RFC 3811
Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management
RFC 3811: Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management ✨
okay bestie, this one is RFC 3811 💖 It's a Standards Track doc from June 2004, so it's an actual official spec, not just an opinion piece. Thomas D. Nadeau from Cisco Systems, Inc. and Joan Cucchiara from Marconi Communications, Inc. are the editors (both marked "Ed."), and the header doesn't list any RFCs it obsoletes or updates. The whole point is defining reusable MPLS "Textual Conventions" for SNMP MIB modules 🧚
Status of This Memo 🌸
this is a standards track protocol doc for the Internet community, and the authors want your feedback 🫶 For the official standardization state of this protocol, check the current edition of "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1). Distribution of this memo is unlimited, so share away 💅
Copyright Notice 🎀
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract 🦋
this memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module full of Textual Conventions (TCs) for representing the MPLS management info people use all the time 💜 The whole idea is that other MPLS-related MIB modules can import these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS instead of each inventing their own version. no more reinventing the wheel, periodt 🙈
Table of Contents 🍓
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework. . . . . . . . . . 2
3. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8 Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201. Introduction ✨
okay so this doc defines a MIB module that holds Textual Conventions for MPLS networks 🌈 Any MIB module that manages MPLS networks should import these, so they all speak the same 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. these are the official requirement-level words, so they're the ones you want to read carefully 👑
if you want the MPLS basics first, [RFC3031] is the one to read 🧚
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 💜
want the full tea on the current Internet-Standard Management Framework docs? go check section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410] 🎀
managed objects are accessed through a virtual information store called the Management Information Base, or MIB 🦋 Usually you reach them with the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) 💅 The objects in the MIB are defined using the Structure of Management Information (SMI) rules. this memo's MIB module is built for SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580] 🌸
3. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ✨
here's the actual MIB module, copied exactly so nothing gets mangled 🔥
MPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY,
Unsigned32, Integer32,
transmission FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]
mplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004
ORGANIZATION
"IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working
Group."
CONTACT-INFO
" Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
tnadeau@cisco.com
Joan Cucchiara
Marconi Communications, Inc.
jcucchiara@mindspring.com
Cheenu Srinivasan
Bloomberg L.P.
cheenu@bloomberg.net
Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
arunv@force10networks.com
Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
hans@ipunplugged.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
kireeti@juniper.net
Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at
mpls@uu.net."
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). The
initial version of this MIB module was published
in RFC 3811. For full legal notices see the RFC
itself or see:
http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html
This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs
for concepts used in Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) networks."
REVISION "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version published as part of RFC 3811."
::= { mplsStdMIB 1 }
mplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER
::= { transmission 166 }
MplsAtmVcIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A Label Switching Router (LSR) that
creates LDP sessions on ATM interfaces
uses the VCI or VPI/VCI field to hold the
LDP Label.
VCI values MUST NOT be in the 0-31 range.
The values 0 to 31 are reserved for other uses
by the ITU and ATM Forum. The value
of 32 can only be used for the Control VC,
although values greater than 32 could be
configured for the Control VC.
If a value from 0 to 31 is used for a VCI
the management entity controlling the LDP
subsystem should reject this with an
inconsistentValue error. Also, if
the value of 32 is used for a VC which is
NOT the Control VC, this should
result in an inconsistentValue error."
REFERENCE
"MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035."
SYNTAX Integer32 (32..65535)
MplsBitRate ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"If the value of this object is greater than zero,
then this represents the bandwidth of this MPLS
interface (or Label Switched Path) in units of
'1,000 bits per second'.
The value, when greater than zero, represents the
bandwidth of this MPLS interface (rounded to the
nearest 1,000) in units of 1,000 bits per second.
If the bandwidth of the MPLS interface is between
((n * 1000) - 500) and ((n * 1000) + 499), the value
of this object is n, such that n > 0.
If the value of this object is 0 (zero), this
means that the traffic over this MPLS interface is
considered to be best effort."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0|1..4294967295)
MplsBurstSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The number of octets of MPLS data that the stream
may send back-to-back without concern for policing.
The value of zero indicates that an implementation
does not support Burst Size."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel. This may
represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
LSR for the tunnel. This value is derived from the
Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID
for CR-LDP."
REFERENCE
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
[RFC3209].
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295)
MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"This value represents an MPLS label as defined in
[RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC3034], [RFC3035] and
[RFC3471].
The label contents are specific to the label being
represented, such as:
* The label carried in an MPLS shim header
(for LDP this is the Generic Label) is a 20-bit
number represented by 4 octets. Bits 0-19 contain
a label or a reserved label value. Bits 20-31
MUST be zero.
The following is quoted directly from [RFC3032].
There are several reserved label values:
i. A value of 0 represents the
'IPv4 Explicit NULL Label'. This label
value is only legal at the bottom of the
label stack. It indicates that the label
stack must be popped, and the forwarding
of the packet must then be based on the
IPv4 header.
ii. A value of 1 represents the
'Router Alert Label'. This label value is
legal anywhere in the label stack except at
the bottom. When a received packet
contains this label value at the top of
the label stack, it is delivered to a
local software module for processing.
The actual forwarding of the packet
is determined by the label beneath it
in the stack. However, if the packet is
forwarded further, the Router Alert Label
should be pushed back onto the label stack
before forwarding. The use of this label
is analogous to the use of the
'Router Alert Option' in IP packets
[RFC2113]. Since this label
cannot occur at the bottom of the stack,
it is not associated with a
particular network layer protocol.
iii. A value of 2 represents the
'IPv6 Explicit NULL Label'. This label
value is only legal at the bottom of the
label stack. It indicates that the label
stack must be popped, and the forwarding
of the packet must then be based on the
IPv6 header.iv. A value of 3 represents the 'Implicit NULL Label'. This is a label that an LSR may assign and distribute, but which never actually appears in the encapsulation. When an LSR would otherwise replace the label at the top of the stack with a new label, but the new label is 'Implicit NULL', the LSR will pop the stack instead of doing the replacement. Although this value may never appear in the encapsulation, it needs to be specified in the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value is reserved.
v. Values 4-15 are reserved.
- The frame relay label can be either 10-bits or
23-bits depending on the DLCI field size and the upper 22-bits or upper 9-bits must be zero, respectively.
- For an ATM label the lower 16-bits represents the VCI, the next 12-bits represents the VPI and the remaining bits MUST be zero.
- The Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) label contains a value greater than 2^24-1 and used in GMPLS as defined in [RFC3471]." REFERENCE "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, RFC3031.
MPLS Label Stack Encoding, [RFC3032].
Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks, RFC3034.
MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture, [RFC3471]." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
Okay so the label bit is a whole saga 🦋 The Implicit NULL label (value 3) is lowkey the sneakiest one: an LSR can assign and distribute it, but it never actually shows up in the encapsulation 🫣 Instead, when an LSR would swap the top label for Implicit NULL, it just pops the stack instead. Values 4-15 are reserved 💅 And the frame relay and ATM bits have their own little rules too, so read those closely bestie 🎀
MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The label distribution method which is also called the label advertisement mode [RFC3036]. Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream on Demand." REFERENCE "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, RFC3031.
LDP Specification, RFC3036, Section 2.6.3." SYNTAX INTEGER { downstreamOnDemand(1), downstreamUnsolicited(2) }
MplsLdpIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d:2d" STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The LDP identifier is a six octet
quantity which is used to identify a Label Switching Router (LSR) label space.
The first four octets identify the LSR and must be a globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router ID assigned to the LSR, and the last two octets identify a specific label space within the LSR." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))
MplsLsrIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Label Switching Router (LSR) identifier is the first 4 bytes of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) identifier." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) MplsLdpLabelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Layer 2 label types which are defined for MPLS LDP and/or CR-LDP are generic(1), atm(2), or frameRelay(3)." SYNTAX INTEGER { generic(1), atm(2), frameRelay(3) }
Now we're in the label distribution zone 🌸 Downstream Unsolicited and Downstream on Demand are the two modes, and each interface on an LSR gets configured to run one of them 👑 The LDP identifier is six octets: the first four say which LSR it is (globally unique, like a router ID), and the last two pick out a specific label space inside that LSR 🧚 The LSR identifier is just the first 4 bytes of that. Then the Layer 2 label types are generic, atm, or frameRelay. Iconic organization, honestly 😭
MplsLSPID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique identifier within an MPLS network that is assigned to each LSP. This is assigned at the head end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs to identify this LSP. This value is piggybacked by the signaling protocol when this LSP is signaled within the network. This identifier can then be used at each LSR to identify which labels are being swapped to other labels for this LSP. This object can also be used to disambiguate LSPs that share the same RSVP sessions between the same source and destination.
