Network Working Group M. Ersue, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational B. Claise
Expires: May 3, 2012 Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 31, 2011
An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-02
Abstract
This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
standards-track network management protocols and data models. The
purpose of this document is on the one hand to help system developers
and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and
data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand
the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other
Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF
management technologies and data models.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.
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
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Scope and Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Core Network Management Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2. SNMP and its Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3. Structure of Managed Information (SMI) . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.4. SNMP Security and Access Control Models . . . . . . . 11
2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models . . . . 13
2.2. SYSLOG Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3. IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling
(PSAMP) Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4. Network Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language . . . . . . . . 21
3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with specific
Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1. IP Address Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) . . . . . . 23
3.1.2. Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2. IPv6 Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3. Policy-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.2. Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS) for
Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5. Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) . . . 28
3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.7. Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) . . . . . 34
3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Network Management Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
4.5. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A. High Level Classification of Management Protocols
and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A.1. Protocols classified by the Standard Maturity at IETF . . 64
A.2. Protocols Matched to Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A.5. Supported Data Model Types and their Extensibility . . . . 67
Appendix B. New Work related to IETF Management Standards . . . . 69
B.1. Energy Management (EMAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix C. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix D. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.1. 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.2. 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
D.3. draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03-00 . . . . . . . . . . 72
D.4. Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw . . . . . 73
D.4.1. 02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
D.4.2. 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
D.4.3. 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope and Target Audience
This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
standards-track network management protocols and data models.
The target audience of the document is on the one hand IETF working
groups, which aim to select appropriate standard management protocols
and data models to address their needs concerning network management.
On the other hand the document can be used as an overview and
guideline by non-IETF Standard Development Organizations (SDO)
planning to use IETF management technologies and data models for the
realization of management applications. The document can be also
used to initiate a discussion between the bodies with the goal to
gather new requirements and to detect possible gaps. Finally, this
document is directed to all interested parties, which seek to get an
overview of the current set of the IETF network management protocols
such as network administrators or newcomers to IETF.
Section 2 gives an overview of the IETF core network management
standards with a special focus on Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP), SYSLOG, IP Flow Information Export/Packet Sampling (IPFIX/
PSAMP), and Network Configuration (NETCONF). Section 3 discusses
IETF management protocols and mechanisms with a specific focus, e.g.
IP address management or IP performance management. Section 4
discusses Proposed, Draft and Standard Level data models, such as MIB
modules, IPFIX Information Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements,
and YANG modules designed to address specific set of management
issues. The data models are structured following the management
application view and mapped to the network management tasks fault,
configuration, accounting, performance, and security management.
Appendix A guides the reader for the high-level selection of
management standards. For this, the section classifies the protocols
according to high level criteria such as push versus pull mechanism,
passive versus active monitoring, as well as categorizes the
protocols concerning the network management task they address and
their data model extensibility. If the reader is interested only in
a subset of the IETF network management protocols and data models
described in this document, Appendix A can be used as a dispatcher to
the corresponding chapter. Appendix B gives an overview of the new
work on Energy Management at IETF.
This document mainly refers to Proposed, Draft or Full Standard
documents at IETF (see [RFCSEARCH]). As far as valuable Best Current
Practice (BCP) documents are referenced. In exceptional cases and if
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
the document provides substantial guideline for standard usage or
fills an essential gap, Experimental and Informational RFCs are
noticed and ongoing work is mentioned.
Information on active and concluded IETF working groups (e.g., their
charters, published or currently active documents and mail archive)
can be found at [IETF-WGS]).
Note: The final document will not contain any references to Internet-
Drafts. Current references in the document are assumed to be
published soon.
RFC Editor: Please delete the note above before publication.
1.2. Related Work
[RFC6272] gives an overview and guidance on the key protocols of the
Internet Protocol Suite. In analogy to [RFC6272] this document gives
an overview of the IETF network management standards and its usage
scenarios.
[RFC3535] "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop"
documented strengths and weaknesses of some IETF management
protocols. In choosing existing protocol solutions to meet the
management requirements, it is recommended that these strengths and
weaknesses be considered, even though some of the recommendations
from the 2002 IAB workshop have become outdated, some have been
standardized, and some are being worked on at the IETF.
[RFC5706] "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of
New Protocols and Extensions" recommends working groups to consider
operations and management needs, and then select appropriate
management protocols and data models. This document can be used to
ease surveying the IETF standards-track network management protocols
and management data models.
Note that IETF so far has not developed specific technologies for the
management of sensor networks. IP-based sensors or constrained
devices in such an environment, i.e. with very limited memory and CPU
resources, can use e.g. application layer protocols to do simple
resource management and monitoring.
Note that the document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-
path, e.g. OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, Pseudowire, etc. [RFC6371]
describes the OAM Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks. There
is an ongoing work on the overview of the OAM toolset for detecting
and reporting connection failures or measurement of connection
performance parameters [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
1.3. Terminology
This document does not describe standard requirements. Therefore key
words from RFC2119 are not used in the document.
o 3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, a collaboration between
groups of telecommunications associations, to prepare the third-
generation (3G) mobile phone system specification.
o Agent: A software module that performs the network management
functions requested by network management stations. An agent may
be implemented in any network element that is to be managed, such
as a host, bridge, or router. The 'management server' in NETCONF
terminology.
o CLI: Command Line Interface. A management interface that system
administrators can use to interact with networking equipment.
o Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into
a form that is specific to a particular type of data store or
repository (see [RFC3444]).
o Event: An occurrence of something in the "real world". Events can
be indicated to managers through an event message or notification.
o IAB: Internet Architecture Board
o IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, an organization that
oversees global IP address allocation, autonomous system number
allocation, media types, and other Internet Protocol-related code
point allocations.
o Information model: An abstraction and representation of entities
in a managed environment, their properties, attributes and
operations, and the way they relate to each other. Independent of
any specific repository, protocol, or platform (see [RFC3444]).
o ITU-T: International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector
o Managed object: A management abstraction of a resource; a piece of
management information in a MIB module. In the context of SNMP, a
structured set of data variables that represent some resource to
be managed or other aspect of a managed device.
o Manager: An entity that acts in a manager role, either a user or
an application. The counterpart to an agent. A 'management
client' in NETCONF terminology.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Management Information Base (MIB): An information repository with
related collection of objects that represent an aggregation of
resources to be managed. MIB modules are defined by using the
modeling language SMI.
o MIB module: A MIB definition, typically for a particular network
technology feature, that constitutes a subtree in an object
identifier tree. A MIB that is provided by a management agent is
typically composed of multiple instantiated MIB modules.
o Modeling language: A modeling language is any artificial language
that can be used to express information or knowledge or systems in
a structure that is defined by a consistent set of rules.
Examples are SMIv2, XSD, and YANG.
o Notification: An event message.
o OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
o PDU: Protocol Data Unit, a unit of data, which is specified in a
protocol of a given layer consisting protocol-control information
and possibly layer-specific data.
o Relax NG: REgular LAnguage for XML Next Generation, a schema
language for XML.
o SDO: Standard Development Organization
o Trap: An unsolicited message sent by an agent to a management
station to notify an unusual event.
o URI: Uniform Resource Identifier, a string of characters used to
identify a name or a resource on the Internet. Can be classified
as locators (URLs), or as names (URNs), or as both.
o XPATH: XML Path Language, a query language for selecting nodes
from an XML document.
2. Core Network Management Protocols
2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP
The SNMPv3 Framework [RFC3410], builds upon both the original SNMPv1
and SNMPv2 framework. The basic structure and components for the
SNMP framework did not change between its versions and comprises
following components:
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o managed nodes, each with an SNMP entity providing remote access to
management instrumentation (the agent),
o at least one SNMP entity with management applications (the
manager), and
o a management protocol used to convey management information
between the SNMP entities, and management information.
During its evolution, the fundamental architecture of the SNMP
Management Framework remained consistent based on a modular
architecture, which consists of:
o a generic protocol definition independent of the data it is
carrying, and
o a protocol-independent data definition language,
o an information repository containing a data set of management
information definitions (the Management Information Base, or MIB),
and
o security and administration.
As such following standards build up the basis of the current SNMP
Management Framework:
o SNMPv3 protocol [STD62],
o the modeling language SMIv2 [RFC2578][RFC2579], and
o MIB modules for different management issues.
The SNMPv3 Framework extends the architectural principles of SNMPv1
and SNMPv2 by:
o building on these three basic architectural components, in some
cases incorporating them from the SNMPv2 Framework by reference,
and
o by using the same layering principles in the definition of new
capabilities in the security and administration portion of the
architecture.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
2.1.2. SNMP and its Versions
SNMP is based on three conceptual entities: Manager, Agent, and the
Management Information Base (MIB). In any configuration, at least
one manager node runs SNMP management software. Typically, network
devices such as bridges, routers, and servers are equipped with an
agent. The agent is responsible for providing access to a local MIB
of objects that reflects the resources and activity at its node.
Following the manager-agent paradigm, an agent can generate
notifications and send them as unsolicited messages to the management
application.
SNMPv2 enhances this basic functionality with a Trap PDU, an Inform
message, a bulk transfer capability and other functional extensions
like an administrative model for access control, security extensions,
and Manager-to-Manager communication. SNMPv2 entities can have a
dual role as manager and agent. However, neither SNMPv1 nor SNMPv2
offers sufficient security features. To address the security
deficiencies of SNMPv1/v2, SNMPv3 was issued as a set of Proposed
Standards (see [STD62]).
[BCP74][RFC3584] "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and
Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework"
gives an overview of the relevant standard documents on the three
SNMP versions. The BCP document furthermore describes how to convert
MIB modules from SMIv1 to SMIv2 format and how to translate
notification parameters as well as describes the mapping between the
message processing and security models (see [RFC3584]).
SNMP utilizes the Management Information Base, a virtual information
store of modules of managed objects. Generally, standard MIB modules
support common functionality in a device. Operators often define
additional MIB modules for their enterprise or use the Command Line
Interface (CLI) to configure non-standard data in managed devices and
their interfaces.
SNMPv2 trap and inform PDUs can alert an operator or an application
when some aspect of a protocol fails or encounters an error
condition, and the contents of a notification can be used to guide
subsequent SNMP polling to gather additional information about an
event.
SNMP is widely used for monitoring of fault and performance data and
with its stateless nature SNMP also works well for status polling and
determining the operational state of specific functionality. The
widespread use of counters in standard MIB modules permits the
interoperable comparison of statistics across devices from different
vendors. Counters have been especially useful in monitoring bytes
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
and packets going in and out over various protocol interfaces. SNMP
is often used to poll basic parameter of a device (e.g. sysUpTime,
which reports the time since the last reinitialization of the device)
to check for operational liveliness, and to detect discontinuities in
counters. Some operators use SNMP also for configuration management
in their environment (e.g. for DOCSIS-based systems such as cable
modems).
SNMPv1 [RFC1157] is a Full Standard that the IETF has declared
Historic and it is not recommended due to its lack of security
features. "Community-based SNMPv2" [RFC1901] is an Experimental RFC,
which IETF has declared Historic and it is not recommended due to its
lack of security features.
SNMPv3 [STD62] is a Full Standard that is recommended due to its
security features, including support for authentication, encryption,
message timeliness and integrity checking, and fine-grained data
access controls. An overview of the SNMPv3 document set is in
[RFC3410].
Standards exist to use SNMP over diverse transport and link layer
protocols, including Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
[STD7][RFC0793], User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [STD6][RFC0768],
Ethernet [RFC4789], and others (see Section 2.1.5.1).
2.1.3. Structure of Managed Information (SMI)
SNMP MIB modules are defined with the notation and grammar specified
as the Structure of Managed Information (SMI). The SMI uses an
adapted subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [ITU-X680].
The SMI is divided into three parts: module definitions, object
definitions, and, notification definitions.
o Module definitions are used when describing information modules.
An ASN.1 macro, MODULE-IDENTITY, is used to concisely convey the
semantics of an information module.
o Object definitions are used when describing managed objects. An
ASN.1 macro, OBJECT-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax
and semantics of a managed object.
o Notification definitions are used when describing unsolicited
transmissions of management information. An ASN.1 macro,
NOTIFICATION-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax and
semantics of a notification.
SMIv1 is specified in [STD16][RFC1155] "Structure and Identification
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets" and
[STD16][RFC1212] "Concise MIB Definitions". [RFC1215] specifies
conventions for defining SNMP traps. Note that SMIv1 is outdated and
is not recommended to use.
SMIv2 is the new notation for managed information definition and
should be used to define MIB modules. SMIv2 is specified in
following RFCs:
o [STD58][RFC2578] defines Version 2 of the Structure of Management
Information (SMIv2),
o [STD58][RFC2579] defines common MIB "Textual Conventions",
o [STD58][RFC2580] defines Conformance Statements and requirements
for defining agent and manager capabilities, and
o [RFC3584] defines the mapping rules for and the conversion of MIB
modules between SMIv1 and SMIv2 formats.
2.1.4. SNMP Security and Access Control Models
2.1.4.1. Security Requirements on the SNMP Management Framework
Several of the classical threats to network protocols are applicable
to management problem space and therefore applicable to any security
model used in an SNMP Management Framework. This section lists
principal threats, secondary threats, and threats which are of lesser
importance (see [RFC3411] for the detailed description of the
security threats).
The principal threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
protection are, "modification of information" by an unauthorized
entity, and "masquerade", i.e. the danger that management operations
not authorized for some principal may be attempted by assuming the
identity of another principal.
Secondary threats against which SNMP Security Models within this
architecture can provide protection are "message stream
modification", e.g. re-ordering, delay or replay of messages, and
"disclosure", i.e. the danger of eavesdropping on the exchanges
between SNMP engines.
There are two threats against which a Security Model within this
architecture does not protect, since they are deemed to be of lesser
importance in this context: "Denial of Service" and "Traffic
Analysis" (see [RFC3411]).
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
2.1.4.2. User-Based Security Model (USM)
SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the User Security Model (USM). USM
provides authentication and privacy services for SNMP and is
specified in [RFC3414]. Specifically, USM is designed to secure
against the principal and secondary threats discussed in
Section 2.1.4.1. USM does not secure against Denial of Service and
attacks based on Traffic Analysis.
The security services the USM security model supports are:
o Data Integrity is the provision of the property that data has not
been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner, nor have data
sequences been altered to an extent greater than can occur non-
maliciously.
o Data Origin Authentication is the provision of the property that
the claimed identity of the user on whose behalf received data was
originated is supported.
o Data Confidentiality is the provision of the property that
information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized
individuals, entities, or processes.
o Message timeliness and limited replay protection is the provision
of the property that a message whose generation time is outside of
a specified time window is not accepted.
See [RFC3414] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 USM.
2.1.4.3. View-Based Access Control Model (VACM)
SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the View-Based Access Control (VACM)
facility. The VACM [RFC3415] enables the configuration of agents to
provide different levels of access to the agent's MIB. An agent
entity can restrict access to its MIB for a particular manager entity
in two ways:
o The agent entity can restrict access to a certain portion of its
MIB, e.g., an agent may restrict most manager principals to
viewing performance-related statistics and allow only a single
designated manager principal to view and update configuration
parameters.
o The agent can limit the operations that a principal can use on
that portion of the MIB. E.g., a particular manager principal
could be limited to read-only access to a portion of an agent's
MIB.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
VACM defines five elements that make up the Access Control Model:
groups, security level, contexts, MIB views, and access policy.
Access to a MIB module is controlled by means of a MIB view.
See [RFC3415] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 VACM.
2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models
The User-based Security Model (USM) was designed to be independent of
other existing security infrastructures to ensure it could function
when third-party authentication services were not available. As a
result, USM utilizes a separate user and key-management
infrastructure. Operators have reported that the deployment of a
separate user and key-management infrastructure in order to use
SNMPv3 is costly and hinders the deployment of SNMPv3.
SNMP Transport Subsystem [RFC5590] extends the original SNMP
architecture and transport model and enables the use of transport
protocols to provide message security unifying the administrative
security management for SNMP, and other management interfaces.
Transport Models are tied into the SNMP framework through the
Transport Subsystem. The Transport Security Model [RFC5591] has been
designed to work on top of lower-layer, secure Transport Models.
The SNMP Transport Model defines an alternative to existing standard
transport mappings described in [RFC3417] e.g. for SNMP over UDP, in
[RFC4789] for SNMP over IEEE 802 networks as well as in the
Experimental RFC [RFC3430] defining SNMP over TCP.
2.1.5.1. SNMP Transport Security Model
The SNMP Transport Security Model [RFC5591] is an alternative to the
existing SNMPv1 Security Model [RFC3584], the SNMPv2c Security Model
[RFC3584], and the User-based Security Model [RFC3414].
The Transport Security Model utilizes one or more lower-layer
security mechanisms to provide message-oriented security services.
These include authentication of the sender, encryption, timeliness
checking, and data integrity checking.
A secure transport model sets up an authenticated and possibly
encrypted session between the Transport Models of two SNMP engines.
After a transport-layer session is established, SNMP messages can be
sent through this session from one SNMP engine to the other. The new
Transport Model supports the sending of multiple SNMP messages
through the same session to amortize the costs of establishing a
security association.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model [RFC5592] and the Transport
Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC6353] are current examples
for Transport Security Models.
The SSH Transport Model makes use of the commonly deployed SSH
security and key-management infrastructure. [RFC5592] furthermore
defines MIB objects for monitoring and managing the SSH Transport
Model for SNMP.
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) transport model [RFC6353] uses
either the TLS protocol or the Datagram TLS (DTLS) protocol. The TLS
and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for
SNMP applications. TLS transport model supports the sending of SNMP
messages over TLS and TCP and over DTLS and UDP. [RFC6353]
furthermore defines MIB objects for managing the TLS Transport Model
for SNMP.
Note: Different IETF standards use security layers to address
security threads (e.g. TLS [RFC5246], Simple Authentication and
Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422], and SSH [RFC4251]). Diverse
management interfaces from IETF use a secure transport layer to
provide secure information and message exchange to build management
applications, e.g. SYSLOG [RFC5424], IPFIX [RFC5101] and NETCONF
[RFC4741].
[RFC5608] describes the use of a 'Remote Authentication Dial-In User
Service' (RADIUS) service by SNMP secure Transport Models for
authentication of users and authorization of services. Access
control authorization, i.e. how RADIUS attributes and messages are
applied to the specific application area of SNMP Access Control
Models, and VACM in particular has been specified in [RFC6065].
2.2. SYSLOG Protocol
SYSLOG is a mechanism for distribution of logging information
initially used on Unix systems. IETF documented the status quo of
the BSD SYSLOG protocol in the Informational [RFC3164]. The IETF
SYSLOG protocol [RFC5424] obsoletes [RFC3164] and introduces a
layered architecture allowing the use of any number of transport
protocols, including reliable and secure transports, for transmission
of SYSLOG messages.
The body of an BSD SYSLOG message has traditionally been unstructured
text. This content is human-friendly, but difficult to parse for
applications. The content of BSD SYSLOG messages correlate across
vendors and with other event reporting such as SNMP traps.
The SYSLOG protocol enables a machine to send system log messages
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
across networks to event message collectors. The protocol is simply
designed to transport and distribute these event messages. By
default, no acknowledgements of the receipt are made, except the
reliable delivery extensions specified in [RFC3195] are used. The
SYSLOG protocol and process does not require a stringent coordination
between the transport sender and the receiver. Indeed, the
transmission of SYSLOG messages may be started on a device without a
receiver being configured, or even actually physically present.
Conversely, many devices will most likely be able to receive messages
without explicit configuration or definitions.
BSD SYSLOG had little uniformity for the message format and the
content of SYSLOG messages. The IETF has standardized a new message
header format, including timestamp, hostname, application, and
message ID, to improve filtering, interoperability and correlation
between compliant implementations.
The SYSLOG protocol [RFC5424] introduces a mechanism for defining
Structured Data Elements (SDEs). The SDEs allow vendors to define
their own structured data elements to supplement standardized
elements. [RFC5675] defines a mapping from SNMP notifications to
SYSLOG messages. [RFC5676] defines a SNMP MIB module to represent
SYSLOG messages for sending SYSLOG messages as notifications to SNMP
notification receivers. [RFC5674] defines the way alarms are sent in
SYSLOG, which includes the mapping of ITU perceived severities onto
SYSLOG message fields and a number of alarm-specific definitions from
ITU-T X.733 and the IETF Alarm MIB.
[RFC5848] "Signed Syslog Messages" defines a mechanism to add origin
authentication, message integrity, replay resistance, message
sequencing, and detection of missing messages to the transmitted
SYSLOG messages to be used in conjunction with the SYSLOG protocol.
The SYSLOG protocol layered architecture provides support for any
number of transport mappings. However, for interoperability
purposes, SYSLOG protocol implementers are required to support the
transmission of SYSLOG Messages over UDP as defined in [RFC5426].
[RFC3195] describes mappings of the SYSLOG protocol to TCP
connections, useful for reliable delivery of event messages. As such
the specification provides robustness and security in message
delivery with encryption and authentication over a connection-
oriented protocol that is unavailable to the usual UDP-based SYSLOG
protocol.
IETF furthermore defined the TLS transport mapping for SYSLOG in
[RFC5425], which provides a secure connection for the transport of
SYSLOG messages. [RFC5425] describes the security threats to SYSLOG
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
and how TLS can be used to counter such threats. [RFC6012] defines
the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for
SYSLOG, which can be used if a connectionless transport is desired.
For information on MIB modules related to SYSLOG see Section 4.1.
2.3. IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP)
Protocols
The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101], IP Flow Information eXport, is a
Proposed Standard, which defines a push-based data export mechanism
for transferring IP flow information in a compact binary format from
an exporter to a collector.
The IPFIX architecture [RFC5470] defines the components involved in
IP flow measurement and reporting of information on IP flows,
particularly, a metering process generating flow records, an
exporting process that sends metered flow information using the IPFIX
protocol, and a colleting process that receives flow information as
IPFIX data records.
After listing the IPFIX requirements in [RFC3917], NetFlow Version 9
[RFC3954] was taken as the basis for the IPFIX protocol and the IPFIX
architecture.
IPFIX can run over different transport protocols. The IPFIX protocol
[RFC5101] specifies Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
[RFC4960] as the mandatory transport protocol to implement. Optional
alternatives are TCP [STD7] and UDP [STD6].
SCTP is used with its Partial Reliability extension (PR-SCTP)
specified in [RFC3758]. [I-D.ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream]
specifies an extension to RFC 5101, when using the PR-SCTP [RFC3758].
The extension offers several advantages over IPFIX export, e.g. the
ability to calculate Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate reuse
of Template IDs within an SCTP stream, reduced likelihood of Data
Record loss, and reduced demands on the Collecting Process.
IPFIX transmits IP flow information in data records containing IPFIX
Information Elements (IEs) defined by the IPFIX information model
[RFC5102]. IPFIX information elements are quantities with unit and
semantics defined by the information model. When transmitted over
the IPFIX protocol, only their values need to be carried in data
records. This compact encoding allows efficient transport of large
numbers of measured flow values. Remaining redundancy in data
records can be further reduced by methods described in [RFC5473] (for
further discussion on IPFIX IEs see Section 4).
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
The IPFIX information model is extensible. New information elements
can be registered at IANA (see 'IPFIX Information Elements' in
[IANA-PROT]). IPFIX also supports the use of proprietary, i.e.
enterprise-specific information elements.
The PSAMP protocol [RFC5476] extends the IPFIX protocol by means of
transferring information on individual packets. [RFC5475] specifies
a set of sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection,
based on the PSAMP framework [RFC5474]. The PSAMP information model
[RFC5477] provides a set of basic information elements for reporting
packet information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol.
The IPFIX model of an IP traffic flow is uni-directional. [RFC5103]
adds means to IPFIX for reporting bi-directional flows, for example
both directions of packet flows of a TCP connection.
When enterprise-specific information elements are transmitted with
IPFIX, a collector receiving data records may not know the type of
received data and cannot choose the right format for storing the
contained information. [RFC5610] provides means for providing type
information of enterprise-specific information Elements from an
exporter to a collector.
Collectors may store received flow information in files. The IPFIX
file format [RFC5655] can be used for storing IP flow information in
a way that facilitates exchange of traffic flow information between
different systems and applications.
In terms of IPFIX and PSAMP configurations, the metering and
exporting processes are configured out of band. As the IPFIX
protocol is a push mechanism only, IPFIX cannot configure the
exporter. The actual configuration of selection processes, caches,
exporting processes, and collecting processes of IPFIX and PSAMP
compliant monitoring devices is executed using the NETCONF protocol
[RFC4741] (see Section 2.4.1). The 'Configuration Data Model for
IPFIX and PSAMP' is ongoing work and is specified using Unified
Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams. The data model is formally
defined using the YANG modeling language [RFC6020] in
[I-D.draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model] (see Section 2.4.2).
At the time of this writing a framework for IPFIX flow mediation is
in preparation, which addresses the need for mediation of flow
information in IPFIX applications in large operator networks, e.g.
for aggregating huge amounts of flow data and for anonymization of
flow information (see the problem statement in [RFC5982]).
The IPFIX Mediation Framework [RFC6183] defines the intermediate
device between exporters and collectors, which provides an IPFIX
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
mediation by receiving a record stream from e.g. a collecting
process, hosting one or more intermediate processes to transform this
stream, and exporting the transformed record stream into IPFIX
messages via an exporting process.
Examples for mediation functions are flow aggregation, flow
selection, and anonymization of traffic information (see [RFC6235]).
Privacy, integrity, and authentication of exporter and collector are
important security requirements for IPFIX [RFC3917].
Confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of IPFIX data
transferred from an exporting process to a collecting process must be
ensured. The IPFIX and PSAMP protocols do not define any new
security mechanism and rely on the security mechanism of the
underlying transport protocol, such as TLS [RFC5246] and DTLS
[RFC4347].
The primary goal of IPFIX is the reporting of the flow accounting for
flexible flow definitions and usage-based accounting. As described
in the IPFIX Applicability Statement [RFC5472], there are also other
applications such as traffic profiling, traffic engineering,
intrusion detection, and QoS monitoring, that require flow-based
traffic measurements and can be realized using IPFIX. IPFIX
Applicability Statement explains furthermore the relation of IPFIX to
other framework and protocols such as PSAMP, RMON, IPPM. Similar
flow information could be also used for security monitoring. The
addition of performance metrics in the IPFIX IANA registry
[IANA-IPFIX], will extend the IPFIX use case to performance
management.
With further information elements, IPFIX can also be applied to
monitoring of application-level protocols, for example, Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related media transfer
protocols. Requirements to such a monitoring on the application
level include measuring signaling quality (e.g., session request
delay, session completion ratio, or hops for request), media Quality
of Service (QoS) (e.g., jitter, delay or bit rate), and user
experience (e.g., Mean Opinion Score).
Note that even if the initial IPFIX focus has been around IP flow
information exchange, non IP-related information elements are now
specified in IPFIX IANA registration (e.g. MAC (Media Access
Control) address, MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) labels, etc.).
At the time of this writing, there are requests to widen the focus of
IPFIX and to export also non-IP related information elements (such as
SIP monitoring IEs).
The IPFIX Structured Data [RFC6313] is an extension to the IPFIX
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
protocol, which supports hierarchical structured data and lists
(sequences) of Information Elements in data records. This extension
allows the definition of complex data structures such as variable-
length lists and specification of hierarchical containment
relationships between templates. Furthermore the extension provides
the semantics to express the relationship among multiple list
elements in a structured data record.
For information on data models related to the management of the IPFIX
and PSAMP protocols see Section 4.1 and Section 4.2. For information
on IPFIX/PSAMP IEs see Section 4.3.
2.4. Network Configuration
2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
The IAB workshop on Network Management [RFC3535] determined advanced
requirements for configuration management:
o Robustness: Minimizing disruptions and maximizing stability,
o Support of task-oriented view,
o Extensible for new operations,
o Standardized error handling,
o Clear distinction between configuration data and operational
state,
o Distribution of configurations to devices under transactional
constraints,
o Single and multi-system transactions and scalability in the number
of transactions and managed devices,
o Operations on selected subsets of management data,
o Dump and reload a device configuration in a textual format in a
standard manner across multiple vendors and device types,
o Support a human interface and a programmatic interface,
o Data modeling language with a human friendly syntax,
o Easy conflict detection and configuration validation, and
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Secure transport, authentication, and robust access control.
The NETCONF protocol [RFC4741] is a Proposed Standard that provides
mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of
network devices and aims to address the configuration management
requirements pointed in the IAB workshop. It uses an XML-based data
encoding for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages.
The NETCONF protocol operations are realized on top of a simple and
reliable Remote Procedure Call (RPC) layer. A key aspect of NETCONF
is that it allows the functionality of the management protocol to
closely mirror the native command line interface of the device.
The NETCONF working group developed the NETCONF Event Notifications
Mechanism as an optional capability, which provides an asynchronous
message notification delivery service for NETCONF [RFC5277]. NETCONF
notification mechanism enables using general purpose notification
streams, where the originator of the notification stream can be any
managed device (e.g. SNMP notifications).
NETCONF Partial Locking specification introduces fine-grained locking
of the configuration datastore to enhance NETCONF for fine-grained
transactions on parts of the datastore [RFC5717].
The NETCONF working group also defined the necessary data model to
monitor the NETCONF protocol by using the modeling language YANG
[RFC6022] (see Section 2.4.2). The monitoring data model includes
information about NETCONF datastores, sessions, locks, and
statistics, which facilitate the management of a NETCONF server.
NETCONF connections are required to provide authentication, data
integrity, confidentiality, and replay protection. NETCONF depends
on the underlying transport protocol for this capability. For
example, connections can be encrypted in TLS or SSH, depending on the
underlying protocol.
The NETCONF working group defined the SSH transport protocol as the
mandatory transport binding [RFC4742]. Other optional transport
bindings are TLS [RFC5539], BEEP (over TLS) [RFC4744], and SOAP (over
HTTP over TLS) [RFC4743].
The NETCONF working group updated the NETCONF base protocol standard
as [RFC6241] and the SSH transport protocol mapping as [RFC6242].
At the time of this writing NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) is
being specified. NACM proposes standard mechanisms to restrict
protocol access to particular users with a pre-configured subset of
operations and content.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language
Following the guidelines of the IAB management workshop [RFC3535],
the NETMOD working group developed a data modeling language defining
the semantics of operational and configuration data, notifications,
and operations [RFC6020]. The new data modeling language maps
directly to XML-encoded content (on the wire) and will serve as the
normative description of NETCONF data models.
YANG has following properties addressing specific requirements on a
modeling language for configuration management:
o YANG provides the means to define hierarchical data models. It
supports reusable data types and groupings, i.e., a set of schema
nodes that can be reused across module boundaries.
o YANG supports the distinction between configuration and state
data. In addition, it provides support for modeling event
notifications and the specification of operations that extend the
base NETCONF operations.
o YANG allows to express constraints on data models by means of type
restrictions and XPATH 1.0 [XPATH] expressions. XPATH expressions
can also be used to make certain portions of a data model
conditional.
o YANG supports the integration of standard and vendor defined data
models. YANG's augmentation mechanism allows to seamlessly
augment standard data models with proprietary extensions.
o YANG data models can be partitioned into collections of features,
allowing low-end devices to only implement the core features of a
data model while high-end devices may choose to support all
features. The supported features are announced via the NETCONF
capability exchange to management applications.
o The syntax of the YANG language is compact and optimized for human
readers. An associated XML-based syntax called the YANG
Independent Notation (YIN) [RFC6020] is available to allow the
processing of YANG data models with XML-based tools. The mapping
rules for the translation of YANG data models into Document Schema
Definition Languages (DSDL), of which Relax NG is a major
component, are defined in [RFC6110].
o Devices implementing standard data models can document deviations
from the data model in separate YANG modules. Applications
capable of discovering deviations can make allowances that would
otherwise not be possible.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
A collection of common data types for IETF-related standards is
provided in [RFC6021]. This standard data type library has been
derived to a large extend from common SMIv2 data types, generalizing
them to a less constrained NETCONF framework.
The document "An Architecture for Network Management using NETCONF
and YANG" describes how NETCONF and YANG can be used to build network
management applications that meet the needs of network operators
[RFC6244].
The Experimental RFC [RFC6095] specifies extensions for YANG
introducing language abstractions such as class inheritance and
recursive data structures.
[RFC6087] gives guidelines for the use of YANG within IETF and other
standardization organizations.
Work is underway to standardize a translation of SMIv2 data models
into YANG data models preserving investments into SNMP MIB modules,
which are widely available for monitoring purposes.
Several independent and open source implementations of the YANG data
modeling language and associated tools are available.
While YANG is a relatively recent data modeling language, some data
models have already been produced. The specification of the base
NETCONF protocol operations has been revised and uses YANG as the
normative modeling language to specify its operations [RFC6241]. The
IPFIX working group is currently preparing the normative model for
configuring and monitoring IPFIX and PSAMP compliant monitoring
devices using the YANG modeling language
[I-D.draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model].
At the time of this writing the NETMOD working group is developing
core system and interface data models. Following the example of the
IPFIX configuration model, IETF working groups will prepare models
for their specific needs.
For information on data models developed using the YANG modeling
language see Section 4.1 and Section 4.2.
3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with specific Focus
This section reviews additional protocols IETF offers for management
and discusses for which applications they were designed and/or
already successfully deployed. These are protocols that have mostly
reached Proposed Standard status or higher within the IETF.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
3.1. IP Address Management
3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
The Draft Standard Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts
on a TCP/IP network and enables as such auto-configuration in IP
networks. In addition to IP address management, DHCP can also
provide other configuration information, such as default routers, the
IP addresses of recursive DNS servers and the IP addresses of NTP
servers. As described in [RFC6272] DHCP can be used for IPv4 and
IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment as well as for Service
Discovery.
There are two versions of DHCP, one for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC2131] and
one for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]. DHCPv4 was defined as an extension
to BOOTP (Bootstrap Protocol) [RFC0951]. DHCPv6 was subsequently
defined to accommodate new functions required by IPv6 such as
assignment of multiple addresses to an interface and to address
limitations in the design of DHCPv4 resulting from its origins in
BOOTP. While both versions bear the same name and perform the same
functionality, the details of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are sufficiently
different that they can be considered separate protocols.
In addition to the assignment of IP addresses and other configuration
information, DHCP options like the Relay Agent Information option
(DHCPv4) [RFC3046] and, the Interface-Id Option (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]
are widely used by ISPs.
DHCPv6 includes Prefix Delegation [RFC3633], which is used to
provision a router with an IPv6 prefix for use in the DHCPv6 includes
Prefix Delegation [RFC3633], which is used to provision a router with
an IPv6 prefix for use in the subnetwork supported by the router.
Following are examples of DHCP options that provide configuration
information or access to specific servers. A complete lists of DHCP
options are available at [IANA-PROT].
o [RFC3646] describes DHCPv6 options for passing a list of available
DNS recursive name servers and a domain search list to a client.
o [RFC2610] describes DHCPv4 options and methods through which
entities using the Service Location Protocol can find out the
address of Directory Agents in order to transact messages and how
the assignment of scope for configuration of SLP User and Service
Agents can be achieved.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o [RFC3319] specifies DHCPv6 options that allow SIP clients to
locate a local SIP server that is to be used for all outbound SIP
requests, a so-called outbound proxy server.
o [RFC4280] defines DHCPv6 options to discover the Broadcast and
Multicast Service (BCMCS) controller in an IP network.
3.1.2. Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration
Ad-hoc nodes need to configure their network interfaces with locally
unique addresses as well as globally routable IPv6 addresses, in
order to communicate with devices on the Internet. The IETF AUTOCONF
working group developed [RFC5889], which describes the addressing
model for ad-hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure
their addresses.
The ad-hoc nodes under consideration are expected to be able to
support multi-hop communication by running MANET (Mobile ad-hoc
network) routing protocols as developed by the IETF MANET working
group.
From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc network presents itself as a
layer 3 multi-hop network formed over a collection of links. The
addressing model aims to avoid problems for ad-hoc-unaware parts of
the system, such as standard applications running on an ad-hoc node
or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad-hoc nodes.
3.2. IPv6 Network Operations
The IPv6 Operations Working Group develops guidelines for the
operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, as
well as into new network installations.
o The Proposed Standard [RFC4213] specifies IPv4 compatibility
mechanisms for dual stack and configured tunneling that can be
implemented by IPv6 hosts and routers. Dual stack implies
providing complete implementations of both IPv4 and IPv6, and
configured tunneling provides a means to carry IPv6 packets over
unmodified IPv4 routing infrastructures.
o [RFC3574] lists different scenarios in 3GPP defined packet network
that would need IPv6 and IPv4 transition, where [RFC4215] does a
more detailed analysis of the transition scenarios that may come
up in the deployment phase of IPv6 in 3GPP packet networks.
o [RFC4029] describes and analyzes different scenarios for the
introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC5181] provides a detailed description of IPv6 deployment,
integration methods and scenarios in wireless broadband access
networks (802.16) in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services.
[RFC4057] describes the scenarios for IPv6 deployment within
enterprise networks.
o [RFC4038] specifies scenarios and application aspects of IPv6
transition considering how to enable IPv6 support in applications
running on IPv6 hosts, and giving guidance for the development of
IP version-independent applications.
o [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] updates RFC 5735 and
requests the allocation of an IPv4/10 address block to be used as
"Shared Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGN) Space" by
service providers to number the interfaces that connect CGN
devices to Customer Premise Equipment (CPE).
3.3. Policy-based Management
3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework
IETF specified a general policy framework [RFC2753] for managing,
sharing, and reusing policies in a vendor independent, interoperable,
and scalable manner. [RFC3460] specifies the Policy Core Information
Model (PCIM) as an object-oriented information model for representing
policy information. PCIM has been developed jointly in the IETF
Policy Framework working group and the Common Information Model (CIM)
activity in the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). PCIM has
been published as extensions to CIM [DMTF-CIM].
The IETF Policy Framework is based on a policy-based admission
control specifying two main architectural elements, the Policy
Enforcement Point (PEP) and the Policy Decision Point (PDP). For the
purpose of network management, policies allow an operator to specify
how the network is to be configured and monitored by using a
descriptive language. Furthermore, it allows the automation of a
number of management tasks, according to the requirements set out in
the policy module.
IETF Policy Framework has been accepted by the industry as a
standard-based policy management approach and has been adopted by
different SDOs e.g. for 3GGP charging standards.
3.3.2. Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS) for Policy Provisioning
(COPS-PR)
[RFC3159] defines the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information
(SPPI), an extension to the SMIv2 modeling language used to write
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Policy Information Base (PIB) modules. COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the
Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol [RFC2748] for provisioning
of policy information. The COPS-PR specification is independent of
the type of policy being provisioned (QoS, Security, etc.) but
focuses on the mechanisms and conventions used to communicate
provisioned information between policy-decision-points (PDPs) and
policy enforcement points (PEPs). Policy data is modeled using
Policy Information Base (PIB) modules.
COPS-PR has not been widely deployed, and operators have stated that
its use of binary encoding (BER) for management data makes it
difficult to develop automated scripts for simple configuration
management tasks in most text-based scripting languages. In the IAB
Workshop on Network Management [RFC3535], the consensus of operators
and protocol developers indicated a lack of interest in PIB modules
for use with COPS-PR.
As a result, even if COPS-PR and the Structure of Policy Provisioning
Information (SPPI) were initially approved as Proposed Standards, the
IESG has not approved any PIB modules as IETF standard, and the use
of COPS-PR is not recommended.
3.4. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
The IPPM working group has defined metrics for accurately measuring
and reporting the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet
data delivery. The metrics include connectivity, one-way delay and
loss, round-trip delay and loss, delay variation, loss patterns,
packet reordering, bulk transport capacity, and link bandwidth
capacity.
These metrics are designed for use by network operators and their
customers, and provide unbiased quantitative measures of performance.
The IPPM metrics have been developed inside an active measurement
context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics produce
their own traffic. However, most of the metrics can be used inside a
passive context as well. At the time of this writing there is no
work planned in the area of passive measurement.
As a property individual IPPM performance and reliability metrics
need to be well-defined and concrete thus implementable.
Furthermore, the methodology used to implement a metric needs to be
repeatable with consistent measurements.
IETF IP Performance Metrics have been introduced widely in the
industry and adopted by different SDOs such as the Metro Ethernet
Forum.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Following are examples of essential IPPM documents published as
Proposed Standard:
o IPPM Framework document [RFC2330] defines a general framework for
particular metrics developed by IPPM working group and defines the
fundamental concepts of 'metric' and 'measurement methodology' and
discusses the issue of measurement uncertainties and errors as
well as introduces the notion of empirically defined metrics and
how metrics can be composed.
o [RFC2679] "One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", defines a metric for
one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on
notions introduced in the IPPM Framework document.
o [RFC2681] "Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", defines a metric for
round-trip delay of packets across network paths and follows
closely the corresponding metric for One-way Delay.
o [RFC3393] "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric", refers to a metric
for variation in delay of packets across network paths and is
based on the difference in the One-Way-Delay of selected packets
called "IP Packet Delay Variation (ipdv)".
o [RFC2680] "One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", defines a metric
for one-way packet loss across Internet paths.
o [RFC5560] "One-Way Packet Duplication Metric", defines a metric
for the case, where multiple copies of a packet are received and
discusses methods to summarize the results of streams.
o [RFC4737] "Packet Reordering Metrics", defines metrics to evaluate
whether a network has maintained packet order on a packet-by-
packet basis and discusses the measurement issues, including the
context information required for all metrics.
o [RFC2678] "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity", defines a
series of metrics for connectivity between a pair of Internet
hosts.
o [RFC5835] "Framework for Metric Composition", describes a detailed
framework for composing and aggregating metrics.
o [BCP170] [RFC6390] "Guidelines for Considering New Performance
Metric Development" describes the framework and process for
developing Performance Metrics of protocols and applications
transported over IETF-specified protocols.
To measure these metrics two protocols have been standardized:
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o [RFC4656] "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)",
measures unidirectional characteristics such as one-way delay and
one-way loss between network devices and enables the
interoperability of these measurements.
o [RFC5357] "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", adds
round-trip or two-way measurement capabilities to OWAMP.
o [RFC3432] "Network performance measurement with Periodic Streams",
describes a periodic sampling method and relevant metrics for
assessing the performance of IP networks, as an alternative to the
Poisson sampling method described in [RFC2330].
For information on MIB modules related to IP Performance Metrics see
Section 4.4.
3.5. Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
RADIUS [RFC2865], the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service, is
a Draft Standard that describes a client/server protocol for carrying
authentication, authorization, and configuration information between
a Network Access Server (NAS), which desires to authenticate its
links and a shared Authentication Server. The companion document
[RFC2866] 'Radius Accounting' describes a protocol for carrying
accounting information between a network access server and a shared
accounting server. [RFC2867] adds required new RADIUS accounting
attributes and new values designed to support the provision of
tunneling in dial-up networks.
The RADIUS protocol is widely used in environments like enterprise
networks, where a single administrative authority manages the
network, and protects the privacy of user information. RADIUS is
deployed in fixed broadband access provider networks as well as in
cellular broadband operators' networks.
RADIUS uses attributes to carry the specific authentication,
authorization, information and configuration details. RADIUS is
extensible with a known limitation of maximum 255 attribute codes and
253 octets as attribute content length. RADIUS has Vendor-Specific
Attributes (VSA), which have been used both for vendor-specific
purposes as an addition to standardized attributes as well as to
extend the limited attribute code space.
The RADIUS protocol uses a shared secret along with the MD5 (Message-
Digest algorithm 5) hashing algorithm to secure passwords [RFC1321].
Based on the known threads additional protection like IPsec tunnels
are used to further protect the RADIUS traffic. However, building
and administering large IPsec protected networks may become a
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
management burden, especially when IPsec protected RADIUS
infrastructure should provide inter-provider connectivity. A trend
has been moving towards TLS-based security solutions and establishing
dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers. Since the
introduction of TCP transport for RADIUS, it became natural to have
TLS support for RADIUS. An ongoing work specifies the 'TLS
encryption for RADIUS'.
[RFC2868] 'RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support' defines a
number of RADIUS attributes designed to support the compulsory
provision of tunneling in dial-up network access. Some applications
involve compulsory tunneling i.e. the tunnel is created without any
action from the user and without allowing the user any choice in the
matter. In order to provide this functionality, specific RADIUS
attributes are needed to carry the tunneling information from the
RADIUS server to the tunnel end points. [RFC3868] defines the
necessary attributes, attribute values and the required IANA
registries.
[RFC3162] 'RADIUS and IPv6' specifies the operation of RADIUS over
IPv6 and the RADIUS attributes used to support the IPv6 network
access. [RFC4818] describes how to transport delegated IPv6 prefix
information over RADIUS.
[RFC4675] 'RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support'
defines additional attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and
prioritization, for use in provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local
area networks usable with RADIUS and DIAMETER.
[RFC5080] 'Common RADIUS Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes'
describes common issues seen in RADIUS implementations and suggests
some fixes. Where applicable, unclear statements and errors in
previous RADIUS specifications are clarified. People designing
extensions to RADIUS protocol for various deployment cases should get
familiar with RADIUS Design Guidelines [RFC6158] in order to avoid
e.g. known interoperability challenges.
[RFC5090] 'RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication' defines an
extension to the RADIUS protocol to enable support of Digest
Authentication, for use with HTTP-style protocols like the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) and HTTP.
[RFC5580] 'Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and DIAMETER describes
procedures for conveying access-network ownership and location
information based on civic and geospatial location formats in RADIUS
and DIAMETER.
[RFC5607] specifies required RADIUS attributes and their values for
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
authorizing a management access to a NAS. Both local and remote
management are supported, with access rights and management
privileges. Specific provisions are made for remote management via
Framed Management protocols, such as SNMP and NETCONF, and for
management access over a secure transport protocols.
[RFC3579] describes how to use RADIUS to convey Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) payload between the authenticator and
the EAP server using RADIUS. RFC3579 is widely implemented, for
example, in WLAN and 802.1X environment. [RFC3580] describes how to
use RADIUS with IEEE 802.1X authenticators. In the context of 802.1X
and EAP-based authentication, the Vendor Specific Attributes
described in [RFC2458] have been widely accepted by the industry.
[RFC2869] 'RADIUS extensions' is another important RFC related to EAP
use. RFC2869 describes additional attributes for carrying AAA
information between a NAS and a shared Accounting Server using
RADIUS. It also defines attributes to encapsulate EAP message
payload.
There are different MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
with RADIUS (see Section 4.3 and Section 4.5 ).
3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER)
DIAMETER [RFC3588] is a Proposed Standard that provides an
Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for
applications such as network access or IP mobility. DIAMETER is also
intended to work in local AAA and in roaming scenarios. DIAMETER
provides an upgrade path for RADIUS but is not directly backwards
compatible.
DIAMETER is designed to resolve a number of known problems with
RADIUS. DIAMETER supports server failover, reliable transport over
TCP and SCTP, well documented functions for proxy, redirect and relay
agent functions, server-initiated messages, auditability, and
capability negotiation. DIAMETER also provides a larger attribute
space for Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) and identifiers than RADIUS.
DIAMETER features make it especially appropriate for environments,
where the providers of services are in different administrative
domains than the maintainer (protector) of confidential user
information.
Other notable differences to RADIUS are:
o Network and transport layer security (IPsec or TLS),
o Stateful and stateless models,
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Dynamic discovery of peers (using DNS SRV and NAPTR),
o Concept of an application that describes how a specific set of
commands and Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) are treated by DIAMETER
nodes. Each application has an IANA assigned unique identifier,
o Support of application layer acknowledgements, failover methods
and state machines,
o Basic support for user-sessions and accounting,
o Better roaming support,
o Error notification, and
o Easy extensibility.
The DIAMETER protocol is designed to be extensible to support e.g.
proxies, brokers, mobility and roaming, Network Access Servers
(NASREQ), and Accounting and Resource Management. DIAMETER
applications extend the DIAMETER base protocol by adding new commands
and/or attributes. Each application is defined by an unique IANA
assigned application identifier and can add new command codes and/or
new mandatory AVPs.
The DIAMETER application identifier space has been divided into
Standards Track and 'First Come First Served' vendor-specific
applications. Following are examples for DIAMETER applications
published at IETF:
o Diameter Base Protocol Application [RFC3588],
o Diameter Base Accounting Application [RFC3588],
o Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application [RFC4004],
o Diameter Network Access Server Application (NASREQ, [RFC4005]),
o Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Application [RFC4072],
o Diameter Credit-Control Application [RFC4006],
o Diameter Session Initiation Protocol Application [RFC4740], and
o Diameter Quality-of-Service Application [RFC5866].
o Diameter Mobile IPv6 IKE (MIP6I) Application [RFC5778].
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Diameter Mobile IPv6 Auth (MIP6A) Application [RFC5778].
o Diameter Relay Agent Application [RFC3588].
The large majority of DIAMETER applications are vendor-specific and
mainly used in various SDOs outside IETF. One example SDO using
DIAMETER extensively is 3GPP (e.g. 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem'
(IMS) uses DIAMETER based interfaces (e.g. Cx) [3GPPIMS]).
Recently, during the standardization of the '3GPP Evolved Packet
Core' [3GPPEPC], DIAMETER was chosen as the only AAA signaling
protocol.
One part of DIAMETER's extensibility mechanism is an easy and
consistent way of creating new commands for the need of applications.
RFC3588 proposed to define DIAMETER command code allocations with a
new RFC. This policy decision caused undesired use and redefinition
of existing Commands Codes within SDOs. Diverse RFCs have been
published as simple command code allocations for other SDO purposes
(see [RFC3589], [RFC5224], [RFC5431] and [RFC5516]). [RFC5719]
changed the Command Code policy and added a range for vendor-specific
Command Codes to be allocated on a 'First Come First Served' basis by
IANA.
The implementation and deployment experience of DIAMETER has led to
the currently ongoing development of an update of the base protocol
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. One of the major changes is the
introduction of TLS as the preferred security mechanism and
deprecating the in-band security negotiation for TLS.
Some DIAMETER protocol enhancements and clarifications that logically
fit better into [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], are also needed on the
existing RFC3588 based deployments. Therefore, protocol extensions
specifically usable in large inter-provider roaming network scenarios
are made available for RFC3588. Two currently existing
specifications are mentioned below:
o "Clarifications on the Routing of DIAMETER Requests Based on the
Username and the Realm" [RFC5729] defines the behavior required
for DIAMETER agents to route requests when the User-Name AVP
contains a Network Access Identifier formatted with multiple
realms. These multi-realm Network Access Identifiers are used in
order to force the routing of request messages through a
predefined list of mediating realms.
o The ongoing work on "Diameter Extended NAPTR" [I-D.ietf-dime-
extended-naptr] describes an improved DNS-based dynamic DIAMETER
Agent discovery mechanism without having to do DIAMETER capability
exchange beforehand with a number of agents.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
There have been a growing number of DIAMETER framework documents at
IETF that basically are just a collection of AVPs for a specific
purpose or a system architecture with semantical AVP descriptions and
a logic for "imaginary" applications. From standardization point of
view, this practice allows the development of larger system
architecture documents that do not need to reference AVPs or
application logic outside IETF. Below are examples of a few recent
AVP and framework documents:
o 'Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to
Diameter Server Interaction' [RFC5447] describes the bootstrapping
of the Mobile IPv6 framework and the support of interworking with
existing Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
infrastructures by using the DIAMETER Network Access Server to
home AAA server interface.
o 'Traffic Classification and Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes
for Diameter' [RFC5777] defines a number of DIAMETER AVPs for
traffic classification with actions for filtering and QoS
treatment.
o 'Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access Gateway and Local
Mobility Anchor Interaction with Diameter Server' [RFC5779]
defines AAA interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
entities (Mobile Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor) and a
AAA server within a PMIPv6 Domain.
For information on MIB modules related to DIAMETER see Section 4.5.
3.7. Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Wireless LAN (WLAN) product architectures have evolved from single
autonomous Access Points to systems consisting of a centralized
Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The
general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access
control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility
management, and radio management from the single access point to a
centralized controller, where an Access Points pulls the information
from the Access Controller.
Based on the CAPWAP Architecture Taxonomy work [RFC4118] the CAPWAP
working group developed the CAPWAP protocol [RFC5415] to facilitate
control, management and provisioning of WTPs specifying the services,
functions and resources relating to 802.11 WLAN Termination Points in
order to allow for interoperable implementations of WTPs and ACs.
The protocol defines the CAPWAP control plane including the
primitives to control data access. The protocol document also
specifies how configuration management of WTPs can be done and
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, gathering
statistics, logging, and firmware management as well as discusses
operational and transport considerations.
The CAPWAP protocol is prepared to be independent of Layer 2
technologies, and meets the objectives in "Objectives for Control and
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)" [RFC4564]. Separate
binding extensions enable the use with additional wireless
technologies. [RFC5416] defines CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE
802.11.
CAPWAP Control messages, and optionally CAPWAP Data messages, are
secured using DTLS [RFC4347]. DTLS is used as a tightly integrated,
secure wrapper for the CAPWAP protocol.
For information on MIB modules related to CAPWAP see Section 4.2.
3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)
The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) [RFC6320] realizes a control
plane between a service-oriented layer 3 edge device, the Network
Access Server (NAS) and a layer 2 Access Node (AN), e.g., Digital
Subscriber Line Access Module (DSLAM). As such ANCP operates in a
multi-service reference architecture and communicates QoS-, service-
and subscriber-related configuration and operation information
between a NAS and an Access Node.
The main goal of this protocol is to configure and manage access
equipments and allow them to report information to the NAS in order
to enable and optimize configuration.
The framework and requirements for an Access Node control mechanism
and the use cases for ANCP are documented in [RFC5851].
The ANCP protocol offers authentication, and authorization between AN
and NAS nodes and provides replay protection and data-origin
authentication. ANCP protocol solution is also robust against
Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. Furthermore, the ANCP protocol
solution is recommended to offer confidentiality protection.
Security Threats and Security Requirements for ANCP are discussed in
[RFC5713].
3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)
The Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) [RFC2244] is a
Proposed Standard protocol designed to support remote storage and
access of program option, configuration and preference information.
The data store model is designed to allow a client relatively simple
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
access to interesting data, to allow new information to be easily
added without server re-configuration, and to promote the use of both
standardized data and custom or proprietary data. Key features
include "inheritance" which can be used to manage default values for
configuration settings and access control lists which allow
interesting personal information to be shared and group information
to be restricted.
ACAP's primary purpose is to allow applications access to their
configuration data from multiple network-connected computers. Users
can then use any network-connected computer, run any ACAP-enabled
application and have access to their own configuration data. To
enable wide usage client simplicity has been preferred to server or
protocol simplicity whenever reasonable.
The ACAP 'authenticate' command uses Simple Authentication and
Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] to provide basic authentication,
authorization, integrity and privacy services. All ACAP
implementations are required to implement the CRAM-MD5 (Challenge-
Response Authentication Mechanism) [RFC2195] for authentication,
which can be disabled based on the site security policy.
3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol
(XCAP) [RFC4825] is a Proposed Standard protocol that allows a client
to read, write, and modify application configuration data stored in
XML format on a server.
XCAP is a protocol that can be used to manipulate per-user data.
XCAP is a set of conventions for mapping XML documents and document
components into HTTP URIs, rules for how the modification of one
resource affects another, data validation constraints, and
authorization policies associated with access to those resources.
Because of this structure, normal HTTP primitives can be used to
manipulate the data. Like ACAP, XCAP supports the configuration
needs for a multiplicity of applications.
All XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP Digest Authentication
[RFC2617]. Furthermore, XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP
over TLS (HTTPS) [RFC2818]. It is recommended that administrators
use an HTTPS URI as the XCAP root URI, so that the digest client
authentication occurs over TLS.
4. Network Management Data Models
This section lists management data models standardized at IETF, which
can be reused and applied to different management solutions. The
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
subsections below are structured following the management application
view and focus mainly on the management data models for the network
management tasks fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and
security management.
The advancement process for management data models beyond Proposed
Standard status, has been defined in [BCP27][RFC2438] with a more
pragmatic approach and special considerations on data model
specification interoperability. However, most IETF management data
models never advance beyond Proposed Standard.
This section gives an overview of management data models that have
reached Draft or Proposed Standard status at the IETF. In
exceptional cases important Informational RFCs are referred.
The different data models covered in this section are MIB modules,
IPFIX Information Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements, and YANG
modules.
Note that IETF does not use the FCAPS view as an organizing principle
for its data models. However, FCAPS view is used widely outside of
IETF for the realization of management tasks and applications. This
document provides an overview of IETF data models with an FCAPS view
to enable people outside of IETF to understand the relevant data
models. There are many technology-specific IETF data models, such as
transmission and protocol MIBs, which are not mentioned in this
document and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].
4.1. Fault Management
Draft Standards:
[RFC3418], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], contains objects in the
system group that are often polled to determine if a device is still
operating, and sysUpTime can be used to detect if a system has
rebooted, and counters have been reinitialized.
[RFC3413], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], includes objects designed
for managing notifications, including tables for addressing, retry
parameters, security, lists of targets for notifications, and user
customization filters.
The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863] builds on MIB II [RFC1229] and is
used for managing and monitoring of network interfaces. The
'interfaces' group in MIB II [RFC1229] defines a generic set of
managed objects and provides the means for additional managed objects
specific to particular types of network interfaces, such as Ethernet.
Extensions to the 'interfaces' group for media-specific management
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
can be defined based on these managed objects. Experience with
media-specific MIB modules has shown that the model defined by MIB-II
is too simplistic and static for some types of media-specific
management. The Interfaces Group MIB incorporates the interfaces
group extensions documented in MIB II and standardizes an evolution
to this model as well as fills in the detected gaps.
An RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) monitor [RFC2819] can be
configured to recognize conditions, most notably error conditions,
and continuously to check for them. When one of these conditions
occurs, the event may be logged, and management stations may be
notified in a number of ways (for further discussion on RMON see
Section 4.4).
Proposed Standards:
DISMAN-EVENT-MIB in [RFC2981] and DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB in [RFC2982]
provide a superset of the capabilities of the RMON alarm and event
groups. These modules provide mechanisms for thresholding and
reporting anomalous events to management applications.
The ALARM MIB in [RFC3877] and the Alarm Reporting Control MIB in
[RFC3878] specify mechanisms for expressing state transition models
for persistent problem states. ALARM MIB defines:
- a mechanism for expressing state transition models for persistent
problem states,
- a mechanism to correlate a notification with subsequent state
transition notifications about the same entity/object, and
- a generic alarm reporting mechanism (extends ITU-T work on X.733
[ITU-X733]).
[RFC3878] in particular defines objects for controlling the reporting
of alarm conditions and extends ITU-T work M.3100 Amendment 3
[ITU-M3100].
Other MIB modules that may be applied to fault management with SNMP
include:
o NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB [RFC3014] describes managed objects used for
logging SNMP Notifications.
o ENTITY-STATE-MIB [RFC4268] describes extensions to the Entity MIB
to provide information about the state of physical entities.
o ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB [RFC3433] describes managed objects for
extending the Entity MIB to provide generalized access to
information related to physical sensors, which are often found in
networking equipment (such as chassis temperature, fan RPM, power
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
supply voltage).
The SYSLOG protocol document [RFC5424] defines an initial set of
Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content time quality,
content origin, and meta-information about the message, such as
language. Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the IETF-
defined SDEs.
The IETF has standardized MIB Textual-Conventions for facility and
severity labels and codes to encourage consistency between SYSLOG and
MIB representations of these event properties [RFC5427]. The intent
is that these textual conventions will be imported and used in MIB
modules that would otherwise define their own representations.
An IPFIX MIB module [RFC5815] has been defined for monitoring IPFIX
meters, exporters and collectors (see Section 2.3). The ongoing work
on PSAMP MIB module extends the IPFIX MIB modules by managed objects
for monitoring PSAMP implementations [I-D.ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib].
The NETCONF working group defined the necessary data model to monitor
the NETCONF protocol with the modeling language YANG [RFC6022]. The
monitoring data model includes information about NETCONF datastores,
sessions, locks, and statistics, which facilitate the management of a
NETCONF server. NETCONF monitoring RFC also defines methods for
NETCONF clients to discover the data models supported by a NETCONF
server and defines the operation <get-schema> to retrieve them.
4.2. Configuration Management
MIB modules for monitoring of network configuration (e.g. for
physical and logical network topologies) already exist and provide
some of the desired capabilities. New MIB modules might be developed
for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify
the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event
reporting thresholds, target addresses, etc.
Draft standards:
[RFC3418] contains objects in the system group useful e.g. for
identifying the type of device, the location of the device, the
person responsible for the device. [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMPv3,
includes objects designed for configuring notification destinations,
and for configuring proxy- forwarding SNMP agents, which can be used
to forward messages through firewalls and Network Address Translation
(NAT) devices.
The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863] is used for the configuration and
monitoring of network interface parameters. [RFC2863] includes the
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
'interfaces' group of MIB-II and discusses the experience gained from
the definition of numerous media-specific MIB modules for use in
conjunction with the 'interfaces' group for managing various sub-
layers beneath the internetwork-layer.
Proposed standards:
The Entity MIB [RFC4133] is used for managing multiple logical and
physical entities managed by a single SNMP agent. This module
provides a useful mechanism for identifying the entities comprising a
system. There are also event notifications defined for configuration
changes that may be useful to management applications.
[RFC3165] supports the use of user-written scripts to delegate
management functionality.
Policy Based Management MIB [RFC4011] defines objects that enable
policy-based monitoring using SNMP, using a scripting language, and a
script execution environment.
Few vendors have implemented MIB modules that support scripting.
Some vendors consider running user-developed scripts within the
managed device as a violation of support agreements.
For configuring IPFIX and PSMAP devices, the IPFIX working group is
currently developing an XML-based configuration data model [I-D.ietf-
ipfix-configuration-model], in close collaboration with the NETMOD
working group. IPFIX configuration data model uses YANG as modeling
language (see Section 2.4.2). The model specifies the necessary data
for configuring and monitoring selection processes, caches, exporting
processes, and collecting processes of IPFIX and PSAMP compliant
monitoring devices.
At the time of this writing the NETMOD working group is developing
core system and interface models in YANG.
Non-standard data models:
The CAPWAP protocol exchanges Type Length Values (TLV). The base
TLVs are specified in [RFC5415], while the TLVs for IEEE 802.11 are
specified in [RFC5416]. CAPWAP Base MIB [RFC5833] specifies managed
objects for modeling the CAPWAP Protocol and provides configuration
and WTP status-monitoring aspects of CAPWAP, where CAPWAP Binding MIB
[RFC5834] defines managed objects for modeling of CAPWAP protocol for
IEEE 802.11 wireless binding.
Note: RFC 5833 and RFC 5834 have been published as Informational RFCs
to provide the basis for future work on a SNMP management of the
CAPWAP protocol.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
4.3. Accounting Management
Non-standard data models:
[RFC4670] 'RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
Accounting Client MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
[RFC4671] 'RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
Accounting Server MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
IPFIX/PSAMP Information Elements:
As expressed in Section 2.3, the IPFIX architecture [RFC5470] defines
components involved in IP flow measurement and reporting of
information on IP flows. As such IPFIX records provide fine-grained
measurement data for flexible and detailed usage reporting and enable
usage-based accounting.
The IPFIX Information Elements (IE) have been initially defined in
the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102] and registered at the IANA
[IANA-IPFIX]. The IPFIX IEs are composed of two types: IEs related
to identification of IP flows and IEs related to counter and
timestamps.
Following are examples of IEs related to identification of IP flows:
o Identifiers for line cards, ports, interfaces, etc...
o IP header fields such as source and destination IP addresses
o Transport header fields such as UDP and TCP ports
o Sub-IP header fields such as source and destination MAC address,
MPLS label stack entries
o Derived packet properties such as IGP and BGP next hop IP address,
BGP AS, etc.
o Min/max flow properties such as the minimum and maximum IP total
length and Time To Live (TTL)
Below are examples of IEs related to counter and timestamps:
o Flow timestamps such as flow start times, flow end times, and flow
duration,
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Per flow counters such as octets count, packets count,
o Miscellaneous flow properties such as flow duration.
The Information Elements specified in the IPFIX information model
[RFC5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol where applicable. Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Parameters defined in the PSAMP protocol
specification are registered at [IANA-PSAMP]. An additional set of
PSAMP Information Elements for reporting packet information with the
IPFIX/PSAMP protocol such as Sampling-related IEs are specified in
the PSAMP Information Model [RFC5477]. These IEs fulfill the
requirements on reporting of different sampling and filtering
techniques specified in [RFC5475].
4.4. Performance Management
Full Standards:
RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [RFC2819] has the Full Standard
status [STD59] and defines objects for managing remote network
devices and collecting data related to network performance and
traffic. An organization may employ many remote management probes,
one per network segment, to manage its internet. These devices may
be used by a network service provider to access a client network,
often geographically remote. Most of the objects in the RMON MIB
module are suitable for the management of any type of network, where
some of them are specific to management of Ethernet networks.
RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to
collect network statistics continuously, even when communication with
the management station may not be possible or efficient. The alarm
group periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the
probe and compares them to previously configured thresholds. If the
monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated.
The RMON host group discovers hosts on the network by keeping a list
of source and destination MAC Addresses seen in good packets
promiscuously received from the network, and contains statistics
associated with each host. The hostTopN group is used to prepare
reports that describe the hosts that top a list ordered by one of
their statistics. The available statistics are samples of one of
their base statistics over an interval specified by the management
station. Thus, these statistics are rate based. The management
station also selects how many such hosts are reported.
The RMON matrix group stores statistics for conversations between
sets of two addresses. The filter group allows packets to be matched
by a filter equation. These matched packets form a data stream that
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
may be captured or may generate events. The Packet Capture group
allows packets to be captured after they flow through a channel. The
event group controls the generation and notification of events from
this device.
Draft standards:
The RMON-2 MIB [RFC4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up
to the application layer and defines performance data to monitor.
The SMON MIB [RFC2613] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis for
switched networks.
Proposed standards:
RMON MIB Extensions for High Capacity Alarms [RFC3434] describes
managed objects for extending the alarm thresholding capabilities
found in the RMON MIB and provides similar threshold monitoring of
objects based on the Counter64 data type.
RMON MIB Extensions for High Capacity Networks [RFC3273] defines
objects for managing RMON devices for use on high-speed networks.
RMON MIB Extensions for Interface Parameters Monitoring [RFC3144]
describes an extension to the RMON MIB with a method of sorting the
interfaces of a monitored device according to values of parameters
specific to this interface.
[RFC4710] describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service
Monitoring. RAQMON is part of the RMON protocol family, and supports
end-2-end QoS monitoring for multiple concurrent applications and
does not relate to a specific application transport. RAQMON is
scalable and works well with encrypted payload and signaling. RAQMON
uses TCP to transport RAQMON PDUs.
[RFC4711] proposes an extension to the Remote Monitoring MIB
[RFC2819] and describes managed objects used for real-time
application Quality of Service (QoS) monitoring. [RFC4712] specifies
two transport mappings for the RAQMON information model using TCP as
a native transport and SNMP to carry the RAQMON information from a
RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report Collector (RRC).
Application Performance Measurement MIB [RFC3729] uses the
architecture created in the RMON MIB and defines objects by providing
measurement and analysis of the application performance as
experienced by end-users. Application performance measurement
measures the quality of service delivered to end-users by
applications.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Transport Performance Metrics MIB [RFC4150] describes managed objects
used for monitoring selectable performance metrics and statistics
derived from the monitoring of network packets and sub-application
level transactions. The metrics can be defined through reference to
existing IETF, ITU, and other standards organizations' documents.
The IPPM working group defined an Information Model and XML Data
Model for Traceroute Measurements [RFC5388], which defines a common
information model dividing the information elements into two
semantically separated groups (configuration elements and results
elements) with an additional element to relate configuration elements
and results elements by means of a common unique identifier. Based
on the information model, an XML data model is provided to store the
results of traceroute measurements.
The IPPM working group has defined [BCP108][RFC4148] "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry". The IANA-assigned registry
contains an initial set of OBJECT IDENTITIES to currently defined
metrics in the IETF as well as defines the rules for adding IP
Performance Metrics that are defined in the future. However, the
current registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics. Due to the ambiguities
between the current metrics registrations and the metrics used, and
the apparent non-adoption of the registry in practice, it has been
proposed to reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.
Note: With the publication of [RFC6248] the latest IANA registry for
IPPM metrics and [RFC4148] have been declared Obsolete and IANA
prevents registering new metrics. Actual users can continue using
the current registry and its contents.
SIP Package for Voice Quality Reporting [RFC6035] defines a SIP event
package that enables the collection and reporting of metrics that
measure the quality for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions.
4.5. Security Management
There are numerous MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
with RADIUS:
o [RFC4668] 'RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6' defines
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB objects that support version-
neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
RADIUS authentication client functions.
o [RFC4669] 'RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6' defines
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB objects that support version-
neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
RADIUS authentication server functions.
o [RFC4670] 'RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
Accounting Client MIB that objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
o [RFC4671] 'RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
Accounting Server MIB that objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
o [RFC4672] 'RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Client MIB' defines the
MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].
o [RFC4673] 'RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server MIB' defines the
MIB module for entities implementing the server side of the
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].
The MIB Module definitions in [RFC4668], [RFC4669], [RFC4670],
[RFC4671], [RFC4672], [RFC4673] are intended to be used only for
RADIUS over UDP and therefore do not support RADIUS/TCP. There is
also a recommendation that RADIUS clients and servers implementing
RADIUS/TCP should not re-use earlier listed MIB modules to perform
statistics counting for RADIUS/TCP connections.
Currently there are no standardized MIB modules for DIAMETER
applications, which can be considered as a lack on the management
side of DIAMETER nodes. There are ongoing efforts to produce
standard MIBs for the 'Diameter Base Protocol' [I-D.ietf-dime-
diameter-base-protocol-mib] and the 'Diameter Credit-Control
Application' [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib].
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not introduce any new code-points or namespaces
for registration with IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
7. Contributors
Following persons made significant contributions to this document:
o Ralph Droms (Cisco) - revised the section on IP address management
and DHCP.
o Jouni Korhonen (Nokia Siemens Networks) - contributed the sections
on RADIUS and DIAMETER.
o Al Morton (AT&T) - contributed to the section on IP Performance
Metrics.
o Juergen Quittek (NEC) - contributed the section on IPFIX/PSAMP.
o Juergen Schoenwaelder (Jacobs University Bremen) - contributed the
section on YANG.
8. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank to Tom Petch, Dan Romascanu, Henk
Uijterwaal, Alex Clemm, and Randy Presuhn for their valuable
suggestions, comments in the OPSAWG sessions and mailing list.
The editor would like to especially thank Dave Harrington, who
created the document "Survey of IETF Network Management Standards" a
few years ago. While this draft expired, the editor used it as a
starting point and enhanced it with a special focus on the
description of the IETF network management standards and management
data models.
9. Informative References
[3GPPEPC] 3GPP, "Access to the 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC) via
non-3GPP access networks", December 2010,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24302.htm>.
[3GPPIMS] 3GPP, "Release 10, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS); Stage
2", September 2010,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23228.htm>.
[BCP108] Emile, S., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", August 2005.
[BCP170] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
New Performance Metric Development", October 2011.
[BCP27] D. O'Dell, M., "Advancement of MIB specifications on
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
the IETF Standards Track", October 1998.
[BCP74] Frye, R., "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2,
and Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network
Management Framework", August 2003.
[DMTF-CIM] DMTF, "Common Information Model Schema, Version
2.27.0", November 2010,
<http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim>.
[IANA-AAA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IANA AAA
Parameters", June 2011, <http://www.iana.org/
assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml>.
[IANA-IPFIX] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IANA IPFIX
Information Elements", February 2011,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml>.
[IANA-PROT] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IANA Protocol
Registries", October 2010,
<http://www.iana.org/protocols/>.
[IANA-PSAMP] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IANA PSAMP
Parameters", April 2009, <http://www.iana.org/
assignments/psamp-parameters/psamp-parameters.xml>.
[IETF-WGS] IETF, "IETF Working Groups",
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/>.
[ITU-M3100] International Telecommunication Union, "M.3100: Generic
network information model", January 2006,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-M.3100-200504-I>.
[ITU-X680] International Telecommunication Union, "X.680: Abstract
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic
notation", July 2002, <http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/
studygroups/com17/languages/X.680-0207.pdf>.
[ITU-X733] International Telecommunication Union, "X.733: Systems
Management: Alarm Reporting Function", October 1992,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.733-199202-I/en>.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC0951] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol",
RFC 951, September 1985.
[RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
identification of management information for TCP/
IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
RFC 1157, May 1990.
[RFC1212] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB definitions",
STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
[RFC1215] Rose, M., "Convention for defining traps for use with
the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
[RFC1229] McCloghrie, K., "Extensions to the generic-interface
MIB", RFC 1229, May 1991.
[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",
RFC 1321, April 1992.
[RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and
S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2195] Klensin, J., Catoe, R., and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP
AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response",
RFC 2195, September 1997.
[RFC2244] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244,
November 1997.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC2438] O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner,
"Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF
Standards Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438, October 1998.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC2458] Lu, H., Krishnaswamy, M., Conroy, L., Bellovin, S.,
Burg, F., DeSimone, A., Tewani, K., Davidson, P.,
Schulzrinne, H., and K. Vishwanathan, "Toward the PSTN/
Internet Inter-Networking --Pre-PINT Implementations",
RFC 2458, November 1998.
[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.
[RFC2610] Perkins, C. and E. Guttman, "DHCP Options for Service
Location Protocol", RFC 2610, June 1999.
[RFC2613] Waterman, R., Lahaye, B., Romascanu, D., and S.
Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions
for Switched Networks Version 1.0", RFC 2613,
June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence,
S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access
Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-
trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC2748] Durham, D., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
R., and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy
Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A
Framework for Policy-based Admission Control",
RFC 2753, January 2000.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC2819] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC2867] Zorn, G., Aboba, B., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS Accounting
Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
June 2000.
[RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
Holdrege, M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for
Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC2981] Kavasseri, R., "Event MIB", RFC 2981, October 2000.
[RFC2982] Kavasseri, R., "Distributed Management Expression MIB",
RFC 2982, October 2000.
[RFC3014] Kavasseri, R., "Notification Log MIB", RFC 3014,
November 2000.
[RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
RFC 3046, January 2001.
[RFC3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S.,
McCloghrie, K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar,
R., and A. Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning
(COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001.
[RFC3144] Romascanu, D., "Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for
Interface Parameters Monitoring", RFC 3144,
August 2001.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC3159] McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson, J., Chan, K., Hahn,
S., Sahita, R., Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer,
"Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)",
RFC 3159, August 2001.
[RFC3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, August 2001.
[RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
August 2001.
[RFC3165] Levi, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts",
RFC 3165, August 2001.
[RFC3195] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog",
RFC 3195, November 2001.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M.,
and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",
RFC 3261, June 2002.
[RFC3273] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base for High Capacity Networks", RFC 3273,
July 2002.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers", RFC 3319,
July 2003.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay
Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)",
RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for
Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
December 2002.
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62,
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
RFC 3411, December 2002.
[RFC3413] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62,
RFC 3413, December 2002.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security
Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414,
December 2002.
[RFC3415] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based
Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415,
December 2002.
[RFC3417] Presuhn, R., "Transport Mappings for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3417,
December 2002.
[RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3418, December 2002.
[RFC3430] Schoenwaelder, J., "Simple Network Management Protocol
Over Transmission Control Protocol Transport Mapping",
RFC 3430, December 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams",
RFC 3432, November 2002.
[RFC3433] Bierman, A., Romascanu, D., and K. Norseth, "Entity
Sensor Management Information Base", RFC 3433,
December 2002.
[RFC3434] Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Remote Monitoring MIB
Extensions for High Capacity Alarms", RFC 3434,
December 2002.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference
between Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
January 2003.
[RFC3460] Moore, B., "Policy Core Information Model (PCIM)
Extensions", RFC 3460, January 2003.
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
[RFC3574] Soininen, J., "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks",
RFC 3574, August 2003.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
September 2003.
[RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J.
Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580,
September 2003.
[RFC3584] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
"Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version
3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
September 2003.
[RFC3589] Loughney, J., "Diameter Command Codes for Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 5",
RFC 3589, September 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6",
RFC 3633, December 2003.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
December 2003.
[RFC3729] Waldbusser, S., "Application Performance Measurement
MIB", RFC 3729, March 2004.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
[RFC3868] Loughney, J., Sidebottom, G., Coene, L., Verwimp, G.,
Keller, J., and B. Bidulock, "Signalling Connection
Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)", RFC 3868,
October 2004.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC3877] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
[RFC3878] Lam, H., Huynh, A., and D. Perkins, "Alarm Reporting
Control Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3878,
September 2004.
[RFC3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)",
RFC 3917, October 2004.
[RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004.
[RFC4004] Calhoun, P., Johansson, T., Perkins, C., Hiller, T.,
and P. McCann, "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application",
RFC 4004, August 2005.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
August 2005.
[RFC4006] Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and
J. Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application",
RFC 4006, August 2005.
[RFC4011] Waldbusser, S., Saperia, J., and T. Hongal, "Policy
Based Management MIB", RFC 4011, March 2005.
[RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6
into ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.
[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
RFC 4038, March 2005.
[RFC4057] Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios",
RFC 4057, June 2005.
[RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application",
RFC 4072, August 2005.
[RFC4118] Yang, L., Zerfos, P., and E. Sadot, "Architecture
Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless
Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4118, June 2005.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC4133] Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Entity MIB (Version
3)", RFC 4133, August 2005.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
[RFC4150] Dietz, R. and R. Cole, "Transport Performance Metrics
MIB", RFC 4150, August 2005.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
October 2005.
[RFC4215] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks",
RFC 4215, October 2005.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC4268] Chisholm, S. and D. Perkins, "Entity State MIB",
RFC 4268, November 2005.
[RFC4280] Chowdhury, K., Yegani, P., and L. Madour, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for Broadcast and
Multicast Control Servers", RFC 4280, November 2005.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication
and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.
[RFC4502] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.
[RFC4564] Govindan, S., Cheng, H., Yao, ZH., Zhou, WH., and L.
Yang, "Objectives for Control and Provisioning of
Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4564, July 2006.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and
M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC4668] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for
IPv6", RFC 4668, August 2006.
[RFC4669] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
IPv6", RFC 4669, August 2006.
[RFC4670] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4670, August 2006.
[RFC4671] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4671, August 2006.
[RFC4672] De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
Dynamic Authorization Client MIB", RFC 4672,
September 2006.
[RFC4673] De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
Dynamic Authorization Server MIB", RFC 4673,
September 2006.
[RFC4675] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support",
RFC 4675, September 2006.
[RFC4710] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky, "Real-
time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON)
Framework", RFC 4710, October 2006.
[RFC4711] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky, "Real-
time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON)
MIB", RFC 4711, October 2006.
[RFC4712] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., Golovinsky, E., Rahman,
M., and Y. Kim, "Transport Mappings for Real-time
Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON)
Protocol Data Unit (PDU)", RFC 4712, October 2006.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics",
RFC 4737, November 2006.
[RFC4740] Garcia-Martin, M., Belinchon, M., Pallares-Lopez, M.,
Canales-Valenzuela, C., and K. Tammi, "Diameter Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Application", RFC 4740,
November 2006.
[RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
December 2006.
[RFC4742] Wasserman, M. and T. Goddard, "Using the NETCONF
Configuration Protocol over Secure SHell (SSH)",
RFC 4742, December 2006.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC4743] Goddard, T., "Using NETCONF over the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP)", RFC 4743, December 2006.
[RFC4744] Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol
over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 4744, December 2006.
[RFC4789] Schoenwaelder, J. and T. Jeffree, "Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) over IEEE 802 Networks",
RFC 4789, November 2006.
[RFC4818] Salowey, J. and R. Droms, "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
Attribute", RFC 4818, April 2007.
[RFC4825] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825,
May 2007.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and
Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080, December 2007.
[RFC5090] Sterman, B., Sadolevsky, D., Schwartz, D., Williams,
D., and W. Beck, "RADIUS Extension for Digest
Authentication", RFC 5090, February 2008.
[RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information
Export", RFC 5102, January 2008.
[RFC5103] Trammell, B. and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow Export
Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 5103,
January 2008.
[RFC5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 5176, January 2008.
[RFC5181] Shin, M-K., Han, Y-H., Kim, S-E., and D. Premec, "IPv6
Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks", RFC 5181,
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
May 2008.
[RFC5224] Brenner, M., "Diameter Policy Processing Application",
RFC 5224, March 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
August 2008.
[RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, July 2008.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5388] Niccolini, S., Tartarelli, S., Quittek, J., Dietz, T.,
and M. Swany, "Information Model and XML Data Model for
Traceroute Measurements", RFC 5388, December 2008.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
[RFC5416] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416,
March 2009.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
March 2009.
[RFC5425] Miao, F., Ma, Y., and J. Salowey, "Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog", RFC 5425,
March 2009.
[RFC5426] Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages over
UDP", RFC 5426, March 2009.
[RFC5427] Keeni, G., "Textual Conventions for Syslog Management",
RFC 5427, March 2009.
[RFC5431] Sun, D., "Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement
Interface Application", RFC 5431, March 2009.
[RFC5447] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins,
C., and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support
for Network Access Server to Diameter Server
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Interaction", RFC 5447, February 2009.
[RFC5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J.
Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5470, March 2009.
[RFC5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability",
RFC 5472, March 2009.
[RFC5473] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing
Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473, March 2009.
[RFC5474] Duffield, N., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for
Packet Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, March 2009.
[RFC5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and
F. Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP
Packet Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009.
[RFC5476] Claise, B., Johnson, A., and J. Quittek, "Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476,
March 2009.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, March 2009.
[RFC5516] Jones, M. and L. Morand, "Diameter Command Code
Registration for the Third Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", RFC 5516,
April 2009.
[RFC5539] Badra, M., "NETCONF over Transport Layer Security
(TLS)", RFC 5539, May 2009.
[RFC5560] Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric",
RFC 5560, May 2009.
[RFC5580] Tschofenig, H., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
Diameter", RFC 5580, August 2009.
[RFC5590] Harrington, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Transport
Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 5590, June 2009.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[RFC5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security
Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 5591, June 2009.
[RFC5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.
[RFC5607] Nelson, D. and G. Weber, "Remote Authentication Dial-In
User Service (RADIUS) Authorization for Network Access
Server (NAS) Management", RFC 5607, July 2009.
[RFC5608] Narayan, K. and D. Nelson, "Remote Authentication
Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Usage for Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) Transport Models", RFC 5608,
August 2009.
[RFC5610] Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
"Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610,
July 2009.
[RFC5655] Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, October 2009.
[RFC5674] Chisholm, S. and R. Gerhards, "Alarms in Syslog",
RFC 5674, October 2009.
[RFC5675] Marinov, V. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Mapping Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Notifications to
SYSLOG Messages", RFC 5675, October 2009.
[RFC5676] Schoenwaelder, J., Clemm, A., and A. Karmakar,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Mapping SYSLOG
Messages to Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Notifications", RFC 5676, October 2009.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations
and Management of New Protocols and Protocol
Extensions", RFC 5706, November 2009.
[RFC5713] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. De Cnodder,
"Security Threats and Security Requirements for the
Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)", RFC 5713,
January 2010.
[RFC5717] Lengyel, B. and M. Bjorklund, "Partial Lock Remote
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Procedure Call (RPC) for NETCONF", RFC 5717,
December 2009.
[RFC5719] Romascanu, D. and H. Tschofenig, "Updated IANA
Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations",
RFC 5719, January 2010.
[RFC5729] Korhonen, J., Jones, M., Morand, L., and T. Tsou,
"Clarifications on the Routing of Diameter Requests
Based on the Username and the Realm", RFC 5729,
December 2009.
[RFC5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones,
M., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and Quality of
Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter", RFC 5777,
February 2010.
[RFC5778] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Bournelle, J., Giaretta,
G., and M. Nakhjiri, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for
Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction", RFC 5778,
February 2010.
[RFC5779] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna,
A., and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile
Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction
with Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010.
[RFC5815] Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and G. Muenz,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow Information
Export", RFC 5815, April 2010.
[RFC5833] Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
"Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Base MIB", RFC 5833, May 2010.
[RFC5834] Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
"Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Binding MIB for IEEE 802.11",
RFC 5834, May 2010.
[RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric
Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.
[RFC5848] Kelsey, J., Callas, J., and A. Clemm, "Signed Syslog
Messages", RFC 5848, May 2010.
[RFC5851] Ooghe, S., Voigt, N., Platnic, M., Haag, T., and S.
Wadhwa, "Framework and Requirements for an Access Node
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service Networks",
RFC 5851, May 2010.
[RFC5866] Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria,
A., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality-of-Service
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
[RFC5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in
Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
[RFC5982] Kobayashi, A. and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement", RFC 5982,
August 2010.
[RFC6012] Salowey, J., Petch, T., Gerhards, R., and H. Feng,
"Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
Mapping for Syslog", RFC 6012, October 2010.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6021] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6021,
October 2010.
[RFC6022] Scott, M. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Module for NETCONF
Monitoring", RFC 6022, October 2010.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H.
Sinnreich, "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package
for Voice Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.
[RFC6065] Narayan, K., Nelson, D., and R. Presuhn, "Using
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Services
to Dynamically Provision View-Based Access Control
Model User-to-Group Mappings", RFC 6065, December 2010.
[RFC6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
YANG Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011.
[RFC6095] Linowski, B., Ersue, M., and S. Kuryla, "Extending YANG
with Language Abstractions", RFC 6095, March 2011.
[RFC6110] Lhotka, L., "Mapping YANG to Document Schema Definition
Languages and Validating NETCONF Content", RFC 6110,
February 2011.
[RFC6158] DeKok, A. and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines",
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
BCP 158, RFC 6158, March 2011.
[RFC6183] Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., Muenz, G., and K. Ishibashi,
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Mediation:
Framework", RFC 6183, April 2011.
[RFC6235] Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
Support", RFC 6235, May 2011.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.
[RFC6244] Shafer, P., "An Architecture for Network Management
Using NETCONF and YANG", RFC 6244, June 2011.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
April 2011.
[RFC6272] Baker, F. and D. Meyer, "Internet Protocols for the
Smart Grid", RFC 6272, June 2011.
[RFC6313] Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
"Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6313, July 2011.
[RFC6320] Wadhwa, S., Moisand, J., Haag, T., Voigt, N., and T.
Taylor, "Protocol for Access Node Control Mechanism in
Broadband Networks", RFC 6320, October 2011.
[RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 6353, July 2011.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport
Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
[RFCSEARCH] IETF, "RFC Index Search Engine", January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html>.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
[STD16] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
Identification of Management Information for TCP/
IP-based Internets", May 1990.
[STD58] McCloghrie, K., David, D., and J. Juergen, "Structure
of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
April 1999.
[STD59] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base", May 2000.
[STD6] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", August 1980.
[STD62] Harrington, D., "An Architecture for Describing Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management
Frameworks", December 2002.
[STD7] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol",
September 1981.
[XPATH] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
Appendix A. High Level Classification of Management Protocols and Data
Models
The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast
selection of the management standard in interest and can be used as a
dispatcher to forward to the appropriate chapter. The subsections
below classify the protocols on one hand according to high level
criteria such as push versus pull mechanism, and passive versus
active monitoring. On the other hand the protocols are categorized
concerning the network management task they address or the data model
extensibility they provide. Based on the reader's requirements a
reduced set of standard protocols and associated data models can be
selected for further reading.
As an example, someone outside of IETF typically would look for the
TWAMP protocol in the Operations and Management Area working groups
as it addresses performance management. However, the protocol TWAMP
has been developed by the IPPM working group in the Transport Area.
Note that not all protocols have been listed in all classification
sections. Some of the protocols, especially the protocols with
specific focus in Section 3 cannot be clearly classified. Note also
that COPS and COPS-PR are not listed in the tables, as COPS-PR is not
recommended to use (see Section 3.3).
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
A.1. Protocols classified by the Standard Maturity at IETF
This section classifies the management protocols according their
standard maturity at the IETF. The IETF standard maturity levels
Proposed, Draft or Full Standard, are defined in [RFC2026]. IETF
specifications must have "multiple, independent, and interoperable
implementations" before they can be advanced from Proposed to Draft
Standard status. An Internet or Full Standard (also referred as
Standard) is characterized by a high degree of technical maturity and
by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service
provides significant benefit to the Internet community.
The table below covers the standard maturity of the different
protocols listed in this document. Note that only the main protocols
(and not their extensions) are noted. An RFC search tool listing the
current document status is available at [RFCSEARCH].
+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Protocol | Maturity Level |
+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| SNMP [STD62][RFC3411] (Section 2.1) | Full Standard |
| SYSLOG [RFC5424] (Section 2.2) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| IPFIX [RFC5101] (Section 2.3) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| PSAMP [RFC5476] (Section 2.3) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| NETCONF [RFC4741] (Section 2.4.1) | Full Standard |
| DHCP for IPv4 [RFC2131] (Section 3.1.1) | Draft Standard |
| DHCP for IPv6 [RFC3315] (Section 3.1.1) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| OWAMP [RFC4656] (Section 3.4) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| TWAMP [RFC5357] (Section 3.4) | Full Standard |
| RADIUS [RFC2865] (Section 3.5) | Draft Standard |
| DIAMETER [RFC3588] (Section 3.6) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| CAPWAP [RFC5416] (Section 3.7) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| ANCP [RFC6320] (Section 3.8) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| Ad-hoc network configuration [RFC5889] | Informational |
| (Section 3.1.2) | |
| ACAP [RFC2244] (Section 3.9) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
| XCAP [RFC4825] (Section 3.10) | Proposed |
| | Standard |
+-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Table 1: Protocols classified by Standard Maturity at IETF
A.2. Protocols Matched to Management Tasks
This subsection classifies the management protocols matching to the
management tasks for fault, configuration, accounting, performance,
and security management.
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| Fault Mgmt | Configuratio | Accounting | Performance | Security |
| | nMgmt | Mgmt | Mgmt | Mgmt |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+
| SNMP | SNMP | SNMP | SNMP | |
| notificatio | configuratio | monitoring | monitoring | |
| nwith trap | nwith set | with get | with get | |
| operation | operation | operation | operation | |
| (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | |
| IPFIX | CAPWAP | IPFIX | IPFIX | |
| (S. 2.3) | (S. 3.7) | (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.3) | |
| PSAMP | NETCONF | PSAMP | PSAMP | |
| (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.4) | (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.3) | |
| SYSLOG (S. | ANCP (S. | RADIUS | | RADIUS |
| 2.2) | 3.8) | Accounting | | Authent.& |
| | | (S. 3.5) | | Authoriz. |
| | | | | (S. 3.5) |
| | AUTOCONF (S. | DIAMETER | | DIAMETER |
| | 3.1.2) | Accounting | | Authent.& |
| | | (S. 3.6) | | Authoriz. |
| | | | | (S. 3.6) |
| | ACAP | | | |
| | (S. 3.9) | | | |
| | XCAP | | | |
| | (S. 3.10) | | | |
| | DHCP | | | |
| | (S. 3.11) | | | |
+-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+
Table 2: Protocols Matched to Management Tasks
Note: Corresponding section numbers are given in parenthesis.
A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism
A pull mechanism is characterized by the Network Management System
(NMS) pulling the management information out of network elements,
when needed. A push mechanism is characterized by the network
elements pushing the management information to the NMS, either when
the information is available, or on a regular basis.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
Client/Server protocols, such as DHCP, ANCP, ACAP, and XCAP are not
listed in Table 3.
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Protocols supporting the Pull | Protocols supporting the Push |
| mechanism | mechanism |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| SNMP (except notifications) | SNMP notifications |
| (Section 2.1) | (Section 2.1) |
| NETCONF (except notifications) | NETCONF notifications |
| (Section 2.4.1) | (Section 2.4.1) |
| CAPWAP (Section 3.7) | SYSLOG (Section 2.2) |
| | IPFIX (Section 2.3) |
| | PSAMP (Section 2.3) |
| | RADIUS accounting |
| | (Section 3.5) |
| | DIAMETER accounting |
| | (Section 3.6) |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 3: Protocol classification by Push versus Pull Mechanism
A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring
Monitoring can be divided into two categories, passive and active
monitoring. Passive monitoring can perform the network traffic
monitoring, monitoring of a device or the accounting of network
resource consumption by users. Active monitoring, as used in this
document, focuses mainly on active network monitoring and relies on
the injection of specific traffic (also called "synthetic traffic"),
which is then monitored. The monitoring focus is indicated in the
table below as "network", "device" or "accounting".
This classification excludes non-monitoring protocols, such as
configuration protocols: Ad-hoc network autoconfiguration, ANCP, and
XCAP.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Protocols supporting passive | Protocols supporting active |
| monitoring | monitoring |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| IPFIX (network) (Section 2.3) | OWAMP (network) (Section 3.4) |
| PSAMP (network) (Section 2.3) | TWAMP (network) (Section 3.4) |
| SNMP (network and device) | |
| (Section 2.1) | |
| NETCONF (device) | |
| (Section 2.4.1) | |
| RADIUS (accounting) | |
| (Section 3.5) | |
| DIAMETER (accounting) | |
| (Section 3.6) | |
| CAPWAP (device) (Section 3.7) | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 4: Protocols for passive and active monitoring and their
monitoring focus
The application of SNMP to passive traffic monitoring (e.g. with
RMON-MIB) or active monitoring (with IPPM MIB) depends on the MIB
modules used. However, SNMP protocol itself does not have
operations, which support active monitoring. NETCONF can be used for
passive monitoring, e.g. with the NETCONF Monitoring YANG module
[RFC6022] for the monitoring of the NETCONF protocol. CAPWAP
monitors the status of a Wireless Termination Point.
RADIUS and DIAMETER are considered as passive monitoring protocols as
they perform accounting, i.e. counting the number of packets/bytes
for a specific user.
A.5. Supported Data Model Types and their Extensibility
The following table matches the protocols to the associated data
model types. Furthermore, the table indicates how the data model can
be extended based on the available content today and whether the
protocol contains a built-in mechanism for proprietary extensions of
the data model.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
+----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
| Protocol | Data Modeling | Approach to | Proprietary |
| | | extend the | Data |
| | | Data Model | Modeling |
| | | | Extensions |
+----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
| SNMP | MIB modules | New MIB | Enterprise |
| (Section 2.1) | defined with SMI | modules | specific |
| | (Section 2.1.3) | specified in | MIB modules |
| | | new RFCs | |
| SYSLOG | Structured Data | With the | Enterprise |
| (Section 2.2) | Elements (SDE) | procedure to | specific |
| | (Section 4.1) | add | SDEs |
| | | Structured | |
| | | Data ID in | |
| | | [RFC5424] | |
| IPFIX | IPFIX Information | With the | Enterprise |
| (Section 2.3) | Elements, IPFIX | procedure to | specific |
| | IANA registry at | add | Information |
| | [IANA-IPFIX] | Information | Elements |
| | (Section 2.3) | Elements | |
| | | specified in | |
| | | [RFC5102] | |
| PSAMP | PSAMP Information | With the | Enterprise |
| (Section 2.3) | Elements, PSAMP | procedure to | specific |
| | IANA registry at | add | Information |
| | [IANA-PSAMP] | Information | Elements |
| | (Section 2.3) | Elements | |
| | | specified in | |
| | | [RFC5102] | |
| NETCONF | YANG modules | New YANG | Enterprise |
| (Section 2.4.1 | (Section 2.4.2) | modules | specific |
| ) | | specified in | YANG |
| | | new RFCs | modules |
| | | following the | |
| | | guideline in | |
| | | [RFC6087] | |
| IPPM | IPPM metrics (*) | New IPPM | Not |
| OWAMP/TWAMP | (Section 3.4) | metrics | applicable |
| (Section 3.4) | | (Section 3.4) | |
| RADIUS | Type-Length-Values | RADIUS | Vendor |
| (Section 3.5) | (TLV) | related | Specific |
| | | registries at | Attributes |
| | | [IANA-AAA] | (VSA) |
| | | and | |
| | | [IANA-PROT] | |
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
| DIAMETER | Attribute-Value | DIAMETER | Vendor |
| (Section 3.6) | Pairs (AVP) | related | Specific |
| | | registry at | Attributes |
| | | [IANA-AAA] | (VSA) |
| CAPWAP | Type-Length-Values | New bindings | Vendor |
| (Section 3.7) | (TLV) | specified in | specific |
| | | new RFCs | TLVs |
+----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
Table 5: Data Models and their Extensibility
(*): With the publication of [RFC6248] the latest IANA registry for
IPFIX metrics has been declared Obsolete.
Appendix B. New Work related to IETF Management Standards
B.1. Energy Management (EMAN)
Energy management is becoming an additional requirement for network
management systems due to several factors including the rising and
fluctuating energy costs, the increased awareness of the ecological
impact of operating networks and devices, and the regulation of
governments on energy consumption and production.
The basic objective of energy management is operating communication
networks and other equipments with a minimal amount of energy while
still providing sufficient performance to meet service level
objectives. Today, most networking and network-attached devices
neither monitor nor allow control energy usage as they are mainly
instrumented for functions such as fault, configuration, accounting,
performance, and security management. These devices are not
instrumented to be aware of energy consumption. There are very few
means specified in IETF documents for energy management, which
includes the areas of power monitoring, energy monitoring, and power
state control.
A particular difference between energy management and other
management tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device
is not measured at the device itself but reported by a different
place. For example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device
or at a smart power strip, in which cases one device is effectively
metering another remote device. This requires a clear definition of
the relationship between the reporting devices and identification of
remote devices for which monitoring information is provided. Similar
considerations will apply to power state control of remote devices,
for example, at a PoE sourcing device that switches on and off power
at its ports. Another example scenario for energy management is a
gateway to low resourced and lossy network devices in wireless a
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
building network. Here the energy management system talks directly
to the gateway but not necessarily to other devices in the building
network.
At the time of this writing the EMAN working group works on the
management of energy-aware devices, covered by the following items:
o Requirements for energy management, specifying energy management
properties that will allow networks and devices to become energy
aware. In addition to energy awareness requirements, the need for
control functions will be discussed. Specifically the need to
monitor and control properties of devices that are remote to the
reporting device should be discussed.
o Energy management framework, which will describe extensions to
current management framework, required for energy management.
This includes: power and energy monitoring, power states, power
state control, and potential power state transitions. The
framework will focus on energy management for IP-based network
equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the
like). Particularly, the relationships between reporting devices,
remote devices, and monitoring probes (such as might be used in
low-power and lossy networks) need to be elaborated. For the case
of a device reporting on behalf of other devices and controlling
those devices, the framework will address the issues of discovery
and identification of remote devices.
o Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB document, for monitoring
energy-aware networks and devices, will address devices
identification, context information, and potential relationship
between reporting devices, remote devices, and monitoring probes.
o Power and Energy Monitoring MIB document will document defining
managed objects for monitoring of power states and energy
consumption/production. The monitoring of power states includes:
retrieving power states, properties of power states, current power
state, power state transitions, and power state statistics. The
managed objects will provide means for reporting detailed
properties of the actual energy rate (power) and of accumulated
energy. Further, it will provide information on electrical power
quality.
o Battery MIB document will define managed objects for battery
monitoring, which will provide means for reporting detailed
properties of the actual charge, age, and state of a battery and
of battery statistics.
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Applicability statement will describe the variety of applications
that can use the energy framework and associated MIB modules.
Potential examples are building networks, home energy gateway,
etc. Finally, the document will also discuss relationships of the
framework to other architectures and frameworks (such as Smart
Grid). The applicability statement will explain the relationship
between the work in this WG and the other existing standards such
as those from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF, and others. Note that the EMAN
WG will be looking into existing standards such as those from the
IEC, ANSI, DMTF and others, and reuse existing work as much as
possible.
Appendix C. Open issues
o Add a section or appendix for the high-level overview of IETF MIB
modules in contrast to the overview of data models following the
FCAPS-based view for management applications
Appendix D. Change Log
RFC EDITOR: Please remove this appendix before publication.
D.1. 01-02
o Resolved bugs, nits and open issues
o Reduced subsections RADIUS and DIAMETER with text on expired
drafts.
o Extended dispatcher tables in Appendix A
o Added a note indicating that IETF has not developed so far
specific technologies for the management of sensor networks.
o Added a note that IETF has not used the FCAPS view as an
organizing principle for its data models.
o Added [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] assuming that
it'll get published pretty fast
o Added RFC references
o Removed text on expired drafts
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
D.2. 00-01
o Reduced text for the Security Requirements on SNMP and referenced
to RFC 3411
o Reduced subsection on VACM
o Merged subsection on "RADIUS Authentication and Authorization with
SNMP Transport Models" into the section "SNMP Transport Security
Model"
o Section on Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) revised by
Ralph Droms
o Subsections on DHCP and Autoconf assembled in section "IP Address
Management"
o Removed subsection on "Extensible Provision Protocol (EPP)"
o Introduced new Appendix on "High Level Classification of
Management Protocols and Data Models"
o Deleted detailed positive comments
o Resolved some of the I-D references with the correct reference to
the published RFC number
o Added RFC references
o Removed text on expired drafts
o Resolved bugs, nits and open issues
D.3. draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03-00
o Diverse bug fixing
o Incorporated comments from Juergen Schoenwaelder
o Reduced detailed text on pro and contra on management technologies
o Extended Terminology section with terms and abbreviations
o Explained the structure based on the management application view
o Definition of 'MIB module' aligned in different sections
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Text on SNMP security reduced
o All protocol sections discuss now security and AAA as far as
relevant
o Added IPFIX IEs, SYSLOG SDEs and YANG modules to the data model
definition
o Added text on YANG data modules to section 4.2.
o Added text on IPFIX IEs to section 4.3.
o Added numerous references
D.4. Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw
D.4.1. 02-03
o Rearranged the document structure using a flat structure putting
all protocols onto the same level.
o Incorporated contributions for RADIUS/DIAMETER, IPFIX/PSAMP, YANG,
and EMAN.
o Added diverse references.
o Added Contributors and Acknowledgements sections.
o Bug fixing and issue solving.
D.4.2. 01-02
o Added terminology section.
o Changed the language for neutral standard description addressing
diverse SDOs.
o Extended NETCONF and NETMOD related text.
o Extended section for 'IPv6 Network Operations'.
o Bug fixing.
D.4.3. 00-01
o Extended text for SNMP
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft IETF Management Standards October 2011
o Extended RADIUS and DIAMETER sections.
o Added references.
o Bug fixing.
Authors' Addresses
Mehmet Ersue (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
St.-Martin-Strasse 53
Munich 81541
Germany
EMail: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
Diegem 1831
Belgium
EMail: bclaise@cisco.com
Ersue & Claise Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 74]