idnits 2.17.1 draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 23 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 397 has weird spacing: '... object can a...' == Line 684 has weird spacing: '...n which case ...' == Line 727 has weird spacing: '... octets cont...' == Line 728 has weird spacing: '...terface netw...' -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (August 3, 2012) is 4282 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3291 (Obsoleted by RFC 4001) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force V. Manral 3 Internet-Draft Hewlett-Packard Corp. 4 Obsoletes: 3811 (if approved) T. Tsou 5 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies (USA) 6 Expires: February 3, 2013 August 3, 2012 8 Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label 9 Switching (MPLS) Management 10 draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis-01 12 Abstract 14 This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which 15 contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol 16 Label Switching (MPLS) management information. The intent is that 17 these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS 18 related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own 19 representations. This document obsoletes RFC3811 as it addresses the 20 need to support IPv6 extended TunnelID's by defining a new TC- 21 MplsNewExtendedTunnelID which suggests using IPv4 address of the 22 ingress or egress LSR for the tunnel for an IPv6 network. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 2013. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 57 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 58 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 59 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 60 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 61 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 62 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 63 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 64 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 65 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 66 than English. 68 Table of Contents 70 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 4. Effect of the new TC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 74 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 75 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 76 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 77 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 78 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 79 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 80 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 83 1. Introduction 85 This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions 86 for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These Textual 87 Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage MPLS 88 networks. 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 92 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 94 For an introduction to the concepts of MPLS, see [RFC3031]. 96 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 98 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 99 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to Section 7 of 100 [RFC3410]. 102 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 103 the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally 104 accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). 105 Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the 106 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 107 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58 108 ([RFC2578], [RFC2579], and [RFC2580]). 110 3. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 112 MPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 114 IMPORTS 116 MODULE-IDENTITY, 117 Unsigned32, Integer32, 118 transmission FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] 120 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 121 FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579] 123 mplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 124 LAST-UPDATED "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004 125 ORGANIZATION 126 "IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working 127 Group." 128 CONTACT-INFO 129 " 131 Vishwas Manral 132 Hewlett-Packard Corp. 133 Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at 134 mpls@uu.net." 135 DESCRIPTION 136 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2008). The 137 initial version of this MIB module was published 138 in Internet Draft. For full legal notices see the RFC 139 itself or see: 140 http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html 142 This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs 143 for concepts used in Multiprotocol Label 144 Switching (MPLS) networks. 146 Changes from RFC3811 - MplsExtendedTunnelId" 148 REVISION "200809080000Z" -- 8 September, 2008 149 DESCRIPTION 150 "Initial version published as part of Internet Draft. To be 151 published as RFC XXXX" 152 -- RFC Ed.: RFC-editor pleases fill in XXXX 153 ::= { mplsStdMIB 1 } 155 mplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER 157 ::= { transmission 166 } 159 MplsAtmVcIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 160 DISPLAY-HINT "d" 161 STATUS current 162 DESCRIPTION 163 "A Label Switching Router (LSR) that 164 creates LDP sessions on ATM interfaces 165 uses the VCI or VPI/VCI field to hold the 166 LDP Label. 168 VCI values MUST NOT be in the 0-31 range. 