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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Beili
Request for Comments: 7124 Actelis Networks
Updates: 5066 February 2014
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5066. It amends that specification by
informing the Internet community about the transition of the
EFM-CU-MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub
MIB Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7124.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Beili Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7124 EFMCu Interfaces MIB February 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB . . . . . 3
4. Updating the MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
RFC 5066 [RFC5066] defines two MIB modules:
EFM-CU-MIB, with a set of objects for managing 10PASS-TS and
2BASE-TL Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) interfaces;
IF-CAP-STACK-MIB, with a set of objects describing cross-connect
capability of a managed device with multi-layer (stacked)
interfaces, extending the stack management objects in the
Interfaces Group MIB and the Inverted Stack Table MIB modules.
With the conclusion of the [HUBMIB] working group, the responsibility
for the maintenance and further development of a MIB module for
managing 2BASE-TL and 10PASS-TS interfaces has been transferred to
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3
[IEEE802.3] working group. In 2011, the IEEE developed the
IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module, based on the original EFM-CU-MIB module
[RFC5066]. The current revision of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB is defined in
IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013 [IEEE802.3.1].
The IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB and EFM-CU-MIB MIB modules can coexist.
Existing deployments of the EFM-CU-MIB need not be upgraded, but
operators using the MIB should expect that new equipment will use the
IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB.
Please note that the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transferred to
IEEE and remains as defined in RFC 5066. This memo provides an
updated security considerations section for that module, since the
original RFC did not list any security considerations for
IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.
Beili Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7124 EFMCu Interfaces MIB February 2014
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].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
3. Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB
The current version of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB, defined in IEEE Std
802.3.1-2013, has MODULE-IDENTITY of ieee8023efmCuMIB with an object
identifier allocated under the { iso(1)
iso-identified-organization(3) ieee(111)
standards-association-numbered-series-standards(2) lan-man-stds(802)
ieee802dot3(3) ieee802dot3dot1mibs(1) } sub-tree.
The EFM-CU-MIB has MODULE-IDENTITY of efmCuMIB with an object
identifier allocated under the mib-2 sub-tree.
The names of the objects in the first version of the
IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB are identical to those in the EFM-CU-MIB.
However, since both MIB modules have different OID values, they can
coexist, allowing the management of the newer IEEE MIB-based devices
alongside the legacy IETF MIB-based devices.
4. Updating the MIB Modules
With the transfer of the responsibility for maintenance and further
development of the EFM-CU-MIB module to the IEEE 802.3 working group,
the EFM-CU-MIB defined in RFC 5066 becomes the last version of that
MIB module.
All further development of the EFM Copper Interfaces MIB will be done
by the IEEE 802.3 working group in the IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module.
Requests and comments pertaining to EFM Copper Interfaces MIB should
be sent to the IEEE 802.3.1 task force, currently chartered with MIB
development, via its mailing list [LIST802.3.1].
The IF-CAP-STACK-MIB remains under IETF control and is currently
maintained by the [OPSAWG] working group.
Beili Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7124 EFMCu Interfaces MIB February 2014
5. Security Considerations
There are no managed objects defined in the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module
with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. So, if
this MIB module is implemented correctly, then there is no risk that
an intruder can alter or create any management objects of this MIB
module via direct SNMP SET operations.
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.
In particular, ifCapStackStatus and ifInvCapStackStatus can identify
cross-connect capability of multi-layer (stacked) network interfaces,
potentially revealing the underlying hardware architecture of the
managed device.
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.
SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec),
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.
Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by the
SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations claiming
compliance to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full support for
authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
[RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations
MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM)
[RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH
[RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353].
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.
Beili Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7124 EFMCu Interfaces MIB February 2014
6. Acknowledgments
This document was produced by the OPSAWG working group, whose efforts
were advanced by the contributions of the following people (in
alphabetical order):
Dan Romascanu
David Harrington
Michael MacFaden
Tom Petch
This document updates RFC 5066, authored by Edward Beili of Actelis
Networks, and produced by the now-concluded HUBMIB working group.
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.
[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.
[RFC3826] Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. McCloghrie, "The
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the
SNMP User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, June 2004.
[RFC5066] Beili, E., "Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu)
Interfaces MIB", RFC 5066, November 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[HUBMIB] IETF, "Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB (hubmib) Charter",
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hubmib/charter/>.
[IEEE802.3.1]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Management Information Base (MIB)
Definitions for Ethernet", IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013, June
2013, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/
802.3.1-2013.pdf>.
Beili Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7124 EFMCu Interfaces MIB February 2014
[IEEE802.3]
IEEE, "802.3 Ethernet Working Group",
<http://www.ieee802.org/3>.
[LIST802.3.1]
IEEE, "802.3 MIB Email Reflector",
<http://www.ieee802.org/3/be/reflector.html>.
[OPSAWG] IETF, "Operations and Management Area Working Group
(opsawg) Charter",
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/>.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
[RFC5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC
5591, June 2009.
[RFC5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.
[RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
RFC 6353, July 2011.
Author's Address
Edward Beili
Actelis Networks
Bazel 25
Petach-Tikva 49103
Israel
Phone: +972-73-237-6852
EMail: edward.beili@actelis.com
Beili Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
|
