Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. NadeauRequest for Comments: 7330 BrocadeCategory: Standards Track Z. AliISSN: 2070-1721 N. Akiya Cisco Systems August 2014Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) forBidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) ManagementAbstract This document defines two Management Information Base (MIB) modules that contain Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in BFD-related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations.Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available inSection 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7330.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................21.1. Requirements Language ......................................22. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................23. BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions .........................34. Security Considerations .........................................95. IANA Considerations ............................................106. Acknowledgments ................................................107. References .....................................................107.1. Normative References ......................................107.2. Informative References ....................................111. Introduction This document defines two MIB modules that contain Textual Conventions for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocols. These Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules that manage BFD protocols. Note that names of Textual Conventions defined in this document are prefixed with either "Bfd" or "IANA" to make it obvious to readers that some are specific to BFD modules, whereas others are IANA maintained. For an introduction to the concepts of BFD, see [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130].1.1. Requirements Language 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 inBCP 14,RFC 2119 [RFC2119].2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer tosection 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 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIBNadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 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].3. BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions This MIB module makes references to the following documents: [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130]. BFD-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2, Unsigned32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI --RFC 2578 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; --RFC 2579 bfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT ORGANIZATION "IETF Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Working Group" CONTACT-INFO "Thomas D. Nadeau Brocade Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: zali@cisco.com Nobo Akiya Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: nobo@cisco.com Comments about this document should be emailed directly to the BFD working group mailing list at rtg-bfd@ietf.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subjectNadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth inSection 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)." REVISION "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version. Published asRFC 7330." ::= { mib-2 223 } BfdSessIndexTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An index used to uniquely identify BFD sessions." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295) BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The BFD interval in microseconds." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) BfdMultiplierTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The BFD failure detection multiplier." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..255) BfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "UDP destination port number of BFD control packets. 3784 represents single-hop BFD session. 4784 represents multi-hop BFD session. 6784 represents BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) session. However, syntax is left open to wider range of values purposely for two reasons: 1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for valid proprietary reason. 2. Potential future extension documents.Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used to indicate special conditions and should not be considered a valid port number." REFERENCE "Use of port 3784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop),RFC 5881, June 2010. Use of port 4784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths,RFC 5883, June 2010. Use of port 6784 from Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S., Binderberger, M., and J. Haas, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces,RFC 7130, February 2014." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535) BfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "UDP source port number of BFD control packets. However, syntax is left open to wider range of values purposely for two reasons: 1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for valid proprietary reason. 2. Potential future extension documents. The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used to indicate special conditions and should not be considered a valid port number." REFERENCE "Port 49152..65535 fromRFC5881" SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535) END IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI --RFC 2578 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; --RFC 2579Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 ianaBfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT ORGANIZATION "IANA" CONTACT-INFO "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Postal: 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Tel: +1 310 301 5800 EMail: iana@iana.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth inSection 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)." REVISION "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version. Published asRFC 7330." ::= { mib-2 224 } IANAbfdDiagTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A common BFD diagnostic code." REFERENCE "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010. Allan, D., Swallow, G., and Drake, J., Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile,RFC 6428, November 2011." SYNTAX INTEGER { noDiagnostic(0), controlDetectionTimeExpired(1), echoFunctionFailed(2),Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 neighborSignaledSessionDown(3), forwardingPlaneReset(4), pathDown(5), concatenatedPathDown(6), administrativelyDown(7), reverseConcatenatedPathDown(8), misConnectivityDefect(9) } IANAbfdSessTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "BFD session type" REFERENCE "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010. Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop),RFC 5881, June 2010. Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths,RFC 5883, June 2010." SYNTAX INTEGER { singleHop(1), multiHopTotallyArbitraryPaths(2), multiHopOutOfBandSignaling(3), multiHopUnidirectionalLinks(4) } IANAbfdSessOperModeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "BFD session operating mode" REFERENCE "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010." SYNTAX INTEGER { asyncModeWEchoFunction(1), asynchModeWOEchoFunction(2), demandModeWEchoFunction(3), demandModeWOEchoFunction(4) } IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTIONNadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 "BFD session state. State failing(5) is only applicable if corresponding session is running in BFD version 0." REFERENCE "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010." SYNTAX INTEGER { adminDown(1), down(2), init(3), up(4), failing(5) } IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "BFD authentication type" REFERENCE "Sections4.2 -4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010." SYNTAX INTEGER { noAuthentication(-1), reserved(0), simplePassword(1), keyedMD5(2), meticulousKeyedMD5(3), keyedSHA1(4), meticulousKeyedSHA1(5) } IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "1x " STATUS current DESCRIPTION "BFD authentication key type. An IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC is always interpreted within the context of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC value. Every usage of the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC textual convention is required to specify the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object that provides the context. It is suggested that the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object be logically registered before the object(s) that use the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC textual convention, if they appear in the same logical row.Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 The value of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC must always be consistent with the value of the associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC object. Attempts to set an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object to a value inconsistent with the associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC must fail with an inconsistentValue error. The following size constraints for an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object are defined for the associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC values show below: noAuthentication(-1): SIZE(0) reserved(0): SIZE(0) simplePassword(1): SIZE(1..16) keyedMD5(2): SIZE(16) meticulousKeyedMD5(3): SIZE(16) keyedSHA1(4): SIZE(20) meticulousKeyedSHA1(5): SIZE(20) When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128 sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case, the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers; otherwise, the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the appropriate conceptual row DESCRIPTION clauses, or in the surrounding documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION clause that is appropriate." REFERENCE "Sections4.2 -4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),RFC 5880, June 2010." SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(0..252)) END4. Security Considerations This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other BFD MIB modules to define management objects. Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB modules that define management objects. This document has therefore no impact on the security of the Internet.Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 20145. IANA Considerations This document provides the base definition of the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB module. This MIB module is under the direct control of IANA. SeeSection 3 for the initial contents. See the most updated version of this MIB at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianabfdtcstd-mib>. Assignments of IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB are via IETF Review [RFC5226]. This MIB makes reference to the following documents: [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881] and [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130]. IANA assigned an OID to the BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in this document as { mib-2 223 }. IANA assigned an OID to the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in this document as { mib-2 224 }.6. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Jeffrey Haas for performing thorough reviews and providing a number of suggestions. The authors would also like to thank David Ward and Christer Holmberg for their comments and suggestions.7. References7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,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. 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. [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)",RFC 5880, June 2010.Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7330 BFD-TC-STD-MIB August 2014 [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)",RFC 5881, June 2010. [RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths",RFC 5883, June 2010. [RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile",RFC6428, November 2011. [RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S., Binderberger, M., and J. Haas, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces",RFC 7130, February 2014.7.2. 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. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 5226, May 2008.Authors' Addresses Thomas D. Nadeau Brocade EMail: tnadeau@lucidvision.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems EMail: zali@cisco.com Nobo Akiya Cisco Systems EMail: nobo@cisco.comNadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
[8]ページ先頭