One document matched: draft-ietf-forces-mib-00.txt
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
ForCES
Internet Draft R. Haas
Document: draft-ietf-forces-mib-00.txt IBM
Expires: July 23, 2006 January 2006
ForCES MIB
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of 6 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 23, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 1]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Abstract
This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for use with
network management protocols in the Internet community. In
particular, it defines a MIB for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Network Element (NE). The ForCES working group
is defining a protocol to allow a Control Element (CE) to control the
behavior of a Forwarding Element (FE).
Conventions used in this document
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Design of ForCES MIB...........................................4
3. Association State..............................................4
4. MIB Definition.................................................4
Security Considerations...........................................8
References........................................................9
Acknowledgments...................................................9
Author's Addresses................................................9
1. Introduction
The ForCES MIB is a primarily read-only MIB that captures information
related to the ForCES protocol. This includes state information about
the associations between CE(s) and FE(s) in the NE.
The ForCES MIB does not include information that is specified in
other MIBs, such as packet counters for interfaces, etc.
More specifically , the information in the ForCES MIB relative to
associations includes:
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 2]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
- identifiers of the elements in the association
- state of the association
- configuration parameters of the association
- statistics of the association
The relevant references from the ForCES requirements and architecture
documents are repeated below:
From the ForCES requirements RFC [RFC 3654], Section 4, point 4:
A NE MUST support the appearance of a single functional device. For
example, in a router, the TTL of the packet should be decremented
only once as it traverses the NE regardless of how many FEs through
which it passes. However, external entities (e.g., FE managers and
CE managers) MAY have direct access to individual ForCES protocol
elements for providing information to transition them from the pre-
association to post-association phase.
And [RFC 3654], Section 4, point 14:
1. The ability for a management tool (e.g., SNMP) to be used to
read(but not change) the state of FE SHOULD NOT be precluded.
2. It MUST NOT be possible for management tools (e.g., SNMP, etc)
to change the state of a FE in a manner that affects overall NE
behavior without the CE being notified.
According to the ForCES architecture RFC [RFC 3746], Section 3.3:
CE managers may be physically and logically separate entities that
configure the CE with FE information via such mechanisms as COPS-PR
[7] or SNMP [5].
and [RFC 3746], Section 5.7:
RFC 1812 [2] also dictates that "Routers MUST be manageable by
SNMP". In general, for the post-association phase, most external
management tasks (including SNMP) should be done through
interaction with the CE in order to support the appearance of a
single functional device. Therefore, it is recommended that an SNMP
agent be implemented by CEs and that the SNMP messages received by
FEs be redirected to their CEs. AgentX framework defined in RFC
2741 ([6]) may be applied here such that CEs act in the role of
master agent to process SNMP protocol messages while FEs act in the
role of subagent to provide access to the MIB objects residing on
FEs. AgentX protocol messages between the master agent (CE) and
the subagent (FE) are encapsulated and transported via ForCES, just
like data packets from any other application layer protocols.
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 3]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
2. Design of ForCES MIB
In an NE composed of one or more FEs and a single CE, the CE is
clearly aware of all associations and hence can provide this
information in a single ForCES MIB. In contrast, in an NE composed of
more than one CE, such association information is distributed and
hence more than one ForCES MIB may be necessary, unless this
information is aggregated into a single ForCES MIB by some means
beyond the scope of this document. Nevertheless, the ForCES MIB
design is compatible with both the single-CE and the multiple-CE
case.
3. Association State
Association state as shown in the MIB is considered from the CE's
point of view:
- An association is in the DOWN state if the CE has not received any
message (heartbeat or other protocol message) from the FE within a
given time period or if an Association Teardown message has been
sent by the CE.
- An association is in the ESTABLISHING state as long as no message
has been received from the FE after the CE has sent a positive
Association Setup Response message.
- An association is in the UP state in all other cases.
Note that it is left to the implementers to choose how long entries
of associations in the DOWN state remain in the MIB until they are
removed, if at all.
The ForCES protocol may be used by the CE to query the FE Protocol
LFB about some of the configuration parameters. However, such queries
may obviously be issued only when the association is in the UP state.
Hence any MIB value that corresponds to such a parameter can only be
considered valid as long as the association is in the UP state.
[Note: there is no such parameter in the MIB at this time]
[Note: Should the MIB indicate whether associations have been
rejected ? Can this be a weakness exploited by DDoS if the MIB lists
all such rejected associations ?]
