RFC 2512 (rfc2512) - Page 2 of 15

Accounting Information for ATM Networks

RFC 2512        Accounting Information for ATM Networks    February 1999


2.  The SNMP Network Management Framework

   The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
   components:

   o    An overall architecture, described in RFC 2271 [1].

   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 [2], STD 16, RFC 1212 [3] and RFC 1215 [4].
        The second version, called SMIv2, is described in RFC 1902 [5],
        RFC 1903 [6] and RFC 1904 [7].

   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 [8].  A second version of the SNMP
        message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
        protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [9] and
        RFC 1906 [10].  The third version of the message protocol is
        called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [10], RFC 2272 [11] and
        RFC 2274 [12].

   o    Protocol operations for accessing management information.  The
        first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
        described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [8].  A second set of protocol
        operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905
        [13].

   o    A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2273 [14] and
        the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2275
        [15].

   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 (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.





McCloghrie, et. al.         Standards Track