Network Working Group M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 4001 SyAM Software, Inc.
Obsoletes: 3291 B. Haberman
Category: Standards Track Johns Hopkins University
S. Routhier
Wind River Systems, Inc.
J. Schoenwaelder
International University Bremen
February 2005
Network Working Group M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 4001 SyAM Software, Inc.
Obsoletes: 3291 B. Haberman
Category: Standards Track Johns Hopkins University
S. Routhier
Wind River Systems, Inc.
J. Schoenwaelder
International University Bremen
February 2005
Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses
Internet网络地址的文本约定
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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 (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
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 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。目的是导入这些文本约定，并在MIB模块中使用，否则这些模块将定义它们自己的表示。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Usage Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Uniqueness of Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Multiple Addresses per Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Resolving DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Changes from RFC 3291 to RFC 4001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Changes from RFC 2851 to RFC 3291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Usage Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Uniqueness of Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Multiple Addresses per Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Resolving DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Changes from RFC 3291 to RFC 4001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Changes from RFC 2851 to RFC 3291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Several standards-track MIB modules use the IpAddress SMIv2 base type. This limits the applicability of these MIB modules to IP Version 4 (IPv4), as 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 [RFC3513].
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[RFC3513]的引入，IpAddress SMIv2基类型出现问题。
This document defines multiple textual conventions (TCs) as a means 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 that have 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（TC）定义为在MIB模块规范中表示通用Internet网络层地址的一种方法。该解决方案与SMIv2（STD 58）和SMIv1（STD 16）兼容。必须表示网络层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 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的编码方式。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 for well-known transport domains support scoped Internet addresses. The scope of an Internet address is a topological span within which the address may be used as a unique identifier for an interface or set of interfaces. A scope zone (or, simply, a zone) is a concrete connected region of topology of a given scope. Note that a zone is a particular instance of a topological region, whereas a scope is the size of a topological region [RFC4007]. Since Internet addresses on devices that connect multiple zones are not necessarily unique, an additional zone index is needed on these devices to select an interface. The textual conventions InetAddressIPv4z and InetAddressIPv6z are provided to support Internet addresses that include a zone index. To support arbitrary combinations of scoped Internet addresses, MIB authors SHOULD use a separate InetAddressType object for each InetAddress object.
众所周知的传输域的文本约定支持作用域的Internet地址。Internet地址的范围是一个拓扑范围，在此范围内，地址可以用作接口或接口集的唯一标识符。作用域区域（或者简单地说，区域）是给定作用域拓扑的具体连接区域。请注意，分区是拓扑区域的特定实例，而范围是拓扑区域的大小[RFC4007]。由于连接多个区域的设备上的Internet地址不一定是唯一的，因此这些设备上需要额外的区域索引来选择接口。提供文本约定InetAddressIPv4z和InetAddressIPv6z以支持包含区域索引的Internet地址。为了支持作用域Internet地址的任意组合，MIB作者应该为每个InetAddress对象使用单独的InetAddressType对象。
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, whereas 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, and the remaining objects have the syntax InetAddress and specify the start and end of the address range. Again, the InetAddressType value 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，其余对象具有语法InetAddress并指定地址范围的开始和结束。同样，InetAddressType值确定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 that have to be revised to support IPv6. These MIB modules can be categorized as follows:
有许多广泛部署的MIB模块使用IPv4地址，必须进行修改以支持IPv6。这些MIB模块可分类如下：
1. MIB modules that 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 that define management information that is specific to a particular IP version (either IPv4 or IPv6) and that 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）且不太可能适用于其他IP版本的管理信息。
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 that contains IPv4 specific tables, it is suggested to define new tables using the textual conventions defined in this memo that support all versions of IP. The status of the new tables SHOULD be "current", whereas 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”。另一种方法是为不同的IP版本提供多个类似的表，这是非常不鼓励的。
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 to 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. A special set of textual conventions for this purpose is defined in RFC 3419 [RFC3419].
