::= { t11FcRouteEntry 5 }
t11FcRouteProto OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {
other(1),
local(2),
netmgmt(3),
fspf(4)
}
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The mechanism via which this route was learned:
other(1) - not specified
local(2) - local interface
netmgmt(3)- static route
fspf(4) - Fibre Shortest Path First
"
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 6 }
t11FcRouteOutInterface OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX InterfaceIndex
MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The value of ifIndex that identifies the local
Fibre Channel interface through which the next hop
of this route is to be reached."
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 7 }
t11FcRouteDomainId OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX FcDomainIdOrZero
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The domain_ID of next hop switch.
This object can have a value of zero if the value
of t11FcRouteProto is ’local’."
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 8 }
t11FcRouteMetric OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65536)
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The routing metric for this route.
The use of this object is dependent on t11FcRouteProto."
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 9 }
t11FcRouteType OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {
local(1),
remote(2)
}
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The type of route.
local(1) - a route for which the next Fibre Channel
port is the final destination;
remote(2) - a route for which the next Fibre Channel
port is not the final destination."
DEFVAL {local}
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 10 }
t11FcRouteIfDown OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER {
remove(1),
retain(2)
}
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The value of this object indicates what happens to
this route when the output interface (given by the
corresponding value of t11FcRouteOutInterface) is
operationally ’down’. If this object’s value is ’retain’,
the route is to be retained in this table. If this
object’s value is ’remove’, the route is to be removed
from this table."
DEFVAL { retain }
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 11 }
t11FcRouteStorageType OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX StorageType
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The storage type for this conceptual row.
Conceptual rows having the value ’permanent’ need not
allow write-access to any columnar objects in the row."
DEFVAL { nonVolatile }
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 12 }
t11FcRouteRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX RowStatus
MAX-ACCESS read-create
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The status of this conceptual row.
The only rows that can be deleted by setting this object to
’destroy’ are those for which t11FcRouteProto has the value
’netmgmt’."
::= { t11FcRouteEntry 13 }
--
-- Conformance
--
t11FcRouteCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER
::= { t11FcRouteConformance 1 }
t11FcRouteGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER
::= { t11FcRouteConformance 2 }
t11FcRouteCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The compliance statement for entities that
implement the T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB.
--
-- Note: The next four OBJECT clauses are for auxiliary objects, and the
-- SMIv2 does not permit inclusion of objects that are not accessible
-- in an OBJECT clause (see Sections 3.1 & 5.4.3 in STD 58, RFC 2580).
-- Thus, these four clauses cannot be included below in the normal
-- location for OBJECT clauses.
--
-- OBJECT t11FcRouteSrcAddrId
-- SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE (0))
-- DESCRIPTION
-- ’Support is not required for routes that
-- match only a subset of possible source
-- addresses.’
--
-- OBJECT t11FcRouteSrcMask
-- SYNTAX FcAddressIdOrZero (SIZE (0))
-- DESCRIPTION
-- ’Support is not required for routes that
-- match only a subset of possible source
-- addresses.’
--
-- OBJECT t11FcRouteDestMask
-- DESCRIPTION
-- ’Support is mandatory only for FSPF-generated
-- routes. Since FSPF’s definition generates
-- routes to a Domain_ID, the mask for all
-- FSPF-generated routes is 255.0.0. Thus,
-- support is only required for 255.0.0.’
--
-- OBJECT t11FcRouteInInterface
-- SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero (0)
-- DESCRIPTION
-- ’Support for routes specific to particular
-- source interfaces is not required.’
"
MODULE -- this module
MANDATORY-GROUPS { t11FcRouteGroup }
OBJECT t11FcRouteIfDown
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
OBJECT t11FcRouteDomainId
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
OBJECT t11FcRouteMetric
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
OBJECT t11FcRouteType
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
OBJECT t11FcRouteStorageType
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
OBJECT t11FcRouteRowStatus
SYNTAX INTEGER { active(1) }
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required."
::= { t11FcRouteCompliances 1 }
t11FcRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS { t11FcRouteFabricLastChange,
t11FcRouteDomainId,
t11FcRouteMetric,
t11FcRouteType,
t11FcRouteIfDown,
t11FcRouteStorageType,
t11FcRouteRowStatus
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"A collection of objects for displaying and configuring
routes."
::= { t11FcRouteGroups 1 }
END
7. Acknowledgements
This document was originally developed and approved by the INCITS
Task Group T11.5 (http://www.t11.org) as the SM-RTM project. We wish
to acknowledge the contributions and comments from the INCITS
Technical Committee T11, including the following:
T11 Chair: Robert Snively, Brocade
T11 Vice Chair: Claudio DeSanti, Cisco Systems
T11.5 Chair: Roger Cummings, Symantec
T11.5 members, especially:
Ken Hirata, Emulex
Scott Kipp, McData
Elizabeth G. Rodriguez, Dot Hill
The document was subsequently approved by the IETF’s IMSS Working
Group, chaired by David Black (EMC Corporation). We also wish to
acknowledge Bert Wijnen (Lucent Technologies), the IETF Area
Director, for his review of the document.
8. IANA Considerations
The IANA has assigned a MIB OID for the T11-FC-ROUTE-MIB module under
the appropriate subtree.
9. Security Considerations
There are several management objects defined in this MIB module with
a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects
may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network
environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure
environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on
network operations. These objects and their
sensitivity/vulnerability are:
t11FcRouteDomainId, t11FcRouteMetric, t11FcRouteType,
t11FcRouteIfDown, t11FcRouteRowStatus
-- configure new routes and/or modify existing routes.
Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some
network environments. For example, the ability to change network
topology or network speed may afford an attacker the ability to
obtain better performance at the expense of other network users. The
support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper
protection can have a negative effect on network operations.
Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a
MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to
control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly
to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over
the network via SNMP. The objects and their
sensitivity/vulnerability are: the write-able objects listed above
plus one other:
t11FcRouteLastChangeTime
-- the time of the last routing table change.
SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),
even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is
allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects
in this MIB module.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementors consider the security features as
provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8),
including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for
authentication and privacy).
Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT
RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to
enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator
responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an
instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to
the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them.
10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of
Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC
2578, April 1999.
[RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions
for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
[RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case,
J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance
Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
[RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC
3411, December 2002.
[RFC4439] DeSanti, C., Gaonkar, V., McCloghrie, K., and S. Gai,
"Fibre Channel Fabric Address Manager MIB", RFC 4439,
March 2006.
[RFC4626] DeSanti, C., Gaonkar, V., McCloghrie, K., and S. Gai,
"MIB for Fibre Channel’s Fabric Shortest Path First
(FSPF) Protocol", RFC 4626, September 2006.
[FC-FS] "Fibre Channel - Framing and Signaling (FC-FS)", ANSI
INCITS 373-2003, April 2003.
[FC-SW-3] "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric - 3 (FC-SW-3)", ANSI
INCITS 384-2004, 2004.
[FC-SW-4] "Fibre Channel - Switch Fabric - 4 (FC-SW-4)", ANSI
INCITS 418-2006, 2006.
[FC-MGMT] McCloghrie, K., "Fibre Channel Management MIB", RFC
4044, May 2005.
11. Informative References
[RFC2096] Baker, F., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 2096, January
1997.
[RFC2741] Daniele, M., Wijnen, B., Ellison, M., and D. Francisco,
"Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1", RFC
2741, January 2000.
[RFC2837] Teow, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Fabric Element in Fibre Channel Standard", RFC 2837,
May 2000.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for
Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
December 2002.
[RFC4292] Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
April 2006.
Authors’ Addresses
Claudio DeSanti
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Phone: +1 408 853-9172
EMail: cds@cisco.com
Srini Kode
Consultant
Phone: 408-348-5343
EMail: srinikode@yahoo.com
Keith McCloghrie
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA USA 95134
Phone: +1 408-526-5260
EMail: kzm@cisco.com
Silvano Gai
Retired
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).