summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt675
1 files changed, 675 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6251ef0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1354.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,675 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group F. Baker
+Request For Comments: 1354 ACC
+ July 1992
+
+
+ IP Forwarding Table MIB
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
+ community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
+ Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
+ Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
+ Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
+ for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.
+ In particular, it defines objects for managing routes in the IP
+ Internet.
+
+ It is proposed that the ipRouteTable defined by MIB-II (RFC 1213) be
+ deprecated and replaced with this table. This adds the ability to
+ set or display multi-path routes, and varying routes by network
+ management policy.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. The Network Management Framework ............................ 1
+ 2. Objects ..................................................... 2
+ 2.1 Format of Definitions ...................................... 2
+ 3. Overview .................................................... 3
+ 3.1 Structure of MIB ........................................... 3
+ 4. Definitions ................................................. 4
+ 4.1 IP Forwarding Table ........................................ 4
+ 5. Acknowledgements ............................................ 11
+ 6. References .................................................. 11
+ 7. Security Considerations........................................ 12
+ 8. Author's Address............................................... 12
+
+1. The Network Management Framework
+
+ The Internet-standard Network Management Framework consists of three
+ components. They are:
+
+ RFC 1155 which defines the SMI, the mechanisms used for describing
+ and naming objects for the purpose of management. RFC 1212 defines a
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ more concise description mechanism, which is wholly consistent with
+ the SMI.
+
+ RFC 1156 which defines MIB-I, the core set of managed objects for the
+ Internet suite of protocols. RFC 1213 defines MIB-II, an evolution
+ of MIB-I based on implementation experience and new operational
+ requirements.
+
+ RFC 1157 which defines the SNMP, the protocol used for network access
+ to managed objects.
+
+ The Framework permits new objects to be defined for the purpose of
+ experimentation and evaluation.
+
+2. Objects
+
+ Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
+ the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are
+ defined using the subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [7]
+ defined in the SMI. In particular, each object has a name, a syntax,
+ and an encoding. The name is an object identifier, an
+ administratively assigned name, which specifies an object type. The
+ object type together with an object instance serves to uniquely
+ identify a specific instantiation of the object. For human
+ convenience, we often use a textual string, termed the OBJECT
+ DESCRIPTOR, to also refer to the object type.
+
+ The syntax of an object type defines the abstract data structure
+ corresponding to that object type. The ASN.1 language is used for
+ this purpose. However, the SMI [3] purposely restricts the ASN.1
+ constructs which may be used. These restrictions are explicitly made
+ for simplicity.
+
+ The encoding of an object type is simply how that object type is
+ represented using the object type's syntax. Implicitly tied to the
+ notion of an object type's syntax and encoding is how the object type
+ is represented when being transmitted on the network.
+
+ The SMI specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [8],
+ subject to the additional requirements imposed by the SNMP.
+
+2.1. Format of Definitions
+
+ Section 4 contains contains the specification of all object types
+ contained in this MIB module. The object types are defined using the
+ conventions defined in the SMI, as amended by the extensions
+ specified in [9].
+
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+3. Overview
+
+3.1. Structure of MIB
+
+ The IP Forwarding Table is quite analogous to the older ipRoute
+ Table. The principal differences are:
+
+ (1) It is somewhat re-organized, for aesthetic reasons,
+
+ (2) It has the Next Hop Autonomous System Number, useful
+ primarily to the administrators of regional networks,
+
+ (3) It is instanced by Policy and Next Hop as well as by
+ ultimate destination. Thus, multiple multipath routes
+ can be managed, not just a single route, along with the
+ circumstances under which the any given route might be
+ chosen.
+
+4. Definitions
+
+ RFC1354-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+ IMPORTS
+ Gauge, IpAddress
+ FROM RFC1155-SMI
+ mib-2, ip
+ FROM RFC1213-MIB
+ OBJECT-TYPE
+ FROM RFC-1212;
+
+ -- This MIB module uses the extended OBJECT-TYPE macro as
+ -- defined in [9].
+ ipForward OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ip 24 }
+
+ ipForwardNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Gauge
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The number of current ipForwardTable entries
+ that are not invalid."
+ ::= { ipForward 1 }
+
+
+ -- IP Forwarding Table
+
+ -- The IP Forwarding Table obsoletes and replaces the ipRoute
+ -- Table current in MIB-I and MIB-II. It adds knowledge of
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ -- the autonomous system of the next hop, multiple next hop
+ -- support, and policy routing support.
+
+
+ ipForwardTable OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpForwardEntry
+ ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "This entity's IP Routing table."
