Internet Draft Thomas D. Nadeau (Ed.) Expires: August 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. David Zelig (Ed.) Corrigent Systems February 2006 Definitions for Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for Pseudo-Wires Management draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-07.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All rights reserved. Abstract This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module Which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Pseudo Wire (PW) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in PW related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. Nadeau et al. Expires August 2006 [page 1] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 Table of Contents Abstract..........................................................1 1 Introduction...................................................2 2 Terminology....................................................2 3 The Internet-Standard Management Framework.....................3 4 Object Definition..............................................3 5 Security Considerations........................................7 6 IANA considerations............................................8 7 References.....................................................8 7.1 Normative References.........................................8 7.2 Informative references.......................................9 8 Author's Addresses.............................................9 9 Full Copyright Statement.......................................9 10 Intellectual Property Notice................................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 Pseudo Wire (PW) technology and PWE3 MIB modules. This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms described in [RFC3985]. Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms of [RFC3985] apply and will not be re-described here. Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at pwe3@ietf.org. For an introduction to the concepts of Pseudo-Wires, see [PWREQ] and [RFC3985]. 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]. 2 Terminology This document uses terminology from the document describing the PW architecture [RFC3985]. Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 2] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 3 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]. 4 Object Definition PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, transmission FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579] pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200507121200Z" -- 12 July 2005 12:00:00 GMT ORGANIZATION "Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Email: tnadeau@cisco.com David Zelig E-mail: davidz@corrigent.com The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html) " DESCRIPTION "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). The initial version of this MIB module was published in RFC XXXX. For full legal notices see the RFC -- RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with RFC number & remove this -- note. itself or see: http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 3] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 for concepts used in Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge networks. " -- Revision history. REVISION "200507121200Z" -- 12 July 2005 12:00:00 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version published as part of RFC YYYY." -- RFC Editor: please replace YYYY value, and -- delete this note. ::= { transmission XXXX } -- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value, and -- delete this note. PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An administrative identification mechanism for grouping a set of service-specific pseudo-wire services. May only have local significance." SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Pseudo-Wire Identifier. Used to identify the PW (together with some other fields) in the signaling session. Zero if the PW is set-up manually." SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Pseudo Wire Index. Locally unique index for indexing several MIB tables associated with a particular PW." SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwVlanCfg ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "VLAN configuration for Ethernet PW. Values between 0 to 4095 indicate the actual VLAN field value. A value of 4096 indicates that the object refer to untagged frames, i.e. frames without 802.1Q field. A value of 4097 indicates that the object is not relevant." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4097) PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 4] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 "Indicates the operational status of the PW. - up(1): Ready to pass packets. - down(2): If PW signaling has not yet finished, or indications available at the service level indicate that the PW is not passing packets. - testing(3): If AdminStatus at the PW level is set to test. - dormant(4): The PW is not available because the required resources are occupied by higher priority PWs. - notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish the set up of the PW. - lowerLayerDown(6):The underlying PSN or outer tunnel is not in OperStatus 'up' state. " SYNTAX INTEGER { up(1), down(2), testing(3), unknown(4), dormant(5), notPresent(6), lowerLayerDown(7) } PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for identifying attachment forwarder and groups. The NULL identifier is of zero length. " SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the status of the control word 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. sentWrongBitErrorCode(2) indicates that the local node has notified the peer about mismatch in the C bit. rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3) indicates that a withdraw message has been received with the wrong C-bit error code. Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 5] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C bit configuration with the peer which is not compatible with the PW type. cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW: if signaling is used - C bit is set and agreed between the nodes, and for manual configured PW the local configuration require the use of the CW. cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for this PW: if signaling is used - C bit is reset and agreed between the nodes, and for manual configured PW the local configuration requires that CW would not be used. notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet received from the peer. " SYNTAX INTEGER { waitingForNextMsg (1), sentWrongBitErrorCode (2), rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3), illegalReceivedBit (4), cwPresent (5), cwNotPresent (6), notYetKnown(7) } PwCapabilities ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates the optional capabilities of the control protocol. A value of zero indicates the basic LDP PW signaling. Values may be added in the future based on new capabilities introduced in IETF documents. " SYNTAX BITS { pwStatusIndication (0) } PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The status of the PW and the interfaces affecting this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicate no faults are reported. " SYNTAX BITS { pwNotForwarding (0), customerFacingPwRxFault (1), customerFacingPwTxFault (2), psnFacingPwRxFault (3), Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 6] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 psnFacingPwTxFault (4) } PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "If set to value other than zero, it indicates desired fragmentation to the value set. If set to zero, fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets. " SYNTAX Unsigned32 PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The status of the fragmentation process based on local configuration and the peer capability. noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no fragmentation. cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates the local desire to fragment, but the fragmentation size desired 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 indicates the desire for fragmentation but the peer is not capable of fragmentation. cfgFragFcsLengthMismatch(3) bit indicates that there is a mismatch between the FCS size between the local configuration and the peer configuration. fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that both the local was configured for fragmentation and the peer has the cabability to accept fragmented packets, and the FCS size is equal in both peers. " SYNTAX BITS { noFrag (0), cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1), cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2), remoteFragCapable (3), fragEnabled (4) } END 5 Security Considerations Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 7] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 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 values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry: Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value ---------- ----------------------- pwTcStdMIB { transmission XXXX } Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): the IANA is requested to assign a value for "XXXX" under the 'transmission' subtree and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXXX" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove this note. 7 References 7.1 Normative References [RFC3985] Bryant, S., and Pate, P., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge- to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. [Assigned] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, October 1994. See also: http://www.isi.edu/in- notes/iana/assignments/smi-numbers [IANAFamily] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS, (http://www.isi.edu/in- notes/iana/assignements/address-family-numbers), for MIB see: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/mib/ianaaddressfamilynumbers.mib [PWE3IANA] Martini, L., et al., "IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)", work-in-progress. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 8] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 [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., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 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. 8 Author's Addresses Thomas D. Nadeau (Ed.) Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01824 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com David Zelig (Ed.) Corrigent Systems 126, Yigal Alon st. Tel Aviv, ISRAEL Phone: +972-3-6945273 Email: davidz@corrigent.com Andrew G. Malis Tellabs, Inc. 2730 Orchard Parkway San Jose, CA 95134 Email: Andy.Malis@tellabs.com Dave Danenberg Email: dave_danenberg@yahoo.com 9 Full Copyright Statement Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 9] PWE3 TC MIB February 2006 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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 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. 0 Intellectual Property Notice The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11 [RFC2028]. 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 Executive Director. Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 10]