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]