Network Working Group J. Case

Network Working Group J. Case
Request for Comments: 1448 SNMP Research, Inc.
K. McCloghrie
Hughes LAN Systems
M. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
S. Waldbusser
Carnegie Mellon University
April 1993

Protocol Operations
for version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)

Status of this Memo

This RFC specifes an IAB standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
"IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization
state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo
is unlimited.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .......................................... 2
1.1 A Note on Terminology ............................... 2
2 Overview .............................................. 3
2.1 Roles of Protocol Entities .......................... 3
2.2 Management Information .............................. 3
2.3 Access to Management Information .................... 4
2.4 Retransmission of Requests .......................... 4
2.5 Message Sizes ....................................... 5
2.6 Transport Mappings .................................. 6
3 Definitions ........................................... 7
4 Protocol Specification ................................ 12
4.1 Common Constructs ................................... 12
4.2 PDU Processing ...................................... 12
4.2.1 The GetRequest-PDU ................................ 13
4.2.2 The GetNextRequest-PDU ............................ 15
4.2.2.1 Example of Table Traversal ...................... 16
4.2.3 The GetBulkRequest-PDU ............................ 18
4.2.3.1 Another Example of Table Traversal .............. 21
4.2.4 The Response-PDU .................................. 22
4.2.5 The SetRequest-PDU ................................ 23
4.2.6 The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU ............................... 26
4.2.7 The InformRequest-PDU ............................. 27

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page i]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

5 Acknowledgements ...................................... 29
6 References ............................................ 33
7 Security Considerations ............................... 35
8 Authors' Addresses .................................... 35

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 1]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

1. Introduction

A network management system contains: several (potentially
many) nodes, each with a processing entity, termed an agent,
which has access to management instrumentation; at least one
management station; and, a management protocol, used to convey
management information between the agents and management
stations. Operations of the protocol are carried out under an
administrative framework which defines both authentication and
authorization policies.

Network management stations execute management applications
which monitor and control network elements. Network elements
are devices such as hosts, routers, terminal servers, etc.,
which are monitored and controlled through access to their
management information.

Management information is viewed as a collection of managed
objects, residing in a virtual information store, termed the
Management Information Base (MIB). Collections of related
objects are defined in MIB modules. These modules are written
using a subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)
[1], termed the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2].

The management protocol, version 2 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol, provides for the exchange of messages
which convey management information between the agents and the
management stations. The form of these messages is a message
"wrapper" which encapsulates a Protocol Data Unit (PDU). The
form and meaning of the "wrapper" is determined by an
administrative framework which defines both authentication and
authorization policies.

It is the purpose of this document, Protocol Operations for
SNMPv2, to define the operations of the protocol with respect
to the sending and receiving of the PDUs.

1.1. A Note on Terminology

For the purpose of exposition, the original Internet-standard
Network Management Framework, as described in RFCs 1155, 1157,
and 1212, is termed the SNMP version 1 framework (SNMPv1).
The current framework is termed the SNMP version 2 framework
(SNMPv2).

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 2]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

2. Overview

2.1. Roles of Protocol Entities

A SNMPv2 entity may operate in a manager role or an agent
role.

A SNMPv2 entity acts in an agent role when it performs SNMPv2
management operations in response to received SNMPv2 protocol
messages (other than an inform notification) or when it sends
trap notifications.

A SNMPv2 entity acts in a manager role when it initiates
SNMPv2 management operations by the generation of SNMPv2
protocol messages or when it performs SNMPv2 management
operations in response to received trap or inform
notifications.

A SNMPv2 entity may support either or both roles, as dictated
by its implementation and configuration. Further, a SNMPv2
entity can also act in the role of a proxy agent, in which it
appears to be acting in an agent role, but satisfies
management requests by acting in a manager role with a remote
entity. The use of proxy agents and the transparency
principle that defines their behavior is described in [3].

2.2. Management Information

The term, variable, refers to an instance of a non-aggregate
object type defined according to the conventions set forth in
the SMI [2] or the textual conventions based on the SMI [4].
The term, variable binding, normally refers to the pairing of
the name of a variable and its associated value. However, if
certain kinds of exceptional conditions occur during
processing of a retrieval request, a variable binding will
pair a name and an indication of that exception.

A variable-binding list is a simple list of variable bindings.

The name of a variable is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which is the
concatenation of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding
object-type together with an OBJECT IDENTIFIER fragment
identifying the instance. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the
corresponding object-type is called the OBJECT IDENTIFIER

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 3]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

prefix of the variable.

2.3. Access to Management Information

Three types of access to management information are provided
by the protocol. One type is a request-response interaction,
in which a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, sends a
request to a SNMPv2 entity, acting in an agent role, and the
latter SNMPv2 entity then responds to the request. This type
is used to retrieve or modify management information
associated with the managed device.

A second type is also a request-response interaction, in which
a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, sends a request to
a SNMPv2 entity, also acting in a manager role, and the latter
SNMPv2 entity then responds to the request. This type is used
to notify a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, of
management information associated with another SNMPv2 entity,
also acting in a manager role.

The third type of access is an unconfirmed interaction, in
which a SNMPv2 entity, acting in an agent role, sends a
unsolicited message, termed a trap, to a SNMPv2 entity, acting
in a manager role, and no response is returned. This type is
used to notify a SNMPv2 entity, acting in a manager role, of
an exceptional situation, which has resulted in changes to
management information associated with the managed device.

2.4. Retransmission of Requests

For all types of request in this protocol, the receiver is
required under normal circumstances, to generate and transmit
a response to the originator of the request. Whether or not a
request should be retransmitted if no corresponding response
is received in an appropriate time interval, is at the
discretion of the application originating the request. This
will normally depend on the urgency of the request. However,
such an application needs to act responsibly in respect to the
frequency and duration of re-transmissions.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 4]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

2.5. Message Sizes

The maximum size of a SNMPv2 message is limited the minimum
of:

(1) the maximum message size which the destination SNMPv2
entity can accept; and,

(2) the maximum message size which the source SNMPv2 entity
can generate.

The former is indicated by partyMaxMessageSize[5] of the
destination party. The latter is imposed by implementation-
specific local constraints.

Each transport mapping for the SNMPv2 indicates the minimum
message size which a SNMPv2 implementation must be able to
produce or consume. Although implementations are encouraged
to support larger values whenever possible, a conformant
implementation must never generate messages larger than
allowed by the receiving SNMPv2 entity.

One of the aims of the GetBulkRequest-PDU, specified in this
protocol, is to minimize the number of protocol exchanges
required to retrieve a large amount of management information.
As such, this PDU type allows a SNMPv2 entity acting in a
manager role to request that the response be as large as
possible given the constraints on message sizes. These
constraints include the limits on the size of messages which
the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role can generate, and
the SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role can receive.

However, it is possible that such maximum sized messages may
be larger than the Path MTU of the path across the network
traversed by the messages. In this situation, such messages
are subject to fragmentation. Fragmentation is generally
considered to be harmful [6], since among other problems, it
leads to a decrease in the reliability of the transfer of the
messages. Thus, a SNMPv2 entity which sends a
GetBulkRequest-PDU must take care to set its parameters
accordingly, so as to reduce the risk of fragmentation. In
particular, under conditions of network stress, only small
values should be used for max-repetitions.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 5]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

2.6. Transport Mappings

It is important to note that the exchange of SNMPv2 messages
requires only an unreliable datagram service, with every
message being entirely and independently contained in a single
transport datagram. Specific transport mappings and encoding
rules are specified elsewhere [7]. However, the preferred
mapping is the use of the User Datagram Protocol [8].

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 6]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

3. Definitions

SNMPv2-PDU DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

IMPORTS
ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, Integer32
FROM SNMPv2-SMI;

-- protocol data units

PDUs ::=
CHOICE {
get-request
GetRequest-PDU,

get-next-request
GetNextRequest-PDU,

get-bulk-request
GetBulkRequest-PDU,

response
Response-PDU,

set-request
SetRequest-PDU,

inform-request
InformRequest-PDU,

snmpV2-trap
SNMPv2-Trap-PDU
}

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 7]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

-- PDUs

GetRequest-PDU ::=
[0]
IMPLICIT PDU

GetNextRequest-PDU ::=
[1]
IMPLICIT PDU

Response-PDU ::=
[2]
IMPLICIT PDU

SetRequest-PDU ::=
[3]
IMPLICIT PDU

-- [4] is obsolete

GetBulkRequest-PDU ::=
[5]
IMPLICIT BulkPDU

InformRequest-PDU ::=
[6]
IMPLICIT PDU

SNMPv2-Trap-PDU ::=
[7]
IMPLICIT PDU

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 8]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

max-bindings
INTEGER ::= 2147483647

PDU ::=
SEQUENCE {
request-id
Integer32,

error-status -- sometimes ignored
INTEGER {
noError(0),
tooBig(1),
noSuchName(2), -- for proxy compatibility
badValue(3), -- for proxy compatibility
readOnly(4), -- for proxy compatibility
genErr(5),
noAccess(6),
wrongType(7),
wrongLength(8),
wrongEncoding(9),
wrongValue(10),
noCreation(11),
inconsistentValue(12),
resourceUnavailable(13),
commitFailed(14),
undoFailed(15),
authorizationError(16),
notWritable(17),
inconsistentName(18)
},

error-index -- sometimes ignored
INTEGER (0..max-bindings),

variable-bindings -- values are sometimes ignored
VarBindList
}

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 9]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

BulkPDU ::= -- MUST be identical in
SEQUENCE { -- structure to PDU
request-id
Integer32,

non-repeaters
INTEGER (0..max-bindings),

max-repetitions
INTEGER (0..max-bindings),

variable-bindings -- values are ignored
VarBindList
}

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 10]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

-- variable binding

VarBind ::=
SEQUENCE {
name
ObjectName,

CHOICE {
value
ObjectSyntax,

unSpecified -- in retrieval requests
NULL,

-- exceptions in responses
noSuchObject[0]
IMPLICIT NULL,

noSuchInstance[1]
IMPLICIT NULL,

endOfMibView[2]
IMPLICIT NULL
}
}

-- variable-binding list

VarBindList ::=
SEQUENCE (SIZE (0..max-bindings)) OF
VarBind

END

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 11]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

4. Protocol Specification

4.1. Common Constructs

The value of the request-id field in a Response-PDU takes the
value of the request-id field in the request PDU to which it
is a response. By use of the request-id value, a SNMPv2
application can distinguish the (potentially multiple)
outstanding requests, and thereby correlate incoming responses
with outstanding requests. In cases where an unreliable
datagram service is used, the request-id also provides a
simple means of identifying messages duplicated by the
network. Use of the same request-id on a retransmission of a
request allows the response to either the original
transmission or the retransmission to satisfy the request.
However, in order to calculate the round trip time for
transmission and processing of a request-response transaction,
the SNMPv2 application needs to use a different request-id
value on a retransmitted request. The latter strategy is
recommended for use in the majority of situations.

A non-zero value of the error-status field in a Response-PDU
is used to indicate that an exception occurred to prevent the
processing of the request. In these cases, a non-zero value
of the Response-PDU's error-index field provides additional
information by identifying which variable binding in the list
caused the exception. A variable binding is identified by its
index value. The first variable binding in a variable-binding
list is index one, the second is index two, etc.

SNMPv2 limits OBJECT IDENTIFIER values to a maximum of 128
sub-identifiers, where each sub-identifier has a maximum value
of 2**32-1.

4.2. PDU Processing

It is mandatory that all SNMPv2 entities acting in an agent
role be able to generate the following PDU types: Response-PDU
and SNMPv2-Trap-PDU; further, all such implementations must be
able to receive the following PDU types: GetRequest-PDU,
GetNextRequest-PDU, GetBulkRequest-PDU, and SetRequest-PDU.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 12]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

It is mandatory that all SNMPv2 entities acting in a manager
role be able to generate the following PDU types: GetRequest-
PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU, GetBulkRequest-PDU, SetRequest-PDU,
InformRequest-PDU, and Response-PDU; further, all such
implementations must be able to receive the following PDU
types: Response-PDU, SNMPv2-Trap-PDU, InformRequest-PDU;

In the elements of procedure below, any field of a PDU which
is not referenced by the relevant procedure is ignored by the
receiving SNMPv2 entity. However, all components of a PDU,
including those whose values are ignored by the receiving
SNMPv2 entity, must have valid ASN.1 syntax and encoding. For
example, some PDUs (e.g., the GetRequest-PDU) are concerned
only with the name of a variable and not its value. In this
case, the value portion of the variable binding is ignored by
the receiving SNMPv2 entity. The unSpecified value is defined
for use as the value portion of such bindings.

For all generated PDUs, the message "wrapper" to encapsulate
the PDU is generated and transmitted as specified in [3]. The
size of a message is limited only by constraints on the
maximum message size, either a local limitation or the limit
associated with the message's destination party, i.e., it is
not limited by the number of variable bindings.

On receiving a management communication, the procedures
defined in Section 3.2 of [3] are followed. If these
procedures indicate that the PDU contained within the message
"wrapper" is to be processed, then the SNMPv2 context
associated with the PDU defines the object resources which are
visible to the operation.

4.2.1. The GetRequest-PDU

A GetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request
of a SNMPv2 application.

Upon receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
processes each variable binding in the variable-binding list
to produce a Response-PDU. All fields of the Response-PDU
have the same values as the corresponding fields of the
received request except as indicated below. Each variable
binding is processed as follows:

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 13]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

(1) If the variable binding's name does not have an OBJECT
IDENTIFIER prefix which exactly matches the OBJECT
IDENTIFIER prefix of any variable accessible by this
request, then its value field is set to `noSuchObject'.

(2) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name does not
exactly match the name of a variable accessible by this
request, then its value field is set to `noSuchInstance'.

(3) Otherwise, the variable binding's value field is set to
the value of the named variable.

If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
fields as the received GetRequest-PDU, with the value of its
error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
binding.

Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field is
zero.

The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the
originator of the GetRequest-PDU.

Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated. This
alternate Response-PDU is formatted with the same value in its
request-id field as the received GetRequest-PDU, with the
value of its error-status field set to `tooBig', the value of
its error-index field set to zero, and an empty variable-
bindings field. This alternate Response-PDU is then
encapsulated into a message. If the size of the resultant
message is less than or equal to both a local constraint and
the maximum message size of the request's source party, it is
transmitted to the originator of the GetRequest-PDU.
Otherwise, the resultant message is discarded.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 14]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

4.2.2. The GetNextRequest-PDU

A GetNextRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
request of a SNMPv2 application.

Upon receipt of a GetNextRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
entity processes each variable binding in the variable-binding
list to produce a Response-PDU. All fields of the Response-
PDU have the same values as the corresponding fields of the
received request except as indicated below. Each variable
binding is processed as follows:

(1) The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
ordered list of the names of all variables which are
accessible by this request and whose name is the first
lexicographic successor of the variable binding's name in
the incoming GetNextRequest-PDU. The corresponding
variable binding's name and value fields in the
Response-PDU are set to the name and value of the located
variable.

(2) If the requested variable binding's name does not
lexicographically precede the name of any variable
accessible by this request, i.e., there is no
lexicographic successor, then the corresponding variable
binding produced in the Response-PDU has its value field
set to 'endOfMibView', and its name field set to the
variable binding's name in the request.

If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
fields as the received GetNextRequest-PDU, with the value of
its error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
binding.

Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field is
zero.

The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 15]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.

Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated. This
alternate Response-PDU is formatted with the same values in
its request-id field as the received GetNextRequest-PDU, with
the value of its error-status field set to `tooBig', the value
of its error-index field set to zero, and an empty variable-
bindings field. This alternate Response-PDU is then
encapsulated into a message. If the size of the resultant
message is less than or equal to both a local constraint and
the maximum message size of the request's source party, it is
transmitted to the originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.
Otherwise, the resultant message is discarded.

4.2.2.1. Example of Table Traversal

An important use of the GetNextRequest-PDU is the traversal of
conceptual tables of information within a MIB. The semantics
of this type of request, together with the method of
identifying individual instances of objects in the MIB,
provides access to related objects in the MIB as if they
enjoyed a tabular organization.

In the protocol exchange sketched below, a SNMPv2 application
retrieves the media-dependent physical address and the
address-mapping type for each entry in the IP net-to-media
Address Translation Table [9] of a particular network element.
It also retrieves the value of sysUpTime [9], at which the
mappings existed. Suppose that the agent's IP net-to-media
table has three entries:

Interface-Number Network-Address Physical-Address Type

1 10.0.0.51 00:00:10:01:23:45 static
1 9.2.3.4 00:00:10:54:32:10 dynamic
2 10.0.0.15 00:00:10:98:76:54 dynamic

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role begins by sending a
GetNextRequest-PDU containing the indicated OBJECT IDENTIFIER
values as the requested variable names:

GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
ipNetToMediaType )

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 16]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with a
Response-PDU:

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123456" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
"000010543210" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 = "dynamic" ))

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:

GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4,
ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 )

The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123461" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 =
"000010012345" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 = "static" ))

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:

GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )

The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123466" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 =
"000010987654" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 = "dynamic" ))

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:

GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15,
ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 )

As there are no further entries in the table, the SNMPv2
entity acting in an agent role responds with the variables
that are next in the lexicographical ordering of the
accessible object names, for example:

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 17]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123471" ),
( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
"9.2.3.4" ),
( ipRoutingDiscards.0 = "2" ))

This response signals the end of the table to the SNMPv2
entity acting in a manager role.

4.2.3. The GetBulkRequest-PDU

A GetBulkRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
request of a SNMPv2 application. The purpose of the
GetBulkRequest-PDU is to request the transfer of a potentially
large amount of data, including, but not limited to, the
efficient and rapid retrieval of large tables.

Upon receipt of a GetBulkRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
entity processes each variable binding in the variable-binding
list to produce a Response-PDU with its request-id field
having the same value as in the request. Processing begins by
examining the values in the non-repeaters and max-repetitions
fields. If the value in the non-repeaters field is less than
zero, then the value of the field is set to zero. Similarly,
if the value in the max-repetitions field is less than zero,
then the value of the field is set to zero.

For the GetBulkRequest-PDU type, the successful processing of
each variable binding in the request generates zero or more
variable bindings in the Response-PDU. That is, the one-to-
one mapping between the variable bindings of the GetRequest-
PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU, and SetRequest-PDU types and the
resultant Response-PDUs does not apply for the mapping between
the variable bindings of a GetBulkRequest-PDU and the
resultant Response-PDU.

The values of the non-repeaters and max-repetitions fields in
the request specify the processing requested. One variable
binding in the Response-PDU is requested for the first N
variable bindings in the request and M variable bindings are
requested for each of the R remaining variable bindings in the
request. Consequently, the total number of requested variable
bindings communicated by the request is given by N + (M * R),
where N is the minimum of: a) the value of the non-repeaters
field in the request, and b) the number of variable bindings

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 18]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

in the request; M is the value of the max-repetitions field in
the request; and R is the maximum of: a) number of variable
bindings in the request - N, and b) zero.

The receiving SNMPv2 entity produces a Response-PDU with up to
the total number of requested variable bindings communicated
by the request. The request-id shall have the same value as
the received GetBulkRequest-PDU.

If N is greater than zero, the first through the (N)-th
variable bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced as
follows:

(1) The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
ordered list of the names of all variables which are
accessible by this request and whose name is the first
lexicographic successor of the variable binding's name in
the incoming GetBulkRequest-PDU. The corresponding
variable binding's name and value fields in the
Response-PDU are set to the name and value of the located
variable.

(2) If the requested variable binding's name does not
lexicographically precede the name of any variable
accessible by this request, i.e., there is no
lexicographic successor, then the corresponding variable
binding produced in the Response-PDU has its value field
set to `endOfMibView', and its name field set to the
variable binding's name in the request.

If M and R are non-zero, the (N + 1)-th and subsequent
variable bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced in a
similar manner. For each iteration i, such that i is greater
than zero and less than or equal to M, and for each repeated
variable, r, such that r is greater than zero and less than or
equal to R, the (N + ( (i-1) * R ) + r)-th variable binding of
the Response-PDU is produced as follows:

(1) The variable which is in the lexicographically ordered
list of the names of all variables which are accessible
by this request and whose name is the (i)-th
lexicographic successor of the (N + r)-th variable
binding's name in the incoming GetBulkRequest-PDU is
located and the variable binding's name and value fields
are set to the name and value of the located variable.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 19]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

(2) If there is no (i)-th lexicographic successor, then the
corresponding variable binding produced in the Response-
PDU has its value field set to `endOfMibView', and its
name field set to either the last lexicographic
successor, or if there are no lexicographic successors,
to the (N + r)-th variable binding's name in the request.

While the maximum number of variable bindings in the
Response-PDU is bounded by N + (M * R), the response may be
generated with a lesser number of variable bindings (possibly
zero) for either of two reasons.

(1) If the size of the message encapsulating the Response-PDU
containing the requested number of variable bindings
would be greater than either a local constraint or the
maximum message size of the request's source party, then
the response is generated with a lesser number of
variable bindings. This lesser number is the ordered set
of variable bindings with some of the variable bindings
at the end of the set removed, such that the size of the
message encapsulating the Response-PDU is approximately
equal to but no greater than the minimum of the local
constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
source party. Note that the number of variable bindings
removed has no relationship to the values of N, M, or R.

(2) The response may also be generated with a lesser number
of variable bindings if for some value of iteration i,
such that i is greater than zero and less than or equal
to M, that all of the generated variable bindings have
the value field set to the `endOfMibView'. In this case,
the variable bindings may be truncated after the (N + (i
* R))-th variable binding.

If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason
other than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted
with the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings
fields as the received GetBulkRequest-PDU, with the value of
its error-status field set to `genErr', and the value of its
error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
binding.

Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
is set to `noError', and the value of its error-index field to
zero.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 20]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

The generated Response-PDU (possibly with an empty variable-
bindings field) is then encapsulated into a message. If the
size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a
local constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
source party, it is transmitted to the originator of the
GetBulkRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant message is
discarded.

4.2.3.1. Another Example of Table Traversal

This example demonstrates how the GetBulkRequest-PDU can be
used as an alternative to the GetNextRequest-PDU. The same
traversal of the IP net-to-media table as shown in Section
4.2.2.1 is achieved with fewer exchanges.

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role begins by sending a
GetBulkRequest-PDU with the modest max-repetitions value of 2,
and containing the indicated OBJECT IDENTIFIER values as the
requested variable names:

GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
ipNetToMediaType )

The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with a
Response-PDU:

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123456" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
"000010543210" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 = "dynamic" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 =
"000010012345" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 = "static" ))

The SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role continues with:

GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
( sysUpTime,
ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 21]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

The SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role responds with:

Response (( sysUpTime.0 = "123466" ),
( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 =
"000010987654" ),
( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 =
"dynamic" ),
( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 =
"9.2.3.4" ),
( ipRoutingDiscards.0 = "2" ))

This response signals the end of the table to the SNMPv2
entity acting in a manager role.

4.2.4. The Response-PDU

The Response-PDU is generated by a SNMPv2 entity only upon
receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU,
GetBulkRequest-PDU, SetRequest-PDU, or InformRequest-PDU, as
described elsewhere in this document.

If the error-status field of the Response-PDU is non-zero, the
value fields of the variable bindings in the variable binding
list are ignored.

If both the error-status field and the error-index field of
the Response-PDU are non-zero, then the value of the error-
index field is the index of the variable binding (in the
variable-binding list of the corresponding request) for which
the request failed. The first variable binding in a request's
variable-binding list is index one, the second is index two,
etc.

A compliant SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager role must be
able to properly receive and handle a Response-PDU with an
error-status field equal to `noSuchName', `badValue', or
`readOnly'. (See Section 3.1.2 of [10].)

Upon receipt of a Response-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
presents its contents to the SNMPv2 application which
generated the request with the same request-id value.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 22]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

4.2.5. The SetRequest-PDU

A SetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request
of a SNMPv2 application.

Upon receipt of a SetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2 entity
determines the size of a message encapsulating a Response-PDU
with the same values in its request-id, error-status, error-
index and variable-bindings fields as the received
SetRequest-PDU. If the determined message size is greater
than either a local constraint or the maximum message size of
the request's source party, then an alternate Response-PDU is
generated, transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-
PDU, and processing of the SetRequest-PDU terminates
immediately thereafter. This alternate Response-PDU is
formatted with the same values in its request-id field as the
received SetRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status
field set to `tooBig', the value of its error-index field set
to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field. This alternate
Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message. If the size
of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a local
constraint and the maximum message size of the request's
source party, it is transmitted to the originator of the
SetRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant message is
discarded. Regardless, processing of the SetRequest-PDU
terminates.

Otherwise, the receiving SNMPv2 entity processes each variable
binding in the variable-binding list to produce a Response-
PDU. All fields of the Response-PDU have the same values as
the corresponding fields of the received request except as
indicated below.

The variable bindings are conceptually processed as a two
phase operation. In the first phase, each variable binding is
validated; if all validations are successful, then each
variable is altered in the second phase. Of course,
implementors are at liberty to implement either the first, or
second, or both, of the these conceptual phases as multiple
implementation phases. Indeed, such multiple implementation
phases may be necessary in some cases to ensure consistency.

The following validations are performed in the first phase on
each variable binding until they are all successful, or until
one fails:

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 23]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

(1) If the variable binding's name specifies a variable which
is not accessible by this request, then the value of the
Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `noAccess',
and the value of its error-index field is set to the
index of the failed variable binding.

(2) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
variable which does not exist and could not ever be
created, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-
status field is set to `noCreation', and the value of its
error-index field is set to the index of the failed
variable binding.

(3) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
variable which exists but can not be modified no matter
what new value is specified, then the value of the
Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
`notWritable', and the value of its error-index field is
set to the index of the failed variable binding.

(4) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
specifies, according to the ASN.1 language, a type which
is inconsistent with that required for the variable, then
the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
to `wrongType', and the value of its error-index field is
set to the index of the failed variable binding.

(5) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
specifies, according to the ASN.1 language, a length
which is inconsistent with that required for the
variable, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-
status field is set to `wrongLength', and the value of
its error-index field is set to the index of the failed
variable binding.

(6) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field contains
an ASN.1 encoding which is inconsistent with that field's
ASN.1 tag, then: the value of the Response-PDU's error-
status field is set to `wrongEncoding', and the value of
its error-index field is set to the index of the failed
variable binding.

(7) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
specifies a value which could under no circumstances be
assigned to the variable, then: the value of the

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 24]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `wrongValue',
and the value of its error-index field is set to the
index of the failed variable binding.

(8) Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a
variable which does not exist but can not be created not
under the present circumstances (even though it could be
created under other circumstances), then the value of the
Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
`inconsistentName', and the value of its error-index
field is set to the index of the failed variable binding.

(9) Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field
specifies a value that could under other circumstances be
assigned to the variable, but is presently inconsistent,
then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field
is set to `inconsistentValue', and the value of its
error-index field is set to the index of the failed
variable binding.

(10) Otherwise, if the assignment of the value specified by
the variable binding's value field to the specified
variable requires the allocation of a resource which is
presently unavailable, then: the value of the Response-
PDU's error-status field is set to `resourceUnavailable',
and the value of its error-index field is set to the
index of the failed variable binding.

(11) If the processing of the variable binding fails for a
reason other than listed above, then the value of the
Response-PDU's error-status field is set to `genErr', and
the value of its error-index field is set to the index of
the failed variable binding.

(12) Otherwise, the validation of the variable binding
succeeds.

At the end of the first phase, if the validation of all
variable bindings succeeded, then:

The value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
`noError' and the value of its error-index field is zero.

For each variable binding in the request, the named variable
is created if necessary, and the specified value is assigned

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 25]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

to it. Each of these variable assignments occurs as if
simultaneously with respect to all other assignments specified
in the same request. However, if the same variable is named
more than once in a single request, with different associated
values, then the actual assignment made to that variable is
implementation-specific.

If any of these assignments fail (even after all the previous
validations), then all other assignments are undone, and the
Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its error-status
field set to `commitFailed', and the value of its error-index
field set to the index of the failed variable binding.

If and only if it is not possible to undo all the assignments,
then the Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its
error-status field set to `undoFailed', and the value of its
error-index field is set to zero. Note that implementations
are strongly encouraged to take all possible measures to avoid
use of either `commitFailed' or `undoFailed' - these two
error-status codes are not to be taken as license to take the
easy way out in an implementation.

Finally, the generated Response-PDU is encapsulated into a
message, and transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-
PDU.

4.2.6. The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU

A SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is generated and transmitted by a SNMPv2
entity acting in an agent role when an exceptional situation
occurs.

The destination(s) to which a SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is sent is
determined by consulting the aclTable [5] to find all entries
satisfying the following conditions:

(1) The value of aclSubject refers to the SNMPv2 entity.

(2) The value of aclPrivileges allows for the SNMPv2-Trap-
PDU.

(3) aclResources refers to a SNMPv2 context denoting local
object resources, and the notification's administratively
assigned name is present in the corresponding MIB view.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 26]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

(That is, the set of entries in the viewTable [5] for
which the instance of viewIndex has the same value as the
aclResources's contextViewIndex, define a MIB view which
contains the notification's administratively assigned
name.)

(4) If the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of the
corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then the
correspondent variables are all present in the MIB view
corresponding to aclResource.

