Internet-Draft                Endpoint MIB            October 1999
Expires April, 2000

                            Internet Endpoint MIB


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.


   This MIB module defines constructs to represent commonly used
   addressing information.  The intent is that these definitions
   will be imported and used in the various MIBs that would otherwise
   define their own representations.  This work is output from the
   Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB" design team.

1.  The SNMP Management Framework

   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major

    o   An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571].

    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 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC
        1215 [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described
        in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and RFC 2580

    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 [RFC1157]. A second version of the
        SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
        protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901]
        and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the message
        protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [RFC1906],
        RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574].

    o   Protocol operations for accessing management information. The
        first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
        described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of
        protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in
        RFC 1905 [RFC1905].

    o   A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573
        [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described
        in RFC 2575 [RFC2575].

   A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework
   can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570].

   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.

   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

2. Definitions



   LAST-UPDATED "9910210000Z"
   CONTACT-INFO "Send comments to"
        "A MIB module for Internet address definitions."
   ::= { ??? }

-- New TCs for representing generic Internet endpoints.
-- These are roughly equivalent to TDomain and TAddress...

-- Internet endpoints types
    STATUS       current
          "A value that represents a type of Internet endpoint.

           Note that it is possible to sub-type objects defined with
           this syntax by removing one or more enumerated values.
           The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects (or their corresponding
           InetEndpoint object) must document specific usage."

    STATUS       current
          "Denotes an generic Internet endpoint.

          A InetEndpoint value is always interpreted within the context of a
          InetEndpointType value.  Thus, each definition of a InetEndpointType
          value must be accompanied by a definition of a textual convention
          for use with that InetEndpointType.

          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].  In this case, it is recommended that the OBJECT-TYPE
          declaration include a 'SIZE' clause to limit the number of potential
          instance sub-identifiers."
    REFERENCE "See the TAddress TC in std58."
    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

-- TCs for specific Internet endpoint values.

-- IPv4 Address

    DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
    STATUS       current
            "Represents an IPv4 network address:

               octets   contents        encoding
                1-4     IP address      network-byte order

             The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv4(1)."

-- IPv6 Address

    DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x"
    STATUS       current
            "Represents an IPv6 network address:

                octets   contents        encoding
                 1-16    IPv6 address    network-byte order

             The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv6(2)."
     REFERENCE "See the Ipv6Address TC in RFC 2465."
     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (16))

-- DNS Name

    DISPLAY-HINT "255a"
    STATUS       current
            "Represents a fully qualified DNS host name.
             The corresponding InetEndpointType is dns(3).

             The DESCRIPTION clause of InetEndpoint objects that
             may have InetEndpointDNS values must fully describe
             how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP
     REFERENCE "RFCs 952 and 1123."
     SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))


3. Usage

    These definitions provide a mechanism to define generic
    Internet-accessible endpoints within MIB specifications.
    It is recommended that MIB developers use these definitions
    when applicable, as opposed to defining their own constructs.

    A generic Internet endpoint consists of two objects,
    one whose syntax is InetEndpointType, and another whose
    syntax is InetEndpoint.  The value of the first object
    determines how the value of the second object is encoded.

    One particular usage of InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs
    is to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the
    use of the IpAddress syntax.  IpAddress limits an implementation
    to using IPv4 addresses only, and as such SHOULD only be used
    when the object truly is IPv4-specific.

4. Indexing

    When a generic Internet endpoint is used as an index, both
    the InetEndpointType and InetEndpoint objects MUST be used, and
    the InetEndpointType object MUST come first in the INDEX clause.

    The InetEndpointType object may be subtyped such that the resulting
    index is of fixed length.  But the more common usage will result
    in variable-length indexes.

    For variable length indexes, the IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used
    in the INDEX clause.  Instance subidentifiers are then of the form
    T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetEndpointType object,
    O1...On are the octets in the InetEndpoint object, and N is the
    number of those octets.

    There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed
    in this fashion.  Command generator applications may

        o lookup specific endpoints of known type and value
        o issue GetNext requests for endpoints of a single type
        o issue GetNext requests for specific type and address prefix

    It should be pointed out that another valid approach is to
    define separate tables for different address types.  For example,
    one table might be indexed by an IpAddress object, and the other
    table indexed by an Ipv6Address object.  This is a decision for the
    MIB designer.  (For example, the tcpConnTable was left intact and a new
    table added for TCP connections over IPv6, see RFC 2452.)

5. Uniqueness of Addresses

    IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current
    usage notwithstanding.  IPv6 addresses were architected to
    have different scopes and hence uniqueness.  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 IPv6 address/interface is unique.

    For tables indexed by InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs, where
    there may be non-unique instances of InetEndpointIPv6, the recommended
    approach is to add a third index object to ensure uniqueness.

    It is recommended that the syntax of this third index object be
    InterfaceIndexOrZero, imported from IF-MIB [RFC2233].  The value
    of this object SHOULD be 0 when the value of the InetEndpointType
    object is not ipv6(2).

6. Multiple InetEndpoints per Host

    Note that a single host system may be configured with multiple
    addresses (IPv4 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names.
    Thus it is possible for a single host system to be represented
    by multiple (unique) InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs.

    If this could be an implementation or usage issue the DESCRIPTION
    clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe required

7. Resolving DNS Names

    DNS names are translated to IP addresses when communication with
    a 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?

    For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding
    destination, and whose value is a DNS name.  When does the
    forwarding entity resolve the DNS name?  Each time forwarding occurs?
    Once, when the object was instantiated?

    The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define
    how (when) any required name to address resolution is done.

8. Usage Examples

    Example 1:

        fooTable OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      SEQUENCE OF FooEntry
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The foo table."
                ::= { bar 1 }

        fooEntry OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      FooEntry
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "A foo entry."
                INDEX      { fooPartnerType, fooPartner }
                ::= { fooTable 1 }

        FooEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
                fooPartnerType  InetEndpointType,
                fooPartner      InetEndpoint,
                fooStatus       INTEGER,
                fooDescr        OCTET STRING

        fooPartnerType ::= OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      InetEndpointType
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The type of Internet endpoint by which the partner is reachable."
                ::= { fooEntry 1 }

        fooPartner ::= OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      InetEndpoint (SIZE (0..64))
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The Internet endpoint for the partner.  Note that implementations
                 must limit themselves to a single entry in this table per reachable
                 partner.  Also, if an Ipv6 endpoint is used, it must contain a globally
                 unique IPv6 address."
                ::= { fooEntry 2 }

    Example 2:

        sysAddrTable OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      SEQUENCE OF SysAddrEntry
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The sysAddr table."
                ::= { sysAddr 1 }

        sysAddrEntry OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      SysAddrEntry
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "A sysAddr entry."
                INDEX      { sysAddrType, sysAddr, sysAddrIfIndex }
                ::= { sysAddrTable 1 }

        SysAddrEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
                sysAddrPartnerType      InetEndpointType,
                sysAddrPartner          InetEndpoint,
                sysAddrIfIndex          InterfaceIndexOrZero,
                sysAddrStatus           INTEGER,
                sysAddrDescr            OCTET STRING

        sysAddrType ::= OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      InetEndpointType {
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The type of system address."
                ::= { sysAddrEntry 1 }

        sysAddr ::= OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX      InetEndpoint (SIZE (4 | 16))
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The system address."
                ::= { sysAddrEntry 2 }

        sysAddrIfIndex ::= OBJECT-TYPE
                SYNTAX     InterfaceIndexOrZero
                MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
                STATUS      current
                "The system address interface.  This object is used to disambiguate
                 duplicate system IPv6 addresses, and should be 0 for non-duplicate
                ::= { sysAddrEntry 3 }

9. References

[RFC2233]   K. McCloghrie, and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB
            using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997

[RFC2571]   Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture
            for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April

[RFC1155]   Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification
            of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD
            16, RFC 1155, May 1990

[RFC1212]   Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD
            16, RFC 1212, March 1991

[RFC1215]   M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the
            SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991

[RFC2578]   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

[RFC2579]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
            Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for
            SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999

[RFC2580]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
            Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for
            SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999

[RFC1157]   Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple
            Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.

[RFC1901]   Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
            "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January

[RFC1906]   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.

[RFC2572]   Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message
            Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
            Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999

[RFC2574]   Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
            (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
            Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999

[RFC1905]   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.

[RFC2573]   Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications",
            RFC 2573, April 1999

[RFC2575]   Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based
            Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network
            Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999

[RFC2570]   Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
            "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network
            Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999

10. Authors

    This work was done by the IETF Ops Area "IPv6MIB" Design Team.
    Comments should be posted to

11. Notices

   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 propritary
   rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
   from the IETF Secretariat.

   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

12. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

   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

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

13. Appendix A

    This appendix lists the issues raised over common addressing
    MIB constructs, and the reasoning for the decisions made in
    this module.

    1. Efficient table lookups

       Some existing MIBs have tables of generic addresses, indexed
       by a random integer.  This makes it impossible to lookup
       specific addresses, or issue meaningful GetNext operations.

    2. Common addressing should be defined such that no SMI changes
       are required.

       For example, the use of the ASN.1 CHOICE would really be an SMI

    3. TCs and DISPLAY-HINTS

       A single object that contains both address type and value
       does not provide a way to express the display characteristics
       of each type.

       (Also, such a single object requires code changes to handle updates,
        whereas the solution chosen requires only MIB updates.)

    4. Document the possible non-uniqueness of IPv6 addresses, and the
       impact on indexing tables.

    5. TDomain/TAddress limited to transport services

       It was unclear if network layer addresses were appropriate
       for use in TAddress values, since std58 refers specifically to
       "transport addresses".

       This point is less important than std58's definition that
       TAddress values always be defined in the context of TDomain
       values.  Since did not want to index by OIDs, we did not
       use TDomain and hence cannot use TAddress.

    6. Harness the use of IpAddress

       Several standard-track MIBs have used IpAddress syntax
       inadvertently, needlessly limiting implementations to IPv4.

       The specification under development should address this.

    7. DNS names in addition to addresses

       It is useful to be able to specify a system via a DNS name,
       so the common addressing mechanism should support them.

Expires April, 2000