123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676677678679680681682683684685686687688689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753754755756757758759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775776777778779780781782783784785786787788789790791792793794795796797798799800801802803804805806807808809810811812813814815816817818819820821822823824825826827828829830831832833834835836837838839840841842843844845846847848849850851852853854855856857858859860861862863864865866867868869870871872873874875876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890891892893894895896897898899900901902903904905906907908909910911912913914915916917918919920921922923924925926927928929930931932933934935936937938939940941942943944945946947948949950951952953954955956957958959960961962963964965966967968969970971972973974975976977978979980981982983984985986987988989990991992993994995996997998999100010011002100310041005100610071008100910101011101210131014101510161017101810191020102110221023102410251026102710281029103010311032103310341035103610371038103910401041104210431044104510461047104810491050105110521053105410551056105710581059106010611062106310641065106610671068106910701071107210731074107510761077107810791080108110821083108410851086108710881089109010911092109310941095109610971098109911001101110211031104110511061107110811091110111111121113111411151116111711181119112011211122112311241125112611271128112911301131113211331134113511361137113811391140114111421143114411451146114711481149115011511152115311541155115611571158115911601161116211631164116511661167116811691170117111721173117411751176117711781179 |
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group M. Rose
- Request for Comments: 1065 K. McCloghrie
- TWG
- August 1988
-
-
-
- Structure and Identification of Management Information
- for TCP/IP-based internets
-
- Table of Contents
-
- 1. Status of this Memo ............................................. 1
- 2. Introduction .................................................... 2
- 3. Structure and Identification of Management Information........... 4
- 3.1 Names .......................................................... 4
- 3.1.1 DIRECTORY .................................................... 5
- 3.1.2 MGMT ......................................................... 6
- 3.1.3 EXPERIMENTAL ................................................. 6
- 3.1.4 PRIVATE ...................................................... 7
- 3.2 Syntax ......................................................... 7
- 3.2.1 Primitive Types .............................................. 7
- 3.2.1.1 Guidelines for Enumerated INTEGERs ......................... 7
- 3.2.2 Constructor Types ............................................ 8
- 3.2.3 Defined Types ................................................ 8
- 3.2.3.1 NetworkAddress ............................................. 8
- 3.2.3.2 IpAddress .................................................. 8
- 3.2.3.3 Counter .................................................... 8
- 3.2.3.4 Gauge ...................................................... 9
- 3.2.3.5 TimeTicks .................................................. 9
- 3.2.3.6 Opaque ..................................................... 9
- 3.3 Encodings ...................................................... 9
- 4. Managed Objects ................................................. 10
- 4.1 Guidelines for Object Names .................................... 10
- 4.2 Object Types and Instances ..................................... 10
- 4.3 Macros for Managed Objects ..................................... 14
- 5. Extensions to the MIB ........................................... 16
- 6. Definitions ..................................................... 17
- 7. Acknowledgements ................................................ 20
- 8. References ...................................................... 21
-
- 1. Status of this Memo
-
- This memo provides the common definitions for the structure and
- identification of management information for TCP/IP-based internets.
- In particular, together with its companion memos which describe the
- initial management information base along with the initial network
- management protocol, these documents provide a simple, workable
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- architecture and system for managing TCP/IP-based internets and in
- particular, the Internet.
-
- This memo specifies a draft standard for the Internet community.
- TCP/IP implementations in the Internet which are network manageable
- are expected to adopt and implement this specification.
-
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- 2. Introduction
-
- This memo describes the common structures and identification scheme
- for the definition of management information used in managing
- TCP/IP-based internets. Included are descriptions of an object
- information model for network management along with a set of generic
- types used to describe management information. Formal descriptions
- of the structure are given using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)
- [1].
-
- This memo is largely concerned with organizational concerns and
- administrative policy: it neither specifies the objects which are
- managed, nor the protocols used to manage those objects. These
- concerns are addressed by two companion memos: one describing the
- Management Information Base (MIB) [2], and the other describing the
- Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [3].
-
- This memo is based in part on the work of the Internet Engineering
- Task Force, particularly the working note titled "Structure and
- Identification of Management Information for the Internet" [4]. This
- memo uses a skeletal structure derived from that note, but differs in
- one very significant way:that note focuses entirely on the use of
- OSI-style network management. As such, it is not suitable for use in
- the short-term for which a non-OSI protocol, the SNMP, has been
- designated as the standard.
-
- This memo attempts to achieve two goals: simplicity and
- extensibility. Both are motivated by a common concern: although the
- management of TCP/IP-based internets has been a topic of study for
- some time, the authors do not feel that the depth and breadth of such
- understanding is complete. More bluntly, we feel that previous
- experiences, while giving the community insight, are hardly
- conclusive. By fostering a simple SMI, the minimal number of
- constraints are imposed on future potential approaches; further, by
- fostering an extensible SMI, the maximal number of potential
- approaches are available for experimentation.
-
- It is believed that this memo and its two companions comply with the
- guidelines set forth in RFC 1052, "IAB Recommendations for the
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- Development of Internet Network Management Standards" [5]. In
- particular, we feel that this memo, along with the memo describing
- the initial management information base, provide a solid basis for
- network management of the Internet.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 3. Structure and Identification of Management Information
-
- 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) [1].
-
- Each type of object (termed an object type) has a name, a syntax, and
- an encoding. The name is represented uniquely as an OBJECT
- IDENTIFIER. An OBJECT IDENTIFIER is an administratively assigned
- name. The administrative policies used for assigning names are
- discussed later in this memo.
-
- The syntax for an object type defines the abstract data structure
- corresponding to that object type. For example, the structure of a
- given object type might be an INTEGER or OCTET STRING. Although in
- general, we should permit any ASN.1 construct to be available for use
- in defining the syntax of an object type, this memo purposely
- restricts the ASN.1 constructs which may be used. These restrictions
- are made solely for the sake of simplicity.
-
- The encoding of an object type is simply how instances of that object
- type are represented using the object's type syntax. Implicitly tied
- to the notion of an object's syntax and encoding is how the object is
- represented when being transmitted on the network. This memo
- specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [6].
-
- It is beyond the scope of this memo to define either the initial MIB
- used for network management or the network management protocol. As
- mentioned earlier, these tasks are left to the companion memos. This
- memo attempts to minimize the restrictions placed upon its companions
- so as to maximize generality. However, in some cases, restrictions
- have been made (e.g., the syntax which may be used when defining
- object types in the MIB) in order to encourage a particular style of
- management. Future editions of this memo may remove these
- restrictions.
-
- 3.1. Names
-
- Names are used to identify managed objects. This memo specifies
- names which are hierarchical in nature. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER
- concept is used to model this notion. An OBJECT IDENTIFIER can be
- used for purposes other than naming managed object types; for
- example, each international standard has an OBJECT IDENTIFIER
- assigned to it for the purposes of identification. In short, OBJECT
- IDENTIFIERs are a means for identifying some object, regardless of
- the semantics associated with the object (e.g., a network object, a
- standards document, etc.)
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- An OBJECT IDENTIFIER is a sequence of integers which traverse a
- global tree. The tree consists of a root connected to a number of
- labeled nodes via edges. Each node may, in turn, have children of
- its own which are labeled. In this case, we may term the node a
- subtree. This process may continue to an arbitrary level of depth.
- Central to the notion of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER is the understanding
- that administrative control of the meanings assigned to the nodes may
- be delegated as one traverses the tree. A label is a pairing of a
- brief textual description and an integer.
-
- The root node itself is unlabeled, but has at least three children
- directly under it: one node is administered by the International
- Standards Organization, with label iso(1); another is administrated
- by the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee,
- with label ccitt(2); and the third is jointly administered by the ISO
- and the CCITT, joint-iso-ccitt(3).
-
- Under the iso(1) node, the ISO has designated one subtree for use by
- other (inter)national organizations, org(3). Of the children nodes
- present, two have been assigned to the U.S. National Bureau of
- Standards. One of these subtrees has been transferred by the NBS to
- the U.S. Department of Defense, dod(6).
