RFC 3796
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
RFC 3796 🎀 (Part 1 of 7)
Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
okay so the title block 💅 It's an Informational doc (category), dated June 2004, from the Network Working Group. The main author is P. Nesser, II from Nesser & Nesser Consulting, and A. Bergstrom, Ed. (the Ed. means editor) is from Ostfold University College. The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so there's nothing to worry about there 🦋
Status of this Memo ✨
this memo is giving "just here to share info" 🧚 It's for the Internet community, it does not specify an Internet standard of any kind, and distribution is totally unlimited.
Copyright Notice 🔥
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract 🌸
okay this is the big-picture vibe. The doc wants to write down every single place IPv4 addresses are used in IETF Operations & Management Area standards that are currently deployed. The whole Internet is moving from all-IPv4 to all-IPv6, and that's going to take a bunch of interim steps 🫶 One of those steps is updating existing protocols that depend on IPv4. The hope is that these protocols (and their implementations) get redesigned so they don't depend on a specific network address, but if that doesn't happen, they should at least support IPv4 and IPv6 together. So the plan is to survey all Standards (Full, Draft, and Proposed) plus Experimental RFCs and document every dependency we find 👑
Table of Contents ✨
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Document Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.1. Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.2. Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.3. Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.4. Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.1. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431. Introduction 🦋
this doc is one piece of a set that's recording every use of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards 💖 To keep it manageable, the set got split into 7 documents, matching the current IETF areas (Application, Internet, Operations & Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP and Transport).
for the full intro, check out the introduction [1].
2. Document Organization 🌈
here's how it's laid out 📚 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each give the raw analysis for Full, Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs. Each RFC gets its own turn, going from RFC 1 up to (around) RFC 3100. The comments are "raw," meaning each RFC gets judged in a vacuum. Problems don't "look ahead" to see whether a later RFC already fixed them 🙈
Section 7 is the analysis of everything in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6. That's where we look at all the results together and connect the problems that later RFCs resolved ✨
3. Full Standards 👑
Full Internet Standards (usually just called "Standards") are fully mature protocol specifications. They're widely implemented and used all over the Internet, so they're the real main characters 💅
3.1. RFC 1155 Structure of Management Information 🎀
Section 3.2.3.2. IpAddress says this:
This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address.
It is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network
byte-order.there are several places in the rest of the doc that use this definition 🫶
3.2. RFC 1212 Concise MIB definitions 🌸
in section 4.1.6, IpAddress is defined as:
(6) IpAddress-valued: 4 sub-identifiers, in the familiar
a.b.c.d notation.3.3. RFC 1213 Management Information Base 🍓
okay there are WAY too many instances of IPv4 addresses in this document to list them all here 😭 The object groups that get hit hardest are the IP group, the ICMP group, the TCP group, the UDP group, and the EGP group.
3.4. RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) 💜
Section 7.1.5 defines the IpAddress data type:
The IpAddress type represents a 32-bit internet address. It is
represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order.
Note that the IpAddress type is a tagged type for historical
reasons. Network addresses should be represented using an
invocation of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro.note the deprecated status of this type! see RFC 3291 for the details on the replacement TEXTUAL-CONVENTION definitions 💅
3.5. RFC 2579 Textual Conventions for SMIv2 🦋
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec, bestie ✨
3.6. RFC 2580 Conformance Statements for SMIv2 🧚
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec either 💖
3.7. RFC 2819 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base 🌈
no IPv4 dependencies here 🫶
3.8. RFC 3411 An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks 🎀
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 💅
3.9. RFC 3412 Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 🌸
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec, periodt 🔥
3.10. RFC 3413 SNMP Applications ⭐
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec ✨
3.11. RFC 3414 User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 💜
3.12. RFC 3415 View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 🦋
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🙌
3.13. RFC 3416 Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 🧚
okay, so Section 4.2.2.1 (Example of Table Traversal) and Section 4.2.3.1 (Another Example of Table Traversal) both use objects from MIB2 whose data contains IPv4 addresses. Other than those example sections, there are no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🌈
3.14. RFC 3417 Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 💖
Section 2 Definitions has this one:
SnmpUDPAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d/2d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a UDP address:
octets contents encoding
1-4 IP-address network-byte order
5-6 UDP-port network-byte order
"
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))Section 8.1 (Usage Example) also has examples that use an IPv4 address, but those don't matter to how the spec operates 🎀
3.15. RFC 3418 Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 🫶
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 💅
4. Draft Standards ✨
Draft Standards are the penultimate standard level in the IETF 🥺 A protocol can only reach draft standard once there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations. They're usually pretty mature and widely used, so they're almost there!
4.1. RFC 1493 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges 🌸
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🫶
4.2. RFC 1559 DECnet Phase IV MIB Extensions 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 💜
4.3. RFC 1657 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2 🌈
okay so the MIB in this RFC deals with objects in a BGP4-based routing system, so it has lots of objects that are limited by the IpAddress 32-bit value defined in MIB2. Clearly, the values in this MIB are limited to IPv4 addresses 🙈 No update is needed, though a new MIB should be defined for BGP4+ so people can manage IPv6 addresses and routes 🧚
4.4. RFC 1658 Definitions of Managed Objects for Character Stream Devices using SMIv2 🦋
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec ✨
4.5. RFC 1659 Definitions of Managed Objects for RS-232-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 💖
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🎀
4.6. RFC 1660 Definitions of Managed Objects for Parallel-printer-like Hardware Devices using SMIv2 🌸
no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 💅
4.7. RFC 1694 Definitions of Managed Objects for SMDS Interfaces using SMIv2 🦋
okay so this MIB module defines the following subtree 🌸
ipOverSMDS OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { smdsApplications 1 }
-- Although the objects in this group are read-only, at the
-- agent's discretion they may be made read-write so that the
-- management station, when appropriately authorized, may
-- change the addressing information related to the
-- configuration of a logical IP subnetwork implemented on
-- top of SMDS.
-- This table is necessary to support RFC1209 (IP-over-SMDS)
-- and gives information on the Group Addresses and ARP
-- Addresses used in the Logical IP subnetwork.
-- One SMDS address may be associated with multiple IP
-- addresses. One SNI may be associated with multiple LISs.
ipOverSMDSTable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpOverSMDSEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The table of addressing information relevant to
this entity's IP addresses."
::= { ipOverSMDS 1 }
ipOverSMDSEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpOverSMDSEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The addressing information for one of this
entity's IP addresses."
INDEX { ipOverSMDSIndex, ipOverSMDSAddress }
::= { ipOverSMDSTable 1 }
IpOverSMDSEntry ::=
SEQUENCE {
ipOverSMDSIndex IfIndex,
ipOverSMDSAddress IpAddress,
ipOverSMDSHA SMDSAddress,
ipOverSMDSLISGA SMDSAddress,
ipOverSMDSARPReq SMDSAddress
}
ipOverSMDSIndex OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IfIndex
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The value of this object identifies the
interface for which this entry contains management
information. "
::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 1 }
ipOverSMDSAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The IP address to which this entry's addressing
information pertains."
::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 2 }
ipOverSMDSHA OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SMDSAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The SMDS Individual address of the IP station."
::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 3 }
ipOverSMDSLISGA OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SMDSAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The SMDS Group Address that has been configured
to identify the SMDS Subscriber-Network Interfaces
(SNIs) of all members of the Logical IP Subnetwork
(LIS) connected to the network supporting SMDS."
::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 4 }
ipOverSMDSARPReq OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SMDSAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The SMDS address (individual or group) to which
ARP Requests are to be sent."
::= { ipOverSMDSEntry 5 }ngl these objects are built for IPv4 addresses, but a similar MIB can totally be defined for IPv6 addressing too ✨🌈
4.8. RFC 1724 RIP Version 2 MIB Extension 💅
As expected, this RFC is loaded with IPv4 dependencies 🙈 because it defines a MIB module for an IPv4-only routing protocol. A new MIB for RIPng is required, bestie.
4.9. RFC 1748 IEEE 802.5 MIB using SMIv2 🌸
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Clean! 🫶
4.10. RFC 1850 OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base 🔥
This MIB defines managed objects for OSPFv2, which is the protocol used to exchange IPv4 routing information. Since OSPFv2 is limited to IPv4 addresses, a new MIB is required to support a new version of OSPF that is IPv6 aware. It's giving "upgrade era" 👑
4.11. RFC 2115 Management Information Base for Frame Relay DTEs Using SMIv2 🦋
This specification has a few examples of how IPv4 addresses might be mapped to Frame Relay DLCIs. Other than those examples, there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Lowkey just examples, no drama 💖
4.12. RFC 2790 Host Resources MIB ✨
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Easy pass 🧚
4.13. RFC 2863 The Interfaces Group MIB 🎀
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. There is some discussion in one object definition about an interface performing a self test, but the object itself is IP version independent. So the self test bit is there, but the object doesn't care about IP version at all 💅
4.14. RFC 3592 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) 🌈
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. No cap 🧢✨
4.15. RFC 3593 Textual Conventions for MIB Modules Using Performance History Based on 15 Minute Intervals 💜
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Periodt 💅
5. Proposed Standards 🦋
okay so Proposed Standards are the introductory level documents 🌸 There are no requirements for even a single implementation! In lots of cases, Proposed ones never get implemented or advanced through the IETF standards process, so they're often just proposed ideas that get put in front of the Internet community. Sometimes flaws get exposed, or they're one of many competing solutions to the same problem. In those later cases, no discussion is presented, because it wouldn't serve the purpose of this discussion 🙈
5.1. RFC 1239 Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs ✨
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🫶
5.2. RFC 1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway Protocol: Version 3 💀
The use of BGP3 has been deprecated, so it's not discussed. Bye bye, BGP3 👋
5.3. RFC 1285 FDDI Management Information Base 🌸
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 💖
5.4. RFC 1381 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB 🎀
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🧚
5.5. RFC 1382 SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer 🌈
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. ⭐
5.6. RFC 1414 Identification MIB 💜
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🍓
5.7. RFC 1418 SNMP over OSI 🦋
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 💅
5.8. RFC 1419 SNMP over AppleTalk 🌸
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🫶
5.9. RFC 1420 SNMP over IPX ✨
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 👑
5.10. RFC 1461 SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 🔥
The following objects are defined in Section 4, Definitions:
mioxPleLastFailedEnAddr OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(2..128))
ACCESS read-only
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The last Encapsulated address that failed
to find a corresponding X.121 address and
caused mioxPleEnAddrToX121LkupFlrs to be
incremented. The first octet of this object
contains the encapsulation type, the
remaining octets contain the address of that
type that failed. Thus for an IP address,
the length will be five octets, the first
octet will contain 204 (hex CC), and the
last four octets will contain the IP
address. For a snap encapsulation, the
first byte would be 128 (hex 80) and the
rest of the octet string would have the snap
header."
::= { mioxPleEntry 4 }
mioxPeerEnAddr OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..128))
ACCESS read-write
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The Encapsulation address of the remote
host mapped by this table entry. A length
of zero indicates the remote IP address is
unknown or unspecified for use as a PLE
default.
The first octet of this object contains the
encapsulation type, the remaining octets
contain an address of that type. Thus for
an IP address, the length will be five
octets, the first octet will contain 204
(hex CC), and the last four octets will
contain the IP address. For a snap
encapsulation, the first byte would be 128
(hex 80) and the rest of the octet string
would have the snap header."
DEFVAL { ''h }
::= { mioxPeerEntry 7 }
mioxPeerEncType OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER (0..256)
ACCESS read-write
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The value of the encapsulation type. For
IP encapsulation this will have a value of
204 (hex CC). For SNAP encapsulated
packets, this will have a value of 128 (hex
80). For CLNP, ISO 8473, this will have a
value of 129 (hex 81). For ES-ES, ISO 9542,
this will have a value of 130 (hex 82). A
value of 197 (hex C5) identifies the Blacker
X.25 encapsulation. A value of 0,
identifies the Null encapsulation.
This value can only be written when the
mioxPeerStatus object with the same
mioxPeerIndex has a value of underCreation.
Setting this object to a value of 256
deletes the entry. When deleting an entry,
all other entries in the mioxPeerEncTable
with the same mioxPeerIndex and with an
mioxPeerEncIndex higher then the deleted
entry, will all have their mioxPeerEncIndex
values decremented by one."
