summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt1179
1 files changed, 1179 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d410fae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2096.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1179 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group F. Baker
+Request for Comments: 2096 Cisco Systems
+Obsoletes: 1354 January 1997
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+ IP Forwarding Table MIB
+
+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.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction .......................................... 1
+ 2. The SNMP Network Management Framework ................. 2
+ 2.1 Object Definitions ................................... 2
+ 3. Overview .............................................. 2
+ 4. Definitions ........................................... 3
+ 5. Acknowledgements ...................................... 20
+ 6. References ............................................ 20
+ 7. Security Considerations ............................... 21
+ 8. Author's Address ...................................... 21
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ This memo defines an update to RFC 1354, "IP Forwarding Table MIB",
+ for Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). That document was
+ developed by the Router Requirements Working Group as an update to
+ RFC 1213's ipRouteTable, with the display of multiple routes as
+ a primary objective. The significant difference between this MIB and
+ RFC 1354 is the recognition (explicitly discussed but by consensus
+ left to future work) that CIDR routes may have the
+ same network number but different network masks. Note that this MIB
+ obsoletes a number of objects from RFC 1354. The reader should pay
+ careful attention to the STATUS field.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+2. The SNMP Network Management Framework
+
+ The SNMP Network Management Framework presently consists of three
+ major components. They are:
+
+ o the SMI, described in RFC 1902 [1], - the mechanisms used
+ for describing and naming objects for the purpose of
+ management.
+
+ o the MIB-II, STD 17, RFC 1213 [2], - the core set of
+ managed objects for the Internet suite of protocols.
+
+ o the protocol, RFC 1157 [6] and/or RFC 1905 [4], - the
+ protocol for accessing managed information.
+
+ Textual conventions are defined in RFC 1903 [3], and conformance
+ statements are defined in RFC 1904 [5].
+
+ The Framework permits new objects to be defined for the purpose of
+ experimentation and evaluation.
+
+2.1. Object Definitions
+
+ 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)
+ defined in the SMI. In particular, each object object type is named
+ by an OBJECT IDENTIFIER, an administratively assigned name. 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
+ descriptor, to refer to the object type.
+
+3. Overview
+
+ The MIB consists of two tables and two global objects.
+
+ (1) The object ipForwardNumber indicates the number of
+ current routes. This is primarily to avoid having to
+ read the table in order to determine this number.
+
+ (2) The ipForwardTable updates the RFC 1213 ipRouteTable to
+ display multipath IP Routes. This is in turn obsoleted
+ by the ipCidrRouteTable.
+
+ (3) The ipCidrRouteTable updates the RFC 1213 ipRouteTable to
+ display multipath IP Routes having the same network
+ number but differing network masks.
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+4. Definitions
+
+IP-FORWARD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+IMPORTS
+ MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, IpAddress, Integer32, Gauge32
+ FROM SNMPv2-SMI
+ RowStatus
+ FROM SNMPv2-TC
+ ip
+ FROM RFC1213-MIB
+ MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP
+ FROM SNMPv2-CONF;
+
+ipForward MODULE-IDENTITY
+ LAST-UPDATED "9609190000Z" -- Thu Sep 26 16:34:47 PDT 1996
+ ORGANIZATION "IETF OSPF Working Group"
+ CONTACT-INFO
+ " Fred Baker
+ Postal: Cisco Systems
+ 519 Lado Drive
+ Santa Barbara, California 93111
+
+ Phone: +1 805 681 0115
+ Email: fred@cisco.com
+ "
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The MIB module for the display of CIDR multipath IP Routes."
+ REVISION "9609190000Z"
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Revisions made by the OSPF WG."
+ ::= { ip 24 }
+
+ipCidrRouteNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Gauge32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The number of current ipCidrRouteTable entries
+ that are not invalid."
+ ::= { ipForward 3 }
+
+-- IP CIDR Route Table
+
+-- The IP CIDR Route Table obsoletes and replaces the ipRoute
+-- Table current in MIB-I and MIB-II and the IP Forwarding Table.
+-- It adds knowledge of the autonomous system of the next hop,
+-- multiple next hops, and policy routing, and Classless
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+-- Inter-Domain Routing.
+
+ipCidrRouteTable OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpCidrRouteEntry
+ MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "This entity's IP Routing table."
+ REFERENCE
+ "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+ ::= { ipForward 4 }
+
+ipCidrRouteEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpCidrRouteEntry
+ MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "A particular route to a particular destina-
+ tion, under a particular policy."
+ INDEX {
+ ipCidrRouteDest,
+ ipCidrRouteMask,
+ ipCidrRouteTos,
+ ipCidrRouteNextHop
+ }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteTable 1 }
+
+IpCidrRouteEntry ::=
+ SEQUENCE {
+ ipCidrRouteDest
+ IpAddress,
+ ipCidrRouteMask
+ IpAddress,
+ ipCidrRouteTos
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteNextHop
+ IpAddress,
+ ipCidrRouteIfIndex
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteType
+ INTEGER,
+ ipCidrRouteProto
+ INTEGER,
+ ipCidrRouteAge
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteInfo
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+ ipCidrRouteNextHopAS
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric1
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric2
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric3
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric4
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric5
+ Integer32,
+ ipCidrRouteStatus
+ RowStatus
+ }
+
+ipCidrRouteDest OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The destination IP address of this 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
+ ipCidrRouteMask object is not equal to x."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 1 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMask OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicate the mask to be logical-ANDed with the
+ destination address before being compared to
+ the value in the ipCidrRouteDest field. For
+ those systems that do not support arbitrary
+ subnet masks, an agent constructs the value of
+ the ipCidrRouteMask by reference to the IP Ad-
+ 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
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ the value of the corresponding instance of the
+ ipCidrRouteDest object is not equal to ipCidrRoute-
+ Dest."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 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.
+
+ipCidrRouteTos OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "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
+ 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"
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 3 }
+
+ipCidrRouteNextHop OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "On remote routes, the address of the next sys-
+ tem en route; Otherwise, 0.0.0.0."
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 4 }
+
+ipCidrRouteIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The ifIndex value which identifies the local
+ interface through which the next hop of this
+ route should be reached."
+ DEFVAL { 0 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 5 }
+
+ipCidrRouteType OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX INTEGER {
+ other (1), -- not specified by this MIB
+ reject (2), -- route which discards traffic
+ local (3), -- local interface
+ remote (4) -- remote destination
+ }
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The type of route. Note that local(3) refers
+ to a route for which the next hop is the final
+ destination; remote(4) refers to a route for
+ which the next hop is not the final destina-
+ tion.
+
+ Routes which do not result in traffic forwarding or
+ rejection should not be displayed even if the
+ implementation keeps them stored internally.
+
+
+ reject (2) refers to a route which, if matched, discards
+ the message as unreachable. This is used in some
+ protocols as a means of correctly aggregating routes."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 6 }
+
+ipCidrRouteProto 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
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ egp (5), -- Exterior Gateway Protocol
+ ggp (6), -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol
+ hello (7), -- FuzzBall HelloSpeak
+ rip (8), -- Berkeley RIP or RIP-II
+ isIs (9), -- Dual IS-IS
+ esIs (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
+ ciscoEigrp (16) -- Cisco EIGRP
+ }
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The routing mechanism via which this route was
+ learned. Inclusion of values for gateway rout-
+ ing protocols is not intended to imply that
+ hosts should support those protocols."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 7 }
+
+ipCidrRouteAge OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS current
+ 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 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 8 }
+
+ipCidrRouteInfo OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ 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 ipCidrRouteProto 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-
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ ier, and any implementation conforming to ASN.1
+ and the Basic Encoding Rules must be able to
+ generate and recognize this value."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 9 }
+
+ipCidrRouteNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.
+ The semantics of this object are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. When this object is
+ unknown or not relevant its value should be set
+ to zero."
+ DEFVAL { 0 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 10 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The primary routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 11 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 12 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 13 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 14 }
+
+ipCidrRouteMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+ ipCidrRouteProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 15 }
+
+ipCidrRouteStatus OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX RowStatus
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The row status variable, used according to
+ row installation and removal conventions."
+ ::= { ipCidrRouteEntry 16 }
+
+-- conformance information
+
+ipForwardConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForward 5 }
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ipForwardGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForwardConformance 1 }
+ipForwardCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ipForwardConformance 2 }
+
+-- compliance statements
+
+ipForwardCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The compliance statement for SNMPv2 entities
+ which implement the ipForward MIB."
+
+ MODULE -- this module
+ MANDATORY-GROUPS { ipForwardCidrRouteGroup }
+
+ ::= { ipForwardCompliances 1 }
+
+-- units of conformance
+
+ipForwardCidrRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+ OBJECTS { ipCidrRouteNumber,
+ ipCidrRouteDest, ipCidrRouteMask, ipCidrRouteTos,
+ ipCidrRouteNextHop, ipCidrRouteIfIndex, ipCidrRouteType,
+ ipCidrRouteProto, ipCidrRouteAge, ipCidrRouteInfo,
+ ipCidrRouteNextHopAS, ipCidrRouteMetric1,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric2, ipCidrRouteMetric3,
+ ipCidrRouteMetric4, ipCidrRouteMetric5, ipCidrRouteStatus
+ }
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The CIDR Route Table."
+ ::= { ipForwardGroups 3 }
+
+-- Obsoleted Definitions - Objects
+
+ipForwardNumber OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Gauge32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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
+-- the autonomous system of the next hop, multiple next hop
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+-- support, and policy routing support.
+
+ipForwardTable OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpForwardEntry
+ MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "This entity's IP Routing table."
+ REFERENCE
+ "RFC 1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"
+ ::= { ipForward 2 }
+
+ipForwardEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpForwardEntry
+ MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardNextHop
+ IpAddress,
+ ipForwardIfIndex
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardType
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardProto
+ INTEGER,
+ ipForwardAge
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardInfo
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
+ ipForwardNextHopAS
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardMetric1
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardMetric2
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardMetric3
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardMetric4
+ Integer32,
+ ipForwardMetric5
+ Integer32
+ }
+
+ipForwardDest OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX IpAddress
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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-
+ 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
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ 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 Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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
+ 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
+
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ 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
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "On remote routes, the address of the next sys-
+ tem en route; Otherwise, 0.0.0.0."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 4 }
+
+ipForwardIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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
+ }
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The type of route. Note that local(3) refers
+ to a route for which the next hop is the final
+ 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-
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 15]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ 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
+ }
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The routing mechanism via which this route was
+ learned. Inclusion of values for gateway rout-
+ ing protocols is not intended to imply that
+ hosts should support those protocols."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 7 }
+
+ipForwardAge OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-only
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The number of seconds since this route was
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 16]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ 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
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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."
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 9 }
+
+ipForwardNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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 }
+
+ipForwardMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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 }
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 17]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ipForwardMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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 Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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 Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ 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 14 }
+
+ipForwardMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
+ SYNTAX Integer32
+ MAX-ACCESS read-create
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An alternate routing metric for this route.
+ The semantics of this metric are determined by
+ the routing-protocol specified in the route's
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 18]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+ ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not
+ used, its value should be set to -1."
+ DEFVAL { -1 }
+ ::= { ipForwardEntry 15 }
+
+-- Obsoleted Definitions - Groups
+-- compliance statements
+
+ipForwardOldCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "The compliance statement for SNMP entities
+ which implement the ipForward MIB."
+
+ MODULE -- this module
+ MANDATORY-GROUPS { ipForwardMultiPathGroup }
+
+ ::= { ipForwardCompliances 2 }
+
+ipForwardMultiPathGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+ OBJECTS { ipForwardNumber,
+ ipForwardDest, ipForwardMask, ipForwardPolicy,
+ ipForwardNextHop, ipForwardIfIndex, ipForwardType,
+ ipForwardProto, ipForwardAge, ipForwardInfo,
+ ipForwardNextHopAS,
+ ipForwardMetric1, ipForwardMetric2, ipForwardMetric3,
+ ipForwardMetric4, ipForwardMetric5
+ }
+ STATUS obsolete
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "IP Multipath Route Table."
+ ::= { ipForwardGroups 2 }
+
+END
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 19]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+5. Acknowledgements
+
+ This work was originally performed by the Router Requirements
+ Working Group at the request of the OSPF Working Group. This update
+ was performed under the auspices of the OSPF Working Group. John Moy
+ of Proteon Incorporated is the chair.
+
+6. References
+
+[1] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
+ "Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the
+ Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1442,
+ SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
+ Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
+
+[2] Galvin, J., and K. McCloghrie, "Administrative Model for
+ version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
+ (SNMPv2)", RFC 1445, Trusted Information Systems, Hughes
+ LAN Systems, April 1993.
+
+[3] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
+ "Protocol Operations for version 2 of the Simple Network
+ Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1448, SNMP Research,
+ Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
+ Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
+
+[4] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
+ for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets - MIB-
+ II", STD 17, RFC 1213, Hughes LAN Systems, Performance
+ Systems International, March 1991.
+
+[5] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
+ USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
+
+[6] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser,
+ "Textual Conventions for version 2 of the Simple Network
+ Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1443, SNMP Research,
+ Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
+ Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
+
+[7] Baker, F., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 1354, July 1992.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 20]
+
+RFC 2096 IP Forwarding Table MIB January 1997
+
+
+7. Security Considerations
+
+ Security is an objective not in this MIB view.
+
+8. Author's Address
+
+ Fred Baker
+ Cisco Systems
+ 519 Lado Drive
+ Santa Barbara, California 93111
+
+ Phone: +1 805 681 0115
+ EMail: fred@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Baker Standards Track [Page 21]
+