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。RFC 3419[RFC3419]中定义了一组用于此目的的特殊文本约定。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY", in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“应该”、“不应该”和“可以”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中的描述进行解释。
For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
有关描述当前互联网标准管理框架的文件的详细概述，请参阅RFC 3410[RFC3410]第7节。
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580].
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对象通常通过简单网络管理协议（SNMP）进行访问。MIB中的对象是使用管理信息结构（SMI）中定义的机制定义的。本备忘录规定了符合SMIv2的MIB模块，如STD 58、RFC 2578[RFC2578]、STD 58、RFC 2579[RFC2579]和STD 58、RFC 2580[RFC2580]所述。
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 "200502040000Z" ORGANIZATION "IETF Operations and Management Area" CONTACT-INFO "Juergen Schoenwaelder (Editor) International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561 28725 Bremen, Germany
inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY最近更新的“20050204000Z”组织“IETF运营和管理区域”联系人信息德国不来梅国际大学Juergen Schoenwaeld（编辑）邮政信箱750 561 28725
Phone: +49 421 200-3587
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Phone: +49 421 200-3587
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Send comments to <ietfmibs@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.
将评论发送到<ietfmibs@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。此模块还定义Internet端口号、自治系统号和Internet地址前缀长度的文本约定。
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC 4001, see the RFC itself for full legal notices." REVISION "200502040000Z" DESCRIPTION "Third version, published as RFC 4001. This revision introduces the InetZoneIndex, InetScopeType, and InetVersion textual conventions." REVISION "200205090000Z" DESCRIPTION "Second version, published as RFC 3291. This revision contains several clarifications and introduces several new textual conventions: InetAddressPrefixLength, InetPortNumber, InetAutonomousSystemNumber, InetAddressIPv4z, and InetAddressIPv6z." REVISION "200006080000Z"
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。此MIB模块的此版本是RFC 4001的一部分，有关完整的法律通知，请参见RFC本身。“修订版”20050204000Z“说明”第三版，发布为RFC 4001。本修订版介绍了InetZoneIndex、InetScopeType和InetVersion文本约定。“修订版”200205090000Z“说明”第二版，作为RFC 3291发布。本修订版包含若干澄清，并引入了若干新的文本约定：InetAddressPrefixLength、InetPortNumber、InetAutonomousSystemNumber、InetAddressIPv4z和InetAddressIPv6z。“修订版”20000608000Z
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version, published as RFC 2851."
::= { mib-2 76 }
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 that 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。它还可用于指示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。
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 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
实现必须确保InetAddressType对象和任何依赖对象（例如InetAddress对象）是一致的。例如，如果试图更改InetAddressType对象会导致未定义的InetAddress值，则必须生成不一致的值错误。在里面
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)
}
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 that provides the context. It is suggested that the InetAddressType object be logically registered before the object(s) that 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。建议在使用InetAddress文本约定的对象（如果它们出现在同一逻辑行中）之前逻辑注册InetAddressType对象。
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 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; otherwise the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the appropriate conceptual row DESCRIPTION clauses, or in the surrounding documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION clause that is appropriate." 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，对象定义必须包括一个“SIZE”子句，以限制潜在实例子标识符的数量；否则，适用的约束必须在适当的概念行描述子句中说明，如果没有合适的单个描述子句，则必须在周围的文档中说明。”语法八位组字符串（大小（0..255））
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, as 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结合使用，作为一对
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, as 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，也可以作为一对与InetAddressType结合使用
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 that 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, as 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，也可以作为一对与InetAddressType结合使用。“语法八位字节字符串（大小（8））
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 that 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, as 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，也可以作为一对与InetAddressType结合使用
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) these 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）将这些名称解析为IP地址。
The resolution of an InetAddressDNS value may require to query multiple DNS records (e.g., A for IPv4 and AAAA for IPv6). The order of the resolution process and which DNS record takes precedence depends on the configuration of the resolver.
解析InetAddressDNS值可能需要查询多个DNS记录（例如，IPv4为A，IPv6为AAAA）。解析过程的顺序以及哪个DNS记录优先取决于解析程序的配置。
This textual convention SHOULD NOT be used directly in object definitions, as 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
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
prefix. A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
that has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
bit (MSB), with all other bits set to 0.
InetAddressPrefixLength ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes the length of a generic Internet network address
prefix. A value of n corresponds to an IP address mask
that has n contiguous 1-bits from the most significant
bit (MSB), with 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 that provides the context. It is suggested that the InetAddressType object be logically registered before the object(s) that 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。建议在使用InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定的对象（如果它们出现在同一逻辑行中）之前逻辑注册InetAddressType对象。
InetAddressPrefixLength values 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 that uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where the Internet network address prefix is unknown or does not apply.
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。
The upper bound of the prefix length has been chosen to be consistent with the maximum size of an InetAddress." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..2040)
前缀长度的上限已选择为与InetAddress的最大大小一致。“SYNTAX Unsigned32（0..2040）
InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a 16 bit port number of an Internet transport
InetPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
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/>.
层协议。端口号由IANA分配。所有作业的当前列表可从<http://www.iana.org/>.
The value zero is object-specific and must be defined as part of the description of any object that 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
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an autonomous system number that 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 ASes'. IANA maintains the AS number space and has
delegated large parts to the regional registries.
InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an autonomous system number that 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 ASes'. 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. Therefore, this textual convention 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，以支持更大的自治系统编号空间。“参考”RFC 1771，RFC 1930“语法无符号32
InetScopeType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a scope type. This textual convention can be used
in cases where a MIB has to represent different scope types
and there is no context information, such as an InetAddress
object, that implicitly defines the scope type.
InetScopeType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a scope type. This textual convention can be used
in cases where a MIB has to represent different scope types
and there is no context information, such as an InetAddress
object, that implicitly defines the scope type.
Note that not all possible values have been assigned yet, but they may be assigned in future revisions of this specification. Applications should therefore be able to deal with values not yet assigned." REFERENCE "RFC 3513" SYNTAX INTEGER { -- reserved(0),
请注意，尚未指定所有可能的值，但可能会在本规范的未来版本中指定这些值。因此，应用程序应该能够处理尚未分配的值，
interfaceLocal(1),
linkLocal(2),
subnetLocal(3),
adminLocal(4),
siteLocal(5), -- site-local unicast addresses
-- have been deprecated by RFC 3879
-- unassigned(6),
-- unassigned(7),
organizationLocal(8),
-- unassigned(9),
-- unassigned(10),
-- unassigned(11),
-- unassigned(12),
-- unassigned(13),
global(14)
-- reserved(15)
}
interfaceLocal(1),
linkLocal(2),
subnetLocal(3),
adminLocal(4),
siteLocal(5), -- site-local unicast addresses
-- have been deprecated by RFC 3879
-- unassigned(6),
-- unassigned(7),
organizationLocal(8),
-- unassigned(9),
-- unassigned(10),
-- unassigned(11),
-- unassigned(12),
-- unassigned(13),
global(14)
-- reserved(15)
}
InetZoneIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A zone index identifies an instance of a zone of a
specific scope.
InetZoneIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A zone index identifies an instance of a zone of a
specific scope.
The zone index MUST disambiguate identical address values. For link-local addresses, the zone index will typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the IF-MIB) of the interface on which the address is configured.
区域索引必须消除相同地址值的歧义。对于链路本地地址，区域索引通常是配置地址的接口的接口索引（IF-MIB中定义的ifIndex）。
The zone index may contain the special value 0, which refers to the default zone. The default zone may be used in cases where the valid zone index is not known (e.g., when a management application has to write a link-local IPv6 address without knowing the interface index value). The default zone SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in cases where the zone index for a non-global IPv6 address is known." REFERENCE "RFC4007" SYNTAX Unsigned32
分区索引可能包含特殊值0，该值表示默认分区。在有效区域索引未知的情况下（例如，当管理应用程序必须在不知道接口索引值的情况下写入链路本地IPv6地址时），可以使用默认区域。在已知非全局IPv6地址的区域索引的情况下，不应使用默认区域作为简单的解决方法。“参考”RFC4007“语法Unsigned32
InetVersion ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value representing a version of the IP protocol.
InetVersion ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value representing a version of the IP protocol.
unknown(0) An unknown or unspecified version of the IP protocol.
未知（0）IP协议的未知或未指定版本。
ipv4(1) The IPv4 protocol as defined in RFC 791 (STD 5).
ipv4（1）RFC 791（STD 5）中定义的ipv4协议。
ipv6(2) The IPv6 protocol as defined in RFC 2460.
ipv6（2）RFC 2460中定义的ipv6协议。
Note that this textual convention SHOULD NOT be used to
distinguish different address types associated with IP
protocols. The InetAddressType has been designed for this
purpose."
REFERENCE "RFC 791, RFC 2460"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2)
}
END
Note that this textual convention SHOULD NOT be used to
distinguish different address types associated with IP
protocols. The InetAddressType has been designed for this
purpose."
REFERENCE "RFC 791, RFC 2460"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2)
}
END
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，以避免通过使用IpAddress SMI基类型（特定于IPv4）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 indicating 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，指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) that use(s) 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 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.
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（包括任何索引对象）中的InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象之前，则它在逻辑上注册在InetAddress或InetAddressPrefixLength对象之前。此规则允许MIB编译器等程序通过搜索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 look up 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能会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 [RFC3513]. In particular, IPv6 "link-local" unicast 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 [RFC4007].
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[RFC3513]。特别是，IPv6“链路本地”单播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[RFC4007]。
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). Therefore, MIB designers who use InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs 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 MIB modules (such as the TCP-MIB) which report addresses in the address family used on the wire, but where the entity instrumented obtains these addresses from applications or administrators in a form that includes a zone index, such as v4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
InetAddressIPv4z用于MIB模块（如TCP-MIB），该模块报告线路上使用的地址族中的地址，但插入指令的实体以包含区域索引（如v4映射的IPv6地址）的形式从应用程序或管理员处获取这些地址。
The size of the zone index has been chosen so that it is consistent with (i) the numerical zone index, defined in [RFC4007], and (ii) the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure, defined in RFC 2553 [RFC2553].
已选择区域索引的大小，以使其与（i）在[RFC4007]中定义的数字区域索引和（ii）在RFC 2553[RFC2553]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？每次发生转发时，还是仅在实例化对象时发生一次？
The DESCRIPTION clause of these objects SHOULD precisely define how and when any required name to address resolution is done.
这些对象的DESCRIPTION子句应该精确地定义如何以及何时完成地址解析所需的任何名称。
Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clause of these 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 if the MIB module or implementation requires it to map the IP address to a DNS name.
类似地，这些对象的DESCRIPTION子句应该精确地定义反向查找的方式和时间、代理是否访问了了解IP地址的检测，以及MIB模块或实现是否要求它将IP地址映射到DNS名称。
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."
peerAddressType对象类型语法InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS不可访问状态当前描述“可访问对等方的Internet地址类型。”
::= { peerEntry 1 }
::= { 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
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。DNS名称
lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.
无论何时使用内部存储的DNS名称联系对等方，都必须对其执行查找。
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 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 objects that are not accessible in an object group (see section 3.1 in STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]). It is therefore not possible to refine the syntax of auxiliary objects that are not accessible. It is suggested that the refinement be expressed 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无法访问的对象（参见STD 58 RFC 2580[RFC2580]第3.1节）。因此，不可能优化不可访问的辅助对象的语法。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. For their comments and suggestions, the authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Randy Bush, Richard Draves, Mark Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro Hagino, Mike Heard, Tim Jenkins, Allison Mankin, Glenn Mansfield, Keith McCloghrie, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Peder Chr. Norgaard, Randy Presuhn, Andrew Smith, Dave Thaler, Kenneth White, Bert Wijnen, and Brian Zill.
本文件由运营和管理区域“IPv6MIB”设计团队编制。对于他们的评论和建议，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、琼·伊奇罗·哈吉诺、迈克·赫德、蒂姆·詹金斯、艾莉森·曼金、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·克里斯汀。诺加德、兰迪·普雷森、安德鲁·史密斯、戴夫·泰勒、肯尼斯·怀特、伯特·维恩和布赖恩·齐尔。
The following changes have been made relative to RFC 3291:
与RFC 3291相关的变更如下：
o Added a range restriction to the InetAddressPrefixLength textual convention.
o 向InetAddressPrefixLength文本约定添加了范围限制。
o Added new textual conventions InetZoneIndex, InetScopeType, and InetVersion.
o 添加了新的文本约定InetZoneIndex、InetScopeType和InetVersion。
o Added explicit "d" DISPLAY-HINTs for textual conventions that did not have them.
o 为没有文本约定的文本约定添加了显式的“d”显示提示。
o Updated boilerplate text and references.
o 更新了样板文本和参考资料。
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 requiring 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，要求实现在导致不一致时必须拒绝带有不一致值错误的set操作。
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) to 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, and (iv) to simplify implementations for host systems that 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。此更改的动机：（i）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，以及（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。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[RFC2578]McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，和J.Schoenwaeld，“管理信息的结构版本2（SMIv2）”，STD 58，RFC 2578，1999年4月。
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC2579]McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，和J.Schoenwaeld，“SMIv2的文本约定”，STD 58，RFC 2579，1999年4月。
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[RFC2580]McCloghrie，K.，Perkins，D.，和J.Schoenwaeld，“SMIv2的一致性声明”，STD 58，RFC 25801999年4月。
[RFC3513] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[RFC3513]Hinden，R.和S.Deering，“互联网协议版本6（IPv6）寻址体系结构”，RFC 3513，2003年4月。
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, February 2005.
[RFC4007]Deering，S.，Haberman，B.，Jinmei，T.，Nordmark，E.，和B.Zill，“IPv6作用域地址体系结构”，RFC 4007，2005年2月。
[RFC2553] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553, March 1999.
[RFC2553]Gilligan，R.，Thomson，S.，Bound，J.，和W.Stevens，“IPv6的基本套接字接口扩展”，RFC 25531999年3月。
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC2863]McCloghrie，K.和F.Kastenholz，“接口组MIB”，RFC 28632000年6月。
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
[RFC3410]Case，J.，Mundy，R.，Partain，D.，和B.Stewart，“互联网标准管理框架的介绍和适用性声明”，RFC 34102002年12月。
[RFC3419] Daniele, M. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Transport Addresses", RFC 3419, December 2002.
[RFC3419]Daniele，M.和J.Schoenwaeld，“运输地址的文本约定”，RFC 3419，2002年12月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Michael Daniele SyAM Software, Inc. 1 Chestnut St, Suite 3-I Nashua, NH 03060 USA
美国新罕布什尔州纳舒亚市切斯特大街1号3-I套房Michael Daniele SyAM软件有限公司，邮编03060
Phone: +1 603 598-9575
EMail: michael.daniele@syamsoftware.com
Phone: +1 603 598-9575
EMail: michael.daniele@syamsoftware.com
Brian Haberman Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD 20723-6099 USA
布莱恩·哈伯曼·约翰·霍普金斯大学应用物理实验室美国马里兰州劳雷尔市约翰·霍普金斯路11100号20723-6099
Phone: +1-443-778-1319
EMail: brian@innovationslab.net
Phone: +1-443-778-1319
EMail: brian@innovationslab.net
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: shawn.routhier@windriver.com
Phone: +1 510 749-2095
EMail: shawn.routhier@windriver.com
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561 28725 Bremen Germany
德国不来梅Juergen Schoenwaeld国际大学邮政信箱750 561 28725不来梅
Phone: +49 421 200-3587
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Phone: +49 421 200-3587
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78和www.rfc-editor.org中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，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。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关ISOC文件中权利的ISOC程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权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，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
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。