be performed on the internally stored IP address
whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."
::= { peerEntry 2 }
The following compliance statement specifies that compliant implementations need only support IPv4/IPv6 addresses without a zone indices. Support for DNS names or IPv4/IPv6 addresses with zone indices is not required.
以下符合性声明指定符合性的实现只需要支持不带区域索引的IPv4/IPv6地址。不需要支持带区域索引的DNS名称或IPv4/IPv6地址。
peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement of 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 without zone indices."
对象peerAddressType语法InetAddressType{ipv4（1），ipv6（2）}说明“只需要一个实现来支持不带区域索引的ipv4和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 MIB modules that define management objects. This document has therefore no impact on the security of the Internet.
有意义的安全注意事项只能写入定义管理对象的MIB模块中。因此，本文件对互联网的安全没有影响。
This document was produced by the Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB" design team. The authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Randy Bush, Richard Draves, Mark Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro Hagino, Mike Heard, 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.
本文件由运营和管理区域“IPv6MIB”设计团队编制。作者要感谢弗雷德·贝克、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、迈克·赫德、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。
The following changes have been made relative to RFC 2851:
与RFC 2851相关的变更如下：
o Added new textual conventions InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber, and InetAutonomousSystemNumber.
o 添加了新的文本约定InetAddressPrefixLength、InetPortNumber和InetAutonomousSystemNumber。
o Rewrote the introduction to say clearly that in general, one should define MIB tables that work with all versions of IP. The other approach of multiple tables for different IP versions is strongly discouraged.
o 重写引言，明确指出一般来说，应该定义适用于所有IP版本的MIB表。另一种方法是针对不同的IP版本使用多个表。
o Added text to the InetAddressType and InetAddress descriptions which requires that implementations must reject set operations with an inconsistentValue error if they lead to inconsistencies.
o 在InetAddressType和InetAddress描述中添加了文本，这要求实现必须拒绝具有不一致值错误的set操作（如果这些操作导致不一致）。
o Removed the strict ordering constraints. Description clauses now must explain which InetAddressType object provides the context for an InetAddress or InetAddressPrefixLength object.
o 删除了严格的排序约束。描述子句现在必须解释哪个InetAddressType对象为InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象提供上下文。
o Aligned wordings with the IPv6 scoping architecture document.
o 与IPv6范围界定体系结构文档中的措辞保持一致。
o Split the InetAddressIPv6 textual convention into the two textual conventions (InetAddressIPv6 and InetAddressIPv6z) and introduced a new textual convention InetAddressIPv4z. Added ipv4z(3) and ipv6z(4) named numbers to the InetAddressType enumeration. Motivations for this change: (i) enable the introduction of a textual conventions for non-global IPv4 addresses, (ii) alignment with the textual conventions for transport addresses, (iii) simpler compliance statements in cases where support for IPv6 addresses with zone indices is not required, (iv) simplify implementations for host systems which will never have to report zone indices.
o 将InetAddressIPv6文本约定拆分为两个文本约定（InetAddressIPv6和InetAddressIPv6z），并引入了新的文本约定InetAddressIPv4z。将ipv4z（3）和ipv6z（4）命名编号添加到InetAddressType枚举中。这一变化的动机：（i）允许为非全局IPv4地址引入文本约定，（ii）与传输地址的文本约定保持一致，（iii）在不需要支持带区域索引的IPv6地址的情况下更简单的符合性声明，（iv）简化主机系统的实现，这些主机系统将永远不必报告区域索引。
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. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[18] McCloghrie，K.和F.Kastenholz，“接口组MIB”，RFC 28632000年6月。
[19] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[19] Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“IP版本6寻址体系结构”，RFC 23731998年7月。
[20] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.
[20] 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。
[21] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., Onoe, A. and B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", Work in Progress.
[21] Deering，S.，Haberman，B.，Jinmei，T.，Nordmark，E.，Onoe，A.和B.Zill，“IPv6作用域地址体系结构”，工作正在进行中。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Mike Daniele Consultant 19 Pinewood Rd Hudson, NH 03051 USA
美国新罕布什尔州哈德逊松林路19号迈克·达涅利咨询公司，邮编：03051
Phone: +1 603 883-6365
EMail: md@world.std.com
Phone: +1 603 883-6365
EMail: md@world.std.com
Brian Haberman
布莱恩·哈伯曼
Phone: +1 919 949-4828
EMail: bkhabs@nc.rr.com
Phone: +1 919 949-4828
EMail: bkhabs@nc.rr.com
Shawn A. Routhier Wind River Systems, Inc. 500 Wind River Way Alameda, CA 94501 USA
Shawn A.Routhier Wind River Systems，Inc.美国加利福尼亚州阿拉米达市Wind River Way 500号，邮编：94501
Phone: +1 510 749 2095
EMail: sar@epilogue.com
Phone: +1 510 749 2095
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 (2002). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002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。