IP Forwarding Table MIB
RFC 1354
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(July 1992; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 2096
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Fred Baker | ||
Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 1354 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
Network Working Group F. Baker Request For Comments: 1354 ACC July 1992 IP Forwarding Table MIB Status of this Memo This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing routes in the IP Internet. It is proposed that the ipRouteTable defined by MIB-II (RFC 1213) be deprecated and replaced with this table. This adds the ability to set or display multi-path routes, and varying routes by network management policy. Table of Contents 1. The Network Management Framework ............................ 1 2. Objects ..................................................... 2 2.1 Format of Definitions ...................................... 2 3. Overview .................................................... 3 3.1 Structure of MIB ........................................... 3 4. Definitions ................................................. 4 4.1 IP Forwarding Table ........................................ 4 5. Acknowledgements ............................................ 11 6. References .................................................. 11 7. Security Considerations........................................ 12 8. Author's Address............................................... 12 1. The Network Management Framework The Internet-standard Network Management Framework consists of three components. They are: RFC 1155 which defines the SMI, the mechanisms used for describing and naming objects for the purpose of management. RFC 1212 defines a Baker [Page 1] RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992 more concise description mechanism, which is wholly consistent with the SMI. RFC 1156 which defines MIB-I, the core set of managed objects for the Internet suite of protocols. RFC 1213 defines MIB-II, an evolution of MIB-I based on implementation experience and new operational requirements. RFC 1157 which defines the SNMP, the protocol used for network access to managed objects. The Framework permits new objects to be defined for the purpose of experimentation and evaluation. 2. Objects Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are defined using the subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [7] defined in the SMI. In particular, each object has a name, a syntax, and an encoding. The name is an object identifier, an administratively assigned name, which specifies an object type. The object type together with an object instance serves to uniquely identify a specific instantiation of the object. For human convenience, we often use a textual string, termed the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR, to also refer to the object type. The syntax of an object type defines the abstract data structure corresponding to that object type. The ASN.1 language is used for this purpose. However, the SMI [3] purposely restricts the ASN.1 constructs which may be used. These restrictions are explicitly made for simplicity. The encoding of an object type is simply how that object type is represented using the object type's syntax. Implicitly tied to the notion of an object type's syntax and encoding is how the object type is represented when being transmitted on the network. The SMI specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [8], subject to the additional requirements imposed by the SNMP. 2.1. Format of Definitions Section 4 contains contains the specification of all object types contained in this MIB module. The object types are defined using the conventions defined in the SMI, as amended by the extensions specified in [9]. Baker [Page 2] RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992 3. Overview 3.1. Structure of MIB The IP Forwarding Table is quite analogous to the older ipRoute Table. The principal differences are: (1) It is somewhat re-organized, for aesthetic reasons, (2) It has the Next Hop Autonomous System Number, useful primarily to the administrators of regional networks, (3) It is instanced by Policy and Next Hop as well as byShow full document text