|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6632
Last modified on Saturday, June 2nd, 2012
 Permanent link to RFC 6632
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6632
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6632
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Ersue, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6632 Nokia Siemens Networks
Category: Informational B. Claise
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 2012
An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
 Abstract
This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
Standards Track network management protocols and data models. The
document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and
classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this
document is, on the one hand, to help system developers and users to
select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to
address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document
can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard
Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management
technologies and data models. This document does not cover
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) technologies on the
data-path, e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
OAM, and pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6632.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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, as 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 are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. Scope and Target Audience ..................................4
1.2. Related Work ...............................................5
1.3. Terminology ................................................6
2. Core Network Management Protocols ...............................8
2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ..................8
2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP ....................8
2.1.2. SNMP and Its Versions ...............................9
2.1.3. Structure of Managed Information (SMI) .............11
2.1.4. SNMP Security and Access Control Models ............12
2.1.4.1. Security Requirements on the SNMP
Management Framework ......................12
2.1.4.2. User-Based Security Model (USM) ...........12
2.1.4.3. View-Based Access Control Model (VACM) ....13
2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models ......13
2.1.5.1. SNMP Transport Security Model .............14
2.2. Syslog Protocol ...........................................15
2.3. IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) and Packet
SAMPling (PSAMP) Protocols ................................16
2.4. Network Configuration .....................................19
2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) ...........19
2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language ..............21
3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with
Specific Focus .................................................23
3.1. IP Address Management .....................................23
3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) .........23
3.1.2. Ad Hoc Network Autoconfiguration ...................24
3.2. IPv6 Network Operations ...................................25
3.3. Policy-Based Management ...................................26
3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework ..............................26
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 2
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
3.3.2. Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS)
for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) ..................26
3.4. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) .............................27
3.5. Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) .......29
3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (Diameter) .........................31
3.7. Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) ..................................................35
3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) .......................36
3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) ..........36
3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) .................37
4. Network Management Data Models .................................38
4.1. IETF Network Management Data Models .......................39
4.1.1. Generic Infrastructure Data Models .................39
4.1.2. Link-Layer Data Models .............................40
4.1.3. Network-Layer Data Models ..........................40
4.1.4. Transport-Layer Data Models ........................40
4.1.5. Application-Layer Data Models ......................41
4.1.6. Network Management Infrastructure Data Models ......41
4.2. Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View ...............41
4.2.1. Fault Management ...................................42
4.2.2. Configuration Management ...........................44
4.2.3. Accounting Management ..............................45
4.2.4. Performance Management .............................46
4.2.5. Security Management ................................48
5. Security Considerations ........................................49
6. Contributors ...................................................51
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................52
8. Informative References .........................................52
Appendix A. High-Level Classification of Management Protocols
and Data Models .......................................77
A.1. Protocols Classified by Standards Maturity in the IETF .....77
A.2. Protocols Matched to Management Tasks ......................79
A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism .................................80
A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring ...........................80
A.5. Supported Data Model Types and Their Extensibility ........81
Appendix B. New Work Related to IETF Management Standards .........83
B.1. Energy Management (EMAN) ...................................83
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 3
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope and Target Audience
This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
Standards Track network management protocols and data models. The
document refers to other overview documents where they exist and
classifies the standards for easy orientation.
The target audience of the document is, on the one hand, IETF working
groups, which aim to select appropriate standard management protocols
and data models to address their needs concerning network management.
On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and
guideline by non-IETF Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
planning to use IETF management technologies and data models for the
realization of management applications. The document can also be
used to initiate a discussion between the bodies with the goal to
gather new requirements and to detect possible gaps. Finally, this
document is directed to all interested parties that seek to get an
overview of the current set of the IETF network management protocols
such as network administrators or newcomers to the IETF.
Section 2 gives an overview of the IETF core network management
standards with a special focus on Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP), syslog, IP Flow Information eXport / Packet SAMPling (IPFIX/
PSAMP), and Network Configuration (NETCONF). Section 3 discusses
IETF management protocols and mechanisms with a specific focus, e.g.,
IP address management or IP performance management. Section 4
discusses IETF data models, such as MIB modules, IPFIX Information
Elements, Syslog Structured Data Elements, and YANG modules designed
to address a specific set of management issues and provides two
complementary overviews for the network management data models
standardized within the IETF. Section 4.1 focuses on a broader view
of models classified into categories such as generic and
infrastructure data models as well as data models matched to
different layers. Whereas Section 4.2 structures the data models
following the management application view and maps them to the
network management tasks fault, configuration, accounting,
performance, and security management.
Appendix A guides the reader for the high-level selection of
management standards. For this, the section classifies the protocols
according to high-level criteria, such as push versus pull
mechanisms, passive versus active monitoring, as well as categorizes
the protocols concerning the network management task they address and
their data model extensibility. If the reader is interested only in
a subset of the IETF network management protocols and data models
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 4
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
described in this document, Appendix A can be used as a dispatcher to
the corresponding chapter. Appendix B gives an overview of the new
work on Energy Management in the IETF.
This document mainly refers to Proposed, Draft, or Internet Standard
documents from the IETF (see [RFCSEARCH]). Whenever valuable, Best
Current Practice (BCP) documents are referenced. In exceptional
cases, and if the document provides substantial guideline for
standard usage or fills an essential gap, Experimental and
Informational RFCs are noticed and ongoing work is mentioned.
Information on active and concluded IETF working groups (e.g., their
charters, published or currently active documents, and mail archives)
can be found at [IETF-WGS]).
Note that this document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-
path including MPLS forwarding plane and control plane protocols
(e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and pseudowire) as well as the
corresponding management models and MIB modules. For a list of
related work, see Section 1.2.
1.2. Related Work
"Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid" [RFC 6272] gives an overview
and guidance on the key protocols of the Internet Protocol Suite. In
analogy to [RFC 6272], this document gives an overview of the IETF
network management standards and their usage scenarios.
"Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop" [RFC 3535]
documented strengths and weaknesses of some IETF management
protocols. In choosing existing protocol solutions to meet the
management requirements, it is recommended that these strengths and
weaknesses be considered, even though some of the recommendations
from the 2002 IAB workshop have become outdated, some have been
standardized, and some are being worked on within the IETF.
"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New
Protocols and Extensions" [RFC 5706] recommends working groups
consider operations and management needs and then select appropriate
management protocols and data models. This document can be used to
ease surveying the IETF Standards Track network management protocols
and management data models.
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview" [RFC 4221]
describes the management architecture for MPLS and indicates the
interrelationships between the different MIB modules used for MPLS
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 5
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
network management, where "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks" [RFC 6371]
describes the OAM Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks.
"An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Mechanisms" [OAM-OVERVIEW] gives an overview of the OAM toolset for
detecting and reporting connection failures or measuring connection
performance parameters.
"An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS-based Transport Networks"
[OAM-ANALYSIS] provides an overview of the OAM toolset for MPLS-based
Transport Networks including a brief summary of MPLS-TP OAM
requirements and functions and of generic mechanisms created in the
MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band and share their
fate with data packets. The protocol definitions for each MPLS-TP
OAM tool are listed in separate documents, which are referenced.
"MPLS-TP MIB-based Management Overview" [MPLSTP-MIB] describes the
MIB-based architecture for MPLS-TP, and indicates the
interrelationships between different existing MIB modules that can be
leveraged for MPLS-TP network management and identifies areas where
additional MIB modules are required.
Note that so far, the IETF has not developed specific technologies
for the management of sensor networks. IP-based sensors or
constrained devices in such an environment, i.e., with very limited
memory and CPU resources, can use, e.g., application-layer protocols
to do simple resource management and monitoring.
1.3. Terminology
This document does not describe standard requirements. Therefore,
key words from RFC 2119 [RFC 2119] are not used in the document.
o 3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, a collaboration between
groups of telecommunications associations, to prepare the third-
generation (3G) mobile phone system specification.
o Agent: A software module that performs the network management
functions requested by network management stations. An agent may
be implemented in any network element that is to be managed, such
as a host, bridge, or router. The 'management server' in NETCONF
terminology.
o BCP: An IETF Best Current Practice document.
o CLI: Command Line Interface. A management interface that system
administrators can use to interact with networking equipment.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 6
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into
a form that is specific to a particular type of datastore or
repository (see [RFC 3444]).
o Event: An occurrence of something in the "real world". Events can
be indicated to managers through an event message or notification.
o IAB: Internet Architecture Board
o IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, an organization that
oversees global IP address allocation, autonomous system number
allocation, media types, and other IP-related code point
allocations.
o Information model: An abstraction and representation of entities
in a managed environment, their properties, attributes,
operations, and the way they relate to each other, independent of
any specific repository, protocol, or platform (see [RFC 3444]).
o ITU-T: International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector
o Managed object: A management abstraction of a resource; a piece of
management information in a MIB module. In the context of SNMP, a
structured set of data variables that represent some resource to
be managed or other aspect of a managed device.
o Manager: An entity that acts in a manager role, either a user or
an application. The counterpart to an agent. A 'management
client' in NETCONF terminology.
o Management Information Base (MIB): An information repository with
a collection of related objects that represent the resources to be
managed.
o MIB module: MIB modules usually contain object definitions, may
contain definitions of event notifications, and sometimes include
compliance statements in terms of appropriate object and event
notification groups. A MIB that is provided by a management agent
is typically composed of multiple instantiated MIB modules.
o Modeling language: A modeling language is any artificial language
that can be used to express information or knowledge or systems in
a structure that is defined by a consistent set of rules.
Examples are Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)
[STD58], XML Schema Definition (XSD) [XSD-1], and YANG [RFC 6020].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 7
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o Notification: An unsolicited message sent by an agent to a
management station to notify it of an unusual event.
o OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
o PDU: Protocol Data Unit, a unit of data, which is specified in a
protocol of a given layer consisting protocol-control information
and possibly layer-specific data.
o Principal: An application, an individual, or a set of individuals
acting in a particular role, on whose behalf access to a service
or MIB is allowed.
o RELAX NG: REgular LAnguage for XML Next Generation, a schema
language for XML [RELAX-NG].
o SDO: Standards Development Organization
o SMI: Structure of Managed Information, the notation and grammar
for the managed information definition used to define MIB modules
[STD58].
o STDnn: An Internet Standard published at IETF, also referred as
Standard, e.g., [STD62].
o URI: Uniform Resource Identifier, a string of characters used to
identify a name or a resource on the Internet [STD66]. Can be
classified as locators (URLs), as names (URNs), or as both.
o XPATH: XML Path Language, a query language for selecting nodes
from an XML document [XPATH].
2. Core Network Management Protocols
2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP
The SNMPv3 Framework [RFC 3410], builds upon both the original SNMPv1
and SNMPv2 Frameworks. The basic structure and components for the
SNMP Framework did not change between its versions and comprises the
following components:
o managed nodes, each with an SNMP entity providing remote access to
management instrumentation (the agent),
o at least one SNMP entity with management applications (the
manager), and
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 8
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o a management protocol used to convey management information
between the SNMP entities and management information.
During its evolution, the fundamental architecture of the SNMP
Management Framework remained consistent based on a modular
architecture, which consists of:
o a generic protocol definition independent of the data it is
carrying,
o a protocol-independent data definition language,
o an information repository containing a data set of management
information definitions (the Management Information Base, or MIB),
and
o security and administration.
As such, the following standards build up the basis of the current
SNMP Management Framework:
o the SNMPv3 protocol [STD62],
o the modeling language SMIv2 [STD58], and
o the MIB modules for different management issues.
The SNMPv3 Framework extends the architectural principles of SNMPv1
and SNMPv2 by:
o building on these three basic architectural components, in some
cases, incorporating them from the SNMPv2 Framework by reference,
and
o by using the same layering principles in the definition of new
capabilities in the security and administration portion of the
architecture.
2.1.2. SNMP and Its Versions
SNMP is based on three conceptual entities: Manager, Agent, and the
Management Information Base (MIB). In any configuration, at least
one manager node runs SNMP management software. Typically, network
devices, such as bridges, routers, and servers, are equipped with an
agent. The agent is responsible for providing access to a local MIB
of objects that reflects the resources and activity at its node.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 9
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Following the manager-agent paradigm, an agent can generate
notifications and send them as unsolicited messages to the management
application.
SNMPv2 enhances this basic functionality with an Inform PDU, a bulk
transfer capability and other functional extensions like an
administrative model for access control, security extensions, and
Manager-to-Manager communication. SNMPv2 entities can have a dual
role as manager and agent. However, neither SNMPv1 nor SNMPv2 offers
sufficient security features. To address the security deficiencies
of SNMPv1/v2, SNMPv3 [STD62] has been issued.
"Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the
Internet-standard Network Management Framework" [BCP074] gives an
overview of the relevant Standard documents on the three SNMP
versions. The BCP document furthermore describes how to convert MIB
modules from SMIv1 to SMIv2 format and how to translate notification
parameters. It also describes the mapping between the message
processing and security models.
SNMP utilizes the MIB, a virtual information store of modules of
managed objects. Generally, standard MIB modules support common
functionality in a device. Operators often define additional MIB
modules for their enterprise or use the Command Line Interface (CLI)
to configure non-standard data in managed devices and their
interfaces.
SNMPv2 Trap and Inform PDUs can alert an operator or an application
when some aspects of a protocol fail or encounter an error condition,
and the contents of a notification can be used to guide subsequent
SNMP polling to gather additional information about an event.
SNMP is widely used for the monitoring of fault and performance data
and with its stateless nature, SNMP also works well for status
polling and determining the operational state of specific
functionality. The widespread use of counters in standard MIB
modules permits the interoperable comparison of statistics across
devices from different vendors. Counters have been especially useful
in monitoring bytes and packets going in and out over various
protocol interfaces. SNMP is often used to poll a basic parameter of
a device (e.g., sysUpTime, which reports the time since the last re-
initialization of the network management portion of the device) to
check for operational liveliness and to detect discontinuities in
counters. Some operators also use SNMP for configuration management
in their environment (e.g., for systems based on Data Over Cable
Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) such as cable modems).
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 10
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
SNMPv1 [RFC 1157] has been declared Historic and its use is not
recommended due to its lack of security features. "Introduction to
Community-based SNMPv2" [RFC 1901] is an Experimental RFC, which has
been declared Historic, and its use is not recommended due to its
lack of security features.
Use of SNMPv3 [STD62] is recommended due to its security features,
including support for authentication, encryption, message timeliness
and integrity checking, and fine-grained data access controls. An
overview of the SNMPv3 document set is in [RFC 3410].
Standards exist to use SNMP over diverse transport and link-layer
protocols, including Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [STD07],
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [STD06], Ethernet [RFC 4789], and others
(see Section 2.1.5.1).
2.1.3. Structure of Managed Information (SMI)
SNMP MIB modules are defined with the notation and grammar specified
as the Structure of Managed Information (SMI). The SMI uses an
adapted subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [ITU-X680].
The SMI is divided into three parts: module definitions, object
definitions, and notification definitions.
o Module definitions are used when describing information modules.
An ASN.1 macro, MODULE-IDENTITY, is used to concisely convey the
semantics of an information module.
o Object definitions are used when describing managed objects. An
ASN.1 macro, OBJECT-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax
and semantics of a managed object.
o Notification definitions are used when describing unsolicited
transmissions of management information. An ASN.1 macro,
NOTIFICATION-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax and
semantics of a notification.
SMIv1 is specified in "Structure and Identification of Management
Information for TCP/IP-based Internets" [RFC 1155] and "Concise MIB
Definitions" [RFC 1212], both part of [STD16]. [RFC 1215] specifies
conventions for defining SNMP traps. Note that SMIv1 is outdated and
its use is not recommended.
SMIv2 is the new notation for managed information definitions and
should be used to define MIB modules. SMIv2 is specified in the
following RFCs. With the exception of BCP 74, they are all part of
[STD58]:
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 11
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o [RFC 2578] defines Version 2 of the Structure of Management
Information (SMIv2),
o [RFC 2579] defines the textual conventions macro for defining new
types and it provides a core set of generally useful textual
convention definitions,
o [RFC 2580] defines conformance statements and requirements for
defining agent and manager capabilities, and
o [BCP074] defines the mapping rules for and the conversion of MIB
modules between SMIv1 and SMIv2 formats.
2.1.4. SNMP Security and Access Control Models
2.1.4.1. Security Requirements on the SNMP Management Framework
Several of the classical threats to network protocols are applicable
to management problem space and therefore are applicable to any
security model used in an SNMP Management Framework. This section
lists primary and secondary threats, and threats that are of lesser
importance (see [RFC 3411] for the detailed description of the
security threats).
The primary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
protection are, "modification of information" by an unauthorized
entity, and "masquerade", i.e., the danger that management operations
not authorized for some principal may be attempted by assuming the
identity of another principal.
Secondary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
protection are "message stream modification", e.g., reordering,
delay, or replay of messages, and "disclosure", i.e., the danger of
eavesdropping on the exchanges between SNMP engines.
There are two threats against which the SNMP Security Model does not
protect, since they are deemed to be of lesser importance in this
context: Denial of Service and Traffic Analysis (see [RFC 3411]).
2.1.4.2. User-Based Security Model (USM)
SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the User-based Security Model (USM). USM
is specified in [RFC 3414] and provides authentication and privacy
services for SNMP. Specifically, USM is designed to secure against
the primary and secondary threats discussed in Section 2.1.4.1. USM
does not secure against Denial of Service and attacks based on
Traffic Analysis.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 12
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The USM supports following security services:
o Data integrity is the provision of the property that data has not
been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner, nor have data
sequences been altered to an extent greater than can occur non-
maliciously.
o Data origin authentication is the provision of the property that
the claimed identity of the user on whose behalf received data was
originated is supported.
o Data confidentiality is the provision of the property that
information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized
individuals, entities, or processes.
o Message timeliness and limited replay protection is the provision
of the property that a message whose generation time is outside of
a specified time window is not accepted.
See [RFC 3414] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 USM.
2.1.4.3. View-Based Access Control Model (VACM)
SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the View-based Access Control (VACM)
facility. The VACM is defined in [RFC 3415] and enables the
configuration of agents to provide different levels of access to the
agent's MIB. An agent entity can restrict access to a certain
portion of its MIB, e.g., restrict some principals to view only
performance-related statistics or disallow other principals to read
those performance-related statistics. An agent entity can also
restrict the access to monitoring (read-only) as opposed to
monitoring and configuration (read-write) of a certain portion of its
MIB, e.g., allowing only a single designated principal to update
configuration parameters.
VACM defines five elements that make up the Access Control Model:
groups, security level, contexts, MIB views, and access policy.
Access to a MIB module is controlled by means of a MIB view.
See [RFC 3415] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 VACM.
2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models
The User-based Security Model (USM) was designed to be independent of
other existing security infrastructures to ensure it could function
when third-party authentication services were not available. As a
result, USM utilizes a separate user and key-management
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 13
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
infrastructure. Operators have reported that the deployment of a
separate user and key-management infrastructure in order to use
SNMPv3 is costly and hinders the deployment of SNMPv3.
SNMP Transport Subsystem [RFC 5590] extends the original SNMP
architecture and Transport Model and enables the use of transport
protocols to provide message security unifying the administrative
security management for SNMP and other management interfaces.
Transport Models are tied into the SNMP Framework through the
Transport Subsystem. The Transport Security Model [RFC 5591] has been
designed to work on top of lower-layer, secure Transport Models.
The SNMP Transport Model defines an alternative to existing standard
transport mappings described in [RFC 3417], e.g., for SNMP over UDP,
in [RFC 4789] for SNMP over IEEE 802 networks, and in the Experimental
RFC [RFC 3430] defining SNMP over TCP.
2.1.5.1. SNMP Transport Security Model
The SNMP Transport Security Model [RFC 5591] is an alternative to the
existing SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Community-based Security Models [BCP074],
and the User-based Security Model [RFC 3414], part of [STD62].
The Transport Security Model utilizes one or more lower-layer
security mechanisms to provide message-oriented security services.
These include authentication of the sender, encryption, timeliness
checking, and data integrity checking.
A secure Transport Model sets up an authenticated and possibly
encrypted session between the Transport Models of two SNMP engines.
After a transport-layer session is established, SNMP messages can be
sent through this session from one SNMP engine to the other. The new
Transport Model supports the sending of multiple SNMP messages
through the same session to amortize the costs of establishing a
security association.
The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model [RFC 5592] and the Transport
Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC 6353] are current examples
of Transport Security Models.
The SSH Transport Model makes use of the commonly deployed SSH
security and key-management infrastructure. Furthermore, [RFC 5592]
defines MIB objects for monitoring and managing the SSH Transport
Model for SNMP.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 14
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC 6353] uses
either the TLS protocol [RFC 5246] or the Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC 6347]. The TLS and DTLS protocols
provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications.
The TLS Transport Model supports the sending of SNMP messages over
TLS and TCP and over DTLS and UDP. Furthermore, [RFC 6353] defines
MIB objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP.
[RFC 5608] describes the use of a Remote Authentication Dial-In User
Service (RADIUS) service by SNMP secure Transport Models for
authentication of users and authorization of services. Access
control authorization, i.e., how RADIUS attributes and messages are
applied to the specific application area of SNMP Access Control
Models, and VACM in particular has been specified in [RFC 6065].
2.2. Syslog Protocol
Syslog is a mechanism for distribution of logging information
initially used on Unix systems (see [RFC 3164] for BSD syslog). The
IETF Syslog Protocol [RFC 5424] introduces a layered architecture
allowing the use of any number of transport protocols, including
reliable and secure transports, for transmission of syslog messages.
The Syslog protocol enables a machine to send system log messages
across networks to event message collectors. The protocol is simply
designed to transport and distribute these event messages. By
default, no acknowledgements of the receipt are made, except the
reliable delivery extensions specified in [RFC 3195] are used. The
Syslog protocol and process does not require a stringent coordination
between the transport sender and the receiver. Indeed, the
transmission of syslog messages may be started on a device without a
receiver being configured, or even actually physically present.
Conversely, many devices will most likely be able to receive messages
without explicit configuration or definitions.
BSD syslog had little uniformity for the message format and the
content of syslog messages. The body of a BSD syslog message has
traditionally been unstructured text. This content is human
friendly, but difficult to parse for applications. With the Syslog
Protocol [RFC 5424], the IETF has standardized a new message header
format, including timestamp, hostname, application, and message ID,
to improve filtering, interoperability, and correlation between
compliant implementations.
The Syslog protocol [RFC 5424] also introduces a mechanism for
defining Structured Data Elements (SDEs). The SDEs allow vendors to
define their own structured data elements to supplement standardized
elements. [RFC 5675] defines a mapping from SNMP notifications to
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 15
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
syslog messages. [RFC 5676] defines an SNMP MIB module to represent
syslog messages for the purpose of sending those syslog messages as
notifications to SNMP notification receivers. [RFC 5674] defines the
way alarms are sent in syslog, which includes the mapping of ITU-
perceived severities onto syslog message fields and a number of
alarm-specific definitions from ITU-T X.733 [ITU-X733] and the IETF
Alarm MIB [RFC 3877].
"Signed Syslog Messages" [RFC 5848] defines a mechanism to add origin
authentication, message integrity, replay resistance, message
sequencing, and detection of missing messages to the transmitted
syslog messages to be used in conjunction with the Syslog protocol.
The Syslog protocol's layered architecture provides support for a
number of transport mappings. For interoperability purposes and
especially in managed networks, where the network path has been
explicitly provisioned for UDP syslog traffic, the Syslog protocol
can be used over UDP [RFC 5426]. However, to support congestion
control and reliability, [RFC 5426] strongly recommends the use of the
TLS transport.
Furthermore, the IETF defined the TLS Transport Mapping for syslog in
[RFC 5425], which provides a secure connection for the transport of
syslog messages. [RFC 5425] describes the security threats to syslog
and how TLS can be used to counter such threats. [RFC 6012] defines
the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for
syslog, which can be used if a connectionless transport is desired.
For information on MIB modules related to syslog, see Section 4.2.1.
2.3. IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) and Packet SAMPling (PSAMP)
Protocols
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for
the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information" (the IPFIX Protocol)
[RFC 5101] defines a push-based data export mechanism for transferring
IP flow information in a compact binary format from an Exporter to a
Collector.
"Architecture for IP Flow Information Export" (the IPFIX
Architecture) [RFC 5470] defines the components involved in IP flow
measurement and reporting of information on IP flows, particularly, a
Metering Process generating Flow Records, an Exporting Process that
sends metered flow information using the IPFIX protocol, and a
Collecting Process that receives flow information as IPFIX Data
Records.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 16
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
After listing the IPFIX requirements in [RFC 3917], NetFlow Version 9
[RFC 3954] was taken as the basis for the IPFIX protocol and the IPFIX
architecture.
IPFIX can run over different transport protocols. The IPFIX Protocol
[RFC 5101] specifies Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
[RFC 4960] as the mandatory transport protocol to implement. Optional
alternatives are TCP [STD07] and UDP [STD06].
SCTP is used with its Partial Reliability extension (PR-SCTP)
specified in [RFC 3758]. [RFC 6526] specifies an extension to
[RFC 5101], when using the PR-SCTP [RFC 3758]. The extension offers
several advantages over IPFIX export, e.g., the ability to calculate
Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate reuse of Template IDs
within an SCTP stream, reduced likelihood of Data Record loss, and
reduced demands on the Collecting Process.
IPFIX transmits IP flow information in Data Records containing IPFIX
Information Elements (IEs) defined by the IPFIX Information Model
[RFC 5102]. IPFIX IEs are quantities with unit and semantics defined
by the Information Model. When transmitted over the IPFIX protocol,
only their values need to be carried in Data Records. This compact
encoding allows efficient transport of large numbers of measured flow
values. Remaining redundancy in Data Records can be further reduced
by the methods described in [RFC 5473] (for further discussion on
IPFIX IEs, see Section 4).
The IPFIX Information Model is extensible. New IEs can be registered
at IANA (see "IPFIX Information Elements" in [IANA-PROT]). IPFIX
also supports the use of proprietary, i.e., enterprise-specific IEs.
The PSAMP protocol [RFC 5476] extends the IPFIX protocol by means of
transferring information on individual packets. [RFC 5475] specifies
a set of sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection,
based on the PSAMP Framework [RFC 5474]. The PSAMP Information Model
[RFC 5477] provides a set of basic IEs for reporting packet
information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol.
The IPFIX model of an IP traffic flow is unidirectional. [RFC 5103]
adds means of reporting bidirectional flows to IPFIX, for example,
both directions of packet flows of a TCP connection.
When enterprise-specific IEs are transmitted with IPFIX, a Collector
receiving Data Records may not know the type of received data and
cannot choose the right format for storing the contained information.
[RFC 5610] provides a means of exporting extended type information for
enterprise-specific Information Elements from an Exporter to a
Collector.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 17
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Collectors may store received flow information in files. The IPFIX
file format [RFC 5655] can be used for storing IP flow information in
a way that facilitates exchange of traffic flow information between
different systems and applications.
In terms of IPFIX and PSAMP configurations, the Metering and
Exporting Processes are configured out of band. As the IPFIX
protocol is a push mechanism only, IPFIX cannot configure the
Exporter. The actual configuration of selection processes, caches,
Exporting Processes, and Collecting Processes of IPFIX- and PSAMP-
compliant monitoring devices is executed using the NETCONF protocol
[RFC 6241] (see Section 2.4.1). The "Configuration Data Model for
IPFIX and PSAMP" (the IPFIX Configuration Data Model) [CONF-MODEL]
has been specified using Unified Modeling Language (UML) class
diagrams. The data model is formally defined using the YANG modeling
language [RFC 6020] (see Section 2.4.2).
At the time of this writing, a framework for IPFIX flow mediation is
in preparation, which addresses the need for mediation of flow
information in IPFIX applications in large operator networks, e.g.,
for aggregating huge amounts of flow data and for anonymization of
flow information (see the problem statement in [RFC 5982]).
The IPFIX Mediation Framework [RFC 6183] defines the intermediate
device between Exporters and Collectors, which provides an IPFIX
mediation by receiving a record stream from, e.g., a Collecting
Process, hosting one or more Intermediate Processes to transform this
stream, and exporting the transformed record stream into IPFIX
messages via an Exporting Process.
Examples for mediation functions are flow aggregation, flow
selection, and anonymization of traffic information (see [RFC 6235]).
Privacy, integrity, and authentication of the Exporter and Collector
are important security requirements for IPFIX [RFC 3917].
Confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of IPFIX data
transferred from an Exporting Process to a Collecting Process must be
ensured. The IPFIX and PSAMP protocols do not define any new
security mechanisms and rely on the security mechanism of the
underlying transport protocol, such as TLS [RFC 5246] and DTLS
[RFC 6347].
The primary goal of IPFIX is the reporting of the flow accounting for
flexible flow definitions and usage-based accounting. As described
in the IPFIX Applicability Statement [RFC 5472], there are also other
applications such as traffic profiling, traffic engineering,
intrusion detection, and QoS monitoring, that require flow-based
traffic measurements and can be realized using IPFIX. Furthermore,
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 18
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
the IPFIX Applicability Statement explains the relation of IPFIX to
other framework and protocols such as PSAMP, RMON (Remote Network
Monitoring MIB, Section 4.2.1), and IPPM (IP Performance Metrics,
Section 3.4)). Similar flow information could be also used for
security monitoring. The addition of Performance Metrics in the
IPFIX IANA registry [IANA-IPFIX], will extend the IPFIX use case to
performance management.
Note that even if the initial IPFIX focus has been around IP flow
information exchange, non-IP-related IEs are now specified in the
IPFIX IANA registration (e.g., MAC (Media Access Control) address,
MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) labels, etc.). At the time of
this writing, there are requests to widen the focus of IPFIX and to
export non-IP related IEs (such as SIP monitoring IEs).
The IPFIX structured data [RFC 6313] is an extension to the IPFIX
protocol, which supports hierarchical structured data and lists
(sequences) of Information Elements in Data Records. This extension
allows the definition of complex data structures such as variable-
length lists and specification of hierarchical containment
relationships between templates. Furthermore, the extension provides
the semantics to express the relationship among multiple list
elements in a structured Data Record.
For information on data models related to the management of the IPFIX
and PSAMP protocols, see Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. For information
on IPFIX/PSAMP IEs, see Section 4.2.3.
2.4. Network Configuration
2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
The IAB workshop on Network Management [RFC 3535] determined advanced
requirements for configuration management:
o robustness: Minimizing disruptions and maximizing stability,
o a task-oriented view,
o extensibility for new operations,
o standardized error handling,
o clear distinction between configuration data and operational
state,
o distribution of configurations to devices under transactional
constraints,
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 19
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o single- and multi-system transactions and scalability in the
number of transactions and managed devices,
o operations on selected subsets of management data,
o dumping and reloading a device configuration in a textual format
in a standard manner across multiple vendors and device types,
o a human interface and a programmatic interface,
o a data modeling language with a human-friendly syntax,
o easy conflict detection and configuration validation, and
o secure transport, authentication, and robust access control.
The NETCONF protocol [RFC 6241] provides mechanisms to install,
manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices and aims
to address the configuration management requirements pointed out in
the IAB workshop. It uses an XML-based data encoding for the
configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF
protocol operations are realized on top of a simple and reliable
Remote Procedure Call (RPC) layer. A key aspect of NETCONF is that
it allows the functionality of the management protocol to closely
mirror the native command-line interface of the device.
The NETCONF working group developed the NETCONF Event Notifications
Mechanism as an optional capability, which provides an asynchronous
message notification delivery service for NETCONF [RFC 5277]. The
NETCONF notification mechanism enables using general purpose
notification streams, where the originator of the notification stream
can be any managed device (e.g., SNMP notifications).
The NETCONF Partial Locking specification introduces fine-grained
locking of the configuration datastore to enhance NETCONF for fine-
grained transactions on parts of the datastore [RFC 5717].
The NETCONF working group also defined the necessary data model to
monitor the NETCONF protocol [RFC 6022], by using the modeling
language YANG [RFC 6020] (see Section 2.4.2). The monitoring data
model includes information about NETCONF datastores, sessions, locks,
and statistics, which facilitate the management of a NETCONF server.
NETCONF connections are required to provide authentication, data
integrity, confidentiality, and replay protection. NETCONF depends
on the underlying transport protocol for this capability. For
example, connections can be encrypted in TLS or SSH, depending on the
underlying protocol.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 20
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The NETCONF working group defined the SSH transport protocol as the
mandatory transport binding [RFC 6242]. Other optional transport
bindings are TLS [RFC 5539], Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
(BEEP) over TLS [RFC 4744], and Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
over HTTP over TLS [RFC 4743].
The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC 6536] provides standard
mechanisms to restrict protocol access to particular users with a
pre-configured subset of operations and content.
2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language
Following the guidelines of the IAB management workshop [RFC 3535],
the NETMOD working group developed a data modeling language defining
the semantics of operational and configuration data, notifications,
and operations [RFC 6020]. The new data modeling language, called
YANG, maps directly to XML-encoded content (on the wire) and will
serve as the normative description of NETCONF data models.
YANG has the following properties addressing specific requirements on
a modeling language for configuration management:
o YANG provides the means to define hierarchical data models. It
supports reusable data types and groupings, i.e., a set of schema
nodes that can be reused across module boundaries.
o YANG supports the distinction between configuration and state
data. In addition, it provides support for modeling event
notifications and the specification of operations that extend the
base NETCONF operations.
o YANG allows the expression of constraints on data models by means
of type restrictions and XML Path Language (XPATH) 1.0 [XPATH]
expressions. XPATH expressions can also be used to make certain
portions of a data model conditional.
o YANG supports the integration of standard- and vendor-defined data
models. YANG's augmentation mechanism allows the seamless
augmentation of standard data models with proprietary extensions.
o YANG data models can be partitioned into collections of features,
allowing low-end devices only to implement the core features of a
data model while high-end devices may choose to support all
features. The supported features are announced via the NETCONF
capability exchange to management applications.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 21
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o The syntax of the YANG language is compact and optimized for human
readers. An associated XML-based syntax called the YANG
Independent Notation (YIN) [RFC 6020] is available to allow the
processing of YANG data models with XML-based tools. The mapping
rules for the translation of YANG data models into Document Schema
Definition Languages (DSDL), of which RELAX NG is a major
component, are defined in [RFC 6110].
o Devices implementing standard data models can document deviations
from the data model in separate YANG modules. Applications
capable of discovering deviations can make allowances that would
otherwise not be possible.
A collection of common data types for IETF-related standards is
provided in [RFC 6021]. This standard data type library has been
derived to a large extend from common SMIv2 data types, generalizing
them to a less-constrained NETCONF Framework.
The document "An Architecture for Network Management using NETCONF
and YANG" describes how NETCONF and YANG can be used to build network
management applications that meet the needs of network operators
[RFC 6244].
The Experimental RFC [RFC 6095] specifies extensions for YANG,
introducing language abstractions such as class inheritance and
recursive data structures.
[RFC 6087] gives guidelines for the use of YANG within the IETF and
other standardization organizations.
Work is underway to standardize a translation of SMIv2 data models
into YANG data models preserving investments into SNMP MIB modules,
which are widely available for monitoring purposes [SMI-YANG].
Several independent and open source implementations of the YANG data
modeling language and associated tools are available.
While YANG is a relatively recent data modeling language, some data
models have already been produced. The specification of the base
NETCONF protocol operations has been revised and uses YANG as the
normative modeling language to specify its operations [RFC 6241]. The
IPFIX working group prepared the normative model for configuring and
monitoring IPFIX- and PSAMP-compliant monitoring devices using the
YANG modeling language [CONF-MODEL].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 22
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
At the time of this writing, the NETMOD working group is developing
core system and interface data models. Following the example of the
IPFIX configuration model, IETF working groups will prepare models
for their specific needs.
For information on data models developed using the YANG modeling
language, see Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.
3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with Specific Focus
This section reviews additional protocols the IETF offers for
management and discusses for which applications they were designed
and/or have already been successfully deployed. These are protocols
that have mostly reached Proposed Standard status or higher within
the IETF.
3.1. IP Address Management
3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC 2131] provides a
framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP
network and, as such, enables autoconfiguration in IP networks. In
addition to IP address management, DHCP can also provide other
configuration information, such as default routers, the IP addresses
of recursive DNS servers, and the IP addresses of NTP servers. As
described in [RFC 6272], DHCP can be used for IPv4 and IPv6 Address
Allocation and Assignment as well as for Service Discovery.
There are two versions of DHCP: one for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC 2131] and
one for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC 3315]. DHCPv4 was defined as an extension
to BOOTP (Bootstrap Protocol) [RFC 951]. DHCPv6 was subsequently
defined to accommodate new functions required by IPv6 such as
assignment of multiple addresses to an interface and to address
limitations in the design of DHCPv4 resulting from its origins in
BOOTP. While both versions bear the same name and perform the same
functionality, the details of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are sufficiently
different that they can be considered separate protocols.
In addition to the assignment of IP addresses and other configuration
information, DHCP options like the Relay Agent Information option
(DHCPv4) [RFC 3046] and, the Interface-Id Option (DHCPv6) [RFC 3315]
are widely used by ISPs.
DHCPv6 includes Prefix Delegation [RFC 3633], which is used to
provision a router with an IPv6 prefix for use in the subnetwork
supported by the router.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 23
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The following are examples of DHCP options that provide configuration
information or access to specific servers. A complete list of DHCP
options is available at [IANA-PROT].
o "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPV6 (DHCPv6)" [RFC 3646] describes DHCPv6 options for passing
a list of available DNS recursive name servers and a domain search
list to a client.
o "DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol" [RFC 2610] describes
DHCPv4 options and methods through which entities using the
Service Location Protocol can find out the address of Directory
Agents in order to transact messages and how the assignment of
scope for configuration of Service Location Protocol (SLP) User
and Service Agents can be achieved.
o "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers" [RFC 3319] specifies DHCPv6
options that allow SIP clients to locate a local SIP server that
is to be used for all outbound SIP requests, a so-called "outbound
proxy server".
o "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for Broadcast
and Multicast Control Servers" [RFC 4280] defines DHCPv6 options to
discover the Broadcast and Multicast Service (BCMCS) controller in
an IP network.
Built directly on UDP and IP, DHCP itself has no security provisions.
There are two different classes of potential security issues related
to DHCP: unauthorized DHCP Servers and unauthorized DHCP Clients.
The recommended solutions to these risks generally involve providing
security at lower layers, e.g., careful control over physical access
to the network, security techniques implemented at Layer 2 but also
IPsec at Layer 3 can be used to provide authentication.
3.1.2. Ad Hoc Network Autoconfiguration
Ad hoc nodes need to configure their network interfaces with locally
unique addresses as well as globally routable IPv6 addresses, in
order to communicate with devices on the Internet. The IETF AUTOCONF
working group developed [RFC 5889], which describes the addressing
model for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure
their addresses.
The ad hoc nodes under consideration are expected to be able to
support multi-hop communication by running MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc
Network) routing protocols as developed by the IETF MANET working
group.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 24
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc network presents itself as a
Layer 3 multi-hop network formed over a collection of links. The
addressing model aims to avoid problems for parts of the system that
are ad hoc unaware, such as standard applications running on an ad
hoc node or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad hoc nodes.
3.2. IPv6 Network Operations
The IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) working group develops guidelines for the
operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, as
well as into new network installations.
o "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" [RFC 4213]
specifies IPv4 compatibility mechanisms for dual-stack and
configured tunneling that can be implemented by IPv6 hosts and
routers. "Dual stack" implies providing complete implementations
of both IPv4 and IPv6, and configured tunneling provides a means
to carry IPv6 packets over unmodified IPv4 routing
infrastructures.
o "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks" [RFC 3574] lists different
scenarios in 3GPP defined packet network that would need IPv6 and
IPv4 transition, where "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks" [RFC 4215] does a
more detailed analysis of the transition scenarios that may come
up in the deployment phase of IPv6 in 3GPP packet networks.
o "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks"
[RFC 4029] describes and analyzes different scenarios for the
introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network. "IPv6
Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks" [RFC 5181] provides a
detailed description of IPv6 deployment, integration methods, and
scenarios in wireless broadband access networks (802.16) in
coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. [RFC 4057] describes the
scenarios for IPv6 deployment within enterprise networks.
o "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" [RFC 4038] specifies
scenarios and application aspects of IPv6 transition considering
how to enable IPv6 support in applications running on IPv6 hosts,
and giving guidance for the development of IP-version-independent
applications.
o "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space" [RFC 6598]
updates RFC 5735 and requested the allocation of an IPv4/10
address block to be used as "Shared Carrier-Grade Network Address
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 25
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Translation (CGN) Space" by Service Providers to number the
interfaces that connect CGN devices to Customer Premises Equipment
(CPE).
3.3. Policy-Based Management
3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework
The IETF specified a general policy framework [RFC 2753] for managing,
sharing, and reusing policies in a vendor-independent, interoperable,
and scalable manner. [RFC 3460] specifies the Policy Core Information
Model (PCIM) as an object-oriented information model for representing
policy information. PCIM has been developed jointly in the IETF
Policy Framework (POLICY) working group and the Common Information
Model (CIM) activity in the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF).
PCIM has been published as extensions to CIM [DMTF-CIM].
The IETF Policy Framework is based on a policy-based admission
control specifying two main architectural elements: the Policy
Enforcement Point (PEP) and the Policy Decision Point (PDP). For the
purpose of network management, policies allow an operator to specify
how the network is to be configured and monitored by using a
descriptive language. Furthermore, it allows the automation of a
number of management tasks, according to the requirements set out in
the policy module.
The IETF Policy Framework has been accepted by the industry as a
standard-based policy management approach and has been adopted by
different SDOs, e.g., for 3GGP charging standards.
3.3.2. Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS) for Policy Provisioning
(COPS-PR)
[RFC 3159] defines the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information
(SPPI), an extension to the SMIv2 modeling language used to write
Policy Information Base (PIB) modules. COPS-PR [RFC 3084] uses the
Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol [RFC 2748] for the
provisioning of policy information. COPS provides a simple client/
server model for supporting policy control over QoS signaling
protocols. The COPS-PR specification is independent of the type of
policy being provisioned (QoS, security, etc.) but focuses on the
mechanisms and conventions used to communicate provisioned
information between policy-decision-points (PDPs) and policy
enforcement points (PEPs). Policy data is modeled using PIB modules.
COPS-PR has not been widely deployed, and operators have stated that
its use of binary encoding for management data makes it difficult to
develop automated scripts for simple configuration management tasks
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 26
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
in most text-based scripting languages. In the IAB Workshop on
Network Management [RFC 3535], the consensus of operators and protocol
developers indicated a lack of interest in PIB modules for use with
COPS-PR.
As a result, even if COPS-PR and the Structure of Policy Provisioning
Information (SPPI) were initially approved as Proposed Standards, the
IESG has not approved any PIB modules as Proposed Standard, and the
use of COPS-PR is not recommended.
3.4. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
The IPPM working group has defined metrics for accurately measuring
and reporting the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet
data delivery. The metrics include connectivity, one-way delay and
loss, round-trip delay and loss, delay variation, loss patterns,
packet reordering, bulk transport capacity, and link bandwidth
capacity.
These metrics are designed for use by network operators and their
customers, and they provide unbiased quantitative measures of
performance. The IPPM metrics have been developed inside an active
measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics
produce their own traffic. However, most of the metrics can be used
inside a passive context as well. At the time of this writing, there
is no work planned in the area of passive measurement.
As a property, individual IPPM performance and reliability metrics
need to be well defined and concrete: thus, implementable.
Furthermore, the methodology used to implement a metric needs to be
repeatable with consistent measurements.
IPPMs have been adopted by different organizations, e.g., the Metro
Ethernet Forum.
Note that this document does not aim to cover OAM technologies on the
data-path and, as such, the discussion of IPPM-based active versus
passive monitoring as well as the data plane measurement and its
diagnostics is rather incomplete. For a detailed overview and
discussion of IETF OAM standards and IPPM measurement mechanisms, the
reader is referred to the documents listed at the end of Section 1.2
("Related Work") but especially to [OAM-OVERVIEW].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 27
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The following are essential IPPM documents:
o "Framework for IP Performance Metrics" [RFC 2330] defines a general
framework for particular metrics developed by the IPPM working
group, and it defines the fundamental concepts of 'metric' and
'measurement methodology'. It also discusses the issue of
measurement uncertainties and errors as well as introduces the
notion of empirically defined metrics and how metrics can be
composed.
o "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM" [RFC 2679] defines a metric for
the one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on
notions introduced in the IPPM Framework document.
o "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM" [RFC 2681] defines a metric
for the round-trip delay of packets across network paths and
closely follows the corresponding metric for one-way delay.
o "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)" [RFC 3393] refers to a metric for variation in the delay of
packets across network paths and is based on the difference in the
one-way-delay of selected packets called "IP Packet Delay
Variation (ipdv)".
o "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM" [RFC 2680] defines a metric
for one-way packet loss across Internet paths.
o "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric" [RFC 5560] defines a metric
for the case where multiple copies of a packet are received, and
it discusses methods to summarize the results of streams.
o "Packet Reordering Metrics" [RFC 4737] defines metrics to evaluate
whether a network has maintained packet order on a packet-by-
packet basis and discusses the measurement issues, including the
context information required for all metrics.
o "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity" [RFC 2678] defines a
series of metrics for connectivity between a pair of Internet
hosts.
o "Framework for Metric Composition" [RFC 5835] describes a detailed
framework for composing and aggregating metrics.
o "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development"
[BCP170] describes the framework and process for developing
Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over
IETF-specified protocols.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 28
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
To measure these metrics, two protocols and a sampling method have
been standardized:
o "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)" [RFC 4656] measures
unidirectional characteristics such as one-way delay and one-way
loss between network devices and enables the interoperability of
these measurements. OWAMP is discussed in more detail in
[OAM-OVERVIEW].
o "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)" [RFC 5357] adds
round-trip or two-way measurement capabilities to OWAMP. TWAMP is
discussed in more detail in [OAM-OVERVIEW].
o "Network performance measurement with periodic streams" [RFC 3432]
describes a periodic sampling method and relevant metrics for
assessing the performance of IP networks, as an alternative to the
Poisson sampling method described in [RFC 2330].
For information on MIB modules related to IP Performance Metrics see
Section 4.2.4.
3.5. Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)" [RFC 2865]
describes a client/server protocol for carrying authentication,
authorization, and configuration information between a Network Access
Server (NAS), which desires to authenticate its links, and a shared
authentication server. The companion document "Radius Accounting"
[RFC 2866] describes a protocol for carrying accounting information
between a NAS and a shared accounting server. [RFC 2867] adds
required new RADIUS accounting attributes and new values designed to
support the provision of tunneling in dial-up networks.
The RADIUS protocol is widely used in environments like enterprise
networks, where a single administrative authority manages the network
and protects the privacy of user information. RADIUS is deployed in
the networks of fixed broadband access provider as well as cellular
broadband operators.
RADIUS uses attributes to carry the specific authentication,
authorization, information, and configuration details. RADIUS is
extensible with a known limitation of a maximum of 255 attribute
codes and 253 octets as attribute content length. RADIUS has Vendor-
Specific Attributes (VSAs), which have been used both for vendor-
specific purposes (as an addition to standardized attributes) as well
as to extend the limited attribute code space.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 29
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The RADIUS protocol uses a shared secret along with the MD5 hash
algorithm to secure passwords [RFC 1321]. Based on the known threads,
additional protection like IPsec tunnels [RFC 4301] are used to
further protect the RADIUS traffic. However, building and
administering large IPsec-protected networks may become a management
burden, especially when the IPsec-protected RADIUS infrastructure
should provide inter-provider connectivity. Moving towards TLS-based
security solutions [RFC 5246] and establishing dynamic trust
relationships between RADIUS servers has become a trend. Since the
introduction of TCP transport for RADIUS [RFC 6613], it became natural
to have TLS support for RADIUS. An ongoing work is "Transport Layer
Security (TLS) encryption for RADIUS" [RFC 6614].
"RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support" [RFC 2868] defines a
number of RADIUS attributes designed to support the compulsory
provision of tunneling in dial-up network access. Some applications
involve compulsory tunneling, i.e., the tunnel is created without any
action from the user and without allowing the user any choice in the
matter. In order to provide this functionality, specific RADIUS
attributes are needed to carry the tunneling information from the
RADIUS server to the tunnel end points. "Signalling Connection
Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)" [RFC 3868] defines the
necessary attributes, attribute values, and the required IANA
registries.
"RADIUS and IPv6" [RFC 3162] specifies the operation of RADIUS over
IPv6 and the RADIUS attributes used to support the IPv6 network
access. "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute" [RFC 4818] describes
how to transport delegated IPv6 prefix information over RADIUS.
"RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support" [RFC 4675]
defines additional attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and
prioritization, for use in provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local
area networks usable with RADIUS and diameter.
"Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes" [RFC 5080] describes common
issues seen in RADIUS implementations and suggests some fixes. Where
applicable, unclear statements and errors in previous RADIUS
specifications are clarified. People designing extensions to RADIUS
protocol for various deployment cases should get familiar with
"RADIUS Design Guidelines" [RFC 6158] in order to avoid, e.g., known
interoperability challenges.
"RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication" [RFC 5090] defines an
extension to the RADIUS protocol to enable support of Digest
Authentication, for use with HTTP-style protocols like the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) and HTTP.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 30
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
"Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and DIAMETER" [RFC 5580]
describes procedures for conveying access-network ownership and
location information based on civic and geospatial location formats
in RADIUS and diameter.
"Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization
for Network Access Server (NAS) Management" [RFC 5607] specifies
required RADIUS attributes and their values for authorizing a
management access to a NAS. Both local and remote management are
supported, with access rights and management privileges. Specific
provisions are made for remote management via Framed Management
protocols, such as SNMP and NETCONF, and for management access over a
secure transport protocol.
"RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)" [RFC 3579] describes how to
use RADIUS to convey an EAP [RFC 3748] payload between the
authenticator and the EAP server using RADIUS. RFC 3579 is widely
implemented, for example, in WLAN and 802.1 X environments. "IEEE
802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage
Guidelines" [RFC 3580] describes how to use RADIUS with IEEE 802.1X
authenticators. In the context of 802.1X and EAP-based
authentication, the VSAs described in [RFC 2458] have been widely
accepted by the industry. "RADIUS Extensions" [RFC 2869] is another
important RFC related to EAP use. RFC 2869 describes additional
attributes for carrying AAA information between a NAS and a shared
accounting server using RADIUS. It also defines attributes to
encapsulate EAP message payload.
There are different MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
with RADIUS (see Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.5).
3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (Diameter)
Diameter [RFC 3588] provides an Authentication, Authorization, and
Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as network access or
IP mobility. Diameter is also intended to work in local AAA and in
roaming scenarios. Diameter provides an upgrade path for RADIUS but
is not directly backwards compatible.
Diameter is designed to resolve a number of known problems with
RADIUS. Diameter supports server failover, reliable transport over
TCP and SCTP, well-documented functions for proxy, redirect and relay
agent functions, server-initiated messages, auditability, and
capability negotiation. Diameter also provides a larger attribute
space for Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) and identifiers than RADIUS.
Diameter features make it especially appropriate for environments,
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 31
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
where the providers of services are in different administrative
domains than the maintainer (protector) of confidential user
information.
Other notable differences to RADIUS are as follows:
o Network and Transport Layer Security (IPsec or TLS),
o Stateful and stateless models,
o Dynamic discovery of peers (using DNS Service Record (SRV) and
Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR)),
o Concept of an application that describes how a specific set of
commands and Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) are treated by diameter
nodes. Each application has an IANA-assigned unique identifier,
o Support of application layer acknowledgements, failover methods
and state machines,
o Basic support for user-sessions and accounting,
o Better roaming support,
o Error notification, and
o Easy extensibility.
The Diameter protocol is designed to be extensible to support, e.g.,
proxies, brokers, mobility and roaming, Network Access Servers
(NASREQ), and Accounting and Resource Management. Diameter
applications extend the Diameter base protocol by adding new commands
and/or attributes. Each application is defined by a unique IANA-
assigned application identifier and can add new command codes and/or
new mandatory AVPs.
The Diameter application identifier space has been divided into
Standards Track and 'First Come First Served' vendor-specific
applications. The following are examples of Diameter applications
published at IETF:
o Diameter Base Protocol Application [RFC 3588]: Required support
from all Diameter implementations.
o Diameter Base Accounting Application [RFC 3588]: A Diameter
application using an accounting protocol based on a server-
directed model with capabilities for real-time delivery of
accounting information.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 32
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application [RFC 4004]: A Diameter application
that allows a Diameter server to authenticate, authorize, and
collect accounting information for Mobile IPv4 services rendered
to a mobile node.
o Diameter Network Access Server Application (NASREQ, [RFC 4005]): A
Diameter application used for AAA services in the NAS environment.
o Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Application [RFC 4072]:
A Diameter application that carries EAP packets between a NAS and
a back-end authentication server.
o Diameter Credit-Control Application [RFC 4006]: A Diameter
application that can be used to implement real-time credit-control
for a variety of end-user services such as network access, Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) services, messaging services, and
download services.
o Diameter Session Initiation Protocol Application [RFC 4740]: A
Diameter application designed to be used in conjunction with SIP
and provides a Diameter client co-located with a SIP server, with
the ability to request the authentication of users and
authorization of SIP resources usage from a Diameter server.
o Diameter Quality-of-Service Application [RFC 5866]: A Diameter
application allowing network elements to interact with Diameter
servers when allocating QoS resources in the network.
o Diameter Mobile IPv6 IKE (MIP6I) Application [RFC 5778]: A Diameter
application that enables the interaction between a Mobile IP home
agent and a Diameter server and is used when the mobile node is
authenticated and authorized using IKEv2 [RFC 5996].
o Diameter Mobile IPv6 Auth (MIP6A) Application [RFC 5778]: A
Diameter application that enables the interaction between a Mobile
IP home agent and a Diameter server and is used when the mobile
node is authenticated and authorized using the Mobile IPv6
Authentication Protocol [RFC 4285].
The large majority of Diameter applications are vendor-specific and
mainly used in various SDOs outside the IETF. One example SDO using
diameter extensively is 3GPP (e.g., 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem'
(IMS) uses diameter-based interfaces (e.g., Cx) [3GPPIMS]).
Recently, during the standardization of the '3GPP Evolved Packet
Core' [3GPPEPC], diameter was chosen as the only AAA signaling
protocol.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 33
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
One part of diameter's extensibility mechanism is an easy and
consistent way of creating new commands for the need of applications.
RFC 3588 proposed to define diameter command code allocations with a
new RFC. This policy decision caused undesired use and redefinition
of existing command codes within SDOs. Diverse RFCs have been
published as simple command code allocations for other SDO purposes
(see [RFC 3589], [RFC 5224], [RFC 5431], and [RFC 5516]). [RFC 5719]
changed the command code policy and added a range for vendor-specific
command codes to be allocated on a 'First Come First Served' basis by
IANA.
The implementation and deployment experience of diameter has led to
the ongoing development of an update of the base protocol [DIAMETER],
which introduces TLS as the preferred security mechanism and
deprecates the in-band security negotiation for TLS.
Some Diameter protocol enhancements and clarifications that logically
fit better into [DIAMETER], are also needed on the existing
deployments based on RFC 3588. Therefore, protocol extensions
specifically usable in large inter-provider roaming network scenarios
are made available for RFC 3588. Two currently existing
specifications are mentioned below:
o "Clarifications on the Routing of Diameter Requests Based on the
Username and the Realm" [RFC 5729] defines the behavior required
for Diameter agents to route requests when the User-Name AVP
contains a NAI formatted with multiple realms. These multi-realm
Network Access Identifiers are used in order to force the routing
of request messages through a predefined list of mediating realms.
o "Diameter Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR)
Usage" [RFC 6408] describes an improved DNS-based dynamic Diameter
agent discovery mechanism without having to do diameter capability
exchange beforehand with a number of agents.
There have been a growing number of Diameter Framework documents from
the IETF that basically are just a collection of AVPs for a specific
purpose or a system architecture with semantic AVP descriptions and a
logic for "imaginary" applications. From a standardization point of
view, this practice allows the development of larger system
architecture documents that do not need to reference AVPs or
application logic outside the IETF. Below are examples of a few
recent AVP and Framework documents:
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 34
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to
Diameter Server Interaction" [RFC 5447] describes the bootstrapping
of the Mobile IPv6 framework and the support of interworking with
existing AAA infrastructures by using the diameter NAS-to-home-AAA
server interface.
o "Traffic Classification and Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes
for Diameter" [RFC 5777] defines a number of Diameter AVPs for
traffic classification with actions for filtering and QoS
treatment.
o "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access Gateway and Local
Mobility Anchor Interaction with Diameter Server" [RFC 5779]
defines AAA interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
entities (MAG and LMA) and a AAA server within a PMIPv6 Domain.
For information on MIB modules related to diameter, see
Section 4.2.5.
3.7. Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Wireless LAN (WLAN) product architectures have evolved from single
autonomous Access Points to systems consisting of a centralized
Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The
general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access
control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility
management, and radio management from the single access point to a
centralized controller, where an Access Point pulls the information
from the AC.
Based on "Architecture Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of
Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)" [RFC 4118], the CAPWAP working group
developed the CAPWAP protocol [RFC 5415] to facilitate control,
management, and provisioning of WTPs specifying the services,
functions, and resources relating to 802.11 WLAN Termination Points
in order to allow for interoperable implementations of WTPs and ACs.
The protocol defines the CAPWAP control plane, including the
primitives to control data access. The protocol document also
specifies how configuration management of WTPs can be done and
defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, gathering
statistics, logging, and managing firmware as well as discusses
operational and transport considerations.
The CAPWAP protocol is prepared to be independent of Layer 2
technologies, and meets the objectives in "Objectives for Control and
Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)" [RFC 4564]. Separate
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 35
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
binding extensions enable the use with additional wireless
technologies. [RFC 5416] defines the CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE
802.11.
CAPWAP Control messages, and optionally CAPWAP Data messages, are
secured using DTLS [RFC 6347]. DTLS is used as a tightly integrated,
secure wrapper for the CAPWAP protocol.
For information on MIB modules related to CAPWAP, see Section 4.2.2.
3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)
The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) [RFC 6320] realizes a control
plane between a service-oriented Layer 3 edge device, the NAS and a
Layer 2 Access Node (AN), e.g., Digital Subscriber Line Access Module
(DSLAM). As such, ANCP operates in a multi-service reference
architecture and communicates QoS-, service-, and subscriber-related
configuration and operation information between a NAS and an AN.
The main goal of this protocol is to configure and manage access
equipment and allow them to report information to the NAS in order to
enable and optimize configuration.
The framework and requirements for an AN control mechanism and the
use cases for ANCP are documented in [RFC 5851].
ANCP offers authentication and authorization between AN and NAS nodes
and provides replay protection and data-origin authentication. The
ANCP solution is also robust against Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks.
Furthermore, the ANCP solution is recommended to offer
confidentiality protection. Security Threats and Security
Requirements for ANCP are discussed in [RFC 5713].
3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)
The Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) [RFC 2244] is
designed to support remote storage and access of program option,
configuration, and preference information. The datastore model is
designed to allow a client relatively simple access to interesting
data, to allow new information to be easily added without server
reconfiguration, and to promote the use of both standardized data and
custom or proprietary data. Key features include "inheritance",
which can be used to manage default values for configuration settings
and access control lists that allow interesting personal information
to be shared and group information to be restricted.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 36
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
ACAP's primary purpose is to allow applications access to their
configuration data from multiple network-connected computers. Users
can then use any network-connected computer, run any ACAP-enabled
application, and have access to their own configuration data. To
enable wide usage client simplicity has been preferred to server or
protocol simplicity whenever reasonable.
The ACAP 'authenticate' command uses Simple Authentication and
Security Layer (SASL) [RFC 4422] to provide basic authentication,
authorization, integrity, and privacy services. All ACAP
implementations are required to implement the CRAM-MD5 (Challenge-
Response Authentication Mechanism) [RFC 2195] for authentication,
which can be disabled based on the site security policy.
3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol
(XCAP) [RFC 4825] has been designed for and is commonly used with SIP-
based solutions, in particular, for instant messages, presence, and
SIP conferences. XCAP is a protocol that allows a client to read,
write, and modify application configuration data stored in XML format
on a server, where the main functionality is provided by so-called
"XCAP Application Usages".
XCAP is a protocol that can be used to manipulate per-user data.
XCAP is a set of conventions for mapping XML documents and document
components into HTTP URIs, rules for how the modification of one
resource affects another, data validation constraints, and
authorization policies associated with access to those resources.
Because of this structure, normal HTTP primitives can be used to
manipulate the data. Like ACAP, XCAP supports the configuration
needs for a multiplicity of applications.
All XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP Digest Authentication
[RFC 2617]. Furthermore, XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP
over TLS (HTTPS) [RFC 2818]. It is recommended that administrators
use an HTTPS URI as the XCAP root URI, so that the digest client
authentication occurs over TLS.
The following list summarizes important XCAP application usages:
o XCAP server capabilities [RFC 4825] can be read by clients to
determine which extensions, application usages, or namespaces a
server supports.
o A resource lists application is any application that needs access
to a list of resources, identified by a URI, to which operations,
such as subscriptions, can be applied [RFC 4826].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 37
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o A Resource List Server (RLS) Services application is a SIP
application, where a server receives SIP SUBSCRIBE requests for
resources and generates subscriptions towards the resource list
[RFC 4826].
o A Presence Rules application uses authorization policies, also
known as authorization rules, to specify what presence information
can be given to which watchers, and when [RFC 4827].
o A 'pidf-manipulation' application defines how XCAP is used to
manipulate the contents of PIDF-based presence documents
[RFC 4827].
4. Network Management Data Models
This section provides two complementary overviews for the network
management data models standardized at IETF. The first subsection
focuses on a broader view of models classified into categories such
as generic and infrastructure data models as well as data models
matched to different layers. The second subsection is structured
following the management application view and focuses mainly on the
data models for the network management tasks fault, configuration,
accounting, performance, and security management (see [FCAPS]).
Note that the IETF does not use the FCAPS view as an organizing
principle for its data models. However, the FCAPS view is used
widely outside of the IETF for the realization of management tasks
and applications. Section 4.2 aims to address the FCAPS view to
enable people outside of the IETF to understand the relevant data
models in the IETF.
The different data models covered in this section are MIB modules,
IPFIX Information Elements, Syslog Structured Data Elements, and YANG
modules. There are many technology-specific IETF data models, such
as transmission and protocol MIBs, which are not mentioned in this
document and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].
This section gives an overview of management data models that have
reached Draft or Proposed Standard status at the IETF. In
exceptional cases, important Informational RFCs are referenced. The
advancement process for management data models beyond Proposed
Standard status, has been defined in [BCP027] with a more pragmatic
approach and special considerations on data model specification
interoperability. However, most IETF management data models never
advanced beyond Proposed Standard.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 38
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
4.1. IETF Network Management Data Models
The data models defined by the IETF can be broadly classified into
the following categories depicted in Figure 1.
+-----------+ +-------------------------------+ +-----------+
| | | application-layer data models | | network |
| generic | +-------------------------------+ | management|
| infra- | | transport-layer data models | | infra- |
| structure | +-------------------------------+ | structure |
| data | | network-layer data models | | data |
| models | +-------------------------------+ | models |
| | | link-layer data models | | |
+-----------+ +-------------------------------+ +-----------+
Figure 1: Categories of Network Management Data Models
Each of the categories is briefly described below. Note that the
classification used here is intended to provide orientation and
reflects how most data models have been developed in the IETF by the
various working groups. This classification does not aim to classify
correctly all data models that have been defined by the IETF so far.
The network layering model in the middle of Figure 1 follows the
four-layer model of the Internet as defined in [RFC 1021].
The network management object identifiers for use with IETF MIB
modules defined in the IETF can be found under the IANA registry at
[SMI-NUMBERS].
4.1.1. Generic Infrastructure Data Models
Generic infrastructure data models provide core abstractions that
many other data models are built upon. The most important example is
the interfaces data model defined in the IF-MIB [RFC 2863]. It
provides the basic notion of network interfaces and allows expressing
stacking/layering relationships between interfaces. The interfaces
data model also provides basic monitoring objects that are widely
used for performance and fault management.
The second important infrastructure data model is defined in the
Entity MIB [RFC 4133]. It exports the containment hierarchy of the
physical entities (slots, modules, ports) that make up a networking
device and, as such, it is a key data model for inventory management.
Physical entities can have pointers to other data models that provide
more specific information about them (e.g., physical ports usually
point to the related network interface). Entity MIB extensions exist
for physical sensors such as temperature sensors embedded on line
cards or sensors that report fan rotation speeds [RFC 3433]. The
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 39
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Entity State MIB [RFC 4268] models states and alarms of physical
entities. Some vendors have extended the basic Entity MIB with
several proprietary data models.
4.1.2. Link-Layer Data Models
A number of data models exist in the form of MIB modules covering the
link layers IP runs over, such as Asymmetric Bit-Rate DSL (ADSL)
[RFC 4706], Very high bit-rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL)
[RFC 5650], GMPLS [RFC 4803], ISDN [RFC 2127], ATM [RFC 2515] [RFC 3606],
Cable Modems [RFC 4546], or Ethernet [RFC 4188] [RFC 4318] [RFC 4363].
These so-called transmission data models typically extend the generic
network interfaces data model with interface type specific
information. Most of the link-layer data models focus on monitoring
capabilities that can be used for performance and fault management
functions and, to some lesser extent, for accounting and security
management functions. Meanwhile, the IEEE has taken over the
responsibility to maintain and further develop data models for the
IEEE 802 family of protocols [RFC 4663]. The cable modem industry
consortium DOCSIS is working with the IETF to publish data models for
cable modem networks as IETF Standards Track specifications.
4.1.3. Network-Layer Data Models
There are data models in the form of MIB modules covering IP/ICMP
[RFC 4293] [RFC 4292] network protocols and their extensions (e.g.,
Mobile IP), the core protocols of the Internet. In addition, there
are data models covering popular unicast routing protocols (OSPF
[RFC 4750], IS-IS [RFC 4444], BGP-4 [RFC 4273]) and multicast routing
protocols (PIM [RFC 5060]).
Detailed models also exist for performance measurements in the form
of IP Performance Metrics [RFC 2330] (see Section 3.4).
The necessary data model infrastructure for configuration data models
covering network layers are currently being defined using NETCONF
[RFC 6242] and YANG [RFC 6020].
4.1.4. Transport-Layer Data Models
There are data models for the transport protocols TCP [RFC 4022], UDP
[RFC 4113], and SCTP [RFC 3873]. For TCP, a data model providing
extended statistics is defined in [RFC 4898].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 40
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
4.1.5. Application-Layer Data Models
Some data models have been developed for specific application
protocols (e.g., SIP [RFC 4780]). In addition, there are data models
that provide a generic infrastructure for instrumenting applications
in order to obtain data useful primarily for performance management
and fault management [RFC 2287] [RFC 2564]. In general, however,
generic application MIB modules have been less successful in gaining
widespread deployment.
4.1.6. Network Management Infrastructure Data Models
A number of data models are concerned with the network management
system itself. This includes, in addition to a set of SNMP MIB
modules for monitoring and configuring SNMP itself [RFC 3410], some
MIB modules providing generic functions such as the calculation of
expressions over MIB objects, generic functions for thresholding and
event generation, event notification logging functions, and data
models to represent alarms [RFC 2981] [RFC 2982] [RFC 3014] [RFC 3877].
In addition, there are data models that allow the execution of basic
reachability and path discovery tests [RFC 4560]. Another collection
of MIB modules provides remote monitoring functions, ranging from the
data link layer up to the application layer. This is known as the
"RMON family of MIB modules" [RFC 3577].
The IPFIX Protocol [RFC 5101] (Section 2.3) is used to export
information about network flows collected at so-called Observation
Points (typically, a network interface). The IEs [RFC 5102] carried
in IPFIX cover the majority of the network and transport layer header
fields and a few link-layer-specific fields. Work is underway to
further extend the standardized information that can be carried in
IPFIX.
The Syslog Protocol document [RFC 5424] (Section 2.2) defines an
initial set of Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content
time quality, content origin, and meta-information about the message,
such as language. Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the
IETF-defined SDEs.
4.2. Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View
This subsection follows the management application view and aims to
match the data models to network management tasks for fault,
configuration, accounting, performance, and security management
([FCAPS]). As OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset, which
can be used for fault detection, isolation, and performance
measurement, aspects of FCAPS in the context of the data path, such
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 41
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
as fault and performance management, are also discussed in "An
Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Mechanisms" [OAM-OVERVIEW].
Some of the data models do not fit into one single FCAPS category per
design but span multiple areas. For example, there are many
technology-specific IETF data models, such as transmission and
protocol MIBs, which cover multiple FCAPS categories, and therefore
are not mentioned in this subsection and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].
4.2.1. Fault Management
Fault management encloses a set of functions to detect, isolate,
notify, and correct faults encountered in a network as well as to
maintain and examine error logs. The data models below can be
utilized to realize a fault management application.
[RFC 3418], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module
containing objects in the system group that are often polled to
determine if a device is still operating, and sysUpTime can be used
to detect if the network management portion of the system has
restarted and counters have been re-initialized.
[RFC 3413], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module including
objects designed for managing notifications, including tables for
addressing, retry parameters, security, lists of targets for
notifications, and user customization filters.
The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC 2863] builds on the old standard for MIB
II [STD17] and is used as a primary MIB module for managing and
monitoring the status of network interfaces. The Interfaces Group
MIB defines a generic set of managed objects for network interfaces,
and it provides the infrastructure for additional managed objects
specific to particular types of network interfaces, such as Ethernet.
[RFC 4560] defines a MIB module for performing ping, traceroute, and
lookup operations at a host. For troubleshooting purposes, it is
useful to be able to initiate and retrieve the results of ping or
traceroute operations when they are performed at a remote host.
The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59] can be configured to
recognize conditions on existing MIB variables (most notably error
conditions) and continuously check for them. When one of these
conditions occurs, the event may be logged, and management stations
may be notified in a number of ways (for further discussion on RMON,
see Section 4.2.4).
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 42
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
DISMAN-EVENT-MIB in [RFC 2981] and DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB in [RFC 2982]
provide a superset of the capabilities of the RMON alarm and event
groups. These modules provide mechanisms for thresholding and
reporting anomalous events to management applications.
The Alarm MIB in [RFC 3877] and the Alarm Reporting Control MIB in
[RFC 3878] specify mechanisms for expressing state transition models
for persistent problem states. Alarm MIB defines the following:
o a mechanism for expressing state transition models for persistent
problem states,
o a mechanism to correlate a notification with subsequent state
transition notifications about the same entity/object, and
o a generic alarm reporting mechanism (extends ITU-T work on X.733
[ITU-X733]).
In particular, [RFC 3878] defines objects for controlling the
reporting of alarm conditions and extends ITU-T work on M.3100
Amendment 3 [ITU-M3100].
Other MIB modules that may be applied to fault management with SNMP
include:
o NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB [RFC 3014] describes managed objects used for
logging SNMP Notifications.
o ENTITY-STATE-MIB [RFC 4268] describes extensions to the Entity MIB
to provide information about the state of physical entities.
o ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB [RFC 3433] describes managed objects for
extending the Entity MIB to provide generalized access to
information related to physical sensors, which are often found in
networking equipment (such as chassis temperature, fan RPM, power
supply voltage).
The Syslog protocol document [RFC 5424] defines an initial set of SDEs
that relate to content time quality, content origin, and meta-
information about the message, such as language. Proprietary SDEs
can be used to supplement the IETF-defined SDEs.
The IETF has standardized MIB Textual-Conventions for facility and
severity labels and codes to encourage consistency between syslog and
MIB representations of these event properties [RFC 5427]. The intent
is that these textual conventions will be imported and used in MIB
modules that would otherwise define their own representations.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 43
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
An IPFIX MIB module [RFC 5815] has been defined for monitoring IPFIX
Meters, Exporters, and Collectors (see Section 2.3). The ongoing
work on the PSAMP MIB module extends the IPFIX MIB modules by managed
objects for monitoring PSAMP implementations [PSAMP-MIB].
The NETCONF working group defined the data model necessary to monitor
the NETCONF protocol [RFC 6022] with the modeling language YANG. The
monitoring data model includes information about NETCONF datastores,
sessions, locks, and statistics, which facilitate the management of a
NETCONF server. The NETCONF monitoring document also defines methods
for NETCONF clients to discover the data models supported by a
NETCONF server and defines the operation <get-schema> to retrieve
them.
4.2.2. Configuration Management
Configuration management focuses on establishing and maintaining
consistency of a system and defines the functionality to configure
its functional and physical attributes as well as operational
information throughout its life. Configuration management includes
configuration of network devices, inventory management, and software
management. The data models below can be used to utilize
configuration management.
MIB modules for monitoring of network configuration (e.g., for
physical and logical network topologies) already exist and provide
some of the desired capabilities. New MIB modules might be developed
for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify
the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event
reporting thresholds, target addresses, etc.
[RFC 3418], part of [STD62], contains objects in the system group
useful, e.g., for identifying the type of device and the location of
the device, the person responsible for the device. The SNMPv3
standard [STD62] furthermore includes objects designed for
configuring principals, access control rules, notification
destinations, and for configuring proxy-forwarding SNMP agents, which
can be used to forward messages through firewalls and NAT devices.
The Entity MIB [RFC 4133] supports mainly inventory management and is
used for managing multiple logical and physical entities matched to a
single SNMP agent. This module provides a useful mechanism for
identifying the entities comprising a system and defines event
notifications for configuration changes that may be useful to
management applications.
[RFC 3165] defines a set of managed objects that enable the delegation
of management scripts to distributed managers.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 44
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
For configuring IPFIX and PSAMP devices, the IPFIX working group
developed the IPFIX Configuration Data Model [CONF-MODEL], by using
the YANG modeling language and in close collaboration with the NETMOD
working group (see Section 2.4.2). The model specifies the necessary
data for configuring and monitoring Selection Processes, caches,
Exporting Processes, and Collecting Processes of IPFIX- and PSAMP-
compliant monitoring devices.
At the time of this writing, the NETMOD working group is developing
core system and interface models in YANG.
The CAPWAP protocol exchanges message elements using the Type-Length-
Value (TLV) format. The base TLVs are specified in [RFC 5415], while
the TLVs for IEEE 802.11 are specified in [RFC 5416]. The CAPWAP Base
MIB [RFC 5833] specifies managed objects for the modeling the CAPWAP
protocol and provides configuration and WTP status-monitoring aspects
of CAPWAP, where the CAPWAP Binding MIB [RFC 5834] defines managed
objects for the modeling of the CAPWAP protocol for IEEE 802.11
wireless binding.
Note: RFC 5833 and RFC 5834 have been published as Informational RFCs
to provide the basis for future work on a SNMP management of the
CAPWAP protocol.
4.2.3. Accounting Management
Accounting management collects usage information of network
resources. Note that the IETF does not define any mechanisms related
to billing and charging. Many technology-specific MIBs (link layer,
network layer, transport layer, or application layer) contain
counters but are not primarily targeted for accounting and,
therefore, are not included in this section.
"RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6" [RFC 4670] defines RADIUS
Accounting Client MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
"RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6" [RFC 4671] defines RADIUS
Accounting Server MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
addressing formats.
IPFIX/PSAMP Information Elements:
As expressed in Section 2.3, the IPFIX Architecture [RFC 5470] defines
components involved in IP flow measurement and reporting of
information on IP flows. As such, IPFIX records provide fine-grained
measurement data for flexible and detailed usage reporting and enable
usage-based accounting.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 45
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) have been initially defined in
the IPFIX Information Model [RFC 5102] and registered with IANA
[IANA-IPFIX]. The IPFIX IEs are composed of two types:
o IEs related to identification of IP flows such as header
information, derived packet properties, IGP and BGP next-hop IP
address, BGP AS, etc., and
o IEs related to counter and timestamps, such as per-flow counters
(e.g., octet count, packet count), flow start times, flow end
times, and flow duration, etc.
The Information Elements specified in the IPFIX Information Model
[RFC 5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol where applicable. PSAMP
Parameters defined in the PSAMP protocol specification are registered
at [IANA-PSAMP]. An additional set of PSAMP Information Elements for
reporting packet information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol such as
Sampling-related IEs are specified in the PSAMP Information Model
[RFC 5477]. These IEs fulfill the requirements on reporting of
different sampling and filtering techniques specified in [RFC 5475].
4.2.4. Performance Management
Performance management covers a set of functions that evaluate and
report the performance of network elements and the network, with the
goal to maintain the overall network performance at a defined level.
Performance management functionality includes monitoring and
measurement of network performance parameters, gathering statistical
information, maintaining and examining activity logs. The data
models below can be used for performance management tasks.
The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59] defines objects for
collecting data related to network performance and traffic from
remote monitoring devices. An organization may employ many remote
monitoring probes, one per network segment, to monitor its network.
These devices may be used by a network service provider to access a
(distant) client network. Most of the objects in the RMON MIB module
are suitable for the monitoring of any type of network, while some of
them are specific to the monitoring of Ethernet networks.
RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to
collect network statistics continuously, even when communication with
the management station may not be possible or efficient. The alarm
group periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the
probe and compares them to previously configured thresholds. If the
monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 46
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
"Introduction to the Remote Monitoring (RMON) Family of MIB Modules"
[RFC 3577] describes the documents associated with the RMON Framework
and how they relate to each other.
The RMON-2 MIB [RFC 4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up
to the application layer and defines performance data to monitor.
The SMON MIB [RFC 2613] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis for
switched networks.
"Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for High Capacity Alarms" [RFC 3434]
describes managed objects for extending the alarm thresholding
capabilities found in the RMON MIB and provides similar threshold
monitoring of objects based on the Counter64 data type.
"Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base for High
Capacity Networks" [RFC 3273] defines objects for managing RMON
devices for use on high-speed networks.
"Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Interface Parameters
Monitoring" [RFC 3144] describes an extension to the RMON MIB with a
method of sorting the interfaces of a monitored device according to
values of parameters specific to this interface.
[RFC 4710] describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service
Monitoring (RAQMON), which is part of the RMON protocol family.
RAQMON supports end-to-end QoS monitoring for multiple concurrent
applications and does not relate to a specific application transport.
RAQMON is scalable and works well with encrypted payload and
signaling. RAQMON uses TCP to transport RAQMON PDUs.
[RFC 4711] proposes an extension to the Remote Monitoring MIB [STD59]
and describes managed objects used for RAQMON. [RFC 4712] specifies
two transport mappings for the RAQMON information model using TCP as
a native transport and SNMP to carry the RAQMON information from a
RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report Collector (RRC).
"Application Performance Measurement MIB" [RFC 3729] uses the
architecture created in the RMON MIB and defines objects by providing
measurement and analysis of the application performance as
experienced by end-users. [RFC 3729] enables the measurement of the
quality of service delivered to end-users by applications.
"Transport Performance Metrics MIB" [RFC 4150] describes managed
objects used for monitoring selectable Performance Metrics and
statistics derived from the monitoring of network packets and sub-
application level transactions. The metrics can be defined through
reference to existing IETF, ITU, and other SDOs' documents.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 47
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
The IPPM working group has defined "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
Metrics Registry" [RFC 4148]. Note that with the publication of
[RFC 6248], [RFC 4148] and the corresponding IANA registry for IPPM
metrics have been declared Obsolete and shouldn't be used.
The IPPM working group defined the "Information Model and XML Data
Model for Traceroute Measurements" [RFC 5388], which defines a common
information model dividing the IEs into two semantically separated
groups (configuration elements and results elements) with an
additional element to relate configuration elements and results
elements by means of a common unique identifier. Based on the
information model, an XML data model is provided to store the results
of traceroute measurements.
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice Quality
Reporting" [RFC 6035] defines a SIP event package that enables the
collection and reporting of metrics that measure the quality for
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions.
4.2.5. Security Management
Security management provides the set of functions to protect the
network and system from unauthorized access and includes functions
such as creating, deleting, and controlling security services and
mechanisms, key management, reporting security-relevant events, and
authorizing user access and privileges. Based on their support for
authentication and authorization, RADIUS and diameter are seen as
security management protocols. The data models below can be used to
utilize security management.
[RFC 3414], part of [STD62], specifies the procedures for providing
SNMPv3 message-level security and includes a MIB module for remotely
monitoring and managing the configuration parameters for the USM.
[RFC 3415], part of [STD62], describes the procedures for controlling
access to management information in the SNMPv3 architecture and
includes a MIB module, which defines managed objects to access
portions of an SNMP engine's Local Configuration Datastore (LCD). As
such, this MIB module enables remote management of the configuration
parameters of the VACM.
The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC 6536] addresses the need
for access control mechanisms for the operation and content layers of
NETCONF, as defined in [RFC 6241]. As such, the NACM proposes
standard mechanisms to restrict NETCONF protocol access for
particular users to a pre-configured subset of all available NETCONF
protocol operations and content within a particular server.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 48
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
There are numerous MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
with RADIUS:
o "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6" [RFC 4668] defines
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB objects that support version-
neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
RADIUS authentication client functions.
o "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6" [RFC 4669] defines
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB objects that support version-
neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
RADIUS authentication server functions.
o "RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Client MIB" [RFC 4672] defines the
MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC 5176].
o "RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server MIB" [RFC 4673] defines the
MIB module for entities implementing the server side of the
Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC 5176].
The MIB Module definitions in [RFC 4668], [RFC 4669], [RFC 4672],
[RFC 4673] are intended to be used only for RADIUS over UDP and do not
support RADIUS over TCP. There is also a recommendation that RADIUS
clients and servers implementing RADIUS over TCP should not reuse
earlier listed MIB modules to perform statistics counting for RADIUS-
over-TCP connections.
Currently, there are no standardized MIB modules for diameter
applications, which can be considered as a lack on the management
side of diameter nodes.
5. Security Considerations
This document gives an overview of IETF network management standards
and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF Standards
Track network management protocols and data models. As such, it does
not have any security implications in or of itself.
For each specific technology discussed in the document a summary of
its security usage has been given in corresponding chapters. In a
few cases, e.g., for SNMP, a detailed description of developed
security mechanisms has been provided.
The attention of the reader is particularly drawn to the security
discussion in following document sections:
o SNMP Security and Access Control Models in Section 2.1.4.1,
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 49
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o User-based Security Model (USM) in Section 2.1.4.2,
o View-based Access Control Model (VACM) in Section 2.1.4.3,
o SNMP Transport Security Model in Section 2.1.5.1,
o Secure syslog message delivery in Section 2.2,
o Use of secure NETCONF message transport and the NETCONF Access
Control Model (NACM) in Section 2.4.1,
o Message authentication for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) in Section 3.1.1,
o Security for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
in conjunction with EAP and IEEE 802.1X authenticators in
Section 3.5,
o Built-in and transport security for the Diameter Base Protocol in
Section 3.6,
o Transport security for Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access
Points (CAPWAP) in Section 3.7,
o Built-in security for Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) in
Section 3.8,
o Security for Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) in
Section 3.9,
o Security for XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) in
Section 3.10, and
o Data models for Security Management in Section 4.2.5.
The authors would also like to refer to detailed security
consideration sections for specific management standards described in
this document, which contain comprehensive discussion of security
implications of the particular management protocols and mechanisms.
Among others, security consideration sections of following documents
should be carefully read before implementing the technology.
o For SNMP security in general, subsequent security consideration
sections in [STD62], which includes RFCs 3411-3418,
o Security considerations section in Section 8 of [BCP074] for the
coexistence of SNMP versions 1, 2, and 3,
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 50
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o Security considerations for the SNMP Transport Security Model in
Section 8 of [RFC 5591],
o Security considerations for the Secure Shell Transport Model for
SNMP in Section 9 of [RFC 5592],
o Security considerations for the TLS Transport Model for SNMP in
Section 9 of [RFC 6353],
o Security considerations for the TLS Transport Mapping for syslog
in Section 6 of [RFC 5425],
o Security considerations for the IPFIX Protocol Specification in
Section 11 of [RFC 5101],
o Security considerations for the NETCONF protocol in Section 9 of
[RFC 6241] and the SSH transport in Section 6 of [RFC 6242],
o Security considerations for the NETCONF Access Control Model
(NACM) in Section 3.7 of [RFC 6536],
o Security considerations for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 in Section 7 of
[RFC 2131] and Section 23. of [RFC 3315],
o Security considerations for RADIUS in Section 8 of [RFC 2865],
o Security considerations for diameter in Section 13 of [RFC 3588],
o Security considerations for the CAPWAP protocol in Section 12 of
[RFC 5415],
o Security considerations for the ANCP protocol in Section 11 of
[RFC 6320], and
o Security considerations for the XCAP protocol in Section 14 of
[RFC 4825].
6. Contributors
Following persons made significant contributions to and reviewed this
document:
o Ralph Droms (Cisco) - revised the section on IP Address Management
and DHCP.
o Jouni Korhonen (Nokia Siemens Networks) - contributed the sections
on RADIUS and diameter.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 51
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o Al Morton (AT&T) - contributed to the section on IP Performance
Metrics.
o Juergen Quittek (NEC) - contributed the section on IPFIX/PSAMP.
o Juergen Schoenwaelder (Jacobs University Bremen) - contributed the
sections on IETF Network Management Data Models and YANG.
7. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank Fred Baker, Alex Clemm, Miguel A.
Garcia, Simon Leinen, Christopher Liljenstolpe, Tom Petch, Randy
Presuhn, Dan Romascanu, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Tina Tsou, and Henk
Uijterwaal for their valuable suggestions and comments in the OPSAWG
sessions and on the mailing list.
The editor would like to especially thank Dave Harrington, who
created the document "Survey of IETF Network Management Standards" a
few years ago, which has been used as a starting point and enhanced
with a special focus on the description of the IETF network
management standards and management data models.
8. Informative References
[3GPPEPC] 3GPP, "Access to the 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC)
via non-3GPP access networks", December 2010,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24302.htm>.
[3GPPIMS] 3GPP, "Release 10, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS);
Stage 2", September 2010,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23228.htm>.
[BCP027] O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S.
Bradner, "Advancement of MIB specifications on the
IETF Standards Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438,
October 1998.
[BCP074] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
"Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and
Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.
[BCP170] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170,
RFC 6390, October 2011.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 52
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[CONF-MODEL] Muenz, G., Claise, B., and P. Aitken, "Configuration
Data Model for IPFIX and PSAMP", Work in Progress,
July 2011.
[DIAMETER] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", Work in Progress,
April 2012.
[DMTF-CIM] DMTF, "Common Information Model Schema, Version
2.27.0", November 2010,
<http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim>.
[EMAN-WG] IETF, "EMAN Working Group",
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman>.
[FCAPS] International Telecommunication Union, "X.700:
Management Framework For Open Systems Interconnection
(OSI) For CCITT Applications", September 1992,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.700-199209-I/en>.
[IANA-AAA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters",
February 2012,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters>.
[IANA-IPFIX] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP Flow
Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", May 2012,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix>.
[IANA-PROT] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Protocol
Registries", <http://www.iana.org/protocols/>.
[IANA-PSAMP] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Packet Sampling
(PSAMP) Parameters", April 2009,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/psamp-parameters>.
[IETF-WGS] IETF, "IETF Working Groups",
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/>.
[ITU-M3100] International Telecommunication Union, "M.3100:
Generic network information model", January 2006,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-M.3100-200504-I>.
[ITU-X680] International Telecommunication Union, "X.680:
Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification
of basic notation", July 2002, <http://www.itu.int/
ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/X.680-0207.pdf>.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 53
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[ITU-X733] International Telecommunication Union, "X.733:
Systems Management: Alarm Reporting Function",
October 1992,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.733-199202-I/en>.
[MPLSTP-MIB] King, D. and V. Mahalingam, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based
Management Overview", Work in Progress, April 2012.
[OAM-ANALYSIS] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the OAM
Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks", Work
in Progress, April 2012.
[OAM-OVERVIEW] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms",
Work in Progress, March 2012.
[PSAMP-MIB] Dietz, T., Claise, B., and J. Quittek, "Definitions
of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling", Work
in Progress, October 2011.
[RELAX-NG] OASIS, "RELAX NG Specification, Committee
Specification 3 December 2001", December 2001, <http:
//www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
spec-20011203.html>.
[RFC 951] Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol",
RFC 951, September 1985.
[RFC 1021] Partridge, C. and G. Trewitt, "High-level Entity
Management System (HEMS)", RFC 1021, October 1987.
[RFC 1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
identification of management information for TCP/
IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[RFC 1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
RFC 1157, May 1990.
[RFC 1212] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB
definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
[RFC 1215] Rose, M., "Convention for defining traps for use with
the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 54
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",
RFC 1321, April 1992.
[RFC 1470] Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network
Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and
Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected
Devices", RFC 1470, June 1993.
[RFC 1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.,
and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996.
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2127] Roeck, G., "ISDN Management Information Base using
SMIv2", RFC 2127, March 1997.
[RFC 2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC 2195] Klensin, J., Catoe, R., and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP
AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response",
RFC 2195, September 1997.
[RFC 2244] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244,
November 1997.
[RFC 2287] Krupczak, C. and J. Saperia, "Definitions of System-
Level Managed Objects for Applications", RFC 2287,
February 1998.
[RFC 2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC 2458] Lu, H., Krishnaswamy, M., Conroy, L., Bellovin, S.,
Burg, F., DeSimone, A., Tewani, K., Davidson, P.,
Schulzrinne, H., and K. Vishwanathan, "Toward the
PSTN/Internet Inter-Networking --Pre-PINT
Implementations", RFC 2458, November 1998.
[RFC 2515] Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM
Management", RFC 2515, February 1999.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 55
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 2564] Kalbfleisch, C., Krupczak, C., Presuhn, R., and J.
Saperia, "Application Management MIB", RFC 2564,
May 1999.
[RFC 2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management
Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
April 1999.
[RFC 2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC 2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
April 1999.
[RFC 2610] Perkins, C. and E. Guttman, "DHCP Options for Service
Location Protocol", RFC 2610, June 1999.
[RFC 2613] Waterman, R., Lahaye, B., Romascanu, D., and S.
Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions
for Switched Networks Version 1.0", RFC 2613,
June 1999.
[RFC 2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J.,
Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L.
Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest
Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC 2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for
Measuring Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
[RFC 2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC 2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
September 1999.
[RFC 2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-
trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681,
September 1999.
[RFC 2748] Durham, D., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
R., and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy
Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 56
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A
Framework for Policy-based Admission Control",
RFC 2753, January 2000.
[RFC 2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC 2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces
Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC 2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC 2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC 2867] Zorn, G., Aboba, B., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS
Accounting Modifications for Tunnel Protocol
Support", RFC 2867, June 2000.
[RFC 2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
Holdrege, M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for
Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC 2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC 2981] Kavasseri, R., "Event MIB", RFC 2981, October 2000.
[RFC 2982] Kavasseri, R., "Distributed Management Expression
MIB", RFC 2982, October 2000.
[RFC 3014] Kavasseri, R., "Notification Log MIB", RFC 3014,
November 2000.
[RFC 3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
RFC 3046, January 2001.
[RFC 3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S.,
McCloghrie, K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar,
R., and A. Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning
(COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001.
[RFC 3144] Romascanu, D., "Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for
Interface Parameters Monitoring", RFC 3144,
August 2001.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 57
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 3159] McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson, J., Chan, K.,
Hahn, S., Sahita, R., Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer,
"Structure of Policy Provisioning Information
(SPPI)", RFC 3159, August 2001.
[RFC 3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and
IPv6", RFC 3162, August 2001.
[RFC 3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
August 2001.
[RFC 3165] Levi, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Definitions of
Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management
Scripts", RFC 3165, August 2001.
[RFC 3195] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog",
RFC 3195, November 2001.
[RFC 3273] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base for High Capacity Networks",
RFC 3273, July 2002.
[RFC 3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC 3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers", RFC 3319,
July 2003.
[RFC 3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay
Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)",
RFC 3393, November 2002.
[RFC 3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for
Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
December 2002.
[RFC 3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62,
RFC 3411, December 2002.
[RFC 3413] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62,
RFC 3413, December 2002.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 58
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security
Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414,
December 2002.
[RFC 3415] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-
based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3415, December 2002.
[RFC 3417] Presuhn, R., "Transport Mappings for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3417, December 2002.
[RFC 3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002.
[RFC 3430] Schoenwaelder, J., "Simple Network Management
Protocol Over Transmission Control Protocol Transport
Mapping", RFC 3430, December 2002.
[RFC 3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams",
RFC 3432, November 2002.
[RFC 3433] Bierman, A., Romascanu, D., and K. Norseth, "Entity
Sensor Management Information Base", RFC 3433,
December 2002.
[RFC 3434] Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Remote Monitoring MIB
Extensions for High Capacity Alarms", RFC 3434,
December 2002.
[RFC 3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference
between Information Models and Data Models",
RFC 3444, January 2003.
[RFC 3460] Moore, B., "Policy Core Information Model (PCIM)
Extensions", RFC 3460, January 2003.
[RFC 3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
[RFC 3574] Soininen, J., "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP
Networks", RFC 3574, August 2003.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 59
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 3577] Waldbusser, S., Cole, R., Kalbfleisch, C., and D.
Romascanu, "Introduction to the Remote Monitoring
(RMON) Family of MIB Modules", RFC 3577, August 2003.
[RFC 3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
September 2003.
[RFC 3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J.
Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In
User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580,
September 2003.
[RFC 3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
September 2003.
[RFC 3589] Loughney, J., "Diameter Command Codes for Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 5",
RFC 3589, September 2003.
[RFC 3606] Ly, F., Noto, M., Smith, A., Spiegel, E., and K.
Tesink, "Definitions of Supplemental Managed Objects
for ATM Interface", RFC 3606, November 2003.
[RFC 3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version
6", RFC 3633, December 2003.
[RFC 3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 3646, December 2003.
[RFC 3729] Waldbusser, S., "Application Performance Measurement
MIB", RFC 3729, March 2004.
[RFC 3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J.,
and H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC 3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 60
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 3868] Loughney, J., Sidebottom, G., Coene, L., Verwimp, G.,
Keller, J., and B. Bidulock, "Signalling Connection
Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)", RFC 3868,
October 2004.
[RFC 3873] Pastor, J. and M. Belinchon, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Management Information
Base (MIB)", RFC 3873, September 2004.
[RFC 3877] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
[RFC 3878] Lam, H., Huynh, A., and D. Perkins, "Alarm Reporting
Control Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3878,
September 2004.
[RFC 3917] Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
"Requirements for IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX)", RFC 3917, October 2004.
[RFC 3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004.
[RFC 4004] Calhoun, P., Johansson, T., Perkins, C., Hiller, T.,
and P. McCann, "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application",
RFC 4004, August 2005.
[RFC 4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application",
RFC 4005, August 2005.
[RFC 4006] Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M.,
and J. Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control
Application", RFC 4006, August 2005.
[RFC 4022] Raghunarayan, R., "Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022,
March 2005.
[RFC 4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6
into ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.
[RFC 4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and
E. Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
RFC 4038, March 2005.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 61
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 4057] Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios",
RFC 4057, June 2005.
[RFC 4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
Application", RFC 4072, August 2005.
[RFC 4113] Fenner, B. and J. Flick, "Management Information Base
for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)", RFC 4113,
June 2005.
[RFC 4118] Yang, L., Zerfos, P., and E. Sadot, "Architecture
Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless
Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4118, June 2005.
[RFC 4133] Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Entity MIB (Version
3)", RFC 4133, August 2005.
[RFC 4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
[RFC 4150] Dietz, R. and R. Cole, "Transport Performance Metrics
MIB", RFC 4150, August 2005.
[RFC 4188] Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005.
[RFC 4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
October 2005.
[RFC 4215] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks",
RFC 4215, October 2005.
[RFC 4221] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management
Overview", RFC 4221, November 2005.
[RFC 4268] Chisholm, S. and D. Perkins, "Entity State MIB",
RFC 4268, November 2005.
[RFC 4273] Haas, J. and S. Hares, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for BGP-4", RFC 4273, January 2006.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 62
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 4280] Chowdhury, K., Yegani, P., and L. Madour, "Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for
Broadcast and Multicast Control Servers", RFC 4280,
November 2005.
[RFC 4285] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6",
RFC 4285, January 2006.
[RFC 4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
April 2006.
[RFC 4293] Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
[RFC 4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC 4318] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree
Protocol", RFC 4318, December 2005.
[RFC 4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast
Filtering, and Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363,
January 2006.
[RFC 4422] Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication
and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.
[RFC 4444] Parker, J., "Management Information Base for
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)",
RFC 4444, April 2006.
[RFC 4502] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.
[RFC 4546] Raftus, D. and E. Cardona, "Radio Frequency (RF)
Interface Management Information Base for Data over
Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS) 2.0
Compliant RF Interfaces", RFC 4546, June 2006.
[RFC 4560] Quittek, J. and K. White, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup
Operations", RFC 4560, June 2006.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 63
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 4564] Govindan, S., Cheng, H., Yao, ZH., Zhou, WH., and L.
Yang, "Objectives for Control and Provisioning of
Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4564,
July 2006.
[RFC 4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J.,
and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement
Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC 4663] Harrington, D., "Transferring MIB Work from IETF
Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG", RFC 4663,
September 2006.
[RFC 4668] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for
IPv6", RFC 4668, August 2006.
[RFC 4669] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for
IPv6", RFC 4669, August 2006.
[RFC 4670] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4670, August 2006.
[RFC 4671] Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",
RFC 4671, August 2006.
[RFC 4672] De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
Dynamic Authorization Client MIB", RFC 4672,
September 2006.
[RFC 4673] De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
Dynamic Authorization Server MIB", RFC 4673,
September 2006.
[RFC 4675] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support",
RFC 4675, September 2006.
[RFC 4706] Morgenstern, M., Dodge, M., Baillie, S., and U.
Bonollo, "Definitions of Managed Objects for
Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line 2 (ADSL2)",
RFC 4706, November 2006.
[RFC 4710] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky,
"Real-time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring
(RAQMON) Framework", RFC 4710, October 2006.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 64
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 4711] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky,
"Real-time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring
(RAQMON) MIB", RFC 4711, October 2006.
[RFC 4712] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., Golovinsky, E., Rahman,
M., and Y. Kim, "Transport Mappings for Real-time
Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON)
Protocol Data Unit (PDU)", RFC 4712, October 2006.
[RFC 4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G.,
Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering
Metrics", RFC 4737, November 2006.
[RFC 4740] Garcia-Martin, M., Belinchon, M., Pallares-Lopez, M.,
Canales-Valenzuela, C., and K. Tammi, "Diameter
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Application",
RFC 4740, November 2006.
[RFC 4743] Goddard, T., "Using NETCONF over the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP)", RFC 4743, December 2006.
[RFC 4744] Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol
over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 4744, December 2006.
[RFC 4750] Joyal, D., Galecki, P., Giacalone, S., Coltun, R.,
and F. Baker, "OSPF Version 2 Management Information
Base", RFC 4750, December 2006.
[RFC 4780] Lingle, K., Mule, J-F., Maeng, J., and D. Walker,
"Management Information Base for the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4780, April 2007.
[RFC 4789] Schoenwaelder, J. and T. Jeffree, "Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) over IEEE 802 Networks",
RFC 4789, November 2006.
[RFC 4803] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR)
Management Information Base", RFC 4803,
February 2007.
[RFC 4818] Salowey, J. and R. Droms, "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-
Prefix Attribute", RFC 4818, April 2007.
[RFC 4825] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825,
May 2007.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 65
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 4826] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Formats for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826,
May 2007.
[RFC 4827] Isomaki, M. and E. Leppanen, "An Extensible Markup
Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
Usage for Manipulating Presence Document Contents",
RFC 4827, May 2007.
[RFC 4898] Mathis, M., Heffner, J., and R. Raghunarayan, "TCP
Extended Statistics MIB", RFC 4898, May 2007.
[RFC 4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, September 2007.
[RFC 5060] Sivaramu, R., Lingard, J., McWalter, D., Joshi, B.,
and A. Kessler, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB",
RFC 5060, January 2008.
[RFC 5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080,
December 2007.
[RFC 5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC 5090] Sterman, B., Sadolevsky, D., Schwartz, D., Williams,
D., and W. Beck, "RADIUS Extension for Digest
Authentication", RFC 5090, February 2008.
[RFC 5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP
Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[RFC 5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and
J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information
Export", RFC 5102, January 2008.
[RFC 5103] Trammell, B. and E. Boschi, "Bidirectional Flow
Export Using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)",
RFC 5103, January 2008.
[RFC 5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and
B. Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 5176, January 2008.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 66
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 5181] Shin, M-K., Han, Y-H., Kim, S-E., and D. Premec,
"IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks",
RFC 5181, May 2008.
[RFC 5224] Brenner, M., "Diameter Policy Processing
Application", RFC 5224, March 2008.
[RFC 5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
August 2008.
[RFC 5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, July 2008.
[RFC 5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC 5388] Niccolini, S., Tartarelli, S., Quittek, J., Dietz,
T., and M. Swany, "Information Model and XML Data
Model for Traceroute Measurements", RFC 5388,
December 2008.
[RFC 5415] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
[RFC 5416] Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416,
March 2009.
[RFC 5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
March 2009.
[RFC 5425] Miao, F., Ma, Y., and J. Salowey, "Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog",
RFC 5425, March 2009.
[RFC 5426] Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages over
UDP", RFC 5426, March 2009.
[RFC 5427] Keeni, G., "Textual Conventions for Syslog
Management", RFC 5427, March 2009.
[RFC 5431] Sun, D., "Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement
Interface Application", RFC 5431, March 2009.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 67
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 5447] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins,
C., and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support
for Network Access Server to Diameter Server
Interaction", RFC 5447, February 2009.
[RFC 5470] Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J.
Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information
Export", RFC 5470, March 2009.
[RFC 5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise,
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability",
RFC 5472, March 2009.
[RFC 5473] Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing
Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473,
March 2009.
[RFC 5474] Duffield, N., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for
Packet Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474,
March 2009.
[RFC 5475] Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S.,
and F. Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques
for IP Packet Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009.
[RFC 5476] Claise, B., Johnson, A., and J. Quittek, "Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476,
March 2009.
[RFC 5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and
G. Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling
Exports", RFC 5477, March 2009.
[RFC 5516] Jones, M. and L. Morand, "Diameter Command Code
Registration for the Third Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 5516, April 2009.
[RFC 5539] Badra, M., "NETCONF over Transport Layer Security
(TLS)", RFC 5539, May 2009.
[RFC 5560] Uijterwaal, H., "A One-Way Packet Duplication
Metric", RFC 5560, May 2009.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 68
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 5580] Tschofenig, H., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
Diameter", RFC 5580, August 2009.
[RFC 5590] Harrington, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Transport
Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 5590, June 2009.
[RFC 5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security
Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 5591, June 2009.
[RFC 5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.
[RFC 5607] Nelson, D. and G. Weber, "Remote Authentication
Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization for
Network Access Server (NAS) Management", RFC 5607,
July 2009.
[RFC 5608] Narayan, K. and D. Nelson, "Remote Authentication
Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Usage for Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Transport Models",
RFC 5608, August 2009.
[RFC 5610] Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
"Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610,
July 2009.
[RFC 5650] Morgenstern, M., Baillie, S., and U. Bonollo,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Very High Speed
Digital Subscriber Line 2 (VDSL2)", RFC 5650,
September 2009.
[RFC 5655] Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, October 2009.
[RFC 5674] Chisholm, S. and R. Gerhards, "Alarms in Syslog",
RFC 5674, October 2009.
[RFC 5675] Marinov, V. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Mapping Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Notifications to
SYSLOG Messages", RFC 5675, October 2009.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 69
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 5676] Schoenwaelder, J., Clemm, A., and A. Karmakar,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Mapping SYSLOG
Messages to Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Notifications", RFC 5676, October 2009.
[RFC 5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering
Operations and Management of New Protocols and
Protocol Extensions", RFC 5706, November 2009.
[RFC 5713] Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. De Cnodder,
"Security Threats and Security Requirements for the
Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)", RFC 5713,
January 2010.
[RFC 5717] Lengyel, B. and M. Bjorklund, "Partial Lock Remote
Procedure Call (RPC) for NETCONF", RFC 5717,
December 2009.
[RFC 5719] Romascanu, D. and H. Tschofenig, "Updated IANA
Considerations for Diameter Command Code
Allocations", RFC 5719, January 2010.
[RFC 5729] Korhonen, J., Jones, M., Morand, L., and T. Tsou,
"Clarifications on the Routing of Diameter Requests
Based on the Username and the Realm", RFC 5729,
December 2009.
[RFC 5777] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M.,
Jones, M., and A. Lior, "Traffic Classification and
Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter",
RFC 5777, February 2010.
[RFC 5778] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Bournelle, J.,
Giaretta, G., and M. Nakhjiri, "Diameter Mobile IPv6:
Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server
Interaction", RFC 5778, February 2010.
[RFC 5779] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Chowdhury, K., Muhanna,
A., and U. Meyer, "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile
Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor Interaction
with Diameter Server", RFC 5779, February 2010.
[RFC 5815] Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., and G. Muenz,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Flow
Information Export", RFC 5815, April 2010.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 70
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 5833] Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
"Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Base MIB", RFC 5833, May 2010.
[RFC 5834] Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
"Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Binding MIB for IEEE 802.11",
RFC 5834, May 2010.
[RFC 5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.
[RFC 5848] Kelsey, J., Callas, J., and A. Clemm, "Signed Syslog
Messages", RFC 5848, May 2010.
[RFC 5851] Ooghe, S., Voigt, N., Platnic, M., Haag, T., and S.
Wadhwa, "Framework and Requirements for an Access
Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service
Networks", RFC 5851, May 2010.
[RFC 5866] Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria,
A., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality-of-Service
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
[RFC 5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC 5889] Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in
Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
[RFC 5982] Kobayashi, A. and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement",
RFC 5982, August 2010.
[RFC 5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, September 2010.
[RFC 6012] Salowey, J., Petch, T., Gerhards, R., and H. Feng,
"Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
Mapping for Syslog", RFC 6012, October 2010.
[RFC 6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6020, October 2010.
[RFC 6021] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6021, October 2010.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 71
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 6022] Scott, M. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Module for NETCONF
Monitoring", RFC 6022, October 2010.
[RFC 6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H.
Sinnreich, "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package
for Voice Quality Reporting", RFC 6035,
November 2010.
[RFC 6065] Narayan, K., Nelson, D., and R. Presuhn, "Using
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
Services to Dynamically Provision View-Based Access
Control Model User-to-Group Mappings", RFC 6065,
December 2010.
[RFC 6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
YANG Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011.
[RFC 6095] Linowski, B., Ersue, M., and S. Kuryla, "Extending
YANG with Language Abstractions", RFC 6095,
March 2011.
[RFC 6110] Lhotka, L., "Mapping YANG to Document Schema
Definition Languages and Validating NETCONF Content",
RFC 6110, February 2011.
[RFC 6158] DeKok, A. and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines",
BCP 158, RFC 6158, March 2011.
[RFC 6183] Kobayashi, A., Claise, B., Muenz, G., and K.
Ishibashi, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Mediation: Framework", RFC 6183, April 2011.
[RFC 6235] Boschi, E. and B. Trammell, "IP Flow Anonymization
Support", RFC 6235, May 2011.
[RFC 6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011.
[RFC 6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over
Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.
[RFC 6244] Shafer, P., "An Architecture for Network Management
Using NETCONF and YANG", RFC 6244, June 2011.
[RFC 6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
April 2011.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 72
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFC 6272] Baker, F. and D. Meyer, "Internet Protocols for the
Smart Grid", RFC 6272, June 2011.
[RFC 6313] Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates,
"Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6313, July 2011.
[RFC 6320] Wadhwa, S., Moisand, J., Haag, T., Voigt, N., and T.
Taylor, "Protocol for Access Node Control Mechanism
in Broadband Networks", RFC 6320, October 2011.
[RFC 6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport
Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC 6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 6353, July 2011.
[RFC 6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport
Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC 6408] Jones, M., Korhonen, J., and L. Morand, "Diameter
Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR)
Usage", RFC 6408, November 2011.
[RFC 6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing
the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9,
RFC 6410, October 2011.
[RFC 6526] Claise, B., Aitken, P., Johnson, A., and G. Muenz,
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Per Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream",
RFC 6526, March 2012.
[RFC 6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
March 2012.
[RFC 6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe,
C., and M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
Shared Address Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.
[RFC 6613] DeKok, A., "RADIUS over TCP", RFC 6613, May 2012.
[RFC 6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K.
Wierenga, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption
for RADIUS", RFC 6614, May 2012.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 73
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[RFCSEARCH] RFC Editor, "RFC Index Search Engine",
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html>.
[SMI-NUMBERS] IANA, "Network Management Parameters - SMI OID List",
May 2012,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers>.
[SMI-YANG] Schoenwaelder, J., "Translation of SMIv2 MIB Modules
to YANG Modules", Work in Progress, April 2012.
[STD06] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[STD07] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[STD16] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
identification of management information for TCP/
IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB
definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
[STD17] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information
Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based
internets:MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
[STD58] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management
Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
April 1999.
McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Conformance Statements for
SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[STD59] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 74
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[STD62] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62,
RFC 3411, December 2002.
Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen,
"Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
3412, December 2002.
Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC
3413, December 2002.
Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security
Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414,
December 2002.
Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-
based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
3415, December 2002.
Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol
Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3416, December 2002.
Presuhn, R., Ed., "Transport Mappings for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
3417, December 2002.
Presuhn, R., Ed., "Management Information Base (MIB)
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002.
[STD66] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[XPATH] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 75
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
[XSD-1] Beech, D., Thompson, H., Maloney, M., Mendelsohn, N.,
and World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xmlschema-1-20041028, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures
Second Edition", October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 76
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
Appendix A. High-Level Classification of Management Protocols and Data
Models
The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast
selection of the management standard in interest and can be used as a
dispatcher to forward to the appropriate chapter. The subsections
below classify the protocols on one hand according to high-level
criteria such as push versus pull mechanism, and passive versus
active monitoring. On the other hand, the protocols are categorized
concerning the network management task they address or the data model
extensibility they provide. Based on the reader's requirements, a
reduced set of standard protocols and associated data models can be
selected for further reading.
As an example, someone outside of IETF typically would look for the
TWAMP protocol in the Operations and Management Area working groups
as it addresses performance management. However, the protocol TWAMP
has been developed by the IPPM working group in the Transport Area.
Note that not all protocols have been listed in all classification
sections. Some of the protocols, especially the protocols with
specific focus in Section 3 cannot be clearly classified. Note also
that COPS and COPS-PR are not listed in the tables, as COPS-PR is not
recommended to use (see Section 3.3).
A.1. Protocols Classified by Standards Maturity in the IETF
This section classifies the management protocols according their
standard maturity in the IETF. The IETF standard maturity levels
Proposed, Draft, or Internet Standard, are defined in [RFC 2026] (as
amended by [RFC 6410]). An Internet Standard is characterized by a
high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that
the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
Internet community.
The table below covers the standard maturity of the different
protocols listed in this document. Note that only the main protocols
(and not their extensions) are noted. An RFC search tool listing the
current document status is available at [RFCSEARCH].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 77
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| Protocol | Maturity Level |
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
| SNMP [STD62][RFC 3411] (Section 2.1) | Internet Standard |
| | |
| Syslog [RFC 5424] (Section 2.2) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| IPFIX [RFC 5101] (Section 2.3) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| PSAMP [RFC 5476] (Section 2.3) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| NETCONF [RFC 6241] (Section 2.4.1) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| DHCP for IPv4 [RFC 2131] (Section 3.1.1) | Draft Standard |
| | |
| DHCP for IPv6 [RFC 3315] (Section 3.1.1) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| OWAMP [RFC 4656] (Section 3.4) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| TWAMP [RFC 5357] (Section 3.4) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| RADIUS [RFC 2865] (Section 3.5) | Draft Standard |
| | |
| Diameter [RFC 3588] (Section 3.6) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| CAPWAP [RFC 5416] (Section 3.7) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| ANCP [RFC 6320] (Section 3.8) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| Ad hoc network configuration [RFC 5889] | Informational |
| (Section 3.1.2) | |
| | |
| ACAP [RFC 2244] (Section 3.9) | Proposed Standard |
| | |
| XCAP [RFC 4825] (Section 3.10) | Proposed Standard |
+---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Protocols Classified by Standard Maturity in the IETF
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 78
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
A.2. Protocols Matched to Management Tasks
This subsection classifies the management protocols matching to the
management tasks for fault, configuration, accounting, performance,
and security management.
+------------+------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| Fault Mgmt | Config. | Accounting | Performance | Security |
| | Mgmt | Mgmt | Mgmt | Mgmt |
+------------+------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
| SNMP | SNMP | SNMP | SNMP | |
| notif. | config. | monitoring | monitoring | |
| with trap | with set | with get | with get | |
| operation | operation | operation | operation | |
| (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1) | |
| | | | | |
| IPFIX | CAPWAP | IPFIX | IPFIX | |
| (S. 2.3) | (S. 3.7) | (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.3) | |
| | | | | |
| PSAMP | NETCONF | PSAMP | PSAMP | |
| (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.4.1) | (S. 2.3) | (S. 2.3) | |
| | | | | |
| Syslog | ANCP | RADIUS | | RADIUS |
| (S. 2.2) | (S. 3.8) | Accounting | | Authent.& |
| | | (S. 3.5) | | Authoriz. |
| | | | | (S. 3.5) |
| | | | | |
| | AUTOCONF | Diameter | | Diameter |
| | (S. 3.1.2) | Accounting | | Authent.& |
| | | (S. 3.6) | | Authoriz. |
| | | | | (S. 3.6) |
| | | | | |
| | ACAP | | | |
| | (S. 3.9) | | | |
| | | | | |
| | XCAP | | | |
| | (S. 3.10) | | | |
| | | | | |
| | DHCP | | | |
| | (S. 3.1.1) | | | |
+------------+------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
Table 2: Protocols Matched to Management Tasks
Note: Corresponding section numbers are given in parentheses.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 79
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism
A pull mechanism is characterized by the Network Management System
(NMS) pulling the management information out of network elements,
when needed. A push mechanism is characterized by the network
elements pushing the management information to the NMS, either when
the information is available or on a regular basis.
Client/Server protocols, such as DHCP, ANCP, ACAP, and XCAP are not
listed in Table 3.
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Protocols supporting the Pull | Protocols supporting the Push |
| mechanism | mechanism |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| SNMP (except notifications) | SNMP notifications |
| (Section 2.1) | (Section 2.1) |
| NETCONF (except notifications) | NETCONF notifications |
| (Section 2.4.1) | (Section 2.4.1) |
| CAPWAP (Section 3.7) | Syslog (Section 2.2) |
| | IPFIX (Section 2.3) |
| | PSAMP (Section 2.3) |
| | RADIUS accounting |
| | (Section 3.5) |
| | Diameter accounting |
| | (Section 3.6) |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 3: Protocol Classification by Push versus Pull Mechanism
A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring
Monitoring can be divided into two categories: passive and active
monitoring. Passive monitoring can perform the network traffic
monitoring, monitoring of a device, or the accounting of network
resource consumption by users. Active monitoring, as used in this
document, focuses mainly on active network monitoring and relies on
the injection of specific traffic (also called "synthetic traffic"),
which is then monitored. The monitoring focus is indicated in the
table below as "network", "device", or "accounting".
This classification excludes non-monitoring protocols, such as
configuration protocols: Ad hoc network autoconfiguration, ANCP, and
XCAP. Note that some of the active monitoring protocols, in the
context of the data path, e.g., ICMP Ping and Traceroute [RFC 1470],
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC 5880], and PWE3 Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC 5085] are covered in
[OAM-OVERVIEW].
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 80
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Protocols supporting passive | Protocols supporting active |
| monitoring | monitoring |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| IPFIX (network) (Section 2.3) | OWAMP (network) (Section 3.4) |
| PSAMP (network) (Section 2.3) | TWAMP (network) (Section 3.4) |
| SNMP (network and device) | |
| (Section 2.1) | |
| NETCONF (device) | |
| (Section 2.4.1) | |
| RADIUS (accounting) | |
| (Section 3.5) | |
| Diameter (accounting) | |
| (Section 3.6) | |
| CAPWAP (device) (Section 3.7) | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 4: Protocols for Passive and Active Monitoring and Their
Monitoring Focus
The application of SNMP to passive traffic monitoring (e.g., with
RMON-MIB) or active monitoring (with IPPM MIB) depends on the MIB
modules used. However, the SNMP protocol itself does not have
operations, which support active monitoring. NETCONF can be used for
passive monitoring, e.g., with the NETCONF Monitoring YANG module
[RFC 6022] for the monitoring of the NETCONF protocol. CAPWAP
monitors the status of a Wireless Termination Point.
RADIUS and diameter are considered passive monitoring protocols as
they perform accounting, i.e., counting the number of packets/bytes
for a specific user.
A.5. Supported Data Model Types and Their Extensibility
The following table matches the protocols to the associated data
model types. Furthermore, the table indicates how the data model can
be extended based on the available content today and whether the
protocol contains a built-in mechanism for proprietary extensions of
the data model.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 81
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
+-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
| Protocol | Data Modeling | Data Model | Proprietary Data |
| | | Extensions | Modeling |
| | | | Extensions |
+-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
| SNMP | MIB modules | New MIB modules | Enterprise- |
| (S. 2.1) | defined with | specified in new | specific MIB |
| | SMI | RFCs | modules |
| | (S. 2.1.3) | | |
| | | | |
| Syslog | Structured | With the | Enterprise- |
| (S. 2.2) | Data Elements | procedure to add | specific SDEs |
| | (SDEs) | Structured Data | |
| | (S. 4.2.1) | ID in [RFC 5424] | |
| | | | |
| IPFIX | IPFIX | With the | Enterprise- |
| (S. 2.3) | Information | procedure to add | specific |
| | Elements, | Information | Information |
| | IPFIX IANA | Elements | Elements |
| | registry at | specified in | [RFC 5101] |
| | [IANA-IPFIX] | [RFC 5102] | |
| | (S. 2.3) | | |
| | | | |
| PSAMP | PSAMP | With the | Enterprise- |
| (S. 2.3) | Information | procedure to add | specific |
| | Elements, as | Information | Information |
| | an extension | Elements | Elements |
| | to IPFIX | specified in | [RFC 5101] |
| | [IANA-IPFIX], | [RFC 5102] | |
| | and PSAMP | | |
| | IANA registry | | |
| | at | | |
| | [IANA-PSAMP] | | |
| | (S. 2.3) | | |
| | | | |
| NETCONF | YANG modules | New YANG modules | Enterprise- |
| (S. 2.4.1) | (S. 2.4.2) | specified in new | specific YANG |
| | | RFCs following | modules |
| | | the guideline in | |
| | | [RFC 6087] | |
| | | | |
| IPPM OWAMP/ | IPPM metrics | New IPPM metrics | Not applicable |
| TWAMP | (*) (S. 3.4) | (S. 3.4) | |
| (S. 3.4) | | | |
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 82
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
| | | | |
| RADIUS | TLVs | RADIUS-related | Vendor-Specific |
| (S. 3.5) | | registries at | Attributes |
| | | [IANA-AAA] and | [RFC 2865] |
| | | [IANA-PROT] | |
| | | | |
| Diameter | AVPs | Diameter-related | Vendor-Specific |
| (S. 3.6) | | registry at | Attributes |
| | | [IANA-AAA] | [RFC 2865] |
| | | | |
| CAPWAP | TLVs | New bindings | Vendor-specific |
| (S. 3.7) | | specified in new | TLVs |
| | | RFCs | |
+-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
Table 5: Data Models and Their Extensibility
(*): With the publication of [RFC 6248], the latest IANA registry for
IPFIX metrics has been declared Obsolete.
Appendix B. New Work Related to IETF Management Standards
B.1. Energy Management (EMAN)
Energy management is becoming an additional requirement for network
management systems due to several factors including the rising and
fluctuating energy costs, the increased awareness of the ecological
impact of operating networks and devices, and government regulation
on energy consumption and production.
The basic objective of energy management is operating communication
networks and other equipment with a minimal amount of energy while
still providing sufficient performance to meet service-level
objectives. Today, most networking and network-attached devices
neither monitor nor allow controlled energy usage as they are mainly
instrumented for functions such as fault, configuration, accounting,
performance, and security management. These devices are not
instrumented to be aware of energy consumption. There are very few
means specified in IETF documents for energy management, which
includes the areas of power monitoring, energy monitoring, and power
state control.
A particular difference between energy management and other
management tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device
is not measured at the device itself but reported by a different
place. For example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device
or at a smart power strip, where one device is effectively metering
another remote device. This requires a clear definition of the
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 83
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
relationship between the reporting devices and identification of
remote devices for which monitoring information is provided. Similar
considerations will apply to power state control of remote devices,
for example, at a PoE sourcing device that switches on and off power
at its ports. Another example scenario for energy management is a
gateway to low resourced and lossy network devices in wireless a
building network. Here the energy management system talks directly
to the gateway but not necessarily to other devices in the building
network.
At the time of this writing, the EMAN working group is working on the
management of energy-aware devices, covered by the following items:
o The requirements for energy management, specifying energy
management properties that will allow networks and devices to
become energy aware. In addition to energy awareness
requirements, the need for control functions will be discussed.
Specifically, the need to monitor and control properties of
devices that are remote to the reporting device should be
discussed.
o The energy management framework, which will describe extensions to
the current management framework, required for energy management.
This includes: power and energy monitoring, power states, power
state control, and potential power state transitions. The
framework will focus on energy management for IP-based network
equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the
like). Particularly, the relationships between reporting devices,
remote devices, and monitoring probes (such as might be used in
low-power and lossy networks) need to be elaborated. For the case
of a device reporting on behalf of other devices and controlling
those devices, the framework will address the issues of discovery
and identification of remote devices.
o The Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB document, for monitoring
energy-aware networks and devices, will address devices
identification, context information, and potential relationship
between reporting devices, remote devices, and monitoring probes.
o The Power and Energy Monitoring MIB document will document
defining managed objects for the monitoring of power states and
energy consumption/production. The monitoring of power states
includes the following: retrieving power states, properties of
power states, current power state, power state transitions, and
power state statistics. The managed objects will provide means of
reporting detailed properties of the actual energy rate (power)
and of accumulated energy. Further, they will provide information
on electrical power quality.
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 84
RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012
o The Battery MIB document will define managed objects for battery
monitoring, which will provide means of reporting detailed
properties of the actual charge, age, and state of a battery and
of battery statistics.
o The applicability statement will describe the variety of
applications that can use the energy framework and associated MIB
modules. Potential examples are building networks, home energy
gateway, etc. Finally, the document will also discuss
relationships of the framework to other architectures and
frameworks (such as Smart Grid). The applicability statement will
explain the relationship between the work in this WG and other
existing standards, e.g., from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF, etc. Note
that the EMAN WG will be looking into existing standards such as
those from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF and others, and reuse existing work
as much as possible.
The documents of the EMAN working group can be found at [EMAN-WG].
Authors' Addresses
Mehmet Ersue (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks
St.-Martin-Strasse 53
Munich 81541
Germany
EMail: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
Diegem 1831
Belgium
EMail: bclaise@cisco.com
Ersue & Claise Informational PAGE 85
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 210159 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
