summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt619
1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c171d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,619 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group T. Nadeau, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 5542 BT
+Category: Standards Track D. Zelig, Ed.
+ Oversi
+ O. Nicklass, Ed.
+ RADVISION
+ May 2009
+
+
+ Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowire (PW) Management
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+ Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+ and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+ This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
+ Contributions published or made publicly available before November
+ 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
+ material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
+ modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
+ Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
+ the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
+ outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
+ not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
+ it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
+ than English.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+Abstract
+
+ This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module that
+ contains textual conventions (TCs) to represent commonly used
+ pseudowire (PW) management information. The intent is that these TCs
+ will be imported and used in PW-related MIB modules that would
+ otherwise define their own representations.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
+ 3. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
+ 4. Object Definitions ..............................................3
+ 5. Security Considerations .........................................9
+ 6. IANA Considerations .............................................9
+ 7. References .....................................................10
+ 7.1. Normative References ......................................10
+ 7.2. Informative References ....................................10
+
+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 pseudowire
+ (PW) technology and for Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) MIB
+ modules.
+
+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 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. 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].
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+4. Object Definitions
+
+ PW-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+ IMPORTS
+ MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, mib-2
+ FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]
+
+ TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]
+
+ pwTcStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
+ LAST-UPDATED "200904210000Z" -- 21 April 2009 00:00:00 GMT
+ ORGANIZATION "Pseudowire Edge-to-Edge Emulation (PWE3) Working
+ Group"
+ CONTACT-INFO
+ " Thomas D. Nadeau
+ Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com
+
+ David Zelig
+ Email: davidz@oversi.com
+
+ Orly Nicklass
+ Email: orlyn@radvision.com
+
+ The PWE3 Working Group (email distribution pwe3@ietf.org,
+ http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pwe3-charter.html)
+ "
+
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS
+ for concepts used in pseudowire edge-to-edge
+ networks.
+
+ Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified
+ as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
+
+ Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
+ without modification, are permitted provided that the following
+ conditions are met:
+
+ - Redistributions of source code must retain the above
+ copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
+ disclaimer.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
+ copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
+ disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
+ provided with the distribution.
+
+ - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust, nor
+ the names of specific contributors, may be used to endorse or
+ promote products derived from this software without specific
+ prior written permission.
+
+ THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
+ CONTRIBUTORS 'AS IS' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
+ INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+ MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
+ DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
+ CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
+ SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
+ NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
+ LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
+ HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
+ CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
+ OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE,
+ EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
+
+ This version of this MIB module is part of RFC 5542;
+ see the RFC itself for full legal notices."
+
+ -- Revision history.
+
+ REVISION "200904210000Z" -- 21 April 2009 00:00:00 GMT
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Original Version"
+ ::= { mib-2 188 }
+
+ PwGroupID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An administrative identification for grouping a
+ set of service-specific pseudowire services."
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32
+
+ PwIDType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ STATUS current
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Pseudowire Identifier. Used to identify the PW
+ (together with some other fields) in the signaling
+ session."
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32
+
+ PwIndexType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Pseudowire Index. A unique value, greater than zero,
+ for each locally defined PW. Used for indexing
+ several MIB tables associated with the particular 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
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ 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 pseudowire
+ 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 that uses this syntax. Examples of the usage of
+ zero might include situations where pseudowire was unknown,
+ or where none or all pseudowires need to be referenced."
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
+
+ PwOperStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicates the operational status of the PW.
+
+ - up(1): Ready to pass packets.
+ - down(2): PW signaling is not yet finished, or
+ indications available at the service
+ level indicate that the PW is not
+ passing packets.
+ - testing(3): AdminStatus at the PW level is set to
+ test.
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ - dormant(4): The PW is not in a condition to pass
+ packets but is in a 'pending' state,
+ waiting for some external event.
+ - notPresent(5): Some component is missing to accomplish
+ the setup of the PW. It can be
+ configuration error, incomplete
+ configuration, or a missing H/W component.
+ - lowerLayerDown(6): One or more of the lower-layer interfaces
+ responsible for running the underlying PSN
+ is not in OperStatus 'up' state."
+ SYNTAX INTEGER {
+ up(1),
+ down(2),
+ testing(3),
+ dormant(4),
+ notPresent(5),
+ lowerLayerDown(6)
+ }
+
+ PwAttachmentIdentifierType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "An octet string used in the generalized Forward Error
+ Correction (FEC) element for identifying attachment forwarder
+ and groups. A NULL identifier is of zero length.
