text:
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov/)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), (http://www.nigms.nih.gov/)
Title: Dynamics of Host-Associated Microbial Communities (R01)
Announcement Type
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Request for Applications (RFA) Number: RFA-GM-11-001
NOTICE: Applications submitted in response to this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for Federal assistance must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA must be read in conjunction with the application guidelines included with this announcement in Grants.gov/Apply for Grants (hereafter called Grants.gov/Apply).
A registration process is necessary before submission and applicants are highly encouraged to start the process at least four (4) weeks prior to the grant submission date. See Section IV.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
Key Dates
Release/Posted Date: August 20, 2009
Opening Date: December 15, 2009 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): December 15, 2009
NOTE: On-time submission requires that applications be successfully submitted to Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization).
Application Due Date(s): January 15, 2010
AIDS Application Due Date(s): Not Applicable
Peer Review Date(s): June-July, 2010
Council Review Date(s): October, 2010
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): December 1, 2010
Additional Information To Be Available Date (Activation Date): Not Applicable
Expiration Date: January 16, 2010
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Overview Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Request Application Information
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of Intent
B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review Considerations
C. Resource Sharing Plan(s)
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contacts
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information - Required Federal Citations
Part II - Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Research Objectives
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) issued by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), solicits applications that propose genetic, physiological, and ecological studies designed to reveal the basic principles and mechanisms that govern the symbiotic systems dynamics of microbial communities.
Microbes comprise over 90% of the cells of the human body, forming distinctive communities in different parts of the body. These complex and dynamic communities of microbes (the human microbiota) have a major impact on human health – by promoting proper development of host organs, stimulating development of the immune system, providing nutrients to the human host, and excluding potential pathogens. Alteration of indigenous microbial communities can cause pathological conditions, including periodontal disease, ulcers, and secondary pneumonia. Recent studies indicate that microbial communities may influence many other aspects of human health, from obesity to chronic diseases like atherosclerosis. Microbial communities also affect our environment, including the health of animals and plants on which we depend, and the health of the environment as it relates to issues such as water quality, bioremediation, the global cycling of CO2 and other gases, and effects upon climate. Rather than the traditional concept of "one microbe, one disease," it has become clear that some diseases are polymicrobial – caused by altered communities of microbes. The microbial communities of the gut, in particular, have important implications for health by affecting metabolism of food and drugs. The gut inhabitants transform chemicals we consume into beneficial, harmless, and harmful compounds, thereby influencing the level of human exposure to pharmaceutically active compounds.
Given the key role of indigenous microbial communities in influencing human health and disease, personalized medicine will likely require an understanding of the microbial communities associated with the individual, in addition to an individual's genome sequence. However, such approaches to personalized medicine are currently beyond our capacity because, although it is often possible to identify the representative microbes in a particular environment, the interactions and processes within their communities, and between these communities and the host, are complex and poorly understood. To partially address this shortcoming, the NIH Roadmap Human Microbiome Project (HMP) (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/hmp/) will generate massive amounts of sequencing data reflecting microbial community composition from a number of human niches and reflecting a handful of normal and disease states. However, there is still a need to provide insight into the basic physiological and ecological principles that govern the formation and persistence of host-associated microbial communities. Studies of model systems may provide useful tools to answer questions in this regard, such as: what factors distinguish microbes that comprise the core of the community from those that are transient; what are the key characteristics of niche environments that favor particular assemblages of microbes; by what means do the microbes in the community interact with each other and with the host, and how do the communities evolve – i.e., what is their natural history?
To this end, NIGMS sponsored a conference in November 2008 to explore opportunities in the study of host-microbe communities. The recommendations of this conference form the basis of this FOA and can be found at: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Reports/Host_Associated_Microbial_Communities_Conference_2009.htm.
Research Objectives
To advance the nascent science of host-associated microbial community ecology, this FOA solicits research grant applications for genetic, physiological, and ecological studies that are designed to reveal the basic principles and mechanisms that govern host-associated microbial community structure and function. Applications are solicited in the following areas, but are not limited to:
Model systems
Model systems could have significant advantages for the discovery of common principles of host-associated microbial community structure and function, in as much as both host and microbes can be subject to high resolution morphological, genetic, physiological, and biophysical analysis. Model systems also can be platforms for developing novel, effective tools for these studies. The further development of existing model systems and the development of new systems that are particularly well suited to address fundamental questions of host-community structure and function are encouraged. Synthetic systems may also be appropriate.
Community physiology
Nutrient flow in microbial communities is complex, and it will be essential to develop ways to measure it in order to understand community dynamics. It is likely that the overall physiology of the host-microbe community system cannot be understood by focusing solely on the individual members of the system. The exchange of metabolites, signaling molecules, and energy sources between microbes and the host comprises a complex network. Understanding how microorganisms contribute to or draw from the available nutrient pool, how they cooperate to synthesize metabolites, and how community members compete for nutrients is of critical importance within the scope of this announcement. Equally important is understanding how the host's physiology responds to, and in turn influences, the microbial component. The complex reciprocity of the problem requires innovative approaches, which may include new analytical techniques, genetic methods, and use of network analysis and mathematical modeling/simulation.
Community genetic interactions
In addition to the ability of microbes to exchange signals that affect gene expression, share metabolites, and create nutrient and other chemical gradients, microbes also exchange genetic material. Recent metagenomic studies on bacterial viruses indicate that there is a surprising amount of exchange of genetic information between microbes in natural environments. Innovative methods to study the dynamics and consequences of this gene flow in host-microbe communities are encouraged.
Community dynamics
The principles that explain how communities develop population structures that both resist and recover from perturbation (robustness) are not well understood. Among the possible approaches to analyzing these properties could be innovative genetic techniques, including metagenomics and directed mutation, in conjunction with computational modeling. Direct experimental tests of predictions about how the flow of metabolites, signaling molecules, or genetic information between host and members of the microbial community contribute to community stability are encouraged. Perturbations of community structure could also provide key evidence for the existence of stabilizing networks that account for robustness to change. New approaches to adapt mutational approaches to poorly characterized microbial communities are also encouraged.
Development of new technologies
Many of the questions regarding the physical and functional architecture of microbial communities may not be addressable with existing methods, demanding new technological advances. For example, single cell tracking and functional analysis in complex assemblages such as biofilms may require advances in microscopy and gene tagging. Improvements also are likely to be required in the use of isotopically labeled substrates to map metabolite flows in complex mixtures of organisms, and their hosts. The architecture of microbial communities in unique micro-niches within the host may have to be explored at fine resolution to provide the basis for elucidating the rules of community assembly and evolution.
In summary, this FOA will support research on fundamental principles and mechanisms that govern the symbiotic systems dynamics of microbial communities. Interdisciplinary studies are encouraged.
This FOA will not support research projects that are designed solely to carry out metagenomic sequencing or surveys of microbial diversity.
Special Requirements
To foster collaborations and complementarities in research projects, awardees are encouraged to attend an annual meeting of HMP grantees to be held in the Bethesda, MD area. The requested budget, not to exceed $250,000 (direct cost) per year, may include the travel costs associated with this meeting.
See Section VIII, Other Information
- Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
Section II. Award Information
This FOA will use the NIH Research Project Grant (R01) award mechanism. The Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.
This FOA uses "Just-in-Time" information concepts (see SF424 (R&R) Application Guide). It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular budget formats (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm). Specifically, a U.S. organization submitting an application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less (excluding consortium Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs) must use the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
U.S. applicants requesting more than $250,000 in annual direct costs and all foreign applicants must complete and submit budget requests using the Research & Related Budget component.
Funds Available
NIGMS intends to commit approximately $2.5 million dollars (total costs) in fiscal year 2010 to fund 5-6 applications. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this FOA may not exceed 5 years. Although the size of award will vary with the scope of the research proposed, budget requests should not exceed $250,000 (direct cost) per year except that in first year additional funds not to exceed $100K (direct cost) may be requested for exceptional equipment needs.
the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to
application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will
also vary. Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this
program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
availability of funds.
and Administrative (F&A) costs requested by consortium participants are not
included in the direct cost limitation. See NOT-OD-05-004.
NIH grants policies as described in the http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/preparing.htm for instructions).
The decision of whether to apply for a grant with a single PD/PI or multiple PDs/PIs grant is the responsibility of the investigators and applicant organizations and should be determined by the scientific goals of the project. Applications for grants with multiple PDs/PIs will require additional information, as outlined in the instructions below. When considering the multiple PD/PI option, please be aware that the structure and governance of the PD/PI leadership team as well as the knowledge, skills and experience of the individual PDs/PIs will be factored into the assessment of the overall scientific merit of the application. Multiple PDs/PIs on a project share the authority and responsibility for leading and directing the project, intellectually and logistically. Each PD/PI is responsible and accountable to the grantee organization, or, as appropriate, to a collaborating organization, for the proper conduct of the project or program, including the submission of required reports. For further information on multiple PDs/PIs, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi.
2. Cost
Sharing or Matching
This program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH Grants Policy Statement.
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
Number of Applications. Applicants may submit more than one application, provided each application is scientifically distinct.
Resubmissions. Resubmission applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Renewals. Renewal applications are not permitted in response to this FOA.
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
download a SF424 (R&R) Application Package and SF424 (R&R) Application
Guide for completing the SF424 (R&R) forms for this FOA, use the "Apply for
Grant Electronically" button in this FOA or link to http://www.grants.gov/Apply/ and follow
the directions provided on that Web site.
A one-time registration is required for institutions/organizations at both:
PDs/PIs should work with their institutions/organizations to make sure they are registered in the NIH eRA Commons.
Several additional separate actions are required before an applicant can submit an electronic application, as follows:
1) Organizational/Institutional Registration in Grants.gov/Get Registered
2) Organizational/Institutional Registration in the eRA Commons
3) Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) Registration in the NIH eRA Commons: Refer to the NIH eRA Commons System (COM) Users Guide.
Both the PDs/PI(s) and AOR/SO need separate accounts in the NIH eRA Commons since both are authorized to view the application image.
Several of the steps of the registration process could take four weeks or more. Therefore, applicants should immediately check with their business official to determine whether their organization/institution is already registered in both Grants.gov and the Commons. The NIH will accept electronic applications only from organizations that have completed all necessary registrations.
1. Request Application Information
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application forms and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply.
Note: Only the forms package directly attached to
a specific FOA can be used. You will not be able to use any other SF424
(R&R) forms (e.g., sample forms, forms from another FOA), although
some of the "Attachment" files may be useable for more than one
For further assistance, contact GrantsInfo -- Telephone 301-710-0267; Email: firstname.lastname@example.com.
Telecommunications for the hearing impaired: TTY: (301) 451-5936
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Prepare all applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms and in accordance with the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for this FOA through Grants.gov/Apply.
The SF424 (R&R) Application Guide is critical to submitting a complete and accurate application to NIH. Some fields within the SF424 (R&R) application components, although not marked as mandatory, are required by NIH (e.g., the "Credential" log-in field of the "Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile" component must contain the PD/PI's assigned eRA Commons User ID). Agency-specific instructions for such fields are clearly identified in the Application Guide. For additional information, see "Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications."
The SF424 (R&R) application has several components. Some components are required, others are optional. The forms package associated with this FOA in Grants.gov/APPLY includes all applicable components, required and optional. A completed application in response to this FOA includes the data in the following components:
Required Components:
SF424 (R&R) (Cover component)
Research & Related Project/Performance Site Locations
Research & Related Other Project Information
Research & Related Senior/Key Person
PHS398 Cover Page Supplement
PHS398 Research Plan
PHS398 Checklist
PHS398 Modular Budget or Research & Related Budget, as appropriate (See Section IV.6., "Special Instructions," regarding appropriate required budget component.)
Optional Components:
PHS398 Cover Letter File
Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form
Organizations (Non-Domestic
[non-U.S.] Entities)
NIH policies concerning grants to Foreign (non-U.S.) organizations can be found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement at: https://grants.nih.gov/archive/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm#_Toc54600260.
Applications from Foreign organizations must:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States (U.S.) or that augment existing U.S. resources.
Applications with Multiple PDs/PIs
When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact" PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs, but has no other special roles or responsibilities within the project team beyond those mentioned above.
Information for the Contact PD/PI should be entered in item 15 of the SF424 (R&R) Cover component. All other PDs/PIs should be listed in the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component and assigned the project role of "PD/PI." Please remember that all PDs/PIs must be registered in the eRA Commons prior to application submission. The Commons ID of each PD/PI must be included in the "Credential" field of the Research & Related Senior/Key Person component. Failure to include this data field will cause the application to be rejected.
All projects proposing Multiple PDs/PIs will be required to include a new section describing the leadership plan approach for the proposed project.
Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan: For applications designating multiple PDs/PIs, a new section of the research plan, entitled "Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan" [Section 14 of the Research Plan Component in the SF424 (R&R)], must be included. A rationale for choosing a multiple PD/PI approach should be described. The governance and organizational structure of the leadership team and the research project should be described, and should include communication plans, process for making decisions on scientific direction, and procedures for resolving conflicts. The roles and administrative, technical, and scientific responsibilities for the project or program should be delineated for the PDs/PIs and other collaborators.
If budget allocation is planned, the distribution of resources to specific components of the project or the individual PDs/PIs should be delineated in the Leadership Plan. In the event of an award, the requested allocations may be reflected in a footnote on the Notice of Award (NoA).
Applications Involving a Single Institution
When all PDs/PIs are within a single institution, follow the instructions contained in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applications Involving Multiple Institutions
When multiple institutions are involved, one institution must be designated as the prime institution and funding for the other institution(s) must be requested via a subcontract to be administered by the prime institution. When submitting a detailed budget, the prime institution should submit its budget using the Research & Related Budget component. All other institutions should have their individual budgets attached separately to the Research & Related Subaward Budget Attachment(s) Form. See Section 4.8 of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the subaward budget form.
When submitting a modular budget, the prime institution completes the PHS398 Modular Budget component only. Information concerning the consortium/subcontract budget is provided in the budget justification. Separate budgets for each consortium/subcontract grantee are not required when using the Modular budget format. See Section 5.4 of the Application Guide for further instruction regarding the use of the PHS398 Modular Budget component.
Submission Dates and Times
See Section IV.3.A. for details.
3.A. Submission, Review, and Anticipated Start Dates
Opening Date: December 15, 2009 (Earliest date an application may be submitted to Grants.gov)
Letters of Intent Receipt Date(s): December 15, 2009
Application Due Date(s): January 15, 2010
Peer Review Date(s): June-July, 2010
Council Review Date(s): October, 2010
Earliest Anticipated Start Date(s): December 1, 2010
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the
review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC
staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed in Section IV.3.A.
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Shiva P. Singh, Ph.D.
Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH
45 Center Drive, Room 2AS.37C, MSC 6200
Bethesda, MD 20892-6200
Telephone: (301) 594-3900
Email: email@example.com
3.B. Submitting an Application Electronically to the
To submit an application in response to this FOA, applicants should access this FOA via http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html and follow Steps 1-4. Note: Applications must only be submitted electronically. PAPER APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
Application Processing
Applications may be submitted on or after the opening date and must be successfully received by Grants.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. local time (of the applicant institution/organization) on the application due date(s). (See Section IV.3.A. for all dates.) If an application is not submitted by the due date(s) and time, the application may be delayed in the review process or not reviewed.
Once an application package has been successfully submitted through Grants.gov, any errors have been addressed, and the assembled application has been created in the eRA Commons, the PD/PI and the Authorized Organization Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO) have two weekdays (Monday – Friday, excluding Federal holidays) to view the application image to determine if any further action is necessary.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the IC. Incomplete and non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
There will be an acknowledgement of receipt of applications from Grants.gov and the Commons. The submitting AOR/SO receives the Grants.gov acknowledgments. The AOR/SO and the PI receive Commons acknowledgments. Information related to the assignment of an application to a Scientific Review Group is also in the Commons.
Note: Since email can be unreliable, it is the responsibility of the applicant to check periodically on the application status in the Commons.
The NIH will not accept any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application, originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an "Introduction" describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the application.
Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are
allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur
obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning
date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs: 1)
are necessary to conduct the project, and 2) would be allowable under the
grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures would
otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval before
incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred
more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a
new or renewal award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement).
6. Other Submission Requirements
PD/PI Credential (e.g., Agency Login)
The NIH requires the PD(s)/PI(s) to fill in his/her Commons User ID in the "PROFILE – Project Director/Principal Investigator" section, "Credential" log-in field of the "Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile" component.
Organizational DUNS
The applicant organization must include its DUNS number in its Organization Profile in the eRA Commons. This DUNS number must match the DUNS number provided at CCR registration with Grants.gov. For additional information, see "Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications."
PHS398 Research Plan Component Sections
Page limitations of the PHS398 Research Plan component must be followed as outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and may not exceed 25 pages. While each section of the Research Plan component needs to be uploaded separately as a PDF attachment, applicants are encouraged to construct the Research Plan component as a single document, separating sections into distinct PDF attachments just before uploading the files. This approach will enable applicants to better monitor formatting requirements such as page limits. All attachments must be provided to NIH in PDF format, filenames must be included with no spaces or special characters, and a .pdf extension must be used.
All application instructions outlined in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide are to be followed, incorporating "Just-in-Time" information concepts.
Appendix Materials
Applicants must follow the specific instructions on Appendix materials as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (See https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent the page limitations of the Research Plan component. An application that does not comply with the required page limitations may be delayed in the review process.Resource Sharing Plan(s)
NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value and further the advancement of the research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that they be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community. If the final data/resources are not amenable to sharing, this must be explained in the Resource Sharing section of the application (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_faqs.htm.)
(a) Data Sharing Plan: Regardless of the amount requested, investigators are expected to include a brief 1-paragraph description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data-sharing is not possible. Applicants are encouraged to discuss data-sharing plans with their NIH program contact (see Data-Sharing Policy or https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.)
(b) Sharing Model Organisms: Regardless of the amount requested, all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated are expected to include a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organisms and related resources or state appropriate reasons why such sharing is restricted or not possible (see Sharing Model Organisms Policy, and NOT-OD-04-042.)
(c) Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): Not Applicable.
Foreign Applications (Non-Domestic [non-U.S.] Entities)
Indicate how the proposed project has specific relevance to the mission and objectives of the NIH/IC and has the potential for significantly advancing the health sciences in the United States.
Section V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are complete and responsive to this FOA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by NIGMS and in accordance with NIH peer review procedures (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/), using the review criteria stated below.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will:
Applications submitted in response to this FOA will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Core Review Criteria. Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned
and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are
potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development,
will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Review Criteria. As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.
Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.
Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Additional Review Considerations. As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will address each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Budget and Period Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Select Agent Research. Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Applications from Foreign Organizations. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Resource Sharing Plans. Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan (http://grants.nih/gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm); 2) Sharing Model Organisms (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-042.html); and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) (Not Applicable).
Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Award Notices
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the NIH eRA Commons.
the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request
"just-in-time" information from the applicant. For details,
applicants may refer to the NIH
Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards,
Subpart A: General.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email notification from the awarding component to the grantee business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Section IV.5., "Funding Restrictions."
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities.
The following Terms and
Conditions will be incorporated into the award statement and will be provided
to the Principal Investigator as well as to the appropriate institutional
official, at the time of award.
3. Reporting
Awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and Financial Status Report are required when an award is relinquished when a recipient changes institutions or when an award is terminated.
We encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall into three areas: scientific/research (program), peer review, and financial or grants management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s):
Shiva P. Singh, Ph.D.
Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH
Building 45, Room 2As.37C
45 Center Drive, MSC 6200
Bethesda, MD 20892-6200
Telephone: (301) 594-3900
Fax: (301) 480-2753
Email: email@example.com
2. Peer Review Contact(s):
Helen R. Sunshine, Ph.D.
Office of Scientific Review
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH
Building 45, Room 3AN.12F
45 Center Drive, MSC 6200
Bethesda, MD 20892-6200
Telephone: (301) 594-2881
Fax: (301) 480-8506
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
3. Financial/Grants Management Contact(s):
Marcia F. Cohn
Division of Extramural Activities
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH
Building 45, Room 2AN.50E
45 Center Drive, MSC 6200
Bethesda, MD 20892-6200
Telephone: (301) 594-3918
Fax: (301) 480-2554
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals
in Research:
Recipients of PHS support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf) as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm), and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm) as applicable.
Human Subjects
Federal regulations (45 CFR 46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety
Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic toxicity and dose-finding studies (Phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II); efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving interventions that entail potential risks to the participants ("NIH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring," NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Sharing Research Data:
Investigators submitting an NIH application seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any single year are expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing). Investigators should seek guidance from their institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local institutional review board (IRB) rules, as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan into the determination of the scientific merit or the priority score.
Sharing of Model Organisms:
NIH is committed to support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm). At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Beginning October 1, 2004, all investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal are expected to include in the application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Access to Research Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are: (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds; and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm. Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award.
Inclusion of Women And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research.This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research" (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html); a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the SF424 (R&R) application; and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them. All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
NIH Public Access Policy Requirement:
In accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy, investigators funded by the NIH must submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central (see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/), an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The NIH Public Access Policy is available at (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html). For more information, see the Public Access webpage at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.
Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002. The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is administered and enforced by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/) provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review, funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and research contracts can be found at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
in NIH Grant Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, Internet addresses (URLs) or PubMed Central (PMC) submission identification numbers must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal articles. Publicly accessible on-line journal articles or PMC articles/manuscripts accepted for publication that are directly relevant to the project may be included only as URLs or PMC submission identification numbers accompanying the full reference in either the Bibliography & References Cited section, the Progress Report Publication List section, or the Biographical Sketch section of the NIH grant application. A URL or PMC submission identification number citation may be repeated in each of these sections as appropriate. There is no limit to the number of URLs or PMC submission identification numbers that can be cited.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This FOA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and Regulations:
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372. Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Office of Extramural
Research (OER)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


text:
Good Technology has become one the leaders in mobile management, amassing more than 4,000 customers, including many in government and highly regulated industries.
CEO Christy Wyatt joined the company in January, after a stint leading Citi's mobile efforts. She boasts considerable experience in the mobile industry, including time as the head of enterprise for Motorola Mobility (she left when Google bought the company) and head of developer evangelism for Apple.
In this installation of the IDG Enterprise CEO Interview Series, Chief Content Officer John Gallant and CITEworld Editorial Director Matt Rosoff talked to Wyatt about her plans for Good, and how she intends to make the company stand out from competitors like Airwatch. In addition to explaining the recent spate of management changes at the company, Wyatt also talked about:
- Good's advantage on security: "Our security model has been tested and proven with large federal agencies, with the world's largest banks, healthcare providers. About 50% of our customers come from regulated industries."
- How Good's approach differs from the competition: "I think the key differentiator is we focus on the data, not the device. There are two other very popular approaches. You have either device manufacturers like BlackBerry or device-management organizations that try to replicate a BlackBerry-type device management experience, but on non-BlackBerry devices. I think you're drawing the perimeter around the wrong place....I think you have other companies that are looking at server-based virtualization. So folks like Citrix or others, and I think that is closer to being data focused, but it keeps so much of the usability and the user experience off the device, that unfortunately the user experience becomes very challenged."
- Mobile vendors cannot ignore user experience: "Citi tried to give me a device that was a non-Good-enabled device; it was completely managed with traditional enterprise mobility stuff....I think my conclusion after that was, by giving a user a user experience that they couldn't embrace, I was actually creating the security and the data leakage that I was trying so hard to prevent. If there was an attachment on something, or if I needed to send a text message to someone, and the solution they gave me prevented me from doing that, I would grab my second device, which was in my bag, and just do it from there."
- Containerization is OK; dual-persona devices are not: "We sell containerized apps or we give you the ability to containerize your own apps and data and then manage and distribute the data between them. So the benefit to that is that it doesn't interfere with the user experience at all. You're not logging into a separate profile or separate work experience.... We're not carving up the OS. We're not separating it. It is completely native and intuitive."
- Good Dynamics is not just about commercial apps: "We have a large number of commercial applications, things like Box for Good. You can do integration with IBM Worklight, with Salesforce, with HP ePrint, DocuSign. But what most people don't realize is that for every single commercial application that you see, there are probably 20 to 30 in-house developed applications behind the firewall that our customers have developed for themselves."
- Good will move downmarket: Over the next year, outsiders "should continue to see us bringing the barrier to entry lower for consumers. I think, again, because our solution has been enterprise-grade, there's a perception that it's somehow inaccessible to the average enterprise, that you need to be a global bank or a large federal agency in order to use Good, which is just completely not the case."
Here's the full interview:
John Gallant: You joined in January after serving as Global Head of Citi's Consumer eBusiness and Mobile Technology Group. A couple of things about that transition. First, what appealed to you about this role? Why did you take this job?
I was very familiar with Good from a lot of different places. I knew them at Palm a long time ago. I'm dating myself. I knew them at Motorola, where they came into Motorola and then consequently left from Motorola. Actually, I first heard of the opportunity with Good in the summer when I was looking at a number of different opportunities, and chose to go to Citigroup. Citigroup is a customer of Good's, so from within Citigroup I was all of a sudden using the products in a way that I hadn't used them before. I had this kind of "aha" moment. It was sort of a transformational experience where my business at Motorola had been heavily focused on enterprise mobility, but looking at it from the inside perspective, from the CIO perspective, it was kind of, as I said, an ah-ha moment. All of a sudden I was doing 99% of my job on my iPad and my smartphone. I was no longer VPN'ing in. I wasn't doing heavy device management. I really had a different sort of appreciation. So when King [Ed. Note: King Lee, executive chairman and former CEO of Good] cornered me again and tried to resell me on the opportunity it was too good to pass up.
JG: What did you learn from Citi's experience with BYOD, and from your team's roll out of consumer-facing mobile services, that will shape your work at Good?
A couple of things. First of all, in my role within Citi, I was a consumer of a lot of these technologies in a large, traditional, enterprise environment -- the way that CIOs and the internal IT organization looked at investment decisions and return on investment, as well as the conversation which we were constantly consumed by around security, risk management, and data protection. I had a whole new appreciation for what that looked like from the inside of one of the world's largest banks. I owned a lot of technology that was consumer-facing, so right in the middle of a lot of the cyber attacks, a lot of the cyber security conversations, and it just became completely clear to me that these two things were completely at odds, that there was this massive pressure and concern around the value of data and the risk of that data getting into the wrong hands, and the opposite tension, which was the consumer experience. IT is giving me technologies that were really intrusive or overly confining and preventing me from getting my job done. That became a massive impediment to me being able to be successful. I had a unique role sitting right in between those two conversations within a very large organization, and that, I think, helped me frame the opportunity around Good. When I found out what Good was doing with Good Dynamics and their development framework and the development tool kit, it was powerful. What more could we do, as an enterprise mobility organization within the bank, if I could continuously manage that risk portfolio? And what other bolder things could we do, for our consumers, our employees or our business partners?
JG: Knowing all that, what are, say, the top two or three things that you think Good needs to do?
Number one was user experience. Citi tried to give me a device that was a non-Good-enabled device; it was completely managed with traditional enterprise mobility stuff. If I didn't want to use that that, they would make Good available to me. I think my conclusion after that was, by giving a user a user experience that they couldn't embrace, I was actually creating the security and the data leakage that I was trying so hard to prevent. If there was an attachment on something, or if I needed to send a text message to someone, and the solution they gave me prevented me from doing that, I would grab my second device, which was in my bag, and just do it from there. The user became kind of the liability if I didn't give the user a way to do their job in a very comfortable and intuitive way. I think that was the first one.
I think the second one was just the liability. Prior to coming into the organization I had a very different view of the framework for security investments, and what impact security investments had on a business. I think the realization, for me, was that the bank was essentially a very large technology organization whose product happened to be money. And it wasn't completely different than being a large telecommunications or consumer electronics provider whose product happened to be computers or cell phones. So IT was what was driving that company. It was how they were doing what they were doing. It was how they managed risk. So the value in the organization is the data. And the data became everything. So how IT organizations are making decisions around how to value that data and protect that data is very different than most. I think, enterprise companies think about how CIOs look at ROI conversations.
MR: Good plays in a competitive and crowded market with a lot of other companies specifically focused on MDM, and then security and other companies addressing similar problems. To some degree mobile device management is becoming a commodity offering. So how do you deal with that, and how does Good stand apart from the competition?
The first thing I'm going to say is we're not really a device management company. When I was at Motorola I acquired a device-management company that was created by a group of guys that had jumped out of the Android team from Google. If you would have asked me, I would have said that was absolutely the right answer. What you need to do is lock down the hardware and plug all the holes, because that's exactly how BlackBerry did it, and if I could do those same things on an Android device or an iOS device, then I could provide the same level of assurance to the CIO who is looking at using mobile products.
I think, again, my becoming a user of the Good products made me realize that I had that completely wrong. Device management absolutely has a role. It has a role when your biggest concern is what happens to the hardware. But when your biggest concern is what happens to the data, you need an entirely different set of tools.
I believe a CIO is going to need a variety of different tools to be able to deploy a number of different mobility strategies across the organization. Let's say I'm a bank and I want to put a tablet in the retail branches so that a new customer coming in just wants to pick up a tablet and open an account. That's a great usage for device management because I really care about the hardware. I don't want the hardware to leave the building. If the hardware leaves the building I want to turn it off, shut it down. It's going to be almost purely a corporate device. So it's a very fixed functionality kind of purpose. The second I start to believe that there's any mixture of personal and corporate data being intermixed on that device, you need an entirely different set of tools. I like to use the analogy of a hotel. Device management is kind of the doorman. He lets the people who have authority to have access, access, and people who don't have a reason to be there, he asks them to leave. But it doesn't actually help you secure your watch from the housekeeper. It's not going to help you at all.
When you really care about the assets that are inside the phone -- and what I really care about is that you don't breach the data that's either in my productivity applications or in my corporate developed applications or in any of my applications -- that's an entirely different set of tools. They need to be able to secure the app, secure that data within the app, be able to create workflow with multiple apps that share data across in a secure and transparent way. Most people don't realize that a lot of the data leakage comes from the space where data moves between applications, not from when the data goes in and out of the device. So that's, I think, a very different approach. There's a whole suite of products and solutions that sort of stream out of that if you fundamentally believe your focus is the data. So we do offer device management, but I would say it's, in our world, a feature. It's not a platform. The platform is really the end-to-end security architecture that will let you secure productivity apps, secure development of your own apps, create secure workflows, do distribution and management of data and applications as well as devices.
MR: It was almost a year ago that Good acquired AppCentral. How has that played into these plans and how has that acquisition gone?
AppCentral has been integrated. There is a stand-alone app store which is made available separately, but also as a part of our collaboration suite. If I take the broad view of what the portfolio is, then maybe that helps explain how AppCentral fits in it.
What people are most familiar with is Good for Enterprise. Think of it as a vertically integrated productivity-in-a-box solution. It is your email, calendar, address book, etc., a self-contained, kind of a single container that just gives the employee productivity. That lets them secure the data and things that are going in and out of that secure collaboration workspace, but doesn't necessarily have any impact on the rest of the environment around it.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
There's something about the spectacular beauty of the Orient, the almost meek demeanor of the women, their submissive and serving personalities, that makes them something to appreciate and also a topic of hunger to witness more of.
The bodies are small in stature, petite in frames, with eyes that even when in a joyful situation, they will carry an almost ominous look within them, a sadness that makes you want to hold them close before sharing hardcore excitement.
Whether your choices are of, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, or any of the splendorous specimen of Asian descent, they bring an allure to the screen that's like none other. Almost as if they're a forbidden fruit, they project themselves with such graceful dignity, a stereotype is built and then, quickly shattered once you've engaged in the act of being a voyeur to their passionate ways.
Logging into, established Video.apornstories.com asian sex tube, will be the proof of how these well-structured women become such powerful pornographic features. With small breasts and large boobs too, many will keep their vaginal mounds fluffy with dark pubic hair, allowing the droplets of their excitement to be showcased during foreplay, softcore and hardcore excitement. They'll burst free from their shells and possibly off into some of the most wild and fetish-filled action you've seen.
Oriental women enjoy mastering the fine art of arousal, everything they do, whether through posing and body language, or the demonstration of their dirtiness in deeper detail, it always seems to hold such intricate action, creating such heat and horniness. They'll bestow blow jobs, the time taking, meticulous act of sliding their mouths up and down an engorged cock of their male lover with such precision and passion, it would be hard not to come immediately. Should the juices from the receiving testicles not be able to withstand their talented tongue, then a bukkake will be filmed and admired, as they do enjoy having sperm dripping from their lovely faces.
Since they do carry so much history and expectation with them, it's as if once the camera is turned on and filming begins, they see this as their opportunity to break free from the bondage and shackles of what they should be, and suddenly become the woman they want to be. They'll accept all arousal and the expression on their faces will depict the appreciation, whether it comes in the form of possibly Asian lesbian sex, or, many will prefer the group sex, with the deep thrusting of multiple shafts, burning through their pussy, and also, anal sex could be on the menu.
They seemingly hold no fear and certainly no refusal when it comes to displaying just how naughty they can possibly be, it's a personal challenge to turn on, not only their lover, but, also the ones watching them transform into an exhibitionist.
With slender shoulders and soft skin exposed for the camera, their timid nature makes them even more appealing to onlookers as they ache to touch them, kiss and taste their womanly splendors. Their dark hair and eyes frame such beautiful faces, and a hint of mystery surrounds them, Asian adult porn stars don't seem to project themselves as being as liberal in lust, and quite possibly it's the way they are reserved that makes them even more enticing. We always crave what we feel we can't have, and they'll seem off limits in nature, but, nothing could be further from reality.
The enjoyment of attention received, the always appreciative and catering personality traits will also turn on an impending lover. Even though they may look serious all of the time, they may be waiting for the right moment to show their true nature, which, as Oriental porn shows, will be filled with the erotic excitement you may never have expected. Click here to watch that Asian porno tube!


text:
NetAddr::IP - Manages IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and subnets
use NetAddr::IP qw(
:aton DEPRECATED
NOTE: NetAddr::IP::Util has a full complement of network address
utilities to convert back and forth between binary and text.
inet_aton, inet_ntoa, ipv6_aton, ipv6_ntoa
ipv6_n2x, ipv6_n2d inet_any2d, inet_n2dx,
inet_n2ad, inetanyto6, ipv6to4
See NetAddr::IP::Util
my $ip = new NetAddr::IP '127.0.0.1';
or if you prefer
my $ip = NetAddr::IP->new('127.0.0.1);
or from a packed IPv4 address
my $ip = new_from_aton NetAddr::IP (inet_aton('127.0.0.1'));
or from an octal filtered IPv4 address
my $ip = new_no NetAddr::IP '127.012.0.0';
print "The address is ", $ip->addr, " with mask ", $ip->mask, "\n" ;
if ($ip->within(new NetAddr::IP "127.0.0.0", "255.0.0.0")) {
print "Is a loopback address\n";
# This prints 127.0.0.1/32
print "You can also say $ip...\n";
* The following four functions return ipV6 representations of:
:: = Zeros();
FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF = Ones();
FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:: = V4mask();
::FFFF:FFFF = V4net();
Will also return an ipV4 or ipV6 representation of a
resolvable Fully Qualified Domanin Name (FQDN).
###### DEPRECATED, will be remove in version 5 ############
* To accept addresses in the format as returned by
inet_aton, invoke the module as:
use NetAddr::IP qw(:aton);
###### USE new_from_aton instead ##########################
* To enable usage of legacy data files containing NetAddr::IP objects stored using the Storable module.
use NetAddr::IP qw(:old_storable);
* To compact many smaller subnets (see: $me->compact($addr1,$addr2,...)
@compacted_object_list = Compact(@object_list)
* Return a reference to list of NetAddr::IP subnets of $masklen mask length, when $number or more addresses from @list_of_subnets are found to be contained in said subnet.
$arrayref = Coalesce($masklen, $number, @list_of_subnets)
* By default NetAddr::IP functions and methods return string IPv6 addresses in uppercase. To change that to lowercase:
NOTE: the AUGUST 2010 RFC5952 states:
4.3. Lowercase
The characters "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", and "f" in an IPv6
address MUST be represented in lowercase.
It is recommended that all NEW applications using NetAddr::IP be invoked as shown on the next line.
use NetAddr::IP qw(:lower);
* To ensure the current IPv6 string case behavior even if the default changes:
use NetAddr::IP qw(:upper);
* To set a limit on the size of nets processed or returned by NetAddr::IP.
Set the maximum number of nets beyond which NetAddr::IP will return an error as a power of 2 (default 16 or 65536 nets). Each 2**16 consumes approximately 4 megs of memory. A 2**20 consumes 64 megs of memory, A 2**24 consumes 1 gigabyte of memory.
use NetAddr::IP qw(netlimit);
netlimit 20;
The maximum netlimit allowed is 2**24. Attempts to set limits below the default of 16 or above the maximum of 24 are ignored.
Returns true on success, otherwise undef.
Un-tar the distribution in an appropriate directory and type:
perl Makefile.PL
make test
make install
NetAddr::IP depends on NetAddr::IP::Util which installs by default with its primary functions compiled using Perl's XS extensions to build a C library. If you do not have a C complier available or would like the slower Pure Perl version for some other reason, then type:
perl Makefile.PL -noxs
make test
make install
This module provides an object-oriented abstraction on top of IP addresses or IP subnets that allows for easy manipulations. Version 4.xx of NetAddr::IP will work with older versions of Perl and is compatible with Math::BigInt.
The internal representation of all IP objects is in 128 bit IPv6 notation. IPv4 and IPv6 objects may be freely mixed.
Many operators have been overloaded, as described below:
Has been optimized to copy one NetAddr::IP object to another very quickly.
The assignment (=) operation is only put in to operation when the copied object is further mutated by another overloaded operation. See overload SPECIAL SYMBOLS FOR "use overload" for details.
->copy() actually creates a new object when called.
An object can be used just as a string. For instance, the following code
my $ip = new NetAddr::IP '192.168.1.123';
print "$ip\n";
Will print the string 192.168.1.123/32.
You can test for equality with either eq or ==. eq allows comparison with arbitrary strings as well as NetAddr::IP objects. The following example:
if (NetAddr::IP->new('127.0.0.1','255.0.0.0') eq '127.0.0.1/8')
{ print "Yes\n"; }
will print out "Yes".
Comparison with == requires both operands to be NetAddr::IP objects.
In both cases, a true value is returned if the CIDR representation of the operands is equal.
Internally, all network objects are represented in 128 bit format. The numeric representation of the network is compared through the corresponding operation. Comparisons are tried first on the address portion of the object and if that is equal then the NUMERIC cidr portion of the masks are compared. This leads to the counterintuitive result that
/24 > /16
Comparison should not be done on netaddr objects with different CIDR as this may produce indeterminate - unexpected results, rather the determination of which netblock is larger or smaller should be done by comparing
$ip1->masklen <=> $ip2->masklen
Add a 32 bit signed constant to the address part of a NetAddr object. This operation changes the address part to point so many hosts above the current objects start address. For instance, this code:
print NetAddr::IP->new('127.0.0.1/8') + 5;
will output 127.0.0.6/8. The address will wrap around at the broadcast back to the network address. This code:
print NetAddr::IP->new('10.0.0.1/24') + 255;
outputs 10.0.0.0/24.
Returns the the unchanged object when the constant is missing or out of range.
2147483647 <= constant >= -2147483648
The complement of the addition of a constant.
Returns the difference between the address parts of two NetAddr::IP objects address parts as a 32 bit signed number.
Returns undef if the difference is out of range.
(See range restrictions on Addition above)
Auto-incrementing a NetAddr::IP object causes the address part to be adjusted to the next host address within the subnet. It will wrap at the broadcast address and start again from the network address.
Auto-decrementing a NetAddr::IP object performs exactly the opposite of auto-incrementing it, as you would expect.
This module defines hooks to collaborate with Storable for serializing NetAddr::IP objects, through compact and human readable strings. You can revert to the old format by invoking this module as
use NetAddr::IP ':old_storable';
You must do this if you have legacy data files containing NetAddr::IP objects stored using the Storable module.
->new([$addr, [ $mask|IPv6 ]])
->new6([$addr, [ $mask]])
->new_no([$addr, [ $mask]])
->new_cis("$addr $mask)
->new_cis6("$addr $mask)
The first two methods create a new address with the supplied address in $addr and an optional netmask $mask, which can be omitted to get a /32 or /128 netmask for IPv4 / IPv6 addresses respectively.
The third method new_no is exclusively for IPv4 addresses and filters improperly formatted dot quad strings for leading 0's that would normally be interpreted as octal format by NetAddr per the specifications for inet_aton.
new_from_aton takes a packed IPv4 address and assumes a /32 mask. This function replaces the DEPRECATED :aton functionality which is fundamentally broken.
The last two methods new_cis and new_cis6 differ from new and new6 only in that they except the common Cisco address notation for address/mask pairs with a space as a separator instead of a slash (/)
These methods are DEPRECATED because the functionality is now included in the other "new" methods
i.e. ->new_cis('220.127.116.11 24')
->new_cis6('::22.214.171.124 120')
->new6 and ->new_cis6 mark the address as being in ipV6 address space even if the format would suggest otherwise.
i.e. ->new6('126.96.36.199') will result in ::102:304
addresses submitted to ->new in ipV6 notation will
remain in that notation permanently. i.e.
->new('::220.127.116.11') will result in ::102:304
whereas new('188.8.131.52') would print out as 18.104.22.168
See "STRINGIFICATION" below.
$addr can be almost anything that can be resolved to an IP address in all the notations I have seen over time. It can optionally contain the mask in CIDR notation.
prefix notation is understood, with the limitation that the range specified by the prefix must match with a valid subnet.
Addresses in the same format returned by inet_aton or gethostbyname can also be understood, although no mask can be specified for them. The default is to not attempt to recognize this format, as it seems to be seldom used.
To accept addresses in that format, invoke the module as in
use NetAddr::IP ':aton'
If called with no arguments, 'default' is assumed.
If called with an empty string as the argument, returns 'undef'
$addr can be any of the following and possibly more...
n.n.n.n/mm 32 bit cidr notation
loopback, localhost, broadcast, any, default
0xABCDEF, 0b111111000101011110, (a bcd number)
a netaddr as returned by 'inet_aton'
Any RFC1884 notation
::n.n.n.n/mmm 128 bit cidr notation
x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x/m:m:m:m:m:m:m:m any RFC1884 notation
loopback, localhost, unspecified, any, default
0xABCDEF, 0b111111000101011110 within the limits
of perl's number resolution
123456789012 a 'big' bcd number (bigger than perl likes)
and Math::BigInt
A Fully Qualified Domain Name which returns an ipV4 address or an ipV6 address, embodied in that order. This previously undocumented feature may be disabled with:
use NetAddr::IP::Lite ':nofqdn';
Returns a new object referring to the broadcast address of a given subnet. The broadcast address has all ones in all the bit positions where the netmask has zero bits. This is normally used to address all the hosts in a given subnet.
Returns a new object referring to the network address of a given subnet. A network address has all zero bits where the bits of the netmask are zero. Normally this is used to refer to a subnet.
Returns a scalar with the address part of the object as an IPv4 or IPv6 text string as appropriate. This is useful for printing or for passing the address part of the NetAddr::IP object to other components that expect an IP address. If the object is an ipV6 address or was created using ->new6($ip) it will be reported in ipV6 hex format otherwise it will be reported in dot quad format only if it resides in ipV4 address space.
Returns a scalar with the mask as an IPv4 or IPv6 text string as described above.
Returns a scalar the number of one bits in the mask.
Returns the width of the address in bits. Normally 32 for v4 and 128 for v6.
Returns the version of the address or subnet. Currently this can be either 4 or 6.
Returns a scalar with the address and mask in CIDR notation. A NetAddr::IP object stringifies to the result of this function. (see comments about ->new6() and ->addr() for output formats)
Returns the address part of the NetAddr::IP object in the same format as the inet_aton() or ipv6_aton function respectively. If the object was created using ->new6($ip), the address returned will always be in ipV6 format, even for addresses in ipV4 address space.
Returns a scalar with the base address and the broadcast address separated by a dash and spaces. This is called range notation.
Returns a scalar with the address and mask in ipV4 prefix representation. This is useful for some programs, which expect its input to be in this format. This method will include the broadcast address in the encoding.
Just as ->prefix(), but does not include the broadcast address.
When called in a scalar context, will return a numeric representation of the address part of the IP address. When called in an array contest, it returns a list of two elements. The first element is as described, the second element is the numeric representation of the netmask.
This method is essential for serializing the representation of a subnet.
When called in scalar context, will return a Math::BigInt representation of the address part of the IP address. When called in an array context, it returns a list of two elements, The first element is as described, the second element is the Math::BigInt representation of the netmask.
When called in a scalar context, returns the wildcard bits corresponding to the mask, in dotted-quad or ipV6 format as applicable.
When called in an array context, returns a two-element array. The first element, is the address part. The second element, is the wildcard translation of the mask.
Returns the address part in a short or compact notation.
(ie, 127.0.0.1 becomes 127.1).
Works with both, V4 and V6.
Returns the address part in canonical notation as a string. For ipV4, this is dotted quad, and is the same as the return value from "->addr()". For ipV6 it is as per RFC5952, and is the same as the LOWER CASE value returned by "->short()".
Returns the address part in FULL notation for ipV4 and ipV6 respectively.
i.e. for ipV4
for ipV6
To force ipV4 addresses into full ipV6 format use:
Returns the address part in FULL ipV6 notation
Returns the mask part in FULL ipV6 notation
Returns true when $me completely contains $other. False is returned otherwise and undef is returned if $me and $other are not both NetAddr::IP objects.
The complement of ->contains(). Returns true when $me is completely contained within $other.
Note that $me and $other must be NetAddr::IP objects.
Returns true when $me is an RFC 1918 address.
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
Returns true when $me is a local network address.
i.e. ipV4 127.0.0.0 - 127.255.255.255
or ipV6 === ::1
->splitref($bits,[optional $bits1,$bits2,...])
Returns a reference to a list of objects, representing subnets of bits mask produced by splitting the original object, which is left unchanged. Note that $bits must be longer than the original mask in order for it to be splittable.
ERROR conditions:
->splitref will DIE with the message 'netlimit exceeded'
if the number of return objects exceeds 'netlimit'.
See function 'netlimit' above (default 2**16 or 65536 nets).
->splitref returns undef when C<bits> or the (bits list)
will not fit within the original object.
->splitref returns undef if a supplied ipV4, ipV6, or NetAddr
mask in inappropriately formatted,
bits may be a CIDR mask, a dot quad or ipV6 string or a NetAddr::IP object. If bits is missing, the object is split for into all available addresses within the ipV4 or ipV6 object ( auto-mask of CIDR 32, 128 respectively ).
With optional additional bits list, the original object is split into parts sized based on the list. NOTE: a short list will replicate the last item. If the last item is too large to for what remains of the object after splitting off the first parts of the list, a "best fits" list of remaining objects will be returned based on an increasing sort of the CIDR values of the bits list.
i.e. my $ip = new NetAddr::IP('192.168.0.0/24');
my $objptr = $ip->split(28, 29, 28, 29, 26);
has split plan 28 29 28 29 26 26 26 28
and returns this list of objects
NOTE: that /26 replicates twice beyond the original request and /28 fills the remaining return object requirement.
->rsplitref($bits,[optional $bits1,$bits2,...])
->rsplitref is the same as ->splitref above except that the split plan is applied to the original object in reverse order.
i.e. my $ip = new NetAddr::IP('192.168.0.0/24');
my @objects = $ip->split(28, 29, 28, 29, 26);
has split plan 28 26 26 26 29 28 29 28
and returns this list of objects
->split($bits,[optional $bits1,$bits2,...])
Similar to ->splitref above but returns the list rather than a list reference. You may not want to use this if a large number of objects is expected.
->rsplit($bits,[optional $bits1,$bits2,...])
Similar to ->rsplitref above but returns the list rather than a list reference. You may not want to use this if a large number of objects is expected.
Returns the list of hosts within a subnet.
->hostenum will DIE with the message 'netlimit exceeded'
if the number of return objects exceeds 'netlimit'.
See function 'netlimit' above (default 2**16 or 65536 nets).
Faster version of ->hostenum(), returning a reference to a list.
NOTE: hostenum and hostenumref report zero (0) useable hosts in a /31 network. This is the behavior expected prior to RFC 3021. To report 2 useable hosts for use in point-to-point networks, use :rfc3021 tag.
use NetAddr::IP qw(:rfc3021);
This will cause hostenum and hostenumref to return two (2) useable hosts in a /31 network.
$me->compact($addr1, $addr2, ...)
@compacted_object_list = Compact(@object_list)
Given a list of objects (including $me), this method will compact all the addresses and subnets into the largest (ie, least specific) subnets possible that contain exactly all of the given objects.
Note that in versions prior to 3.02, if fed with the same IP subnets multiple times, these subnets would be returned. From 3.02 on, a more "correct" approach has been adopted and only one address would be returned.
Note that $me and all $addr's must be NetAddr::IP objects.
$compacted_object_list = Compact(\@list)
As usual, a faster version of ->compact() that returns a reference to a list. Note that this method takes a reference to a list instead.
Note that $me must be a NetAddr::IP object.
$me->coalesce($masklen, $number, @list_of_subnets)
$arrayref = Coalesce($masklen,$number,@list_of_subnets)
Will return a reference to list of NetAddr::IP subnets of $masklen mask length, when $number or more addresses from @list_of_subnets are found to be contained in said subnet.
Subnets from @list_of_subnets with a mask shorter than $masklen are passed "as is" to the return list.
Subnets from @list_of_subnets with a mask longer than $masklen will be counted (actually, the number of IP addresses is counted) towards $number.
Called as a method, the array will include $me.
WARNING: the list of subnet must be the same type. i.e ipV4 or ipV6
Returns a new object representing the first usable IP address within the subnet (ie, the first host address).
Returns a new object representing the last usable IP address within the subnet (ie, one less than the broadcast address).
Returns a new object representing the n-th usable IP address within the subnet (ie, the n-th host address). If no address is available (for example, when the network is too small for $index hosts), undef is returned.
Version 4.00 of NetAddr::IP and version 1.00 of NetAddr::IP::Lite implements ->nth($index) and ->num() exactly as the documentation states. Previous versions behaved slightly differently and not in a consistent manner. See the README file for details.
To use the old behavior for ->nth($index) and ->num():
use NetAddr::IP::Lite qw(:old_nth);
old behavior:
NetAddr::IP->new('10/32')->nth(0) == undef
NetAddr::IP->new('10/32')->nth(1) == undef
NetAddr::IP->new('10/31')->nth(0) == undef
NetAddr::IP->new('10/31')->nth(1) == 10.0.0.1/31
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(0) == undef
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(1) == 10.0.0.1/30
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(2) == 10.0.0.2/30
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(3) == 10.0.0.3/30
Note that in each case, the broadcast address is represented in the output set and that the 'zero'th index is alway undef except for a point-to-point /31 or /127 network where there are exactly two addresses in the network.
new behavior:
NetAddr::IP->new('10/32')->nth(0) == 10.0.0.0/32
NetAddr::IP->new('10.1/32'->nth(0) == 10.0.0.1/32
NetAddr::IP->new('10/31')->nth(0) == 10.0.0.0/31
NetAddr::IP->new('10/31')->nth(1) == 10.0.0.1/31
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(0) == 10.0.0.1/30
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(1) == 10.0.0.2/30
NetAddr::IP->new('10/30')->nth(2) == undef
Note that a /32 net always has 1 usable address while a /31 has exactly two usable addresses for point-to-point addressing. The first index (0) returns the address immediately following the network address except for a /31 or /127 when it return the network address.
As of version 4.42 of NetAddr::IP and version 1.27 of NetAddr::IP::Lite a /31 and /127 with return a net num value of 2 instead of 0 (zero) for point-to-point networks.
Version 4.00 of NetAddr::IP and version 1.00 of NetAddr::IP::Lite return the number of usable IP addresses within the subnet, not counting the broadcast or network address.
Previous versions worked only for ipV4 addresses, returned a maximum span of 2**32 and returned the number of IP addresses not counting the broadcast address. (one greater than the new behavior)
use NetAddr::IP::Lite qw(:old_nth);
NetAddr::IP will calculate and return a numeric string for network ranges as large as 2**128. These values are TEXT strings and perl can treat them as integers for numeric calculations.
Perl on 32 bit platforms only handles integer numbers up to 2**32 and on 64 bit platforms to 2**64.
If you wish to manipulate numeric strings returned by NetAddr::IP that are larger than 2**32 or 2**64, respectively, you must load additional modules such as Math::BigInt, bignum or some similar package to do the integer math.
Returns a Perl regular expression that will match an IP address within the given subnet. Defaults to ipV4 notation. Will return an ipV6 regex if the address in not in ipV4 space.
Returns a Perl regular expression that will match an IP address within the given subnet. Always returns an ipV6 regex.
NetAddr::IP only runs in Pure Perl mode on Windows boxes because I don't have the resources or know how to get the "configure" stuff working in the Windows environment. Volunteers WELCOME to port the "C" portion of this module to Windows.
See the Changes file
Luis E. Muñoz <email@example.com>, Michael Robinton <firstname.lastname@example.com>
This software comes with the same warranty as Perl itself (ie, none), so by using it you accept any and all the liability.
This software is (c) Luis E. Muñoz, 1999 - 2007, and (c) Michael Robinton, 2006 - 2014.
All rights reserved.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either:
a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version, or
b) the "Artistic License" which comes with this distribution.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See either the GNU General Public License or the Artistic License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the Artistic License with this distribution, in the file named "Artistic". If not, I'll be glad to provide one.
You should also have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program in the file named "Copying". If not, write to the
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
or visit their web page on the internet at:
perl(1) L<NetAddr::IP::Lite>, L<NetAddr::IP::Util>,
To install NetAddr::IP, copy and paste the appropriate command in to your terminal.
cpanm NetAddr::IP
CPAN shell
perl -MCPAN -e shell
install NetAddr::IP
For more information on module installation, please visit the detailed CPAN module installation guide.