分享
 
 
 

RFC2851 - Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group M. Daniele

Request for Comments: 2851 Compaq Computer Corporation

Category: Standards Track B. Haberman

Nortel Networks

S. Routhier

Wind River Systems, Inc.

J. Schoenwaelder

TU Braunschweig

June 2000

Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This MIB module defines textual conventions to represent commonly

used Internet network layer addressing information. The intent is

that these definitions will be imported and used in MIBs that would

otherwise define their own representations.

This work is output from the Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB"

design team.

Table of Contents

1. IntrodUCtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. The SNMP Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Usage Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.1 Table Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.4 Resolving DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Table Indexing Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

8. Intellectual Property Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction

Several standard-track MIB modules use the IpAddress SMIv2 base type.

This limits the applicability of these MIB modules to IP Version 4

(IPv4) since the IpAddress SMIv2 base type can only contain 4 byte

IPv4 addresses. The IpAddress SMIv2 base type has become problematic

with the introduction of IP Version 6 (IPv6) addresses [21].

This document defines multiple textual conventions as a mechanism to

eXPress generic Internet network layer addresses within MIB module

specifications. The solution is compatible with SMIv2 (STD 58) and

SMIv1 (STD 16). New MIB definitions which need to express network

layer Internet addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined

in this memo. New MIBs SHOULD NOT use the SMIv2 IpAddress base type

anymore.

A generic Internet address consists of two objects, one whose syntax

is InetAddressType, and another whose syntax is InetAddress. The

value of the first object determines how the value of the second

object is encoded. The InetAddress textual convention represents an

opaque Internet address value. The InetAddressType enumeration is

used to "cast" the InetAddress value into a concrete textual

convention for the address type. This usage of multiple textual

conventions allows expression of the display characteristics of each

address type and makes the set of defined Internet address types

extensible.

The textual conventions defined in this document can be used to

define Internet addresses by using DNS domain names in addition to

IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. A MIB designer can write compliance

statements to express that only a subset of the possible address

types must be supported by a compliant implementation.

MIB developers who need to represent Internet addresses SHOULD use

these definitions whenever applicable, as opposed to defining their

own constructs. Even MIBs that only need to represent IPv4 or IPv6

addresses SHOULD use the textual conventions defined in this memo.

In order to make existing widely-deployed IPv4-only MIBs fit for

IPv6, it might be a valid approach to define separate tables for

different address types. This is a decision for the MIB designer.

For example, the tcpConnTable of the TCP-MIB [18] was left intact

and a new table was added for TCP connections over IPv6 in the IPV6-

TCP-MIB [19]. Note that even in this case, the MIBs SHOULD use the

textual conventions defined in this memo.

Note that MIB developers SHOULD NOT use the textual conventions

defined in this document to represent transport layer addresses.

Instead the SMIv2 TAddress textual convention and associated

definitions should be used for transport layer addresses.

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in

this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1].

2. The SNMP Management Framework

The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major

components:

o An overall architecture, described in RFC2571 [2].

o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the

purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of

Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in STD

16, RFC1155 [3], STD 16, RFC1212 [4] and RFC1215 [5]. The

second version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC2578

[6], STD 58, RFC2579 [7] and STD 58, RFC2580 [8].

o Message protocols for transferring management information. The

first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and

described in STD 15, RFC1157 [9]. A second version of the SNMP

message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track

protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC1901 [10] and RFC

1906 [11]. The third version of the message protocol is called

SNMPv3 and described in RFC1906 [11], RFC2572 [12] and RFC2574

[13].

o Protocol operations for Accessing management information. The

first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is

described in STD 15, RFC1157 [9]. A second set of protocol

operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC1905

[14].

o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC2573 [15] and

the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC2575

[16].

A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework

can be found in RFC2570 [17].

Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed

the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are

defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.

This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A

MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate

translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically

equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no

translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable

information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in

SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine

readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the

MIB.