+ "
+ SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
+
+ PwGenIdType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Represents the Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) Type and
+ Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Type in generalized FEC
+ signaling and configuration.
+ "
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32( 0..254 )
+
+ PwCwStatusTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicates the status of the control word (CW) 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ 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.
+
+ illegalReceivedBit(4) indicates a C-bit configuration with
+ the peer that is not compatible with the PW type.
+
+ cwPresent(5) indicates that the CW is present for this PW.
+ If signaling is used, the C-bit is set and agreed upon between
+ the nodes. For manually configured PW, the local
+ configuration requires the use of the CW.
+
+ cwNotPresent(6) indicates that the CW is not present for this
+ PW. If signaling is used, the C-bit is reset and agreed upon
+ between the nodes. For manually configured PW, the local
+ configuration requires that the CW not be used.
+
+ notYetKnown(7) indicates that a label mapping has not yet
+ been received from the peer.
+ "
+ REFERENCE
+ "Martini, et al., 'Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using
+ the Label Distribution Protocol', [RFC4447]."
+
+ SYNTAX INTEGER {
+ waitingForNextMsg(1),
+ sentWrongBitErrorCode(2),
+ rxWithdrawWithWrongBitErrorCode(3),
+ illegalReceivedBit(4),
+ cwPresent(5),
+ cwNotPresent(6),
+ notYetKnown(7)
+ }
+
+ PwStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicates the status of the PW and the interfaces affecting
+ this PW. If none of the bits are set, it indicates no faults
+ are reported.
+ "
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ SYNTAX BITS {
+ pwNotForwarding(0),
+ servicePwRxFault(1),
+ servicePwTxFault(2),
+ psnPwRxFault(3),
+ psnPwTxFault(4)
+ }
+
+ PwFragSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "If set to a value other than zero, it indicates the desired
+ fragmentation length in bytes. If set to zero,
+ fragmentation is not desired for PSN bound packets.
+ "
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32
+
+ PwFragStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Indicates the status of the fragmentation/reassembly process
+ based on local configuration and peer capability.
+
+ noFrag(0) bit indicates that local configuration is for no
+ fragmentation.
+
+ cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1) bit indicates that the local node
+ is set to fragment, but the fragmentation size 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 conveys the desire for fragmentation but
+ the peer is not capable of reassembly.
+
+ remoteFragCapable(3) bit indicates that the remote node
+ is capable to accept fragmented PDUs.
+
+ fragEnabled(4) bit indicates that fragmentation will be used
+ on this PW. Fragmentation can be used if the local node was
+ configured for fragmentation, the peer has the capability
+ to accept fragmented packets, and the CW is in use for this
+ PW."
+
+ REFERENCE
+ "Malis, A. and M. Townsley, 'Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
+ Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly', [RFC4623]."
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+ SYNTAX BITS {
+ noFrag(0),
+ cfgFragGreaterThanPsnMtu(1),
+ cfgFragButRemoteIncapable(2),
+ remoteFragCapable(3),
+ fragEnabled(4)
+ }
+
+ PwCfgIndexOrzero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "d"
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Index in any of the relevant configuration tables for
+ supplement information regarding configuration of the
+ specific technology. Value zero implies no additional
+ configuration information is applicable."
+ SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
+ END
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ 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.
+
+6. IANA Considerations
+
+ The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
+ OBJECT IDENTIFIER value recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:
+
+ Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
+ ---------- -----------------------
+ pwTcStdMIB { mib-2 188 }
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+7. References
+
+7.1. 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., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+ "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
+ STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
+
+ [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+ "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April
+ 1999.
+
+ [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+ "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
+ April 1999.
+
+ [RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
+ G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
+ Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
+
+ [RFC4623] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
+ Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
+ August 2006.
+
+7.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
+ "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
+ Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 5542 TC for PW Management May 2009
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
+ BT
+ BT Centre
+ 81 Newgate Street
+ London EC1A 7AJ
+ United Kingdom
+
+ EMail: tom.nadeau@bt.com
+
+
+ David Zelig (editor)
+ Oversi Networks
+ 1 Rishon Letzion St.
+ Petah Tikva
+ Israel
+
+ Phone: +972 77 3337 750
+ EMail: davidz@oversi.com
+
+
+ Orly Nicklass (editor)
+ RADVISION
+ 24 Raul Wallenberg
+ Tel Aviv
+
+ Phone: +972 3 776 9444
+ EMail: orlyn@radvision.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Nadeau, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
+