Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation                         T. Nadeau, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                           D. Zelig, Ed.
Expires: March 27, 2008                                Corrigent Systems
                                                        O. Nicklass, Ed.
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                      September 24, 2007


 Definitions for Textual Conventions and for Managing Pseudowires over
                                  PSN
                      draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-12

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
   contains Textual Conventions (TCs) to represent commonly-used
   Pseudowire (PW) management information.  The intent is that these TCs
   will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


   otherwise define their own representations.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12



































Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


1.  Introduction

   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
   In particular, it defines Textual Conventions used for Pseudowire
   (PW) technology and PWE3 MIB modules.

   Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
   pwe3@ietf.org.


2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework

   For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
   Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
   [RFC3410].

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB.  MIB objects are generally
   accessed through Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).  Objects
   in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure
   of Management Information (SMI).  This memo specifies a MIB module
   that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD
   58,[RFC2578], STD 58, [RFC2579] and STD 58, [RFC2580].


3.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [BCP14].

   This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms
   described in [RFC3985].  Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms of
   [RFC3985] apply and will not be described again here.


4.  Object Definitions


   PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

   IMPORTS
      MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, transmission
         FROM SNMPv2-SMI               -- [RFC2578]

      TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
         FROM SNMPv2-TC;               -- [RFC2579]



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


   pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
      LAST-UPDATED "200709181200Z"  -- 18 September 2007 12:00:00 GMT
      ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
                    Group"
      CONTACT-INFO
      " Thomas D. Nadeau
        Email:  tnadeau@cisco.com

        David Zelig
        Email: davidz@corrigent.com

        Orly Nicklass
        Email: orly.nicklass@SeabridgeNetworks.com

        The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,
        http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html)
       "

      DESCRIPTION
           "This MIB module defines TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs
            for concepts used in Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge
            networks.

            Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). The
            initial version of this MIB module as published
            in RFC YYYY. For full legal notices see the RFC
            itself or see:
            http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html

   -- RFC Editor: Please replace YYYY with the RFC number and remove
   -- this note.
               "
      -- Revision history.

      REVISION "200709181200Z"  -- 18 September 2007 12:00:00 GMT
      DESCRIPTION
           "Original Version"
         ::= { transmission XXXX }
   -- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value and
   -- delete this note.

   PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "An administrative identification for grouping a
            set of service-specific pseudowire services."
      SYNTAX  Unsigned32



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


   PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW
            (together with some other fields) in the signaling
            session."
      SYNTAX  Unsigned32

   PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero,
           for each locally-defined PW for indexing
           several MIB tables associated with the particular PW.
           It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously
           starting from 1.  The value for each PW MUST remain
           constant at least from one re-initialization
           to the next re-initialization."
      SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)

   PwIndexOrZeroType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "This textual convention is an extension of the
            PwIndexType convention.  The latter defines a greater-
            than-zero value used to identify a Pseudowire
            in the managed system.  This extension permits the
            additional value of zero. The zero value is object-specific
            and MUST therefore be defined as part of the description of
            any object which uses this syntax.  Examples of the usage of
            zero might include situations where Pseudowire was unknown,
            or when none or all Pseudowires need to be referenced."
       SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

   PwVlanCfg ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "VLAN configuration for Ethernet PW.
            Values between 0 and 4095 indicate the actual VLAN field
            value.
            A value of 4096 indicates that the object refers to
            untagged frames, i.e. frames without a 802.1Q field.
            A value of 4097 indicates that the object is not
            relevant."



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


      SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4097)

   PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
        "Indicates the operational status of the PW.

        - up(1):            Ready to pass packets.
        - down(2):          If PW signaling is not yet finished, or
                            indications available at the service
                            level indicate that the PW is not
                            passing packets.
        - testing(3):       If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to
                            test.
        - dormant(4):       The PW is not in a condition to pass
                            packets, but is in a 'pending' state,
                            waiting for some external event.
        - notPresent(5):    Some component is missing to accomplish
                            the setup of the PW. It can be configuration
                            error, incomplete configuration or missing
                            of H/W component.
        - lowerLayerDown(6):One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
                            responsible for running the underlying PSN
                            is not in OperStatus 'up' state."
    SYNTAX   INTEGER {
        up(1),
        down(2),
        testing(3),
        dormant(4),
        notPresent(5),
        lowerLayerDown(6)
        }

   PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for
          identifying attachment forwarder and groups. A NULL
          identifier is of zero length.
         "
     SYNTAX    OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

   PwGenIdType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "Represents the AGI Type and AII Type in generalized FEC
          signaling and configuration.
         "



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


     SYNTAX    Unsigned32( 0..254 )

   PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "Indicates the status of the control word negotiation based
          on the local configuration and the indications received from
          the peer node.

          waitingForNextMsg(1) indicates that the node is waiting for
          another label mapping from the peer.

          sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has
          notified the peer about a mismatch in the C bit.

          rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw
          message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code.

          illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with
          the peer which is not compatible with the PW type.

          cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW:
          If signaling is used - the C bit is set and agreed between the
          nodes, and for manualy-configured PW the local configuration
          requires the use of the CW.

          cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for
          this PW: If signaling is used - the C bit is reset and agreed
          between the nodes, and for manualy-configured PW the local
          configuration requires that the CW not be used.

          notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet
          been received from the peer.
         "
      REFERENCE
         "Martini, et al, 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using
          the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]."

      SYNTAX    INTEGER {
                 waitingForNextMsg (1),
                 sentWrongBitErrorCode (2),
                 rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),
                 illegalReceivedBit (4),
                 cwPresent (5),
                 cwNotPresent (6),
                 notYetKnown(7)
                 }




Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


   PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting
          this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults
          are reported.
         "
      SYNTAX   BITS {
        pwNotForwarding (0),
        servicePwRxFault (1),
        servicePwTxFault (2),
        psnPwRxFault  (3),
        psnPwTxFault  (4)
        }

   PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired
          fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero,
          fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.
         "
      SYNTAX   Unsigned32

   PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
         "Indicates the status of the fragmentation process based on
          local configuration and peer capability.

          noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no
          fragmentation.

          cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local node
          is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size is greater
          than the MTU available at the PSN between the nodes.
          Fragmentation is not done in this case.

          cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local
          configuration indicates the desire for fragmentation but
          the peer is not capable of fragmentation.

          remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node
          is capable to accept fragmented PDUs.

          fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fargmenteation will be used
          on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was



Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


          configured for fragmentation, the peer has the cabability
          to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this
          PW."

      REFERENCE
          "Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
           Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]."
      SYNTAX   BITS {
         noFrag (0),
         cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
         cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),
         remoteFragCapable (3),
         fragEnabled (4)
         }

   PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      DISPLAY-HINT "d"
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION
           "Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for
           supplement information regarding configuration of the
           specific technology. Value 0 implies no additional
           configuration information is applicable."
      SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
   END




5.  Security Considerations

   This module does not define any management objects.  Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions that may be used by other PWE3
   MIB modules to define management objects.

   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
   modules that define management objects.  Therefore, this document has
   no impact on the security of the Internet.


6.  IANA Considerations

   The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
   OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:

         Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
           ----------             --------------------------------------




Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


         pwTcStdMIB         { transmission XXXX }

   Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): The IANA is
   requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'transmission'
   subtree and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry.
   When the assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace
   "XXXX" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to
   remove this note.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Keywords for Use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
              Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2579]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
              STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [RFC2580]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
              "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
              April 1999.

   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
              Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
              Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

   [RFC4623]  Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
              August 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.






Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA  01824
   USA

   Email: tnadeau@cisco.com


   David Zelig (editor)
   Corrigent Systems
   126, Yigal Alon St.
   Tel Aviv,
   Israel

   Phone: +972 3 6945 273
   Email: davidz@corrigent.com


   Orly Nicklass, Ph.D (editor)
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   3 Hanagar st. Neve Ne'eman
   Hod-Hasharon,
   Israel

   Phone: +972-9-7751290
   Email: orly.nicklass@SeabridgeNetworks.com






















Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  PW TC MIB                 September 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Nadeau, et al.           Expires March 27, 2008                [Page 12]