Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management
RFC 4801
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (February 2007; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas Nadeau , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4801 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Bill Fenner | ||
| Send notices to | jcucchiara@mindspring.com, dromasca@avaya.com, bwijnen@lucent.com | ||
Network Working Group T. Nadeau, Ed.
Request for Comment: 4801 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track A. Farrel, Ed.
Old Dog Consulting
February 2007
Definitions of Textual Conventions for
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management
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 IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module that
contains textual conventions (TCs) to represent commonly used
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management
information. The intent is that these textual conventions will be
imported and used in GMPLS-related MIB modules that would otherwise
define their own representations.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions .......................3
4. Security Considerations .........................................5
5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
6. References ......................................................6
6.1. Normative References .......................................6
6.2. Informative References .....................................7
7. Acknowledgements ................................................7
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
1. Introduction
This document defines a MIB module that contains textual conventions
(TCs) for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks.
These textual conventions should be imported by MIB modules that
manage GMPLS networks.
This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [RFC3811] that defines
textual conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
management. [RFC3811] may continue to be used without this MIB
module in networks that support only MPLS.
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [RFC3945].
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
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].
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions
This MIB module makes reference to the following documents:
[RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC3471], and [RFC3811].
GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY
FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC 2578
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC 2579
mplsStdMIB
FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC 3811
;
gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED
"200702280000Z" -- 28 February 2007 00:00:00 GMT
ORGANIZATION
"IETF Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group"
CONTACT-INFO
" Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Comments about this document should be emailed directly to the
CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org"
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This version of
this MIB module is part of RFC 4801; see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.
This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for concepts used in
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks."
REVISION
"200702280000Z" -- 28 February 2007 00:00:00 GMT
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version published as part of RFC 4801."
::= { mplsStdMIB 12 }
GmplsFreeformLabelTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
"This TEXTUAL-CONVENTION can be used as the syntax of an object
that contains any GMPLS Label. Objects with this syntax can be
used to represent labels that have label types that are not
defined in any RFCs. The freeform GMPLS Label may also be used
by systems that do not wish to represent labels that have
label types defined in RFCs using type-specific syntaxes."
REFERENCE
"1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64))
GmplsLabelTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Determines the interpretation that should be applied to an
object that encodes a label. The possible types are:
gmplsMplsLabel(1) - The label is an MPLS Packet, Cell,
or Frame Label and is encoded as
described for the TEXTUAL-
CONVENTION MplsLabel defined in
RFC 3811.
gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) - The label is a Port or Wavelength
Label as defined in RFC 3471.
gmplsFreeformLabel(3) - The label is any form of label
encoded as an OCTET STRING using
the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
GmplsFreeformLabel.
gmplsSonetLabel(4) - The label is a Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) Label as
defined in RFC 4606.
gmplsSdhLabel(5) - The label is a Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH) Label as defined
in RFC 4606.
gmplsWavebandLabel(6) - The label is a Waveband Label as
defined in RFC 3471."
REFERENCE
"1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.
2. Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Management, RFC 3811, section 3.
3. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions
for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 4606."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
gmplsMplsLabel(1),
gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2),
gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3),
gmplsSonetLabel(4),
gmplsSdhLabel(5),
gmplsWavebandLabel(6)
}
GmplsSegmentDirectionTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The direction of data flow on an Label Switched Path (LSP)
segment with respect to the head of the LSP.
Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling
protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling
(also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination
(also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this
usually matches the direction of flow of data.
For manually configured unidirectional LSPs, the direction of
the LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For
manually configured bidirectional LSPs, an arbitrary decision
must be made about which LER is the 'head'."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
forward(1), -- data flows from head-end of LSP toward tail-end
reverse(2) -- data flows from tail-end of LSP toward head-end
}
END
4. Security Considerations
This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other GMPLS
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.
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has rooted MIB objects in this MIB module under the mplsStdMIB
subtree by assigning an OID to gmplsTCStdMIB.
IANA has made the following assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-
numbers in table:
...mib-2.transmission.mplsStdMIB (1.3.6.1.2.1.10.166)
Decimal Name References
------- ----- ----------
12 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB [RFC4801]
In the future, GMPLS-related standards-track MIB modules should be
rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested
to manage that namespace in the SMI Numbers registry [RFC3811]. New
assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in
[RFC2434].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "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.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
[RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definitions of Textual
Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
6.2. 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.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
7. Acknowledgements
This document is a product of the CCAMP Working Group.
Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara for her help with compilation issues
and her very thorough MIB Doctor review. Thanks also to Lars Eggert,
David Harrington, Harrie Hazewinkel, Dan Romascanu, and Bert Wijnen
for their review comments.
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 2007
Contact Information
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cheenu Srinivasan
Bloomberg L.P.
731 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: +1-212-617-3682
EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net
Tim Hall
Data Connection Ltd.
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
EN2 6BQ, UK
Phone: +44 20 8366 1177
EMail: tim.hall@dataconnection.com
Ed Harrison
Data Connection Ltd.
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
EN2 6BQ, UK
Phone: +44 20 8366 1177
EMail: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4801 TCs for GMPLS Management February 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Nadeau & Farrel Standards Track [Page 9]