Network Working Group Y. Gu
Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Li
Expires: January 3, 2019 Huawei
July 02, 2018
Network Monitoring Protocol (NMP)
draft-gu-network-mornitoring-protol-00
Abstract
To enable automated network OAM (Operations, administration and
management), the availability of network protocol running status
information is a fundamental step. In this document, a network
monitoring protocol (NMP) is proposed to provision the information
related to running status of IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) and
other control protocols. It can facilitate the network
troubleshooting of control protocols in a network domain. Typical
network issues are illustrated as the usecases of NMP for ISIS to
showcase the necessity of NMP. Then the operations and the message
formats of NMP for ISIS are defined. In this document ISIS is used
as the illustration protocol, and the case of OSPF and other control
protocols will be included in the future version.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. ISIS Adjacency Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Forwarding Path Disconnection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. ISIS LSP Synchronization Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Extensions of NMP for ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Common Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Per Peer Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. Initiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Peer Status Change Notification . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.5. Statistic Report Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.6. ISIS PDU Monitoring Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.7. Termination Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
The requirement for better network OAM approaches has been greatly
driven by the network evolvement. Network OAM provides visibility to
the network health conditions, and is beneficial for faster network
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
troubleshooting and self-healing, network OpEx (operating
expenditure) reduction, and network optimization. Network OAM
statistics show that a relatively large part of the network issues
are caused by the disfunction of various routing protocols and MPLS
signalings.
The general troubleshooting logic nowadays is to log in a faulty
router, physically or through Telnet, and by using CLI to display
related information/logs for fault source localization and further
analysis. There are several concerns with the conventional
troubleshooting:
1. It requires rich OAM experience for the OAM operator to know what
information to check on the device, and the operation is complex;
2. In a multi-vendor network, it requires the understanding and
familiarity of vendor specific operations and configurations;
3. Locating the fault source device could be non-trivial work, and
is often realized through network-wide device-by-device check, which
is both time-consuming and labor-consuming; and finally,
4. The acquisition of troubleshooting data can be difficult under
some cases, e.g., when auto recovery is used.
Alternatively, the idea of collecting information from devices and
exporting to the centralized controller/server for further analysis
is also used to gain more insight on the management plane information
for OAM purposes. For example, SNMP (Simple Network Management
Protocol) [RFC1157], NETCONF (Network Configuration Protocol)
[RFC6241], gNMI/gRPC [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec], etc. are used
for the purpose. However, the approaches are mainly used for data
SET/GET of the management plane which are insufficient for the
troubleshooting of control plane issues.
BGP monitoring protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] has been proposed to monitor
BGP routes and peer status which provides the control plane
information and thus more insight for troubleshooting. This document
extends BMP to collect information of other control protocols for
monitoring to facilitate the trouble shooting of control plane issues
which call as Network Monitoring Protocols (NMP).
1.2. Overview
Like BMP, an NMP session is established between each monitored router
(NMP client) and the NMP monitoring station (NMP server) through TCP
connection. Information are collected directly from each monitored
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
router and reported to the NMP server. The NMP message can be both
periodic and event-triggered, depending on the message type.
ISIS [RFC1195], as one of the most commonly adopted network layer
protocols, builds the fundamental network connectivity of an
autonomous system (AS). The disfunction of ISIS, e.g., ISIS neighbor
down, route flapping, MTU mismatch, and so on, could lead to network-
wide instability and service interruption. Thus, it is critical to
keep track of the health condition of ISIS, and the availability of
information, related to ISIS running status, is the fundamental
requirement. In this document, typical network issues are
illustrated as the use cases of NMP for ISIS to showcase the
necessity of NMP. Then the operations and the message formats of NMP
for ISIS are defined. In this document ISIS is used as the
illustration protocol, and the case of OSPF and other control
protocols will be included in the future version.
2. Terminology
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
NMP: Network Monitoring Protocol
IMP: Network Monitoring Protocol for IGP
3. Use Cases
We have identified several typical network issues due to ISIS
disfunction that are currently difficult to detect or localize. The
usage of NMP is not limited to the solve the following listed issues.
3.1. ISIS Adjacency Issues
ISIS adjacency issues are identified as top network issues and may
take hours to localize. The adjacency issues can be classified into
two situations:
1. An existing established adjacency goes down;
2. An adjacency fails to be established.
In Case 1, the adjacency down can be caused by factors such as
circuit down, hold timer expiration, device memory low, user
configuration change, and so on. Case 2 can be caused by mismatch
link MTU, mismatch authentication, mismatch area ID, system ID
conflict, and so on. Typically, such adjacency failure events are
logged/recorded in the device, but currently there is no real-time
report/alarm of such issue. The conventional troubleshooting process
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
for adjacency issue is to find the faulty devices and then log in to
check the logs or the Hello statistics for further analysis.
