From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt | 619 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 619 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5542.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3