draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-04.txt		draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-05.txt
	Network Working Group		Network Working Group
	INTERNET-DRAFT Sam Aldrin		INTERNET-DRAFT Sam Aldrin
	Intended Status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies		Intended Status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
	Expires: December 29, 2014 M.Venkatesan		Expires: July 01, 2015 M.Venkatesan
	Dell Inc.		Dell Inc.
	Kannan KV Sampath		Kannan KV Sampath
	Redeem Software		Redeem Software
	Thomas D. Nadeau		Thomas D. Nadeau
	Brocade		Brocade
	June 27, 2014		December 28, 2014
	BFD Management Information Base (MIB) extensions		BFD Management Information Base (MIB) extensions
	for MPLS and MPLS-TP Networks		for MPLS and MPLS-TP Networks
	draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-04		draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This draft defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)		This draft defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
	for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.		for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
	In particular, it extends the BFD Management Information Base BFD-		In particular, it extends the BFD Management Information Base and
	STD-MIB and describes the managed objects for modeling Bidirectional		describes the managed objects for modeling Bidirectional Forwarding
	Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for MPLS and MPLS-TP networks.		Detection (BFD) protocol for MPLS and MPLS-TP networks.
	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		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 5		skipping to change at page 2, line 5
	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		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material 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 December 29, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 01, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 7		skipping to change at page 3, line 7
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	1 Introduction		1 Introduction
	The current MIB for BFD as defined by BFD-STD-MIB is used for		The current MIB for BFD as defined by [RFC7331] is used for neighbor
	neighbor monitoring in IP networks. The BFD session association to		monitoring in IP networks. The BFD session association to the
	the neighbors being monitored is done using the source and		neighbors being monitored is done using the source and destination IP
	destination IP addresses of the neighbors configured using the		addresses of the neighbors configured using the respective MIB
	respective MIB objects.		objects.
	To monitor MPLS/MPLS-TP paths like tunnels or Pseudowires, there is a		To monitor MPLS/MPLS-TP paths like tunnels or Pseudowires, there is a
	necessity to identify or associate the BFD session to those paths.		necessity to identify or associate the BFD session to those paths.
	This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)		This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
	for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.		for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
	In particular, it extends the BFD Management Information Base BFD-		In particular, it extends the BFD Management Information Base
	STD-MIB and describes the managed objects to configure and/or monitor		[RFC7331] and describes the managed objects to configure and/or
	Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for MPLS [RFC5884]		monitor Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for MPLS
	and MPLS-TP networks [RFC6428].		[RFC5884] and MPLS-TP networks [RFC6428].
	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		Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
	RFC3410 [RFC3410].		RFC3410 [RFC3410].
	Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed		Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
	the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally		the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
	accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).		accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
	Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the		Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
	Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB		Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB
	module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,		module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
	RFC2578, STD 58, RFC2579 and STD58, RFC2580.		RFC2578, STD 58, RFC2579 and STD58, RFC2580.
	3. Overview		3. Overview
	3.1 Conventions used in this document		3.1 Conventions used in this document
	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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
			RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
	3.2 Terminology		3.2 Terminology
	This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms		This document adopts the definitions, acronyms and mechanisms
	described in [BFD], [BFD-1HOP], [BFD-MH], [RFC5884], [RFC6428].		described in [BFD], [BFD-1HOP], [BFD-MH], [RFC5884], [RFC6428].
	Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms described therein will not be		Unless otherwise stated, the mechanisms described therein will not be
	re-described here.		re-described here.
	4. Acronyms		4. Acronyms
	skipping to change at page 4, line 32		skipping to change at page 4, line 32
	OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance		OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
	PW: Pseudo Wire		PW: Pseudo Wire
	RDI: Remote Defect Indication		RDI: Remote Defect Indication
	TE: Traffic Engineering		TE: Traffic Engineering
	TP: Transport Profile		TP: Transport Profile
	5. Brief description of MIB Objects		5. Brief description of MIB Objects
	The objects described in this section support the functionality		The objects described in this section support the functionality
	described in documents [RFC5884] and [RFC6428]. The objects are		described in documents [RFC5884] and [RFC6428]. The objects are
	defined as an extension to the BFD base MIB defined by BFD-STD-MIB.		defined as an extension to the BFD base MIB defined by [RFC7331].
