4. SNMP
1).SNMP란?
> SNMP는 Simple Network Management Protocol의 줄임말입니다. SNMP는 네트워크 장비들로 부터 필요한 정보를 가져와 장비상태를 모니터링하거나 특수한 경우 장비와 관련된 설정 값을 변경하는 등의 작업을 하여 네트워크장비의 전체상황을 관리 할 수 있는 프로토콜입니다.
> SNMP는 Server/Client 모델 기반으로 운용됩니다.
> SNMP에서 Client는 Manager라고 하며, 이 Manager가 탑재되어 응용프로그램(예, MRTG)이 돌아가는 시스템은 네트워크 관리시스템이라고 합니다. 또한 Server는 Agent라고 하며 관리대상이 되는 장비들에서 돌아가며 필요한 정보들을 모아서 Manager로 전송하는 역할을 하게 됩니다. 특히 SNMP는 MRTG라는 소프트웨어에서 네트워크 장비의 트래픽 사용량을 분석하는 데에 많이 사용되고 있습니다.
> SNMP는 RFC-1157에 정의되어 있으며 네트워크 장비를 생산하는 대부분의 업체는 RFC-1157 문서에 알려바를 수용해서 생산함으로써 다른 네트워크 장비와의 호환성을 유지하게 되는 것입니다.
* SNMP의 RFC-1157 문서를 보시려면 아래의 URL에 첨부했습니다.
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1157.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group J. Case
Request for Comments: 1157 SNMP Research
Obsoletes: RFC 1098 M. Fedor
Performance Systems International
M. Schoffstall
Performance Systems International
J. Davin
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
May 1990
A Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Table of Contents
1. Status of this Memo ................................... 2
2. Introduction .......................................... 2
3. The SNMP Architecture ................................. 5
3.1 Goals of the Architecture ............................ 5
3.2 Elements of the Architecture ......................... 5
3.2.1 Scope of Management Information .................... 6
3.2.2 Representation of Management Information ........... 6
3.2.3 Operations Supported on Management Information ..... 7
3.2.4 Form and Meaning of Protocol Exchanges ............. 8
3.2.5 Definition of Administrative Relationships ......... 8
3.2.6 Form and Meaning of References to Managed Objects .. 12
3.2.6.1 Resolution of Ambiguous MIB References ........... 12
3.2.6.2 Resolution of References across MIB Versions...... 12
3.2.6.3 Identification of Object Instances ............... 12
3.2.6.3.1 ifTable Object Type Names ...................... 13
3.2.6.3.2 atTable Object Type Names ...................... 13
3.2.6.3.3 ipAddrTable Object Type Names .................. 14
3.2.6.3.4 ipRoutingTable Object Type Names ............... 14
3.2.6.3.5 tcpConnTable Object Type Names ................. 14
3.2.6.3.6 egpNeighTable Object Type Names ................ 15
4. Protocol Specification ................................ 16
4.1 Elements of Procedure ................................ 17
4.1.1 Common Constructs .................................. 19
4.1.2 The GetRequest-PDU ................................. 20
4.1.3 The GetNextRequest-PDU ............................. 21
4.1.3.1 Example of Table Traversal ....................... 23
4.1.4 The GetResponse-PDU ................................ 24
4.1.5 The SetRequest-PDU ................................. 25
4.1.6 The Trap-PDU ....................................... 27
4.1.6.1 The coldStart Trap ............................... 28
4.1.6.2 The warmStart Trap ............................... 28
4.1.6.3 The linkDown Trap ................................ 28
4.1.6.4 The linkUp Trap .................................. 28
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 1]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
4.1.6.5 The authenticationFailure Trap ................... 28
4.1.6.6 The egpNeighborLoss Trap ......................... 28
4.1.6.7 The enterpriseSpecific Trap ...................... 29
5. Definitions ........................................... 30
6. Acknowledgements ...................................... 33
7. References ............................................ 34
8. Security Considerations................................ 35
9. Authors' Addresses..................................... 35
1. Status of this Memo
This RFC is a re-release of RFC 1098, with a changed "Status of this
Memo" section plus a few minor typographical corrections. This memo
defines a simple protocol by which management information for a
network element may be inspected or altered by logically remote
users. In particular, together with its companion memos which
describe the structure of management information along with the
management information base, these documents provide a simple,
workable architecture and system for managing TCP/IP-based internets
and in particular the Internet.
The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP
implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation
of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two
recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet
standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Gateway
Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability
of this standard.
Please refer to the latest edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
Standards" RFC for current information on the state and status of
standard Internet protocols.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
2. Introduction
As reported in RFC 1052, IAB Recommendations for the Development of
Internet Network Management Standards [1], a two-prong strategy for
network management of TCP/IP-based internets was undertaken. In the
short-term, the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) was to be
used to manage nodes in the Internet community. In the long-term,
the use of the OSI network management framework was to be examined.
Two documents were produced to define the management information: RFC
1065, which defined the Structure of Management Information (SMI)
[2], and RFC 1066, which defined the Management Information Base
(MIB) [3]. Both of these documents were designed so as to be
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 2]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
compatible with both the SNMP and the OSI network management
framework.
This strategy was quite successful in the short-term: Internet-based
network management technology was fielded, by both the research and
commercial communities, within a few months. As a result of this,
portions of the Internet community became network manageable in a
timely fashion.
As reported in RFC 1109, Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network
Management Review Group [4], the requirements of the SNMP and the OSI
network management frameworks were more different than anticipated.
As such, the requirement for compatibility between the SMI/MIB and
both frameworks was suspended. This action permitted the operational
network management framework, the SNMP, to respond to new operational
needs in the Internet community by producing documents defining new
MIB items.
The IAB has designated the SNMP, SMI, and the initial Internet MIB to
be full "Standard Protocols" with "Recommended" status. By this
action, the IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be
network manageable and that the implementations that are network
manageable are expected to adopt and implement the SMI, MIB, and
SNMP.
As such, the current network management framework for TCP/IP- based
internets consists of: Structure and Identification of Management
Information for TCP/IP-based Internets, which describes how managed
objects contained in the MIB are defined as set forth in RFC 1155
[5]; Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-
based Internets, which describes the managed objects contained in the
MIB as set forth in RFC 1156 [6]; and, the Simple Network Management
Protocol, which defines the protocol used to manage these objects, as
set forth in this memo.
As reported in RFC 1052, IAB Recommendations for the Development of
Internet Network Management Standards [1], the Internet Activities
Board has directed the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to
create two new working groups in the area of network management. One
group was charged with the further specification and definition of
elements to be included in the Management Information Base (MIB).
The other was charged with defining the modifications to the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to accommodate the short-term
needs of the network vendor and operations communities, and to align
with the output of the MIB working group.
The MIB working group produced two memos, one which defines a
Structure for Management Information (SMI) [2] for use by the managed
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 3]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
objects contained in the MIB. A second memo [3] defines the list of
managed objects.
The output of the SNMP Extensions working group is this memo, which
incorporates changes to the initial SNMP definition [7] required to
attain alignment with the output of the MIB working group. The
changes should be minimal in order to be consistent with the IAB's
directive that the working groups be "extremely sensitive to the need
to keep the SNMP simple." Although considerable care and debate has
gone into the changes to the SNMP which are reflected in this memo,
the resulting protocol is not backwardly-compatible with its
predecessor, the Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol (SGMP) [8].
Although the syntax of the protocol has been altered, the original
philosophy, design decisions, and architecture remain intact. In
order to avoid confusion, new UDP ports have been allocated for use
by the protocol described in this memo.
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 4]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
3. The SNMP Architecture
Implicit in the SNMP architectural model is a collection of network
management stations and network elements. Network management
stations execute management applications which monitor and control
network elements. Network elements are devices such as hosts,
gateways, terminal servers, and the like, which have management
agents responsible for performing the network management functions
requested by the network management stations. The Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) is used to communicate management
information between the network management stations and the agents in
the network elements.
3.1. Goals of the Architecture
The SNMP explicitly minimizes the number and complexity of management
functions realized by the management agent itself. This goal is
attractive in at least four respects:
(1) The development cost for management agent software
necessary to support the protocol is accordingly reduced.
(2) The degree of management function that is remotely
supported is accordingly increased, thereby admitting
fullest use of internet resources in the management task.
(3) The degree of management function that is remotely
supported is accordingly increased, thereby imposing the
fewest possible restrictions on the form and
sophistication of management tools.
(4) Simplified sets of management functions are easily
understood and used by developers of network management
tools.
A second goal of the protocol is that the functional paradigm for
monitoring and control be sufficiently extensible to accommodate
additional, possibly unanticipated aspects of network operation and
management.
A third goal is that the architecture be, as much as possible,
independent of the architecture and mechanisms of particular hosts or
particular gateways.
3.2. Elements of the Architecture
The SNMP architecture articulates a solution to the network
management problem in terms of:
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 5]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
(1) the scope of the management information communicated by
the protocol,
(2) the representation of the management information
communicated by the protocol,
(3) operations on management information supported by the
protocol,
(4) the form and meaning of exchanges among management
entities,
(5) the definition of administrative relationships among
management entities, and
(6) the form and meaning of references to management
information.
3.2.1. Scope of Management Information
The scope of the management information communicated by operation of
the SNMP is exactly that represented by instances of all non-
aggregate object types either defined in Internet-standard MIB or
defined elsewhere according to the conventions set forth in
Internet-standard SMI [5].
Support for aggregate object types in the MIB is neither required for
conformance with the SMI nor realized by the SNMP.
3.2.2. Representation of Management Information
Management information communicated by operation of the SNMP is
represented according to the subset of the ASN.1 language [9] that is
specified for the definition of non-aggregate types in the SMI.
The SGMP adopted the convention of using a well-defined subset of the
ASN.1 language [9]. The SNMP continues and extends this tradition by
utilizing a moderately more complex subset of ASN.1 for describing
managed objects and for describing the protocol data units used for
managing those objects. In addition, the desire to ease eventual
transition to OSI-based network management protocols led to the
definition in the ASN.1 language of an Internet-standard Structure of
Management Information (SMI) [5] and Management Information Base
(MIB) [6]. The use of the ASN.1 language, was, in part, encouraged
by the successful use of ASN.1 in earlier efforts, in particular, the
SGMP. The restrictions on the use of ASN.1 that are part of the SMI
contribute to the simplicity espoused and validated by experience
with the SGMP.
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 6]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
Also for the sake of simplicity, the SNMP uses only a subset of the
basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [10]. Namely, all encodings use the
definite-length form. Further, whenever permissible, non-constructor
encodings are used rather than constructor encodings. This
restriction applies to all aspects of ASN.1 encoding, both for the
top-level protocol data units and the data objects they contain.
3.2.3. Operations Supported on Management Information
The SNMP models all management agent functions as alterations or
inspections of variables. Thus, a protocol entity on a logically
remote host (possibly the network element itself) interacts with the
management agent resident on the network element in order to retrieve
(get) or alter (set) variables. This strategy has at least two
positive consequences:
(1) It has the effect of limiting the number of essential
management functions realized by the management agent to
two: one operation to assign a value to a specified
configuration or other parameter and another to retrieve
such a value.
(2) A second effect of this decision is to avoid introducing
into the protocol definition support for imperative
management commands: the number of such commands is in
practice ever-increasing, and the semantics of such
commands are in general arbitrarily complex.
The strategy implicit in the SNMP is that the monitoring of network
state at any significant level of detail is accomplished primarily by
polling for appropriate information on the part of the monitoring
center(s). A limited number of unsolicited messages (traps) guide
the timing and focus of the polling. Limiting the number of
unsolicited messages is consistent with the goal of simplicity and
minimizing the amount of traffic generated by the network management
function.
The exclusion of imperative commands from the set of explicitly
supported management functions is unlikely to preclude any desirable
management agent operation. Currently, most commands are requests
either to set the value of some parameter or to retrieve such a
value, and the function of the few imperative commands currently
supported is easily accommodated in an asynchronous mode by this
management model. In this scheme, an imperative command might be
realized as the setting of a parameter value that subsequently
triggers the desired action. For example, rather than implementing a
"reboot command," this action might be invoked by simply setting a
parameter indicating the number of seconds until system reboot.
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 7]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
3.2.4. Form and Meaning of Protocol Exchanges
The communication of management information among management entities
is realized in the SNMP through the exchange of protocol messages.
The form and meaning of those messages is defined below in Section 4.
Consistent with the goal of minimizing complexity of the management
agent, the exchange of SNMP messages requires only an unreliable
datagram service, and every message is entirely and independently
represented by a single transport datagram. While this document
specifies the exchange of messages via the UDP protocol [11], the
mechanisms of the SNMP are generally suitable for use with a wide
variety of transport services.
3.2.5. Definition of Administrative Relationships
The SNMP architecture admits a variety of administrative
relationships among entities that participate in the protocol. The
entities residing at management stations and network elements which
communicate with one another using the SNMP are termed SNMP
application entities. The peer processes which implement the SNMP,
and thus support the SNMP application entities, are termed protocol
entities.
A pairing of an SNMP agent with some arbitrary set of SNMP
application entities is called an SNMP community. Each SNMP
community is named by a string of octets, that is called the
community name for said community.
An SNMP message originated by an SNMP application entity that in fact
belongs to the SNMP community named by the community component of
said message is called an authentic SNMP message. The set of rules
by which an SNMP message is identified as an authentic SNMP message
for a particular SNMP community is called an authentication scheme.
An implementation of a function that identifies authentic SNMP
messages according to one or more authentication schemes is called an
authentication service.
Clearly, effective management of administrative relationships among
SNMP application entities requires authentication services that (by
the use of encryption or other techniques) are able to identify
authentic SNMP messages with a high degree of certainty. Some SNMP
implementations may wish to support only a trivial authentication
service that identifies all SNMP messages as authentic SNMP messages.
For any network element, a subset of objects in the MIB that pertain
to that element is called a SNMP MIB view. Note that the names of
the object types represented in a SNMP MIB view need not belong to a
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 8]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
single sub-tree of the object type name space.
An element of the set { READ-ONLY, READ-WRITE } is called an SNMP
access mode.
A pairing of a SNMP access mode with a SNMP MIB view is called an
SNMP community profile. A SNMP community profile represents
specified access privileges to variables in a specified MIB view. For
every variable in the MIB view in a given SNMP community profile,
access to that variable is represented by the profile according to
the following conventions:
(1) if said variable is defined in the MIB with "Access:" of
"none," it is unavailable as an operand for any operator;
(2) if said variable is defined in the MIB with "Access:" of
"read-write" or "write-only" and the access mode of the
given profile is READ-WRITE, that variable is available
as an operand for the get, set, and trap operations;
(3) otherwise, the variable is available as an operand for
the get and trap operations.
(4) In those cases where a "write-only" variable is an
operand used for the get or trap operations, the value
given for the variable is implementation-specific.
A pairing of a SNMP community with a SNMP community profile is called
a SNMP access policy. An access policy represents a specified
community profile afforded by the SNMP agent of a specified SNMP
community to other members of that community. All administrative
relationships among SNMP application entities are architecturally
defined in terms of SNMP access policies.
For every SNMP access policy, if the network element on which the
SNMP agent for the specified SNMP community resides is not that to
which the MIB view for the specified profile pertains, then that
policy is called a SNMP proxy access policy. The SNMP agent
associated with a proxy access policy is called a SNMP proxy agent.
While careless definition of proxy access policies can result in
management loops, prudent definition of proxy policies is useful in
at least two ways:
(1) It permits the monitoring and control of network elements
which are otherwise not addressable using the management
protocol and the transport protocol. That is, a proxy
agent may provide a protocol conversion function allowing
a management station to apply a consistent management
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 9]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
framework to all network elements, including devices such
as modems, multiplexors, and other devices which support
different management frameworks.
(2) It potentially shields network elements from elaborate
access control policies. For example, a proxy agent may
implement sophisticated access control whereby diverse
subsets of variables within the MIB are made accessible
to different management stations without increasing the
complexity of the network element.
By way of example, Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between
management stations, proxy agents, and management agents. In this
example, the proxy agent is envisioned to be a normal Internet
Network Operations Center (INOC) of some administrative domain which
has a standard managerial relationship with a set of management
agents.
Case, Fedor, Schoffstall, & Davin [Page 10]
RFC 1157 SNMP May 1990
+------------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
| Region #1 INOC | |Region #2 INOC | |PC in Region #3 |
| | | | | |
|Domain=Region #1 | |Domain=Region #2| |Domain=Region #3|
|CPU=super-mini-1 | |CPU=super-mini-1| |CPU=Clone-1 |
|PCommunity=pub | |PCommunity=pub | |PCommunity=slate|
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+
/|\ /|\ /|\
| | |
| | |
| \|/ |
| +-----------------+ |
+-------------->| Region #3 INOC |<------------- omain="Region" ommunity="secret|" slate="" super-mini-2="">| |<------------- --="" -="" 0.="" 02139="" 0="" 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0="" 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1="" 1.a.b.c.d="" 10.0.0.51="" 10.0.0.99="" 1028="" 1052="" 1065="" 1066="" 1109="" 1155="" 1156="" 1157="" 11="" 12180="" 125="" 12="" 13="" 14="" 15="" 161="" 162="" 165="" 16="" 17="" 18="" 1980.="" 1987.="" 1988.="" 1989.="" 1990.="" 1990="" 19="" 1="" 2.="" 2059.="" 20="" 21="" 22="" 23="" 24="" 253-6020="" 25="" 26="" 27="" 283-8860="" 28="" 29="" 2="" 3.2.2="" 3.2.6.1.="" 3.2.6.2.="" 3.2.6.3.1.="" 3.2.6.3.2.="" 3.2.6.3.3.="" 3.2.6.3.4.="" 3.2.6.3.5.="" 3.2.6.3.6.="" 3.2.6.3.="" 3.2.6.="" 3.="" 30="" 31="" 32="" 33="" 34="" 35="" 36="" 37996-4800="" 3="" 3com="" 4.1.1.="" 4.1.2.="" 4.1.3.1.="" 4.1.3.="" 4.1.4.="" 4.1.5.="" 4.1.6.1.="" 4.1.6.2.="" 4.1.6.3.="" 4.1.6.4.="" 4.1.6.5.="" 4.1.6.6.="" 4.1.6.7.="" 4.1.6.="" 4.1.="" 4.="" 484="" 4="" 5.="" 545="" 573-1434="" 5="" 6.="" 6="" 7.="" 768="" 8593="" 8824="" 8825="" 89.1.1.42.="" 89.1.1.42="" 9.1.2.3="" 99.0.0.3="" ::="SEQUENCE" a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j="" a.b.c.d="" a="" about="" abstract="" acc="" accept="" access="" accomplished="" according="" accordingly.="" accordingly="" acknowledgements="" across="" actions.="" actions="" ad="" additional="" address:="" address="" addressee="" addresses="" administrative="" admits="" advanced="" affected="" affords="" age="" agent-addr="" agent="" aggregate="" all="" along="" also="" altered.="" altered="" always="" amatzia="" ambiguous="" among="" amp="" an="" anagement="" and="" another="" anthony="" any="" appended="" applicable="" application="" apply="" appropriate="" april="" architecture="" are:="" are="" as="" asn.1="" assigned="" assignment="" assignments="" assigns="" associated="" at-cached="" at="" atentry="" atindex="" atnetaddress="" atphysaddress.3.1.89.1.1.42="" attable="" auerbach="" august="" authenticated.="" authentication="" authenticationfailure="" authors="" available="" babu="" badvalue="" base="" based="" basic="" be="" because="" been="" before="" being="" below:="" below="" ben-artzi="" besaw="" between="" binding="" bindings.="" bindings="" box="" build="" by="" cache="" california="" called="" cambridge="" can="" cannot="" capable="" case="" cases="" caused="" center="" cerf="" chair="" chung="" cisco="" class="" classes="" code="" coldstart="" come="" common="" commonly="" communication="" community="" component="" computer="" computing="" conceptual="" conceptually="" concerned="" configuration.="" configuration="" confined="" conform="" conformant="" connection="" consider="" considerations="" consistent="" consists="" constrain="" constructs="" contain="" containing="" contains="" contents="" contiguous="" continues="" conventions="" cornell="" corporation="" correlate="" corresponding="" could="" covered="" d.="" dan="" data="" datagram="" datagrams="" davidson="" davin="" dcommunity:="" december="" define="" defined="" definition.="" definition="" definitions="" described="" describes="" desired="" destination="" development="" direct="" discards="" discussed="" distinguish="" document.="" documents="" dod="" does="" domain:="" domain="" dot="" down="" duplicated="" e.="" e.g.="" e="" each="" effected="" egp="" egpneighaddr="" egpneighborloss="" egpneighentry="" egpneighstate.89.1.1.42="" egpneightable="" either="" elapsed="" element.="" element="" elements="" elsewhere="" email:="" emission="" encoding.="" encoding="" end="" engineering="" enjoyed="" enterprise-specific="" enterprise="" enterprisespecific="" entirely="" entities="" entity.="" entity="" entries:="" entries="" entry="" environments="" epilogue="" eport="" equivalence="" error-="" error-index="" error-status="" errorindex="" errorstatus="" even="" event="" exactly="" example="" exceed="" exceeds="" excelan="" except="" exception.="" exception="" exchange="" explicitly="" exploitation="" extensions="" extract="" f.g.h.i="" fails="" failure.="" failure="" familiar="" feasible.="" fedor="" field="" figure="" find="" first="" five="" following="" follows:="" follows="" for="" force="" foregoing="" form="" found="" fragment="" frequently:="" from="" fullest="" further="" gateway="" general="" generated="" generates="" generating="" generation="" generic-trap="" generic="" generr="" get-="" get-next-request="" get-next="" get-request="" get-response="" get="" getnextrequest-pdu="" getnextrequest="" getrequest-pdu="" getresponse-="" getresponse-pdu:="" getresponse-pdu="" getresponse="" given="" greg="" gross="" group:="" group="" has="" have="" hence="" hewlett-packard="" hoc="" hop="" host="" however="" hughes="" i.e.="" i="" iab="" identical="" identification="" identified="" identifier="" identifiers="" identifies="" identify="" identifying="" ietf="" if="" ifentry="" ifindex="" iftable="" iftype.2="" iftype="" ignored="" immediate="" implementation-specific.="" implementation-specific="" implementation.="" implementation="" implementations="" implementing="" implements="" implicit="" implicitly="" important="" imports="" in="" incoming="" independently="" index="" indicate="" indicated="" indicating="" indication="" individual="" influenced="" information.="" information="" initialization="" inspected="" instance.="" instance="" instances="" institute="" integer="" intended="" interconnection="" interesting="" interface.="" interface="" internal="" international="" internet-standard="" internet="" internets="" interpretations="" introducing="" ip-addressable="" ip="" ipaddrentry="" ipaddress="" ipaddrtable="" ipadentaddr="" ipadentnetmask.89.1.1.42="" iproutedest.10.0.0.51="" iproutedest.10.0.0.99="" iproutedest.9.1.2.3="" iproutedest="" iproutemetric1.10.0.0.51="" iproutemetric1.10.0.0.99="" iproutemetric1.9.1.2.3="" iproutemetric1="" iproutenexthop.10.0.0.51="" iproutenexthop.10.0.0.99="" iproutenexthop.89.1.1.42="" iproutenexthop.9.1.2.3="" iproutenexthop="" iproutingentry="" iproutingtable="" is:="" is="" iso="" issues="" it="" its="" itself="" j.="" j="" james="" jeffrey="" jordan="" joshi="" jrd="" k.="" karl="" keith="" known="" knoxville="" laboratory="" lan="" language:="" language="" larger="" last="" later="" latter="" lawrence="" lee="" length="" lexicographical="" lexicographically="" limitation="" linkdown="" links="" linkup="" list="" local="" longer="" lynch="" m.="" ma="" made="" mainframe-1="" managed="" management="" mandatory="" manifest="" march="" mark="" marked="" marshall="" martin="" mask="" match="" may="" mccloghrie="" meaning="" means="" mechanism.="" mechanisms="" memo.="" memo="" menlo="" message.="" message="" messages="" metric="" mgmt="" mib.="" mib="" might="" mismatch="" mit="" mitre="" modem-1="" monitoring="" multiple="" must="" n.s="" n.y="" n="" name.="" name="" named="" names.="" names:="" names="" naming="" ne43-507="" need="" neighbor.="" neighbor="" neither="" network.="" network="" networkaddress="" new="" next="" nexthop="" nformation="" no="" noerror="" non-aggregate="" non-zero="" none="" nor="" nosuchname="" not="" notation="" note="" notes="" november="" null="" number="" ny="" nysernet="" object.="" object="" objectname="" objects="" objectsyntax="" obtains.="" occurred.="" occurred="" octet="" octets.="" of="" omain="Region#3" ommunity="secret|" on="" one="" only="" open="" operation="" operations="" or="" ordering="" org="" organization.="" organization="" original="" originator="" other="" otherwise="" outstanding="" p.o.="" pairing="" park="" parse="" part="" particular="" passes="" patton.nyser.net="" pcommunity:="" pdu="" pdus:="" pdus="" pecification="" peer="" performance="" performs="" phill="" phone:="" physical="" polytechnic="" port.="" port="" portion="" possibility="" possibly="" postel="" pre="" precede="" prefix="" presence="" present="" presented="" presents="" procedure="" processed="" processing.="" processing="" profile="" properly="" proteon="" protocol-specific="" protocol="" protocols="" provide="" provides="" proxy="" ptt.lcs.mit.edu="" r.="" ramesh="" re="" readonly="" reasons="" receipt="" received="" receives="" receiving="" recognizes="" recommendations="" recommended="" reference="" references="" referred="" refers="" reinitializing="" related="" relationship="" relevant="" remote="" rensselaer="" report="" represented="" represents="" request-id="" request.="" request="" requested="" requestid="" requestids="" requests.="" required="" requires="" research="" resolution="" resolve="" respect="" responds:="" responds="" response="" responses="" result="" resulting="" retrieved="" returned="" returns="" review="" rfc1155-smi="" rfc1157-snmp="" rfc="" ridge="" road="" rose="" route="" router-1="" routing="" rudimentary="" rule="" rules="" s.="" s.w="" s="" said="" same="" satish="" satz="" scheme.="" schoff="" schoffstall="" science="" sciences="" scope="" second="" section="" security="" see="" selected="" selects="" semantics="" sending="" sends="" sent="" sequence="" ser="" serialized="" service="" services="" set-request="" set="" setrequest-pdu="" shall="" should="" signals="" significance="" signifies="" similarly="" simple="" simultaneously="" single="" six="" size="" sketched="" smi.="" smi="" snmp.="" snmp="" so="" some="" sometimes="" source="" specific-trap="" specific="" specification="" specified="" square="" sri="" standard="" standardization="" standards="" state="" station.="" station="" status="" still="" strategy="" string="" sub-identifier="" subnet="" successor="" such="" support="" suppose="" suppressing="" syntax="" sysdescr.="" sysdescr="" sysobjectid="" system="" systems="" sytek="" t.="" t="" table="" tables="" tabular="" task="" tcp="" tcpconnentry="" tcpconnlocaladdress="" tcpconnlocalport="" tcpconnremoteaddress="" tcpconnremoteport="" tcpconnstate.89.1.1.42.21.10.0.0.51.2059="" tcpconntable="" technology="" tennessee="" term="" text="" that="" the="" then="" there="" these="" they="" this="" those="" three="" time-stamp="" time="" timeticks="" tn="" to.="" to="" together="" toobig="" top-level="" translation="" transport="" trap-pdu.="" trap-pdu="" trap="" traps="" traversal="" trivial="" troy="" tructure="" twg="" type-specific="" type.="" type="" types.="" types="" udp="" unique="" unit="" units="" university="" unreliable="" up.="" upon="" usc="" use="" used.="" used="" user="" using="" utilizing="" v.="" valid="" value.="" value="" values.="" values="" varbind="" varbindlist="" variable-="" variable-bindings="" variable.="" variable="" variables="" verifies="" version-1="" version="" versions="" via="" view="" w="" wanted="" warmstart="" was="" way="" wengyik="" whenever="" where="" which="" while="" whole.="" whom="" whose="" will="" with:="" with="" within="" wollongong="" working="" would="" x.0="" x.="" x.y="" x="" y="" yeong="" zero.="">
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기