diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4625.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc4625.txt | 1235 |
1 files changed, 1235 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4625.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4625.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc89dc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4625.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1235 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group C. DeSanti +Request for Comments: 4625 K. McCloghrie +Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems + S. Kode + Consultant + S. Gai + Retired + September 2006 + + + Fibre Channel Routing Information 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. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + +Abstract + + This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) + for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. + In particular, it describes managed objects for information related + to routing within a Fibre Channel fabric, which is independent of the + usage of a particular routing protocol. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................3 + 3. Short Overview of Fibre Channel .................................3 + 3.1. Introduction ...............................................3 + 3.2. Routing Protocols ..........................................4 + 3.3. Virtual Fabrics ............................................4 + 4. Relationship to Other MIBs ......................................5 + 5. MIB Overview ....................................................5 + 5.1. Fibre Channel Management Instance ..........................5 + 5.2. Switch Index ...............................................6 + 5.3. Fabric Index ...............................................6 + 5.4. The t11FcRouteGroup Group ..................................6 + 5.5. The t11FcRouteTable's INDEX ................................6 + 6. The T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB Module .....................................7 + 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................17 + 8. IANA Considerations ............................................17 + 9. Security Considerations ........................................17 + 10. Normative References ..........................................19 + 11. Informative References ........................................20 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 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 describes managed objects for information related + to the Fibre Channel network's Routing Table for routing within a + Fabric. Managed objects specific to particular routing protocols, + such as the Fabric Shortest Path First (FSPF) protocol [FC-SW-4], are + not specified in this MIB module. + + 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. + +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], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 + [RFC2580]. + +3. Short Overview of Fibre Channel + +3.1. Introduction + + The Fibre Channel (FC) is logically a bidirectional point-to-point + serial data channel, structured for high performance. Fibre Channel + provides a general transport vehicle for higher-level protocols, such + as Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) command sets, the High- + Performance Parallel Interface (HIPPI) data framing, IP (Internet + Protocol), IEEE 802.2, and others. + + Physically, Fibre Channel is an interconnection of multiple + communication points, called N_Ports, interconnected either by a + switching network, called a Fabric, or by a point-to-point link. A + Fibre Channel "node" consists of one or more N_Ports. A Fabric may + consist of multiple Interconnect Elements, some of which are + switches. An N_Port connects to the Fabric via a port on a switch + called an F_Port. When multiple FC nodes are connected to a single + port on a switch via an "Arbitrated Loop" topology, the switch port + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + is called an FL_Port, and the nodes' ports are called NL_Ports. The + term Nx_Port is used to refer to either an N_Port or an NL_Port. The + term Fx_Port is used to refer to either an F_Port or an FL_Port. A + switch port, which is interconnected to another switch port via an + Inter-Switch Link (ISL), is called an E_Port. A B_Port connects a + bridge device with an E_Port on a switch; a B_Port provides a subset + of E_Port functionality. + + Many Fibre Channel components, including the fabric, each node, and + most ports, have globally-unique names. These globally-unique names + are typically formatted as World Wide Names (WWNs). More information + on WWNs can be found in [FC-FS]. WWNs are expected to be persistent + across agent and unit resets. + + Fibre Channel frames contain 24-bit address identifiers that identify + the frame's source and destination ports. Each FC port has both an + address identifier and a WWN. When a fabric is in use, the FC + address identifiers are dynamic and are assigned by a switch. Each + octet of a 24-bit address represents a level in an address hierarchy, + a Domain_ID being the highest level of the hierarchy. + +3.2. Routing Protocols + + The routing of frames within the Fabric is normally based on the + standard routing protocol, called the Fabric Shortest Path First + (FSPF) protocol. The operation of FSPF (or of any other routing + protocol) allows a switch to generate and maintain its own routing + table of how to forward frames it receives; i.e., a table in which to + look up the destination address of a received frame in order to + determine the best link by which to forward that frame towards its + destination. + +3.3. Virtual Fabrics + + The latest standard for an interconnecting Fabric containing multiple + Fabric Switch elements is [FC-SW-4] (which replaces the previous + revision, [FC-SW-3]). [FC-SW-4] carries forward the existing + specification for the operation of a single Fabric in a physical + infrastructure, augmenting it with the definition of Virtual Fabrics + and with the specification of how multiple Virtual Fabrics can + operate within one (or more) physical infrastructures. The use of + Virtual Fabrics provides for each frame to be tagged in its header to + indicate which one of several Virtual Fabrics that frame is being + transmitted on. All frames entering a particular "Core Switch" + [FC-SW-4] (i.e., a physical switch) on the same Virtual Fabric are + processed by the same "Virtual Switch" within that Core switch. + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +4. Relationship to Other MIBs + + The first standardized MIB for Fibre Channel [RFC2837] was focussed + on Fibre Channel switches. It is being replaced by the more generic + Fibre Channel Management MIB [FC-MGMT], which defines basic + information for Fibre Channel hosts and switches, including + extensions to the standard IF-MIB [RFC2863] for Fibre Channel + interfaces. + + This MIB extends beyond [FC-MGMT] to cover the routing of traffic + within a Fabric of a Fibre Channel network. The standard routing + protocol for Fibre Channel is FSPF [FC-SW-4]. Another MIB [RFC4626] + specifies management information specific to FSPF. This MIB contains + routing information that is independent of FSPF (i.e., it would still + apply even if a routing protocol other than FSPF were in use in the + network). + + This MIB imports some common Textual Conventions from T11-TC-MIB, + defined in [RFC4439]. + +5. MIB Overview + + This MIB module provides the means for monitoring the operation of, + and configuring some parameters of, one or more instances of the FSPF + protocol. (Note that there are no definitions in this MIB module of + "managed actions" that can be invoked via SNMP.) + +5.1. Fibre Channel Management Instance + + A Fibre Channel management instance is defined in [FC-MGMT] as a + separable managed instance of Fibre Channel functionality. Fibre + Channel functionality may be grouped into Fibre Channel management + instances in whatever way is most convenient for the + implementation(s). For example, one such grouping accommodates a + single SNMP agent with multiple AgentX [RFC2741] sub-agents, each + sub-agent implementing a different Fibre Channel management instance. + + The object, fcmInstanceIndex, is IMPORTed from the FC-MGMT-MIB + [FC-MGMT] as the index value that uniquely identifies each Fibre + Channel management instance within the same SNMP context ([RFC3411], + Section 3.3.1). + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +5.2. Switch Index + + The FC-MGMT-MIB [FC-MGMT] defines the fcmSwitchTable as a table of + information about Fibre Channel switches that are managed by Fibre + Channel management instances. Each Fibre Channel management instance + can manage one or more Fibre Channel switches. The Switch Index, + fcmSwitchIndex, is IMPORTed from the FC-MGMT-MIB as the index value + that uniquely identifies a Fibre Channel switch among those (one or + more) managed by the same Fibre Channel management instance. + +5.3. Fabric Index + + Whether operating on a physical Fabric (i.e., without Virtual + Fabrics) or within a Virtual Fabric, the operation of FSPF within a + Fabric is identical. Therefore, this MIB defines all Fabric-related + information in tables that are INDEX-ed by an arbitrary integer, + named a "Fabric Index", the syntax of which is IMPORTed from the + T11-TC-MIB. When a device is connected to a single physical Fabric, + without use of any virtual Fabrics, the value of this Fabric Index + will always be 1. In an environment of multiple virtual and/or + physical Fabrics, this index provides a means to distinguish one + Fabric from another. + + It is quite possible, and may even be likely, that a Fibre Channel + switch will have ports connected to multiple virtual and/or physical + Fabrics. Thus, in order to simplify a management protocol query + concerning all the Fabrics to which a single switch is connected, + fcmSwitchIndex will be listed before t11FcRouteFabricIndex when they + both appear in the same INDEX clause. + +5.4. The t11FcRouteGroup Group + + This MIB contains one object group, the t11FcRouteGroup, which + contains objects to allow the displaying and the configuring of + routes in the Fibre Channel Routing tables for the locally managed + switches. + +5.5. The t11FcRouteTable's INDEX + + It is normally valuable for a MIB table that contains routes to be + ordered such that a management application is able to query the table + based on some attribute, without having to read every row in the MIB + table. This requires that the rows in the table be ordered according + to such attributes, and thus that those attributes be represented by + objects included in the table's INDEX clause. Examples of this can + be seen in the ipCidrRouteTable [RFC2096] and, more recently, the + inetCidrRouteTable in [RFC4292]. + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + While this useful feature results in an unusually large number (ten) + of objects in the t11FcRouteTable's INDEX clause, all ten are either + integers or strings of 3 (or zero) octet length, so the resulting + OIDs are not unusually large. (Specifically, the aggregate number of + sub-identifiers to be appended to an OBJECT-TYPE's OID, when naming + an instance of an object in the t11FcRouteTable, is at most 22 sub- + identifiers; i.e., less than the *minimum* number to be appended for + the inetCidrRouteTable table.) + +6. The T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB Module + +T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN + +IMPORTS + MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, + Unsigned32, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] + MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- [RFC2580] + RowStatus, TimeStamp, + StorageType FROM SNMPv2-TC -- [RFC2579] + InterfaceIndex, InterfaceIndexOrZero FROM IF-MIB -- [RFC2863] + fcmInstanceIndex, fcmSwitchIndex, + FcAddressIdOrZero, FcDomainIdOrZero FROM FC-MGMT-MIB -- [FC-MGMT] + T11FabricIndex FROM T11-TC-MIB; -- [RFC4439] + +t11FcRouteMIB MODULE-IDENTITY + LAST-UPDATED "200608140000Z" + ORGANIZATION "T11" + CONTACT-INFO + " Claudio DeSanti + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, CA 95134 USA + EMail: cds@cisco.com + + + Keith McCloghrie + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, CA USA 95134 + Email: kzm@cisco.com" + DESCRIPTION + "The MIB module for configuring and displaying Fibre + Channel Route Information. + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version + of this MIB module is part of RFC 4625; see the RFC + itself for full legal notices." + REVISION "200608140000Z" + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + DESCRIPTION + "Initial version of this MIB module, published as RFC4625." + + ::= {mib-2 144 } + +t11FcRouteNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcRouteMIB 0 } +t11FcRouteObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcRouteMIB 1 } +t11FcRouteConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { t11FcRouteMIB 2 } + +-- +-- Per-Fabric routing information +-- +t11FcRouteFabricTable OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF T11FcRouteFabricEntry + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The table containing Fibre Channel Routing information + that is specific to a Fabric." + ::= { t11FcRouteObjects 1 } + +t11FcRouteFabricEntry OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX T11FcRouteFabricEntry + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "Each entry contains routing information specific to a + particular Fabric on a particular switch (identified by + values of fcmInstanceIndex and fcmSwitchIndex)." + INDEX { fcmInstanceIndex, fcmSwitchIndex, + t11FcRouteFabricIndex } + ::= { t11FcRouteFabricTable 1 } + +T11FcRouteFabricEntry ::= + SEQUENCE { + t11FcRouteFabricIndex T11FabricIndex, + t11FcRouteFabricLastChange TimeStamp + } + +t11FcRouteFabricIndex OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX T11FabricIndex + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "A unique index value that uniquely identifies a + particular Fabric. + + In a Fabric conformant to FC-SW-3, only a single Fabric + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + can operate within a physical infrastructure, and thus + the value of this Fabric Index will always be 1. + + In a Fabric conformant to FC-SW-4, multiple Virtual Fabrics + can operate within one (or more) physical infrastructures. + In such a case, index value is used to uniquely identify a + particular Fabric within a physical infrastructure." + ::= { t11FcRouteFabricEntry 1 } + +t11FcRouteFabricLastChange OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX TimeStamp + MAX-ACCESS read-only + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The value of sysUpTime at the most recent time when any + corresponding row in the t11FcRouteTable was created, + modified, or deleted. A corresponding row in the + t11FcRouteTable is for the same management instance, + the same switch, and same Fabric as the row in this table. + + If no change has occurred since the last restart of the + management system, then the value of this object is 0." + ::= { t11FcRouteFabricEntry 2 } + +-- +-- Fibre Channel Routing table +-- +t11FcRouteTable OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF T11FcRouteEntry + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The Fibre Channel Routing tables for the + locally managed switches. This table lists all the + routes that are configured in and/or computed by any + local switch for any Fabric. + + Such routes are used by a switch to forward frames (of user + data) on a Fabric. The conceptual process is based on + extracting the Destination Fibre Channel Address Identifier + (D_ID) out of a received frame (of user data) and comparing + it to each entry of this table that is applicable to the + given switch and Fabric. Such comparison consists of first + performing a logical-AND of the extracted D_ID with a mask + (the value of t11FcRouteDestMask) and second comparing the + result of that 'AND' operation to the value of + t11FcRouteDestAddrId. A similar comparison is made of the + Source Fibre Channel Address Identifier (S_ID) of a frame + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + against the t11FcRouteSrcAddrId and t11FcRouteSrcMask values + of an entry. If an entry's value of t11FcRouteInInterface + is non-zero, then a further comparison determines if the + frame was received on the appropriate interface. If all of + these comparisons for a particular entry are successful, + then that entry represents a potential route for forwarding + the received frame. + + For entries configured by a user, t11FcRouteProto has + the value 'netmgmt'; only entries of this type can be + deleted by the user." + ::= { t11FcRouteObjects 2 } + +t11FcRouteEntry OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX T11FcRouteEntry + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "Each entry contains a route to a particular destination, + possibly from a particular subset of source addresses, + on a particular Fabric via a particular output interface + and learned in a particular manner." + INDEX { fcmInstanceIndex, fcmSwitchIndex, + t11FcRouteFabricIndex, + t11FcRouteDestAddrId, t11FcRouteDestMask, + t11FcRouteSrcAddrId, t11FcRouteSrcMask, + t11FcRouteInInterface, t11FcRouteProto, + t11FcRouteOutInterface } + ::= { t11FcRouteTable 1 } +T11FcRouteEntry ::= + SEQUENCE { + t11FcRouteDestAddrId FcAddressIdOrZero, + t11FcRouteDestMask FcAddressIdOrZero, + t11FcRouteSrcAddrId FcAddressIdOrZero, + t11FcRouteSrcMask FcAddressIdOrZero, + t11FcRouteInInterface InterfaceIndexOrZero, + t11FcRouteProto INTEGER, + t11FcRouteOutInterface InterfaceIndex, + t11FcRouteDomainId FcDomainIdOrZero, + t11FcRouteMetric Unsigned32, + t11FcRouteType INTEGER, + t11FcRouteIfDown INTEGER, + t11FcRouteStorageType StorageType, + t11FcRouteRowStatus RowStatus + } + +t11FcRouteDestAddrId OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE (3)) + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The destination Fibre Channel Address Identifier of + this route. A zero-length string for this field is + not allowed." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 1 } + +t11FcRouteDestMask OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The mask to be logical-ANDed with a destination + Fibre Channel Address Identifier before it is compared + to the value in the t11FcRouteDestAddrId field. + Allowed values are 255.255.255, 255.255.0, or 255.0.0. + FSPF's definition generates routes to a Domain_ID, + so the mask for all FSPF-generated routes is 255.0.0. + The zero-length value has the same meaning as 0.0.0." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 2 } + +t11FcRouteSrcAddrId OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The source Fibre Channel Address Identifier of this + route. Note that if this object and the corresponding + instance of t11FcRouteSrcMask both have a value of 0.0.0, + then this route matches all source addresses. The + zero-length value has the same meaning as 0.0.0." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 3 } + +t11FcRouteSrcMask OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The mask to be logical-ANDed with a source + Fibre Channel Address Identifier before it is compared + to the value in the t11FcRouteSrcAddrId field. Allowed + values are 255.255.255, 255.255.0, 255.0.0, or 0.0.0. + The zero-length value has the same meaning as 0.0.0." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 4 } + +t11FcRouteInInterface OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "If the value of this object is non-zero, it is the + value of ifIndex that identifies the local + Fibre Channel interface through which a frame + must have been received in order to match with + this entry. If the value of this object is zero, + the matching does not require that the frame be + received on any specific interface." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 5 } + +t11FcRouteProto OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX INTEGER { + other(1), + local(2), + netmgmt(3), + fspf(4) + } + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The mechanism via which this route was learned: + other(1) - not specified + local(2) - local interface + netmgmt(3)- static route + fspf(4) - Fibre Shortest Path First + " + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 6 } + +t11FcRouteOutInterface OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX InterfaceIndex + MAX-ACCESS not-accessible + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The value of ifIndex that identifies the local + Fibre Channel interface through which the next hop + of this route is to be reached." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 7 } + +t11FcRouteDomainId OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX FcDomainIdOrZero + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The domain_ID of next hop switch. + + This object can have a value of zero if the value + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + of t11FcRouteProto is 'local'." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 8 } + +t11FcRouteMetric OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65536) + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The routing metric for this route. + + The use of this object is dependent on t11FcRouteProto." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 9 } + +t11FcRouteType OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX INTEGER { + local(1), + remote(2) + } + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The type of route. + + local(1) - a route for which the next Fibre Channel + port is the final destination; + remote(2) - a route for which the next Fibre Channel + port is not the final destination." + DEFVAL {local} + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 10 } + +t11FcRouteIfDown OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX INTEGER { + remove(1), + retain(2) + } + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The value of this object indicates what happens to + this route when the output interface (given by the + corresponding value of t11FcRouteOutInterface) is + operationally 'down'. If this object's value is 'retain', + the route is to be retained in this table. If this + object's value is 'remove', the route is to be removed + from this table." + DEFVAL { retain } + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 11 } + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +t11FcRouteStorageType OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX StorageType + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The storage type for this conceptual row. + Conceptual rows having the value 'permanent' need not + allow write-access to any columnar objects in the row." + DEFVAL { nonVolatile } + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 12 } + +t11FcRouteRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE + SYNTAX RowStatus + MAX-ACCESS read-create + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The status of this conceptual row. + The only rows that can be deleted by setting this object to + 'destroy' are those for which t11FcRouteProto has the value + 'netmgmt'." + ::= { t11FcRouteEntry 13 } + +-- +-- Conformance +-- +t11FcRouteCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER + ::= { t11FcRouteConformance 1 } +t11FcRouteGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER + ::= { t11FcRouteConformance 2 } + + +t11FcRouteCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "The compliance statement for entities that + implement the T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB. +-- +-- Note: The next four OBJECT clauses are for auxiliary objects, and the +-- SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of objects that are not accessible +-- in an OBJECT clause (see Sections 3.1 & 5.4.3 in STD 58, RFC 2580). +-- Thus, these four clauses cannot be included below in the normal +-- location for OBJECT clauses. +-- +-- OBJECT t11FcRouteSrcAddrId +-- SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE (0)) +-- DESCRIPTION +-- 'Support is not required for routes that +-- match only a subset of possible source + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +-- addresses.' +-- +-- OBJECT t11FcRouteSrcMask +-- SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE (0)) +-- DESCRIPTION +-- 'Support is not required for routes that +-- match only a subset of possible source +-- addresses.' +-- +-- OBJECT t11FcRouteDestMask +-- DESCRIPTION +-- 'Support is mandatory only for FSPF-generated +-- routes. Since FSPF's definition generates +-- routes to a Domain_ID, the mask for all +-- FSPF-generated routes is 255.0.0. Thus, +-- support is only required for 255.0.0.' +-- +-- OBJECT t11FcRouteInInterface +-- SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero (0) +-- DESCRIPTION +-- 'Support for routes specific to particular +-- source interfaces is not required.' + " + + MODULE -- this module + MANDATORY-GROUPS { t11FcRouteGroup } + + OBJECT t11FcRouteIfDown + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + OBJECT t11FcRouteDomainId + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + OBJECT t11FcRouteMetric + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + OBJECT t11FcRouteType + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + OBJECT t11FcRouteStorageType + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + OBJECT t11FcRouteRowStatus + SYNTAX INTEGER { active(1) } + MIN-ACCESS read-only + DESCRIPTION + "Write access is not required." + + ::= { t11FcRouteCompliances 1 } +t11FcRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP + OBJECTS { t11FcRouteFabricLastChange, + t11FcRouteDomainId, + t11FcRouteMetric, + t11FcRouteType, + t11FcRouteIfDown, + t11FcRouteStorageType, + t11FcRouteRowStatus + } + STATUS current + DESCRIPTION + "A collection of objects for displaying and configuring + routes." + ::= { t11FcRouteGroups 1 } + +END + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +7. Acknowledgements + + This document was originally developed and approved by the INCITS + Task Group T11.5 (http://www.t11.org) as the SM-RTM project. We wish + to acknowledge the contributions and comments from the INCITS + Technical Committee T11, including the following: + + T11 Chair: Robert Snively, Brocade + T11 Vice Chair: Claudio DeSanti, Cisco Systems + T11.5 Chair: Roger Cummings, Symantec + T11.5 members, especially: + Ken Hirata, Emulex + Scott Kipp, McData + Elizabeth G. Rodriguez, Dot Hill + + The document was subsequently approved by the IETF's IMSS Working + Group, chaired by David Black (EMC Corporation). We also wish to + acknowledge Bert Wijnen (Lucent Technologies), the IETF Area + Director, for his review of the document. + +8. IANA Considerations + + The IANA has assigned a MIB OID for the T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB module under + the appropriate subtree. + +9. Security Considerations + + There are several management objects defined in this MIB module with + a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects + may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network + environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure + environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on + network operations. These objects and their + sensitivity/vulnerability are: + + t11FcRouteDomainId, t11FcRouteMetric, t11FcRouteType, + t11FcRouteIfDown, t11FcRouteRowStatus + -- configure new routes and/or modify existing routes. + + Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some + network environments. For example, the ability to change network + topology or network speed may afford an attacker the ability to + obtain better performance at the expense of other network users. The + support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper + protection can have a negative effect on network operations. + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + + Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a + MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or + vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to + control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly + to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over + the network via SNMP. The objects and their + sensitivity/vulnerability are: the write-able objects listed above + plus one other: + + t11FcRouteLastChangeTime + -- the time of the last routing table change. + + SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. + Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), + even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is + allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects + in this MIB module. + + It is RECOMMENDED that implementors consider the security features as + provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), + including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for + authentication and privacy). + + Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT + RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to + enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator + responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an + instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to + the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate + rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +10. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, + J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of + Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC + 2578, April 1999. + + [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, + J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions + for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. + + [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, + J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance + Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. + + [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group + MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. + + [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An + Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management + Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC + 3411, December 2002. + + [RFC4439] DeSanti, C., Gaonkar, V., McCloghrie, K., and S. Gai, + "Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB", RFC 4439, + March 2006. + + [RFC4626] DeSanti, C., Gaonkar, V., McCloghrie, K., and S. Gai, + "MIB for Fibre Channel's Fabric Shortest Path First + (FSPF) Protocol", RFC 4626, September 2006. + + [FC-FS] "Fibre Channel - Framing and Signaling (FC-FS)", ANSI + INCITS 373-2003, April 2003. + + [FC-SW-3] "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric - 3 (FC-SW-3)", ANSI + INCITS 384-2004, 2004. + + + [FC-SW-4] "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric - 4 (FC-SW-4)", ANSI + INCITS 418-2006, 2006. + + [FC-MGMT] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC + 4044, May 2005. + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +11. Informative References + + [RFC2096] Baker, F., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 2096, January + 1997. + + [RFC2741] Daniele, M., Wijnen, B., Ellison, M., and D. Francisco, + "Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1", RFC + 2741, January 2000. + + [RFC2837] Teow, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the + Fabric Element in Fibre Channel Standard", RFC 2837, + May 2000. + + [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, + "Introduction and Applicability Statements for + Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, + December 2002. + + [RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292, + April 2006. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Claudio DeSanti + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, CA 95134 USA + + Phone: +1 408 853-9172 + EMail: cds@cisco.com + + + Srini Kode + Consultant + + Phone: 408-348-5343 + EMail: srinikode@yahoo.com + + + Keith McCloghrie + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, CA USA 95134 + + Phone: +1 408-526-5260 + EMail: kzm@cisco.com + + + Silvano Gai + Retired + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 4625 FC Routing Information MIB September 2006 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). + + 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 + + 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 provided by the IETF + Administrative Support Activity (IASA). + + + + + + + +DeSanti, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + |