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.
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].
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].
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
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 }
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.
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:
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].
[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.
[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.
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
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.