Using NMP, the ISIS adjacency status: up, down and initial, is
reported to the NMP server in real time, together with the possible
recorded reasons. Then the NMP server can solve such issue in about
minutes. For example, for an adjacency set up failure due to
different authentications, the NMP server can recognize the
difference by comparing the Hello PDUs collected from both devices.
3.2. Forwarding Path Disconnection
Mismatched MTU values for devices along a certain path can lead to
packet forwarding failure while the control plane is working
properly. The failure may not be detected by Ping, but the
forwarding plane appears disconnected for certain size of data
packets. It can be quite common since vendors have different
understanding and configuration of MTU. There are methods proposed
to discover the path MTU. For example, router's link MTU is conveyed
in the MPLS LDP/RSVP-TE path set up signaling, and the path MTU is
decided at the ingress or egress node[RFC3988] [RFC3209]. For IPv4
packets, by setting the DF flag bit of the outgoing packet, any
device along the path with smaller MTU will drop the packet, and send
back an ICMP Fragmentation Needed message containing its MTU,
allowing the source to reduce the MTU. The process is repeated until
the MTU is small enough to traverse the entire path without
fragmentation[RFC1191]. Apparently, such method is too time-
consuming.
Using NMP, each device can report its link MTU to the monitoring
station directly. The mismatch can be recognized at the NMP server
in seconds.
3.3. ISIS LSP Synchronization Failure
It happens that two ISIS neighbors fail to learn the LSPs sent from
each other in the following two cases: in Case 1, the LSP fails to be
received, and in Case 2, the LSP is received but the LSP information
shown in the receiver's LSDB is not the same as the one sent from the
transmitter (e.g., one or more prefixes missing, the LSP sequence
number modified). Case 1 can be caused by link failure, similar to
the adjacency down issue. In Case 2, the received LSP can be
processed incorrectly due to hardware/software bugs. In fact, the
LSDB synchronization issue is usually hard to localize once happens.
Using NMP, the NMP server can detect the failure by comparing the
sent/received LSP statistics from the two neighbors. In the case
that the received LSPs are improperly processed within the device,
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
the NMP monitoring station can recognize the LSP synchronization
failure by comparing the LSPs sent out from the two neighbors.
4. Extensions of NMP for ISIS
4.1. Message Types
The variety of ISIS troubleshooting use cases requires a systematic
information report of NMP, so that the NMP server or any third party
analyzer could efficiently utilize the reported messages to localize
and recover various network issues. We define NMP messages for ISIS
uses the following types:
o Initiation Message: A message used for the monitored device to
inform the NMP monitoring station of its capabilities, vendor,
software version and so on. For example, the link MTU can be
included within the message. The initiation message is sent once
the TCP connection between the monitoring station and monitored
router is set up. During the monitoring session, any change of
the initiation message could trigger an Initiation Message update.
o Peer Status Change Notification Message: A message used to inform
the monitoring station of the adjacency status change of the
monitored device, i.e., from up to down, from down/initiation to
up, with possible alarms/logs recorded in the device. This
message notifies the NMP server of the ongoing ISIS adjacency
change event and possible reasons. If no reason is provided or
the provided reason is not specific enough, the NMP server can
further analyze the ISIS PDU or the ISIS statistics.
o Statistic Report Message: A message used to report the statistics
of the ongoing ISIS process at the monitored device. For example,
abnormal LSP count of the monitored device can be a sign of route
flapping. This message can be sent periodically or event
triggered. If sent periodically, the frequency can be configured
by the operator depending on the monitoring requirement. If it's
event triggered, it could be triggered by a counter/timer
exceeding the threshold.
o ISIS PDU Monitoring Message: A message used to update the NMP
server of any PDU sent from and received at the monitored device.
For example, the Hello PDUs collected from two neighbors can be
used for analyzing the adjacency set up failure issue. The LSPs
collected from two neighbors can be analyzed for the LSP
synchronization issue.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
o Termination Message: A message for the monitored router to inform
the monitoring station of why it is closing the NMP session. This
message is sent when the monitoring session is to be closed.
4.2. Message Format
4.2.1. Common Header
The common header is encapsulated in all NMP messages. It includes
the Version, Message Length and Message Type fields.
o Version (1 byte): Indicates the NMP version and is set to '1' for
all messages.
o Message Length (4 bytes): Length of the message in bytes
(including headers, data, and encapsulated messages, if any).
o Message Type (1 byte): This indicates the type of the NMP message,
which are listed as follows.
* Type = 0: Initiation
* Type = 1: Peer Status Change Notification
* Type = 2: Statistic Report
* Type = 3: ISIS PDU Monitoring
* Type = 4: Termination Message
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+
| Version |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Msg. Type |
+---------------+
4.2.2. Per Peer Header
Except the Initiation and Termination Message, all the rest messages
are per adjacency based. Thus, a per peer header is defined as
follows.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Reserved |CT| Neighbor System ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Neighbor System ID |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Neighbor Area ID | |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Timestamp (seconds) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Timestamp (microseconds) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Peer Flag (2 bytes): The Circuit Type (2 bits) flag specifies if
the router is an L1(01), L2(10), or L1/L2(11). If both bits are
zeroes (00), the Per Peer Header is ignored. This configuration
is used when the statistic is not per-peer based, e.g., when
reporting the number of adjacencies.
o Neighbor System ID (6 bytes): identifies the system ID of the
remote router.
o Neighbor Area ID (2 bytes): identifies the area ID of the remote
router.
o Timestamp (4 bytes): records the time when the message is sent/
received, expressed in seconds and microseconds since midnight
(zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC).
4.2.3. Initiation Message
The Initiation Message indicates the monitored router's capabilities,
vendor, software version and so on. It consists of the Common Header
and the Router Capability TLV. The Common Header can be followed by
multiple Router Capability TLVs.
The Router Capability TLV is defined as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Router Cap.Type | Router Cap. Length |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
+ Router Cap. Value (variable) +
~ ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
o Router Capability Type: provides the type of the router capability
information. Currently defined types are:
* Type = 0: sysDescr. The corresponding Router Capability Value
field should contain an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to
be equal to the value of the sysDescr MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
* Type = 1: sysName. The corresponding Router Capability Value
field should contain an ASCII string whose value MUST be set to
be equal to the value of the sysName MIB-II [RFC1213] object.
* Type = 2: Local System ID. The corresponding Router Capability
Value field should indicate the router's System ID
* Type = 3: Link MTU. The corresponding Router Capability Value
field should indicate the router's link MTU.
* Type = 4: String. The corresponding Router Capability Value
field contains a free-form UTF-8 string whose length is given
by the Information Length field.
4.2.4. Peer Status Change Notification
The Peer Status Change Notification Message indicates an ISIS
adjacency status change: from up to down or from initiation/down to
up. It consists of the Common Header, Per Peer Header and the Reason
TLV. The Notification is triggered whenever the status changes. The
Reason TLV is optional, and is defined as follows. More Reason types
can be defined if necessary.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Reserved |S| Reason Type | Reason Length |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
+ Reason Value (variable) +
~ ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Reason Flags (1 byte): The S flag (1 bit) indicates if the Peer
status is from up to down (set to 0) or from down/initial to up
(set to 1). The rest bits of the Flag field are reserved. When
the S flag is set to 1, the Reason Type should be set to all
zeroes (i.e., Type 0), the Reason Length fields should be set to
all zeroes, and the Reason Value field should be set empty.
o Reason Type (1 byte): indicates the possible reason that caused
the peer status change. Currently defined types are:
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
* Type = 0: Adjacency Up. This type indicates the establishment
of an adjacency. For this reason type, the S flag MUST be set
to 1, indicating it's a peer-up event. There's no further
reason to be provided. The reason Length field should be set
to all zeroes, and the Reason Value field should be set empty.
* Type = 1: Circuit Down. For this data type, the S flag MUST be
set to 0, indicating it's a peer-down event. The length field
is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set empty.
* Type = 2: Memory Low. For this data type, the S flag MUST be
set to 0, indicating it's a peer-down event. The length field
is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set empty.
* Type = 3: Hold timer expired. For this data type, the S flag
MUST be set to 0, indicating it's a peer-down event. The
length field is set to all zeroes, and the value field is set
empty.
* Type = 4: String. For this data type, the S flag MUST be set
to 0, indicating it's a peer-down event. The corresponding
Reason Value field indicates the reason specified by the
monitored router in a free-form UTF-8 string whose length is
given by the Reason Length field.
o Reason Length (2 bytes): indicates the length of the Reason Value
field.
o Reason Value (variable): includes the possible reason why the
Adjacency is down.
4.2.5. Statistic Report Message
The Statistic Report Message reports the statistics of the parameters
that are of interest to the operator. The message consists of the
NMP Common Header, the Per Adjacency Header and the Statistic TLV.
The message include both per-peer based statistics and non per-peer
based statistics. For example, the received/sent LSP counts are per-
peer based statistics, and the local LSP change times count and the
number of established adjacencies are non per-peer based statistics.
For the non per-peer based statistics, the CT Flag (2 bits) in the
Per Peer Header MUST be set to 00. Upon receiving any message with
CT flag set to 00, the Per Peer Header should be ignored (the total
length of the Per Peer Header is 18 bytes as defined in
Section 3.2.2, and the message reading/analysis should resume from
the Statistic TLV part.
The Statistic TLV is defined as follows.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Reserved |T| Statistic Type| Statistic Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Statistic Value |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Statistic Flags (1 byte): provides information for the reported
statistics.
* T flag (1 bit): indicates if the statistic is for the received-
from direction (set to 1) or sent-to direction the neighbor
(set to 0)
o Statistic Type (1 byte): specifies the statistic type of the
counter. Currently defined types are:
* Type = 0: Hello PDU count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent
or received Hello PDU. It is a per-peer based statistic type,
and the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 1: Incorrect Hello PDU received count. For this type,
the T flag MUST be set to 1. It is a per-peer based statistic
type, and the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to
00.
* Type = 2: LSP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received LSP. It is a per-peer based statistic type, and the
CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 3: Incorrect LSP received count. For this type, the T
flag MUST be set to 1. It is a per-peer based statistic type,
and the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 4: Retransmitted LSP count. For this type, the T flag
MUST be set to 0. It is a per-peer based statistic type, and
the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 5: CSNP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received CSNP. It is a per-peer based statistic type, and the
CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
* Type = 6: PSNP count. The T flag indicates if it's a sent or
received PSNP. It is a per-peer based statistic type, and the
CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST NOT be set to 00.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
* Type = 7: Number of established adjacencies. It's a non per-
peer based statistic type, and thus for the monitoring station
to recognize this type, the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST
be set to 00.
* Type = 8: LSP change time count. It's a non per-peer based
statistic type, and thus for the monitoring station to
recognize this type, the CT flag in the Per Peer Header MUST be
set to 00.
o Statistic Length (2 bytes): indicates the length of the Statistic
Value field.
o Statistic Value (4 bytes): specifies the counter value, which is a
non-negative integer.
4.2.6. ISIS PDU Monitoring Message
The ISIS PDU Monitoring Message is used to update the monitoring
station of any PDU sent from and received at the monitored device per
neighbor. Following the Common Header and the Per Peer Header is the
ISIS PDU. To tell whether it's a sent or received PDU, the
monitoring station can analyze the source and destination addresses
in the reported PDUs.
4.2.7. Termination Message
The Termination Message is sent when the NMP session is to be closed,
and is used to indicate the termination reason to the monitoring
station. The TCP session between the monitored router and the
monitoring station should be terminated upon receiving this message.
It consists of the Common Header and the Termination Info TLVs,
defined as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Termination Info Type | Termination Info Length |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
+ Termination Info Value (variable) +
~ ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Termination Info Type (2 bytes): Provides the termination reason
type. Currently defined types are:
* Type = 0: Unknown. This reason type specifies that the NMP
session is closed for an unknown or unspecified reason. For
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
this data type, the length field is filled with all zeroes, and
the value field is set empty.
* Type = 1: Memory Low. This reason indicates that the monitored
router lacks resources for the NMP session. For this data
type, the length field is filled with all zeroes, and the value
field is set empty.
* Type = 2: Administratively Closed. This reason specifies that
the session is closed due to administrative reasons. The
corresponding Termination Info Value field may include more
details about the reason expressed in a free-form UTF-8 string
whose length is given by the Termination Info Length field.
* Type = 3: String. The corresponding Termination Info Value
field may include details about the reason expressed in a free-
form UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Termination Info
Length field.
Termination Info Length (2 bytes): indicates the length of the
Termination Info Reason Value field.
o Termination Info Value (variable): includes more detailed reason
for the session termination.
5. IANA
TBD
6. Contributors
TBD
7. Acknowledgments
TBD
8. References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "YANG Datastore
Subscription", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-17 (work in
progress), July 2018.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", draft-openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1157, May 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1157>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1213>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3988] Black, B. and K. Kompella, "Maximum Transmission Unit
Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution
Protocol", RFC 3988, DOI 10.17487/RFC3988, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3988>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network Monitoring Protocol July 2018
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
Authors' Addresses
Yunan Gu
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: guyunan@huawei.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Gu, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]