draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-04.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force Kingston Smiler Selvaraj Internet Engineering Task Force Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
Internet-Draft IpInfusion Internet-Draft IpInfusion
Intended status: Standards Track M.Venkatesan Intended status: Standards Track M.Venkatesan
Expires: February 9, 2015 Dell Inc. Expires: August 06, 2015 Dell Inc.
V. Manral V. Manral
Hewlett-Packard Corp Hewlett-Packard Corp
Daniel King Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Sam Aldrin Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
August 8, 2014 February 02, 2015
MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection MIB MPLS Transport Profile Linear Protection MIB
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-04
Abstract Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
use with network management protocols. In particular it defines objects for use with network management protocols. In particular it defines
for managing MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection. objects for managing MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
Protection.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 06, 2015.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with publication of this document. Please review these documents
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
described in the Simplified BSD License. the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Textual Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. Textual Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. The MPLS TP Linear Protection Subtree . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. The MPLS TP Linear Protection Subtree . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3. The Notifications Subtree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.3. The Notifications Subtree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.4. The Table Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.4. The Table Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Relationship to the MPLS OAM maintenance identifiers MIB 6.1. Relationship to the MPLS OAM maintenance identifiers MIB
module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Example of Protection switching configuration for MPLS-TP TE
7. Example of Protection switching groups configuration for tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
MPLS-TP TE tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
use with network management protocols. In particular it defines objects for use with network management protocols. In particular it defines
for managing MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection. objects for managing MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
Protection.
This MIB module should be used for configuring and managing the MPLS TP This MIB module should be used for configuring and managing the MPLS
linear protection for MPLS TP LSPs. TP linear protection for MPLS TP LSPs.
At the time of writing, SNMP SET is no longer recommended as a way to
configure MPLS networks as was described in [RFC3812]. However,
since the MIB modules specified in this document are intended to work
in parallel with the MIB modules for MPLS specified in [RFC3812],
certain objects defined here are specified with MAX-ACCESS of read-
write or read-create so that specifications of the base tables in
[RFC3812] and the new MIB modules in this document are consistent.
Although the examples described in Section 7 specify means to
configure OAM identifiers for MPLS-TP tunnels, this should be seen as
indicating how the MIB values would be returned in the specified
circumstances having been configured by alternative means.
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
3410 [RFC3410]. RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB
compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
[RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
[RFC2580].
3. Conventions 3. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
4. Overview 4. Overview
[RFC6378] defines the protocol to provide a linear protection [RFC6378] defines the protocol to provide a linear protection
switching mechanism for MPLS transport profile with protection switching mechanism for MPLS transport profile with protection
domain as point-to-point LSP. The detailed protocol specification of domain as point-to-point LSP. The detailed protocol specification of
MPLS transport profile linear protection is described in [RFC6378]. MPLS transport profile linear protection is described in [RFC6378].
This document specifies a MIB module for the LER that supports MPLS This document specifies a MIB module for the LER that supports MPLS
TP Linear protection (which includes 1:n protection architecture) TP Linear protection (which includes 1:n protection architecture)
and a MIB module that defines textual conventions. and a MIB module that defines textual conventions.
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
The mplsLpsMeConfigTable entry is extended by entry in the The mplsLpsMeConfigTable entry is extended by entry in the
mplsOamIdMeTable [MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] defined in draft-ietf-mpls-tp- mplsOamIdMeTable [MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] defined in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
oam-id-mib. Note that the nature of the 'extends' relationship is a oam-id-mib. Note that the nature of the 'extends' relationship is a
sparse augmentation so that the entry in the mplsLpsMeConfigTable has sparse augmentation so that the entry in the mplsLpsMeConfigTable has
the same index values as the entry in the mplsOamIdMeTable. Each time the same index values as the entry in the mplsOamIdMeTable. Each time
that an entry is created in the mplsOamIdMeTable for which the LER that an entry is created in the mplsOamIdMeTable for which the LER
supports MPLS TP Linear protection a row is created automatically in supports MPLS TP Linear protection a row is created automatically in
the mplsLpsMeConfigTable. the mplsLpsMeConfigTable.