-
- As of this writing, the DoD has not indicated how it will manage its
- subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs. This memo assumes that DoD will
- allocate a node to the Internet community, to be administered by the
- Internet Activities Board (IAB) as follows:
-
- internet OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 }
-
- That is, the Internet subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs starts with the
- prefix:
-
- 1.3.6.1.
-
- This memo, as an RFC approved by the IAB, now specifies the policy
- under which this subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs is administered.
- Initially, four nodes are present:
-
- directory OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 1 }
- mgmt OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 2 }
- experimental OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 3 }
- private OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 4 }
-
- 3.1.1. DIRECTORY
-
- The directory(1) subtree is reserved for use with a future memo that
- discusses how the OSI Directory may be used in the Internet.
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 3.1.2. MGMT
-
- The mgmt(2) subtree is used to identify objects which are defined in
- IAB-approved documents. Administration of the mgmt(2) subtree is
- delegated by the IAB to the Assigned Numbers authority for the
- Internet. As RFCs which define new versions of the Internet-standard
- Management Information Base are approved, they are assigned an OBJECT
- IDENTIFIER by the Assigned Numbers authority for identifying the
- objects defined by that memo.
-
- For example, the RFC which defines the initial Internet standard MIB
- would be assigned management document number 1. This RFC would use
- the OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-
- { mgmt 1 }
-
- or
-
- 1.3.6.1.2.1
-
- in defining the Internet-standard MIB.
-
- The generation of new versions of the Internet-standard MIB is a
- rigorous process. Section 5 of this memo describes the rules used
- when a new version is defined.
-
- 3.1.3. EXPERIMENTAL
-
- The experimental(3) subtree is used to identify objects used in
- Internet experiments. Administration of the experimental(3) subtree
- is delegated by the IAB to the Assigned Numbers authority of the
- Internet.
-
- For example, an experimenter might received number 17, and would have
- available the OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-
- { experimental 17 }
-
- or
-
- 1.3.6.1.3.17
-
- for use.
-
- As a part of the assignment process, the Assigned Numbers authority
- may make requirements as to how that subtree is used.
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 3.1.4. PRIVATE
-
- The private(4) subtree is used to identify objects defined
- unilaterally. Administration of the private(4) subtree is delegated
- by the IAB to the Assigned Numbers authority for the Internet.
- Initially, this subtree has at least one child:
-
- enterprises OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { private 1 }
-
- The enterprises(1) subtree is used, among other things, to permit
- parties providing networking subsystems to register models of their
- products.
-
- Upon receiving a subtree, the enterprise may, for example, define new
- MIB objects in this subtree. In addition, it is strongly recommended
- that the enterprise will also register its networking subsystems
- under this subtree, in order to provide an unambiguous identification
- mechanism for use in management protocols. For example, if the
- "Flintstones, Inc." enterprise produced networking subsystems, then
- they could request a node under the enterprises subtree from the
- Assigned Numbers authority. Such a node might be numbered:
-
- 1.3.6.1.4.1.42
-
- The "Flintstones, Inc." enterprise might then register their "Fred
- Router" under the name of:
-
- 1.3.6.1.4.1.42.1.1
-
- 3.2. Syntax
-
- Syntax is used to define the structure corresponding to object types.
- ASN.1 constructs are used to define this structure, although the full
- generality of ASN.1 is not permitted.
-
- The ASN.1 type ObjectSyntax defines the different syntaxes which may
- be used in defining an object type.
-
- 3.2.1. Primitive Types
-
- Only the ASN.1 primitive types INTEGER, OCTET STRING, OBJECT
- IDENTIFIER, and NULL are permitted. These are sometimes referred to
- as non-aggregate types.
-
- 3.2.1.1. Guidelines for Enumerated INTEGERs
-
- If an enumerated INTEGER is listed as an object type, then a named-
- number having the value 0 shall not be present in the list of
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- enumerations. Use of this value is prohibited.
-
- 3.2.2. Constructor Types
-
- The ASN.1 constructor type SEQUENCE is permitted, providing that it
- is used to generate either lists or tables.
-
- For lists, the syntax takes the form:
-
- SEQUENCE { <type1>, ..., <typeN> }
-
- where each <type> resolves to one of the ASN.1 primitive types listed
- above. Further, these ASN.1 types are always present (the DEFAULT
- and OPTIONAL clauses do not appear in the SEQUENCE definition).
-
- For tables, the syntax takes the form:
-
- SEQUENCE OF <entry>
-
- where <entry> resolves to a list constructor.
-
- Lists and tables are sometimes referred to as aggregate types.
-
- 3.2.3. Defined Types
-
- In addition, new application-wide types may be defined, so long as
- they resolve into an IMPLICITly defined ASN.1 primitive type, list,
- table, or some other application-wide type. Initially, few
- application-wide types are defined. Future memos will no doubt
- define others once a consensus is reached.
-
- 3.2.3.1. NetworkAddress
-
- This CHOICE represents an address from one of possibly several
- protocol families. Currently, only one protocol family, the Internet
- family, is present in this CHOICE.
-
- 3.2.3.2. IpAddress
-
- This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address. It
- is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order.
-
- When this ASN.1 type is encoded using the ASN.1 basic encoding rules,
- only the primitive encoding form shall be used.
-
- 3.2.3.3. Counter
-
- This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer which
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 8]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- monotonically increases until it reaches a maximum value, when it
- wraps around and starts increasing again from zero. This memo
- specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for
- counters.
-
- 3.2.3.4. Gauge
-
- This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer, which
- may increase or decrease, but which latches at a maximum value. This
- memo specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for
- gauges.
-
- 3.2.3.5. TimeTicks
-
- This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer which
- counts the time in hundredths of a second since some epoch. When
- object types are defined in the MIB which use this ASN.1 type, the
- description of the object type identifies the reference epoch.
-
- 3.2.3.6. Opaque
-
- This application-wide type supports the capability to pass arbitrary
- ASN.1 syntax. A value is encoded using the ASN.1 basic rules into a
- string of octets. This, in turn, is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in
- effect "double-wrapping" the original ASN.1 value.
-
- Note that a conforming implementation need only be able to accept and
- recognize opaquely-encoded data. It need not be able to unwrap the
- data and then interpret its contents.
-
- Further note that by use of the ASN.1 EXTERNAL type, encodings other
- than ASN.1 may be used in opaquely-encoded data.
-
- 3.3. Encodings
-
- Once an instance of an object type has been identified, its value may
- be transmitted by applying the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 to the
- syntax for the object type.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 9]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 4. Managed Objects
-
- Although it is not the purpose of this memo to define objects in the
- MIB, this memo specifies a format to be used by other memos which
- define these objects.
-
- An object type definition consists of five 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. This must resolve to an
- instance of the ASN.1 type ObjectSyntax (defined below).
-
- Definition:
- A textual description of the semantics of the object type.
- Implementations should ensure that their instance of the object
- fulfills this definition since this MIB is intended for use in
- multi-vendor environments. As such it is vital that objects 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.
-
- Future memos may also specify other fields for the objects which they
- define.
-
- 4.1. Guidelines for Object Names
-
- No object type in the Internet-Standard MIB shall use a sub-
- identifier of 0 in its name. This value is reserved for use with
- future extensions.
-
- Each OBJECT DESCRIPTOR corresponding to an object type in the
- internet-standard MIB shall be a unique, but mnemonic, printable
- string. This promotes a common language for humans to use when
- discussing the MIB and also facilitates simple table mappings for
- user interfaces.
-
- 4.2. Object Types and Instances
-
- An object type is a definition of a kind of managed object; it is
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 10]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- declarative in nature. In contrast, an object instance is an
- instantiation of an object type which has been bound to a value. For
- example, the notion of an entry in a routing table might be defined
- in the MIB. Such a notion corresponds to an object type; individual
- entries in a particular routing table which exist at some time are
- object instances of that object type.