3. Definitions

INET-ADDRESS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

IMPORTS

MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI

TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC;

inetAddressMIB MODULE-IDENTITY

LAST-UPDATED "200006080000Z"

ORGANIZATION

"IETF Operations and Management Area"

CONTACT-INFO

"Mike Daniele

Compaq Computer Corporation

110 Spit Brook Rd

Nashua, NH 03062, USA

Phone: +1 603 884-1423

EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com

Brian Haberman

Nortel Networks

4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200

Durham, NC 27703, USA

Phone: +1 919 992-4439

EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com

Shawn A. Routhier

Wind River Systems, Inc.

1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403

Nashua, NH 03062, USA

Phone: +1 603 897-2000

EMail: sar@epilogue.com

Juergen Schoenwaelder

TU Braunschweig

Bueltenweg 74/75

38106 Braunschweig, Germany

Phone: +49 531 391-3289

EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org."

DESCRIPTION

"This MIB module defines textual conventions for

representing Internet addresses. An Internet

address can be an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address

or a DNS domain name."

REVISION "200006080000Z"

DESCRIPTION

"Initial version, published as RFC2851."

::= { mib-2 76 }

InetAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"A value that represents a type of Internet address.

unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value MUST

be used if the value of the corresponding

InetAddress object is a zero-length string.

It may also be used to indicate an IP address

which is not in one of the formats defined

below.

ipv4(1) An IPv4 address as defined by the

InetAddressIPv4 textual convention.

ipv6(2) An IPv6 address as defined by the

InetAddressIPv6 textual convention.

dns(16) A DNS domain name as defined by the

InetAddressDNS textual convention.

Each definition of a concrete InetAddressType value must be

accompanied by a definition of a textual convention for use

with that InetAddressType.

The InetAddressType textual convention SHOULD NOT be suBTyped

in object type definitions to support future extensions. It

MAY be subtyped in compliance statements in order to require

only a subset of these address types for a compliant

implementation."

SYNTAX INTEGER {

unknown(0),

ipv4(1), -- these named numbers are aligned

ipv6(2), -- with AddressFamilyNumbers from

dns(16) -- IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-NUMBERS-MIB

}

InetAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"Denotes a generic Internet address.

An InetAddress value is always interpreted within the

context of an InetAddressType value. The InetAddressType

object which defines the context must be registered

immediately before the object which uses the InetAddress

textual convention. In other words, the object identifiers

for the InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object

MUST have the same length and the last sub-identifier of

the InetAddressType object MUST be 1 less than the last

sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.

When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an

index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128

sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,

the OBJECT-TYPE declaration MUST include a 'SIZE' clause

to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."

SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

InetAddressIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d"

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"Represents an IPv4 network address:

octets contents encoding

1-4 IP address network-byte order

The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv4(1)."

SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))

InetAddressIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x%4d"

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"Represents an IPv6 network address:

octets contents encoding

1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order

17-20 scope identifier network-byte order

The corresponding InetAddressType value is ipv6(2).

The scope identifier (bytes 17-20) MUST NOT be present

for global IPv6 addresses. For non-global IPv6 addresses

(e.g. link-local or site-local addresses), the scope

identifier MUST always be present. It contains a link

identifier for link-local and a site identifier for

site-local IPv6 addresses.

The scope identifier MUST disambiguate identical address

values. For link-local addresses, the scope identifier will

typically be the interface index (ifIndex as defined in the

IF-MIB, RFC2233) of the interface on which the address is

configured.

The scope identifier may contain the special value 0

which refers to the default scope. The default scope

may be used in cases where the valid scope identifier

is not known (e.g., a management application needs to

write a site-local InetAddressIPv6 address without

knowing the site identifier value). The default scope

SHOULD NOT be used as an easy way out in cases where

the scope identifier for a non-global IPv6 is known."

SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1620))

InetAddressDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION

DISPLAY-HINT "255a"

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"Represents a DNS domain name. The name SHOULD be

fully qualified whenever possible.

The corresponding InetAddressType is dns(16).

The DESCRIPTION clause of InetAddress objects that

may have InetAddressDNS values must fully describe

how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP

addresses."

SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255))

END

4. Usage Hints

One particular usage of InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs is to avoid

over-constraining an object definition by the use of the IpAddress

SMI base type. An InetAddressType/InetAddress pair allows to

represent IP addresses in various formats.

The InetAddressType and InetAddress objects SHOULD NOT be subtyped.

Subtyping binds the MIB module to specific address formats, which may

cause serious problems if new address formats need to be introduced.

Note that it is possible to write compliance statements in order to

express that only a subset of the defined address types must be

implemented to be compliant.

Internet addresses MUST always be represented by a pair of

InetAddressType/InetAddress objects. It is not allowed to "share" an

InetAddressType between multiple InetAddress objects. Furthermore,

the InetAddressType object must be registered immediately before the

InetAddress object. In other words, the object identifiers for the

InetAddressType object and the InetAddress object MUST have the same

length and the last sub-identifier of the InetAddressType object MUST

be 1 less than the last sub-identifier of the InetAddress object.

4.1 Table Indexing

When a generic Internet address is used as an index, both the

InetAddressType and InetAddress objects MUST be used. The

InetAddressType object MUST come immediately before the InetAddress

object in the INDEX clause. If multiple Internet addresses are used

in the INDEX clause, then every Internet address must be represented

by a pair of InetAddressType and InetAddress objects.

The IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used for an object of type

InetAddress in an INDEX clause. Instance sub-identifiers are then of

the form T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetAddressType

object, O1...On are the octets in the InetAddress object, and N is

the number of those octets.

There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed in

this fashion. Command generator applications may lookup specific

addresses of known type and value, issue GetNext requests for

addresses of a single type, or issue GetNext requests for a specific

type and address prefix.

4.2 Uniqueness of Addresses

IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current usage

notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to have different

scopes and hence uniqueness [21]. In particular, IPv6 "link-local"

and "site-local" addresses are not guaranteed to be unique on any

particular node. In such cases, the duplicate addresses must be

configured on different interfaces. So the combination of an IPv6

address and an interface number is unique. The interface number may

therefore be used as a scope identifier.

The InetAddressIPv6 textual convention has been defined to represent

global and non-global IPv6 addresses. MIB designers who use

InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs therefore do not need define

additional objects in order to support link-local or site-local

addresses.

The size of the scope identifier has been chosen so that it matches

the sin6_scope_id field of the sockaddr_in6 structure defined in RFC

2553 [22].

4.3 Multiple InetAddresses per Host

A single host system may be configured with multiple addresses (IPv4

or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. Thus it is possible

for a single host system to be represented by multiple

InetAddressType/InetAddress pairs.

If this could be an implementation or usage issue, then the

DESCRIPTION clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe

required behavior.

4.4 Resolving DNS Names

DNS names must be resolved to IP addresses when communication with

the named host is required. This raises a temporal ASPect to defining

MIB objects whose value is a DNS name: When is the name translated to

an address?

For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding

destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the forwarding

entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? Once, when

the object was instantiated?

The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define how

and when any required name to address resolution is done.

Similarly, the DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely

define how and when a reverse lookup is being done if an agent has

accessed instrumentation that knows about an IP address and the MIB

or implementation requires to map the address to a name.

5. Table Indexing Example

This example shows a table listing communication peers that are

identified by either an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or a DNS name.

The table definition also prohibits entries with an empty address

(whose type would be "unknown"). The size of a DNS name is limited to

64 characters.

peerTable OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PeerEntry

MAX-ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"A list of communication peers."

::= { somewhere 1 }

peerEntry OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX PeerEntry

MAX-ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"An entry containing information about a particular peer."

INDEX { peerAddressType, peerAddress }

::= { peerTable 1 }

PeerEntry ::= SEQUENCE {

peerAddressType InetAddressType,

peerAddress InetAddress,

peerStatus INTEGER }

peerAddressType OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX InetAddressType

MAX-ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"The type of Internet address by which the peer

is reachable."

::= { peerEntry 1 }

peerAddress OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE (1..64))

MAX-ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"The Internet address for the peer. Note that

implementations must limit themselves to a single

entry in this table per reachable peer.

The peerAddress may not be empty due to the SIZE

restriction.

If a row is created administratively by an SNMP

operation and the address type value is dns(16), then

the agent stores the DNS name internally. A DNS name

lookup must be performed on the internally stored DNS

name whenever it is being used to contact the peer.

If a row is created by the managed entity itself and

the address type value is dns(16), then the agent

stores the IP address internally. A DNS reverse lookup

must be performed on the internally stored IP address

whenever the value is retrieved via SNMP."

::= { peerEntry 2 }

The following compliance statement specifies that implementations

need only support IPv4 addresses and globally unique IPv6 addresses

to be compliant. Support for DNS names or scoped IPv6 addresses is

not required.

peerCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"The compliance statement the peer MIB."

MODULE -- this module

MANDATORY-GROUPS { peerGroup }

OBJECT peerAddressType

SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }

DESCRIPTION

"An implementation is only required to support IPv4

and IPv6 addresses."

OBJECT peerAddress

SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(416))

DESCRIPTION

"An implementation is only required to support IPv4

and globally unique IPv6 addresses."

::= { somewhere 2 }

Note that the SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of not-accessible

objects in an object group (see section 3.1 in STD 58, RFC2580 [8]).

It is therefore not possible to formally refine the syntax of

auxiliary objects which are not-accessible. In such a case, it is

suggested to express the refinement informally in the DESCRIPTION

clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro invocation.

6. Security Considerations

This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it

defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MIB

modules to define management objects.

Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the modules

that define management objects.

7. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Randy Bush, Richard Draves, Mark

Ellison, Bill Fenner, Jun-ichiro Hagino, Tim Jenkins, Glenn

Mansfield, Keith McCloghrie, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Peder Chr.

Norgaard, Randy Presuhn, Andrew Smith, Dave Thaler, Kenneth White,

Bert Wijnen, and Brian Zill for their comments and suggestions.

8. Intellectual Property Notice

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any

intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to

pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in

this document or the extent to which any license under such rights

might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it

has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the

IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and

standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of

claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of

licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to

obtain a general license or permission for the use of such

proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can

be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any

copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary

rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice

this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

Director.

References

[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement

Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

[2] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for

Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC2571, April 1999.

[3] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of

Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC

1155, May 1990.

[4] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16,

RFC1212, March 1991.

[5] Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the

SNMP", RFC1215, March 1991.

[6] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,

M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information

Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC2578, April 1999.

[7] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,

M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,

RFC2579, April 1999.

[8] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,

M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD

58, RFC2580, April 1999.

[9] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple

Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC1157, May 1990.

[10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,

"Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC1901, January

1996.

[11] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,

"Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network

Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC1906, January 1996.

[12] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message

Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management

Protocol (SNMP)", RFC2572, April 1999.

[13] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM)

for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol

(SNMPv3)", RFC2574, April 1999.

[14] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,

"Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network

Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC1905, January 1996.

[15] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", RFC

2573, April 1999.

[16] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access

Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management

Protocol (SNMP)", RFC2575, April 1999.

[17] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction

to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management

Framework", RFC2570, April 1999.

[18] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the

Transmission Control Protocol using SMIv2", RFC2012, November

1996.

[19] Daniele, M., "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for the

Transmission Control Protocol", RFC2452, December 1998.

[20] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB

using SMIv2", RFC2233, November 1997.

[21] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing

Architecture", RFC2373, July 1998.

[22] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J. and W. Stevens, "Basic

Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC2553, March 1999.

Authors' Addresses

Mike Daniele

Compaq Computer Corporation

110 Spit Brook Rd

Nashua, NH 03062

USA

Phone: +1 603 884-1423

EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com

Brian Haberman

Nortel Networks

4039 Emperor Blvd., Suite 200

Durham, NC 27703

USA

Phone: +1 919 992-4439

EMail: haberman@nortelnetworks.com

Shawn A. Routhier

Wind River Systems, Inc.

1 Tara Blvd, Suite 403

Nashua, NH 03062

USA

Phone: +1 603 897-2000

EMail: sar@epilogue.com

Juergen Schoenwaelder

TU Braunschweig

Bueltenweg 74/75

38106 Braunschweig

Germany

Phone: +49 531 391-3289

EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有