[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 5542

Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation                         T. Nadeau, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                        BT
Intended status: Standards Track                           D. Zelig, Ed.
Expires: August 15, 2009                                          Oversi
                                                        O. Nicklass, Ed.
                                                       February 15, 2009

   Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowires (PW) Management

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 1]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
   controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
   be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
   works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
   except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
   into languages other than English.


   This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
   contains Textual Conventions (TCs) to represent commonly-used
   Pseudowire (PW) management information.  The intent is that these TCs
   will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would
   otherwise define their own representations.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.  Introduction

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 2]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
   In particular, it defines Textual Conventions used for Pseudowire
   (PW) technology and PWE3 MIB modules.

   Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at

2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework

   For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
   Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
   RFC 3410 [RFC3410].

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB.  MIB objects are generally
   accessed through Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).  Objects
   in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure
   of Management Information (SMI).  This memo specifies a MIB module
   that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC
   2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580

3.  Object Definitions


   MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, mib-2
      FROM SNMPv2-SMI               -- [RFC2578]

      FROM SNMPv2-TC;               -- [RFC2579]

   LAST-UPDATED "200902151200Z"  -- 15 February 2009 12:00:00 GMT
   ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
   " Thomas D. Nadeau
     Email:  tom.nadeau@bt.com

     David Zelig
     Email: davidz@oversi.com

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 3]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

     Orly Nicklass
     Email: orlyn@radvision.com

     The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,

        "This MIB module defines TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS
         for concepts used in Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge

         Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2009). The
         initial version of this MIB module as published
         in RFC YYYY. For full legal notices see the RFC
         itself or see:

-- RFC Editor: Please replace YYYY with the RFC number and remove
-- this note.
   -- Revision history.

   REVISION "200902151200Z"  -- 15 february 2009 12:00:00 GMT
        "Original Version"
      ::= { mib-2 XXXX }
-- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value and
-- delete this note.

   STATUS      current
        "An administrative identification for grouping a
         set of service-specific pseudowire services."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32

   STATUS      current
        "Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW
         (together with some other fields) in the signaling
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32


Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 4]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   STATUS      current
        "Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero,
        for each locally-defined PW for indexing
        several MIB tables associated with the particular PW.
        It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously
        starting from 1.  The value for each PW MUST remain
        constant at least from one re-initialization
        to the next re-initialization."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)

   STATUS      current
        "This textual convention is an extension of the
         PwIndexType convention.  The latter defines a greater-
         than-zero value used to identify a Pseudowire
         in the managed system.  This extension permits the
         additional value of zero. The zero value is object-specific
         and MUST therefore be defined as part of the description of
         any object which uses this syntax.  Examples of the usage of
         zero might include situations where Pseudowire was unknown,
         or when none or all Pseudowires need to be referenced."
    SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

   STATUS      current
     "Indicates the operational status of the PW.

     - up(1):            Ready to pass packets.
     - down(2):          If PW signaling is not yet finished, or
                         indications available at the service
                         level indicate that the PW is not
                         passing packets.
     - testing(3):       If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to
     - dormant(4):       The PW is not in a condition to pass
                         packets, but is in a 'pending' state,
                         waiting for some external event.
     - notPresent(5):    Some component is missing to accomplish
                         the setup of the PW. It can be configuration
                         error, incomplete configuration or missing
                         of H/W component.
     - lowerLayerDown(6):One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
                         responsible for running the underlying PSN

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 5]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

                         is not in OperStatus 'up' state."

PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS      current
      "An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for
       identifying attachment forwarder and groups. A NULL
       identifier is of zero length.

   STATUS      current
      "Represents the AGI Type and AII Type in generalized FEC
       signaling and configuration.
  SYNTAX    Unsigned32( 0..254 )

   STATUS      current
      "Indicates the status of the control word (CW) negotiation
       based on the local configuration and the indications received
       from the peer node.

       waitingForNextMsg(1) indicates that the node is waiting for
       another label mapping from the peer.

       sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has
       notified the peer about a mismatch in the C-bit.

       rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw
       message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code.

       illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with
       the peer which is not compatible with the PW type.

       cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW:
       If signaling is used - the C-bit is set and agreed between the

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 6]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

       nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local configuration
       requires the use of the CW.

       cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for
       this PW: If signaling is used - the C-bit is reset and agreed
       between the nodes, and for manually-configured PW the local
       configuration requires that the CW not be used.

       notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet
       been received from the peer.
      "Martini, et al, 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using
       the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]."

              waitingForNextMsg (1),
              sentWrongBitErrorCode (2),
              rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),
              illegalReceivedBit (4),
              cwPresent (5),
              cwNotPresent (6),

   STATUS      current
      "Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting
       this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults
       are reported.
     pwNotForwarding (0),
     servicePwRxFault (1),
     servicePwTxFault (2),
     psnPwRxFault  (3),
     psnPwTxFault  (4)

   STATUS      current
      "If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired
       fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero,
       fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 7]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   SYNTAX   Unsigned32

   STATUS      current
      "Indicates the status of the fragmentation/reassembly process
       based on local configuration and peer capability.

       noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no

       cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local node
       is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size is greater
       than the MTU available at the PSN between the nodes.
       Fragmentation is not done in this case.

       cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local
       configuration indicates the desire for fragmentation but
       the peer is not capable of reassembly.

       remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node
       is capable to accept fragmented PDUs.

       fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fragmentation will be used
       on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was
       configured for fragmentation, the peer has the capability
       to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this

       "Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
        Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]."
      noFrag (0),
      cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
      cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),
      remoteFragCapable (3),
      fragEnabled (4)

   STATUS      current
        "Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for
        supplement information regarding configuration of the
        specific technology. Value 0 implies no additional
        configuration information is applicable."

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 8]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

4.  Security Considerations

   This module does not define any management objects.  Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions that may be used by other PWE3
   MIB modules to define management objects.

   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
   modules that define management objects.  Therefore, this document has
   no impact on the security of the Internet.

5.  IANA Considerations

   The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
   OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

         Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
         ----------        -----------------------

         pwTcStdMIB         { mib-2 XXXX }

   Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
   requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and
   to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry.  When the
   assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX"
   (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove
   this note.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
              Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2579]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009              [Page 9]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
              STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [RFC2580]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
              "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
              April 1999.

   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
              Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
              Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [RFC4623]  Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
              August 2006.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
   BT Centre
   81 Newgate Street
   London  EC1A 7AJ
   United Kingdom
   Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com

   David Zelig (editor)
   Oversi Networks
   1 Rishon Letzion St.
   Petah Tikva

   Phone: +972 77 3337 750
   Email: davidz@oversi.com

   Orly Nicklass (editor)
   24 Raul Wallenberg
   Tel Aviv

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009             [Page 10]

              draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-15             February  2009

   Phone: +972 3 776 9444
   Email: orlyn@radvision.com


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

   This document was produced by the PWE3 Working Group.

Nadeau, et al.              Expires August 2009             [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/