home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group M. Rose, Editor
- Request for Comments: 1161 Performance Systems International, Inc.
- June 1990
-
-
- SNMP over OSI
-
- Table of Contents
-
- 1. Status of this Memo ................................... 1
- 2. Background ............................................ 1
- 2.1 A Digression on User Interfaces ...................... 2
- 2.1.1 Addressing Conventions for UDP-based service ....... 3
- 2.2 A Digression of Layering ............................. 3
- 3. Mapping onto CLTS ..................................... 4
- 3.1 Addressing Conventions ............................... 4
- 3.1.1 Conventions for CLNP-based service ................. 4
- 4. Mapping onto COTS ..................................... 4
- 4.1 Addressing Conventions ............................... 5
- 4.1.1 Conventions for TP4/CLNP-based service ............. 5
- 4.1.2 Conventions for TP0/X.25-based service ............. 6
- 5. Acknowledgements ...................................... 6
- 6. References ............................................ 7
- 7. Security Considerations................................ 8
- 8. Author's Address....................................... 8
-
- 1. Status of this Memo
-
- This memo defines an experimental means for running the Simple
- Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.
-
- This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet community,
- However, after experimentation, if sufficient consensus is reached in
- the Internet community, then a subsequent revision of this document
- might be made an Internet standard for those systems choosing to
- implement the SNMP over OSI transport services.
-
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- 2. Background
-
- The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) as defined in [1] is
- now used as an integral part of the network management framework for
- TCP/IP-based internets. Together, with its companions standards,
- which define the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2], and
- the Management Information Base (MIB) [3], the SNMP has received
- widespread deployment in many operational networks running the
- Internet suite of protocols.
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- It should not be surprising that many of these sites might acquire
- OSI capabilities and may wish to leverage their investment in SNMP
- technology towards managing those OSI components. This memo
- addresses these concerns by defining a framework for running the SNMP
- in an environment which supports the OSI transport services.
-
- In OSI, there are two such services, a connection-oriented transport
- services (COTS) as defined in [4], and a connectionless-mode
- transport service (CLTS) as defined in [5]. Although the primary
- deployment of the SNMP is over the connectionless-mode transport
- service provided by the Internet suite of protocols (i.e., the User
- Datagram Protocol or UDP [6]), a design goal of the SNMP was to be
- able to use either a CO-mode or CL-mode transport service. As such,
- this memo describes mappings from the SNMP onto both the COTS and the
- CLTS.
-
- 2.1. A Digression on User Interfaces
-
- It is likely that user-interfaces to the SNMP will be developed that
- support multiple transport backings. In an environment such as this,
- it is often important to maintain a consistent addressing scheme for
- users. Since the mappings described in this memo are onto the OSI
- transport services, use of the textual scheme described in [7], which
- describes a string encoding for OSI presentation addresses, is
- recommended. The syntax defined in [7] is equally applicable towards
- transport addresses.
-
- In this context, a string encoding usually appears as:
-
- [<t-selector>/]<n-provider><n-address>[+<n-info>]
-
- where:
-
- (1) <t-selector> is usually either an ASCII string enclosed
- in double-quotes (e.g., "snmp"), or a hexadecimal number
- (e.g., '736e6d70'H);
-
- (2) <n-provider> is one of several well-known providers of a
- connectivity-service, one of: "Internet=" for a
- transport-service from the Internet suite of protocols,
- "Int-X25=" for the 1980 CCITT X.25 recommendation, or
- "NS+" for the OSI network service;
-
- (3) <n-address> is an address in a format specific to the
- <n-provider>; and,
-
- (4) <n-info> is any additional addressing information in a
- format specific to the <n-provider>.
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- It is not the purpose of this memo to provide an exhaustive
- description of string encodings such as these. Readers should
- consult [7] for detailed information on the syntax. However, this
- memo recommends that, as an implementation option, user-interfaces to
- the SNMP that support multiple transport backings SHOULD implement
- this syntax.
-
- 2.1.1. Addressing Conventions for UDP-based service
-
- In the context of a UDP-based transport backing, addresses would be
- encoded as:
-
- Internet=<host>+161+2
-
- which says that the transport service is from the Internet suite of
- protocols, residing at <host>, on port 161, using the UDP (2). The
- token <host> may be either a domain name or a dotted-quad, e.g., both
-
- Internet=cheetah.nyser.net+161+2
-
- and
-
- Internet=192.52.180.1+161+2
-
- are both valid. Note however that if domain name "cheetah.nyser.net"
- maps to multiple IP addresses, then this implies multiple transport
- addresses. The number of addresses examined by the application (and
- the order of examination) are specific to each application.
-
- Of course, this memo does not require that other interface schemes
- not be used. Clearly, use of a simple hostname is preferable to the
- string encoding above. However, for the sake of uniformity, for
- those user-interfaces to the SNMP that support multiple transport
- backings, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that the syntax in [7] be
- adopted and even the mapping for UDP-based transport be valid.
-
- 2.2. A Digression of Layering
-
- Although other frameworks view network management as an application,
- extensive experience with the SNMP suggests otherwise. In essense,
- network management is a function unlike any other user of a transport
- service. The citation [8] develops this argument in full. As such,
- it is inappropriate to map the SNMP onto the OSI application layer.
- Rather, it is mapped to OSI transport services, in order to build on
- the proven success of the Internet network management framework.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- 3. Mapping onto CLTS
-
- Mapping the SNMP onto the CLTS is straight-forward: the elements of
- procedure are identical to that of using the UDP. In particular,
- note that the CLTS and the service offered by the UDP both transmit
- packets of information which contain full addressing information.
- Thus, mapping the SNMP onto the CLTS, a "transport address" in the
- context of [1], is simply a transport-selector and network address.
-
- 3.1. Addressing Conventions
-
- Unlike the Internet suite of protocols, OSI does not use well-known
- ports. Rather demultiplexing occurs on the basis of "selectors",
- which are opaque strings of octets, which have meaning only at the
- destination. In order to foster interoperable implementations of the
- SNMP over the CLTS, it is necessary define a selector for this
- purpose.
-
- 3.1.1. Conventions for CLNP-based service
-
- When the CLTS is used to provide the transport backing for the SNMP,
- demultiplexing will occur on the basis of transport selector. The
- transport selector used shall be the four ASCII characters
-
- snmp
-
- Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be
- textual, described as:
-
- "snmp"/NS+<nsap>
-
- where:
-
- (1) <nsap> is a hex string defining the nsap, e.g.,
-
- "snmp"/NS+4900590800200038bafe00
-
- Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
- on the transport selector
-
- snmp-trap
-
- which consists of nine ASCII characters.
-
- 4. Mapping onto COTS
-
- Mapping the SNMP onto the COTS is more difficult as the SNMP does not
- specifically require an existing connection. Thus, the mapping
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- consists of establishing a transport connection, sending one or more
- SNMP messages on that connection, and then releasing the transport
- connection.
-
- Consistent with the SNMP model, the initiator of a connection should
- not require that responses to a request be returned on that
- connection. However, if a responder to a connection sends SNMP
- messages on a connection, then these MUST be in response to requests
- received on that connection.
-
- Ideally, the transport connection SHOULD be released by the
- initiator, however, note that the responder may release the
- connection due to resource limitations. Further note, that the
- amount of time a connection remains established is implementation-
- specific. Implementors should take care to choose an appropriate
- dynamic algorithm.
-
- Also consistent with the SNMP model, the initiator should not
- associate any reliability characteristics with the use of a
- connection. Issues such as retransmission of SNMP messages, etc.,
- always remain with the SNMP application, not with the transport
- service.
-
- 4.1. Addressing Conventions
-
- Unlike the Internet suite of protocols, OSI does not use well-known
- ports. Rather demultiplexing occurs on the basis of "selectors",
- which are opaque strings of octets, which have meaning only at the
- destination. In order to foster interoperable implementations of the
- SNMP over the COTS, it is necessary define a selector for this
- purpose. However, to be consistent with the various connectivity-
- services, different conventions, based on the actual underlying
- service, will be used.
-
- 4.1.1. Conventions for TP4/CLNP-based service
-
- When a COTS based on the TP4/CLNP is used to provide the transport
- backing for the SNMP, demultiplexing will occur on the basis of
- transport selector. The transport selector used shall be the four
- ASCII characters
-
- snmp
-
- Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be
- textual, described as:
-
- "snmp"/NS+<nsap>
-
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- where:
-
- (1) <nsap> is a hex string defining the nsap, e.g.,
-
- "snmp"/NS+4900590800200038bafe00
-
- Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
- on the transport selector
-
- snmp-trap
-
- which consists of nine ASCII characters.
-
- 4.1.2. Conventions for TP0/X.25-based service
-
- When a COTS based on the TP0/X.25 is used to provide the transport
- backing for the SNMP, demultiplexing will occur on the basis of X.25
- protocol-ID. The protocol-ID used shall be the four octets
-
- 03018200
-
- Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be textual
- described as:
-
- Int-X25=<dte>+PID+03018200
-
- where:
-
- (1) <dte> is the X.121 DTE, e.g.,
-
- Int-X25=23421920030013+PID+03018200
-
- Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
- on the protocol-ID
-
- 03019000
-
- 5. Acknowledgements
-
- This document was produced by the SNMP Working Group:
-
- Karl Auerbach, Epilogue Technology
- David Bridgham, Epilogue Technology
- Brian Brown, Synoptics
- John Burress, Wellfleet
- Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
- James R. Davin, MIT-LCS
- Mark S. Fedor, PSI, Inc.
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- Stan Froyd, ACC
- Satish Joshi, Synoptics
- Ken Key, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
- Gary Malkin, FTP Software
- Randy Mayhew, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
- Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems
- Marshall T. Rose, PSI, Inc. (chair)
- Greg Satz, cisco
- Martin Lee Schoffstall, PSI, Inc.
- Bob Stewart, Xyplex
- Geoff Thompson, Synoptics
- Bill Versteeg, Network Research Corporation
- Wengyik Yeong, PSI, Inc.
-
- 6. References
-
- [1] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "A Simple
- Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157, SNMP Research,
- Performance Systems International, Performance Systems
- International, and MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.
-
- [2] Rose M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
- Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1155,
- Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.
-
- [3] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
- Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
- LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.
-
- [4] Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
- "Transport Service Definition", International Organization for
- Standardization, International Standard 8072, June 1986.
-
- [5] Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
- "Transport Service Definition - Addendum 1: Connectionless-mode
- Transmission", International Organization for Standardization,
- International Standard 8072/AD 1, December 1986.
-
- [6] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
- Sciences Institute, November 1980.
-
- [7] Kille, S., "A String Encoding of Presentation Address", Research
- Note RN/89/14, Department of Computer Science, University College
- London, February 1989.
-
- [8] Case, J., Davin, J., Fedor, M., and M. Schoffstall, "Network
- Management and the Design of SNMP", ConneXions (ISSN 0894-5926),
- Volume 3, Number 3, March 1989.
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
-
-
- 7. Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
-
- 8. Author's Address
-
- Marshall T. Rose
- PSI, Inc.
- PSI California Office
- P.O. Box 391776
- Mountain View, CA 94039
-
- Phone: (415) 961-3380
-
- Email: mrose@PSI.COM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 8]
-