4 Network Working Group J. Case
5 Request for Comments: 1448 SNMP Research, Inc.
9 Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
11 Carnegie Mellon University
17 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
22 This RFC specifes an IAB standards track protocol for the
23 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
24 for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
25 "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization
26 state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo
32 1 Introduction .......................................... 2
33 1.1 A Note on Terminology ............................... 2
34 2 Overview .............................................. 3
35 2.1 Roles of Protocol Entities .......................... 3
36 2.2 Management Information .............................. 3
37 2.3 Access to Management Information .................... 4
38 2.4 Retransmission of Requests .......................... 4
39 2.5 Message Sizes ....................................... 5
40 2.6 Transport Mappings .................................. 6
41 3 Definitions ........................................... 7
42 4 Protocol Specification ................................ 12
43 4.1 Common Constructs ................................... 12
44 4.2 PDU Processing ...................................... 12
45 4.2.1 The GetRequest-PDU ................................ 13
46 4.2.2 The GetNextRequest-PDU ............................ 15
47 4.2.2.1 Example of Table Traversal ...................... 16
48 4.2.3 The GetBulkRequest-PDU ............................ 18
49 4.2.3.1 Another Example of Table Traversal .............. 21
50 4.2.4 The Response-PDU .................................. 22
51 4.2.5 The SetRequest-PDU ................................ 23
52 4.2.6 The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU ............................... 26
53 4.2.7 The InformRequest-PDU ............................. 27
59 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page i]
65 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
68 5 Acknowledgements ...................................... 29
69 6 References ............................................ 33
70 7 Security Considerations ............................... 35
71 8 Authors' Addresses .................................... 35
118 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 1]
124 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
129 A network management system contains: several (potentially
130 many) nodes, each with a processing entity, termed an agent,
131 which has access to management instrumentation; at least one
132 management station; and, a management protocol, used to convey
133 management information between the agents and management
134 stations. Operations of the protocol are carried out under an
135 administrative framework which defines both authentication and
136 authorization policies.
138 Network management stations execute management applications
139 which monitor and control network elements. Network elements
140 are devices such as hosts, routers, terminal servers, etc.,
141 which are monitored and controlled through access to their
142 management information.
144 Management information is viewed as a collection of managed
145 objects, residing in a virtual information store, termed the
146 Management Information Base (MIB). Collections of related
147 objects are defined in MIB modules. These modules are written
148 using a subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)
149 [1], termed the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2].
151 The management protocol, version 2 of the Simple Network
152 Management Protocol, provides for the exchange of messages
153 which convey management information between the agents and the
154 management stations. The form of these messages is a message
155 "wrapper" which encapsulates a Protocol Data Unit (PDU). The
156 form and meaning of the "wrapper" is determined by an
157 administrative framework which defines both authentication and
158 authorization policies.
160 It is the purpose of this document, Protocol Operations for
161 SNMPv2, to define the operations of the protocol with respect
162 to the sending and receiving of the PDUs.
165 1.1. A Note on Terminology
167 For the purpose of exposition, the original Internet-standard
168 Network Management Framework, as described in RFCs 1155, 1157,
169 and 1212, is termed the SNMP version 1 framework (SNMPv1).
170 The current framework is termed the SNMP version 2 framework
177 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 2]
183 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
188 2.1. Roles of Protocol Entities
190 A SNMPv2 entity may operate in a manager role or an agent
193 A SNMPv2 entity acts in an agent role when it performs SNMPv2
194 management operations in response to received SNMPv2 protocol
195 messages (other than an inform notification) or when it sends
198 A SNMPv2 entity acts in a manager role when it initiates
199 SNMPv2 management operations by the generation of SNMPv2
200 protocol messages or when it performs SNMPv2 management
201 operations in response to received trap or inform
204 A SNMPv2 entity may support either or both roles, as dictated
205 by its implementation and configuration. Further, a SNMPv2
206 entity can also act in the role of a proxy agent, in which it
207 appears to be acting in an agent role, but satisfies
208 management requests by acting in a manager role with a remote
209 entity. The use of proxy agents and the transparency
210 principle that defines their behavior is described in [3].
213 2.2. Management Information
215 The term, variable, refers to an instance of a non-aggregate
216 object type defined according to the conventions set forth in
217 the SMI [2] or the textual conventions based on the SMI [4].
218 The term, variable binding, normally refers to the pairing of
219 the name of a variable and its associated value. However, if
220 certain kinds of exceptional conditions occur during
221 processing of a retrieval request, a variable binding will
222 pair a name and an indication of that exception.
224 A variable-binding list is a simple list of variable bindings.
226 The name of a variable is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which is the
227 concatenation of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding
228 object-type together with an OBJECT IDENTIFIER fragment
229 identifying the instance. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the
230 corresponding object-type is called the OBJECT IDENTIFIER
236 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 3]
242 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
245 prefix of the variable.
248 2.3. Access to Management Information
250 Three types of access to management information are provided
251 by the protocol. One type is a request-response interaction,
252 in which a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, sends a
253 request to a SNMPv2 entity, acting in an agent role, and the
254 latter SNMPv2 entity then responds to the request. This type
255 is used to retrieve or modify management information
256 associated with the managed device.
258 A second type is also a request-response interaction, in which
259 a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, sends a request to
260 a SNMPv2 entity, also acting in a manager role, and the latter
261 SNMPv2 entity then responds to the request. This type is used
262 to notify a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, of
263 management information associated with another SNMPv2 entity,
264 also acting in a manager role.
266 The third type of access is an unconfirmed interaction, in
267 which a SNMPv2 entity, acting in an agent role, sends a
268 unsolicited message, termed a trap, to a SNMPv2 entity, acting
269 in a manager role, and no response is returned. This type is
270 used to notify a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, of
271 an exceptional situation, which has resulted in changes to
272 management information associated with the managed device.
275 2.4. Retransmission of Requests
277 For all types of request in this protocol, the receiver is
278 required under normal circumstances, to generate and transmit
279 a response to the originator of the request. Whether or not a
280 request should be retransmitted if no corresponding response
281 is received in an appropriate time interval, is at the
282 discretion of the application originating the request. This
283 will normally depend on the urgency of the request. However,
284 such an application needs to act responsibly in respect to the
285 frequency and duration of re-transmissions.
295 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 4]
301 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
306 The maximum size of a SNMPv2 message is limited the minimum
309 (1) the maximum message size which the destination SNMPv2
310 entity can accept; and,
312 (2) the maximum message size which the source SNMPv2 entity
315 The former is indicated by partyMaxMessageSize[5] of the
316 destination party. The latter is imposed by implementation-
317 specific local constraints.
319 Each transport mapping for the SNMPv2 indicates the minimum
320 message size which a SNMPv2 implementation must be able to
321 produce or consume. Although implementations are encouraged
322 to support larger values whenever possible, a conformant
323 implementation must never generate messages larger than
324 allowed by the receiving SNMPv2 entity.
326 One of the aims of the GetBulkRequest-PDU, specified in this
327 protocol, is to minimize the number of protocol exchanges
328 required to retrieve a large amount of management information.
329 As such, this PDU type allows a SNMPv2 entity acting in a
330 manager role to request that the response be as large as
331 possible given the constraints on message sizes. These
332 constraints include the limits on the size of messages which
333 the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role can generate, and
334 the SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role can receive.
336 However, it is possible that such maximum sized messages may
337 be larger than the Path MTU of the path across the network
338 traversed by the messages. In this situation, such messages
339 are subject to fragmentation. Fragmentation is generally
340 considered to be harmful [6], since among other problems, it
341 leads to a decrease in the reliability of the transfer of the
342 messages. Thus, a SNMPv2 entity which sends a
343 GetBulkRequest-PDU must take care to set its parameters
344 accordingly, so as to reduce the risk of fragmentation. In
345 particular, under conditions of network stress, only small
346 values should be used for max-repetitions.
354 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 5]
360 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
363 2.6. Transport Mappings
365 It is important to note that the exchange of SNMPv2 messages
366 requires only an unreliable datagram service, with every
367 message being entirely and independently contained in a single
368 transport datagram. Specific transport mappings and encoding
369 rules are specified elsewhere [7]. However, the preferred
370 mapping is the use of the User Datagram Protocol [8].
413 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 6]
419 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
424 SNMPv2-PDU DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
427 ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, Integer32
431 -- protocol data units
472 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 7]
478 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
487 GetNextRequest-PDU ::=
501 GetBulkRequest-PDU ::=
505 InformRequest-PDU ::=
531 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 8]
537 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
541 INTEGER ::= 2147483647
548 error-status -- sometimes ignored
552 noSuchName(2), -- for proxy compatibility
553 badValue(3), -- for proxy compatibility
554 readOnly(4), -- for proxy compatibility
562 inconsistentValue(12),
563 resourceUnavailable(13),
566 authorizationError(16),
571 error-index -- sometimes ignored
572 INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
574 variable-bindings -- values are sometimes ignored
590 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 9]
596 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
599 BulkPDU ::= -- MUST be identical in
600 SEQUENCE { -- structure to PDU
605 INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
608 INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
610 variable-bindings -- values are ignored
649 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 10]
655 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
669 unSpecified -- in retrieval requests
672 -- exceptions in responses
685 -- variable-binding list
688 SEQUENCE (SIZE (0..max-bindings)) OF
708 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 11]
714 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
717 4. Protocol Specification
720 4.1. Common Constructs
722 The value of the request-id field in a Response-PDU takes the
723 value of the request-id field in the request PDU to which it
724 is a response. By use of the request-id value, a SNMPv2
725 application can distinguish the (potentially multiple)
726 outstanding requests, and thereby correlate incoming responses
727 with outstanding requests. In cases where an unreliable
728 datagram service is used, the request-id also provides a
729 simple means of identifying messages duplicated by the
730 network. Use of the same request-id on a retransmission of a
731 request allows the response to either the original
732 transmission or the retransmission to satisfy the request.
733 However, in order to calculate the round trip time for
734 transmission and processing of a request-response transaction,
735 the SNMPv2 application needs to use a different request-id
736 value on a retransmitted request. The latter strategy is
737 recommended for use in the majority of situations.
739 A non-zero value of the error-status field in a Response-PDU
740 is used to indicate that an exception occurred to prevent the
741 processing of the request. In these cases, a non-zero value
742 of the Response-PDU's error-index field provides additional
743 information by identifying which variable binding in the list
744 caused the exception. A variable binding is identified by its
745 index value. The first variable binding in a variable-binding
746 list is index one, the second is index two, etc.
748 SNMPv2 limits OBJECT IDENTIFIER values to a maximum of 128
749 sub-identifiers, where each sub-identifier has a maximum value
755 It is mandatory that all SNMPv2 entities acting in an agent
756 role be able to generate the following PDU types: Response-PDU
757 and SNMPv2-Trap-PDU; further, all such implementations must be
758 able to receive the following PDU types: GetRequest-PDU,
759 GetNextRequest-PDU, GetBulkRequest-PDU, and SetRequest-PDU.
767 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 12]
773 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
776 It is mandatory that all SNMPv2 entities acting in a manager
777 role be able to generate the following PDU types: GetRequest-
778 PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU, GetBulkRequest-PDU, SetRequest-PDU,
779 InformRequest-PDU, and Response-PDU; further, all such
780 implementations must be able to receive the following PDU
781 types: Response-PDU, SNMPv2-Trap-PDU, InformRequest-PDU;
783 In the elements of procedure below, any field of a PDU which
784 is not referenced by the relevant procedure is ignored by the
785 receiving SNMPv2 entity. However, all components of a PDU,
786 including those whose values are ignored by the receiving
787 SNMPv2 entity, must have valid ASN.1 syntax and encoding. For
788 example, some PDUs (e.g., the GetRequest-PDU) are concerned
789 only with the name of a variable and not its value. In this
790 case, the value portion of the variable binding is ignored by
791 the receiving SNMPv2 entity. The unSpecified value is defined
792 for use as the value portion of such bindings.
794 For all generated PDUs, the message "wrapper" to encapsulate
795 the PDU is generated and transmitted as specified in [3]. The
796 size of a message is limited only by constraints on the
797 maximum message size, either a local limitation or the limit
798 associated with the message's destination party, i.e., it is
799 not limited by the number of variable bindings.
801 On receiving a management communication, the procedures
802 defined in Section 3.2 of [3] are followed. If these
803 procedures indicate that the PDU contained within the message
804 "wrapper" is to be processed, then the SNMPv2 context
805 associated with the PDU defines the object resources which are
806 visible to the operation.
809 4.2.1. The GetRequest-PDU
811 A GetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request
812 of a SNMPv2 application.
814 Upon receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
815 processes each variable binding in the variable-binding list
816 to produce a Response-PDU. All fields of the Response-PDU
817 have the same values as the corresponding fields of the
818 received request except as indicated below. Each variable
819 binding is processed as follows:
826 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 13]
832 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
835 (1) If the variable binding's name does not have an OBJECT
836 IDENTIFIER prefix which exactly matches the OBJECT
837 IDENTIFIER prefix of any variable accessible by this
838 request, then its value field is set to `noSuchObject'.
840 (2) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name does not
841 exactly match the name of a variable accessible by this
842 request, then its value field is set to `noSuchInstance'.
844 (3) Otherwise, the variable binding's value field is set to
845 the value of the named variable.
847 If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
848 other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
849 with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
850 fields as the received GetRequest-PDU, with the value of its
851 error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
852 error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
855 Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
856 is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field is
859 The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
860 message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
861 equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
862 of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the
863 originator of the GetRequest-PDU.
865 Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated. This
866 alternate Response-PDU is formatted with the same value in its
867 request-id field as the received GetRequest-PDU, with the
868 value of its error-status field set to `tooBig', the value of
869 its error-index field set to zero, and an empty variable-
870 bindings field. This alternate Response-PDU is then
871 encapsulated into a message. If the size of the resultant
872 message is less than or equal to both a local constraint and
873 the maximum message size of the request's source party, it is
874 transmitted to the originator of the GetRequest-PDU.
875 Otherwise, the resultant message is discarded.
885 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 14]
891 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
894 4.2.2. The GetNextRequest-PDU
896 A GetNextRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
897 request of a SNMPv2 application.
899 Upon receipt of a GetNextRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
900 entity processes each variable binding in the variable-binding
901 list to produce a Response-PDU. All fields of the Response-
902 PDU have the same values as the corresponding fields of the
903 received request except as indicated below. Each variable
904 binding is processed as follows:
906 (1) The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
907 ordered list of the names of all variables which are
908 accessible by this request and whose name is the first
909 lexicographic successor of the variable binding's name in
910 the incoming GetNextRequest-PDU. The corresponding
911 variable binding's name and value fields in the
912 Response-PDU are set to the name and value of the located
915 (2) If the requested variable binding's name does not
916 lexicographically precede the name of any variable
917 accessible by this request, i.e., there is no
918 lexicographic successor, then the corresponding variable
919 binding produced in the Response-PDU has its value field
920 set to 'endOfMibView', and its name field set to the
921 variable binding's name in the request.
923 If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
924 other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
925 with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
926 fields as the received GetNextRequest-PDU, with the value of
927 its error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
928 error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
931 Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
932 is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field is
935 The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
936 message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
937 equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
938 of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the
944 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 15]
950 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
953 originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.
955 Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated. This
956 alternate Response-PDU is formatted with the same values in
957 its request-id field as the received GetNextRequest-PDU, with
958 the value of its error-status field set to `tooBig', the value
959 of its error-index field set to zero, and an empty variable-
960 bindings field. This alternate Response-PDU is then
961 encapsulated into a message. If the size of the resultant
962 message is less than or equal to both a local constraint and
963 the maximum message size of the request's source party, it is
964 transmitted to the originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.
965 Otherwise, the resultant message is discarded.
968 4.2.2.1. Example of Table Traversal
970 An important use of the GetNextRequest-PDU is the traversal of
971 conceptual tables of information within a MIB. The semantics
972 of this type of request, together with the method of
973 identifying individual instances of objects in the MIB,
974 provides access to related objects in the MIB as if they
975 enjoyed a tabular organization.
