RFC 2662 (rfc2662) - Page 2 of 115

Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines

RFC 2662                     ADSL Line MIB                   August 1999


   It should be noted that the ADSL Forum Network Management Working
   Group provided input towards the content of this document.  See the
   Acknowledgement Section for a list of individuals who made this
   document possible.

2.  The SNMP Network Management Framework

   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
   components:

   o  An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [13].

   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, RFC 1155 [14], STD 16, RFC 1212 [15] and RFC 1215 [16].  The
      second version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578
      [1], STD 58, RFC 2579 [2] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [17].

   o  Message protocols for transferring management information.  The
      first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
      described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [7].  A second version of the SNMP
      message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
      protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [18] and RFC
      1906 [19].  The third version of the message protocol is called
      SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [19], RFC 2572 [20] and RFC 2574
      [21].

   o  Protocol operations for accessing management information.  The
      first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
      described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [7].  A second set of protocol
      operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905
      [8].

   o  A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [22] and
      the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575
      [23].

   This document 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 (e.g., 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.




Bathrick & Ly               Standards Track