--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-03.txt 2006-02-05 00:43:13.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-04.txt 2006-02-05 00:43:14.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,160 +1,150 @@ + Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau -Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. -Expires: July 2002 - Joan Cucchiara +Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. +Expires: April 2003 Joan Cucchiara Crescent Networks - Cheenu Srinivasan Parama Networks, Inc. - Arun Viswanathan Force10 Networks, Inc. - Hans Sjostrand ipUnplugged - January 2002 + October 2002 - Definition of Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for - Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management + Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label + Switching (MPLS) Management - draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-03.txt + Status of this Memo - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full - conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. - - 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-Drafts. + This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with + all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 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-Drafts. - 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." + 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 - http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. + http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be - accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. + The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at + http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html + + Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to + the Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) Working Group, mpls@uu.net. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract - This memo describes Textual Conventions and OBJECT- - IDENTITIES common to the Management Information Bases - (MIBs) for managing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) + This memo describes Textual Conventions for use in definitions of + management information for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction .............................................. 2 - 2. The SNMP Management Framework ............................. 2 - 3. MPLS TC MIB Definitions ................................... 3 - 4. Security Considerations ................................... 9 - 5. References ................................................ 9 - 6. Authors' Addresses ........................................ 11 - 7. Full Copyright Statement .................................. 12 + 1 Introduction ................................................. 3 + 2 The SNMP Management Framework ................................ 3 + 3 MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ..................... 4 + 4 References ................................................... 15 + 5 Security Considerations ...................................... 16 + 6 Authors' Addresses ........................................... 17 + 7 Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 17 1. Introduction - 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 in IETF MPLS and MPLS-related MIBs. + This document defines a MIB which contains Textual Conventions for + use in definitions of management information for Multi-Protocol Label + Switching (MPLS) networks. - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", - "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", - and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as - described in RFC 2119, reference [RFC2119]. + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [21]. For an introduction to the concepts of MPLS, see [RFC3031]. 2. The SNMP Management Framework - The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five - major components: + The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major + components: - - An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 - [RFC2571]. + o An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571]. - - Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events - for the purpose of management. The first version of - this Structure of Management Information (SMI) is - called SMIv1 and described in STD 16, RFC 1155 - [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 1215 - [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is - described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC - 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. + o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the + purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of + Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in + STD 16, RFC 1155 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC + 1215 [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described + in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and + STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. - - Message protocols for transferring management - information. The first version of the SNMP message - protocol is called SNMPv1 and described in STD 15, RFC - 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of the SNMP message - protocol, which is not an Internet standards track - protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 - [RFC1901] and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of - the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in - RFC 1906 [RFC1906], RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 - [RFC2574]. + o Message protocols for transferring management information. The + first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and + described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of + the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards + track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 + [RFC1901] and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the + message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 + [RFC1906], RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574]. - - Protocol operations for accessing management - information. The first set of protocol operations and - associated PDU formats is described in STD 15, RFC 1157 - [RFC1157]. A second set of protocol operations and - associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905 - [RFC1905]. + o Protocol operations for accessing management information. The + first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is + described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of + protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in + RFC 1905 [RFC1905]. - - A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 - [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism - described in RFC 2575 [RFC2575]. + o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 + [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described + in RFC 2575 [RFC2575]. - A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management - Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570]. + A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework + can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570]. - Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information - store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. - Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined - in the SMI. + Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed + the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are + defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. - This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the - SMIv2. A MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced - through the appropriate translations. The resulting - translated MIB must be semantically equivalent, except - where objects or events are omitted because no translation - is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable - information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual - descriptions in SMIv1 during the translation process. - However, this loss of machine readable information is not - considered to change the semantics of the MIB. + This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A + MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate + translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically + equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no + translation is possible. Some machine readable information in SMIv2 + will be converted into textual descriptions in SMIv1 during the + translation process. However, this loss of machine readable + information is not considered to change the semantics of the MIB. -3. MPLS TC MIB Definitions +3. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions MPLS-TC-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS - MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, Integer32 + + MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, Integer32, transmission FROM SNMPv2-SMI - transmission - FROM RFC1213-MIB + TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; mplsTCMIB MODULE-IDENTITY - LAST-UPDATED - "200101041200Z" -- 4 January 2002 12:00:00 GMT + LAST-UPDATED "200210091200Z" -- 9 October 2002 12:00:00 GMT ORGANIZATION - "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group" + "IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working + Group." CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. tnadeau@cisco.com Joan Cucchiara Crescent Networks jcucchiara@crescentnetworks.com Cheenu Srinivasan @@ -165,96 +155,110 @@ Force10 Networks, Inc. arun@force10networks.com Hans Sjostrand ipUnplugged hans@ipunplugged.com Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at mpls@uu.net." DESCRIPTION - "This MIB module defines Textual Conventions and - OBJECT-IDENTITIES for use in documents defining - management information bases (MIBs) for managing - MPLS networks." - - -- Revision history. + "This MIB module defines Textual Conventions + for use in definitions of management + information for Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (MPLS) networks." - REVISION - "200101041200Z" -- 4 January 2002 12:00:00 GMT + REVISION "200210091200Z" -- 9 October 2002 12:00:00 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version published as part of RFC XXXX." ::= { mplsMIB 1 } -- This object identifier needs to be assigned by IANA. -- Since mpls has been assigned an ifType of 166 we recommend -- that this OID be 166 as well. mplsMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER - ::= { transmission xxx } + ::= { transmission XXX } --- Textual Conventions (sorted alphabetically). + -- Textual Conventions are in alphabetical order. MplsAtmVcIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "The VCI value for a VCL. The maximum VCI value - cannot exceed the value allowable by - atmInterfaceMaxVciBits defined in ATM-MIB. The - minimum value is 32, values 0 to 31 are reserved - for other uses by the ITU and ATM Forum. 32 is - typically the default value for the Control VC." + "A Label Switching Router (LSR) that + creates LDP sessions on ATM interfaces + uses the VCI or VPI/VCI field to hold the + LDP Label. + + VCI values MUST NOT be in the 0-31 range. + The values 0 to 31 are reserved for other uses + by the ITU and ATM Forum. The value + of 32 can only be used for the Control VC, + although values greater than 32 could be + configured for the Control VC. + + If a value from 0 to 31 is used for a VCI + the management entity controlling the LDP + subsystem should reject this with an + inconsistentValue error. Also, if + the value of 32 is used for a VC which is + NOT the Control VC, this should + result in an inconsistentValue error." REFERENCE - "Definitions of Textual Conventions and OBJECT- - IDENTITIES for ATM Management, RFC 2514, Feb. - 1999." + "[RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawerence J., McCloghrie, K., + Rosen, E., Swallow G., Rekhter, Y., and + P. Doolan, 'MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching', + RFC 3035, January 2001." SYNTAX Integer32 (32..65535) MplsBitRate ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An estimate of bandwidth in units of 1,000 bits per second. If this object reports a value of 'n' then the rate of the object is somewhere in the range of 'n-500' to 'n+499'. For objects which do not vary in bit rate, or for those where no accurate estimation can be made, this object should contain - the nominal bit rate." - SYNTAX Integer32 (1..2147483647) + the nominal bit rate. A value of 0 indicates best + effort treatment." + SYNTAX Integer32 (0|500..2147483647) MplsBurstSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The number of octets of MPLS data that the stream - may send back-to-back without concern for - policing." - SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295) + may send back-to-back without concern for policing. + The value of zero indicates that an implementation + does not support Burst Size." + SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This MAY - represent an IpV4 address of the ingress or egress + "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This may + represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress LSR for the tunnel. This value is derived from the Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID for CR-LDP." REFERENCE - "1. Awduche, D., et al., RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP - for LSP Tunnels, RFC 3209, December 2001. - 2. Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, Jamoussi, - B., et al., draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-06.txt, November - 2001." + "[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et al., 'RSVP-TE: Extensions + to RSVP for LSP Tunnels', RFC 3209, December 2001. + + [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., et al., 'Constraint-Based + LSP Setup using LDP', RFC 3212, January 2002." SYNTAX Unsigned32 -MplsInitialCreationSource ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + MplsOwner ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The entity that originally created the object in question. The values of this enumeration are defined as follows: other(1) - This is used when an entity which has not been enumerated in this textual convention but which is known by the agent. @@ -269,272 +273,449 @@ crldp(5) - The Constraint-Based Label Distribution Protocol was used to configure this object initially. policyAgent(6) - A policy agent (perhaps in combination with one of the above protocols) was used to configure this object initially. unknown(7) - the agent cannot discern which - component created the object." + component created the object. + + An object created by the ldp(3), rsvp(4), crldp(5) + or policyAgent(6) MAY be modified through operator + intervention using other(1) or snmp(2). In + particular, operators may bring rows in and + out of service or modify their values. + In all other respects, the MplsOwner is + the only source allowed to modify the status of + the object. + + Agents receiving requests which violate these + guidelines MUST return an inconsistentValue(12) + error." SYNTAX INTEGER { other(1), snmp(2), ldp(3), rsvp(4), crldp(5), policyAgent(6), unknown (7) } MplsLSPID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "An identifier that is assigned to each LSP and is - used to uniquely identify it. This is assigned at - the head end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs + "A unique identifier within an MPLS network that is + assigned to each LSP. This is assigned at the head + end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs to identify this LSP. This value is piggybacked by the signaling protocol when this LSP is signaled within the network. This identifier can then be used at each LSR to identify which labels are being - swapped to other labels for this LSP. For IPv4 - addresses this results in a 6-octet long cookie." - SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..31)) + swapped to other labels for this LSP. This object + can also be used to disambiguate LSPs that + share the same RSVP sessions between the same + source and destination. + + For LSPs established using CR-LDP, the LSPID is + composed of the ingress LSR Router ID (or any of + its own IPv4 addresses) and a locally unique + CR-LSP ID to that LSR. The first two bytes carry + the CR-LSPID, and the remaining 4 bytes carry + the Router ID. The LSPID is useful in network + management, in CR-LSP repair, and in using + an already established CR-LSP as a hop in an ER-TLV. + + For LSPs signaled using RSVP-TE, the LSP ID is + defined as a 16-bit (2 byte) identifier used + in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the FILTER_SPEC + that can be changed to allow a sender to + share resources with itself. The length of this + object should only be 2 or 6 bytes. If the length + of this octet string is 2 bytes, then it must + identify an RSVP-TE LSPID, or it is 6 bytes, + it must contain a CR-LDP LSPID." + REFERENCE + "See [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE LSPID and [RFC3212] for + LSPID in CR-LDP." + SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6)) MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This value represents an MPLS label as defined in - [RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC3034] and [RFC3035]." + [RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC3034], [RFC3035] and + [CCAMP-ARCH]. + + The label contents are specific to the label being + represented, such as: + + * The label carried in an MPLS shim header + (for LDP this is the Generic Label) is a 20-bit + number represented by 4 octets. Bits 0-19 contain + a label or a reserved label value. Bits 20-31 + MUST be zero. + + The following is quoted directly from [RFC3032]. + There are several reserved label values: + + i. A value of 0 represents the + 'IPv4 Explicit NULL Label'. This label + value is only legal at the bottom of the + label stack. It indicates that the label + stack must be popped, and the forwarding + of the packet must then be based on the + IPv4 header. + + ii. A value of 1 represents the + 'Router Alert Label'. This label value is + legal anywhere in the label stack except at + the bottom. When a received packet + contains this label value at the top of + the label stack, it is delivered to a + local software module for processing. + The actual forwarding of the packet + is determined by the label beneath it + in the stack. However, if the packet is + forwarded further, the Router Alert Label + should be pushed back onto the label stack + before forwarding. The use of this label + is analogous to the use of the + 'Router Alert Option' in IP packets [5] + [Reference to RFC2113]. Since this label + cannot occur at the bottom of the stack, + it is not associated with a + particular network layer protocol. + + iii. A value of 2 represents the + 'IPv6 Explicit NULL Label'. This label + value is only legal at the bottom of the + label stack. It indicates that the label + stack must be popped, and the forwarding + of the packet must then be based on the + IPv6 header. + + iv. A value of 3 represents the + 'Implicit NULL Label'. + This is a label that an LSR may assign and + distribute, but which never actually + appears in the encapsulation. When an + LSR would otherwise replace the label + at the top of the stack with a new label, + but the new label is 'Implicit NULL', + the LSR will pop the stack instead of + doing the replacement. Although + this value may never appear in the + encapsulation, it needs to be specified in + the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value + is reserved. + + v. Values 4-15 are reserved. + + * The frame relay label can be either 10-bits or + 23-bits depending on the DLCI field size and the + upper 22-bits or upper 9-bits must be zero, + respectively. + + * For an ATM label the lower 16-bits represents the + VCI, the next 12-bits represents the VPI and the + remaining bits MUST be zero. + + * The Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) label contains a + value greater than 2^24-1 and used in GMPLS + as defined in [CCAMP-ARCH]." + REFERENCE - "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, Rosen - et al, RFC 3031, August 1999. - 2. MPLS Label Stack Encoding, Rosen et al, RFC 3032, - January 2001. - 3. Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks, - Conta et al, RFC 3034, January 2001. - 4. MPLS using LDP and ATM VC switching, Davie et al, - RFC 3035, January 2001." + "[RFC3031] Multiprotocol Label Switching + Architecture, Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999. + + [RFC3032] MPLS Label Stack Encoding, Rosen et al., + RFC 3032, January 2001. + + [RFC3034] Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay + Networks, Conta et al., RFC 3034, January 2001. + + [RFC3035] MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, + Davie et al., RFC 3035, January 2001. + + [CCAMP-ARCH] Generalized Multi-Protocol Label + Switching (GMPLS) Architecture, Mannie (Editor), + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt, + March 2002." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) -MplsLdpGenAddr ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "The value of an network layer or data link layer - address." - SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64)) + "The label distribution method which is also called + the label advertisement mode (see LDP Specification). + Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate + in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream + on Demand." + REFERENCE + "[RFC3031] Multiprotocol Label Switching + Architecture, Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999. + + [RFC3036] LDP Specification, Andersson, L., et. al., + RFC 3036, Section 2.6.3., January 2001." + SYNTAX INTEGER { + downstreamOnDemand(1), + downstreamUnsolicited(2) + } + + MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "Types types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) + on an Label Switching Router (LSR) are: + + unknown(1) -- if the LSP is not known + to be one of the following. + + terminatingLsp(2) -- if the LSP terminates + on the LSR, then this + is an ingressing LSP + which ends on the LSR, + + originatingLsp(3) -- if the LSP originates + from the LSR, then this + is an egressing LSP which is + the head-end of the LSP, + + crossConnectingLsp(4) -- if the LSP ingresses + and egresses on the LSR, + then it is cross-connecting + on that LSR." + SYNTAX INTEGER { + unknown(1), + terminatingLsp(2), + originatingLsp(3), + crossConnectingLsp(4) + } + + MplsLsrIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "Represents a generic index used throughout the + MPLS-LSR-MIB as a general index in the + mplsInSegmentTable, mplsOutSegmentTable + and mplsXCTable." + SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(1..34)) + + MplsRetentionMode ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The label retention mode which specifies whether + an LSR maintains a label binding for a FEC learned + from a neighbor that is not its next hop for the + FEC. + + If the value is conservative(1) then advertised + label mappings are retained only if they will be + used to forward packets, i.e. if label came from + a valid next hop. + + If the value is liberal(2) then all advertised label + mappings are retained whether they are from a + valid next hop or not." + REFERENCE + "[RFC3031] Multiprotocol Label Switching + Architecture, Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999. + + [RFC3036] LDP Specification, Andersson, L., et. al., + RFC 3036, Section 2.6.2., January 2001." + SYNTAX INTEGER { + conservative(1), + liberal(2) + } MplsLdpIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The LDP identifier is a six octet quantity which is - used to identify an Label Switch Router (LSR) label - space. + used to identify an Label Switching Router (LSR) + label space. - The first four octets identify the LSR and must be a - globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router ID + The first four octets identify the LSR and must be + a globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router ID assigned to the LSR, and the last two octets identify a specific label space within the LSR." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6)) -MplsLdpLabelTypes ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION + MplsLdpLabelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Layer 2 label types which are defined for MPLS - LDP/CRLDP are generic(1), atm(2), or + LDP and/or CR-LDP are generic(1), atm(2), or frameRelay(3)." SYNTAX INTEGER { generic(1), atm(2), frameRelay(3) } - MplsLsrIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "The Label Switch Router (LSR) identifier is the + "The Label Switching Router (LSR) identifier is the first 4 bytes of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) identifier." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) MplsPathIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "A unique identifier used to identify a specific path - used by a tunnel." - SYNTAX Unsigned32 + "A unique value to index (by Path number) an entry + in a table." + SYNTAX Unsigned32(1..4294967295) MplsPathIndexOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique identifier used to identify a specific path - used by a tunnel. If this value is set to 0, it - indicates that no path is in use." + used by a tunnel. A value of 0 (zero) means that + no path is in use." SYNTAX Unsigned32 -MplsPortNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION - STATUS current - DESCRIPTION - "A TCP or UDP port number. Along with an IP address - identifies a stream of IP traffic uniquely." - SYNTAX Integer32 (0..65535) - MplsTunnelAffinity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "Include-any, include-all, or exclude-all constraint - for link selection." + "Describes the configured 32-bit Include-any, + include-all, or exclude-all constraint for + constraint-based link selection." + REFERENCE + "See section 4.7.4 in [RFC3209]." SYNTAX Unsigned32 MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "Index into mplsTunnelTable." - SYNTAX Integer32 (1..65535) + "A unique index into mplsTunnelTable. + For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value + should correspond to the RSVP destination + port used for the RSVP-TE session." + SYNTAX Integer32 MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION - "Instance index into mplsTunnelTable." + "Instance index into mplsTunnelTable. The + tunnel entry with instance index 0 should + refer to the configured tunnel interface + (if one exists), and values greater an 0 + should be used to indicate signaled (or backup) + tunnel LSP instances. For tunnel LSPs signaled using + RSVP, this value should correspond to the + RSVP source port used for the RSVP-TE session." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535) END -4. Security Considerations - - This memo defines textual conventions and object identities - for use in MPLS MIB modules. Security issues for these MIB - modules are addressed in the memos defining those modules. - -5. References +4. References - [RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and - Identification of Management Information for - TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, - May 1990. +[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., (editor), et. al. "Constraint-Based LSP Setup + using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. - [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. - Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", - STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. +[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., + Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", + RFC 3209, December 2001. - [RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB - Definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991. +[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol + Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. - [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K, and M. Rose, "Management - Information Base for Network Management of - TCP/IP Based Internets", RFC 1213, March - 1991. +[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D., + Federokow, G., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack + Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. - [RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps - for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, March - 1991. +[RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching + on Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January + 2001. - [RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. - Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based - SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996. +[RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow, + G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC + Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001. - [RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. - Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version - 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol - (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. +[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B. + Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. - [RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. - Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version - 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol - (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. +[RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture + for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April + 1999. - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to - Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC - 2119, March 1997. +[RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification + of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD + 16, RFC 1155, May 1990. - [RFC2514] Noto, et. al., "Definitions of Textual - Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for ATM - Management", RFC 2514, Feb. 1999 +[RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD + 16, RFC 1212, March 1991. - [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. - Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the - Internet-standard Network Management - Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999. +[RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the + SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991. - [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, - "An Architecture for Describing SNMP - Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April +[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., + Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management + Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. - [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. - Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching - for the Simple Network Management Protocol - (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999. - - [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 - Applications", RFC 2573, April 1999. +[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., + Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for + SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. - [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based - Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the - Simple Network Management Protocol - (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999. +[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., + Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for + SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. - [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, - "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for - the Simple Network Management Protocol - (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999. +[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple + Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. - [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, - J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, - "Structure of Management Information Version - 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. +[RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, + "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January + 1996. - [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, - J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, - "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC - 2579, April 1999. +[RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, + "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network + Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. - [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, - J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, - "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, - RFC 2580, April 1999. +[RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message + Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management + Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999. - [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, - "Multiprotocol Label Switching - Architecture", RFC 3031, August 1999. +[RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model + (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management + Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999. - [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., - Farinacci, D., Federokow, G., Li, T., and A. - Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC - 3032, January 2001. +[RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, + "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network + Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. - [RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., Malis, A., "Use of - Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks - Specification", RFC 3034, January 2001. +[RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", + RFC 2573, April 1999. - [RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., - Rosen, E., Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y., and P. - Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC - switching", RFC 3035, January 2001. +[RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based + Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network + Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999. - [RFC3036] Anderson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., - Fredette, A., and B. Thomas, "LDP - Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. +[RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, + "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network + Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999. - [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., - Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: - Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC - 3209, December 2001. +5. Security Considerations - [Assigned] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned - Numbers", RFC 1700, October 1994. See also: - http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers + This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it + defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS + MIB modules to define management objects. - [CRLDP] B. Jamoussi (Editor), "Constraint-Based LSP - Setup using LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp- - 06.txt, November 2001." + 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. 6. Authors' Addresses Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 Phone: +1-978-244-3051 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com @@ -561,38 +742,35 @@ Hans Sjostrand ipUnplugged P.O. Box 101 60 S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46-8-725-5930 Email: hans@ipunplugged.com 7. Full Copyright Statement - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights - Reserved. + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. - This document and translations of it may be copied and - furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on - or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may - be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or - in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the - above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on - all such copies and derivative works. However, this - document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by - removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet - Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed - for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which - case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet - Standards process must be followed, or as required to - translate it into languages other than English. + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. - The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and - will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its - successors or assigns. This document and the information - contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE - INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE - DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT - NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION - HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED - WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR - PURPOSE. + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.