For LSPs established using CR-LDP, the LSPID is composed of the ingress LSR Router ID (or any of its own IPv4 addresses) and a locally unique CR-LSP ID to that LSR. The first two bytes carry the CR-LSPID, and the remaining 4 bytes carry the Router ID. The LSPID is useful in network management, in CR-LSP repair, and in using an already established CR-LSP as a hop in an ER-TLV.
For LSPs signaled using RSVP-TE, the LSP ID is defined as a 16-bit (2 byte) identifier used in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the FILTER_SPEC that can be changed to allow a sender to share resources with itself. The length of this object should only be 2 or 6 bytes. If the length of this octet string is 2 bytes, then it must identify an RSVP-TE LSPID, or it is 6 bytes, it must contain a CR-LDP LSPID." REFERENCE "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, [RFC3209].
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]." SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6))
Okay the MplsLSPID is the main character of this whole section 💖 It's a unique ID for each LSP, assigned at the head end and piggybacked by the signaling protocol, so every LSR can identify it 🔥 For CR-LDP, it's the ingress LSR Router ID (or one of its own IPv4 addresses) plus a locally unique CR-LSP ID: two bytes for the CR-LSPID and four for the Router ID. For RSVP-TE, it's a 2-byte ID that can change so a sender can share resources with itself. The length should only be 2 or 6 bytes ✨ Two bytes means RSVP-TE, six means CR-LDP. Ate, honestly 💅
MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) on a Label Switching Router (LSR) or a Label Edge Router (LER) are:
unknown(1) -- if the LSP is not known to be one of the following.
terminatingLsp(2) -- if the LSP terminates on the LSR/LER, then this is an egressing LSP which ends on the LSR/LER,
originatingLsp(3) -- if the LSP originates from this LSR/LER, then this is an ingressing LSP which is the head-end of the LSP,
crossConnectingLsp(4) -- if the LSP ingresses and egresses on the LSR, then it is cross-connecting on that LSR." SYNTAX INTEGER { unknown(1), terminatingLsp(2), originatingLsp(3), crossConnectingLsp(4) }
MplsOwner ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the local network management subsystem that originally created the object(s) in question. The values of this enumeration are defined as follows:
unknown(1) - the local network management subsystem cannot discern which component created the object.
other(2) - the local network management subsystem is able to discern which component created the object, but the component is not listed within the following choices, e.g., command line interface (cli).
snmp(3) - The Simple Network Management Protocol was used to configure this object initially.
ldp(4) - The Label Distribution Protocol was used to configure this object initially.
crldp(5) - The Constraint-Based Label Distribution Protocol was used to configure this object initially.
rsvpTe(6) - The Resource Reservation Protocol was used to configure this object initially.
policyAgent(7) - A policy agent (perhaps in combination with one of the above protocols) was used to configure this object initially.
An object created by any of the above choices MAY be modified or destroyed by the same or a different choice." SYNTAX INTEGER { unknown(1), other(2), snmp(3), ldp(4), crldp(5), rsvpTe(6), policyAgent(7) }
MplsLspType sorts LSPs into four flavours 🦋 Terminating (it ends on this LSR/LER), originating (this is the head-end), cross-connecting (it comes in and goes out on the same LSR), and unknown if none of those fit 🌈 The MplsOwner textual convention tells you which subsystem first created an object: unknown, other (like the CLI), snmp, ldp, crldp, rsvpTe, or policyAgent 👑 Anything created one of those ways MAY be modified or destroyed by the same or a different choice. Bestie, that's a whole family tree 🌳
MplsPathIndexOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique identifier used to identify a specific path used by a tunnel. A value of 0 (zero) means that no path is in use." SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295)
MplsPathIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique value to index (by Path number) an entry in a table." SYNTAX Unsigned32(1..4294967295)
MplsRetentionMode ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The label retention mode which specifies whether an LSR maintains a label binding for a FEC learned from a neighbor that is not its next hop for the FEC.
If the value is conservative(1) then advertised label mappings are retained only if they will be used to forward packets, i.e., if label came from a valid next hop.
If the value is liberal(2) then all advertised label mappings are retained whether they are from a valid next hop or not." REFERENCE "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture, RFC3031.
LDP Specification, RFC3036, Section 2.6.2." SYNTAX INTEGER { conservative(1), liberal(2) }
Path indexes are next 🌸 MplsPathIndexOrZero uses 0 to mean no path is in use, while MplsPathIndex starts at 1 and is just a unique number for indexing a table entry. Then MplsRetentionMode is giving conservative vs liberal 💅 Conservative keeps a label mapping only if it'll actually be used to forward packets (it came from a valid next hop). Liberal keeps every advertised mapping, valid next hop or not. Two very different personalities, and I'm here for both 🫶
MplsTunnelAffinity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Describes the configured 32-bit Include-any, include-all, or exclude-all constraint for constraint-based link selection." REFERENCE "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, RFC3209, Section 4.7.4." SYNTAX Unsigned32(0..4294967295)
MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique index into mplsTunnelTable. For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value should correspond to the RSVP Tunnel ID used for the RSVP-TE session." SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)
MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The tunnel entry with instance index 0 should refer to the configured tunnel interface (if one exists).
Values greater than 0, but less than or equal to 65535, should be used to indicate signaled (or backup) tunnel LSP instances. For tunnel LSPs signaled using RSVP, this value should correspond to the RSVP LSP ID used for the RSVP-TE LSP.
MplsTunnelAffinity is a 32-bit Include-any, include-all, or exclude-all constraint for link selection 🦋 MplsTunnelIndex is a unique index into the tunnel table and, for RSVP tunnels, lines up with the RSVP Tunnel ID for that session ✨ Last but not least, MplsTunnelInstanceIndex: instance 0 is the configured tunnel interface (if one exists), and anything from 1 up to 65535 is for signaled (or backup) tunnel LSP instances, matching the RSVP LSP ID for RSVP-TE LSPs 🧚 Honestly the tunnel indexing is giving full main character energy 🌈
Values greater than 65535 apply to FRR
detour instances."
SYNTAX Unsigned32(0|1..65535|65536..4294967295)
TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A value that represents a type of address for a
Traffic Engineered (TE) Tunnel hop.
unknown(0) An unknown address type. This value
MUST be used if the value of the
corresponding TeHopAddress object is a
zero-length string. It may also be
used to indicate a TeHopAddress which
is not in one of the formats defined
below.
ipv4(1) An IPv4 network address as defined by
the InetAddressIPv4 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
[RFC3291].
ipv6(2) A global IPv6 address as defined by
the InetAddressIPv6 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
[RFC3291].
asnumber(3) An Autonomous System (AS) number as
defined by the TeHopAddressAS
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
unnum(4) An unnumbered interface index as
defined by the TeHopAddressUnnum
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
lspid(5) An LSP ID for TE Tunnels
(RFC3212) as defined by the
MplsLSPID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.
Each definition of a concrete TeHopAddressType
value must be accompanied by a definition
of a TEXTUAL-CONVENTION for use with that
TeHopAddress.
To support future extensions, the TeHopAddressType
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in
object type definitions. It MAY be sub-typed in
compliance statements in order to require only a
subset of these address types for a compliant
implementation.
Implementations must ensure that TeHopAddressType
objects and any dependent objects
(e.g., TeHopAddress objects) are consistent.
An inconsistentValue error must be generated
if an attempt to change a TeHopAddressType
object would, for example, lead to an
undefined TeHopAddress value that is
not defined herein. In particular,
TeHopAddressType/TeHopAddress pairs
must be changed together if the address
type changes (e.g., from ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."
REFERENCE
"TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for Internet Network
Addresses, RFC3291.
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP,
[RFC3212]"
SYNTAX INTEGER {
unknown(0),
ipv4(1),
ipv6(2),
asnumber(3),
unnum(4),
lspid(5)
}
TeHopAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Denotes a generic Tunnel hop address,
that is, the address of a node which
an LSP traverses, including the source
and destination nodes. An address may be
very concrete, for example, an IPv4 host
address (i.e., with prefix length 32);
if this IPv4 address is an interface
address, then that particular interface
must be traversed. An address may also
specify an 'abstract node', for example,
an IPv4 address with prefix length
less than 32, in which case, the LSP
can traverse any node whose address
falls in that range. An address may
also specify an Autonomous System (AS),
in which case the LSP can traverse any
node that falls within that AS.
A TeHopAddress value is always interpreted within
the context of an TeHopAddressType value. Every
usage of the TeHopAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
is required to specify the TeHopAddressType object
which provides the context. It is suggested that
the TeHopAddressType object is logically registered
before the object(s) which use the TeHopAddress
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION if they appear in the
same logical row.
The value of a TeHopAddress object must always be
consistent with the value of the associated
TeHopAddressType object. Attempts to set a
TeHopAddress object to a value which is
inconsistent with the associated TeHopAddressType
must fail with an inconsistentValue error."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..32))
TeHopAddressAS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents a two or four octet AS number.
The AS number is represented in network byte
order (MSB first). A two-octet AS number has
the two MSB octets set to zero."
REFERENCE
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network
Addresses, [RFC3291]. The
InetAutonomousSystemsNumber TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
has a SYNTAX of Unsigned32, whereas this TC
has a SYNTAX of OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)).
Both TCs represent an autonomous system number
but use different syntaxes to do so."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
TeHopAddressUnnum ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Represents an unnumbered interface:
octets contents encoding
1-4 unnumbered interface network-byte order
The corresponding TeHopAddressType value is
unnum(5)."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(4))
END4. References ✨
4.1. Normative References
- [RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, February 1997.
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
- [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
- [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "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.
- [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
- [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D., Federokow, G., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
- [RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January 2001.
- [RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.
- [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
- [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
- [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Ed., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A. Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.
- [RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002.
- [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3471, January 2003.
4.2. 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.
5. Security Considerations 🔒
Okay so this module doesn't define any management objects 🫶 Instead, it just defines a set of textual conventions that other MPLS MIB modules can use when they define their own management objects.
Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB modules that define management objects. So, bestie, this document has no impact on the security of the Internet. 💖
6. IANA Considerations 🦋
IANA has made a MIB OID assignment under the transmission branch, which means it assigned the mplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }. This sub-id was requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and it's available under transmission. 🌸
In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be rooted under the mplsStdMIB subtree. IANA is asked to manage that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 💅
IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB specified in this document. ✨
7. Contributors 🎀
This document was created by combining TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS from current MPLS MIBs and a TE-WG MIB. Co-authors on each of these MIBs contributed to the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS in this MIB and also helped a ton with the revisions of this document. Their contact details are included here because they're useful future contacts for information about this document. These co-authors are:
Cheenu Srinivasan
Bloomberg L.P.
499 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: +1-212-893-3682
EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net
Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone: +1-408-571-3516
EMail: arunv@force10networks.com
Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
P.O. Box 101 60
S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46-8-725-5900
EMail: hans@ipunplugged.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net8. Acknowledgements 🙈
This document is a product of the MPLS Working Group. The editors and contributors would like to thank Mike MacFadden and Adrian Farrel for their helpful comments on several reviews. The editors and contributors would also like to give a special shoutout to Bert Wijnen for his many detailed reviews. Bert's assistance and guidance is greatly appreciated. 👑
9. Authors' Addresses 💜
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
BXB300/2/
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone: +1-978-936-1470
EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com
Joan E. Cucchiara
Marconi Communications, Inc.
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
Phone: +1-978-275-7400
EMail: jcucchiara@mindspring.com10. Full Copyright Statement ✨
okay bestie, this is the legal bit at the end 💅 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 in it are provided on an "AS IS" basis, and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 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. 🫠
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position on whether any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to apply to the implementation or use of the technology in this document are valid or in scope, or on whether any license under those rights might or might not be available. It also doesn't claim to have made any independent effort to find those rights. 🕵️♀️ If you want the details on how rights work for RFC documents, check out BCP 78 and BCP 79 📚
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses that are going to be made available, or the result of an attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users to use these proprietary rights can be found in the IETF online IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 🌐
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that might be required to implement this standard. Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 📬🦋
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. 🎀🌸
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc3811 2004-06
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms