Network Working Group T. Nadeau
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: September 2003 J. Cucchiara
Artel
(Editors)
March 2003
Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Management
<draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-06.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to
the Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) Working Group, mpls@uu.net.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Mulitprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) management information. The intent is that
these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS
Expires September 2003 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
representations.
Expires September 2003 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................. 4
2 The Internet-Standard Management Framework ................... 4
3 MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ..................... 4
4 Normative References ......................................... 18
5 Informative References ....................................... 19
6 Security Considerations ...................................... 19
7 IANA Considerations .......................................... 19
8 Contributors ................................................. 19
9 Intellectual Property Notice ................................. 20
10 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 21
11 Full Copyright Statement .................................... 21
Expires September 2003 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
1. Introduction
This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions
for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These Textual
Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage MPLS
networks.
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].
For an introduction to the concepts of MPLS, see [RFC3031].
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 the 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. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions
MPLS-TC-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, Unsigned32, Integer32, transmission
FROM SNMPv2-SMI
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC;
mplsTCMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200303171200Z" -- 17 March 2003 12:00:00 GMT
ORGANIZATION
"IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working
Expires September 2003 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
Group."
CONTACT-INFO
" Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
tnadeau@cisco.com
Joan Cucchiara
Artel
jcucchiara@artel.com
Cheenu Srinivasan
Parama Networks, Inc.
cheenu@paramanet.com
Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
arun@force10networks.com
Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
hans@ipunplugged.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
kireeti@juniper.net
Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at
mpls@uu.net."
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This
version of this MIB module is part of RFCXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.
This MIB module defines Textual Conventions
for concepts used in Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) networks."
REVISION "200303171200Z" -- 17 March 2003 12:00:00 GMT
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version published as part of RFC XXXX."
::= { mplsMIB 1 }
-- This object identifier needs to be assigned by IANA.
-- Since mpls has been assigned an ifType of 166 we recommend
-- that this OID be 166 as well.
Expires September 2003 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
mplsMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER
::= { transmission XXX }
MplsAtmVcIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A Label Switching Router (LSR) that
creates LDP sessions on ATM interfaces
uses the VCI or VPI/VCI field to hold the
LDP Label.
VCI values MUST NOT be in the 0-31 range.
The values 0 to 31 are reserved for other uses
by the ITU and ATM Forum. The value
of 32 can only be used for the Control VC,
although values greater than 32 could be
configured for the Control VC.
If a value from 0 to 31 is used for a VCI
the management entity controlling the LDP
subsystem should reject this with an
inconsistentValue error. Also, if
the value of 32 is used for a VC which is
NOT the Control VC, this should
result in an inconsistentValue error."
REFERENCE
"MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035."
SYNTAX Integer32 (32..65535)
MplsBitRate ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"If the value of this object is greater than zero,
then this represents the bandwidth of this MPLS
interface (or Label Switched Path) in units of
'1,000 bits per second'.
The value, when greater than zero, represents the
bandwidth of this MPLS interface (rounded to the
nearest 1,000) in units of 1,000 bits per second.
If the bandwidth of the MPLS interface is between
((n * 1000) - 500) and ((n * 1000) + 499), the value
of this object is n, such that n > 0.
Expires September 2003 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
If the value of this object is 0 (zero), this
means that the traffic over this MPLS interface is
considered to be best effort."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0|1..4294967295)
MplsBurstSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The number of octets of MPLS data that the stream
may send back-to-back without concern for policing.
The value of zero indicates that an implementation
does not support Burst Size."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This may
represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
LSR for the tunnel. This value is derived from the
Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID
for CR-LDP."
REFERENCE
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, RFC 3209.
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, RFC 3212."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"This value represents an MPLS label as defined in
(RFC3031), (RFC3032), (RFC3034), (RFC3035) and
(CCAMP-ARCH).
The label contents are specific to the label being
represented, such as:
* The label carried in an MPLS shim header
(for LDP this is the Generic Label) is a 20-bit
number represented by 4 octets. Bits 0-19 contain
a label or a reserved label value. Bits 20-31
MUST be zero.
Expires September 2003 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
The following is quoted directly from [RFC3032].
There are several reserved label values:
i. A value of 0 represents the
'IPv4 Explicit NULL Label'. This label
value is only legal at the bottom of the
label stack. It indicates that the label
stack must be popped, and the forwarding
of the packet must then be based on the
IPv4 header.
ii. A value of 1 represents the
'Router Alert Label'. This label value is
legal anywhere in the label stack except at
the bottom. When a received packet
contains this label value at the top of
the label stack, it is delivered to a
local software module for processing.
The actual forwarding of the packet
is determined by the label beneath it
in the stack. However, if the packet is
forwarded further, the Router Alert Label
should be pushed back onto the label stack
before forwarding. The use of this label
is analogous to the use of the
'Router Alert Option' in IP packets [5]
[Reference to RFC2113]. Since this label
cannot occur at the bottom of the stack,
it is not associated with a
particular network layer protocol.
iii. A value of 2 represents the
'IPv6 Explicit NULL Label'. This label
value is only legal at the bottom of the
label stack. It indicates that the label
stack must be popped, and the forwarding
of the packet must then be based on the
IPv6 header.
iv. A value of 3 represents the
'Implicit NULL Label'.
This is a label that an LSR may assign and
distribute, but which never actually
appears in the encapsulation. When an
LSR would otherwise replace the label
at the top of the stack with a new label,
Expires September 2003 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
but the new label is 'Implicit NULL',
the LSR will pop the stack instead of
doing the replacement. Although
this value may never appear in the
encapsulation, it needs to be specified in
the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value
is reserved.
v. Values 4-15 are reserved.
* The frame relay label can be either 10-bits or
23-bits depending on the DLCI field size and the
upper 22-bits or upper 9-bits must be zero,
respectively.
* For an ATM label the lower 16-bits represents the
VCI, the next 12-bits represents the VPI and the
remaining bits MUST be zero.
* The Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) label contains a
value greater than 2^24-1 and used in GMPLS
as defined in [CCAMP-ARCH]."
REFERENCE
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
RFC 3031.
MPLS Label Stack Encoding, RFC 3032.
Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks,
RFC 3034.
MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC 3035.
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The label distribution method which is also called
the label advertisement mode (see LDP Specification).
Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate
in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream
Expires September 2003 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
on Demand."
REFERENCE
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
RFC 3031.
LDP Specification, RFC 3036, Section 2.6.3."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
downstreamOnDemand(1),
downstreamUnsolicited(2)
}
MplsLdpIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d:2d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The LDP identifier is a six octet
quantity which is used to identify a
Label Switching Router (LSR) label space.
The first four octets identify the LSR and must be
a globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router ID
assigned to the LSR, and the last two octets
identify a specific label space within the LSR."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))
MplsLsrIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The Label Switching Router (LSR) identifier is the
first 4 bytes of the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) identifier."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
MplsLdpLabelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The Layer 2 label types which are defined for MPLS
LDP and/or CR-LDP are generic(1), atm(2), or
frameRelay(3)."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
generic(1),
atm(2),
frameRelay(3)
}
MplsLSPID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
Expires September 2003 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique identifier within an MPLS network that is
assigned to each LSP. This is assigned at the head
end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs
to identify this LSP. This value is piggybacked by
the signaling protocol when this LSP is signaled
within the network. This identifier can then be
used at each LSR to identify which labels are being
swapped to other labels for this LSP. This object
can also be used to disambiguate LSPs that
share the same RSVP sessions between the same
source and destination.
For LSPs established using CR-LDP, the LSPID is
composed of the ingress LSR Router ID (or any of
its own IPv4 addresses) and a locally unique
CR-LSP ID to that LSR. The first two bytes carry
the CR-LSPID, and the remaining 4 bytes carry
the Router ID. The LSPID is useful in network
management, in CR-LSP repair, and in using
an already established CR-LSP as a hop in an ER-TLV.
