RFC 7330
Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
RFC 7330 💖 Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Management
Okay bestie, let's start with the vibe check ✨. This is RFC 7330 from the IETF, and it's on the Standards Track 🦋, so it's an official Internet Standard. It was written by T. Nadeau (Brocade), Z. Ali, and N. Akiya (Cisco Systems). It has ISSN 2070-1721 and is dated August 2014 🎀. The title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates.
Abstract
This document defines two Management Information Base (MIB) modules that contain Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in BFD-related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations 🌸.
Status of This Memo
Okay so this section is the official paperwork 💅. It's an Internet Standards Track document, and it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community, got public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Info about the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback lives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7330 🔗.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 🌈.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, because they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document 🫶. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................2
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ......................2
3. BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions .........................3
4. Security Considerations .........................................9
5. IANA Considerations ............................................10
6. Acknowledgments ................................................10
7. References .....................................................10
7.1. Normative References ......................................10
7.2. Informative References ....................................111. Introduction ✨
Okay, main character intro time 👑. This document defines two MIB modules that contain Textual Conventions for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocols. These Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules that manage BFD protocols 💖.
Note that names of Textual Conventions defined in this document are prefixed with either "Bfd" or "IANA", so it's obvious to readers which ones are specific to BFD modules and which ones are IANA maintained 🧚.
For an introduction to the concepts of BFD, check out [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130] 📚.
1.1. Requirements Language
Here's the key word situation 🔑. 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] 🍓.
2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
Lowkey the big picture starts here 🦋. For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
Managed objects are accessed via 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 defined 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. BFD Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ✨
okay bestie, this section is where the MIB lives 🧚 it's the textual conventions for BFD, so basically the reusable types that other BFD MIB modules can pull in. it's giving organization 💅 and it cites [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881], [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130] so you know it's well-sourced fr fr
The first module is the BFD-TC-STD-MIB, which defines the BFD textual conventions. Then there's the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB, which holds the IANA-maintained conventions for diagnostics, session types, modes, states, and authentication. Both have their own MODULE-IDENTITY and both were initially published in this RFC 🌸
BFD-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2, Unsigned32
FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC 2578
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- RFC 2579
bfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED
"201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
ORGANIZATION "IETF Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
Working Group"
CONTACT-INFO
"Thomas D. Nadeau
Brocade
Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: nobo@cisco.com
Comments about this document should be emailed directly
to the BFD working group mailing list at
rtg-bfd@ietf.org"
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)."
REVISION "201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version. Published as RFC 7330."
::= { mib-2 223 }
BfdSessIndexTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An index used to uniquely identify BFD sessions."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)
BfdIntervalTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The BFD interval in microseconds."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)
BfdMultiplierTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The BFD failure detection multiplier."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..255)
BfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"UDP destination port number of BFD control packets.
3784 represents single-hop BFD session.
4784 represents multi-hop BFD session.
6784 represents BFD on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) session.
However, syntax is left open to wider range of values
purposely for two reasons:
1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for
valid proprietary reason.
2. Potential future extension documents.
The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used
to indicate special conditions and should not be considered
a valid port number."
REFERENCE
"Use of port 3784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop), RFC 5881, June 2010.
Use of port 4784 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multihop Paths, RFC 5883, June 2010.
Use of port 6784 from Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S.,
Binderberger, M., and J. Haas, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Interfaces, RFC 7130, February 2014."
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)
BfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "d"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"UDP source port number of BFD control packets.
However, syntax is left open to wider range of values
purposely for two reasons:
1. Implementation uses non-compliant port number for
valid proprietary reason.
2. Potential future extension documents.
The value of 0 is a special, reserved value used
to indicate special conditions and should not be considered
a valid port number."
REFERENCE
"Port 49152..65535 from RFC5881"
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65535)
END
IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2
FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC 2578
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- RFC 2579
ianaBfdTCStdMib MODULE-IDENTITY
LAST-UPDATED
"201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
ORGANIZATION
"IANA"
CONTACT-INFO
"Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Postal: 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Tel: +1 310 301 5800
EMail: iana@iana.org"
DESCRIPTION
"Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)."
REVISION
"201408120000Z" -- 12 August 2014 00:00:00 GMT
DESCRIPTION
"Initial version. Published as RFC 7330."
::= { mib-2 224 }
IANAbfdDiagTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A common BFD diagnostic code."
REFERENCE
"Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010.
Allan, D., Swallow, G., and Drake, J., Proactive Connectivity
Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect
Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile, RFC 6428,
November 2011."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
noDiagnostic(0),
controlDetectionTimeExpired(1),
echoFunctionFailed(2),
neighborSignaledSessionDown(3),
forwardingPlaneReset(4),
pathDown(5),
concatenatedPathDown(6),
administrativelyDown(7),
reverseConcatenatedPathDown(8),
misConnectivityDefect(9)
}
IANAbfdSessTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD session type"
REFERENCE
"Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010.
Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop),
RFC 5881, June 2010.
Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths, RFC 5883,
June 2010."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
singleHop(1),
multiHopTotallyArbitraryPaths(2),
multiHopOutOfBandSignaling(3),
multiHopUnidirectionalLinks(4)
}
IANAbfdSessOperModeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD session operating mode"
REFERENCE
"Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
asyncModeWEchoFunction(1),
asynchModeWOEchoFunction(2),
demandModeWEchoFunction(3),
demandModeWOEchoFunction(4)
}
IANAbfdSessStateTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD session state. State failing(5) is only applicable if
corresponding session is running in BFD version 0."
REFERENCE
"Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
adminDown(1),
down(2),
init(3),
up(4),
failing(5)
}
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD authentication type"
REFERENCE
"Sections 4.2 - 4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward,
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
RFC 5880, June 2010."
SYNTAX INTEGER {
noAuthentication(-1),
reserved(0),
simplePassword(1),
keyedMD5(2),
meticulousKeyedMD5(3),
keyedSHA1(4),
meticulousKeyedSHA1(5)
}
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1x "
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"BFD authentication key type.
An IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC is always interpreted
within the context of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC
value. Every usage of the IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC
textual convention is required to specify the
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object that provides the
context. It is suggested that the
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object be logically registered
before the object(s) that use the
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC textual convention, if they
appear in the same logical row.
The value of an IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC must
always be consistent with the value of the associated
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC object. Attempts to set an
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object to a value inconsistent
with the associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC must fail
with an inconsistentValue error.
The following size constraints for an
IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC object are defined for the
associated IANAbfdSessAuthenticationTypeTC values show below:
noAuthentication(-1): SIZE(0)
reserved(0): SIZE(0)
simplePassword(1): SIZE(1..16)
keyedMD5(2): SIZE(16)
meticulousKeyedMD5(3): SIZE(16)
keyedSHA1(4): SIZE(20)
meticulousKeyedSHA1(5): SIZE(20)
When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to limit
the number of potential instance sub-identifiers; otherwise,
the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the appropriate
conceptual row DESCRIPTION clauses, or in the surrounding
documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION clause that
is appropriate."
REFERENCE
"Sections 4.2 - 4.4 from Katz, D. and D. Ward, Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD), RFC 5880, June 2010."
SYNTAX OCTET STRING(SIZE(0..252))
ENDthe big one in there is IANAbfdSessAuthenticationKeyTC. when this convention is used as the syntax of an index object, the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause, and the applicable constraints MUST be stated somewhere, so no skipping that 🙈
4. Security Considerations 🔒
okay, this one is short but it's serious, so listen up 💜 this module doesn't define any management objects at all. it just defines a set of textual conventions that other BFD MIB modules can use to define management objects.
meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB modules that actually define management objects. so this document has no impact on the security of the Internet. 🌈
5. IANA Considerations ✨
okay so this section is the IANA paperwork part, and it's giving "who's in charge of the list" energy 📋💅. This document gives the base definition of the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB module, and that MIB is under the direct control of IANA 👑. Section 3 has the initial contents, so go peek there 🦋. You can find the most up-to-date version of this MIB at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianabfdtcstd-mib> 🌸. New assignments in IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB happen via IETF Review [RFC5226] ✨.
This MIB makes reference to the following documents: [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC5880], [RFC5881] and [RFC5883], [RFC6428], and [RFC7130] 📚. It's a whole squad of citations, bestie 🫶.
IANA assigned an OID to the BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in this document as { mib-2 223 } 🔢.
IANA assigned an OID to the IANA-BFD-TC-STD-MIB module specified in this document as { mib-2 224 } 🎀.
6. Acknowledgments 🫶
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Jeffrey Haas for performing thorough reviews and providing a number of suggestions 💖. The authors would also like to thank David Ward and Christer Holmberg for their comments and suggestions 🌈. Iconic group project behavior, honestly 😭.
7. References 📚
7.1. Normative References 🔥
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "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.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June 2010.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, June 2010.
[RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 6428, November 2011.
[RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Chen, M., Boutros, S., Binderberger, M., and J. Haas, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 7130, February 2014.
7.2. 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.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
Authors' Addresses 💌
Thomas D. Nadeau Brocade
EMail: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Zafar Ali Cisco Systems
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya Cisco Systems
EMail: nobo@cisco.com
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7330 2014-08
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms