





Network Working Group                                     T. Nadeau, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3811                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                              J. Cucchiara, Ed.
                                            Marconi Communications, Inc.
                                                               June 2004


              Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for
            Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which
   contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) management information.  The intent is that
   these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS
   related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own
   representations.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework. . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions. . . . . . . . . . .  2
   4.  References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.1.  Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.2.  Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8   Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9.  Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20






Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks.  These Textual
   Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage MPLS
   networks.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   For an introduction to the concepts of MPLS, see [RFC3031].

2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework

   For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
   Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
   RFC 3410 [RFC3410].

   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
   the Management Information Base or MIB.  MIB objects are generally
   accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
   Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
   Structure of Management Information (SMI).  This memo specifies a MIB
   module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
   RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
   [RFC2580].

3.  MPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions

   MPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

       IMPORTS

          MODULE-IDENTITY,
          Unsigned32, Integer32,
          transmission           FROM SNMPv2-SMI            -- [RFC2578]

          TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
             FROM SNMPv2-TC;                                -- [RFC2579]

       mplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
          LAST-UPDATED "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004
          ORGANIZATION
             "IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working
              Group."
          CONTACT-INFO
               "        Thomas D. Nadeau



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                        Cisco Systems, Inc.
                        tnadeau@cisco.com

                        Joan Cucchiara
                        Marconi Communications, Inc.
                        jcucchiara@mindspring.com

                        Cheenu Srinivasan
                        Bloomberg L.P.
                        cheenu@bloomberg.net

                        Arun Viswanathan
                        Force10 Networks, Inc.
                        arunv@force10networks.com

                        Hans Sjostrand
                        ipUnplugged
                        hans@ipunplugged.com

                        Kireeti Kompella
                        Juniper Networks
                        kireeti@juniper.net

             Email comments to the MPLS WG Mailing List at
             mpls@uu.net."
          DESCRIPTION
              "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). The
              initial version of this MIB module was published
              in RFC 3811. For full legal notices see the RFC
              itself or see:
              http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html

              This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs
              for concepts used in Multiprotocol Label
              Switching (MPLS) networks."

          REVISION "200406030000Z" -- June 3, 2004
          DESCRIPTION
             "Initial version published as part of RFC 3811."

           ::= { mplsStdMIB 1 }

       mplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER

       ::= { transmission 166 }

       MplsAtmVcIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          DISPLAY-HINT "d"



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A Label Switching Router (LSR) that
              creates LDP sessions on ATM interfaces
              uses the VCI or VPI/VCI field to hold the
              LDP Label.

              VCI values MUST NOT be in the 0-31 range.
              The values 0 to 31 are reserved for other uses
              by the ITU and ATM Forum.  The value
              of 32 can only be used for the Control VC,
              although values greater than 32 could be
              configured for the Control VC.

              If a value from 0 to 31 is used for a VCI
              the management entity controlling the LDP
              subsystem should reject this with an
              inconsistentValue error.  Also, if
              the value of 32 is used for a VC which is
              NOT the Control VC, this should
              result in an inconsistentValue error."
          REFERENCE
             "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035."
          SYNTAX  Integer32 (32..65535)

       MplsBitRate ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          DISPLAY-HINT "d"
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "If the value of this object is greater than zero,
              then this represents the bandwidth of this MPLS
              interface (or Label Switched Path) in units of
              '1,000 bits per second'.

              The value, when greater than zero, represents the
              bandwidth of this MPLS interface (rounded to the
              nearest 1,000) in units of 1,000 bits per second.
              If the bandwidth of the MPLS interface is between
              ((n * 1000) - 500) and ((n * 1000) + 499), the value
              of this object is n, such that n > 0.

              If the value of this object is 0 (zero), this
              means that the traffic over this MPLS interface is
              considered to be best effort."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0|1..4294967295)

       MplsBurstSize ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          DISPLAY-HINT "d"



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The number of octets of MPLS data that the stream
              may send back-to-back without concern for policing.
              The value of zero indicates that an implementation
              does not support Burst Size."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

       MplsExtendedTunnelId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique identifier for an MPLS Tunnel.  This may
              represent an IPv4 address of the ingress or egress
              LSR for the tunnel.  This value is derived from the
              Extended Tunnel Id in RSVP or the Ingress Router ID
              for CR-LDP."
          REFERENCE
             "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
              [RFC3209].

              Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, [RFC3212]."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

       MplsLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "This value represents an MPLS label as defined in
              [RFC3031],  [RFC3032], [RFC3034], [RFC3035] and
              [RFC3471].

              The label contents are specific to the label being
              represented, such as:

              * The label carried in an MPLS shim header
                (for LDP this is the Generic Label) is a 20-bit
                number represented by 4 octets.  Bits 0-19 contain
                a label or a reserved label value.  Bits 20-31
                MUST be zero.

                The following is quoted directly from [RFC3032].
                There are several reserved label values:

                   i. A value of 0 represents the
                      'IPv4 Explicit NULL Label'.  This label
                      value is only legal at the bottom of the
                      label stack.  It indicates that the label
                      stack must be popped, and the forwarding
                      of the packet must then be based on the



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                      IPv4 header.

                  ii. A value of 1 represents the
                      'Router Alert Label'.  This label value is
                      legal anywhere in the label stack except at
                      the bottom.  When a received packet
                      contains this label value at the top of
                      the label stack, it is delivered to a
                      local software module for processing.
                      The actual forwarding of the packet
                      is determined by the label beneath it
                      in the stack.  However, if the packet is
                      forwarded further, the Router Alert Label
                      should be pushed back onto the label stack
                      before forwarding.  The use of this label
                      is analogous to the use of the
                      'Router Alert Option' in IP packets
                      [RFC2113].  Since this label
                      cannot occur at the bottom of the stack,
                      it is not associated with a
                      particular network layer protocol.

                 iii. A value of 2 represents the
                      'IPv6 Explicit NULL Label'.  This label
                      value is only legal at the bottom of the
                      label stack.  It indicates that the label
                      stack must be popped, and the forwarding
                      of the packet must then be based on the
                      IPv6 header.

                  iv. A value of 3 represents the
                      'Implicit NULL Label'.
                      This is a label that an LSR may assign and
                      distribute, but which never actually
                      appears in the encapsulation.  When an
                      LSR would otherwise replace the label
                      at the top of the stack with a new label,
                      but the new label is 'Implicit NULL',
                      the LSR will pop the stack instead of
                      doing the replacement.  Although
                      this value may never appear in the
                      encapsulation, it needs to be specified in
                      the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value
                      is reserved.

                   v. Values 4-15 are reserved.

              * The frame relay label can be either 10-bits or



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                23-bits depending on the DLCI field size and the
                upper 22-bits or upper 9-bits must be zero,
                respectively.

              * For an ATM label the lower 16-bits represents the
                VCI, the next 12-bits represents the VPI and the
                remaining bits MUST be zero.

              * The Generalized-MPLS (GMPLS) label contains a
                value greater than 2^24-1 and used in GMPLS
                as defined in [RFC3471]."
          REFERENCE
             "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
              RFC3031.

              MPLS Label Stack Encoding, [RFC3032].

              Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks,
              RFC3034.

              MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching, RFC3035.
              Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Architecture, [RFC3471]."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..4294967295)

       MplsLabelDistributionMethod ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The label distribution method which is also called
              the label advertisement mode [RFC3036].
              Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate
              in either Downstream Unsolicited or Downstream
              on Demand."
          REFERENCE
             "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
              RFC3031.

              LDP Specification, RFC3036, Section 2.6.3."
          SYNTAX INTEGER {
                     downstreamOnDemand(1),
                     downstreamUnsolicited(2)
                 }

       MplsLdpIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d:2d"
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The LDP identifier is a six octet



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


              quantity which is used to identify a
              Label Switching Router (LSR) label space.

              The first four octets identify the LSR and
              must be a globally unique value, such as a
              32-bit router ID assigned to the LSR, and the
              last two octets identify a specific label
              space within the LSR."
          SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))

       MplsLsrIdentifier ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The Label Switching Router (LSR) identifier is the
              first 4 bytes of the Label Distribution Protocol
              (LDP) identifier."
          SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
       MplsLdpLabelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The Layer 2 label types which are defined for MPLS
              LDP and/or CR-LDP are generic(1), atm(2), or
              frameRelay(3)."
          SYNTAX  INTEGER {
                    generic(1),
                    atm(2),
                    frameRelay(3)
                }

       MplsLSPID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique identifier within an MPLS network that is
              assigned to each LSP.  This is assigned at the head
              end of the LSP and can be used by all LSRs
              to identify this LSP.  This value is piggybacked by
              the signaling protocol when this LSP is signaled
              within the network.  This identifier can then be
              used at each LSR to identify which labels are
              being swapped to other labels for this LSP.  This
              object  can also be used to disambiguate LSPs that
              share the same RSVP sessions between the same
              source and destination.

              For LSPs established using CR-LDP, the LSPID is
              composed of the ingress LSR Router ID (or any of
              its own IPv4 addresses) and a locally unique
              CR-LSP ID to that LSR.  The first two bytes carry



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


              the CR-LSPID, and the remaining 4 bytes carry
              the Router ID.  The LSPID is useful in network
              management, in CR-LSP repair, and in using
              an already established CR-LSP as a hop in
              an ER-TLV.

              For LSPs signaled using RSVP-TE, the LSP ID is
              defined as a 16-bit (2 byte) identifier used
              in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the FILTER_SPEC
              that can be changed to allow a sender to
              share resources with itself.  The length of this
              object should only be 2 or 6 bytes.  If the length
              of this octet string is 2 bytes, then it must
              identify an RSVP-TE LSPID, or it is 6 bytes,
              it must contain a CR-LDP LSPID."
          REFERENCE
             "RSVP-TE:  Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
              [RFC3209].

              Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP,
              [RFC3212]."
          SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE (2|6))

       MplsLspType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
             "Types of Label Switch Paths (LSPs)
              on a Label Switching Router (LSR) or a
              Label Edge Router (LER) are:

                 unknown(1)         -- if the LSP is not known
                                       to be one of the following.

                 terminatingLsp(2)  -- if the LSP terminates
                                       on the LSR/LER, then this
                                       is an egressing LSP
                                       which ends on the LSR/LER,

                 originatingLsp(3)  -- if the LSP originates
                                       from this LSR/LER, then
                                       this is an ingressing LSP
                                       which is the head-end of
                                       the LSP,

              crossConnectingLsp(4) -- if the LSP ingresses
                                       and egresses on the LSR,
                                       then it is
                                       cross-connecting on that



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                                       LSR."
          SYNTAX INTEGER {
                     unknown(1),
                     terminatingLsp(2),
                     originatingLsp(3),
                     crossConnectingLsp(4)
                 }

       MplsOwner ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "This object indicates the local network
              management subsystem that originally created
              the object(s) in question.  The values of
              this enumeration are defined as follows:

              unknown(1) - the local network management
              subsystem cannot discern which
              component created the object.

              other(2) - the local network management
              subsystem is able to discern which component
              created the object, but the component is not
              listed within the following choices,
              e.g., command line interface (cli).

              snmp(3) - The Simple Network Management Protocol
              was used to configure this object initially.

              ldp(4) - The Label Distribution Protocol was
              used to configure this object initially.

              crldp(5) - The Constraint-Based Label Distribution
              Protocol was used to configure this object
              initially.

              rsvpTe(6) - The Resource Reservation Protocol was
              used to configure this object initially.

              policyAgent(7) - A policy agent (perhaps in
              combination with one of the above protocols) was
              used to configure this object initially.

              An object created by any of the above choices
              MAY be modified or destroyed by the same or a
              different choice."
          SYNTAX  INTEGER {
                    unknown(1),



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                    other(2),
                    snmp(3),
                    ldp(4),
                    crldp(5),
                    rsvpTe(6),
                    policyAgent(7)
                }

       MplsPathIndexOrZero ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique identifier used to identify a specific
              path used by a tunnel.  A value of 0 (zero) means
              that no path is in use."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

       MplsPathIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique value to index (by Path number) an
              entry in a table."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(1..4294967295)

       MplsRetentionMode ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS  current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The label retention mode which specifies whether
              an LSR maintains a label binding for a FEC
              learned from a neighbor that is not its next hop
              for the FEC.

              If the value is conservative(1) then advertised
              label mappings are retained only if they will be
              used to forward packets, i.e., if label came from
              a valid next hop.

              If the value is liberal(2) then all advertised
              label mappings are retained whether they are from
              a valid next hop or not."
          REFERENCE
             "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture,
              RFC3031.

              LDP Specification, RFC3036, Section 2.6.2."
          SYNTAX INTEGER {
                     conservative(1),
                     liberal(2)
                 }



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


       MplsTunnelAffinity ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "Describes the configured 32-bit Include-any,
              include-all, or exclude-all constraint for
              constraint-based link selection."
          REFERENCE
             "RSVP-TE:  Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
              RFC3209, Section 4.7.4."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0..4294967295)

       MplsTunnelIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A unique index into mplsTunnelTable.
              For tunnels signaled using RSVP, this value
              should correspond to the RSVP Tunnel ID
              used for the RSVP-TE session."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32 (0..65535)

       MplsTunnelInstanceIndex ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS        current
          DESCRIPTION
             "The tunnel entry with instance index 0
              should refer to the configured tunnel
              interface (if one exists).

              Values greater than 0, but less than or
              equal to 65535, should be used to indicate
              signaled (or backup) tunnel LSP instances.
              For tunnel LSPs signaled using RSVP,
              this value should correspond to the
              RSVP LSP ID used for the RSVP-TE
              LSP.

              Values greater than 65535 apply to FRR
              detour instances."
          SYNTAX  Unsigned32(0|1..65535|65536..4294967295)

       TeHopAddressType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS     current
          DESCRIPTION
             "A value that represents a type of address for a
              Traffic Engineered (TE) Tunnel hop.

              unknown(0)   An unknown address type.  This value
                           MUST be used if the value of the
                           corresponding TeHopAddress object is a



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


                           zero-length string.  It may also be
                           used to indicate a TeHopAddress which
                           is not in one of the formats defined
                           below.

              ipv4(1)      An IPv4 network address as defined by
                           the InetAddressIPv4 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
                           [RFC3291].

              ipv6(2)      A global IPv6 address as defined by
                           the InetAddressIPv6 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
                           [RFC3291].

              asnumber(3)  An Autonomous System (AS) number as
                           defined by the TeHopAddressAS
                           TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.

              unnum(4)     An unnumbered interface index as
                           defined by the TeHopAddressUnnum
                           TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.

              lspid(5)     An LSP ID for TE Tunnels
                           (RFC3212) as defined by the
                           MplsLSPID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION.

              Each definition of a concrete TeHopAddressType
              value must be accompanied by a definition
              of a TEXTUAL-CONVENTION for use with that
              TeHopAddress.

              To support future extensions, the TeHopAddressType
              TEXTUAL-CONVENTION SHOULD NOT be sub-typed in
              object type definitions.  It MAY be sub-typed in
              compliance statements in order to require only a
              subset of these address types for a compliant
              implementation.

              Implementations must ensure that TeHopAddressType
              objects and any dependent objects
              (e.g., TeHopAddress objects) are consistent.
              An inconsistentValue error must be generated
              if an attempt to change a TeHopAddressType
              object would, for example, lead to an
              undefined TeHopAddress value that is
              not defined herein.  In particular,
              TeHopAddressType/TeHopAddress pairs
              must be changed together if the address
              type changes (e.g., from ipv6(2) to ipv4(1))."



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


          REFERENCE
             "TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for Internet Network
              Addresses, RFC3291.

              Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP,
              [RFC3212]"

          SYNTAX     INTEGER {
                        unknown(0),
                        ipv4(1),
                        ipv6(2),
                        asnumber(3),
                        unnum(4),
                        lspid(5)
                     }

       TeHopAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS     current
          DESCRIPTION
             "Denotes a generic Tunnel hop address,
              that is, the address of a node which
              an LSP traverses, including the source
              and destination nodes.  An address may be
              very concrete, for example, an IPv4 host
              address (i.e., with prefix length 32);
              if this IPv4 address is an interface
              address, then that particular interface
              must be traversed.  An address may also
              specify an 'abstract node', for example,
              an IPv4 address with prefix length
              less than 32, in which case, the LSP
              can traverse any node whose address
              falls in that range.  An address may
              also specify an Autonomous System (AS),
              in which  case the LSP can traverse any
              node that falls within that AS.

              A TeHopAddress value is always interpreted within
              the context of an TeHopAddressType value.  Every
              usage of the TeHopAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
              is required to specify the TeHopAddressType object
              which provides the context.  It is suggested that
              the TeHopAddressType object is logically registered
              before the object(s) which use the TeHopAddress
              TEXTUAL-CONVENTION if they appear in the
              same logical row.

              The value of a TeHopAddress object must always be



Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


              consistent with the value of the associated
              TeHopAddressType object.  Attempts to set a
              TeHopAddress object to a value which is
              inconsistent with the associated TeHopAddressType
              must fail with an inconsistentValue error."
          SYNTAX     OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..32))

       TeHopAddressAS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "Represents a two or four octet AS number.
              The AS number is represented in network byte
              order (MSB first).  A two-octet AS number has
              the two MSB octets set to zero."
          REFERENCE
             "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
              Addresses, [RFC3291].  The
              InetAutonomousSystemsNumber TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
              has a SYNTAX of Unsigned32, whereas this TC
              has a SYNTAX of OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)).
              Both TCs represent an autonomous system number
              but use different syntaxes to do so."
          SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))

       TeHopAddressUnnum ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
          STATUS      current
          DESCRIPTION
             "Represents an unnumbered interface:

              octets   contents               encoding
               1-4     unnumbered interface   network-byte order

              The corresponding TeHopAddressType value is
              unnum(5)."
          SYNTAX      OCTET STRING(SIZE(4))

   END














Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


4.  References

4.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, February
             1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC 2434,
             October 1998.

   [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
             "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
             STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual
             Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
             "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April
             1999.

   [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
             Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D.,
             Federokow, G., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
             Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label
             Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034,
             January 2001.

   [RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E.,
             Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP
             and ATM VC Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.

   [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and
             B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.





Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


   [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Ed., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R.,
             Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
             Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
             Malis,  "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212,
             January 2002.

   [RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
             Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
             Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3471, January 2003.

4.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
             "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
             Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

5.  Security Considerations

   This module does not define any management objects.  Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS
   MIB modules to define management objects.

   Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
   modules that define management objects.  Therefore, this document has
   no impact on the security of the Internet.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has made a MIB OID assignment under the transmission branch,
   that is, assigned the mplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }.  This
   sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and is
   available under transmission.

   In the future, MPLS related standards track MIB modules should be
   rooted under the mplsStdMIB subtree.  The IANA is requested to manage
   that namespace.  New assignments can only be made via a Standards
   Action as specified in [RFC2434].

   The IANA has also assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB
   specified in this document.








Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


7.  Contributors

   This document was created by combining TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS from
   current MPLS MIBs and a TE-WG MIB.  Co-authors on each of these MIBs
   contributed to the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS contained in this MIB and also
   contributed greatly to the revisions of this document.  These co-
   authors addresses are included here because they are useful future
   contacts for information about this document.  These co-authors are:

      Cheenu Srinivasan
      Bloomberg L.P.
      499 Park Ave.
      New York, NY  10022

      Phone: +1-212-893-3682
      EMail: cheenu@bloomberg.net


      Arun Viswanathan
      Force10 Networks, Inc.
      1440 McCarthy Blvd
      Milpitas, CA  95035

      Phone: +1-408-571-3516
      EMail: arunv@force10networks.com


      Hans Sjostrand
      ipUnplugged
      P.O. Box 101 60
      S-121 28 Stockholm, Sweden

      Phone: +46-8-725-5900
      EMail: hans@ipunplugged.com


      Kireeti Kompella
      Juniper Networks
      1194 Mathilda Ave
      Sunnyvale, CA  94089

      Phone: +1-408-745-2000
      EMail: kireeti@juniper.net








Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


8.  Acknowledgements

   This document is a product of the MPLS Working Group.  The editors
   and contributors would like to thank Mike MacFadden and Adrian Farrel
   for their helpful comments on several reviews.  Also, the editors and
   contributors would like to give a special acknowledgement to Bert
   Wijnen for his many detailed reviews.  Bert's assistance and guidance
   is greatly appreciated.

9.  Authors' Addresses

   Thomas D. Nadeau
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   BXB300/2/
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719

   Phone: +1-978-936-1470
   EMail: tnadeau@cisco.com


   Joan E. Cucchiara
   Marconi Communications, Inc.
   900 Chelmsford Street
   Lowell, MA 01851

   Phone:  +1-978-275-7400
   EMail:  jcucchiara@mindspring.com























Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3811                      MPLS TC MIB                      June 2004


10.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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 currently provided by the
   Internet Society.









Nadeau & Cucchiara          Standards Track                    [Page 20]