Then, for each entry satisfying these conditions, a SNMPv2-
Trap-PDU is sent from aclSubject with context aclResources to
aclTarget. The instance of snmpTrapNumbers [11] corresponding
to aclTarget is incremented, and is used as the request-id
field of the SNMPv2-Trap-PDU. Then, the variable-bindings
field are constructed as:

(1) The first variable is sysUpTime.0 [9].

(2) The second variable is snmpTrapOID.0 [11], which contains
the administratively assigned name of the notification.

(3) If the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of the
corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then each
corresponding variable is copied, in order, to the
variable-bindings field.

(4) At the option of the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent
role, additional variables may follow in the variable-
bindings field.

4.2.7. The InformRequest-PDU

An InformRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the
request an application in a SNMPv2 entity acting in a manager
role, that wishes to notify another application (in a SNMPv2
entity also acting in a manager role) of information in the
MIB View of a party local to the sending application.

The destination(s) to which an InformRequest-PDU is sent is
determined by inspecting the snmpEventNotifyTable [12], or as
specified by the requesting application. The first two
variable bindings in the variable binding list of an

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 27]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

InformRequest-PDU are sysUpTime.0 [9] and snmpEventID.i [12]
respectively. If the OBJECTS clause is present in the
invocation of the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then
each corresponding variable, as instantiated by this
notification, is copied, in order, to the variable-bindings
field.

Upon receipt of an InformRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMPv2
entity determines the size of a message encapsulating a
Response-PDU with the same values in its request-id, error-
status, error-index and variable-bindings fields as the
received InformRequest-PDU. If the determined message size is
greater than either a local constraint or the maximum message
size of the request's source party, then an alternate
Response-PDU is generated, transmitted to the originator of
the InformRequest-PDU, and processing of the InformRequest-PDU
terminates immediately thereafter. This alternate Response-
PDU is formatted with the same values in its request-id field
as the received InformRequest-PDU, with the value of its
error-status field set to `tooBig', the value of its error-
index field set to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field.
This alternate Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a
message. If the size of the resultant message is less than or
equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message size
of the request's source party, it is transmitted to the
originator of the InformRequest-PDU. Otherwise, the resultant
message is discarded. Regardless, processing of the
InformRequest-PDU terminates.

Otherwise, the receiving SNMPv2 entity:

(1) presents its contents to the appropriate SNMPv2
application;

(2) generates a Response-PDU with the same values in its
request-id and variable-bindings fields as the received
InformRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status
field is set to `noError' and the value of its error-
index field is zero; and

(3) transmits the generated Response-PDU to the originator of
the InformRequest-PDU.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 28]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

5. Acknowledgements

This document is based, in part, on RFC 1157. The mechanism
for bulk retrieval is influenced by many experiments,
including RFC1187 and also Greg Satz's work on SNMP over TCP.

Finally, the comments of the SNMP version 2 working group are
gratefully acknowledged:

Beth Adams, Network Management Forum
Steve Alexander, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
David Arneson, Cabletron Systems
Toshiya Asaba
Fred Baker, ACC
Jim Barnes, Xylogics, Inc.
Brian Bataille
Andy Bierman, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Uri Blumenthal, IBM Corporation
Fred Bohle, Interlink
Jack Brown
Theodore Brunner, Bellcore
Stephen F. Bush, GE Information Services
Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
John Chang, IBM Corporation
Szusin Chen, Sun Microsystems
Robert Ching
Chris Chiotasso, Ungermann-Bass
Bobby A. Clay, NASA/Boeing
John Cooke, Chipcom
Tracy Cox, Bellcore
Juan Cruz, Datability, Inc.
David Cullerot, Cabletron Systems
Cathy Cunningham, Microcom
James R. (Chuck) Davin, Bellcore
Michael Davis, Clearpoint
Mike Davison, FiberCom
Cynthia DellaTorre, MITRE
Taso N. Devetzis, Bellcore
Manual Diaz, DAVID Systems, Inc.
Jon Dreyer, Sun Microsystems
David Engel, Optical Data Systems
Mike Erlinger, Lexcel
Roger Fajman, NIH
Daniel Fauvarque, Sun Microsystems
Karen Frisa, CMU

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 29]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

Shari Galitzer, MITRE
Shawn Gallagher, Digital Equipment Corporation
Richard Graveman, Bellcore
Maria Greene, Xyplex, Inc.
Michel Guittet, Apple
Robert Gutierrez, NASA
Bill Hagerty, Cabletron Systems
Gary W. Haney, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Patrick Hanil, Nokia Telecommunications
Matt Hecht, SNMP Research, Inc.
Edward A. Heiner, Jr., Synernetics Inc.
Susan E. Hicks, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Geral Holzhauer, Apple
John Hopprich, DAVID Systems, Inc.
Jeff Hughes, Hewlett-Packard
Robin Iddon, Axon Networks, Inc.
David Itusak
Kevin M. Jackson, Concord Communications, Inc.
Ole J. Jacobsen, Interop Company
Ronald Jacoby, Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Satish Joshi, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Frank Kastenholz, FTP Software
Mark Kepke, Hewlett-Packard
Ken Key, SNMP Research, Inc.
Zbiginew Kielczewski, Eicon
Jongyeoi Kim
Andrew Knutsen, The Santa Cruz Operation
Michael L. Kornegay, VisiSoft
Deirdre C. Kostik, Bellcore
Cheryl Krupczak, Georgia Tech
Mark S. Lewis, Telebit
David Lin
David Lindemulder, AT&T/NCR
Ben Lisowski, Sprint
David Liu, Bell-Northern Research
John Lunny, The Wollongong Group
Robert C. Lushbaugh Martin, Marietta Energy Systems
Michael Luufer, BBN
Carl Madison, Star-Tek, Inc.
Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems
Evan McGinnis, 3Com Corporation
Bill McKenzie, IBM Corporation
Donna McMaster, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
John Medicke, IBM Corporation
Doug Miller, Telebit

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 30]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

Dave Minnich, FiberCom
Mohammad Mirhakkak, MITRE
Rohit Mital, Protools
George Mouradian, AT&T Bell Labs
Patrick Mullaney, Cabletron Systems
Dan Myers, 3Com Corporation
Rina Nathaniel, Rad Network Devices Ltd.
Hien V. Nguyen, Sprint
Mo Nikain
Tom Nisbet
William B. Norton, MERIT
Steve Onishi, Wellfleet Communications, Inc.
David T. Perkins, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Carl Powell, BBN
Ilan Raab, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Richard Ramons, AT&T
Venkat D. Rangan, Metric Network Systems, Inc.
Louise Reingold, Sprint
Sam Roberts, Farallon Computing, Inc.
Kary Robertson, Concord Communications, Inc.
Dan Romascanu, Lannet Data Communications Ltd.
Marshall T. Rose, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
Shawn A. Routhier, Epilogue Technology Corporation
Chris Rozman
Asaf Rubissa, Fibronics
Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation
Michael Sapich
Mike Scanlon, Interlan
Sam Schaen, MITRE
John Seligson, Ultra Network Technologies
Paul A. Serice, Corporation for Open Systems
Chris Shaw, Banyan Systems
Timon Sloane
Robert Snyder, Cisco Systems
Joo Young Song
Roy Spitier, Sprint
Einar Stefferud, Network Management Associates
John Stephens, Cayman Systems, Inc.
Robert L. Stewart, Xyplex, Inc. (chair)
Kaj Tesink, Bellcore
Dean Throop, Data General
Ahmet Tuncay, France Telecom-CNET
Maurice Turcotte, Racal Datacom
Warren Vik, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
Yannis Viniotis

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 31]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

Steven L. Waldbusser, Carnegie Mellon Universitty
Timothy M. Walden, ACC
Alice Wang, Sun Microsystems
James Watt, Newbridge
Luanne Waul, Timeplex
Donald E. Westlake III, Digital Equipment Corporation
Gerry White
Bert Wijnen, IBM Corporation
Peter Wilson, 3Com Corporation
Steven Wong, Digital Equipment Corporation
Randy Worzella, IBM Corporation
Daniel Woycke, MITRE
Honda Wu
Jeff Yarnell, Protools
Chris Young, Cabletron
Kiho Yum, 3Com Corporation

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 32]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

6. References

[1] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax
Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for
Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December,
1987).

[2] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1442,
SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.

[3] Galvin, J., and McCloghrie, K., "Administrative Model for
version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv2)", RFC 1445, Trusted Information Systems, Hughes
LAN Systems, April 1993.

[4] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Textual Conventions for version 2 of the the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1443, SNMP
Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.

[5] McCloghrie, K., and Galvin, J., "Party MIB for version 2
of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC
1447, Hughes LAN Systems, Trusted Information Systems,
April 1993.

[6] C. Kent, J. Mogul, Fragmentation Considered Harmful,
Proceedings, ACM SIGCOMM '87, Stowe, VT, (August 1987).

[7] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Transport Mappings for version 2 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1449, SNMP Research,
Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.

[8] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1980.

[9] McCloghrie, K., and Rose, M., "Management Information
Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:
MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 33]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

[10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Coexistence between version 1 and version 2 of the
Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC
1452, SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover
Beach Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April
1993.

[11] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Management Information Base for version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1450, SNMP
Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.

[12] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
"Manager-to-Manager Management Information Base", RFC
1451, SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover
Beach Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April
1993.

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 34]

RFC 1448 Protocol Operations for SNMPv2 April 1993

7. Security Considerations

Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

8. Authors' Addresses

Jeffrey D. Case
SNMP Research, Inc.
3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd.
Knoxville, TN 37920-9716
US

Phone: +1 615 573 1434
Email: [email protected]

Keith McCloghrie
Hughes LAN Systems
1225 Charleston Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
US

Phone: +1 415 966 7934
Email: [email protected]

Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
420 Whisman Court
Mountain View, CA 94043-2186
US

Phone: +1 415 968 1052
Email: [email protected]

Steven Waldbusser
Carnegie Mellon University
4910 Forbes Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
US

Phone: +1 412 268 6628
Email: [email protected]

Case, McCloghrie, Rose & Waldbusser [Page 35]