|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 2962
An SNMP Application Level Gateway for Payload Address Translation
Last modified on Monday, October 9th, 2000
 Permanent link to RFC 2962
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 2962
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 2962
Network Working Group D. Raz
Request for Comments: 2962 Lucent Technologies
Category: Informational J. Schoenwaelder
TU Braunschweig
B. Sugla
ISPSoft Inc.
October 2000
An SNMP Application Level Gateway for Payload Address Translation
 Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright © The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
IESG Note
This document describes an SNMP application layer gateway (ALG),
which may be useful in certain environments. The document does also
list the issues and problems that can arise when used as a generic
SNMP ALG. Specifically, when using SNMPv3's authentication and
privacy mechanisms this approach may be very problematic and
jeopardize the SNMP security. The reader is urged to carefully
consider these issues before deciding to deploy this type of SNMP
ALG.
Abstract
This document describes the ALG (Application Level Gateway) for the
SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) by which IP (Internet
Protocol) addresses in the payload of SNMP packets are statically
mapped from one group to another. The SNMP ALG is a specific case of
an Application Level Gateway as described in [15].
An SNMP ALG allows network management stations to manage multiple
networks that use conflicting IP addresses. This can be important in
environments where there is a need to use SNMP with NAT (Network
Address Translator) in order to manage several potentially
overlapping addressing realms.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
This document includes a detailed description of the requirements and
limitations for an implementation of an SNMP Application Level
Gateway. It also discusses other approaches to exchange SNMP packets
across conflicting addressing realms.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................2
2. Terminology and Concepts Used ................................5
3. Problem Scope and Requirements ................................5
3.1 IP Addresses in SNMP Messages ................................6
3.2 Requirements ..................................................7
4. Translating IP Addresses in SNMP Packets ......................7
4.1 Basic SNMP Application Level Gateway ..........................8
4.2 Advanced SNMP Application Level Gateway ......................8
4.3 Packet Size and UDP Checksum ..................................9
5. Limitations and Alternate Solutions .........................10
6. Security Considerations .....................................12
7. Summary and Recommendations .................................13
8. Current Implementations .....................................14
9. Acknowledgments .............................................14
10. References ...................................................14
11. Authors' Addresses ...........................................16
12. Description of the Encoding of SNMP Packets .................17
13. Full Copyright Statement .....................................20
1. Introduction
The need for IP address translation arises when a network's internal
IP addresses cannot be used outside the network. Using basic network
address translation allows local hosts on such private networks
(addressing realms) to transparently access the external global
Internet and enables access to selective local hosts from the
outside. In particular it is not unlikely to have several addressing
realms that are using the same private IPv4 address space within the
same organization.
In many of these cases, there is a need to manage the local
addressing realm from a manager site outside the domain. However,
managing such a network presents unique problems and challenges.
Most available management applications use SNMP (Simple Network
Management Protocol) to retrieve information from the network
elements. For example, a router may be queried by the management
application about the addresses of its neighboring elements. This
information is then sent by the router back to the management
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 2
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
station as part of the payload of an SNMP packet. In order to retain
consistency in the view as seen by the management station we need to
be able to locate and translate IP address related information in the
payload of such packets.
The SNMP Application Level Gateway for Payload Address Translation,
or SNMP ALG, is a technique in which the payload of SNMP packets
(PDUs) is scanned and IP address related information is translated if
needed. In this context, an SNMP ALG can be an additional component
in a NAT implementation, or it can be a separate entity, that may
reside in the same gateway or even on a separate node. Note that in
our context of management application all devices in the network are
assumed to have a fixed IP address. Thus, SNMP ALG should only be
combined with NAT that uses static address assignment for all the
devices in the network.
A typical scenario where SNMP ALG is deployed as part of NAT is
presented in figure Figure 1. A manager device is managing a remote
stub, with translated IP addresses.
\ | / .
+---------------+ WAN . +------------------------------+
|Regional Router|-----------------|Stub Router w/NAT and SNMP ALG|
+---------------+ . +------------------------------+
| . |
| . | LAN
+----------+ . ---------------
| Manager | Stub border Managed network
+----------+
Figure 1: SNMP ALG in a NAT configuration
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 3
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
A similar scenario occurs when several subnetworks with private (and
possibly conflicting) IP addresses are to be managed by the same
management station. This scenario is presented in Figure 2.
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| SNMP ALG |-----|Management device|
+---------------+ +-----------------+
T1 | | T1
| |
Stub A .............|.... ....|............ Stub B
| |
+---------------+ +----------------+
|Bi-directional | |Bi-directional |
|NAT Router w/ | |NAT Router w/ |
|static address | |static address |
|mapping | |mapping |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
| LAN LAN |
------------- -------------
192.10.x.y | | 192.10.x.y
/____\ /____\
Figure 2: Using external SNMP ALG to manage two private networks
Since the devices in the managed network are monitored by the manager
device they must obtain a fixed IP address. Therefore, the NAT used
in this case must be a basic NAT with a static one to one mapping.
An SNMP ALG is required to scan all the payload of SNMP packets, to
detect IP address related data, and to translate this data if needed.
This is a much more computationally involved process than the bi-
directional NAT, however they both use the same translation tables.
In many cases the router may be unable to handle SNMP ALG and retain
acceptable performance. In these cases it may be better to locate the
SNMP ALG outside the router, as described in Figure 2.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 4
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
2. Terminology and Concepts Used
In general we adapt the terminology defined in [15]. Our main
concern are SNMP messages exchanged between SNMP engines. This
document only discusses SNMP messages that are send over UDP, which
is the preferred transport mapping for SNMP messages [5]. SNMP
messages send over other transports can be handled in a similar way.
Thus, the term SNMP packet is used throughout this document to refer
to an SNMP message contained in an UDP packet.
SNMP messages contain SNMP PDUs (Protocol Data Units). An SNMP PDU
defines the parameters for a specific SNMP protocol operation. The
notion of flow is less relevant in this case, and hence we will focus
on the information contained in a single SNMP packet.
There are currently three versions of SNMP. SNMP version 1 (SNMPv1)
protocol is defined in STD 15, RFC 1157 [2]. The SNMP version 2c
(SNMPv2c) protocol is defined in RFC 1901 [3], RFC 1905 [4] and RFC
1906 [5]. Finally, the SNMP version 3 (SNMPv3) protocol is defined
in RFC 1905 [4], 1906 [5], RFC 2572 [10] and RFC 2574 [12]. See RFC
2570 [9] for a more detailed overview over the SNMP standards. In
the following, unless otherwise mentioned, we use the term SNMP in
statements that are applicable to all three SNMP versions.
SNMP uses ASN.1 [13] to define the abstract syntax of the messages.
The actual encoding of the messages is done by using the Basic
Encoding Rules (BER) [14], which provide the transfer syntax.
We refer to packets that go from a management station to the network
elements as "outgoing", and packets that go from the network elements
to the management station as "incoming".
A basic SNMP ALG is an SNMP ALG implementation in which only IP
address values encoded in the IpAddress type are translated. A basic
SNMP ALG therefore does not need to be MIB aware.
An advanced SNMP ALG is an SNMP ALG implementation which is capable
of handling and replacing IP address values encoded in well known IP
address data types and instance identifiers derived from those data
types. This implies that an advanced SNMP ALG is MIB aware.
3. Problem Scope and Requirements
As mentioned before, in many cases, there is a need to manage a local
addressing realm that is using NAT, from a manager site outside the
realm. A particular important example is the case of network
management service providers who provide network management services
from a remote site. Such providers may have many customers, each
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 5
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
using the same private address space. When all these addressing
realms are to be managed from a single management station address
collision occurs. There are two straight forward ways to overcome
the address collision. One can
1. reassign IP addresses to the different addressing realms, or
2. use static address NAT to hide the address collisions from the
network management application.
The first solution is problematic as it requires both a potentially
large set of IP addresses, and the reconfiguration of a large portion
of the network. The problem with the second solution is that many
network management applications are currently unaware of NAT, and
because of the large investment needed in order to make them NAT
aware are likely to remain so in the near future.
Hence, there is a need for a solution that is transparent to the
network management application (but not to the user), and that does
not require a general reconfiguration of a large portion of the
network (i.e. the addressing realm). The SNMP ALG described in this
memo is such a solution.
3.1 IP Addresses in SNMP Messages
SNMP messages can contain IP addresses in various places and formats.
The following four categories have been identified:
1. IP version 4 addresses and masks stored in the IpAddress tagged
ASN.1 data type which are not part of an instance identifier. An
example is the ipAdEntNetMask object defined in the IP-MIB [6].
2. IP version 4 addresses contained in instance identifiers derived
from index objects using the IpAddress data type. An example is
the ipAdEntAddr index object of the IP-MIB [6].
3. IP addresses (any version) contained in OCTET STRINGS. Examples
include addressMapNetworkAddress object of the RMON2-MIB [7], and
IP addresses contained in OCTET STRINGS derived from well-known
textual conventions (e.g. TAddress [5] or Ipv6Address [8] or
InetAddress [19]).
4. IP addresses (any version) contained in instance identifiers
derived from OCTET STRINGS. This may derived from well-known
textual conventions (e.g. TAddress [5] or Ipv6Address [8] or
InetAddress [19]) like the ipv6AddrAddress index object of the
IPV6-MIB [8].
Textual conventions that can contain IP addresses can be further
divided in NAT friendly and NAT unfriendly ones. A NAT friendly
textual convention ensures that the encoding on the wire contains
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 6
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
sufficient information that an advanced SNMP ALG which understands
the textual convention and which has the necessary MIB knowledge can
do a proper translation. An example of this type is the Ipv6Address
textual convention.
A NAT unfriendly textual convention requires that an SNMP ALG, which
understands the textual convention and which has the necessary MIB
knowledge, has access to additional information in order to do a
proper translation. Examples of this type are the TAddress and the
InetAddress textual conventions which require that an additional
varbind is present in an SNMP packet to determine what type of IP
address a given value represents. Such a varbind may or may not be
present depending on the way a management applications retrieves
data.
3.2 Requirements
An SNMP ALG should provide transparent IP address translation to
management applications. An SNMP ALG must be compatible with the
behavior of the SNMP protocol operations as defined by RFC 1157 [2]
and RFC 1905 [4] and must not have negative impact on the security
provided by the SNMP protocol. A fully transparent SNMP ALG must be
able to translate all categories of IP addresses as described above,
when provided with the specified OID's and the encoding details.
The SNMP ALG requires bi-directional NAT devices enroute, that
support static address mapping for all nodes in the respective
private realms. When there are multiple private realms supported by
a single SNMP ALG, the external addresses assumed by each of the NAT
devices must not collide with each other.
4. Translating IP Addresses in SNMP Packets
This section describes several ways to translate IP addresses in SNMP
packets.
A general SNMP ALG must be capable to translate IP addresses in
outgoing and incoming SNMP packets.
SNMP messages send over UDP may experience fragmentation at the IP
layer. In an extreme case, fragmentation may cause an IP address type
to be partitioned into two different fragments. In order to
translate IP addresses in SNMP messages, the complete SNMP message
must be available. As described in [18], fragments of UDP packets do
not carry the destination/source port number with them. Hence, an
SNMP ALG must reassemble IP packets which contain SNMP messages. The
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 7
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
good news is, however, that usually SNMP agents are aware of the MTU,
and that SNMP packets are usually relatively small. Some SNMP
implementations also set the don't fragment (DF) bit in the IP header
[1] to avoid fragmentation.
4.1 Basic SNMP Application Level Gateway
A basic SNMP ALG is an SNMP ALG implementation in which only IP
address values encoded in the IpAddress base type are translated. A
basic SNMP ALG implementation parses an ASN.1/BER encoded SNMP packet
looking for elements that are encoded using the IpAddress base type.
Appendix A contains a more detailed description of the structure and
encoding used by SNMP.
An IpAddress value can be identified easily by its tag value (0x40).
Once an IpAddress has been detected, the SNMP ALG checks the
translation table and decides whether the address should be
translated. If the address needs translation, the 4 bytes
representing the IPv4 address are replaced with the translated IPv4
address and the UDP checksum is adjusted. Section 4.3 describes an
efficient algorithm to adjust the UDP checksum without recalculating
it.
The basic SNMP ALG does not require knowledge of any MIBs since it
relies on the ASN.1/BER encoding of SNMP packets. It is therefore
easy to implement. A basic SNMP ALG does not change the overall
messages size and hence it does not cause translated messages to be
lost due to message size constraints.
However, a basic SNMP ALG is only able to translate IPv4 addresses in
objects that use the IpAddress base type. Furthermore, a basic SNMP
ALG is not capable to translate IP addresses in objects that are
index components of conceptual tables. This is especially
problematic on index components that are not accessible. Hence, the
basic SNMP ALG is restricted to the first out of the four possible
ways to represent IP addresses in SNMP messages (see Section 3.1).
4.2 Advanced SNMP Application Level Gateway
An advanced SNMP ALG is an SNMP ALG implementation which is capable
of handling and replacing IP address values encoded in well known IP
address data types and instance identifiers derived from those data
types. Hence, an advanced SNMP ALG may be able to transparently map
IP addresses that are in the format 1-4 as described in Section 3.1.
This implies that an advanced SNMP ALG must be MIB aware.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 8
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
An advanced SNMP ALG must maintain an OBJECT IDENTIFIER (OID)
translation table in order to identify IP addresses that are not
encoded in an IpAddress base type. The OID translation table needs
to maintain information about the OIDs where translation may be
needed. Furthermore, the translation table needs to keep information
about instance identifiers for conceptual tables that contain IP
addresses. Such an OID translation table may be populated offline by
using a MIB compiler which loads the MIBs used within an addressing
realm and searches for types, textual conventions and table indexes
that may contain IP addresses.
The translation function scans the packet for these specific OIDs,
checks the translation table and replaces the data if needed. Note
that since OIDs do not have a fixed size this search is much more
computationally consuming, and the lookup operation may be expensive.
The ability to translate IP addresses that are part of the index of a
conceptual table is a required feature of an advanced SNMP ALG. IP
addresses embedded in an instance identifier are ASN.1/BER encoded
according to the OID encoding rules. For example, the OID for the
10.1.2.3 instance of the ipAdEntIfIndex object of the IP-MIB [6] is
encoded as 06 0D 2B 06 01 02 01 04 14 01 02 0A 01 02 03. Replacing
the embedded private IPv4 address with 135.180.140.202 leads to the
OID 06 11 2B 06 01 02 01 04 14 01 02 81 07 81 34 81 0C 81 4A. This
example shows that an advanced SNMP ALG may change the overall packet
size since IP addresses embedded in an OID can change the size of the
ASN.1/BER encoded OID.
Another effect of an advanced SNMP ALG is that it changes the
lexicographic ordering of rows in conceptual tables as seen by the
SNMP manager. This may have severe side-effects for management
applications that use lexicographic ordering to retrieve only parts
of a conceptual table. Many SNMP managers check lexicographic
ordering to detect loops caused by broken agents. Such a manager will
incorrectly report agents behind an advanced SNMP ALG as broken SNMP
agents.
4.3 Packet Size and UDP Checksum
Changing an IpAddress value in an SNMP packet does not change the
size of the SNMP packet. A basic SNMP ALG does therefore never
change the size of the underlying UDP packet.
An advanced SNMP ALG may change the size of an SNMP packet since a
different number of bytes may be needed to encode a different IP
address. This is highly undesirable but unavoidable in the general
case. A change of the SNMP packet size requires additional changes
in the UDP and IP headers. Increasing packet sizes are especially
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 9
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
problematic with SNMPv3. The SNMPv3 message header contains the
msgMaxSize field so that agents can generate Response PDUs for
GetBulkRequest PDUs that are close to the maximum message size the
receiver can handle. An SNMP ALG which increases the size of an SNMP
packet may have the effect that the Response PDU can not be processed
anymore. Thus, an advanced SNMP ALG may cause some SNMPv3
interactions to fail.
In both cases, the UDP checksum must be adjusted when making an IP
address translation. We can use the algorithm from [18], but a small
modification must be introduced as the modified bytes may start on an
odd position. The C code shown in Figure 3 adjusts the checksum to a
replacement of one byte in an odd or even position.
void checksumbyte(unsigned char *chksum, unsigned char *optr,
unsigned char *nptr, int odd)
/* assuming: unsigned char is 8 bits, long is 32 bits,
we replace one byte by one byte in an odd position.
- chksum points to the chksum in the packet
- optr points to the old byte in the packet
- nptr points to the new byte in the packet
- odd is 1 if the byte is in an odd position 0 otherwise
*/
{ long x, old, new;
x=chksum[0]*256+chksum[1];
x=~x & 0xFFFF;
if (odd) old=optr[0]*256; else old=optr[0];
x-=old & 0xFFFF;
if (x<=0) { x--; x&=0xFFFF; }
if (odd) new=nptr[0]*256; else new=nptr[0];
x+=new & 0xFFFF;
if (x & 0x10000) { x++; x&=0xFFFF; }
x=~x & 0xFFFF;
chksum[0]=x/256; chksum[1]=x & 0xFF;
}
5. Limitations and Alternate Solutions
Making SNMP ALGs completely transparent to all management
applications is not an achievable task. The basic SNMP ALG described
in Section 4.1 only translates IP addresses encoded in the IpAddress
base type. Such an SNMP ALG achieves only very limited transparency
since IP addresses are frequently used as part of an index into a
conceptual table. A management application will therefore see both
the translated as well as the original address, which can lead to
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 10
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
confusion and erroneous behavior of management applications.
However, a certain class of management applications like e.g.
network discovery tools may work pretty well across NATs with a basic
SNMP ALG in place.
An advanced SNMP ALG described in Section 4.2 achieves better
transparency. However, an advanced SNMP ALG can only claim to be
transparent for the set of data types (textual conventions)
understood by the advanced SNMP ALG implementation and for a given
set of MIB modules. The price paid for better transparency is
additional complexity, potentially increased SNMP packet sizes and
mixed up lexicographic ordering. Especially with SNMPv3, there is an
opportunity that communication fails due to increased packet sizes.
Management applications that rely on lexicographic ordering will show
erroneous behavior.
Both, basic and advanced SNMP ALGs, introduce problems when using
SNMPv3 security features. The SNMPv3 authentication mechanism
protects the whole SNMP message against modifications while the
SNMPv3 privacy mechanism protects the payload of SNMPv3 messages
against unauthorized access. Thus, an SNMP ALG must have access to
all localized keys in use in order to modify SNMPv3 messages without
invalidating them. Furthermore, the SNMP ALG must track any key
changes in order to function. More details on the security
implications of using SNMP ALGs can be found in Section 6.
Finally, an SNMP ALG only deals with SNMP traffic and does not modify
the payload of any other protocol. However, management systems
usually use a set of protocols to manage a network. In particular
the telnet protocol is often used to configure or troubleshoot
managed devices. Hence, a management system and the human network
operator must generally be aware that a network address translation
is occurring, even in the presence of an SNMP ALG.
A possible alternative to SNMP ALGs are SNMP proxies, as defined in
RFC 2573 [11]. An SNMP proxy forwarder application forwards SNMP
messages to other SNMP engines according to the context, and
irrespective of the specific managed object types being accessed.
The proxy forwarder also forwards the response to such previously
forwarded messages back to the SNMP engine from which the original
message was received. Such a proxy forwarder can be used in a NAT
environment to address SNMP engines with conflicting IP addresses.
(Just replace the box SNMP ALG with a box labeled SNMP PROXY in
Figure 2.) The deployment of SNMP proxys has the advantage that
different security levels can be used inside and outside of the
conflicting addressing realms.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 11
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
The proxy solution, which is structurally preferable, requires that
the management application is aware of the proxy situation.
Furthermore, management applications have to use internal data
structures for network elements that allow for conflicting IP
addresses since conflicting IP addresses are not translated by the
SNMP proxy. Deployment of proxies may also involve the need to
reconfigure network elements and management stations to direct their
traffic (notifications and requests) to the proxy forwarder.
6. Security Considerations
SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c have very week security services based on
community strings. All management information is sent in cleartext
without encryption and/or authentication. In such an environment,
SNMP messages can be modified by any intermediate node and management
application are not able to verify the integrity of SNMP messages.
Furthermore, an SNMP ALG does not need to have knowledge of the
community strings in order to translate embedded IP addresses. Thus,
deployment of SNMP ALGs in an SNMPv1/SNMPv2c environment introduces
no additional security problems.
SNMPv3 supports three security levels: no authentication and no
encryption (noAuth/noPriv), authentication and no encryption
(auth/noPriv), and authentication and encryption (auth/priv). SNMPv3
messages without authentication and encryption (noAuth/noPriv) are
send in cleartext. In such a case the usage of SNMP ALGs introduces
no additional security problems.
However, the usage of SNMP ALG introduces new problems when SNMPv3
authentication and optionally encryption is used. First, SNMPv3
messages with authentication and optionally encryption (auth/noPriv
and auth/priv) can only be processed by an SNMP ALG which supports
the corresponding cryptographic algorithms and which has access to
the keys in use. Furthermore, as keys may be updated, the SNMP ALG
must have a mechanism that tracks key changes (either by analyzing
the key change interactions or by propagating key changes by other
mechanisms). Second, the computational complexity of processing SNMP
messages may increase dramatically. The message has to be decrypted
before the translation takes place. If any translation is done the
hash signature used to authenticate the message and to protect its
integrity must be recomputed.
In general, key exchange protocols are complicated and designing an
SNMP ALG which maintains the keys for a set of SNMP engines is a
non-trivial task. The User-based Security Model for SNMPv3 [12]
defines a mechanism which takes a password and generates localized
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 12
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
keys for every SNMP engine. The localized keys have the property
that a compromised single localized key does not automatically give
an attacker access to other SNMP engines, even if the key for other
SNMP engines is derived from the same password.
An SNMP ALG implementation which maintains lists of (localized) keys
is a potential target to attack the security of all the systems which
use these keys. An SNMP ALG implementation which maintains passwords
in order to generate localized keys is a potential target to attack
the security of all systems that use the same password. Hence, an
SNMP ALG implementation must be properly secured so that people who
are not authorized to access keys or passwords can not access them.
Finally, SNMP ALGs do not allow a network operator to use different
security levels on both sides of the NAT. Using a secure SNMP
version outside of a private addressing realm while the private
addressing realm runs an unsecured version of SNMP may be highly
desirable in many scenarios, e.g. management outsourcing scenarios.
The deployment of SNMPv3 proxies instead of SNMP ALGs should be
considered in these cases since SNMP proxies can be configured to use
different security levels and parameters on both sides of the
proxies.
7. Summary and Recommendations
Several approaches to address SNMP agents across NAT devices have
been discussed in this memo.
1. Basic SNMP ALGs as described in Section 4.1 provide very limited
transparency since they only translate IPv4 addresses encoded in
the IpAddress base type. They are fast and efficient and may be
sufficient to execute simple management applications (e.g.
topology discovery applications) in a NAT environment. However,
other management applications are likely to fail due to the
limited transparency provided by a basic SNMP ALG. Basic SNMP
ALGs are problematic in a secure SNMP environment since they need
to maintain lists of keys or passwords in order to function.
2. Advanced SNMP ALGs as described in Section 4.2 provide better
transparency. They can be transparent for the set of data types
they understand and for a given set of MIB modules. However, an
advanced SNMP ALG is much more complex and less efficiency than a
basic SNMP ALG. An advanced SNMP ALG may break the lexicographic
ordering when IP addresses are used to index conceptual tables
and it may change the SNMP packet sizes. Especially with SNMPv3,
there is an opportunity that communication fails due to increased
message sizes. Advanced SNMP ALGs are problematic in a secure
SNMP environment, since they need to maintain lists of keys or
passwords in order to function.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 13
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
3. SNMP proxies as described in RFC 2573 [11] allow management
applications to access SNMP agents with conflicting IP addresses.
No address translation is performed on the SNMP payload by an
SNMP proxy forwarder. Hence, management applications must be
able to deal with network elements that have conflicting IP
addresses. This solution requires that management applications
are aware of the proxy situation. Deployment of proxies may also
involve the need to reconfigure network elements and management
stations to direct their traffic (notifications and requests) to
the proxy forwarder. SNMP proxies have the advantage that they
allow to use different security levels inside and outside of a
given addressing realm.
It is recommended that network operators who need to manage networks
in a NAT environment make a careful analysis before deploying a
solution. In particular, it must be analyzed whether the management
applications will work with the transparency and the side-effects
provided by SNMP ALGs. Furthermore, it should be researched whether
the management applications are able to deal with conflicting IP
addresses for network devices. Finally, the additional complexity
introduced to the over all management system by using SNMP ALGs must
be compared to the complexity introduced by the structurally
preferable SNMP proxy forwarders.
8. Current Implementations
A basic SNMP ALG as described in Section 4.1 was implemented for
SNMPv1 at Bell-Labs, running on a Solaris Machine. The solution
described in Figure 2, where SNMP ALG was combined with the NAT
implementation of Lucent's PortMaster3, was deployed successfully in
a large network management service organization.
9. Acknowledgments
We thank Pyda Srisuresh, for the support, encouragement, and advice
throughout the work on this document. We also thank Brett A. Denison
for his contribution to the work that led to this document.
Additional useful comments have been made by members of the NAT
working group.
10. References
[1] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[2] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "A Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 14
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
[3] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
"Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January
1996.
[4] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol
Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.
[5] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Transport
Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996.
[6] McCloghrie, K., "SNMPv2 Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol using SMIv2", RFC 2011, November 1996.
[7] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base Version 2 using SMIv2", RFC 2021, January 1997.
[8] Haskin, D. and S. Onishi, "Management Information Base for IP
Version 6: Textual Conventions and General Group", RFC 2465,
December 1998.
[9] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction
to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.
[10] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message
Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999.
[11] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMP Applications", RFC
2573, April 1999.
[12] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM)
for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999.
[13] ISO, "Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
(ASN.1)", International Standard 8824, December 1987.
[14] ISO, "Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for
Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)", International Standard
8825, December 1987.
[15] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator
(NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 15
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
[16] Miller, M., "Managing Internetworks with SNMP", MT Books, 1997.
[17] Perkins, D. and E. McGinnis, "Understanding SNMP MIBs", Prentice
Hall, ISBN 0-13-437708-7, 1997.
[18] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address
Translator (Traditional NAT)", Work in Progress.
[19] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S. and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 2851,
June 2000.
11. Authors' Addresses
Danny Raz
Lucent Technologies
101 Crawfords Corner Rd
Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030
USA
Phone: +1 732 949-6712
Fax: +1 732 949-0399
EMail: raz@lucent.com
URI: http://www.bell-labs.com/
Juergen Schoenwaelder
TU Braunschweig
Bueltenweg 74/75
38106 Braunschweig
Germany
Phone: +49 531 391-3266
Fax: +49 531 391-5936
EMail: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
URI: http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/
Binay Sugla
ISPSoft Inc.
106 Apple Street
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
USA
Phone: +1 732 936-1763
EMail: sugla@ispsoft.com
URI: http://www.ispsoft.com/
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 16
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
12. Appendix A. Description of the Encoding of SNMP Packets
SNMP packets use the ASN.1/BER encoding. We will not cover the full
details of this encoding in this document. These details can be
found in the International Standards ISO-8824 [13] and ISO-8825 [14].
A good description of ASN.1/BER can be found in the book "Managing
Internetworks with SNMP", by M. A. Miller [16], or in Appendix A of
the book "Understanding SNMP MIBs", by D. Perkins, and E. McGinnis
[17].
Each variable that is referred to in an SNMP packet is uniquely
identified by an OID (Object Identifier), usually written as a
sequence of numbers separated by dots (e.g. 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0). Each
variable also has an associated base type (this is not very accurate
but good enough for this level of description). One possible base
type is the IpAddress type. The base type of each variable and its
OID are conveyed by the ASN.1/BER encoding. Note that it is possible
to associate additional type information with a variable by using
textual conventions. The additional type semantics provided by
textual conventions are not conveyed by the ASN.1/BER encoding.
When a value of a variable is needed by a manager it sends a get-
request PDU with the OID of that variable, and a NULL value. The
managed element then responds by sending a get-response PDU that
contains the same OID, the base type of the variable, and the current
value. Figure 4 shows an example of real data contained in an SNMPv1
GetResponse PDU.
The first 20 bytes contain the IPv4 4 header. The next 8 bytes
contain the UDP header. The last two bytes of the UDP header contain
the UDP checksum (D3 65). The next four bytes 30 82 00 3E are the
beginning of the SNMP message: 30 is SEQUENCE, and 82 00 3E is the
length of the data in the SEQUENCE in bytes (62). The data in the
SEQUENCE is the version (02 01 00) and the community string (04 06 70
75 62 6C 69 63). The last element in the SEQUENCE of the SNMPv1
message is the SNMP PDU.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 17
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
+-----------------------------------------+
| IP Header | 45 00 00 5E
| | 47 40 00 00
| | 3F 11 39 00
| | 87 B4 8C CA
| | 87 B4 8C 16
+-----------------------------------------+
| UDP Header | 00 A1 05 F5
| | 00 4A D3 65
+-----------------------------------------+
| SNMP Message | 30 82 00 3E
| Version | | 02 01 00 04
| Community | 06 70 75 62
| | | 6C 69 63 A2
| PDU Type | | 82 00 2F 02
| Request ID | 04 6C F2 0C
| | Error Status | 5C 02 01 00
| Error Index | SEQUENCE | 02 01 00 30
| OF | SEQUENCE | 82 00 1F 30
| | OID | 82 00 1B 06
| | | 13 2B 06 01
| | 02 01 07 05
| | 01 01 81 40
| | 81 34 81 0C
| | 81 4A 84 08
| IpAddress | 135 | 180 | 40 04 87 B4
| 140 | 202 +-------------------+ 8C CA
+---------------------+
The SNMP PDU itself is a tagged SEQUENCE: A2 indicates a GetResponse
PDU and 82 00 2F is the length of the data in the GetResponse PDU in
bytes (47). The data in the GetResponse PDU is the request-id (02 04
6C F2 0C 5C), the error-status (02 01 00), and the error-index (02 01
00). Now follow the variables which contain the real payload: A
SEQUENCE OF of length 31 (30 82 00 1F) containing a SEQUENCE of
length 27 (30 82 00 1B). In it, the first object is an OID of length
19 (06 13) with the value 1.3.6.1.2.1.7.5.1.1.192.180.140.202.520.
The last 6 bytes 40 04 87 B4 8C CA represent an IpAddress: 40 is the
identification of the base type IpAddress, 04 is the length, and the
next four bytes are the IP address value (135.180.140.202).
The example also shows an IP address embedded in an OID. The OID
prefix resolves to the udpLocalAddress of the UDP-MIB, which is
indexed by the udpLocalAddress 192.180.140.202 (81 40 81 34 81 0C 81
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 18
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
4A) and the udpLocalPort 520 (84 08). The SNMP packet actually shows
an internal contradiction caused by a basic SNMP ALG since the
udpLocalAddress encoded in the OID (192.180.140.202) is not equal to
the value of the udpLocalAddress object instance (135.180.140.202).
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 19
RFC 2962 SNMP Payload Address Translation October 2000
13. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Raz, et al. Informational PAGE 20
An SNMP Application Level Gateway for Payload Address Translation
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 46803 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Monday, October 9th, 2000
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