6.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS 7. Example of Protection switching configuration for MPLS-TP TE tunnel
The MPLS-LPS-MIB module requires following MIB modules for IMPORTS:
o SNMPv2-SMI defined in [RFC2578]
o SNMPv2-CONF defined in [RFC2580]
o SNMPv2-TC defined in [RFC2579]
o MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB defined in [draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib]
7. Example of Protection switching groups configuration for MPLS-TP TE
tunnel
This example considers the protection group configuration on a This example considers the protection group configuration on a
head-end LSR to provide protection for a co-routed bidirectional head-end LSR to provide protection for a co-routed bidirectional
MPLS tunnel. MPLS tunnel.
Only relevant objects which are applicable for protection group Only relevant objects which are applicable for protection group
identifiers of co-routed MPLS tunnel are illustrated here. identifiers of co-routed MPLS tunnel are illustrated here.
In mplsOamIdMegTable: In mplsOamIdMegTable:
{ {
-- MEG index (Index to the table) -- MEG index (Index to the table)
skipping to change at page 27, line 31 skipping to change at page 27, line 31
objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a
MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to
control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly
to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over
the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and their the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and their
sensitivity/vulnerability: sensitivity/vulnerability:
- mplsLpsConfigTable, mplsLpsStatusTable, mplsLpsMeConfigTable and
mplsLpsMeStatusTable collectively show the MPLS Linear Protection
characteristics. If an Administrator does not want to reveal this
information, then these tables should be considered
sensitive/vulnerable.
SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even
if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec), even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec), there
then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access
to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB
MIB module. module.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by
provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations claiming
including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for compliance to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full support for
authentication and privacy). authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
[RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations
MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM)
[RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH
[RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353].
Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is not Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is not
recommended. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to recommended. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to
enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator
responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an
instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to
the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 29, line 11 skipping to change at page 29, line 11
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
April 1999. April 1999.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC3410] J. Case, R. Mundy, D. pertain, B.Stewart, "Introduction and [RFC3410] J. Case, R. Mundy, D. pertain, B.Stewart, "Introduction and
Applicability Statement for Internet Standard Management Applicability Statement for Internet Standard Management
Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security
Model(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
[RFC3811] Nadeau, T., Ed., and J. Cucchiara, Ed., "Definitions of [RFC3811] Nadeau, T., Ed., and J. Cucchiara, Ed., "Definitions of
Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. (MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June
2004.
[RFC3826] Blumenthal, U., F. Maino and K. McCloghrie, "The Advanced
Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the SNMP
User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, June 2004.
[RFC5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model
for the Simple Network Management Protocol(SNMP)",RFC 5591,
June 2009.
[RFC5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure Shell
Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.
[RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 78, RFC 6353, July 2011.
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., Fulignoli, [RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., Fulignoli,
A., Ed., and Y. Weingarten, Ed., "MPLS-TP Linear A., Ed., and Y. Weingarten, Ed., "MPLS-TP Linear
Protection", October 2011. Protection", October 2011.
[MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] Sam Aldrin, M.Venkatesan, Kannan KV Sampath, [MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] Sam Aldrin, M.Venkatesan, Kannan KV Sampath,
Thomas D. Nadeau, Sami Boutros, Ping Pan, Thomas D. Nadeau, Sami Boutros, Ping Pan,
"MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and "MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and
Management (OAM) Identifiers Management Management (OAM) Identifiers Management
Information Base (MIB)", ID Information Base (MIB)", ID
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-05, June 2014. draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-07, February 2015.
12. Acknowledgments 12. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Joan Cucchiara for her review as MIB The authors wish to thank Joan Cucchiara for her review as MIB
Doctor, Joan's detailed comments were of great help for improving the Doctor, Joan's detailed comments were of great help for improving the
quality of this document. quality of this document.
13. Author's Address 13. Author's Address
Kingston Smiler Selvaraj Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
IpInfusion IpInfusion
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 118 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/