	5.1. Extensions to the BFD session table (bfdSessionTable)		5.1. Extensions to the BFD session table (bfdSessionTable)
	The BFD session table used to identify a BFD session between a pair		The BFD session table used to identify a BFD session between a pair
	of nodes, as defined in BFD-STD-MIB, is extended with managed objects		of nodes, as defined in [RFC7331], is extended with managed objects
	to achieve the required functionality in MPLS and MPLS-TP networks as		to achieve the required functionality in MPLS and MPLS-TP networks as
	described below:		described below:
	1. SessionRole - Active/Passive role specification for the BFD		1. SessionRole - Active/Passive role specification for the BFD
	session configured on the node. Either end of a BFD session		session configured on the node. Either end of a BFD session
	can be configured as Active/Passive to determine which		can be configured as Active/Passive to determine which
	end starts transmitting the BFD control packets.		end starts transmitting the BFD control packets.
	2. SessionMode - Defines the mode in which BFD		2. SessionMode - Defines the mode in which BFD
	session is running, defined as below:		session is running, defined as below:
	skipping to change at page 6, line 6		skipping to change at page 6, line 6
	For PW, this object points to the corresponding instance of		For PW, this object points to the corresponding instance of
	pwEntry.		pwEntry.
	For MPLS-TP paths, this object points to the corresponding		For MPLS-TP paths, this object points to the corresponding
	instance of mplsOamIdMeEntry[MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] configured to		instance of mplsOamIdMeEntry[MPLS-OAM-ID-STD-MIB] configured to
	monitor the MPLS-TP path associated with the BFD session.		monitor the MPLS-TP path associated with the BFD session.
	6. Usage of existing object bfdSessType:		6. Usage of existing object bfdSessType:
	Additionally existing object "bfdSessType" in the BFD base MIB		Additionally existing object "bfdSessType" in the BFD base MIB
	[BFD-STD-MIB] can be used with the already defined value		[RFC7331] can be used with the already defined value
	multiHopOutOfBandSignaling(3) to specify an OOB (Out of band)		multiHopOutOfBandSignaling(3) to specify an OOB (Out of band)
	mechanism [E.g. LSP Ping] for bootstrapping the BFD session.		mechanism [E.g. LSP Ping] for bootstrapping the BFD session.
	5.2. Example of BFD session configuration		5.2. Example of BFD session configuration
	This section provides an example of BFD session configuration		This section provides an example of BFD session configuration
	for an MPLS and MPLS-TP TE tunnel. This example is only meant		for an MPLS and MPLS-TP TE tunnel. This example is only meant
	to enable an understanding of the proposed extension and does not		to enable an understanding of the proposed extension and does not
	illustrate every permutation of the MIB.		illustrate every permutation of the MIB.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 35		skipping to change at page 9, line 35
	}		}
	Similarly BFD session would be configured on the tail-end of		Similarly BFD session would be configured on the tail-end of
	the tunnel and creating the above row will trigger		the tunnel and creating the above row will trigger
	the bootstrapping of the session using LSP Ping and its subsequent		the bootstrapping of the session using LSP Ping and its subsequent
	establishment over the path by de-multiplexing of the control		establishment over the path by de-multiplexing of the control
	packets using the BFD session discriminators.		packets using the BFD session discriminators.
	5.3. BFD objects for session performance counters		5.3. BFD objects for session performance counters
	BFD-STD-MIB defines BFD Session Performance Table		[RFC7331] defines BFD Session Performance Table
	(bfdSessionPerfTable), for collecting per-session BFD performance		(bfdSessionPerfTable), for collecting per-session BFD performance
	counters, as an extension to the bfdSessionTable.		counters, as an extension to the bfdSessionTable.
	The bfdSessionPerfTable is extended with the performance counters		The bfdSessionPerfTable is extended with the performance counters
	to collect Mis-connectivity Defect, Loss of Continuity Defect		to collect Mis-connectivity Defect, Loss of Continuity Defect
	and RDI (Remote Defect Indication) counters.		and RDI (Remote Defect Indication) counters.
	1. bfdMplsSessPerfMisDefCount - Mis-connectivity defect count		1. bfdMplsSessPerfMisDefCount - Mis-connectivity defect count
	for this BFD session.		for this BFD session.
	2. bfdMplsSessPerfLocDefCount - Loss of continuity defect count for		2. bfdMplsSessPerfLocDefCount - Loss of continuity defect count for
	skipping to change at page 19, line 42		skipping to change at page 19, line 42
	this information should consider this table sensitive.		this information should consider this table sensitive.
	The bfdSessAuthenticationType, bfdSessAuthenticationKeyID, and		The bfdSessAuthenticationType, bfdSessAuthenticationKeyID, and
	bfdSessAuthenticationKey objects hold security methods and		bfdSessAuthenticationKey objects hold security methods and
	associated security keys of BFD sessions for MPLS paths. These		associated security keys of BFD sessions for MPLS paths. These
	objects SHOULD be considered highly sensitive objects. In order		objects SHOULD be considered highly sensitive objects. In order
	for these sensitive information from being improperly accessed,		for these sensitive information from being improperly accessed,
	implementers MAY wish to disallow read and create access to these		implementers MAY wish to disallow read and create access to these
	objects.		objects.
	SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.		SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even
	Even if the network itself is secure "for example by using IPSec",		if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec), there
	even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is		is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access
	allowed to access and GET/SET "read/change/create/delete" the objects		and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB
	in these MIB modules.		module.
	It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as		Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by the
	provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8),		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)
	Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is not		[RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations
	recommended. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to		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
			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.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned		The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
	OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:		OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:
	Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value		Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
	---------- -----------------------		---------- -----------------------
	bfdMplsMib { mib-2 XXX }		bfdMplsMib { mib-2 XXX }
	skipping to change at page 21, line 28		skipping to change at page 21, line 32
	[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.
	9.2 Informative References		9.2 Informative References
	[RFC3410] J. Case, R. Mundy, D. pertain, B.Stewart, "Introduction		[RFC3410] J. Case, R. Mundy, D. pertain, B.Stewart, "Introduction
	and Applicability Statement for Internet Standard		and Applicability Statement for Internet Standard
	Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.		Management 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.
	[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,		[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
	"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering		"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June		(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June
	2004.		2004.
	[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,		[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
	"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching		"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
	(LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB)",		(LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB)",
	RFC 3813, June 2004.		RFC 3813, 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.
	[RFC5601] T. Nadeau, Ed., D. Zelig, Ed., "Pseudowire (PW)		[RFC5601] T. Nadeau, Ed., D. Zelig, Ed., "Pseudowire (PW)
	Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 5601,		Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 5601,
	July 2009		July 2009.
	[BFD-STD-MIB] T. Nadeau, Z. Ali, N. Akiya "BFD Management		[RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
	Information Base", ID draft-ietf-bfd-mib-22,		Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
	June 2014.		(SNMP)", STD 78, RFC 6353, July 2011.
			[RFC7331] T. Nadeau, Z. Ali, N. Akiya "BFD Management
			Information Base", RFC 7331, August 2014.
	[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,		draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-06,
	June 2014.		December 2014.
	10. Acknowledgments		10. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Haas, Mukund Mani,		The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Haas, Mukund Mani,
	Lavanya Srivatsa, Muly Ilan and John Salloway for their valuable		Lavanya Srivatsa, Muly Ilan and John Salloway for their valuable
	comments.		comments.
	11. Authors' Addresses		11. Authors' Addresses
	Sam Aldrin		Sam Aldrin
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	42 lines changed or deleted		69 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/