Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Evaluation
RFC 4097
Document | Type | RFC - Informational (June 2005; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Author | Mary Barnes | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 4097 (Informational) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Scott Bradner | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
Network Working Group M. Barnes, Ed. Request for Comments: 4097 Nortel Networks Category: Informational June 2005 Middlebox Communications (MIDCOM) Protocol Evaluation Status of This Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), RSIP (Realm Specific Internet Protocol), Megaco, Diameter, and COPS (Common Open Policy Service) as the MIDCOM (Middlebox Communications) protocol. A summary of each of the proposed protocols against the MIDCOM requirements and the MIDCOM framework is provided. Compliancy of each of the protocols against each requirement is detailed. A conclusion summarizes how each of the protocols fares in the evaluation. Table of Contents Overview.......................................................... 2 Conventions Used in This Document................................. 3 1. Protocol Proposals............................................ 3 1.1. SNMP.................................................... 3 1.2. RSIP.................................................... 5 1.3. Megaco.................................................. 7 1.4. Diameter................................................ 8 1.5. COPS.................................................... 10 2. Item Level Compliance Evaluation.............................. 11 2.1. Protocol Machinery...................................... 11 2.2. Protocol Semantics...................................... 20 2.3. General Security Requirements........................... 27 3. Conclusions................................................... 29 4. Security Considerations....................................... 30 5. References.................................................... 31 5.1. Normative References.................................... 31 5.2. Informative References.................................. 33 6. Acknowledgements.............................................. 33 Barnes Informational [Page 1] RFC 4097 MIDCOM Protocol Evaluation June 2005 Appendix A - SNMP Overview........................................ 34 Appendix B - RSIP with Tunneling.................................. 35 Appendix C - Megaco Modeling Approach............................. 37 Appendix D - Diameter IPFilter Rule............................... 39 Contributors ..................................................... 42 Overview This document provides an evaluation of the applicability of SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), RSIP (Realm Specific Internet Protocol), Megaco, Diameter and COPS (Common Open Policy Service) as the MIDCOM (Middlebox Communications) protocol. This evaluation provides overviews of the protocols and general statements of applicability based upon the MIDCOM framework [2] and requirements [1] documents. The process for the protocol evaluation was fairly straightforward as individuals volunteered to provide an individual document evaluating a specific protocol. Thus, some protocols that might be considered as reasonably applicable as the MIDCOM protocol are not evaluated in this document since there were no volunteers to champion the work. The individual protocol documents for which there were volunteers were submitted for discussion on the list with feedback being incorporated into an updated document. The updated versions of these documents formed the basis for the content of this WG document. Section 1 contains a list of the proposed protocols submitted for the purposes of the protocol evaluation with some background information on the protocols and similarities and differences with regards to the applicability to the framework [2] provided. Section 2 provides the item level evaluation of the proposed protocols against the Requirements [1]. Section 3 provides a summary of the evaluation. A table containing a numerical breakdown for each of the protocols, with regards to its applicability to the requirements, for the following categories is provided: Fully met, Partially met through the use of extensions, Partially met through other changes to the protocol, or Failing to be met. This summary is not meant to provide a conclusive statement of the suitability of the protocols, but rather to provide information to be considered as input into the overall protocol decision process. In order for this document to serve as a complete evaluation of theShow full document text