::= { mioxPeerEncEntry 2 }Updated values of the first byte of these objects can be defined to support IPv6 addresses. So the byte values can get an IPv6 glow-up later on 🌈✨
5.11. RFC 1471 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol 🧚
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 💖
5.12. RFC 1472 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol 🛡️
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🫶
5.13. RFC 1473 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol 🔥
This MIB module is targeted specifically at IPv4 over PPP. A new MIB module would need to be defined to support IPv6 over PPP, so that's a whole new project 💅
5.14. RFC 1474 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol 🌸
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🎀
5.15. RFC 1512 FDDI Management Information Base 🦋
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. ✨
5.16. RFC 1513 Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB 💜
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🌈
5.17. RFC 1525 Definitions of Managed Objects for Source Routing Bridges 🍓
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 💅
5.18. RFC 1628 UPS Management Information Base ⭐
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🫶
5.19. RFC 1666 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 👑
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 🧚
5.20. RFC 1696 Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 🌸
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. 💖
5.21. RFC 1697 Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 🔥
There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Literally the easiest one yet 💅✨
5.22. RFC 1742 AppleTalk Management Information Base II ✨
okay so this one defines the AppleTalk routing entry table, and the object list starts with the KipEntry sequence 🎀
KipEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
kipNetStart ATNetworkNumber,
kipNetEnd ATNetworkNumber,
kipNextHop IpAddress,
kipHopCount INTEGER,
kipBCastAddr IpAddress,
kipCore INTEGER,
kipType INTEGER,
kipState INTEGER,
kipShare INTEGER,
kipFrom IpAddress
}
kipNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
ACCESS read-write
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The IP address of the next hop in the route to this
entry's destination network."
::= { kipEntry 3 }
kipBCastAddr OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
ACCESS read-write
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The form of the IP address used to broadcast on this
network."
::= { kipEntry 5 }
kipFrom OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
ACCESS read-only
STATUS mandatory
DESCRIPTION
"The IP address from which the routing entry was
learned via the AA protocol. If this entry was not
created via the AA protocol, it should contain IP
address 0.0.0.0."
::= { kipEntry 10 }The big takeaway: kipNextHop holds the IP address of the next hop toward the destination network 🌸, kipBCastAddr is the form of IP address used to broadcast on that network 📡, and kipFrom records the IP address a route was learned from via the AA protocol 🦋. If the route wasn't created via AA, kipFrom holds 0.0.0.0 🫶
5.23. RFC 1747 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data Link Control (SDLC) using SMIv2 💜
no IPv4 dependencies here, bestie 🙌
5.24. RFC 1749 IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2 🌈
also no IPv4 dependencies! we love a clean one 💅
5.25. RFC 1759 Printer MIB 🖨️
same deal: no IPv4 dependencies in this spec ✨
5.26. RFC 2006 The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2 🧚
this one defines a MIB for Mobile IPv4. and no cap, it straight up says a brand new MIB for IPv6 Mobility is required 😭 so the IPv6 version is its own project
5.27. RFC 2011 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol using SMIv2 🍓
roughly 1/3 of the objects in this doc are IPv4-dependent 💀 which means new objects need to be defined to support IPv6. big glow-up energy needed here
5.28. RFC 2012 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2 🔥
a bunch of object definitions in this MIB assume IPv4 addresses, and the IESG wrote a note about it. here's the note, word for word:
IESG Note:
The IP, UDP, and TCP MIB modules currently support only IPv4.
These three modules use the IpAddress type defined as an OCTET
STRING of length 4 to represent the IPv4 32-bit internet
addresses. (See RFC 1902, SMI for SNMPv2.) They do not support
the new 128-bit IPv6 internet addresses.5.29. RFC 2013 SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol using SMIv2 🦄
same vibe as RFC 2012! a number of object definitions here assume IPv4 addresses, and the IESG note is the same one:
IESG Note:
The IP, UDP, and TCP MIB modules currently support only IPv4.
These three modules use the IpAddress type defined as an OCTET
STRING of length 4 to represent the IPv4 32-bit internet
addresses. (See RFC 1902, SMI for SNMPv2.) They do not support
the new 128-bit IPv6 internet addresses.5.30. RFC 2020 IEEE 802.12 Interface MIB 🌟
no IPv4 dependencies in this one either. clean and iconic 💖
5.31. RFC 2021 Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base Version 2 using SMIv2
okay so this one is the RMON2 MIB and it is ALL about network addresses 🌸 the objects below are the ones defined in here:
addressMapNetworkAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network address for this relation.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the
index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { addressMapEntry 2 }nlHostAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network address for this nlHostEntry.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlHostEntry 2 }nlMatrixSDSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network source address for this nlMatrixSDEntry.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixSDEntry 2 }nlMatrixSDDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network destination address for this
nlMatrixSDEntry.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixSDEntry 3 }nlMatrixDSSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network source address for this nlMatrixDSEntry.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixDSEntry 2 }nlMatrixDSDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network destination address for this
nlMatrixDSEntry.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the protocolDirLocalIndex component of the index.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixDSEntry 3 }nlMatrixTopNSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network layer address of the source host in this
conversation.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the associated nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex.
For example, if the protocolDirLocalIndex indicates an
encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a length
octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip address,
in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixTopNEntry 3 }nlMatrixTopNDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network layer address of the destination host in this
conversation.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the associated nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex.
For example, if the nlMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex
indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a
length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip
address, in network byte order."
::= { nlMatrixTopNEntry 4 }alMatrixTopNSourceAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network layer address of the source host in this
conversation.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the associated alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex.
For example, if the alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex
indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a
length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the
ip address, in network byte order."
::= { alMatrixTopNEntry 3 }alMatrixTopNDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The network layer address of the destination host in this
conversation.
This is represented as an octet string with
specific semantics and length as identified
by the associated alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex.
For example, if the alMatrixTopNProtocolDirLocalIndex
indicates an encapsulation of ip, this object is encoded as a
length octet of 4, followed by the 4 octets of the ip
address, in network byte order."
::= { alMatrixTopNEntry 4 }trapDestProtocol OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {
ip(1),
ipx(2)
}
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The protocol with which to send this trap."
::= { trapDestEntry 3 }trapDestAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The address to send traps on behalf of this entry.
If the associated trapDestProtocol object is equal to ip(1),
the encoding of this object is the same as the snmpUDPAddress
textual convention in [RFC1906]:
-- for a SnmpUDPAddress of length 6:
--
-- octets contents encoding
-- 1-4 IP-address network-byte order
-- 5-6 UDP-port network-byte order
If the associated trapDestProtocol object is equal to ipx(2),
the encoding of this object is the same as the snmpIPXAddress
textual convention in [RFC1906]:
-- for a SnmpIPXAddress of length 12:
--
-- octets contents encoding
-- 1-4 network-number network-byte order
-- 5-10 physical-address network-byte order
-- 11-12 socket-number network-byte order
This object may not be modified if the associated
trapDestStatus object is equal to active(1)."
::= { trapDestEntry 4 }so the big catch here is that basically every object above only talks about IPv4 addresses 🙈 BUT since they're all OCTET STRING, they should work fine for IPv6 addresses too, fr. the one exception is trapDestProtocol, which would need a new ipv6(3) value added to its SYNTAX to make this spec actually functional for IPv6 💜
5.32. RFC 2024 Definitions of Managed Objects for Data Link Switching using SMIv2
the textual conventions in this one are giving DLSw realness 🦋
TAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a transport service address.
For dlswTCPDomain, a TAddress is 4 octets long,
containing the IP-address in network-byte order."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))-- DLSw over TCP
dlswTCPDomain OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { dlswDomains 1 }
-- for an IP address of length 4:
--
-- octets contents encoding
-- 1-4 IP-address network-byte order
--
DlswTCPAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents the IP address of a DLSw which uses
TCP as a transport protocol."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))so there are a bunch of object definitions that use TAddress as their SYNTAX 👀 and here's the tea: TAddress is an OCTET string of up to 256 characters, which means it could honestly fit a similar hybrid format for IPv6 addresses no problem 🌈 a new OID to level up DlswTCPAddress so it supports IPv6 addresses could also be added ✨
5.33. RFC 2051 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC using SMIv2
zero IPv4 dependencies in this one, bestie 💅
5.34. RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB
ngl this one's a little sad 🥺 the main conceptual table, ipCidrRouteTable, uses IPv4 addresses as index objects, so it literally can't represent an IPv6 forwarding information base. a brand new conceptual table would need to be defined to support IPv6 addresses 🧚
5.35. RFC 2108 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices using SMIv2 802
no IPv4 stuff to worry about here 🍓
5.36. RFC 2127 ISDN Management Information Base using SMIv2
clean slate, no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🌸
5.37. RFC 2128 Dial Control Management Information Base using SMIv2
same energy as the last one, nothing IPv4-flavoured in here 💖
5.38. RFC 2206 RSVP Management Information Base using SMIv2
this one is serving dual-stack realness ✨ all of the relevant object definitions have options for both IPv4 and IPv6, so there's no IPv4 dependency going on in this spec 🫶
5.39. RFC 2213 Integrated Services Management Information Base using SMIv2
this MIB is already IPv6 aware, so, once again, nothing IPv4-dependent in this spec 🦋
5.40. RFC 2214 Integrated Services Management Information Base Guaranteed Service Extensions using SMIv2
no IPv4 dependencies here either 🌈
5.41. RFC 2232 Definitions of Managed Objects for DLUR using SMIv2
zero IPv4 dependencies, periodt 💅
5.42. RFC 2238 Definitions of Managed Objects for HPR using SMIv2
also clean, no IPv4 dependencies in this spec 🧚
5.43. RFC 2266 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.12 Repeater Devices
and to close things out, the vibes are clean here too 🎀 there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ⭐
5.44. RFC 2287 Definitions of System-Level Managed Objects for Applications ✨
RFC 2287 has zero IPv4 drama, bestie. 💖 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification, so it's giving clean and IPv6-friendly. 🫶
5.45. RFC 2320 Definitions of Managed Objects for Classical IP and ARP Over ATM Using SMIv2 (IPOA-MIB) 💀
Okay, this one is a full IPv4 situation 😭. This MIB is wholly dependent on IPv4, so we're going to need a brand-new MIB for IPv6 if we want the same functionality. Not me needing to make a whole new MIB 🙈
5.46. RFC 2417 Definitions of Managed Objects for Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 based ATM Networks 🦋
Same energy as 5.45, sadly. This MIB is wholly dependent on IPv4, so an IPv6 MIB is required to give you the same functionality. 🥲
5.47. RFC 2452 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol 🌸
This RFC documents an IPv6 MIB that's about to be obsoleted, so we're not really considering it here. Bye bye, next! 👋
5.48. RFC 2454 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol 🌸
Another soon-to-be-obsoleted IPv6 MIB, so it's out of the discussion. Moving on, periodt 💅
5.49. RFC 2455 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN
No IPv4 dependencies here. Clean girl energy ✨
5.50. RFC 2456 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN TRAPS
Also no IPv4 dependencies. Iconic consistency 👑
5.51. RFC 2457 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extended Border Node
Still no IPv4 dependencies! Honestly the vibes are immaculate 🌈
5.52. RFC 2465 Management Information Base for IP Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group
This one is another soon-to-be-obsoleted IPv6 MIB, so we're skipping it in this discussion. 🧚
5.53. RFC 2466 Management Information Base for IP Version 6: ICMPv6 Group
Same deal: it's an IPv6 MIB about to be obsoleted, so it's not considered here. Next 🫠
5.54. RFC 2494 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS0 and DS0 Bundle Interface Type
No IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Lowkey so relaxing 🍓
5.55. RFC 2495 Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1, E1, DS2 and E2 Interface Types
No IPv4 dependencies here either. Not a single IPv4 in sight, which is giving main character energy 💜
5.56. RFC 2496 Definitions of Managed Object for the DS3/E3 Interface Type
Still zero IPv4 dependencies. The DS3/E3 interface types are just vibing with no drama ✨
5.57. RFC 2512 Accounting Information for ATM Networks
No IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Accounting, but make it IPv6-proof 💅
5.58. RFC 2513 Managed Objects for Controlling the Collection and Storage of Accounting Information for Connection-Oriented Networks
No IPv4 dependencies! Connection-oriented networks really said "we don't need IPv4" and I'm obsessed 🫶
5.59. RFC 2514 Definitions of Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for ATM Management
No IPv4 dependencies here. The textual conventions and identities are all good 🌸
5.60. RFC 2515 Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management 🎀
Okay, this one's a mix of things, so let's look at the actual objects it defines. Here's the sequence for the ATM interface configuration entry:
AtmInterfaceConfEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
atmInterfaceMaxVpcs INTEGER,
atmInterfaceMaxVccs INTEGER,
atmInterfaceConfVpcs INTEGER,
atmInterfaceConfVccs INTEGER,
atmInterfaceMaxActiveVpiBits INTEGER,
atmInterfaceMaxActiveVciBits INTEGER,
atmInterfaceIlmiVpi AtmVpIdentifier,
atmInterfaceIlmiVci AtmVcIdentifier,
atmInterfaceAddressType INTEGER,
atmInterfaceAdminAddress AtmAddr,
atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress IpAddress,
atmInterfaceMyNeighborIfName DisplayString,
atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVpiBits INTEGER,
atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVciBits INTEGER,
atmInterfaceSubscrAddress AtmAddr
}The big one is atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress, which is an IpAddress object. Here's how it's defined:
atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-write
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The IP address of the neighbor system connected to
the far end of this interface, to which a Network
Management Station can send SNMP messages, as IP
datagrams sent to UDP port 161, in order to access
network management information concerning the
operation of that system. Note that the value
of this object may be obtained in different ways,
e.g., by manual configuration, or through ILMI
interaction with the neighbor system."
::= { atmInterfaceConfEntry 11 }Then there's the configuration group that bundles these objects together:
atmInterfaceConfGroup2 OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS {
atmInterfaceMaxVpcs, atmInterfaceMaxVccs,
atmInterfaceConfVpcs, atmInterfaceConfVccs,
atmInterfaceMaxActiveVpiBits,
atmInterfaceMaxActiveVciBits,
atmInterfaceIlmiVpi,
atmInterfaceIlmiVci,
atmInterfaceMyNeighborIpAddress,
atmInterfaceMyNeighborIfName,
atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVpiBits,
atmInterfaceCurrentMaxVciBits,
atmInterfaceSubscrAddress }
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A collection of objects providing configuration
information about an ATM interface."
::= { atmMIBGroups 10 }Clearly, a future revision of this MIB module should define equivalent IPv6 objects. 💖
5.61. RFC 2561 Base Definitions of Managed Objects for TN3270E Using SMIv2 🌈
This one is the good kind of news! The document says that the MIB it defines supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing, so this specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware. Honestly, it's a whole glow-up 🫶
5.62. RFC 2562 Definitions of Protocol and Managed Objects for TN3270E Response Time Collection Using SMIv2 ✨
This MIB module gets its IP version-independence by importing the right definitions from RFC 2561, so it's giving borrowed-but-iconic energy 💅
5.63. RFC 2564 Application Management MIB 🦋
This one defines a textual convention called ApplTAddress. It's meant for transport service addresses, and for snmpUDPDomain, it's 6 octets long. The first 4 octets hold the IP address in network-byte order, and the last 2 hold the UDP port in network-byte order. For more on snmpUDPDomain, you check 'Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)' 🍓
ApplTAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a transport service address.
For snmpUDPDomain, an ApplTAddress is 6 octets long,
the initial 4 octets containing the IP-address in
network-byte order and the last 2 containing the UDP
port in network-byte order. Consult 'Transport Mappings
for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv2)' for further information on snmpUDPDomain."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))Anyway, the IPv4-only vibes mean a new TC should be defined to handle IPv6 addresses. 🥺
5.64. RFC 2584 Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks 💀
Okay, so many of the object definitions in this document assume the use of the IPv4-only TOS header bits. That makes it IPv4-only in nature, and it won't support IPv6. Not the move 😭
5.65. RFC 2594 Definitions of Managed Objects for WWW Services
No IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The web is fine, babe 🌐✨
5.66. RFC 2605 Directory Server Monitoring MIB
Still no IPv4 dependencies! Directory servers are just living their best life 🧚
5.67. RFC 2613 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks Version 1.0
No IPv4 dependencies here either. Switched networks are unbothered 💅
5.68. RFC 2618 RADIUS Authentication Client MIB 🔥
This RFC defines the following objects:
RadiusAuthServerEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
radiusAuthServerIndex Integer32,
radiusAuthServerAddress IpAddress,
radiusAuthClientServerPortNumber Integer32,
radiusAuthClientRoundTripTime TimeTicks,
radiusAuthClientAccessRequests Counter32,
radiusAuthClientAccessRetransmissions Counter32,
radiusAuthClientAccessAccepts Counter32,
radiusAuthClientAccessRejects Counter32,
radiusAuthClientAccessChallenges Counter32,
radiusAuthClientMalformedAccessResponses Counter32,
radiusAuthClientBadAuthenticators Counter32,
radiusAuthClientPendingRequests Gauge32,
radiusAuthClientTimeouts Counter32,
radiusAuthClientUnknownTypes Counter32,
radiusAuthClientPacketsDropped Counter32
}The one to watch is radiusAuthServerAddress, which is an IpAddress:
radiusAuthServerAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The IP address of the RADIUS authentication server
referred to in this table entry."
::= { radiusAuthServerEntry 2 }There needs to be an update so this value can be an IPv6-based object. 🙏
5.69. RFC 2619 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB 🔥
This MIB defines the following objects:
RadiusAuthClientEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
radiusAuthClientIndex Integer32,
radiusAuthClientAddress IpAddress,
radiusAuthClientID SnmpAdminString,
radiusAuthServAccessRequests Counter32,
radiusAuthServDupAccessRequests Counter32,
radiusAuthServAccessAccepts Counter32,
radiusAuthServAccessRejects Counter32,
radiusAuthServAccessChallenges Counter32,
radiusAuthServMalformedAccessRequests Counter32,
radiusAuthServBadAuthenticators Counter32,
radiusAuthServPacketsDropped Counter32,
radiusAuthServUnknownTypes Counter32
}The one with the IPv4 drama is radiusAuthClientAddress:
radiusAuthClientAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The NAS-IP-Address of the RADIUS authentication client
referred to in this table entry."
