You are here: irt.org | RFCs | RFC5542 [ previous next ]
Network Working Group T. Nadeau, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5542 BT
Category: Standards Track D. Zelig, Ed.
Oversi
O. Nicklass, Ed.
RADVISION
May 2009
Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowire (PW) 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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 Abstract This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module that contains textual conventions (TCs) to represent commonly used pseudowire (PW) management information. The intent is that these TCs will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2 3. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2 4. Object Definitions ..............................................3 5. Security Considerations .........................................9 6. IANA Considerations .............................................9 7. References .....................................................10 7.1. Normative References ......................................10 7.2. Informative References ....................................10 1. Introduction This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines textual conventions used for pseudowire (PW) technology and for Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) MIB modules. 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 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]. 3. Conventions Used in This Document 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 [RFC2119]. Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 4. Object Definitions PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579] pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200904210000Z" -- 21 April 2009 00:00:00 GMT ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com David Zelig Email: davidz@oversi.com Orly Nicklass Email: orlyn@radvision.com The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html) " DESCRIPTION "This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS for concepts used in pseudowire edge-to-edge networks. Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor the names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 'AS IS' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. This version of this MIB module is part of RFC 5542; see the RFC itself for full legal notices." -- Revision history. REVISION "200904210000Z" -- 21 April 2009 00:00:00 GMT DESCRIPTION "Original Version" ::= { mib-2 188 } PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An administrative identification for grouping a set of service-specific pseudowire services." SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 DESCRIPTION "Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW (together with some other fields) in the signaling session." SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero, for each locally defined PW. Used for indexing several MIB tables associated with the particular PW. It is recommended that values are assigned contiguously starting from 1. The value for each PW MUST remain constant at least from one re-initialization to the next re-initialization." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295) PwIndexOrZeroType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This TEXTUAL-CONVENTION is an extension of the PwIndexType convention. The latter defines a greater- than-zero value used to identify a pseudowire in the managed system. This extension permits the additional value of zero. The zero value is object-specific and MUST therefore be defined as part of the description of any object that uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of zero might include situations where pseudowire was unknown, or where none or all pseudowires need to be referenced." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the operational status of the PW. - up(1): Ready to pass packets. - down(2): PW signaling is not yet finished, or indications available at the service level indicate that the PW is not passing packets. - testing(3): AdminStatus at the PW level is set to test. Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 - dormant(4): The PW is not in a condition to pass packets but is in a 'pending' state, waiting for some external event. - notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish the setup of the PW. It can be configuration error, incomplete configuration, or a missing H/W component. - lowerLayerDown(6): One or more of the lower-layer interfaces responsible for running the underlying PSN is not in OperStatus 'up' state." SYNTAX INTEGER { up(1), down(2), testing(3), dormant(4), notPresent(5), lowerLayerDown(6) } PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An octet string used in the generalized Forward Error Correction (FEC) element for identifying attachment forwarder and groups. A NULL identifier is of zero length. " SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) PwGenIdType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Represents the Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type and Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type in generalized FEC signaling and configuration. " SYNTAX Unsigned32( 0..254 ) PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the status of the control word (CW) negotiation based on the local configuration and the indications received from the peer node. waitingForNextMsg(1) indicates that the node is waiting for another label mapping from the peer. Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has notified the peer about a mismatch in the C-bit. rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code. illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with the peer that is not compatible with the PW type. cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW. If signaling is used, the C-bit is set and agreed upon between the nodes. For manually configured PW, the local configuration requires the use of the CW. cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for this PW. If signaling is used, the C-bit is reset and agreed upon between the nodes. For manually configured PW, the local configuration requires that the CW not be used. notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet been received from the peer. " REFERENCE "Martini, et al., 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]." SYNTAX INTEGER { waitingForNextMsg(1), sentWrongBitErrorCode(2), rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3), illegalReceivedBit(4), cwPresent(5), cwNotPresent(6), notYetKnown(7) } PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults are reported. " Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 SYNTAX BITS { pwNotForwarding(0), servicePwRxFault(1), servicePwTxFault(2), psnPwRxFault(3), psnPwTxFault(4) } PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero, fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets. " SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the status of the fragmentation/reassembly process based on local configuration and peer capability. noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no fragmentation. cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates that the local node is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size is greater than the MTU available at the PSN between the nodes. Fragmentation is not done in this case. cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2) bit indicates that the local configuration conveys the desire for fragmentation but the peer is not capable of reassembly. remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node is capable to accept fragmented PDUs. fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fragmentation will be used on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was configured for fragmentation, the peer has the capability to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this PW." REFERENCE "Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]." Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 SYNTAX BITS { noFrag(0), cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1), cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2), remoteFragCapable(3), fragEnabled(4) } PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for supplement information regarding configuration of the specific technology. Value zero implies no additional configuration information is applicable." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) END 5. Security Considerations This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it defines a set of textual conventions that may be used by other PWE3 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. 6. IANA Considerations The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER value recorded in the SMI Numbers registry: Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value ---------- ----------------------- pwTcStdMIB { mib-2 188 } Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [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. [RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. [RFC4623] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623, August 2006. 7.2. 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. Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009 Authors' Addresses Thomas D. Nadeau (editor) BT BT Centre 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ United Kingdom EMail: tom.nadeau@bt.com David Zelig (editor) Oversi Networks 1 Rishon Letzion St. Petah Tikva Israel Phone: +972 77 3337 750 EMail: davidz@oversi.com Orly Nicklass (editor) RADVISION 24 Raul Wallenberg Tel Aviv Phone: +972 3 776 9444 EMail: orlyn@radvision.com Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]