169 The values 0 to 31 are reserved for other uses 170 by the ITU and ATM Forum. The value 171 of 32 can only be used for the Control VC, 172 although values greater than 32 could be 173 configured for the Control VC. 175 If a value from 0 to 31 is used for a VCI 176 the management entity controlling the LDP 177 subsystem should reject this with an 178 inconsistentValue error. Also, if 179 the value of 32 is used for a VC which is 180 NOT the Control VC, this should 181 result in an inconsistentValue error." 182 REFERENCE 183 "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035." 184 SYNTAX Integer32 (32..65535) 186 Figure 1 188 MplsBitRate ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 189 DISPLAY-HINT "d" 190 STATUS current 191 DESCRIPTION 192 "If the value of this object is greater than zero, 193 then this represents the bandwidth of this MPLS 194 interface (or Label Switched Path) in units of 195 '1,000 bits per second'. 197 The value, when greater than zero, represents the 198 bandwidth of this MPLS interface (rounded to the 199 nearest 1,000) in units of 1,000 bits per second. 200 If the bandwidth of the MPLS interface is between 201 ((n * 1000) - 500) and ((n * 1000) + 499), the value 202 of this object is n, such that n > 0. 204 If the value of this object is 0 (zero), this 205 means that the traffic over this MPLS interface is 206 considered to be best effort." 207 SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0|1..4294967295) 209 MplsBurstSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 210 DISPLAY-HINT "d" 211 STATUS current 212 DESCRIPTION 213 "The number of octets of MPLS data that the stream 214 may send back-to-back without concern for policing. 215 The value of zero indicates that an implementation 216 does not support Burst Size." 217 SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) 219 MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 220 STATUS obsolete 221 DESCRIPTION 222 "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This may 223 represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress 224 LSR for the tunnel. This value is derived from the 225 Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID 226 for CR-LDP." 227 REFERENCE 228 "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, 229 [RFC3209]. 231 Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]." 232 SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295) 234 MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 235 STATUS current 236 DESCRIPTION 237 "This value represents an MPLS label as defined in 238 [RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC3034], [RFC3035] and 239 [RFC3471]. 241 The label contents are specific to the label being 242 represented, such as: 244 * The label carried in an MPLS shim header 245 (for LDP this is the Generic Label) is a 20-bit 246 number represented by 4 octets. Bits 0-19 contain 247 a label or a reserved label value. Bits 20-31 248 MUST be zero. 250 The following is quoted directly from [RFC3032]. 251 There are several reserved label values: 253 i. A value of 0 represents the 254 'IPv4 Explicit NULL Label'. This label 255 value is only legal at the bottom of the 256 label stack. It indicates that the label 257 stack must be popped, and the forwarding 258 of the packet must then be based on the 259 IPv4 header. 261 ii. A value of 1 represents the 262 'Router Alert Label'. This label value is 263 legal anywhere in the label stack except at 264 the bottom. When a received packet 265 contains this label value at the top of 266 the label stack, it is delivered to a 267 local software module for processing. 268 The actual forwarding of the packet 269 is determined by the label beneath it 270 in the stack. However, if the packet is 271 forwarded further, the Router Alert Label 272 should be pushed back onto the label stack 273 before forwarding. The use of this label 274 is analogous to the use of the 275 'Router Alert Option' in IP packets 276 [RFC2113]. Since this label 277 cannot occur at the bottom of the stack, 278 it is not associated with a 279 particular network layer protocol. 281 iii. A value of 2 represents the 282 'IPv6 Explicit NULL Label'. This label 283 value is only legal at the bottom of the 284 label stack. It indicates that the label 285 stack must be popped, and the forwarding 286 of the packet must then be based on the 287 IPv6 header. 289 iv. A value of 3 represents the 290 'Implicit NULL Label'. 291 This is a label that an LSR may assign and 292 distribute, but which never actually 293 appears in the encapsulation. When an 294 LSR would otherwise replace the label 295 at the top of the stack with a new label, 296 but the new label is 'Implicit NULL', 297 the LSR will pop the stack instead of 298 doing the replacement. Although 299 this value may never appear in the 300 encapsulation, it needs to be specified in 301 the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value 302 is reserved. 304 v. Values 4-15 are reserved. 306 * The frame relay label can be either 10-bits or 307 23-bits depending on the DLCI field size and the 308 upper 22-bits or upper 9-bits must be zero, 309 respectively. 311 * For an ATM label the lower 16-bits represents the 312 VCI, the next 12-bits represents the VPI and the 313 remaining bits MUST be zero. 315 * The Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) label contains a 316 value greater than 2^24-1 and used in GMPLS 317 as defined in [RFC3471]." 318 REFERENCE 319 "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, 320 [RFC3031]. 322 Figure 2 324 MPLS Label Stack Encoding, [RFC3032]. 326 Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks, 327 [RFC3034]. 329 MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, [RFC3035]. 330 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching 331 (GMPLS) Architecture, [RFC3471]." 332 SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) 334 MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 335 STATUS current 336 DESCRIPTION 337 "The label distribution method which is also called 338 the label advertisement mode [RFC3036]. 339 Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate 340 in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream 341 on Demand." 342 REFERENCE 343 "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, 344 [RFC3031]. 346 LDP Specification, RFC3036, Section 2.6.3." 347 SYNTAX INTEGER { 348 downstreamOnDemand(1), 349 downstreamUnsolicited(2) 350 } 352 MplsLdpIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 353 DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d:2d" 354 STATUS current 355 DESCRIPTION 356 "The LDP identifier is a six octet 357 quantity which is used to identify a 358 Label Switching Router (LSR) label space. 360 The first four octets identify the LSR and 361 must be a globally unique value, such as a 362 32-bit router ID assigned to the LSR, and the 363 last two octets identify a specific label 364 space within the LSR." 365 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6)) 367 MplsLsrIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 368 STATUS current 369 DESCRIPTION 370 "The Label Switching Router (LSR) identifier is the 371 first 4 bytes of the Label Distribution Protocol 372 (LDP) identifier." 373 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) 374 MplsLdpLabelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 375 STATUS current 376 DESCRIPTION 377 "The Layer 2 label types which are defined for MPLS 378 LDP and/or CR-LDP are generic(1), atm(2), or 379 frameRelay(3)." 380 SYNTAX INTEGER { 381 generic(1), 382 atm(2), 383 frameRelay(3) 384 } 386 MplsLSPID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 387 STATUS current 388 DESCRIPTION 389 "A unique identifier within an MPLS network that is 390 assigned to each LSP. This is assigned at the head 391 end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs 392 to identify this LSP. This value is piggybacked by 393 the signaling protocol when this LSP is signaled 394 within the network. This identifier can then be 395 used at each LSR to identify which labels are 396 being swapped to other labels for this LSP. This 397 object can also be used to disambiguate LSPs that 398 share the same RSVP sessions between the same 399 source and destination. 401 For LSPs established using CR-LDP, the LSPID is 402 composed of the ingress LSR Router ID (or any of 403 its own IPv4 addresses) and a locally unique 404 CR-LSP ID to that LSR. The first two bytes carry 405 the CR-LSPID, and the remaining 4 bytes carry 406 the Router ID. The LSPID is useful in network 407 management, in CR-LSP repair, and in using 408 an already established CR-LSP as a hop in 409 an ER-TLV. 411 For LSPs signaled using RSVP-TE, the LSP ID is 412 defined as a 16-bit (2 byte) identifier used 413 in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the FILTER_SPEC 414 that can be changed to allow a sender to 415 share resources with itself. The length of this 416 object should only be 2 or 6 bytes. If the length 417 of this octet string is 2 bytes, then it must 418 identify an RSVP-TE LSPID, or it is 6 bytes, 419 it must contain a CR-LDP LSPID." 420 REFERENCE 421 "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, 422 [RFC3209]. 424 Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, 425 [RFC3212]." 426 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6)) 428 Figure 3 430 MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 431 STATUS current 432 DESCRIPTION 433 "Types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) 434 on a Label Switching Router (LSR) or a 435 Label Edge Router (LER) are: 437 unknown(1) -- if the LSP is not known 438 to be one of the following. 440 terminatingLsp(2) -- if the LSP terminates 441 on the LSR/LER, then this 442 is an egressing LSP 443 which ends on the LSR/LER, 445 originatingLsp(3) -- if the LSP originates 446 from this LSR/LER, then 447 this is an ingressing LSP 448 which is the head-end of 449 the LSP, 451 crossConnectingLsp(4) -- if the LSP ingresses 452 and egresses on the LSR, then it is 453 cross-connecting on that LSR." 454 SYNTAX INTEGER { 455 unknown(1), 456 terminatingLsp(2), 457 originatingLsp(3), 458 crossConnectingLsp(4) 459 } 461 MplsOwner ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 462 STATUS current 463 DESCRIPTION 464 "This object indicates the local network 465 management subsystem that originally created 466 the object(s) in question. The values of 467 this enumeration are defined as follows: 469 unknown(1) - the local network management 470 subsystem cannot discern which 471 component created the object. 473 other(2) - the local network management 474 subsystem is able to discern which component 475 created the object, but the component is not 476 listed within the following choices, 477 e.g., command line interface (cli). 479 snmp(3) - The Simple Network Management Protocol 480 was used to configure this object initially. 482 ldp(4) - The Label Distribution Protocol was 483 used to configure this object initially. 485 crldp(5) - The Constraint-Based Label Distribution 486 Protocol was used to configure this object 487 initially. 489 rsvpTe(6) - The Resource Reservation Protocol was 490 used to configure this object initially. 492 policyAgent(7) - A policy agent (perhaps in 493 combination with one of the above protocols) was 494 used to configure this object initially. 496 An object created by any of the above choices 497 MAY be modified or destroyed by the same or a 498 different choice." 499 SYNTAX INTEGER { 500 unknown(1), 501 other(2), 502 snmp(3), 503 ldp(4), 504 crldp(5), 505 rsvpTe(6), 506 policyAgent(7) 507 } 509 Figure 4 511 MplsPathIndexOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 512 STATUS current 513 DESCRIPTION 514 "A unique identifier used to identify a specific 515 path used by a tunnel. A value of 0 (zero) means 516 that no path is in use." 517 SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295) 519 MplsPathIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 520 STATUS current 521 DESCRIPTION 522 "A unique value to index (by Path number) an 523 entry in a table." 524 SYNTAX Unsigned32(1..4294967295) 526 MplsRetentionMode ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 527 STATUS current 528 DESCRIPTION 529 "The label retention mode which specifies whether 530 an LSR maintains a label binding for a FEC 531 learned from a neighbor that is not its next hop 532 for the FEC. 534 If the value is conservative(1) then advertised 535 label mappings are retained only if they will be 536 used to forward packets, i.e., if label came from 537 a valid next hop. 539 If the value is liberal(2) then all advertised 540 label mappings are retained whether they are from 541 a valid next hop or not." 542 REFERENCE 543 "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, 544 [RFC3031]. 546 LDP Specification, [RFC3036], Section 2.6.2." 547 SYNTAX INTEGER { 548 conservative(1), 549 liberal(2) 550 } 552 MplsTunnelAffinity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 553 STATUS current 554 DESCRIPTION 555 "Describes the configured 32-bit Include-any, 556 include-all, or exclude-all constraint for 557 constraint-based link selection." 558 REFERENCE 559 "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, 560 [RFC3209], Section 4.7.4." 561 SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295) 563 MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 564 STATUS current 565 DESCRIPTION 566 "A unique index into mplsTunnelTable. 567 For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value 568 should correspond to the RSVP Tunnel ID 569 used for the RSVP-TE session." 570 SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535) 572 MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 573 STATUS current 574 DESCRIPTION 575 "The tunnel entry with instance index 0 576 should refer to the configured tunnel 577 interface (if one exists). 579 Values greater than 0, but less than or 580 equal to 65535, should be used to indicate 581 signaled (or backup) tunnel LSP instances. 582 For tunnel LSPs signaled using RSVP, 583 this value should correspond to the 584 RSVP LSP ID used for the RSVP-TE 585 LSP. 587 Values greater than 65535 apply to FRR 588 detour instances." 589 SYNTAX Unsigned32(0|1..65535|65536..4294967295) 591 TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 592 STATUS current 593 DESCRIPTION 594 "A value that represents a type of address for a 595 Traffic Engineered (TE) Tunnel hop. 597 unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value 598 MUST be used if the value of the 599 corresponding TeHopAddress object is a 600 zero-length string. It may also be 601 used to indicate a TeHopAddress which 602 is not in one of the formats defined 603 below. 605 ipv4(1) An IPv4 network address as defined by 606 the InetAddressIPv4 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 607 [RFC3291]. 609 ipv6(2) A global IPv6 address as defined by 610 the InetAddressIPv6 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 611 [RFC3291]. 613 asnumber(3) An Autonomous System (AS) number as 614 defined by the TeHopAddressAS 615 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. 617 unnum(4) An unnumbered interface index as 618 defined by the TeHopAddressUnnum 619 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. 621 lspid(5) An LSP ID for TE Tunnels 622 (RFC3212) as defined by the 623 MplsLSPID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. 625 Each definition of a concrete TeHopAddressType 626 value must be accompanied by a definition 627 of a TEXTUAL-CONVENTION for use with that 628 TeHopAddress. 630 To support future extensions, the TeHopAddressType 631 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in 632 object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in 633 compliance statements in order to require only a 634 subset of these address types for a compliant 635 implementation. 637 Implementations must ensure that TeHopAddressType 638 objects and any dependent objects 639 (e.g., TeHopAddress objects) are consistent. 640 An inconsistentValue error must be generated 641 if an attempt to change a TeHopAddressType 642 object would, for example, lead to an 643 undefined TeHopAddress value that is 644 not defined herein. In particular, 645 TeHopAddressType/TeHopAddress pairs 646 must be changed together if the address 647 type changes (e.g., from ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))." 648 REFERENCE 649 "TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for Internet Network 650 Addresses, [RFC3291]. 