::= { radiusAuthClientEntry 2 }This object needs to be deprecated and replaced by one that supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 💅
5.70. RFC 2622 Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) 🧚
The only objects in the version of RPSL that deal with IP addresses are these two:
<ipv4-address> An IPv4 address is represented as a sequence of four
integers in the range from 0 to 255 separated by the character dot
".". For example, 128.9.128.5 represents a valid IPv4 address.
In the rest of this document, we may refer to IPv4 addresses as IP
addresses.
<address-prefix> An address prefix is represented as an IPv4 address
followed by the character slash "/" followed by an integer in the
range from 0 to 32. The following are valid address prefixes:
128.9.128.5/32, 128.9.0.0/16, 0.0.0.0/0; and the following address
prefixes are invalid: 0/0, 128.9/16 since 0 or 128.9 are not
strings containing four integers.There seems to be an awareness of IPv6 because of the terminology, but it isn't specifically defined. So additional objects for IPv6 addresses and prefixes need to be defined. 🥹
5.71. RFC 2662 Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines 🌸
No IPv4 dependencies in this specification. ADSL is giving quiet confidence 💖
5.72. RFC 2667 IP Tunnel MIB 🦋
This one is about tunnels, and the Abstract says it defines a MIB for managing tunnels of any type over IPv4 networks. It also says it can be extended for protocol-specific and security-specific objects. The catch is that it doesn't support tunnels over non-IPv4 networks, IPv6 included. Those might be handled by other MIBs. So a similar MIB for tunneling over IPv6 should be defined. 🫶
5.73. RFC 2669 DOCSIS Cable Device MIB Cable Device Management Information Base for DOCSIS compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems ✨
okay so this one has a super important heads-up 🚨. The DOCSIS 1.0 standard only requires Cable Modems to implement SNMPv1 and to handle IPv4 customer traffic 📡. So the design choices in this MIB are built around exactly those requirements 🎀. Future DOCSIS versions are expected to require SNMPv3 and IPv6 too, so the MIB will need to grow up with them 🦋.
5.74. RFC 2670 Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information Base for MCNS/DOCSIS compliant RF interfaces 🌸
this MIB defines the following objects, and the big one is the CMTS status entry 💅
DocsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
docsIfCmtsCmStatusIndex Integer32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusMacAddress MacAddress,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress IpAddress,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusDownChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusUpChannelIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusRxPower TenthdBmV,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusTimingOffset Unsigned32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusEqualizationData OCTET STRING,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusValue INTEGER,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusUnerroreds Counter32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusCorrecteds Counter32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusUncorrectables Counter32,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusSignalNoise TenthdB,
docsIfCmtsCmStatusMicroreflections Integer32
}
docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX IpAddress
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"IP address of this Cable Modem. If the Cable Modem has no
IP address assigned, or the IP address is unknown, this
object returns a value of 0.0.0.0. If the Cable Modem has
multiple IP addresses, this object returns the IP address
associated with the Cable interface."
::= { docsIfCmtsCmStatusEntry 3 }so the tea is that docsIfCmtsCmStatusIpAddress is IPv4-only and literally needs to be deprecated 😭. It's getting replaced by a new object that supports both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses 🫶.
5.75. RFC 2674 Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN Extensions 🧚
zero IPv4 dependencies here, which is giving clean vibes ✨
5.76. RFC 2677 Definitions of Managed Objects for the NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this one either. Iconic 💖
5.77. RFC 2720 Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB 🦋
this spec is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware, so it needs no changes. Main character energy 👑
5.78. RFC 2725 Routing Policy System Security 🔥
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💅
5.79. RFC 2726 PGP Authentication for RIPE Database Updates 🌈
no IPv4 dependencies here. Literally nothing to worry about 🎀
5.80. RFC 2737 Entity MIB (Version 2) 💜
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
5.81. RFC 2741 Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1 🌸
the examples in the document only use IPv4 transport, but ngl the AgentX protocol itself has no IPv4 dependency 🙈. The examples are just the examples, bestie 🫶.
5.82. RFC 2742 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP Agents 🧚
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Clean 💖
5.83. RFC 2748 The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol 👑
this specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes 🔥
5.84. RFC 2749 COPS usage for RSVP 🍓
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💅
5.85. RFC 2769 Routing Policy System Replication 🦋
no IPv4 dependencies here, so no drama 🌈
5.86. RFC 2787 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol 😭
okay this one is a little messy 🙈. As the Overview section says:
Since the VRRP protocol is intended for use with IPv4 routers only, this MIB uses the SYNTAX for IP addresses which is specific to IPv4. Thus, changes will be required for this MIB to interoperate in an IPv6 environment.
so yes, it needs changes before it works in an IPv6 environment 🫶.
5.87. RFC 2788 Network Services Monitoring MIB 🌸
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
5.88. RFC 2789 Mail Monitoring MIB 💜
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🧚
5.89. RFC 2837 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fabric Element in Fibre Channel Standard 🎀
no IPv4 dependencies here. Fibre Channel is not even my business 😂
5.90. RFC 2856 Textual Conventions for Additional High Capacity Data Types 🌈
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💖
5.91. RFC 2864 The Inverted Stack Table Extension to the Interfaces Group MIB 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Slay 💅
5.92. RFC 2895 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference 🔥
this specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes 👑
5.93. RFC 2925 Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations 🙈
okay so this MIB is mostly IPv4 and IPv6 aware, but there are a few assumptions that are problems 💀. In the following object definitions:
pingCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507)
UNITS "octets"
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Specifies the size of the data portion to be
transmitted in a ping operation in octets. A ping
request is usually an ICMP message encoded
into an IP packet. An IP packet has a maximum size
of 65535 octets. Subtracting the size of the ICMP
or UDP header (both 8 octets) and the size of the IP
header (20 octets) yields a maximum size of 65507
octets."
DEFVAL { 0 }
::= { pingCtlEntry 5 }
traceRouteCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507)
UNITS "octets"
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Specifies the size of the data portion of a traceroute
request in octets. A traceroute request is essentially
transmitted by encoding a UDP datagram into a
IP packet. So subtracting the size of a UDP header
(8 octets) and the size of a IP header (20 octets)
yields a maximum of 65507 octets."
DEFVAL { 0 }
::= { traceRouteCtlEntry 6 }the DESCRIPTION clauses need to be updated to get rid of the IPv4 dependencies 🛠️✨.
5.94. RFC 2932 IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB 🦋
this spec is only defined for IPv4, and a similar MIB has to be defined for IPv6 💜.
5.95. RFC 2933 Internet Group Management Protocol MIB 🧚
as this document says:
Since IGMP is specific to IPv4, this MIB does not support management of equivalent functionality for other address families, such as IPv6.
so IPv6 is just not on the guest list here 🙅♀️.
5.96. RFC 2940 Definitions of Managed Objects for Common Open Policy Service (COPS) Protocol Clients 🌸
this MIB is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes 💖
5.97. RFC 2954 Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service 🍓
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🔥
5.98. RFC 2955 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the Frame Relay/ATM PVC Service Interworking Function 👑
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. Easy 💅
5.99. RFC 2959 Real-Time Transport Protocol Management Information Base 🌈
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
5.100. RFC 2981 Event MIB 🎀
no IPv4 dependencies here 💜
5.101. RFC 2982 Distributed Management Expression MIB 🦋
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🧚
5.102. RFC 3014 Notification Log MIB 💖
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🍓
5.103. RFC 3019 IP Version 6 Management Information Base for The Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol 🌸
this is an IPv6 related document, so it isn't discussed here 🫶.
5.104. RFC 3020 Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function 🔥
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 👑
5.105. RFC 3055 Management Information Base for the PINT Services Architecture 💅
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🌈
5.106. RFC 3060 Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification (CIM) 🦋
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
5.107. RFC 3084 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) 💜
this spec builds on RFC 2748, and it is both IPv4 and IPv6 capable 🎀. The one catch is that the sample filter in section 4.3 has "ipv4" in it 👀.
5.108. RFC 3165 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts 🧚
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🍓
5.109. RFC 3231 Definitions of Managed Objects for Scheduling Management Operations 💖
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💅
5.110. RFC 3291 Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses 🌸
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
5.111. RFC 3635 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet-like Interface Types 🔥
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🌈
5.112. RFC 3636 Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs) 👑
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification. The end of the MIB list 🎀
6. Experimental RFCs 🧪
experimental RFCs usually define protocols that don't have widescale implementation or usage on the Internet 🌙. They're often proprietary in nature or used in limited arenas. They're documented for the Internet community so there can be potential interoperability or some other useful scenario 💜. In a few cases, they're presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution to an acknowledged problem 🦋.
6.1. RFC 1187 Bulk Table Retrieval with the SNMP 🌸
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
6.2. RFC 1224 Techniques for managing asynchronously generated alerts 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🔥
6.3. RFC 1238 CLNS MIB for use with Connectionless Network Protocol (ISO 8473) and End System to Intermediate System (ISO 9542) 💖
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🧚
6.4. RFC 1592 Simple Network Management Protocol Distributed Protocol Interface Version 2.0 👑
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💅
6.5. RFC 1792 TCP/IPX Connection Mib Specification 🌈
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🎀
6.6. RFC 2724 RTFM: New Attributes for Traffic Flow Measurement 🦋
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
6.7. RFC 2758 Definitions of Managed Objects for Service Level Agreements Performance Monitoring 💜
this spec is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no changes 🫶
6.8. RFC 2786 Diffie-Helman USM Key Management Information Base and Textual Convention 🌸
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 💖
6.9. RFC 2903 Generic AAA Architecture 🍓
no IPv4 dependencies in this specification 🔥
6.10. RFC 2934 Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 👑
this document is specific to IPv4, so it's very much an IPv4-only moment 💅
6.11. RFC 3179 Script MIB Extensibility Protocol Version 1.1 🌈
there are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification ✨
7. Summary of Results 📊✨
okay so the initial survey of RFCs found 36 positives out of a total of 153 🫶
Standards: 6 out of 15 or 40.00%
Draft Standards: 4 out of 15 or 26.67%
Proposed Standards: 26 out of 112 or 23.21%
Experimental RFCs: 0 out of 11 or 0.00%bestie, many of these need no action 💀 because they document outdated, unused protocols. Others are protocols that working groups are actively updating 🔥 There are also plenty of standards that should get updated but won't cause any operational impact if they don't. The leftovers are listed below 👇
7.1. Standards
7.1.1. STD 16, Structure of Management Information (RFCs 1155 and 1212)
RFC 1155 and RFC 1212 (plus the informational RFC 1215) define SMIv1 🧚 They've been superseded by RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580, which define SMIv2. SMIv1 isn't used as the basis for new IETF MIB modules anymore, so the limitations in this Internet Standard don't need any action 💅
7.1.2. STD 17 Simple Network Management Protocol (RFC 1213)
The limitations have been addressed, because RFC 1213 got split into multiple modules that are all IPv6 capable 🌈✨
7.2. Draft Standards
7.2.1. BGP4 MIB (RFC 1657)
This problem is being handled by the Inter Domain Routing (IDR) WG [2] 🦋
7.2.2. SMDS MIB (RFC 1694)
See Internet Area standards. Once a specification for IPv6 over SMDS is created, a new MIB must be defined 🍓
7.2.3. RIPv2 MIB (RFC 1724)
There's no updated MIB module covering these problems. A new MIB module should be defined 🫠
7.2.4. OSPFv2 MIB (RFC 1850)
This problem is being handled by the OSPF WG [3] 💜
7.2.5. Transport MIB (RFC 1906)
RFC 1906 has been obsoleted by RFC 3417, Transport Mappings for SNMP 👑 That RFC addresses the limitations of this specification by defining TCs that can specify transport domains in an IP version-independent way. RFC 3419 recommends that those TCs be used in place of SnmpUDPAddress when IPv6 support is required, and for all new applications that aren't SNMP-specific.
7.3. Proposed Standards
7.3.1. MIB for Multiprotocol Interconnect over X.25 (RFC 1461)
This problem hasn't been addressed 🙈 If a user requirement for IPv6 over X.25 shows up (which is thought to be unlikely), this MIB module will need an update to accommodate it.
7.3.2. PPP IPCP MIB (RFC 1473)
There's no updated MIB covering these problems. A new MIB should be defined 🎀
7.3.3. Appletalk MIB (RFC 1742)
This problem hasn't been addressed. If a user requirement for IPv6 over Appletalk shows up (which is thought to be unlikely), this MIB module will need an update, or a brand new MIB module will need to be created, to accommodate it 🌸
7.3.4. The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2 (RFC 2006)
The MIP6 WG [4] is resolving these problems ✨
7.3.5. SMIv2 IP MIB (RFC 2011)
The IPv6 WG [5] is resolving this issue 🫶
7.3.6. SNMPv2 TCP MIB (RFC 2012)
The IPv6 WG [6] is resolving this issue 🦋
7.3.7. SNMPv2 UDP MIB (RFC 2013)
The IPv6 WG [7] is resolving this issue 🌈
7.3.8. RMON-II MIB (RFC 2021)
This issue has been brought to the RMONMIB WG's attention 🧚 There's a work in progress [8] to update RFC 2021, but it doesn't address the problems identified. A resolution is expected in a future version of that document 🍓
7.3.9. DataLink Switching using SMIv2 MIB (RFC 2024)
These problems haven't been addressed, and an updated MIB should be defined 💅
7.3.10. IP Forwarding Table MIB (RFC 2096)
The IPv6 WG [9] is working on this issue ✨
7.3.11. Classical IP & ARP over ATM MIB (RFC 2320)
The current version of Classical IP and ARP over ATM (RFC 2225) doesn't support IPv6. If and when that spec is updated to add IPv6 support, new MIB objects to represent IPv6 addresses will need to be added to this MIB module 🌷
7.3.12. Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM MIB (RFC 2417)
The current version of Multicast over UNI 3.0/3.1 ATM (RFC 2022) doesn't support IPv6. If and when that spec is updated to add IPv6 support, new MIB objects to represent IPv6 addresses will need to be added to this MIB module 💖
7.3.13. ATM MIB (RFC 2515)
The AToM MIB WG is collecting implementation reports for RFC 2515 right now and is deciding whether to advance, revise, or retire this spec 🤔 The problems identified have been brought to the WG's attention.
7.3.14. TN3270 MIB (RFC 2562)
These problems aren't being addressed, and a new MIB module may need to be defined 🙃
7.3.15. Application MIB (RFC 2564)
These problems aren't being addressed, and a new MIB module may need to be defined. One possible solution might be to use the RFC 3419 TCs 🫧
7.3.16. Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN/HPR in IP Networks (RFC 2584)
These problems aren't addressed, and a new MIB may be defined 🌙
7.3.17. RADIUS MIB (RFC 2618)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB should be defined 🎀
7.3.18. RADIUS Authentication Server MIB (RFC 2619)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB should be defined 🎀
7.3.19. RPSL (RFC 2622)
Additional objects must be defined for IPv6 addresses and prefixes 🔥
[10] defines extensions to solve this issue, and it's being considered for publication 👑
7.3.20. IPv4 Tunnel MIB (RFC 2667)
The issue is being resolved ✨
7.3.21. DOCSIS MIB (RFC 2669)
The IPCDN WG is handling this problem right now 💅
7.3.22. RF MIB For DOCSIS (RFC 2670)
The IPCDN WG [11] is handling this problem right now 🌸
7.3.23. VRRP MIB (RFC 2787)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB may need to be defined 🫠
7.3.24. MIB For Traceroute, Pings and Lookups (RFC 2925)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB may need to be defined 🧚
7.3.25. IPv4 Multicast Routing MIB (RFC 2932)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB must be defined 😭
7.3.26. IGMP MIB (RFC 2933)
The MAGMA WG [12] is handling this problem right now 🦋
7.4. Experimental RFCs
7.4.1. Protocol Independent Multicast MIB for IPv4 (RFC 2934)
These problems haven't been addressed, and a new MIB may need to be defined 🌈
8. Security Considerations 🔐
This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications. It doesn't have security considerations in itself 🫶
9. Acknowledgements 💖
The authors would like to thank the Internet Society for supporting the research and production of this document 🌷 Author Philip J. Nesser II would also like to thank his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser 🫶
The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for his guidance and for collecting comments for the editing of this document ✨ He'd also like to thank Juergen Schoenwaelder, Brian Carpenter, Bert Wijnen, and especially C. M. Heard, for their feedback on many points of this document 👑
10. References 📚
10.1. Normative Reference
- [1] Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards", RFC 3789, June 2004.
10.2. Informative References
- [2] Haas, J. and S. Hares, Editors, "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Fourth Version of Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [3] Joyal, D. and V. Manral, "Management Information Base for OSPFv3", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [4] Keeni, G., Koide, K., Nagami, K. and S. Gundavelli, "The Mobile IPv6 MIB", Work in Progress, February 2004.
- [5] Routhier, S., Editor, "Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [6] Raghunarayan, R., Editor, "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", Work in Progress, February 2004.
- [7] Fenner, B. and J. Flick, "Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [8] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base Version 2 Using SMIv2", Work in Progress, February 2004.
- [9] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", Work in Progress, February 2004.
- [10] Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F. and A. Robachevsky, "Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [11] Raftus, D. and E. Cardona, Editor, "Radio Frequency (RF) Interface Management Information Base for DOCSIS 2.0 compliant RF interfaces", Work in Progress, April 2004.
- [12] Chesterfield, J., Editor, "Multicast Group Membership Discovery MIB", Work in Progress, February 2004.
11. Authors' Addresses 📮
Please contact the authors with any questions, comments, or suggestions at:
Philip J. Nesser II
Principal
Nesser & Nesser Consulting
13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: +1 425 481 4303
Fax: +1 425 48
EMail: phil@nesser.com
Andreas Bergstrom (Editor)
Ostfold University College
Rute 503 Buer
N-1766 Halden
Norway
EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no12. Full Copyright Statement 🌈
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
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.
Intellectual Property 🔏
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. It also doesn't represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, 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.
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.
Acknowledgement 💜
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society ✨
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc3796 2004-06
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms