[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about IPv6 Management
[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
message to <listname>-firstname.lastname@example.org and ask to have the alternate
address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
automatically accepted. ]
Take a look at the following:
> Thank you. I have been reading:
> RFC 2452 IP v6 MIB for the TCP
> RFC 2454 IP v6 MIB for the UDP
> RFC 2466 MIB for IP v6 ICMP
> But didn't see anything more detailed. Thanks for the information.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> To: EricLKlein ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:48 AM
> Subject: RE: Question about IPv6 Management
> We have been defining a number of things so that IP (or better Internet) addresses
> can be represented in an IPversion neutral matter. See for example RFC3291.
> We are checking all MIB modules to be IPv4 and IPv6 capable (unless a module
> is for one specific IP version).
> We have defined TCs so that we also have IPv6 transport addresses so that
> SNMP can go over IPv6. See RFC3419
> Various MIB modules are being reqorked in the IPv6 WG
> Hope this helps
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EricLKlein [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: zondag 16 maart 2003 11:19
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Question about IPv6 Management
> I appologize, this is being possted to multiple WG's as it seems to cross areas.
> Is there any information about the requirment changes in the Network Management Systems (NMS) or Operations Support Systems (OSS) necesary to support IPv6?
> I have looked at the various MIB RFC's and such, but can not find anything more than you need bigger address support and some SNMPv2 compliance.
> This seems too simple to me.