-
- A collection of object types is defined in the MIB. Each such
- subject type is uniquely named by its OBJECT IDENTIFIER and also has
- a textual name, which is its OBJECT DESCRIPTOR. The means whereby
- object instances are referenced is not defined in the MIB. Reference
- to object instances is achieved by a protocol-specific mechanism: it
- is the responsibility of each management protocol adhering to the SMI
- to define this mechanism.
-
- An object type may be defined in the MIB such that an instance of
- that object type represents an aggregation of information also
- represented by instances of some number of "subordinate" object
- types. For example, suppose the following object types are defined
- in the MIB:
-
-
- OBJECT:
- -------
- atIndex { atEntry 1 }
-
- Syntax:
- INTEGER
-
- Definition:
- The interface number for the physical address.
-
- Access:
- read-write.
-
- Status:
- mandatory.
-
-
- OBJECT:
- -------
- atPhysAddress { atEntry 2 }
-
- Syntax:
- OCTET STRING
-
- Definition:
- The media-dependent physical address.
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 11]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- Access:
- read-write.
-
- Status:
- mandatory.
-
-
- OBJECT:
- -------
- atNetAddress { atEntry 3 }
-
- Syntax:
- NetworkAddress
-
- Definition:
- The network address corresponding to the media-dependent physical
- address.
-
- Access:
- read-write.
-
- Status:
- mandatory.
-
- Then, a fourth object type might also be defined in the MIB:
-
-
- OBJECT:
- -------
- atEntry { atTable 1 }
-
- Syntax:
-
- AtEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
- atIndex
- INTEGER,
- atPhysAddress
- OCTET STRING,
- atNetAddress
- NetworkAddress
- }
-
- Definition:
- An entry in the address translation table.
-
- Access:
- read-write.
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 12]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- Status:
- mandatory.
-
- Each instance of this object type comprises information represented
- by instances of the former three object types. An object type
- defined in this way is called a list.
-
- Similarly, tables can be formed by aggregations of a list type. For
- example, a fifth object type might also be defined in the MIB:
-
-
- OBJECT:
- ------
- atTable { at 1 }
-
- Syntax:
- SEQUENCE OF AtEntry
-
- Definition:
- The address translation table.
-
- Access:
- read-write.
-
- Status:
- mandatory.
-
- such that each instance of the atTable object comprises information
- represented by the set of atEntry object types that collectively
- constitute a given atTable object instance, that is, a given address
- translation table.
-
- Consider how one might refer to a simple object within a table.
- Continuing with the previous example, one might name the object type
-
- { atPhysAddress }
-
- and specify, using a protocol-specific mechanism, the object instance
-
- { atNetAddress } = { internet "10.0.0.52" }
-
- This pairing of object type and object instance would refer to all
- instances of atPhysAddress which are part of any entry in some
- address translation table for which the associated atNetAddress value
- is { internet "10.0.0.52" }.
-
- To continue with this example, consider how one might refer to an
- aggregate object (list) within a table. Naming the object type
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 13]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- { atEntry }
-
- and specifying, using a protocol-specific mechanism, the object
- instance
-
- { atNetAddress } = { internet "10.0.0.52" }
-
- refers to all instances of entries in the table for which the
- associated atNetAddress value is { internet "10.0.0.52" }.
-
- Each management protocol must provide a mechanism for accessing
- simple (non-aggregate) object types. Each management protocol
- specifies whether or not it supports access to aggregate object
- types. Further, the protocol must specify which instances are
- "returned" when an object type/instance pairing refers to more than
- one instance of a type.
-
- To afford support for a variety of management protocols, all
- information by which instances of a given object type may be usefully
- distinguished, one from another, is represented by instances of
- object types defined in the MIB.
-
- 4.3. Macros for Managed Objects
-
- In order to facilitate the use of tools for processing the definition
- of the MIB, the OBJECT-TYPE macro may be used. This macro permits
- the key aspects of an object type to be represented in a formal way.
-
- OBJECT-TYPE MACRO ::=
- BEGIN
- TYPE NOTATION ::= "SYNTAX" type (TYPE ObjectSyntax)
- "ACCESS" Access
- "STATUS" Status
- VALUE NOTATION ::= value (VALUE ObjectName)
-
- Access ::= "read-only"
- | "read-write"
- | "write-only"
- | "not-accessible"
- Status ::= "mandatory"
- | "optional"
- | "obsolete"
- END
-
- Given the object types defined earlier, we might imagine the
- following definitions being present in the MIB:
-
- atIndex OBJECT-TYPE
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 14]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- SYNTAX INTEGER
- ACCESS read-write
- STATUS mandatory
- ::= { atEntry 1 }
-
- atPhysAddress OBJECT-TYPE
- SYNTAX OCTET STRING
- ACCESS read-write
- STATUS mandatory
- ::= { atEntry 2 }
-
- atNetAddress OBJECT-TYPE
- SYNTAX NetworkAddress
- ACCESS read-write
- STATUS mandatory
- ::= { atEntry 3 }
-
- atEntry OBJECT-TYPE
- SYNTAX AtEntry
- ACCESS read-write
- STATUS mandatory
- ::= { atTable 1 }
-
- atTable OBJECT-TYPE
- SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF AtEntry
- ACCESS read-write
- STATUS mandatory
- ::= { at 1 }
-
- AtEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
- atIndex
- INTEGER,
- atPhysAddress
- OCTET STRING,
- atNetAddress
- NetworkAddress
- }
-
- The first five definitions describe object types, relating, for
- example, the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR atIndex to the OBJECT IDENTIFIER {
- atEntry 1 }. In addition, the syntax of this object is defined
- (INTEGER) along with the access permitted (read-write) and status
- (mandatory). The sixth definition describes an ASN.1 type called
- AtEntry.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 15]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 5. Extensions to the MIB
-
- Every Internet-standard MIB document obsoletes all previous such
- documents. The portion of a name, termed the tail, following the
- OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-
- { mgmt version-number }
-
- used to name objects shall remain unchanged between versions. New
- versions may:
-
- (1) declare old object types obsolete (if necessary), but not
- delete their names;
-
- (2) augment the definition of an object type corresponding to a
- list by appending non-aggregate object types to the object types
- in the list; or,
-
- (3) define entirely new object types.
-
- New versions may not:
-
- (1) change the semantics of any previously defined object without
- changing the name of that object.
-
- These rules are important because they admit easier support for
- multiple versions of the Internet-standard MIB. In particular, the
- semantics associated with the tail of a name remain constant
- throughout different versions of the MIB. Because multiple versions
- of the MIB may thus coincide in "tail-space," implementations
- supporting multiple versions of the MIB can be vastly simplified.
-
- However, as a consequence, a management agent might return an
- instance corresponding to a superset of the expected object type.
- Following the principle of robustness, in this exceptional case, a
- manager should ignore any additional information beyond the
- definition of the expected object type. However, the robustness
- principle requires that one exercise care with respect to control
- actions: if an instance does not have the same syntax as its expected
- object type, then those control actions must fail. In both the
- monitoring and control cases, the name of an object returned by an
- operation must be identical to the name requested by an operation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 16]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 6. Definitions
-
- RFC1065-SMI DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
-
- EXPORTS -- EVERYTHING
- internet, directory, mgmt,
- experimental, private, enterprises,
- OBJECT-TYPE, ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, SimpleSyntax,
- ApplicationSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress,
- Counter, Gauge, TimeTicks, Opaque;
-
- -- the path to the root
-
- internet OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 }
-
- directory OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 1 }
-
- mgmt OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 2 }
-
- experimental OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 3 }
-
- private OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 4 }
- enterprises OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { private 1 }
-
-
- -- definition of object types
-
- OBJECT-TYPE MACRO ::=
- BEGIN
- TYPE NOTATION ::= "SYNTAX" type (TYPE ObjectSyntax)
- "ACCESS" Access
- "STATUS" Status
- VALUE NOTATION ::= value (VALUE ObjectName)
-
- Access ::= "read-only"
- | "read-write"
- | "write-only"
- | "not-accessible"
- Status ::= "mandatory"
- | "optional"
- | "obsolete"
- END
-
- -- names of objects in the MIB
-
- ObjectName ::=
- OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 17]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- -- syntax of objects in the MIB
-
- ObjectSyntax ::=
- CHOICE {
- simple
- SimpleSyntax,
-
- -- note that simple SEQUENCEs are not directly
- -- mentioned here to keep things simple (i.e.,
- -- prevent mis-use). However, application-wide
- -- types which are IMPLICITly encoded simple
- -- SEQUENCEs may appear in the following CHOICE
-
- application-wide
- ApplicationSyntax
- }
-
- SimpleSyntax ::=
- CHOICE {
- number
- INTEGER,
-
- string
- OCTET STRING,
-
- object
- OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
-
- empty
- NULL
- }
-
- ApplicationSyntax ::=
- CHOICE {
- address
- NetworkAddress,
-
- counter
- Counter,
-
- gauge
- Gauge,
-
- ticks
- TimeTicks,
-
- arbitrary
- Opaque
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 18]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- -- other application-wide types, as they are
- -- defined, will be added here
- }
-
-
- -- application-wide types
-
- NetworkAddress ::=
- CHOICE {
- internet
- IpAddress
- }
-
- IpAddress ::=
- [APPLICATION 0] -- in network-byte order
- IMPLICIT OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
-
- Counter ::=
- [APPLICATION 1]
- IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)
-
- Gauge ::=
- [APPLICATION 2]
- IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)
-
- TimeTicks ::=
- [APPLICATION 3]
- IMPLICIT INTEGER
-
- Opaque ::=
- [APPLICATION 4] -- arbitrary ASN.1 value,
- IMPLICIT OCTET STRING -- "double-wrapped"
-
- END
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 19]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 7. Acknowledgements
-
- This memo was influenced by three sets of contributors:
-
- First, Lee Labarre of the MITRE Corporation, who as author of the
- NETMAN SMI [4], presented the basic roadmap for the SMI.
-
- Second, several individuals who provided valuable comments on this
- memo prior to its initial distribution:
-
- James Davin, Proteon
- Mark S. Fedor, NYSERNet
- Craig Partridge, BBN Laboratories
- Martin Lee Schoffstall, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Wengyik Yeong, NYSERNet
-
-
- Third, the IETF MIB working group:
-
- Karl Auerbach, Epilogue Technology
- K. Ramesh Babu, Excelan
- Lawrence Besaw, Hewlett-Packard
- Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
- James R. Davin, Proteon
- Mark S. Fedor, NYSERNet
- Robb Foster, BBN
- Phill Gross, The MITRE Corporation
- Bent Torp Jensen, Convergent Technology
- Lee Labarre, The MITRE Corporation
- Dan Lynch, Advanced Computing Environments
- Keith McCloghrie, The Wollongong Group
- Dave Mackie, 3Com/Bridge
- Craig Partridge, BBN (chair)
- Jim Robertson, 3Com/Bridge
- Marshall T. Rose, The Wollongong Group
- Greg Satz, cisco
- Martin Lee Schoffstall, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Lou Steinberg, IBM
- Dean Throop, Data General
- Unni Warrier, Unisys
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 20]
-
- RFC 1065 SMI August 1988
-
-
- 8. References
-
- [1] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
- "Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)",
- International Organization for Standardization, International
- Standard 8824, December 1987.
-
- [2] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
- Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1066, TWG,
- August 1988.
-
- [3] Case, J., M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and J. Davin, The Simple
- Network Management Protocol", RFC 1067, University of Tennessee
- at Knoxville, NYSERNet, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Proteon, August
- 1988.
-
- [4] LaBarre, L., "Structure and Identification of Management
- Information for the Internet", Internet Engineering Task Force
- working note, Network Information Center, SRI International,
- Menlo Park, California, April 1988.
-
- [5] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
- Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, IAB, April 1988.
-
- [6] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
- "Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Notation One
- (ASN.1)", International Organization for Standardization,
- International Standard 8825, December 1987.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Rose & McCloghrie [Page 21]
|