分享
 
 
 

RFC1354 - IP Forwarding Table MIB

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group F. Baker

Request For Comments: 1354 ACC

July 1992

IP Forwarding Table MIB

Status of this Memo

This RFCspecifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet

community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)

for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets.

In particular, it defines objects for managing routes in the IP

Internet.

It is proposed that the ipRouteTable defined by MIB-II (RFC1213) be

deprecated and replaced with this table. This adds the ability to

set or display multi-path routes, and varying routes by network

management policy.

Table of Contents

1. The Network Management Framework ............................ 1

2. Objects ..................................................... 2

2.1 Format of Definitions ...................................... 2

3. Overview .................................................... 3

3.1 StrUCture of MIB ........................................... 3

4. Definitions ................................................. 4

4.1 IP Forwarding Table ........................................ 4

5. Acknowledgements ............................................ 11

6. References .................................................. 11

7. Security Considerations........................................ 12

8. Author's Address............................................... 12

1. The Network Management Framework

The Internet-standard Network Management Framework consists of three

components. They are:

RFC1155 which defines the SMI, the mechanisms used for describing

and naming objects for the purpose of management. RFC1212 defines a

more concise description mechanism, which is wholly consistent with

the SMI.

RFC1156 which defines MIB-I, the core set of managed objects for the

Internet suite of protocols. RFC1213 defines MIB-II, an evolution

of MIB-I based on implementation eXPerience and new operational

requirements.

RFC1157 which defines the SNMP, the protocol used for network Access

to managed objects.

The Framework permits new objects to be defined for the purpose of

experimentation and evaluation.

2. Objects

Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed

the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are

defined using the subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [7]

defined in the SMI. 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 SMI [3] 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.

The SMI specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [8],

subject to the additional requirements imposed by the SNMP.

2.1. Format of Definitions

Section 4 contains contains the specification of all object types

contained in this MIB module. The object types are defined using the

conventions defined in the SMI, as amended by the extensions

specified in [9].

3. Overview

3.1. Structure of MIB

The IP Forwarding Table is quite analogous to the older ipRoute

Table. The principal differences are:

(1) It is somewhat re-organized, for aesthetic reasons,

(2) It has the Next Hop Autonomous System Number, useful

primarily to the administrators of regional networks,

(3) It is instanced by Policy and Next Hop as well as by

ultimate destination. Thus, multiple multipath routes

can be managed, not just a single route, along with the

circumstances under which the any given route might be

chosen.

4. Definitions

RFC1354-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

IMPORTS

Gauge, IpAddress

FROM RFC1155-SMI

mib-2, ip

FROM RFC1213-MIB

OBJECT-TYPE

FROM RFC-1212;

-- This MIB module uses the extended OBJECT-TYPE macro as

-- defined in [9].

ipForward OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ip 24 }

ipForwardNumber OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX Gauge

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The number of current ipForwardTable entries

that are not invalid."

::= { ipForward 1 }

-- IP Forwarding Table

-- The IP Forwarding Table obsoletes and replaces the ipRoute

-- Table current in MIB-I and MIB-II. It adds knowledge of

-- the autonomous system of the next hop, multiple next hop

-- support, and policy routing support.

ipForwardTable OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF IpForwardEntry

ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"This entity's IP Routing table."

REFERENCE

"RFC1213 Section 6.6, The IP Group"

::= { ipForward 2 }

ipForwardEntry OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX IpForwardEntry

ACCESS not-accessible

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"A particular route to a particular destina-

tion, under a particular policy."

INDEX {

ipForwardDest,

ipForwardProto,

ipForwardPolicy,

ipForwardNextHop

}

::= { ipForwardTable 1 }

IpForwardEntry ::=

SEQUENCE {

ipForwardDest

IpAddress,

ipForwardMask

IpAddress,

ipForwardPolicy

INTEGER,

ipForwardNextHop

IpAddress,

ipForwardIfIndex

INTEGER,

ipForwardType

INTEGER,

ipForwardProto

INTEGER,

ipForwardAge

INTEGER,

ipForwardInfo

OBJECT IDENTIFIER,

ipForwardNextHopAS

INTEGER,

ipForwardMetric1

INTEGER,

ipForwardMetric2

INTEGER,

ipForwardMetric3

INTEGER,

ipForwardMetric4

INTEGER,

ipForwardMetric5

INTEGER

}

ipForwardDest OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX IpAddress

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The destination IP address of this route. An

entry with a value of 0.0.0.0 is considered a

default route.

