1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Network Working Group J. Schoenwaelder
Request for Comments: 5343 Jacobs University Bremen
Updates: 3411 September 2008
Category: Standards Track
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery
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.
Abstract
The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) version three (SNMPv3)
requires that an application know the identifier (snmpEngineID) of
the remote SNMP protocol engine in order to retrieve or manipulate
objects maintained on the remote SNMP entity.
This document introduces a well-known localEngineID and a discovery
mechanism that can be used to learn the snmpEngineID of a remote SNMP
protocol engine. The proposed mechanism is independent of the
features provided by SNMP security models and may also be used by
other protocol interfaces providing access to managed objects.
This document updates RFC 3411.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Local EngineID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. EngineID Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
1. Introduction
To retrieve or manipulate management information using the third
version of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) [RFC3410],
it is necessary to know the identifier of the remote SNMP protocol
engine, the so-called snmpEngineID [RFC3411]. While an appropriate
snmpEngineID can in principle be configured on each management
application for each SNMP agent, it is often desirable to discover
the snmpEngineID automatically.
This document introduces a discovery mechanism that can be used to
learn the snmpEngineID of a remote SNMP protocol engine. The
proposed mechanism is independent of the features provided by SNMP
security models. The mechanism has been designed to coexist with
discovery mechanisms that may exist in SNMP security models, such as
the authoritative engine identifier discovery of the User-based
Security Model (USM) of SNMP [RFC3414].
This document updates RFC 3411 [RFC3411] by clarifying the IANA rules
for the maintenance of the SnmpEngineID format registry.
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. Background
Within an administrative domain, an SNMP engine is uniquely
identified by an snmpEngineID value [RFC3411]. An SNMP entity, which
consists of an SNMP engine and several SNMP applications, may provide
access to multiple contexts.
An SNMP context is a collection of management information accessible
by an SNMP entity. An item of management information may exist in
more than one context and an SNMP entity potentially has access to
many contexts [RFC3411]. A context is identified by the snmpEngineID
value of the entity hosting the management information (also called a
contextEngineID) and a context name that identifies the specific
context (also called a contextName).
To identify an individual item of management information within an
administrative domain, a four tuple is used consisting of
1. a contextEngineID,
2. a contextName,
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
3. an object type, and
4. its instance identification.
The last two elements are encoded in an object identifier (OID)
value. The contextName is a character string (following the
SnmpAdminString textual convention of the SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB
[RFC3411]) while the contextEngineID is an octet string constructed
according to the rules defined as part of the SnmpEngineID textual
convention of the SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB [RFC3411].
The SNMP protocol operations and the protocol data units (PDUs)
operate on OIDs and thus deal with object types and instances
[RFC3416]. The SNMP architecture [RFC3411] introduces the concept of
a scopedPDU as a data structure containing a contextEngineID, a
contextName, and a PDU. The SNMP version 3 (SNMPv3) message format
uses ScopedPDUs to exchange management information [RFC3412].
Within the SNMP framework, contextEngineIDs serve as end-to-end
identifiers. This becomes important in situations where SNMP proxies
are deployed to translate between protocol versions or to cross
middleboxes such as network address translators. In addition,
snmpEngineIDs separate the identification of an SNMP engine from the
transport addresses used to communicate with an SNMP engine. This
property can be used to correlate management information easily, even
in situations where multiple different transports were used to
retrieve the information or where transport addresses can change
dynamically.
To retrieve data from an SNMPv3 agent, it is necessary to know the
appropriate contextEngineID. The User-based Security Model (USM) of
SNMPv3 provides a mechanism to discover the snmpEngineID of the
remote SNMP engine, since this is needed for security processing
reasons. The discovered snmpEngineID can subsequently be used as a
contextEngineID in a ScopedPDU to access management information local
to the remote SNMP engine. Other security models, such as the
Transport Security Model (TSM) [TSM], lack such a procedure and may
use the discovery mechanism defined in this memo.
3. Procedure
The proposed discovery mechanism consists of two parts, namely (i)
the definition of a special well-known snmpEngineID value, called the
localEngineID, which always refers to a local default context, and
(ii) the definition of a procedure to acquire the snmpEngineID scalar
of the SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB [RFC3411] using the special well-known
local localEngineID value.
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
3.1. Local EngineID
An SNMP command responder implementing this specification MUST
register their pduTypes using the localEngineID snmpEngineID value
(defined below) by invoking the registerContextEngineID() Abstract
Service Interface (ASI) defined in RFC 3412 [RFC3412]. This
registration is done in addition to the normal registration under the
SNMP engine's snmpEngineID. This is consistent with the SNMPv3
specifications since they explicitly allow registration of multiple
engineIDs and multiple pduTypes [RFC3412].
The SnmpEngineID textual convention [RFC3411] defines that an
snmpEngineID value MUST be between 5 and 32 octets long. This
specification proposes to use the variable length format 3) of the
SnmpEngineID textual convention and to allocate the reserved, unused
format value 6, using the enterprise ID 0 for the localEngineID. An
ASN.1 definition for localEngineID would look like this:
localEngineID OCTET STRING ::= '8000000006'H
The localEngineID value always provides access to the default context
of an SNMP engine. Note that the localEngineID value is intended to
be used as a special value for the contextEngineID field in the
ScopedPDU. It MUST NOT be used as a value to identify an SNMP
engine; that is, this value MUST NOT be used in the snmpEngineID.0
scalar [RFC3418] or in the msgAuthoritativeEngineID field in the
securityParameters of the User-based Security Model (USM) [RFC3414].
3.2. EngineID Discovery
Discovery of the snmpEngineID is done by sending a Read Class
protocol operation (see Section 2.8 of [RFC3411]) to retrieve the
snmpEngineID scalar using the localEngineID defined above as a
contextEngineID value. Implementations SHOULD only perform this
discovery step when it is needed. In particular, if security models
are used that already discover the remote snmpEngineID (such as USM),
then no further discovery is necessary. The same is true in
situations where the application already knows a suitable
snmpEngineID value.
The procedure to discover the snmpEngineID of a remote SNMP engine
can be described as follows:
1. Check whether a suitable contextEngineID value is already known.
If yes, use the provided contextEngineID value and stop the
discovery procedure.
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
2. Check whether the selected security model supports discovery of
the remote snmpEngineID (e.g., USM with its discovery mechanism).
If yes, let the security model perform the discovery. If the
remote snmpEngineID value has been successfully determined,
assign it to the contextEngineID and stop the discovery
procedure.
3. Send a Read Class operation to the remote SNMP engine using the
localEngineID value as the contextEngineID in order to retrieve
the scalar snmpEngineID.0 of the SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB [RFC3411].
If successful, set the contextEngineID to the retrieved value and
stop the discovery procedure.
4. Return an error indication that a suitable contextEngineID could
not be discovered.
The procedure outlined above is an example and can be modified to
retrieve more variables in step 3, such as the sysObjectID.0 scalar
or the snmpSetSerialNo.0 scalar of the SNMPv2-MIB [RFC3418].
4. IANA Considerations
RFC 3411 requested that IANA create a registry for SnmpEngineID
formats. However, RFC 3411 did not ask IANA to record the initial
assignments made by RFC 3411 nor did RFC 3411 spell out the precise
allocation rules. To address this issue, the following rules are
hereby established.
IANA maintains a registry for SnmpEngineID formats. The first four
octets of an SnmpEngineID carry an enterprise number, while the fifth
octet in a variable length SnmpEngineID value, called the format
octet, indicates how the following octets are formed. The following
format values were allocated in [RFC3411]:
Format Description References
------- ----------- ----------
0 reserved, unused [RFC3411]
1 IPv4 address [RFC3411]
2 IPv6 address [RFC3411]
3 MAC address [RFC3411]
4 administratively assigned text [RFC3411]
5 administratively assigned octets [RFC3411]
6-127 reserved, unused [RFC3411]
128-255 enterprise specific [RFC3411]
IANA can assign new format values out of the originally assigned and
reserved number space 1-127. For new assignments in this number
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
space, a specification is required as per [RFC5226]. The number
space 128-255 is enterprise specific and is not controlled by IANA.
Per this document, IANA has made the following assignment:
Format Description References
------- ----------- ----------
6 local engine [RFC5343]
5. Security Considerations
SNMP version 3 (SNMPv3) provides cryptographic security to protect
devices from unauthorized access. This specification recommends use
of the security services provided by SNMPv3. In particular, it is
RECOMMENDED to protect the discovery exchange.
An snmpEngineID can contain information such as a device's MAC
address, IPv4 address, IPv6 address, or administratively assigned
text. An attacker located behind a router / firewall / network
address translator may not be able to obtain this information
directly, and he therefore might discover snmpEngineID values in
order to obtain this kind of device information.
In many environments, making snmpEngineID values accessible via a
security level of noAuthNoPriv will benefit legitimate tools that try
to algorithmically determine some basic information about a device.
For this reason, the default View-based Access Control Model (VACM)
configuration in Appendix A of RFC 3415 [RFC3415] gives noAuthNoPriv
read access to the snmpEngineID. Furthermore, the USM discovery
mechanism defined in RFC 3414 [RFC3414] uses unprotected messages and
reveals snmpEngineID values.
In highly secure environments, snmpEngineID values can be protected
by using the discovery mechanism described in this document together
with a security model that does not exchange cleartext SNMP messages,
such as the Transport Security Model (TSM) [TSM].
The isAccessAllowed() abstract service primitive of the SNMP access
control subsystem does not take the contextEngineID into account when
checking access rights [RFC3411]. As a consequence, it is not
possible to define a special view for context engineID discovery. A
request with a localEngineID is thus treated like a request with the
correct snmpEngineID by the access control subsystem. This is inline
with the SNMPv3 design where the authenticated identity is the
securityName (together with the securityModel and securityLevel
information), and transport addresses or knowledge of contextEngineID
values do not impact the access-control decision.
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
6. Acknowledgments
Dave Perkins suggested the introduction of a "local" contextEngineID
during the interim meeting of the ISMS (Integrated Security Model for
SNMP) working group in Boston, 2006. Joe Fernandez, David
Harrington, Dan Romascanu, and Bert Wijnen provided helpful review
and feedback, which helped to improve this document.
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.
[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.
[RFC3412] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen,
"Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3412,
December 2002.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3416, December 2002.
[RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3418, December 2002.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
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.
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
[RFC3415] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based
Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415,
December 2002.
[TSM] Harrington, D., "Transport Security Model for SNMP", Work
in Progress, July 2008.
Author's Address
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Jacobs University Bremen
Campus Ring 1
28725 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49 421 200-3587
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 5343 SNMP Context EngineID Discovery September 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Schoenwaelder Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|