For LSPs signaled using RSVP-TE, the LSP ID is
defined as a 16-bit (2 byte) identifier used
in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the FILTER_SPEC
that can be changed to allow a sender to
share resources with itself. The length of this
object should only be 2 or 6 bytes. If the length
of this octet string is 2 bytes, then it must
identify an RSVP-TE LSPID, or it is 6 bytes,
it must contain a CR-LDP LSPID."
REFERENCE
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
RFC 3209.
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, RFC 3212."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6))
MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Types types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs)
on an Label Switching Router (LSR) ir a
Label Edge Router (LER) are:
Expires September 2003 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
unknown(1) -- if the LSP is not known
to be one of the following.
terminatingLsp(2) -- if the LSP terminates
on the LSR/LER, then this
is an egressing LSP
which ends on the LSR/LER,
originatingLsp(3) -- if the LSP originates
from this LSR/LER, then this
is an ingressing LSP which is
the head-end of the LSP,
crossConnectingLsp(4) -- if the LSP ingresses
and egresses on the LSR,
then it is cross-connecting
on that LSR."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(1),
terminatingLsp(2),
originatingLsp(3),
crossConnectingLsp(4)
}
MplsOwner ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"This object indicates the local network management
subsystem that originally created the object(s) in
question. The values of this enumeration are
defined as follows:
unknown(1) - the local network management
subsystem cannot discern which
component created the object.
other(2) - the local network management
subsystem is able to discern which component
created the object, but the component is not
listed within the following choices,
e.g. command line interface (cli).
snmp(3) - The Simple Network Management Protocol was
used to configure this object initially.
Expires September 2003 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
ldp(4) - The Label Distribution Protocol was used to
configure this object initially.
crldp(5) - The Constraint-Based Label Distribution
Protocol was used to configure this object
initially.
rsvpTe(6) - The Resource Reservation Protocol was used
to configure this object initially.
policyAgent(7) - A policy agent (perhaps in
combination with one of the above protocols) was
used to configure this object initially.
An object created by any of the above choices
MAY be modified or destroyed by the same or a
different choice."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(1),
other(2),
snmp(3),
ldp(4),
crldp(5),
rsvpTe(6),
policyAgent(7)
}
MplsPathIndexOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique identifier used to identify a specific path
used by a tunnel. A value of 0 (zero) means that
no path is in use."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
MplsPathIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique value to index (by Path number) an entry
in a table."
SYNTAX Unsigned32(1..4294967295)
MplsRetentionMode ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
Expires September 2003 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
"The label retention mode which specifies whether
an LSR maintains a label binding for a FEC learned
from a neighbor that is not its next hop for the
FEC.
If the value is conservative(1) then advertised
label mappings are retained only if they will be
used to forward packets, i.e. if label came from
a valid next hop.
If the value is liberal(2) then all advertised label
mappings are retained whether they are from a
valid next hop or not."
REFERENCE
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
RFC 3031.
LDP Specification, RFC 3036, Section 2.6.2."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
conservative(1),
liberal(2)
}
MplsTunnelAffinity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Describes the configured 32-bit Include-any,
include-all, or exclude-all constraint for
constraint-based link selection."
REFERENCE
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
RFC 3209, Section 4.7.4."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique index into mplsTunnelTable.
For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value
should correspond to the RSVP destination
port used for the RSVP-TE session."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)
MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
Expires September 2003 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
DESCRIPTION
"Instance index into mplsTunnelTable. The
tunnel entry with instance index 0 should
refer to the configured tunnel interface
(if one exists), and values greater an 0 but
less than or equal to 65535
should be used to indicate signaled (or backup)
tunnel LSP instances. For tunnel LSPs signaled using
RSVP, this value should correspond to the
RSVP source port used for the RSVP-TE session.
Values greater than 65535 apply to FRR detour
instances."
SYNTAX Unsigned32
TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value that represents a type of address a Traffic
Engineered (TE) Tunnel hop.
unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value
MUST be used if the value of the
corresponding TeHopAddress object is a
zero-length string. It may also be used
to indicate a TeHopAddress which is not
in one of the formats defined below.
ipv4(1) An IPv4 network address as defined by
the InetAddressIPv4 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
(RFC 3291).
ipv6(2) A global IPv6 address as defined by the
InetAddressIPv6 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION (RFC 3291).
asnumber(3) An Autonomous System (AS) number as defined
by the TeHopAddressAS TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
unnum(4) An unnumbered interface index as defined by
the TeHopAddressUnnum TEXTUAL-CONVETION.
lspid(5) An LSP ID for CR-LDP Tunnels (RFC 3212) as
defined by the MplsLSPID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
Each definition of a concrete TeHopAddress value must
Expires September 2003 [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
be accompanied by a definition of a textual convention
for use with that TeHopAddressType.
To support future extensions, the TeHopAddressType
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in object
type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in compliance
statements in order to require only a subset of these
address types for a compliant implementation.
Implementations must ensure that TeHopAddressType objects
and any dependent objects (e.g. TeHopAddress objects) are
consistent. An inconsistentValue error must be generated
if an attempt to change a TeHopAddressType object would,
for example, lead to an undefined TeHopAddress value.
In particular, TeHopAddressType/TeHopAddress pairs
must be changed together if the address type changes
(e.g. from ipv6(3) to ipv4(2))."
REFERENCE
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network
Addresses, RFC3291.
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP,
RFC3212."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2),
asnumber(3),
unnum(4),
lspid(5)
}
TeHopAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a generic Tunnel hop address.
A TeHopAddress value is always interpreted within the
context of an TeHopAddressType value. Every usage of the
TeHopInetAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION is required to specify
the TeHopAddressType object which provides the context.
It is suggested that the TeHopAddressType object is
logically registered before the object(s) which use the
TeHopAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION if they appear in the
Expires September 2003 [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
same logical row.
The value of a TeHopAddress object must always be
consistent with the value of the associated
TeHopAddressType object. Attempts to set a TeHopAddress
object to a value which is inconsistent with the
associated TeHopAddressType must fail with an
inconsistentValue error.
When this TEXTUAL-CONVENTION is used as the syntax of an
index object, there may be issues which the limit of 128
sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
TeHopAddressAS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a two or four octet AS number.
The AS number is represented in network byte
order (MSB first). A two-octet AS number has
the two MSB octets set to zero."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
TeHopAddressUnnum ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an unnumbered interface:
octets contents encoding
1-4 unnumbered interface network-byte order
The corresponding TeHopAddressType value is unnum(5)."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(4))
END
Expires September 2003 [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
4. Normative References
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management
Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April
1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for
SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D.,
Federokow, G., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching
on Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January
2001.
[RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow,
G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC
Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B.
Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., (editor), et. al. "Constraint-Based LSP Setup
using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.
[RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
Expires September 2003 [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002.
5. 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.
6. Security Considerations
This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS
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.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to make a MIB OID assignment under the transmission
branch, that is, assign the mplsMIB under { transmission 166 }. This
sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and is
available under transmission.
In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be
rooted under the mplsMIB subtree. The IANA is requested to manage
that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a Standards
Action as specified in [RFC2434].
This document also requests IANA to assign { mplsMIB 1 } to the MPLS-
TC-MIB specified in this document.
8. Contributors
This document was created by combining TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS from
current MPLS MIBs and a TE-WG MIB. Co-authors on each of these MIBs
contributed to the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS contained in this MIB and also
contributed greatly to the revisions of this document. These co-
authors addresses are included here because they are useful future
Expires September 2003 [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
contacts for information about this document. These co-authors are:
Cheenu Srinivasan
Parama Networks, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
Phone: +1-732-544-9120 x731
Email: cheenu@paramanet.com
Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone: +1-408-571-3516
Email: arun@force10networks.com
Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
P.O. Box 101 60
S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46-8-725-5930
Email: hans@ipunplugged.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
9. Intellectual Property Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
Expires September 2003 [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11 [RFC2028].
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
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 practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
10. Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Phone: +1-978-936-1470
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Joan Cucchiara
Artel
237 Cedar Hill Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
Phone: +1-508-303-8200 x302
Email: jcucchiara@artel.com
11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
Expires September 2003 [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Expires September 2003 [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT MPLS TC MIB March 2003
