Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
RFC 7330
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(August 2014; No errata)
Was draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib (bfd WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas Nadeau , Zafar Ali , Nobo Akiya | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jeffrey Haas | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-05-02) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7330 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
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]