RE: RFC 2576 vs IPv6

"Philip J. Nesser II" <[email protected]> Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:16:30 -0800
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.snmpv3
Organization Nesser & Nesser Consulting
Message-ID <071501c2d864$8daf4b80$bf3b68c0@A30P>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Randy,

Thanks.  I will make updates in the -01 version.  The whole goal is
to solicit input from the people who have a much more intimate
knowledge of individual protocols than I do.  It has been a daunting
task and it is hard to fit everything together when you are trying to
digest 900 or so protocol documents.  I really appreciate your time
to read through the document and make your comments.

I am currently taking input from (hopefully) a lot of independent
sources and putting then all together.  

- --->  Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RFC 2576 vs IPv6
> 
> Hi -
> 
> I think the analysis of RFC 2576 in section 5.070 (see below) of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-ops-00.txt is incorrect.
> These rules for handling legacy data which happen to be
> IPv4 addresses have no bearing on the ability to operate
> in or manage IPv6 environments.
> 
> Randy
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 5.070 RFC 2576 Coexistence between Version 1 Version 2 and Version
>       3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework
> (SNMP)  
> 
> This document states:
> 
>    (11) For any object with a SYNTAX of NetworkAddress, the SYNTAX
> MUST 
>         be changed to IpAddress.  Note that the use of
> NetworkAddress in 
>         new MIB documents is strongly discouraged (in fact, new MIB
>         documents should be written using SMIv2, which does not
> define 
>         NetworkAddress).
> 
> and defines the OID:
> 
> snmpTrapAddress OBJECT-TYPE
>     SYNTAX      IpAddress
>     MAX-ACCESS  accessible-for-notify
>     STATUS      current
>     DESCRIPTION
>         "The value of the agent-addr field of a Trap PDU which
>          is forwarded by a proxy forwarder application using
>          an SNMP version other than SNMPv1.  The value of this
>          object SHOULD contain the value of the agent-addr field
>          from the original Trap PDU as generated by an SNMPv1
>          agent."
>     ::= { snmpCommunityMIBObjects 3 }
> 
> This clearly points out a lack of IPv6 awareness in this protocol.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPlQCPg6aViIxlRuuEQLw/QCg0nGe7nuJP/qbnzmrliplJeU5An8AoMgP
CvZn2bjaSwLlxx2p6gjcML0A
=vY41
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----