rfc1156.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 2,522 行 · 第 1/5 页

Network Working Group                                     K. McCloghrie
Request For Comments:  1156                          Hughes LAN Systems
Obsoletes:  RFC 1066                                            M. Rose
                                      Performance Systems International
                                                               May 1990


           Management Information Base for Network Management
                       of TCP/IP-based internets

                           Table of Contents

   1. Status of this Memo ...................................   1
   2. IAB Policy Statement ..................................   2
   3. Introduction ..........................................   2
   4. Objects ...............................................   6
   4.1 Object Groups ........................................   6
   4.2 Format of Definitions ................................   7
   5. Object Definitions ....................................   8
   5.1 The System Group .....................................   9
   5.2 The Interfaces Group .................................  11
   5.2.1 The Interfaces Table ...............................  11
   5.3 The Address Translation Group ........................  23
   5.4 The IP Group .........................................  26
   5.4.1 The IP Address Table ...............................  34
   5.4.2 The IP Routing Table ...............................  36
   5.5 The ICMP Group .......................................  43
   5.6 The TCP Group ........................................  53
   5.7 The UDP Group ........................................  62
   5.8 The EGP Group ........................................  64
   5.8.1 The EGP Neighbor Table .............................  65
   6. Definitions ...........................................  68
   7. Acknowledgements ......................................  89
   8. References ............................................  90
   9. Security Considerations................................  91
   10. Authors' Addresses....................................  91

1.  Status of this Memo

   This RFC is a re-release of RFC 1066, with a changed "Status of this
   Memo", "IAB Policy Statement", and "Introduction" sections plus a few
   minor typographical corrections.  The technical content of the
   document is unchanged from RFC 1066.

   This memo provides the initial version of the Management Information
   Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based
   internets in the short-term.  In particular, together with its
   companion memos which describe the structure of management



McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 1]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


   information along with the initial network management protocol, these
   documents provide a simple, workable architecture and system for
   managing TCP/IP-based internets and in particular the Internet.

   This memo specifies a Standard Protocol for the Internet community.
   TCP/IP implementations in the Internet which are network manageable
   are expected to adopt and implement this specification.

   The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP
   implementations be network manageable.  This implies implementation
   of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two
   recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095).
   It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet
   standard and CMOT is a draft standard.  See also the Host and Gateway
   Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability
   of this standard.

   Please refer to the latest edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
   Standards" RFC for current information on the state and status of
   standard Internet protocols.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

2.  IAB Policy Statement

   This MIB specification is the first edition of an evolving document
   defining variables needed for monitoring and control of various
   components of the Internet.  Not all groups of defined variables are
   mandatory for all Internet components.

   For example, the EGP group is mandatory for gateways using EGP but
   not for hosts which should not be running EGP.  Similarly, the TCP
   group is mandatory for hosts running TCP but not for gateways which
   aren't running it.  What IS mandatory, however, is that all variables
   of a group be supported if any element of the group is supported.

   It is expected that additional MIB groups and variables will be
   defined over time to accommodate the monitoring and control needs of
   new or changing components of the Internet.  The responsible working
   group(s) will continue to refine this specification.

3.  Introduction

   As reported in RFC 1052, IAB Recommendations for the Development of
   Internet Network Management Standards [1], the Internet Activities
   Board has directed the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to
   create two new working groups in the area of network management.  One
   group was charged with the further specification and definition of



McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 2]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


   elements to be included in the Management Information Base.  The
   other was charged with defining the modifications to the Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to accommodate the short-term
   needs of the network vendor and operator communities.  In the long-
   term, the use of the OSI network management framework was to be
   examined using the ISO CMIS/CMIP [2,3] framework as a basis.  Two
   documents were produced to define the management information:  RFC
   1065, which defined the Structure of Management Information (SMI)
   [4], and RFC 1066, which defined the Management Information Base
   (MIB) [5].  Both of these documents were designed so as to be
   compatible with both the SNMP and the OSI network management
   framework.

   This strategy was quite successful in the short-term: Internet-based
   network management technology was fielded, by both the research and
   commercial communities, within a few months.  As a result of this,
   portions of the Internet community became network manageable in a
   timely fashion.

   As reported in RFC 1109, Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network
   Management Review Group [6], the requirements of the SNMP and the OSI
   network management frameworks were more different than anticipated.
   As such, the requirement for compatibility between the SMI/MIB and
   both frameworks was suspended.

   The IAB has designated the SNMP, SMI, and the initial Internet MIB to
   be full "Standard Protocols" with "Recommended" status.  By this
   action, the IAB recommends that all IP and TCP implementations be
   network manageable and that the implementations that are network
   manageable are expected to adopt and implement the SMI, MIB, and
   SNMP.

   As such, the current network management framework for TCP/IP- based
   internets consists of:  Structure and Identification of Management
   Information for TCP/IP-based Internets, which describes how managed
   objects contained in the MIB are defined as set forth in RFC 1155
   [7]; Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-
   based Internets, which describes the managed objects contained in the
   MIB as set forth in this memo; and, the Simple Network Management
   Protocol, which defines the protocol used to manage these objects, as
   set forth in RFC 1157 [8].

   The IAB also urged the working groups to be "extremely sensitive to
   the need to keep SNMP simple," and recommends that the MIB working
   group take as its starting inputs the MIB definitions found in the
   High-Level Entity Management Systems (HEMS) RFC 1024 [9], the initial
   SNMP specification [10], and the CMIS/CMIP memos [11,12].




McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 3]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


   Thus, the list of managed objects defined here, has been derived by
   taking only those elements which are considered essential.  Since
   such elements are essential, there is no need to allow the
   implementation of individual objects, to be optional.  Rather, all
   compliant implementations will contain all applicable (see below)
   objects defined in this memo.

   This approach of taking only the essential objects is NOT
   restrictive, since the SMI defined in the companion memo provides
   three extensibility mechanisms:  one, the addition of new standard
   objects through the definitions of new versions of the MIB; two, the
   addition of widely-available but non-standard objects through the
   multilateral subtree; and three, the addition of private objects
   through the enterprises subtree. Such additional objects can not only
   be used for vendor-specific elements, but also for experimentation as
   required to further the knowledge of which other objects are
   essential.

   The primary criterion for being considered essential was for an
   object to be contained in all of the above referenced MIB
   definitions.  A few other objects have been included, but only if the
   MIB working group believed they are truly essential.  The detailed
   list of criteria against which potential inclusions in this (initial)
   MIB were considered, was:

      1) An object needed to be essential for either fault or
         configuration management.

      2) Only weak control objects were permitted (by weak, it
         is meant that tampering with them can do only limited
         damage).  This criterion reflects the fact that the
         current management protocols are not sufficiently secure
         to do more powerful control operations.

      3) Evidence of current use and utility was required.

      4) An attempt was made to limit the number of objects to
         about 100 to make it easier for vendors to fully
         instrument their software.

      5) To avoid redundant variables, it was required that no
         object be included that can be derived from others in the
         MIB.

      6) Implementation specific objects (e.g., for BSD UNIX)
         were excluded.

      7) It was agreed to avoid heavily instrumenting critical



McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 4]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


         sections of code.  The general guideline was one counter
         per critical section per layer.

















































McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 5]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


4.  Objects

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB.  Objects in the MIB are
   defined using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [13].

   The mechanisms used for describing these objects are specified in the
   companion memo.  In particular, each object has a name, a syntax, and
   an encoding.  The name is an object identifier, an administratively
   assigned name, which specifies an object type.  The object type
   together with an object instance serves to uniquely identify a
   specific instantiation of the object.  For human convenience, we
   often use a textual string, termed the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR, to also
   refer to the object type.

   The syntax of an object type defines the abstract data structure
   corresponding to that object type.  The ASN.1 language is used for
   this purpose.  However, the companion memo purposely restricts the
   ASN.1 constructs which may be used.  These restrictions are
   explicitly made for simplicity.

   The encoding of an object type is simply how that object type is
   represented using the object type's syntax.  Implicitly tied to the
   notion of an object type's syntax and encoding is how the object type
   is represented when being transmitted on the network.  This memo
   specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [14].

4.1.  Object Groups

   Since this list of managed objects contains only the essential
   elements, there is no need to allow individual objects to be
   optional.  Rather, the objects are arranged into the following
   groups:

                  - System
                  - Interfaces
                  - Address Translation
                  - IP
                  - ICMP
                  - TCP
                  - UDP
                  - EGP

   There are two reasons for defining these groups:  one, to provide a
   means of assigning object identifiers; two, to provide a method for
   implementations of managed agents to know which objects they must
   implement.  This method is as follows: if the semantics of a group is
   applicable to an implementation, then it must implement all objects



McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 6]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


   in that group.  For example, an implementation must implement the EGP
   group if and only if it implements the EGP protocol.

4.2.  Format of Definitions

   The next section contains the specification of all object types
   contained in the MIB. Following the conventions of the companion
   memo, the object types are defined using the following fields:

          OBJECT:
          -------
               A textual name, termed the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR, for the
               object type, along with its corresponding OBJECT
               IDENTIFIER.

          Syntax:
               The abstract syntax for the object type, presented using
               ASN.1.  This must resolve to an instance of the ASN.1
               type ObjectSyntax defined in the SMI.

          Definition:
               A textual description of the semantics of the object
               type.  Implementations should ensure that their
               interpretation of the object type fulfills this
               definition since this MIB is intended for use in multi-
               vendor environments.  As such it is vital that object
               types have consistent meaning across all machines.

          Access:
               One of read-only, read-write, write-only, or
               not-accessible.

          Status:
              One of mandatory, optional, or obsolete.

















McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 7]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


5.  Object Definitions

               RFC1156-MIB

               DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

               IMPORTS
                       mgmt, OBJECT-TYPE, NetworkAddress, IpAddress,
                       Counter, Gauge, TimeTicks
                           FROM RFC1155-SMI;

               mib        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mgmt 1 }

               system     OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 1 }
               interfaces OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 2 }
               at         OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 3 }
               ip         OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 4 }
               icmp       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 5 }
               tcp        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 6 }
               udp        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 7 }
               egp        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { mib 8 }

               END




























McCloghrie & Rose                                               [Page 8]

RFC 1156                          MIB                           May 1990


5.1.  The System Group

          Implementation of the System group is mandatory for all
          systems.

          OBJECT:
          -------
               sysDescr { system 1 }

          Syntax:
               OCTET STRING

          Definition:
               A textual description of the entity.  This value should
               include the full name and version identification of the
               system's hardware type, software operating-system, and
               networking software.  It is mandatory that this only
               contain printable ASCII characters.

          Access:
               read-only.

          Status:
               mandatory.


          OBJECT:
          -------
               sysObjectID { system 2 }

          Syntax:
               OBJECT IDENTIFIER

          Definition:
               The vendor's authoritative identification of the network
               management subsystem contained in the entity.  This value
               is allocated within the SMI enterprises subtree
               (1.3.6.1.4.1) and provides an easy and unambiguous means
               for determining "what kind of box" is being managed.  For
               example, if vendor "Flintstones, Inc." was assigned the
               subtree 1.3.6.1.4.1.42, it could assign the identifier
               1.3.6.1.4.1.42.1.1 to its "Fred Router".

          Access:
               read-only.

          Status:
               mandatory.