Network Working Group T. Nadeau, Ed.

Network Working Group T. Nadeau, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3811 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track J. Cucchiara, Ed.
Marconi Communications, Inc.
June 2004

Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) management information. The intent is that
these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS
related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
representations.

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

1. Introduction

This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions
for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These Textual
Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage MPLS
networks.

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].

For an introduction to the concepts of MPLS, see [RFC3031].

2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework

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, termed
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. MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

Cisco Systems, Inc.
[email protected]

Joan Cucchiara
Marconi Communications, Inc.
[email protected]

Cheenu Srinivasan
Bloomberg L.P.
[email protected]

Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
[email protected]

Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
[email protected]

Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
[email protected]

Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at
[email protected]."
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"

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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"

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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)

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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)
}

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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))

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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),

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

other(2),
snmp(3),
ldp(4),
crldp(5),
rsvpTe(6),
policyAgent(7)
}

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)
}

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 11]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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.

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 12]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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))."

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 13]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 14]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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))

END

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 15]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

4. 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.

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 16]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

[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

This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS
MIB modules to define management objects.

Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
modules that define management objects. Therefore, 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,
that is, assigned the mplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }. This
sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and is
available under transmission.

In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be
rooted under the mplsStdMIB subtree. The IANA is requested to manage
that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a Standards
Action as specified in [RFC2434].

The IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB
specified in this document.

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 17]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

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 contained in this MIB and also
contributed greatly to the revisions of this document. These co-
authors addresses are included here because they are 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: [email protected]

Arun Viswanathan
Force10 Networks, Inc.
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035

Phone: +1-408-571-3516
EMail: [email protected]

Hans Sjostrand
ipUnplugged
P.O. Box 101 60
S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden

Phone: +46-8-725-5900
EMail: [email protected]

Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Phone: +1-408-745-2000
EMail: [email protected]

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 18]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

8. 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. Also, the editors and
contributors would like to give a special acknowledgement 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: [email protected]

Joan E. Cucchiara
Marconi Communications, Inc.
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851

Phone: +1-978-275-7400
EMail: [email protected]

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 19]

RFC 3811 MPLS TC MIB June 2004

10. Full Copyright Statement

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 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 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 regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line 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 may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
[email protected].

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Nadeau & Cucchiara Standards Track [Page 20]