977 In the protocol exchange sketched below, a SNMPv2 application
978 retrieves the media-dependent physical address and the
979 address-mapping type for each entry in the IP net-to-media
980 Address Translation Table [9] of a particular network element.
981 It also retrieves the value of sysUpTime [9], at which the
982 mappings existed. Suppose that the agent's IP net-to-media
983 table has three entries:
985 Interface-Number Network-Address Physical-Address Type
987 1 10.0.0.51 00:00:10:01:23:45 static
988 1 9.2.3.4 00:00:10:54:32:10 dynamic
989 2 10.0.0.15 00:00:10:98:76:54 dynamic
991 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role begins by sending a
992 GetNextRequest-PDU containing the indicated OBJECT IDENTIFIER
993 values as the requested variable names:
995 GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
996 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
1003 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 16]
1009 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1012 The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with a
1015 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123456" ),
1016 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
1018 ( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 = "dynamic" ))
1020 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:
1022 GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
1023 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4,
1024 ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 )
1026 The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:
1028 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123461" ),
1029 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 =
1031 ( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 = "static" ))
1033 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:
1035 GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
1036 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
1037 ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )
1039 The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:
1041 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123466" ),
1042 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 =
1044 ( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 = "dynamic" ))
1046 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:
1048 GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
1049 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15,
1050 ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 )
1052 As there are no further entries in the table, the SNMPv2
1053 entity acting in an agent role responds with the variables
1054 that are next in the lexicographical ordering of the
1055 accessible object names, for example:
1062 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 17]
1068 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1071 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123471" ),
1072 ( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
1074 ( ipRoutingDiscards.0 = "2" ))
1076 This response signals the end of the table to the SNMPv2
1077 entity acting in a manager role.
1080 4.2.3. The GetBulkRequest-PDU
1082 A GetBulkRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
1083 request of a SNMPv2 application. The purpose of the
1084 GetBulkRequest-PDU is to request the transfer of a potentially
1085 large amount of data, including, but not limited to, the
1086 efficient and rapid retrieval of large tables.
1088 Upon receipt of a GetBulkRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
1089 entity processes each variable binding in the variable-binding
1090 list to produce a Response-PDU with its request-id field
1091 having the same value as in the request. Processing begins by
1092 examining the values in the non-repeaters and max-repetitions
1093 fields. If the value in the non-repeaters field is less than
1094 zero, then the value of the field is set to zero. Similarly,
1095 if the value in the max-repetitions field is less than zero,
1096 then the value of the field is set to zero.
1098 For the GetBulkRequest-PDU type, the successful processing of
1099 each variable binding in the request generates zero or more
1100 variable bindings in the Response-PDU. That is, the one-to-
1101 one mapping between the variable bindings of the GetRequest-
1102 PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU, and SetRequest-PDU types and the
1103 resultant Response-PDUs does not apply for the mapping between
1104 the variable bindings of a GetBulkRequest-PDU and the
1105 resultant Response-PDU.
1107 The values of the non-repeaters and max-repetitions fields in
1108 the request specify the processing requested. One variable
1109 binding in the Response-PDU is requested for the first N
1110 variable bindings in the request and M variable bindings are
1111 requested for each of the R remaining variable bindings in the
1112 request. Consequently, the total number of requested variable
1113 bindings communicated by the request is given by N + (M * R),
1114 where N is the minimum of: a) the value of the non-repeaters
1115 field in the request, and b) the number of variable bindings
1121 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 18]
1127 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1130 in the request; M is the value of the max-repetitions field in
1131 the request; and R is the maximum of: a) number of variable
1132 bindings in the request - N, and b) zero.
1134 The receiving SNMPv2 entity produces a Response-PDU with up to
1135 the total number of requested variable bindings communicated
1136 by the request. The request-id shall have the same value as
1137 the received GetBulkRequest-PDU.
1139 If N is greater than zero, the first through the (N)-th
1140 variable bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced as
1143 (1) The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
1144 ordered list of the names of all variables which are
1145 accessible by this request and whose name is the first
1146 lexicographic successor of the variable binding's name in
1147 the incoming GetBulkRequest-PDU. The corresponding
1148 variable binding's name and value fields in the
1149 Response-PDU are set to the name and value of the located
1152 (2) If the requested variable binding's name does not
1153 lexicographically precede the name of any variable
1154 accessible by this request, i.e., there is no
1155 lexicographic successor, then the corresponding variable
1156 binding produced in the Response-PDU has its value field
1157 set to `endOfMibView', and its name field set to the
1158 variable binding's name in the request.
1160 If M and R are non-zero, the (N + 1)-th and subsequent
1161 variable bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced in a
1162 similar manner. For each iteration i, such that i is greater
1163 than zero and less than or equal to M, and for each repeated
1164 variable, r, such that r is greater than zero and less than or
1165 equal to R, the (N + ( (i-1) * R ) + r)-th variable binding of
1166 the Response-PDU is produced as follows:
1168 (1) The variable which is in the lexicographically ordered
1169 list of the names of all variables which are accessible
1170 by this request and whose name is the (i)-th
1171 lexicographic successor of the (N + r)-th variable
1172 binding's name in the incoming GetBulkRequest-PDU is
1173 located and the variable binding's name and value fields
1174 are set to the name and value of the located variable.
1180 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 19]
1186 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1189 (2) If there is no (i)-th lexicographic successor, then the
1190 corresponding variable binding produced in the Response-
1191 PDU has its value field set to `endOfMibView', and its
1192 name field set to either the last lexicographic
1193 successor, or if there are no lexicographic successors,
1194 to the (N + r)-th variable binding's name in the request.
1196 While the maximum number of variable bindings in the
1197 Response-PDU is bounded by N + (M * R), the response may be
1198 generated with a lesser number of variable bindings (possibly
1199 zero) for either of two reasons.
1201 (1) If the size of the message encapsulating the Response-PDU
1202 containing the requested number of variable bindings
1203 would be greater than either a local constraint or the
1204 maximum message size of the request's source party, then
1205 the response is generated with a lesser number of
1206 variable bindings. This lesser number is the ordered set
1207 of variable bindings with some of the variable bindings
1208 at the end of the set removed, such that the size of the
1209 message encapsulating the Response-PDU is approximately
1210 equal to but no greater than the minimum of the local
1211 constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
1212 source party. Note that the number of variable bindings
1213 removed has no relationship to the values of N, M, or R.
1215 (2) The response may also be generated with a lesser number
1216 of variable bindings if for some value of iteration i,
1217 such that i is greater than zero and less than or equal
1218 to M, that all of the generated variable bindings have
1219 the value field set to the `endOfMibView'. In this case,
1220 the variable bindings may be truncated after the (N + (i
1221 * R))-th variable binding.
1223 If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
1224 other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
1225 with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
1226 fields as the received GetBulkRequest-PDU, with the value of
1227 its error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
1228 error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
1231 Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
1232 is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field to
1239 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 20]
1245 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1248 The generated Response-PDU (possibly with an empty variable-
1249 bindings field) is then encapsulated into a message. If the
1250 size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a
1251 local constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
1252 source party, it is transmitted to the originator of the
1253 GetBulkRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant message is
1257 4.2.3.1. Another Example of Table Traversal
1259 This example demonstrates how the GetBulkRequest-PDU can be
1260 used as an alternative to the GetNextRequest-PDU. The same
1261 traversal of the IP net-to-media table as shown in Section
1262 4.2.2.1 is achieved with fewer exchanges.
1264 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role begins by sending a
1265 GetBulkRequest-PDU with the modest max-repetitions value of 2,
1266 and containing the indicated OBJECT IDENTIFIER values as the
1267 requested variable names:
1269 GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
1271 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
1274 The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with a
1277 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123456" ),
1278 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
1280 ( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 = "dynamic" ),
1281 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 =
1283 ( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 = "static" ))
1285 The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:
1287 GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
1289 ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
1290 ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )
1298 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 21]
1304 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1307 The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:
1309 Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123466" ),
1310 ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 =
1312 ( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 =
1314 ( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
1316 ( ipRoutingDiscards.0 = "2" ))
1318 This response signals the end of the table to the SNMPv2
1319 entity acting in a manager role.
1322 4.2.4. The Response-PDU
1324 The Response-PDU is generated by a SNMPv2 entity only upon
1325 receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU,
1326 GetBulkRequest-PDU, SetRequest-PDU, or InformRequest-PDU, as
1327 described elsewhere in this document.
1329 If the error-status field of the Response-PDU is non-zero, the
1330 value fields of the variable bindings in the variable binding
1333 If both the error-status field and the error-index field of
1334 the Response-PDU are non-zero, then the value of the error-
1335 index field is the index of the variable binding (in the
1336 variable-binding list of the corresponding request) for which
1337 the request failed. The first variable binding in a request's
1338 variable-binding list is index one, the second is index two,
1341 A compliant SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role must be
1342 able to properly receive and handle a Response-PDU with an
1343 error-status field equal to `noSuchName', `badValue', or
1344 `readOnly'. (See Section 3.1.2 of [10].)
1346 Upon receipt of a Response-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
1347 presents its contents to the SNMPv2 application which
1348 generated the request with the same request-id value.
1357 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 22]
1363 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1366 4.2.5. The SetRequest-PDU
1368 A SetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request
1369 of a SNMPv2 application.
1371 Upon receipt of a SetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
1372 determines the size of a message encapsulating a Response-PDU
1373 with the same values in its request-id, error-status, error-
1374 index and variable-bindings fields as the received
1375 SetRequest-PDU. If the determined message size is greater
1376 than either a local constraint or the maximum message size of
1377 the request's source party, then an alternate Response-PDU is
1378 generated, transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-
1379 PDU, and processing of the SetRequest-PDU terminates
1380 immediately thereafter. This alternate Response-PDU is
1381 formatted with the same values in its request-id field as the
1382 received SetRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status
1383 field set to `tooBig', the value of its error-index field set
1384 to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field. This alternate
1385 Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message. If the size
1386 of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a local
1387 constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
1388 source party, it is transmitted to the originator of the
1389 SetRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant message is
1390 discarded. Regardless, processing of the SetRequest-PDU
1393 Otherwise, the receiving SNMPv2 entity processes each variable
1394 binding in the variable-binding list to produce a Response-
1395 PDU. All fields of the Response-PDU have the same values as
1396 the corresponding fields of the received request except as
1399 The variable bindings are conceptually processed as a two
1400 phase operation. In the first phase, each variable binding is
1401 validated; if all validations are successful, then each
1402 variable is altered in the second phase. Of course,
1403 implementors are at liberty to implement either the first, or
1404 second, or both, of the these conceptual phases as multiple
1405 implementation phases. Indeed, such multiple implementation
1406 phases may be necessary in some cases to ensure consistency.
1408 The following validations are performed in the first phase on
1409 each variable binding until they are all successful, or until
1416 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 23]
1422 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1425 (1) If the variable binding's name specifies a variable which
1426 is not accessible by this request, then the value of the
1427 Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `noAccess',
1428 and the value of its error-index field is set to the
1429 index of the failed variable binding.
1431 (2) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
1432 variable which does not exist and could not ever be
1433 created, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-
1434 status field is set to `noCreation', and the value of its
1435 error-index field is set to the index of the failed
1438 (3) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
1439 variable which exists but can not be modified no matter
1440 what new value is specified, then the value of the
1441 Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
1442 `notWritable', and the value of its error-index field is
1443 set to the index of the failed variable binding.
1445 (4) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
1446 specifies, according to the ASN.1 language, a type which
1447 is inconsistent with that required for the variable, then
1448 the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
1449 to `wrongType', and the value of its error-index field is
1450 set to the index of the failed variable binding.
1452 (5) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
1453 specifies, according to the ASN.1 language, a length
1454 which is inconsistent with that required for the
1455 variable, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-
1456 status field is set to `wrongLength', and the value of
1457 its error-index field is set to the index of the failed
1460 (6) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field contains
1461 an ASN.1 encoding which is inconsistent with that field's
1462 ASN.1 tag, then: the value of the Response-PDU's error-
1463 status field is set to `wrongEncoding', and the value of
1464 its error-index field is set to the index of the failed
1467 (7) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
1468 specifies a value which could under no circumstances be
1469 assigned to the variable, then: the value of the
1475 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 24]
1481 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1484 Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `wrongValue',
1485 and the value of its error-index field is set to the
1486 index of the failed variable binding.
1488 (8) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
1489 variable which does not exist but can not be created not
1490 under the present circumstances (even though it could be
1491 created under other circumstances), then the value of the
1492 Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
1493 `inconsistentName', and the value of its error-index
1494 field is set to the index of the failed variable binding.
1496 (9) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
1497 specifies a value that could under other circumstances be
1498 assigned to the variable, but is presently inconsistent,
1499 then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
1500 is set to `inconsistentValue', and the value of its
1501 error-index field is set to the index of the failed
1504 (10) Otherwise, if the assignment of the value specified by
1505 the variable binding's value field to the specified
1506 variable requires the allocation of a resource which is
1507 presently unavailable, then: the value of the Response-
1508 PDU's error-status field is set to `resourceUnavailable',
1509 and the value of its error-index field is set to the
1510 index of the failed variable binding.
1512 (11) If the processing of the variable binding fails for a
1513 reason other than listed above, then the value of the
1514 Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `genErr', and
1515 the value of its error-index field is set to the index of
1516 the failed variable binding.
1518 (12) Otherwise, the validation of the variable binding
1521 At the end of the first phase, if the validation of all
1522 variable bindings succeeded, then:
1524 The value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
1525 `noError' and the value of its error-index field is zero.
1527 For each variable binding in the request, the named variable
1528 is created if necessary, and the specified value is assigned
1534 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 25]
1540 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1543 to it. Each of these variable assignments occurs as if
1544 simultaneously with respect to all other assignments specified
1545 in the same request. However, if the same variable is named
1546 more than once in a single request, with different associated
1547 values, then the actual assignment made to that variable is
1548 implementation-specific.
1550 If any of these assignments fail (even after all the previous
1551 validations), then all other assignments are undone, and the
1552 Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its error-status
1553 field set to `commitFailed', and the value of its error-index
1554 field set to the index of the failed variable binding.
1556 If and only if it is not possible to undo all the assignments,
1557 then the Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its
1558 error-status field set to `undoFailed', and the value of its
1559 error-index field is set to zero. Note that implementations
1560 are strongly encouraged to take all possible measures to avoid
1561 use of either `commitFailed' or `undoFailed' - these two
1562 error-status codes are not to be taken as license to take the
1563 easy way out in an implementation.
1565 Finally, the generated Response-PDU is encapsulated into a
1566 message, and transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-
1570 4.2.6. The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU
1572 A SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is generated and transmitted by a SNMPv2
1573 entity acting in an agent role when an exceptional situation
1576 The destination(s) to which a SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is sent is
1577 determined by consulting the aclTable [5] to find all entries
1578 satisfying the following conditions:
1580 (1) The value of aclSubject refers to the SNMPv2 entity.
1582 (2) The value of aclPrivileges allows for the SNMPv2-Trap-
1585 (3) aclResources refers to a SNMPv2 context denoting local
1586 object resources, and the notification's administratively
1587 assigned name is present in the corresponding MIB view.
1593 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 26]
1599 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1602 (That is, the set of entries in the viewTable [5] for
1603 which the instance of viewIndex has the same value as the
1604 aclResources's contextViewIndex, define a MIB view which
1605 contains the notification's administratively assigned
1608 (4) If the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of the
1609 corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then the
1610 correspondent variables are all present in the MIB view
1611 corresponding to aclResource.
1613 Then, for each entry satisfying these conditions, a SNMPv2-
1614 Trap-PDU is sent from aclSubject with context aclResources to
1615 aclTarget. The instance of snmpTrapNumbers [11] corresponding
1616 to aclTarget is incremented, and is used as the request-id
1617 field of the SNMPv2-Trap-PDU. Then, the variable-bindings
1618 field are constructed as:
1620 (1) The first variable is sysUpTime.0 [9].
1622 (2) The second variable is snmpTrapOID.0 [11], which contains
1623 the administratively assigned name of the notification.
1625 (3) If the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of the
1626 corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then each
1627 corresponding variable is copied, in order, to the
1628 variable-bindings field.
1630 (4) At the option of the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent
1631 role, additional variables may follow in the variable-
1635 4.2.7. The InformRequest-PDU
1637 An InformRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
1638 request an application in a SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager
1639 role, that wishes to notify another application (in a SNMPv2
1640 entity also acting in a manager role) of information in the
1641 MIB View of a party local to the sending application.
1643 The destination(s) to which an InformRequest-PDU is sent is
1644 determined by inspecting the snmpEventNotifyTable [12], or as
1645 specified by the requesting application. The first two
1646 variable bindings in the variable binding list of an
1652 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 27]
1658 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1661 InformRequest-PDU are sysUpTime.0 [9] and snmpEventID.i [12]
1662 respectively. If the OBJECTS clause is present in the
1663 invocation of the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then
1664 each corresponding variable, as instantiated by this
1665 notification, is copied, in order, to the variable-bindings
1668 Upon receipt of an InformRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
1669 entity determines the size of a message encapsulating a
1670 Response-PDU with the same values in its request-id, error-
1671 status, error-index and variable-bindings fields as the
1672 received InformRequest-PDU. If the determined message size is
1673 greater than either a local constraint or the maximum message
1674 size of the request's source party, then an alternate
1675 Response-PDU is generated, transmitted to the originator of
1676 the InformRequest-PDU, and processing of the InformRequest-PDU
1677 terminates immediately thereafter. This alternate Response-
1678 PDU is formatted with the same values in its request-id field
1679 as the received InformRequest-PDU, with the value of its
1680 error-status field set to `tooBig', the value of its error-
1681 index field set to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field.
1682 This alternate Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
1683 message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
1684 equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
1685 of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the
1686 originator of the InformRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant
1687 message is discarded. Regardless, processing of the
1688 InformRequest-PDU terminates.
1690 Otherwise, the receiving SNMPv2 entity:
1692 (1) presents its contents to the appropriate SNMPv2
1695 (2) generates a Response-PDU with the same values in its
1696 request-id and variable-bindings fields as the received
1697 InformRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status
1698 field is set to `noError' and the value of its error-
1699 index field is zero; and
1701 (3) transmits the generated Response-PDU to the originator of
1702 the InformRequest-PDU.
1711 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 28]
1717 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1722 This document is based, in part, on RFC 1157. The mechanism
1723 for bulk retrieval is influenced by many experiments,
1724 including RFC1187 and also Greg Satz's work on SNMP over TCP.
1726 Finally, the comments of the SNMP version 2 working group are
1727 gratefully acknowledged:
1729 Beth Adams, Network Management Forum
1730 Steve Alexander, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
1731 David Arneson, Cabletron Systems
1734 Jim Barnes, Xylogics, Inc.
1736 Andy Bierman, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
1737 Uri Blumenthal, IBM Corporation
1738 Fred Bohle, Interlink
1740 Theodore Brunner, Bellcore
1741 Stephen F. Bush, GE Information Services
1742 Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
1743 John Chang, IBM Corporation
1744 Szusin Chen, Sun Microsystems
1746 Chris Chiotasso, Ungermann-Bass
1747 Bobby A. Clay, NASA/Boeing
1750 Juan Cruz, Datability, Inc.
1751 David Cullerot, Cabletron Systems
1752 Cathy Cunningham, Microcom
1753 James R. (Chuck) Davin, Bellcore
1754 Michael Davis, Clearpoint
1755 Mike Davison, FiberCom
1756 Cynthia DellaTorre, MITRE
1757 Taso N. Devetzis, Bellcore
1758 Manual Diaz, DAVID Systems, Inc.
1759 Jon Dreyer, Sun Microsystems
1760 David Engel, Optical Data Systems
1761 Mike Erlinger, Lexcel
1763 Daniel Fauvarque, Sun Microsystems
1770 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 29]
1776 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1779 Shari Galitzer, MITRE
1780 Shawn Gallagher, Digital Equipment Corporation
1781 Richard Graveman, Bellcore
1782 Maria Greene, Xyplex, Inc.
1783 Michel Guittet, Apple
1784 Robert Gutierrez, NASA
1785 Bill Hagerty, Cabletron Systems
1786 Gary W. Haney, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
1787 Patrick Hanil, Nokia Telecommunications
1788 Matt Hecht, SNMP Research, Inc.
1789 Edward A. Heiner, Jr., Synernetics Inc.
1790 Susan E. Hicks, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
1791 Geral Holzhauer, Apple
1792 John Hopprich, DAVID Systems, Inc.
1793 Jeff Hughes, Hewlett-Packard
1794 Robin Iddon, Axon Networks, Inc.
1796 Kevin M. Jackson, Concord Communications, Inc.
1797 Ole J. Jacobsen, Interop Company
1798 Ronald Jacoby, Silicon Graphics, Inc.
1799 Satish Joshi, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
1800 Frank Kastenholz, FTP Software
1801 Mark Kepke, Hewlett-Packard
1802 Ken Key, SNMP Research, Inc.
1803 Zbiginew Kielczewski, Eicon
1805 Andrew Knutsen, The Santa Cruz Operation
1806 Michael L. Kornegay, VisiSoft
1807 Deirdre C. Kostik, Bellcore
1808 Cheryl Krupczak, Georgia Tech
1809 Mark S. Lewis, Telebit
1811 David Lindemulder, AT&T/NCR
1812 Ben Lisowski, Sprint
1813 David Liu, Bell-Northern Research
1814 John Lunny, The Wollongong Group
1815 Robert C. Lushbaugh Martin, Marietta Energy Systems
1817 Carl Madison, Star-Tek, Inc.
1818 Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems
1819 Evan McGinnis, 3Com Corporation
1820 Bill McKenzie, IBM Corporation
1821 Donna McMaster, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
1822 John Medicke, IBM Corporation
1823 Doug Miller, Telebit
1829 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 30]
1835 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1838 Dave Minnich, FiberCom
1839 Mohammad Mirhakkak, MITRE
1840 Rohit Mital, Protools
1841 George Mouradian, AT&T Bell Labs
1842 Patrick Mullaney, Cabletron Systems
1843 Dan Myers, 3Com Corporation
1844 Rina Nathaniel, Rad Network Devices Ltd.
1845 Hien V. Nguyen, Sprint
1848 William B. Norton, MERIT
1849 Steve Onishi, Wellfleet Communications, Inc.
1850 David T. Perkins, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
1852 Ilan Raab, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
1853 Richard Ramons, AT&T
1854 Venkat D. Rangan, Metric Network Systems, Inc.
1855 Louise Reingold, Sprint
1856 Sam Roberts, Farallon Computing, Inc.
1857 Kary Robertson, Concord Communications, Inc.
1858 Dan Romascanu, Lannet Data Communications Ltd.
1859 Marshall T. Rose, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
1860 Shawn A. Routhier, Epilogue Technology Corporation
1862 Asaf Rubissa, Fibronics
1863 Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation
1865 Mike Scanlon, Interlan
1867 John Seligson, Ultra Network Technologies
1868 Paul A. Serice, Corporation for Open Systems
1869 Chris Shaw, Banyan Systems
1871 Robert Snyder, Cisco Systems
1874 Einar Stefferud, Network Management Associates
1875 John Stephens, Cayman Systems, Inc.
1876 Robert L. Stewart, Xyplex, Inc. (chair)
1877 Kaj Tesink, Bellcore
1878 Dean Throop, Data General
1879 Ahmet Tuncay, France Telecom-CNET
1880 Maurice Turcotte, Racal Datacom
1881 Warren Vik, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
1888 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 31]
1894 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1897 Steven L. Waldbusser, Carnegie Mellon Universitty
1898 Timothy M. Walden, ACC
1899 Alice Wang, Sun Microsystems
1900 James Watt, Newbridge
1901 Luanne Waul, Timeplex
1902 Donald E. Westlake III, Digital Equipment Corporation
1904 Bert Wijnen, IBM Corporation
1905 Peter Wilson, 3Com Corporation
1906 Steven Wong, Digital Equipment Corporation
1907 Randy Worzella, IBM Corporation
1908 Daniel Woycke, MITRE
1910 Jeff Yarnell, Protools
1911 Chris Young, Cabletron
1912 Kiho Yum, 3Com Corporation
1947 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 32]
1953 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
1958 [1] Information processing systems - Open Systems
1959 Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax
1960 Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for
1961 Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December,
1964 [2] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
1965 "Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the
1966 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1442,
1967 SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
1968 Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
1970 [3] Galvin, J., and McCloghrie, K., "Administrative Model for
1971 version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
1972 (SNMPv2)", RFC 1445, Trusted Information Systems, Hughes
1973 LAN Systems, April 1993.
1975 [4] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
1976 "Textual Conventions for version 2 of the the Simple
1977 Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1443, SNMP
1978 Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
1979 Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
1981 [5] McCloghrie, K., and Galvin, J., "Party MIB for version 2
1982 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC
1983 1447, Hughes LAN Systems, Trusted Information Systems,
1986 [6] C. Kent, J. Mogul, Fragmentation Considered Harmful,
1987 Proceedings, ACM SIGCOMM '87, Stowe, VT, (August 1987).
1989 [7] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
1990 "Transport Mappings for version 2 of the Simple Network
1991 Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1449, SNMP Research,
1992 Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
1993 Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
1995 [8] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
1996 USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1980.
1998 [9] McCloghrie, K., and Rose, M., "Management Information
1999 Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:
2000 MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
2006 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 33]
2012 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
2015 [10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
2016 "Coexistence between version 1 and version 2 of the
2017 Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC
2018 1452, SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover
2019 Beach Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April
2022 [11] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
2023 "Management Information Base for version 2 of the Simple
2024 Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1450, SNMP
2025 Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
2026 Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
2028 [12] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
2029 "Manager-to-Manager Management Information Base", RFC
2030 1451, SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover
2031 Beach Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April
2065 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 34]
2071 RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993
2074 7. Security Considerations
2076 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
2079 8. Authors' Addresses
2083 3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd.
2084 Knoxville, TN 37920-9716
2087 Phone: +1 615 573 1434
2088 Email: case@snmp.com
2093 1225 Charleston Road
2094 Mountain View, CA 94043
2097 Phone: +1 415 966 7934
2102 Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
2104 Mountain View, CA 94043-2186
2107 Phone: +1 415 968 1052
2108 Email: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
2111 Carnegie Mellon University
2113 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
2116 Phone: +1 412 268 6628
2117 Email: waldbusser@cmu.edu
2124 Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 35]