652 Figure 5 654 Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, 655 [RFC3212]" 657 SYNTAX INTEGER { 658 unknown(0), 659 ipv4(1), 660 ipv6(2), 661 asnumber(3), 662 unnum(4), 663 lspid(5) 664 } 666 TeHopAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 667 STATUS current 668 DESCRIPTION 669 "Denotes a generic Tunnel hop address, 670 that is, the address of a node which 671 an LSP traverses, including the source 672 and destination nodes. An address may be 673 very concrete, for example, an IPv4 host 674 address (i.e., with prefix length 32); 675 if this IPv4 address is an interface 676 address, then that particular interface 677 must be traversed. An address may also 678 specify an 'abstract node', for example, 679 an IPv4 address with prefix length 680 less than 32, in which case, the LSP 681 can traverse any node whose address 682 falls in that range. An address may 683 also specify an Autonomous System (AS), 684 in which case the LSP can traverse any 685 node that falls within that AS. 687 A TeHopAddress value is always interpreted within 688 the context of an TeHopAddressType value. Every 689 usage of the TeHopAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 690 is required to specify the TeHopAddressType object 691 which provides the context. It is suggested that 692 the TeHopAddressType object is logically registered 693 before the object(s) which use the TeHopAddress 694 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION if they appear in the 695 same logical row. 697 The value of a TeHopAddress object must always be 698 consistent with the value of the associated 699 TeHopAddressType object. Attempts to set a 700 TeHopAddress object to a value which is 701 inconsistent with the associated TeHopAddressType 702 must fail with an inconsistentValue error." 703 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..32)) 705 TeHopAddressAS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 706 STATUS current 707 DESCRIPTION 708 "Represents a two or four octet AS number. 709 The AS number is represented in network byte 710 order (MSB first). A two-octet AS number has 711 the two MSB octets set to zero." 712 REFERENCE 713 "Textual Conventions for Internet Network 714 Addresses, [RFC3291]. The 715 InetAutonomousSystemsNumber TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 716 has a SYNTAX of Unsigned32, whereas this TC 717 has a SYNTAX of OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)). 718 Both TCs represent an autonomous system number 719 but use different syntaxes to do so." 720 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) 722 TeHopAddressUnnum ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 723 STATUS current 724 DESCRIPTION 725 "Represents an unnumbered interface: 727 octets contents encoding 728 1-4 unnumbered interface network-byte order 730 The corresponding TeHopAddressType value is 731 unnum(5)." 732 SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(4)) 734 MplsNewExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 735 STATUS current 736 DESCRIPTION 737 "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This may 738 represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress 739 LSR for the tunnel for an IPv4 network. For IPv6 740 this represents an IPv4 address of the ingress or 741 egress LSR for the tunnel for an IPv6 network. 742 This value is derived from the 743 Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID 744 for CR-LDP." 745 REFERENCE 746 "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, 747 [RFC3209]. 749 Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]." 750 SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(16)) 751 END 753 Figure 6 755 4. Effect of the new TC 757 The new TC definition for the MPLS Tunnel will have an effect on the 758 MPLS-TE-MIB and MPLS-TC-STD-MIB. Also the following RFC's which use 759 the MIB may have to be updated to accomodate the changed definition: 760 [RFC3209], [RFC3812], [RFC3813], [RFC3212], [RFC4368], [RFC3814], 761 [RFC3815], and [RFC6639]. 763 5. Contributors 765 This MIB fixes a small issue with the earlier version of this MIB as 766 defined in RFC3811.The earlier document was created by combining 767 TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS from current MPLS MIBs and a TE-WG MIB. Co- 768 authors on each of these MIBs contributed to the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS 769 contained in this MIB and also contributed greatly to the revisions 770 of this document. These co-authors are: 772 Rajiv Papneja 773 Huawei Technologies 774 2330 Central Expressway 775 Santa Clara, CA 95050 776 USA 778 Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com 780 Cheenu Srinivasan 781 Bloomberg L.P. 783 499 Park Ave. 784 New York, NY 10022 786 Phone: +1-212-893-3682 787 EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net 789 Arun Viswanathan 790 Force10 Networks, Inc. 791 1440 McCarthy Blvd 792 Milpitas, CA 95035 794 Phone: +1-408-571-3516 795 EMail: arunv@force10networks.com 797 Hans Sjostrand 798 ipUnplugged 799 P.O. Box 101 60 800 S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden 802 Phone: +46-8-725-5900 803 EMail: hans@ipunplugged.com 805 Kireeti Kompella 806 Juniper Networks 807 1194 Mathilda Ave 808 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 810 Phone: +1-408-745-2000 811 EMail: kireeti@juniper.net 813 Thomas D. Nadeau 814 Cisco Systems, Inc. 815 BXB300/2/ 816 300 Beaver Brook Road 817 Boxborough, MA 01719 819 Phone: +1-978-936-1470 820 EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com 822 Joan E. Cucchiara 823 Marconi Communications, Inc. 824 900 Chelmsford Street 825 Lowell, MA 01851 826 Phone: +1-978-275-7400 827 EMail: jcucchiara@mindspring.com 829 Figure 7 831 6. Acknowledgements 833 The author would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Thomas Nadeau for 834 thier guidance. The earlier editors and contributors would like to 835 thank Mike MacFadden and Adrian Farrel for their helpful comments on 836 several reviews. Also, a special acknowledgement to Bert Wijnen for 837 his many detailed reviews. Bert's assistance and guidance is greatly 838 appreciated. 840 7. Security Considerations 842 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it 843 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS 844 MIB modules to define management objects. 846 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB 847 modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has 848 no impact on the security of the Internet. 850 8. IANA Considerations 852 IANA has made a MIB OID assignment under the transmission branch, 853 that is, assigned the mplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }. This 854 sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and is 855 available under transmission. 857 In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be 858 rooted under the mplsStdMIB subtree. The IANA is requested to manage 859 that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a Standards 860 Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 862 The IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB 863 specified in this document. 865 9. References 866 9.1. Normative References 868 [RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, 869 February 1997. 871 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 872 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 874 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 875 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 876 October 1998. 878 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. 879 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information 880 Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. 882 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. 883 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", 884 STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. 886 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, 887 "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, 888 April 1999. 890 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 891 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. 893 [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., 894 Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack 895 Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. 897 [RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label 898 Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification", 899 RFC 3034, January 2001. 901 [RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., 902 Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP 903 and ATM VC Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001. 905 [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and 906 B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. 908 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 909 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 910 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 912 [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu, 913 L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., 914 Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A. 915 Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, 916 January 2002. 918 [RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J. 919 Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network 920 Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002. 922 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 923 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 924 January 2003. 926 9.2. Informative References 928 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 929 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- 930 Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. 932 [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, 933 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering 934 (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, 935 June 2004. 937 [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, 938 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching 939 Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813, 940 June 2004. 942 [RFC3814] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Viswanathan, 943 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding 944 Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC- 945 To-NHLFE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3814, 946 June 2004. 948 [RFC3815] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani, "Definitions 949 of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching 950 (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, 951 June 2004. 953 [RFC4368] Nadeau, T. and S. Hegde, "Multiprotocol Label Switching 954 (MPLS) Label-Controlled Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) 955 and Frame-Relay Management Interface Definition", 956 RFC 4368, January 2006. 958 [RFC6639] King, D. and M. Venkatesan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching 959 Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management 960 Overview", RFC 6639, June 2012. 962 Authors' Addresses 964 Vishwas Manral 965 Hewlett-Packard Corp. 966 191111 Pruneridge Ave. 967 Cupertino, CA 95015 968 USA 970 Phone: +1-408-447-1497> 971 Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com 973 T. Tsou 974 Huawei Technologies (USA) 975 2330 Central Expy. 976 Santa Clara, CA 95050 977 USA 979 Phone: +1-408-330-4424 980 Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com