4. ForCES MIB Definition
For each association identified by the pair CE ID and FE ID, the
following information is provided by the MIB:
- Current state of the association:
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 4]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
DOWN: the CE(s) indicated by the CE ID and FE(s) indicated by the
FE ID are not associated.
ESTABLISHING: transient state until the association has been
established. See Section 3 above for details.
UP: the CE(s) indicated by the CE ID and FE(s) indicated by the FE
ID are associated.
Association statistics:
- Time when the association attained the UP state.
- Time when the association appeared in the MIB.
- Number of transitions to ESTABLISHING state since the association
appeared in the MIB.
- Number of transitions to UP state since the association appeared in
the MIB.
- Number of ForCES messages sent/received since the association
attained the UP state.
FORCES-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
OBJECT-TYPE, MODULE-IDENTITY,
Integer32, Counter32, Unsigned32
FROM SNMPv2-SMI
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus, TimeInterval, TimeStamp
FROM SNMPv2-TC;
forcesMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200601241200Z" -- Jan 24, 2006
ORGANIZATION "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) Working Group"
CONTACT-INFO
"Robert Haas (rha@zurich.ibm.com), IBM"
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version, published as RFC yyyy. This MIB
contains managed object definitions for the ForCES
Protocol."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 5]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
::= { mib-2 XXX }
-- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this note
--****************************************************************
ForcesID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The ForCES identifier is a four octet quantity."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
ForcesAssociationState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The value down(1) indicates that the current state of
the association is down. establishing(2) indicates
that the association is in the process of being set
up. up(3) indicates that the association is up."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
down(1),
establishing(2),
up(3)
}
forcesAssociations OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { forcesMIB 1 }
forcesAssociationTable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF ForcesAssociationEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The (conceptual) table of associations."
::= { forcesAssociations 1 }
forcesAssociationEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX ForcesAssociationEntry
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A (conceptual) entry for one association."
INDEX { forcesAssociationCEID, forcesAssociationFEID }
::= { forcesAssociationTable 1 }
ForcesAssociationEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
forcesAssociationCEID ForcesID,
forcesAssociationFEID ForcesID,
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 6]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
forcesAssociationState ForcesAssociationState,
forcesAssociationUptime TimeStamp,
forcesAssociationCreated TimeStamp,
forcesAssociationTransitionsEstablishing Counter32,
forcesAssociationTransitionsUp Counter32,
forcesAssociationMsgSent Counter32,
forcesAssociationMsgReceived Counter32
}
forcesAssociationCEID OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX ForcesID
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The ForCES ID of the CE."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 1 }
forcesAssociationFEID OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX ForcesID
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The ForCES ID of the FE."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 2 }
forcesAssociationState OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX ForcesAssociationState
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The current operational state of the association
described by this row of the table."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 3 }
forcesAssociationUptime OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX TimeStamp
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The time when this association came up."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 4 }
forcesAssociationCreated OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX TimeStamp
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The time when this entry in the table was
created for this association."
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 7]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 5 }
forcesAssociationTransitionsEstablishing OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A counter of how many times this association
state changed from down to establishing."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 6}
forcesAssociationTransitionsUp OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A counter of how many times this association
state changed from establishing to up."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 7}
forcesAssociationMsgSent OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A counter of how many messages have been sent on
this association since it is up."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 8}
forcesAssociationMsgReceived OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A counter of how many messages have been received on
this association since it is up."
::= { forcesAssociationEntry 9}
END
Security Considerations
Some of the readable objects in this MIB module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environment.
SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),
even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 8]
ForCES MIB January 24, 2006
allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects
in this MIB module.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as
provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8),
including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for
authentication and privacy).
Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT
RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to
enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator
responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an
instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to
the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them.
References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3654] Khosravi, H,, and Anderson, T., "Requirements for
Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., Gopal, R., "Forwarding
and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework", RFC 3746, April
2004.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard
Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
Acknowledgments
The author wants to acknowledge the comments of the members of the
ForCES working group.
Author's Addresses
Robert Haas
IBM Research
Zurich Research Lab
Saeumerstrasse 4
8803 Rueschlikon
Switzerland
Email: rha@zurich.ibm.com
Haas Expires July 23, 2006 [Page 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:49:58 |