Entity State MIB
RFC 4268
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (December 2005; Errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | David Perkins , Sharon Chisholm | ||
Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 4268 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Bert Wijnen | ||
Send notices to | dperkins@snmpinfo.com |
Network Working Group S. Chisholm Request for Comments: 4268 Nortel Networks Category: Standards Track D. Perkins SNMPinfo November 2005 Entity State 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 (2005). 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 extensions to the Entity MIB to provide information about the state of physical entities. In addition, this memo defines a set of Textual Conventions to represent various states of an entity. The intent is that these Textual Conventions will be imported and used in MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. Table of Contents 1. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2 2. Entity State ....................................................2 2.1. Hierarchical State Management ..............................3 2.2. Entity Redundancy ..........................................3 2.3. Physical Entity Users ......................................3 2.4. Physical Class Behavior ....................................4 3. Relation to Other MIBs ..........................................4 3.1. Relation to the Interfaces MIB .............................4 3.2. Relation to Alarm MIB ......................................5 3.3. Relation to Bridge MIB .....................................5 3.4. Relation to the Host Resources MIB .........................5 4. Textual Conventions .............................................6 5. Definitions .................................................... 9 Chisholm & Perkins Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4268 Entity State MIB November 2005 6. Security Considerations ........................................16 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................17 8. References .....................................................17 8.1. Normative References ......................................17 8.2. Informative References ....................................18 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. Entity State The goal in adding state objects to the Entity MIB [RFC4133] is to define a useful subset of the possible state attributes that could be tracked for a given entity and that both fit into the state models such as those used in the Interfaces MIB [RFC2863] as well as leverage existing well-deployed models. The entStateTable contains state objects that are a subset of the popular ISO/OSI states that are also defined in ITU's X.731 specification [X.731]. Objects are defined to capture administrative, operational, and usage states. In addition, there are further state objects defined to provide more information for these three basic states. Administrative state indicates permission to use or prohibition against using the entity and is imposed through the management services. Operational state indicates whether or not the entity is physically installed and working. Note that unlike the ifOperStatus [RFC2863], this operational state is independent of the administrative state. Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the usage state refers to the ability of an entity to service other entities within its containment hierarchy. Chisholm & Perkins Standards Track [Page 2]Show full document text