GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5542

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:
  1. 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

  1. 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.
  1. 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."
  1. - 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.
  1. up(1): Ready to pass packets.
  2. 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

  1. 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]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5542.txt · Last modified: 2009/05/18 23:36 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki