Internet Draft Thomas D. Nadeau, Ed.
Expires: January 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc.
David Zelig, Ed.
Corrigent Systems
July 2005
Definitions for Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES
for Pseudo-Wires Management
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-06.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
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-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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management
Information Base for use with network management protocols in
the Internet community. In particular, it describes the textual
conventions to be used in the various Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge
MIB modules.
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................1
1 Introduction...................................................2
2 Terminology....................................................2
3 The Internet-Standard Management Framework.....................2
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 1]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
4 PWE3-TC-STD-MIB Module Definitions.............................3
5 Security Considerations.......................................26
6 IANA considerations...........................................27
7 References..................................................27
7.1 Normative references........................................27
7.2 Informative references......................................29
8 Author's Addresses..........................................29
9 Full Copyright Statement....................................29
10 Intellectual Property Notice................................30
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 PWE3 MIBs.
This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms
described in [RFC3985]. Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms of
[RFC3985] apply and will not be re-described here.
Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
pwe3@ietf.org.
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
[RFC2119].
2. Terminology
This document uses terminology from the document describing the PWE3
architecture [RFC3985].
3. 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 the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 2]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
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
[RFC2580].
4. PWE3 TC MIB Module Definitions
PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, Integer32, transmission
FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]
pwTcMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200507121200Z" -- 12 July 2005 12:00:00 GMT
ORGANIZATION "Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
Group"
CONTACT-INFO
" Thomas D. Nadeau
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
David Zelig
E-mail: davidz@corrigent.com
The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html)
"
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). The
initial version of this MIB module was published
in RFC 3811. For full legal notices see the RFC
itself or see:
http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html
This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs
for concepts used in Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge
networks.
"
-- Revision history.
REVISION "200507121200Z" -- 12 July 2005 12:00:00 GMT
DESCRIPTION "Initial version published as part of RFC XXXX."
-- RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with RFC number.
::= { pwMIB XXXX } -- RFC Editor: please replace
-- XXXX with IANA assigne value.
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 3]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
-- See IANA considerations sect.
pwMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- This object identifier needs to be assigned by IANA.
::= { transmission YYYY }
-- RFC Editor: Please replace YYYY with the IANA-assigned
-- transmission OID.
PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An administrative identification mechanism for grouping a
set of service-specific pseudo-wire services. May only
have local significance."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Pseudo-Wire Identifier. Used to identify the PW
(together with some other fields) in the signaling
session. Zero if the PW is set-up manually."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Pseudo Wire Index. Locally unique index for indexing
several MIB tables associated with a particular PW."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
PwVlanCfg ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"VLAN configuration for Ethernet PW.
Values between 0 to 4095 indicate the actual VLAN field
value.
A value of 4096 indicates that the object refer to
untagged frames, i.e. frames without 802.1Q field.
A value of 4097 indicates that the object is not
relevant."
SYNTAX Integer32 (0..4097)
PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Indicates the operational status of the PW.
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 4]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
- up(1): Ready to pass packets.
- down(2): If PW signaling has not yet finished, or
indications available at the service
level indicate that the VC is not
passing packets.
- testing(3): If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to
test.
- dormant(4): The PW is not available because of the
required resources are occupied PW with
higher priority PWs .
- notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish
the set up of the PW.
- lowerLayerDown(6):The underlying PSN or outer tunnel is not
in OperStatus 'up' state.
"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
up(1),
down(2),
testing(3),
unknown(4),
dormant(5),
notPresent(6),
lowerLayerDown(7)
}
PwTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Indicates the PW type (i.e. the carried service).
"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
other(0),
frameRelayDlci(1),
atmAal5SduVcc(2),
atmTransparent(3),
ethernetTagged(4),
ethernet(5),
hdlc(6),
ppp(7),
cem(8), -- old format
atmCellNto1Vcc(9),
atmCellNto1Vpc(10),
ipLayer2Transport(11),
atmCell1to1Vcc(12),
atmCell1to1Vpc(13),
atmAal5PduVcc(14),
frameRelayPortMode(15),
cep(16),
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 5]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
e1Satop(17),
t1Satop(18),
e3Satop(19),
t3Satop(20),
basicCesPsn(21),
basicTdmIp(22),
tdmCasCesPsn(23),
tdmCasTdmIp(24)
}
PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for
identifying attachment forwarder and groups. The NULL
identifier is of zero length.
"
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Indicates the status of the control word 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 remote.
sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has
notified the peer about 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 remote which is not compatible with the PW type.
cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW:
if signaling is used - C bit is set and agreed between the
peers, and for manual configured PW the local configuration
require the use of the CW.
cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for
this PW: if signaling is used - C bit is reset and agreed
between the peers, and for manual configured PW the local
configuration requires that CW would not be used.
notYetKnown(7) indicate that a label mapping has not yet
received from the peer.
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 6]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
waitingForNextMsg (1),
sentWrongBitErrorCode (2),
rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),
illegalReceivedBit (4),
cwPresent (5),
cwNotPresent (6),
notYetKnown(7)
}
PwCapabilities ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Indicates the optional capabilities of the control protocol.
A value of zero indicates the basic LDP PW signaling.
Values may be added in the future based on new capabilities
introduced in IETF documents.
"
SYNTAX BITS {
pwStatusIndication (0)
}
PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The status of the PW and the interfaces affecting this PW.
If none of the bits are set, it indicate no faults are
reported.
"
SYNTAX BITS {
pwNotForwarding (0),
customerFacingPwRxFault (1),
customerFacingPwTxFault (2),
psnFacingPwRxFault (3),
psnFacingPwTxFault (4)
}
PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"If set to value other than zero, it indicates desired
fragmentation to the value set. If set to zero,
fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.
"
SYNTAX Unsigned32
PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 7]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
DESCRIPTION
"The status of the fragmentation process based on local
configuration and the remote capability.
noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no
fragmentation.
cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local desire
to fragment, but the fragmentation size desired is greater
than the MTU available at the PSN between peers.
Fragmentation is not done in this case.
cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local
configuration indicates the desire for fragmentation but
the remote is not capable of fragmentation.
cfgFragFcsLengthMismatch(3) bit indicates that there is a
mismatch between the FCS size between the local
configuration and the remote configuration.
fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that both the local was
configured for fragmentation and the remote has the
cabability to accept fragmented packets, and the FCS size is
equal in both peers.
"
SYNTAX BITS {
noFrag (0),
cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),
remoteFragCapable (3),
fragEnabled (4)
}
END
5. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 8]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
6. References
6.1 Normative References
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., et al, "PWE3 Architecture",RFC2985,
March 2005
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC
2434, October 1998.
[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.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions
for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, 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.
6.2 Informative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December
2002.
7. Security Considerations
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.
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 9]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
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.
8. Editors' Contact Information
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxboro, MA 01719
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
David Zelig
Corrigent Systems
126, Yigal Alon st.
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Phone: +972-3-6945273
Email: davidz@corrigent.com
9. Authors' Addresses
Dave Danenberg
Email: dave_danenberg@yahoo.com
Andrew G. Malis
Tellabs, Inc.
2730 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: Andy.Malis@tellabs.com
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is
subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
11. IANA Considerations
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 10]
Internet Draft PW-STD-MIB July 2005
IANA is requested to make a MIB OID assignment under the
transmission branch, that is, assign the pwStdMIB under
{ transmission TBD }.
-- RFC Editor: Please assign TBD based on IANA-requested assignment
In the future, PWE3 related standards track PW modules should be
rooted under the pwStdMIB subtree. The IANA is requested to manage
that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a Standards
Action as specified in [RFC2434].
11.1 IANA Considerations for PW-TC-STD-MIB
This document also requests IANA to assign { pwStdMIB 1 } to the PW
MIB specified in this document.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Nadeau & Zelig, Ed. Expires February 2006 [Page 11]