+ REFERENCE
+ "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+ ::= { ipForward 2 }
+
+
+ ipForwardEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpForwardEntry
+ ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "A particular route to a particular destina-
+ tion, under a particular policy."
+ INDEX {
+ ipForwardDest,
+ ipForwardProto,
+ ipForwardPolicy,
+ ipForwardNextHop
+ }
+ ::= { ipForwardTable 1 }
+
+
+ IpForwardEntry ::=
+ SEQUENCE {
+ ipForwardDest
+ IpAddress,
+ ipForwardMask
+ IpAddress,
+ ipForwardPolicy
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardNextHop
+ IpAddress,
+ ipForwardIfIndex
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardType
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardProto
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardAge
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardInfo
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+ ipForwardNextHopAS
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardMetric1
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardMetric2
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardMetric3
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardMetric4
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardMetric5
+ INTEGER
+ }
+
+ ipForwardDest OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The destination IP address of this route. An
+ entry with a value of 0.0.0.0 is considered a
+ default route.
+
+ This object may not take a Multicast (Class D)
+ address value.
+
+ Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an
+ instance of this object to a value x must be
+ rejected if the bitwise logical-AND of x with
+ the value of the corresponding instance of the
+ ipForwardMask object is not equal to x."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 1 }
+
+
+ ipForwardMask OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicate the mask to be logical-ANDed with the
+ destination address before being compared to
+ the value in the ipForwardDest field. For
+ those systems that do not support arbitrary
+ subnet masks, an agent constructs the value of
+ the ipForwardMask by reference to the IP Ad-
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ dress Class.
+
+ Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an
+ instance of this object to a value x must be
+ rejected if the bitwise logical-AND of x with
+ the value of the corresponding instance of the
+ ipForwardDest object is not equal to ipForward-
+ Dest."
+ DEFVAL { '00000000'h } -- 0.0.0.0
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 2 }
+
+
+ -- The following convention is included for specification
+ -- of TOS Field contents. At this time, the Host Requirements
+ -- and the Router Requirements documents disagree on the width
+ -- of the TOS field. This mapping describes the Router
+ -- Requirements mapping, and leaves room to widen the TOS field
+ -- without impact to fielded systems.
+
+ ipForwardPolicy OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The general set of conditions that would cause
+ the selection of one multipath route (set of
+ next hops for a given destination) is referred
+ to as 'policy'.
+
+ Unless the mechanism indicated by ipForwardPro-
+ to specifies otherwise, the policy specifier is
+ the IP TOS Field. The encoding of IP TOS is as
+ specified by the following convention. Zero
+ indicates the default path if no more specific
+ policy applies.
+
+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+ | | | |
+ | PRECEDENCE | TYPE OF SERVICE | 0 |
+ | | | |
+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+
+ IP TOS IP TOS
+ Field Policy Field Policy
+ Contents Code Contents Code
+ 0 0 0 0 ==> 0 0 0 0 1 ==> 2
+ 0 0 1 0 ==> 4 0 0 1 1 ==> 6
+ 0 1 0 0 ==> 8 0 1 0 1 ==> 10
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ 0 1 1 0 ==> 12 0 1 1 1 ==> 14
+ 1 0 0 0 ==> 16 1 0 0 1 ==> 18
+ 1 0 1 0 ==> 20 1 0 1 1 ==> 22
+ 1 1 0 0 ==> 24 1 1 0 1 ==> 26
+ 1 1 1 0 ==> 28 1 1 1 1 ==> 30
+
+ Protocols defining 'policy' otherwise must ei-
+ ther define a set of values which are valid for
+ this object or must implement an integer-
+ instanced policy table for which this object's
+ value acts as an index."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 3 }
+
+
+ ipForwardNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "On remote routes, the address of the next sys-
+ tem en route; Otherwise, 0.0.0.0."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 4 }
+
+
+ ipForwardIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The ifIndex value which identifies the local
+ interface through which the next hop of this
+ route should be reached."
+ DEFVAL { 0 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 5 }
+
+
+ ipForwardType OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER {
+ other (1), -- not specified by this MIB
+ invalid (2), -- logically deleted
+ local (3), -- local interface
+ remote (4) -- remote destination
+ }
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The type of route. Note that local(3) refers
+ to a route for which the next hop is the final
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ destination; remote(4) refers to a route for
+ which the next hop is not the final destina-
+ tion.
+
+ Setting this object to the value invalid(2) has
+ the effect of invalidating the corresponding
+ entry in the ipForwardTable object. That is,
+ it effectively disassociates the destination
+ identified with said entry from the route iden-
+ tified with said entry. It is an
+ implementation-specific matter as to whether
+ the agent removes an invalidated entry from the
+ table. Accordingly, management stations must
+ be prepared to receive tabular information from
+ agents that corresponds to entries not current-
+ ly in use. Proper interpretation of such en-
+ tries requires examination of the relevant ip-
+ ForwardType object."
+ DEFVAL { invalid }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 6 }
+
+ ipForwardProto OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER {
+ other (1), -- not specified
+ local (2), -- local interface
+ netmgmt (3), -- static route
+ icmp (4), -- result of ICMP Redirect
+
+ -- the following are all dynamic
+ -- routing protocols
+ egp (5), -- Exterior Gateway Protocol
+ ggp (6), -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol
+ hello (7), -- FuzzBall HelloSpeak
+ rip (8), -- Berkeley RIP or RIP-II
+ is-is (9), -- Dual IS-IS
+ es-is (10), -- ISO 9542
+ ciscoIgrp (11), -- Cisco IGRP
+ bbnSpfIgp (12), -- BBN SPF IGP
+ ospf (13), -- Open Shortest Path First
+ bgp (14), -- Border Gateway Protocol
+ idpr (15) -- InterDomain Policy Routing
+ }
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The routing mechanism via which this route was
+ learned. Inclusion of values for gateway rout-
+ ing protocols is not intended to imply that
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ hosts should support those protocols."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 7 }
+
+
+ ipForwardAge OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The number of seconds since this route was
+ last updated or otherwise determined to be
+ correct. Note that no semantics of `too old'
+ can be implied except through knowledge of the
+ routing protocol by which the route was
+ learned."
+ DEFVAL { 0 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 8 }
+
+
+ ipForwardInfo OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "A reference to MIB definitions specific to the
+ particular routing protocol which is responsi-
+ ble for this route, as determined by the value
+ specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.
+ If this information is not present, its value
+ should be set to the OBJECT IDENTIFIER { 0 0 },
+ which is a syntactically valid object identif-
+ ier, and any implementation conforming to ASN.1
+ and the Basic Encoding Rules must be able to
+ generate and recognize this value."
+ DEFVAL { { 0 0 } } -- 0.0
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 9 }
+
+
+ ipForwardNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.
+ When this is unknown or not relevant to the
+ protocol indicated by ipForwardProto, zero."
+ DEFVAL { 0 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 10 }
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ ipForwardMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The primary routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 11 }
+
+
+ ipForwardMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 12 }
+
+
+ ipForwardMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 13 }
+
+
+ ipForwardMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 14 }
+
+
+ ipForwardMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER
+ ACCESS read-write
+ STATUS mandatory
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 15 }
+
+ END
+
+5. Acknowledgements
+
+ This document was produced by the Router Requirements Working Group,
+ of which Phil Almquist is the chair.
+
+ Chris Gunner (DEC) and Keith McCloghrie (Hughes LAN Systems) made
+ significant comments on it, and it is better for their input.
+
+6. References
+
+ [1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
+ Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, NRI, April 1988.
+
+ [2] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network Management Review
+ Group", RFC 1109, NRI, August 1989.
+
+ [3] Rose M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
+ Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1155,
+ Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.
+
+ [4] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
+ Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
+ LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
+
+
+ [5] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple
+ Network Management Protocol", RFC 1157, SNMP Research,
+ Performance Systems International, Performance Systems
+ International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.
+
+ [6] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information
+ Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC
+ 1213, Performance Systems International, March 1991.
+
+ [7] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
+ Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),
+ International Organization for Standardization, International
+ Standard 8824, December 1987.
+
+ [8] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
+ Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Notation One
+ (ASN.1), International Organization for Standardization,
+ International Standard 8825, December 1987.
+
+ [9] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, Editors, "Concise MIB Definitions",
+ RFC 1212, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems,
+ March 1991.
+
+ [10] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information
+ Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC
+ 1213, Performance Systems International, March 1991.
+
+ [11] Baker, F., and R. Coltun, "OSPF Version 2 Management Information
+ Base", RFC 1253, ACC, Computer Science Center, August 1991.
+
+7. Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+8. Author's Address
+
+ Fred Baker
+ Advanced Computer Communications
+ 315 Bollay Drive
+ Santa Barbara, CA 93117-6014
+
+ Phone: (805) 685-4455
+
+ EMail: fbaker@acc.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker [Page 12]
+ \ No newline at end of file