RFC 4801

Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management

📅 published February 2007, from ietf

RFC 4801: Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management ✨

Okay bestie, this one is a Standards Track doc from the IETF Network Working Group, dated February 2007 🌸 It's by Thomas Nadeau (Cisco Systems, Inc.) and Adrian Farrel (Old Dog Consulting), both as editors, and the header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates. Let's get into it 🦋

Status of This Memo

This document is an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and it's asking for discussion and suggestions for improvements 💬 For the standardization state and status of this protocol, check the current edition of "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 💜

Abstract

So this doc defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module full of textual conventions (TCs) for representing commonly used Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management information 🎀 The goal is that other GMPLS-related MIB modules can import these textual conventions and use them, instead of defining their own versions.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
   3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions .......................3
   4. Security Considerations .........................................5
   5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
   6. References ......................................................6
      6.1. Normative References .......................................6
      6.2. Informative References .....................................7
   7. Acknowledgements ................................................7

1. Introduction ✨

Okay so this document defines a MIB module with textual conventions (TCs) for GMPLS networks 🦋 These textual conventions should be imported by MIB modules that manage GMPLS networks.

This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [RFC3811], which defines textual conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) management. [RFC3811] may continue to be used without this MIB module in networks that support only MPLS 🌸

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]. These caps words are the important ones 👑

For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [RFC3945] 📖

2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 🧚

For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, check section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410] 💅

Managed objects are accessed through a virtual information store called 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 in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 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. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 🎀

This MIB module makes reference to the following documents: [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC3471], and [RFC3811] 🍓

Here's the whole module, copied exactly as written 💜

   GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

   IMPORTS
     MODULE-IDENTITY
       FROM SNMPv2-SMI                                    -- RFC 2578
     TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       FROM SNMPv2-TC                                     -- RFC 2579
     mplsStdMIB
       FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB                               -- RFC 3811
   ;

   gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
     LAST-UPDATED
       "200702280000Z" -- 28 February 2007 00:00:00 GMT
     ORGANIZATION
       "IETF Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group"
     CONTACT-INFO
       "       Thomas D. Nadeau
               Cisco Systems, Inc.
        Email: tnadeau@cisco.com

               Adrian Farrel
               Old Dog Consulting
        Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

        Comments about this document should be emailed directly to the
        CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org"
     DESCRIPTION
       "Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).  This version of
        this MIB module is part of RFC 4801; see the RFC itself for
        full legal notices.

        This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for concepts used in
        Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks."
     REVISION
        "200702280000Z" -- 28 February 2007 00:00:00 GMT
     DESCRIPTION
       "Initial version published as part of RFC 4801."
   ::= { mplsStdMIB 12 }

   GmplsFreeformLabelTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION

       "This TEXTUAL-CONVENTION can be used as the syntax of an object
        that contains any GMPLS Label.  Objects with this syntax can be
        used to represent labels that have label types that are not
        defined in any RFCs.  The freeform GMPLS Label may also be used
        by systems that do not wish to represent labels that have
        label types defined in RFCs using type-specific syntaxes."
     REFERENCE
       "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
           Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2."
     SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64))

   GmplsLabelTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
       "Determines the interpretation that should be applied to an
        object that encodes a label.  The possible types are:

        gmplsMplsLabel(1)           - The label is an MPLS Packet, Cell,
                                      or Frame Label and is encoded as
                                      described for the TEXTUAL-
                                      CONVENTION MplsLabel defined in
                                      RFC 3811.

        gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) - The label is a Port or Wavelength
                                      Label as defined in RFC 3471.

        gmplsFreeformLabel(3)       - The label is any form of label
                                      encoded as an OCTET STRING using
                                      the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
                                      GmplsFreeformLabel.

        gmplsSonetLabel(4)          - The label is a Synchronous Optical
                                      Network (SONET) Label as
                                      defined in RFC 4606.

        gmplsSdhLabel(5)            - The label is a Synchronous Digital
                                      Hierarchy (SDH) Label as defined
                                      in RFC 4606.

        gmplsWavebandLabel(6)       - The label is a Waveband Label as
                                      defined in RFC 3471."
     REFERENCE
       "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
           Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.
        2. Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label
           Switching (MPLS) Management, RFC 3811, section 3.
        3. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions
           for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
           Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 4606."
      SYNTAX INTEGER {
        gmplsMplsLabel(1),
        gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2),
        gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3),
        gmplsSonetLabel(4),
        gmplsSdhLabel(5),
        gmplsWavebandLabel(6)
      }

   GmplsSegmentDirectionTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
       "The direction of data flow on an Label Switched Path (LSP)
        segment with respect to the head of the LSP.

        Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling
        protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling
        (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination
        (also known as the egress).  For unidirectional LSPs, this
        usually matches the direction of flow of data.

        For manually configured unidirectional LSPs, the direction of
        the LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data.  For
        manually configured bidirectional LSPs, an arbitrary decision
        must be made about which LER is the 'head'."
     SYNTAX  INTEGER {
       forward(1),   -- data flows from head-end of LSP toward tail-end
       reverse(2)    -- data flows from tail-end of LSP toward head-end
     }

   END

7. Acknowledgements ✨

okay so this whole doc was cooked by the CCAMP Working Group 🫶 they're the crew that got it across the finish line, bestie 💅

Huge shoutout to Joan Cucchiara, who helped with compilation issues and gave a super thorough MIB Doctor review 🩺🎀. Big thanks also to Lars Eggert, David Harrington, Harrie Hazewinkel, Dan Romascanu, and Bert Wijnen for their review comments 💖. Literally everyone who reviewed it, iconic 👑

Contact Information

Here are the people who wrote it, with their details exactly as listed:

Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719

EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com


Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting

Phone: +44 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk


Cheenu Srinivasan
Bloomberg L.P.
731 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10022

Phone: +1-212-617-3682
EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net


Tim Hall
Data Connection Ltd.
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
EN2 6BQ, UK

Phone: +44 20 8366 1177
EMail: tim.hall@dataconnection.com


Ed Harrison
Data Connection Ltd.
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
EN2 6BQ, UK

Phone: +44 20 8366 1177
EMail: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com

okay, legal time, but make it cute 🎀 the copyright here is (C) The IETF Trust (2007) 💜

this doc is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions in BCP 78, and except for what's set out there, the authors keep all their rights 🦋

and the disclaimer, which I'm keeping word for word because it matters 💀:

THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 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 isn't taking a stance on whether any IP rights people might claim over the tech in this doc are valid, or how far they reach, or whether any license for them is even available 🤷‍♀️ it also hasn't gone hunting for those rights itself. if you want the rules on rights in RFCs, check BCP 78 and BCP 79 📚

copies of IPR disclosures sent to the IETF Secretariat, and any assurances of licenses, or results from trying to get a general license or permission to use proprietary rights for implementing or using this spec, can be found in the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🌸

and the IETF is inviting anyone to flag any copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other proprietary rights that might cover tech needed 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 💖 and that's the end of the doc, bestie ✨🦋

📦 where this page comes from