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-----