WDIFF

draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-07.txt --> draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-08.txt

view Side-By-Side changes

Internet Draft Thomas D. Nadeau (Ed.)
Expires: August 2006

Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge Emulation T. Nadeau, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.

David Zelig (Ed.)
Intended status: Informational D. Zelig, Ed.
Expires: April 20, 2007 Corrigent Systems

February
O. Nicklass, Ed.
RAD Data Communicationss, Ltd.
October 17, 2006

Definitions for Textual Conventions and OBJECT-IDENTITIES for Managing Pseudo-Wires Management

draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-07.txt over
PSN
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-08

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
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.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2007.

Abstract

This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module
Which which
contains Textual Conventions (TCs) to represent commonly used commonly-used Pseudo
Wire (PW) management information. The intent is that these
TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) TCs will
be imported and used in PW related PW-related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations.

Nadeau

Nadeau, et al. Expires August 2006 [page April 20, 2007 [Page 1]

PWE3

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB February October 2006

define their own representations.

Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................1
1 Introduction...................................................2
2 Terminology....................................................2

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework.....................3
4 Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Object Definition..............................................3
5 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations........................................7
6 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA considerations............................................8
7 References.....................................................8
7.1 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References.........................................8
7.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative references.......................................9
8 Author's Addresses.............................................9
9 Full Copyright Statement.......................................9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property Notice................................10

1 and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

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 described again 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 RFC-2119 [BCP14].

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],
58,[RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580].

3. Object Definition Definitions

PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, transmission
FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]

TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200507121200Z" "200610161200Z" -- 12 July 2005 12:00:00 GMT October 2006
ORGANIZATION "Pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
Group"
CONTACT-INFO
" Thomas D. Nadeau
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com

David Zelig
E-mail:
Email: davidz@corrigent.com

Orly Nicklass
Email: orly_n@rad.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 as published
in RFC XXXX. YYYY. For full legal notices see the RFC
itself or see:
http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html

-- RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX YYYY with the RFC number & and remove this
-- 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 TEXTUAL CONVENTIONs
for concepts used in Pseudo Wire Edge-to-Edge
networks.
"
networks."
-- Revision history.

REVISION "200610161200Z" -- October 2006
DESCRIPTION
"Changes/additions/refinements from earlier
versions occur at the following TCs:
PwIndexType
PwIndexOrZeroType
PwCfgIndexOrzero
PwOperStatusTC
PwCapabilities - moved to IANA-PWE3-MIB
PwStatus
PwFragSize.
"

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.
"Original Version"

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

::= { transmission XXXX }
-- RFC Editor: please replace XXXX with IANA assigned value, 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." services."
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 set up manually."
SYNTAX Unsigned32

PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Pseudo Wire Index. Locally A unique index value, greater than zero,
for each locally-defined PW for indexing
several MIB tables associated with a the particular PW." 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
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 Pseudo Wire
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 which uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of
zero might include situations where Pseudo Wire was unknown,
or when none or all Pseudo Wires need to be referenced."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

PwVlanCfg ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

"VLAN configuration for Ethernet PW.
Values between 0 to and 4095 indicate the actual VLAN field
value.
A value of 4096 indicates that the object refer refers to
untagged frames, i.e. frames without a 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 is 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. in a condition to pass
packets, but is in a 'pending' state,
waiting for some external event.
- notPresent(5): Some component (typically, a hardware
component) is missing to accomplish
the set up setup of the PW.
- lowerLayerDown(6):The lowerLayerDown(6):One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
responsible for running the underlying PSN or outer tunnel
is not in OperStatus 'up' state.
" state."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
up(1),
down(2),
testing(3),
unknown(4),
dormant(5),
notPresent(6),
lowerLayerDown(7)
dormant(4),
notPresent(5),
lowerLayerDown(6)
}

PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An octet string used in the generalized FEC element for
identifying attachment forwarder and groups. The A NULL
identifier is of zero length.
"
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

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 a 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 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
If signaling is used - the C bit is set and agreed between the
nodes, and for manual configured manualy-configured PW the local configuration
require
requires the use of the CW.

cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for
this PW: if If signaling is used - the C bit is reset and agreed
between the nodes, and for manual configured manualy-configured PW the local
configuration requires that the CW would not be used.

notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet
been 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) (2),
rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode (3),
illegalReceivedBit (4),
cwPresent (5),
cwNotPresent (6),
notYetKnown(7)
}

PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The
"Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting
this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicate indicates no faults
are reported.

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

"
SYNTAX BITS {
pwNotForwarding (0),
customerFacingPwRxFault
servicePwRxFault (1),
customerFacingPwTxFault
servicePwTxFault (2),
psnFacingPwRxFault
psnPwRxFault (3),

Nadeau et al Expires August 2006 [page 6]

PWE3 TC MIB February 2006

psnFacingPwTxFault
psnPwTxFault (4)
}

PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired
fragmentation to the value set. length in bytes. If set to zero,
fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.
"
SYNTAX Unsigned32

PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The
"Indicates 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 that the peer has the
cabability to accept fragmented packets, and the FCS size is
equal in both peers.
" peers."
SYNTAX BITS {
noFrag (0),
cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu (1),
cfgFragButRemoteIncapable (2),

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

remoteFragCapable (3),
fragEnabled (4)
}

PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for
supplement information regarding configuration of the
specific technology. Value 0 implies no additional
configuration information is applicable."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
END

4. 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.

5. IANA considerations 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 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.

6. References

7.1

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006

6.1. 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]

[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words "Keywords for use Use in RFCs to Indicate
requirement
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., Ed., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J.,Rose, M. Ed., and S. Waldbusser, J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M. Ed., and S. Waldbusser, J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.

[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, J. Schoenwaelder,
"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
April 1999.

7.2

[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

6.2. Informative references References

[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. D., and B. Stewart,
Introduction
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

8 Author's

Authors' Addresses

Thomas D. Nadeau (Ed.) (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
USA

Email: tnadeau@cisco.com

David Zelig (Ed.) (editor)
Corrigent Systems
126, Yigal Alon st. St.
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Israel

Phone: +972-3-6945273 +972 3 6945 273
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

Nadeau, et al al. Expires August April 20, 2007 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB October 2006 [page 9]

PWE3

Orly Nicklass (editor)
RAD Data Communicationss, Ltd.
24 Raul Wallenberg St.
Tel Aviv,
Israel

Phone: +972 3 7659969
Email: orly_n@rad.com

Nadeau, et al. Expires April 20, 2007 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft PW TC MIB February October 2006

Full Copyright Statement

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.

Intellectual Property Notice

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; neither nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation RFC documents can be
found in BCP-11 [RFC2028]. 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."
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 at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Nadeau, et al al. Expires August 2006 [page 10] April 20, 2007 [Page 12]

----