Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
RFC 7330

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         T. Nadeau
Request for Comments: 7330                                       Brocade
Category: Standards Track                                         Z. Ali
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 N. Akiya
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             August 2014

              Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for
          Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management

Abstract

   This document defines two Management Information Base (MIB) modules
   that contain Textual Conventions to represent commonly used
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) management information.  The
   intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and
   used in BFD-related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
   representations.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7330.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   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.

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................2
   2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
   3. BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions .........................3
   4. Security Considerations .........................................9
   5. IANA Considerations ............................................10
   6. Acknowledgments ................................................10
   7. References .....................................................10
      7.1. Normative References ......................................10
      7.2. Informative References ....................................11

1.  Introduction

   This document defines two MIB modules that contain Textual
   Conventions for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocols.
   These Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules that
   manage BFD protocols.

   Note that names of Textual Conventions defined in this document are
   prefixed with either "Bfd" or "IANA" to make it obvious to readers
   that some are specific to BFD modules, whereas others are IANA
   maintained.

   For an introduction to the concepts of BFD, see [RFC5880], [RFC5881],
   [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130].

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

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

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 2]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

   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.  BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions

   This MIB module makes references to the following documents:
   [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and
   [RFC7130].

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

    IMPORTS
        MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2, Unsigned32
            FROM SNMPv2-SMI                               -- RFC 2578

        TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
            FROM SNMPv2-TC;                               -- RFC 2579

    bfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY
        LAST-UPDATED
                   "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT

        ORGANIZATION "IETF Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
                      Working Group"
        CONTACT-INFO
            "Thomas D. Nadeau
             Brocade
             Email:  tnadeau@lucidvision.com

             Zafar Ali
             Cisco Systems, Inc.
             Email:  zali@cisco.com

             Nobo Akiya
             Cisco Systems, Inc.
             Email:  nobo@cisco.com

             Comments about this document should be emailed directly
             to the BFD working group mailing list at
             rtg-bfd@ietf.org"

        DESCRIPTION
          "Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
           authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

           Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
           without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 3]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

           to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
           set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
           Relating to IETF Documents
           (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)."

        REVISION "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
        DESCRIPTION
          "Initial version.  Published as RFC 7330."

    ::= { mib-2 223 }

    BfdSessIndexTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT   "d"
    STATUS         current
    DESCRIPTION
        "An index used to uniquely identify BFD sessions."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)

    BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT  "d"
    STATUS        current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The BFD interval in microseconds."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

    BfdMultiplierTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT    "d"
    STATUS          current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The BFD failure detection multiplier."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..255)

    BfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT            "d"
    STATUS                  current
    DESCRIPTION
        "UDP destination port number of BFD control packets.
         3784 represents single-hop BFD session.
         4784 represents multi-hop BFD session.
         6784 represents BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) session.

         However, syntax is left open to wider range of values
         purposely for two reasons:
         1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for
            valid proprietary reason.
         2. Potential future extension documents.

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 4]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

         The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used
         to indicate special conditions and should not be considered
         a valid port number."
    REFERENCE
        "Use of port 3784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
         IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop), RFC 5881, June 2010.

         Use of port 4784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
         Multihop Paths, RFC 5883, June 2010.

         Use of port 6784 from Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S.,
         Binderberger, M., and J. Haas, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
         Interfaces, RFC 7130, February 2014."
    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)

    BfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT              "d"
    STATUS                    current
    DESCRIPTION
        "UDP source port number of BFD control packets.
         However, syntax is left open to wider range of values
         purposely for two reasons:
         1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for
            valid proprietary reason.
         2. Potential future extension documents.

         The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used
         to indicate special conditions and should not be considered
         a valid port number."
    REFERENCE
        "Port 49152..65535 from RFC5881"

    SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)

    END

    IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

    IMPORTS
        MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2
            FROM SNMPv2-SMI                               -- RFC 2578

        TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
            FROM SNMPv2-TC;                               -- RFC 2579

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 5]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

    ianaBfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY

        LAST-UPDATED
                   "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
        ORGANIZATION
                   "IANA"
        CONTACT-INFO
                   "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
                    Postal: 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
                            Los Angeles, CA  90094-2536
                    Tel:    +1 310 301 5800
                    EMail:  iana@iana.org"

        DESCRIPTION
          "Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
           authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

           Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
           without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
           to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
           set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
           Relating to IETF Documents
           (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)."

        REVISION
          "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
        DESCRIPTION
          "Initial version.  Published as RFC 7330."

    ::= { mib-2 224 }

    IANAbfdDiagTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "A common BFD diagnostic code."
    REFERENCE
        "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010.

