Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)
RFC 3877
Network Working Group S. Chisholm
Request for Comments: 3877 Nortel Networks
Category: Standards Track D. Romascanu
Avaya
September 2004
Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes management objects used for modelling and
storing alarms.
Chisholm & Romascanu Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3877 Alarm MIB September 2004
Table of Contents
1. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Alarm Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Alarm Management Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Features of this Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Relationship between Alarm and Notifications . . . . . . 9
3.6. Notification Varbind Storage and Reference . . . . . . . 9
3.7. Relation to Notification Log MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.8. Relation to Event MIB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Generic Alarm MIB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. ITU Alarm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.3. Textual Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.4. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.1. Alarms Based on linkUp/linkDown Notifications. . . . . . 59
6.2. Temperature Alarm using generic Notifications. . . . . . 62
6.3. Temperature Alarm without Notifications. . . . . . . . . 63
6.4. Printer MIB Alarm Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.5. Rmon Alarm Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.6. The Lifetime of an Alarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
10. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
11. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chisholm & Romascanu Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3877 Alarm MIB September 2004
1. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB
module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
[RFC2580].
2. Introduction
In traditional SNMP management, problems are detected on an entity
either through polling interesting MIB variables, waiting for the
entity to send a Notification for a problem, or some combination of
the two. This method is somewhat successful, but experience has
shown some problems with this approach. Managers monitoring large
numbers of entities cannot afford to be polling large numbers of
Show full document text