[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04                                                
Internet Engineering Task Force                                V. Manral
Internet-Draft                                     Hewlett-Packard Corp.
Obsoletes: 3811 (if approved)                                    T. Tsou
Intended status: Standards Track               Huawei Technologies (USA)
Expires: February 3, 2013                                 August 3, 2012


    Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label
                      Switching (MPLS) Management
                    draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis-01

Abstract

   This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
   contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) management information.  The intent is that
   these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS
   related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
   representations.  This document obsoletes RFC3811 as it addresses the
   need to support IPv6 extended TunnelID's by defining a new TC-
   MplsNewExtendedTunnelID which suggests using IPv4 address of the
   ingress or egress LSR for the tunnel for an IPv6 network.

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 http://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 February 3, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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.

   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.

































Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Effect of the new TC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23





































Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions
   for Multiprotocol 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 [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
   [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
   ([RFC2578], [RFC2579], and [RFC2580]).


3.  MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions


   MPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

   IMPORTS

   MODULE-IDENTITY,
   Unsigned32, Integer32,
   transmission           FROM SNMPv2-SMI            -- [RFC2578]

   TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   FROM SNMPv2-TC;                                -- [RFC2579]

   mplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
   LAST-UPDATED "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004
   ORGANIZATION
   "IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working
   Group."



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   CONTACT-INFO
   "

   Vishwas Manral
   Hewlett-Packard Corp.
   Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at
   mpls@uu.net."
   DESCRIPTION
   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2008). The
   initial version of this MIB module was published
   in Internet Draft. For full legal notices see the RFC
   itself or see:
   http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html

   This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs
   for concepts used in Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) networks.

   Changes from RFC3811 - MplsExtendedTunnelId"

   REVISION "200809080000Z" -- 8 September, 2008
   DESCRIPTION
   "Initial version published as part of Internet Draft. To be
   published as RFC XXXX"
   -- RFC Ed.: RFC-editor pleases fill in XXXX
   ::= { mplsStdMIB 1 }

   mplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER

   ::= { transmission 166 }

   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



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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)


                                 Figure 1



   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.

   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        obsolete



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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,
   [RFC3209].

   Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

   MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS        current
   DESCRIPTION
   "This value represents an MPLS label as defined in
   [RFC3031],  [RFC3032], [RFC3034], [RFC3035] and
   [RFC3471].

   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.

   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



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


        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
        [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,
        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



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


     as defined in [RFC3471]."
     REFERENCE
     "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
     [RFC3031].


                                 Figure 2



   MPLS Label Stack Encoding, [RFC3032].

   Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks,
   [RFC3034].

   MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, [RFC3035].
   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Architecture, [RFC3471]."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

   MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS  current
   DESCRIPTION
   "The label distribution method which is also called
   the label advertisement mode [RFC3036].
   Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate
   in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream
   on Demand."
   REFERENCE
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
   [RFC3031].

   LDP Specification, RFC3036, 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



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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
   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.



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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,
   [RFC3209].

   Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP,
   [RFC3212]."
   SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6))


                                 Figure 3



   MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS  current
   DESCRIPTION
   "Types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs)
   on a Label Switching Router (LSR) or a
   Label Edge Router (LER) are:

   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),



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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.

   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),



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   crldp(5),
   rsvpTe(6),
   policyAgent(7)
   }


                                 Figure 4



   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(0..4294967295)

   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
   "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,
   [RFC3031].

   LDP Specification, [RFC3036], Section 2.6.2."
   SYNTAX INTEGER {
   conservative(1),



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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,
   [RFC3209], Section 4.7.4."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

   MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS        current
   DESCRIPTION
   "A unique index into mplsTunnelTable.
   For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value
   should correspond to the RSVP Tunnel ID
   used for the RSVP-TE session."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..65535)

   MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS        current
   DESCRIPTION
   "The tunnel entry with instance index 0
   should refer to the configured tunnel
   interface (if one exists).

   Values greater than 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 LSP ID used for the RSVP-TE
   LSP.

   Values greater than 65535 apply to FRR
   detour instances."
   SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0|1..65535|65536..4294967295)

   TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS     current
   DESCRIPTION
   "A value that represents a type of address for a
   Traffic Engineered (TE) Tunnel hop.




Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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
   [RFC3291].

   ipv6(2)      A global IPv6 address as defined by
   the InetAddressIPv6 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   [RFC3291].

   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-CONVENTION.

   lspid(5)     An LSP ID for TE Tunnels
   (RFC3212) as defined by the
   MplsLSPID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.

   Each definition of a concrete TeHopAddressType
   value must be accompanied by a definition
   of a TEXTUAL-CONVENTION for use with that
   TeHopAddress.

   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 that is
   not defined herein.  In particular,



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   TeHopAddressType/TeHopAddress pairs
   must be changed together if the address
   type changes (e.g., from ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
   REFERENCE
   "TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for Internet Network
   Addresses, [RFC3291].


                                 Figure 5



   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,
   that is, the address of a node which
   an LSP traverses, including the source
   and destination nodes.  An address may be
   very concrete, for example, an IPv4 host
   address (i.e., with prefix length 32);
   if this IPv4 address is an interface
   address, then that particular interface
   must be traversed.  An address may also
   specify an 'abstract node', for example,
   an IPv4 address with prefix length
   less than 32, in which case, the LSP
   can traverse any node whose address
   falls in that range.  An address may
   also specify an Autonomous System (AS),
   in which  case the LSP can traverse any
   node that falls within that AS.

   A TeHopAddress value is always interpreted within
   the context of an TeHopAddressType value.  Every
   usage of the TeHopAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   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
   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."
   SYNTAX     OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..32))

   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."
   REFERENCE
   "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
   Addresses, [RFC3291].  The
   InetAutonomousSystemsNumber TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   has a SYNTAX of Unsigned32, whereas this TC
   has a SYNTAX of OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)).
   Both TCs represent an autonomous system number
   but use different syntaxes to do so."
   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))

   MplsNewExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
   STATUS        current
   DESCRIPTION
   "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel.  This may



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


   represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
   LSR for the tunnel for an IPv4 network.  For IPv6
   this represents an IPv4 address of the ingress or
   egress LSR for the tunnel for an IPv6 network.
   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,
   [RFC3209].

   Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
   SYNTAX  OCTET STRING(SIZE(16))
   END


                                 Figure 6


4.  Effect of the new TC

   The new TC definition for the MPLS Tunnel will have an effect on the
   MPLS-TE-MIB and MPLS-TC-STD-MIB.  Also the following RFC's which use
   the MIB may have to be updated to accomodate the changed definition:
   [RFC3209], [RFC3812], [RFC3813], [RFC3212], [RFC4368], [RFC3814],
   [RFC3815], and [RFC6639].


5.  Contributors

   This MIB fixes a small issue with the earlier version of this MIB as
   defined in RFC3811.The earlier 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 are:

       Rajiv Papneja
      Huawei Technologies
      2330 Central Expressway
      Santa Clara, CA  95050
      USA

      Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com


     Cheenu Srinivasan
     Bloomberg L.P.



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


     499 Park Ave.
     New York, NY  10022

     Phone: +1-212-893-3682
     EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net

     Arun Viswanathan
     Force10 Networks, Inc.
     1440 McCarthy Blvd
     Milpitas, CA  95035

     Phone: +1-408-571-3516
     EMail: arunv@force10networks.com


     Hans Sjostrand
     ipUnplugged
     P.O. Box 101 60
     S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden

     Phone: +46-8-725-5900
     EMail: hans@ipunplugged.com


     Kireeti Kompella
     Juniper Networks
     1194 Mathilda Ave
     Sunnyvale, CA  94089

     Phone: +1-408-745-2000
     EMail: kireeti@juniper.net


     Thomas D. Nadeau
     Cisco Systems, Inc.
     BXB300/2/
     300 Beaver Brook Road
     Boxborough, MA  01719

     Phone: +1-978-936-1470
     EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com


     Joan E. Cucchiara
     Marconi Communications, Inc.
     900 Chelmsford Street
     Lowell, MA 01851




Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


     Phone:  +1-978-275-7400
     EMail:  jcucchiara@mindspring.com


                                 Figure 7


6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Thomas Nadeau for
   thier guidance.  The earlier editors and contributors would like to
   thank Mike MacFadden and Adrian Farrel for their helpful comments on
   several reviews.  Also, a special acknowledgement to Bert Wijnen for
   his many detailed reviews.  Bert's assistance and guidance is greatly
   appreciated.


7.  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.


8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has made a MIB OID assignment under the transmission branch,
   that is, assigned the mplsStdMIB 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 mplsStdMIB subtree.  The IANA is requested to manage
   that namespace.  New assignments can only be made via a Standards
   Action as specified in [RFC2434].

   The IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB
   specified in this document.


9.  References






Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2113]  Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
              February 1997.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
              Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2579]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "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.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., 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.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3212]  Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
              L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,



Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


              Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
              Malis, "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
              Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

9.2.  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.

   [RFC3812]  Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
              "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812,
              June 2004.

   [RFC3813]  Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
              "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
              Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813,
              June 2004.

   [RFC3814]  Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Viswanathan,
              "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding
              Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-
              To-NHLFE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3814,
              June 2004.

   [RFC3815]  Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani, "Definitions
              of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815,
              June 2004.

   [RFC4368]  Nadeau, T. and S. Hegde, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label-Controlled Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
              and Frame-Relay Management Interface Definition",
              RFC 4368, January 2006.

   [RFC6639]  King, D. and M. Venkatesan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management
              Overview", RFC 6639, June 2012.




Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          MPLS Textual Conventions             August 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Vishwas Manral
   Hewlett-Packard Corp.
   191111 Pruneridge Ave.
   Cupertino, CA  95015
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-447-1497>
   Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com


   T. Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expy.
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Phone: +1-408-330-4424
   Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com































Manral & Tsou           Expires February 3, 2013               [Page 23]