         Allan, D., Swallow, G., and Drake, J., Proactive Connectivity
         Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect
         Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile, RFC 6428,
         November 2011."

    SYNTAX INTEGER {
        noDiagnostic(0),
        controlDetectionTimeExpired(1),
        echoFunctionFailed(2),

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 6]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

        neighborSignaledSessionDown(3),
        forwardingPlaneReset(4),
        pathDown(5),
        concatenatedPathDown(6),
        administrativelyDown(7),
        reverseConcatenatedPathDown(8),
        misConnectivityDefect(9)
    }

    IANAbfdSessTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS        current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD session type"
    REFERENCE
        "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010.

         Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop),
         RFC 5881, June 2010.

         Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths, RFC 5883,
         June 2010."
    SYNTAX INTEGER {
        singleHop(1),
        multiHopTotallyArbitraryPaths(2),
        multiHopOutOfBandSignaling(3),
        multiHopUnidirectionalLinks(4)
    }

    IANAbfdSessOperModeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS            current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD session operating mode"
    REFERENCE
        "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
    SYNTAX INTEGER {
        asyncModeWEchoFunction(1),
        asynchModeWOEchoFunction(2),
        demandModeWEchoFunction(3),
        demandModeWOEchoFunction(4)
    }

    IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS         current
    DESCRIPTION

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 7]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

        "BFD session state.  State failing(5) is only applicable if
         corresponding session is running in BFD version 0."

    REFERENCE
        "Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
    SYNTAX INTEGER {
        adminDown(1),
        down(2),
        init(3),
        up(4),
        failing(5)
    }

    IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS                      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD authentication type"
    REFERENCE
        "Sections 4.2 - 4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
         RFC 5880, June 2010."
    SYNTAX INTEGER {
        noAuthentication(-1),
        reserved(0),
        simplePassword(1),
        keyedMD5(2),
        meticulousKeyedMD5(3),
        keyedSHA1(4),
        meticulousKeyedSHA1(5)
    }

    IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT                  "1x "
    STATUS                        current
    DESCRIPTION
        "BFD authentication key type.

         An IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC is always interpreted
         within the context of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC
         value.  Every usage of the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC
         textual convention is required to specify the
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object that provides the
         context.  It is suggested that the
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object be logically registered
         before the object(s) that use the
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC textual convention, if they
         appear in the same logical row.

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 8]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

         The value of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC must
         always be consistent with the value of the associated
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC object.  Attempts to set an
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object to a value inconsistent
         with the associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC must fail
         with an inconsistentValue error.

         The following size constraints for an
         IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object are defined for the
         associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC values show below:

         noAuthentication(-1): SIZE(0)
         reserved(0): SIZE(0)
         simplePassword(1): SIZE(1..16)
         keyedMD5(2): SIZE(16)
         meticulousKeyedMD5(3): SIZE(16)
         keyedSHA1(4): SIZE(20)
         meticulousKeyedSHA1(5): SIZE(20)

         When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
         index object, there may be issues with 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; otherwise,
         the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the appropriate
         conceptual row DESCRIPTION clauses, or in the surrounding
         documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION clause that
         is appropriate."
    REFERENCE
        "Sections 4.2 - 4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional
         Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
    SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(0..252))

    END

4.  Security Considerations

   This module does not define any management objects.  Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other BFD
   MIB modules to define management objects.

   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
   modules that define management objects.  This document has therefore
   no impact on the security of the Internet.

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 9]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document provides the base definition of the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB
   module.  This MIB module is under the direct control of IANA.  See
   Section 3 for the initial contents.  See the most updated version of
   this MIB at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianabfdtcstd-mib>.
   Assignments of IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB are via IETF Review [RFC5226].

   This MIB makes reference to the following documents: [RFC2578],
   [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881] and [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and
   [RFC7130].

   IANA assigned an OID to the BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in this
   document as { mib-2 223 }.

   IANA assigned an OID to the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in
   this document as { mib-2 224 }.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Jeffrey Haas for
   performing thorough reviews and providing a number of suggestions.
   The authors would also like to thank David Ward and Christer Holmberg
   for their comments and suggestions.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., 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.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 10]
RFC 7330                     BFD-TC-STD-MIB                  August 2014

   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June
              2010.

   [RFC5883]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive
              Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote
              Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile", RFC
              6428, November 2011.

   [RFC7130]  Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S., Binderberger, M., and
              J. Haas, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link
              Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 7130, February
              2014.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas D. Nadeau
   Brocade

   EMail: tnadeau@lucidvision.com

   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: zali@cisco.com

   Nobo Akiya
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: nobo@cisco.com

Nadeau, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 11]