--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-01.txt 2011-01-27 04:27:32.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-02.txt 2011-01-27 04:27:32.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,20 +1,19 @@ - Network Working Group D. King (Editor) Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting Intended status: Informational M. Venkatesan (Editor) -Expires: June 5, 2011 Aricent - January 5, 2011 +Expires: June 26, 2011 Aricent + January 26, 2011 Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based Management Overview - draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-01.txt + draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-02.txt Abstract A range of Management Information Base (MIB) modules has been developed to help model and manage the various aspects of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These MIB modules are defined in separate documents that focus on the specific areas of responsibility of the modules that they describe. The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS @@ -56,21 +55,21 @@ 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. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2011. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 26, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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 @@ -320,20 +319,23 @@ A label stack entry can be 'popped' or removed from the top of the label stack or a label stack entry is 'pushed' or inserted into the top of the stack based on the FEC information. When a 'swap' operation is executed, the topmost label stack entry is replaced with a different one and the depth of the label stack remains the same. After the swap the packet is forwarded based on the new entry. + MPLS-FTN-STD-MIB [RFC3814] describes the managed objects for mapping + FEC's to label bindings. + 5.2.4. Label Switching Router Modules MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813] describes the managed objects for modeling a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] LSR. MPLS-TP is specific to the use of MPLS in transport networks. According to [RFC5654] multipoint-to-point LSPs do not form part of MPLS-TP, so multipoint-to-point cross-connects are out of scope for this document. @@ -374,42 +376,45 @@ The second is the PW-STD-MIB module, which configures general parameters of the PW that are common to all types of emulated services and PSN types. The third is a PSN-specific module. There is a different module for each type of PSN. These modules associate the PW with one or more "tunnels" that carry the service over the PSN. These modules are defined in other documents. + PW-TC-STD-MIB [RFC5542] contains the textual conventions required + for PW MIB modules. + PW-STD-MIB [RFC5601] defines a MIB module that can be used to manage pseudowire (PW) services for transmission over a Packet Switched Network (PSN) [RFC3931] [RFC4447]. This MIB module provides generic management of PWs that is common to all types of PSN and PW services defined by the IETF PWE3 Working Group. PW-MPLS-STD-MIB [RFC5602] describes a model for managing pseudowire services for transmission over different flavors of MPLS tunnels. The general PW MIB module [RFC5601] defines the parameters global to the PW regardless of the underlying Packet Switched Network (PSN) and emulated service. This document is applicable for PWs that use MPLS PSN type in the PW-STD-MIB. This document describes the MIB objects that define pseudowire association to the MPLS PSN, in a way that is not specific to the carried service. - Together, [RFC3811] and [RFC3812] describe the modeling of an MPLS - tunnel, and a tunnel's underlying cross-connects. This MIB module - supports MPLS-TE PSN, non-TE MPLS PSN (an outer tunnel created by the - Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or manually), and MPLS PW label - only (no outer tunnel). + Together, [RFC3811], [RFC3812] and [RFC3813] describe the modeling of + an MPLS tunnel, and a tunnel's underlying cross-connects. This MIB + module supports MPLS-TE PSN, non-TE MPLS PSN (an outer tunnel created + by the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or manually), and MPLS PW + label only (no outer tunnel). PW-ENET-STD-MIB [RFC5603] describes a model for managing Ethernet pseudowire services for transmission over a PSN. This MIB module is generic and common to all types of PSNs supported in the Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architecture [RFC3985], which describes the transport and encapsulation of L1 and L2 services over supported PSN types. In particular, the MIB module associates a port or specific VLANs on top of a physical Ethernet port or a virtual Ethernet interface (for @@ -434,23 +439,25 @@ some specific data can be routed around network hot spots. MPLS-TE-STD-MIB [RFC3812] describes managed objects for modeling a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] based traffic engineering. This MIB module should be used in conjunction with the companion document [RFC3813] for MPLS based traffic engineering configuration and management. 5.2.8. Resiliency - MPLS Fast Reroute is a local restoration network resiliency mechanism - in MPLS TE for link and node protection. Two different modes of local - protection are described in the [RFC4090] to protect LSP. + MPLS Fast Reroute is a restoration network resiliency mechanism used + in MPLS TE to redirect the traffic onto the backup LSP's in 10s of + milliseconds in case of link or node failure across the LSP. Two + different modes of local protection are described in the [RFC4090] to + protect LSP. o One-to-One Backup o Facility Backup Facility backup uses label stacking to reroute multiple protected TE LSPs using a single backup TE LSP. One-to-one backup does not use label stacking, and every protected TE LSP requires a dedicated backup TE LSP. MPLS-FRR-GENERAL-STD-MIB [draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-14] @@ -533,42 +540,42 @@ | ^ | | | | | MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB <--------------------------------+ | | | | +<----------------------- MPLS-LDP-STD-MIB ---------------->+ | | ^ | | | | | | +<-- MPLS-LDP-GENERIC-STD-MIB ------>+ | | | | | +<------ MPLS-FTN-STD-MIB ---------+----------------------->+ | - | ^ | | | | | | + | V | | +<------------- MPLS-TE-STD-MIB ->+ | - ^ | GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB ------------>+ - | | ^ | - | | | | - | +---+ +<-- GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB -->+ - | | ^ ^ ^ | - | | | | | | - +----> PW-TC-STD-MIB | | GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB --------------->+ - | | | ^ ^ | - | | | | | | - | IANA-PWE3-MIB | | | | IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB | - | ^ | | | | ^ | - | | | | | | | | - | | | +<--- GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB ------------->+ - | | | ^ | - +<--- PW-STD-MIB <------+ | | | + | GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB ------------>+ + | ^ | + | | | + +---+ +<-- GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB -->+ + | ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | - +<--- PW-ENET-STD-MIB ->+ | | | - | ^ | | | + +----> PW-TC-STD-MIB | GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB --------------->+ + | | ^ ^ | | | | | | + | IANA-PWE3-MIB | | | IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB | + | ^ | | | ^ | + | | | | | | | + | | +<--- GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB ------------->+ + | | ^ | + +<--- PW-STD-MIB <------+ | | + | | | | + +<--- PW-ENET-STD-MIB ->+ | | + | ^ | | + | | | | +<---------------- PW-MPLS-STD-MIB -------------------------------->+ Thus: - All the MPLS MIB modules depend on MPLS-TC-STD-MIB. - All the GMPLS MIB modules depend on GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB. - All the PW MIB modules depend on PW-TC-STD-MIB. @@ -638,21 +645,21 @@ [Editors note - A seperate draft will provide an MPLS-TP abstract model and use a formal language to define the terminology, the information that must be retrieved and method for storing. The draft will also list the new MPLS-TP MIB modules identified in this document] 6.1 Gap Analysis 6.1.1 MPLS-TP Tunnel - o An MPLS tunnel may not compatible for non-IP environments. + o An MPLS tunnel may not be compatible for non-IP environments. i.e., the tunnel ingress and egress identifiers are not always identified via an IP address, rather identification is achieved using local numbers to operate in a non-IP environment. o Next-hop IP address in MPLS XC table is not compatible for non-IP environment. o Bidirectional LSPs are not introduced until the GMPLS MIB modules, tunnel table should be enhanced to provide static and signalling corouted/associated bidirectional connectivity. 6.1.2 MPLS-TP Pseudowire @@ -800,22 +807,22 @@ configured to give access to only those objects, and to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to access them. 10. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests for IANA action. 11. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Eric Gray, Thomas Nadeau, Benjamin - Niven-Jenkins, Sam Aldrin and Anirban Karmakar for their valuable - comments. + Niven-Jenkins, Sam Aldrin and Saravanan Narasimhan for their + valuable comments. 12. References 12.1 Normative References [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)