This object may not take a Multicast (Class D)

address value.

Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an

instance of this object to a value x must be

rejected if the bitwise logical-AND of x with

the value of the corresponding instance of the

ipForwardMask object is not equal to x."

::= { ipForwardEntry 1 }

ipForwardMask OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX IpAddress

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"Indicate the mask to be logical-ANDed with the

destination address before being compared to

the value in the ipForwardDest field. For

those systems that do not support arbitrary

subnet masks, an agent constructs the value of

the ipForwardMask by reference to the IP Ad-

dress Class.

Any assignment (implicit or otherwise) of an

instance of this object to a value x must be

rejected if the bitwise logical-AND of x with

the value of the corresponding instance of the

ipForwardDest object is not equal to ipForward-

Dest."

DEFVAL { '00000000'h } -- 0.0.0.0

::= { ipForwardEntry 2 }

-- The following convention is included for specification

-- of TOS Field contents. At this time, the Host Requirements

-- and the Router Requirements documents disagree on the width

-- of the TOS field. This mapping describes the Router

-- Requirements mapping, and leaves room to widen the TOS field

-- without impact to fielded systems.

ipForwardPolicy OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The general set of conditions that would cause

the selection of one multipath route (set of

next hops for a given destination) is referred

to as 'policy'.

Unless the mechanism indicated by ipForwardPro-

to specifies otherwise, the policy specifier is

the IP TOS Field. The encoding of IP TOS is as

specified by the following convention. Zero

indicates the default path if no more specific

policy applies.

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

PRECEDENCE TYPE OF SERVICE 0

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

IP TOS IP TOS

Field Policy Field Policy

Contents Code Contents Code

0 0 0 0 ==> 0 0 0 0 1 ==> 2

0 0 1 0 ==> 4 0 0 1 1 ==> 6

0 1 0 0 ==> 8 0 1 0 1 ==> 10

0 1 1 0 ==> 12 0 1 1 1 ==> 14

1 0 0 0 ==> 16 1 0 0 1 ==> 18

1 0 1 0 ==> 20 1 0 1 1 ==> 22

1 1 0 0 ==> 24 1 1 0 1 ==> 26

1 1 1 0 ==> 28 1 1 1 1 ==> 30

Protocols defining 'policy' otherwise must ei-

ther define a set of values which are valid for

this object or must implement an integer-

instanced policy table for which this object's

value acts as an index."

::= { ipForwardEntry 3 }

ipForwardNextHop OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX IpAddress

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"On remote routes, the address of the next sys-

tem en route; Otherwise, 0.0.0.0."

::= { ipForwardEntry 4 }

ipForwardIfIndex OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The ifIndex value which identifies the local

interface through which the next hop of this

route should be reached."

DEFVAL { 0 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 5 }

ipForwardType OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER {

other (1), -- not specified by this MIB

invalid (2), -- logically deleted

local (3), -- local interface

remote (4) -- remote destination

}

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The type of route. Note that local(3) refers

to a route for which the next hop is the final

destination; remote(4) refers to a route for

which the next hop is not the final destina-

tion.

Setting this object to the value invalid(2) has

the effect of invalidating the corresponding

entry in the ipForwardTable object. That is,

it effectively disassociates the destination

identified with said entry from the route iden-

tified with said entry. It is an

implementation-specific matter as to whether

the agent removes an invalidated entry from the

table. Accordingly, management stations must

be prepared to receive tabular information from

agents that corresponds to entries not current-

ly in use. Proper interpretation of such en-

tries requires examination of the relevant ip-

ForwardType object."

DEFVAL { invalid }

::= { ipForwardEntry 6 }

ipForwardProto OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER {

other (1), -- not specified

local (2), -- local interface

netmgmt (3), -- static route

icmp (4), -- result of ICMP Redirect

-- the following are all dynamic

-- routing protocols

egp (5), -- Exterior Gateway Protocol

ggp (6), -- Gateway-Gateway Protocol

hello (7), -- FuzzBall HelloSpeak

rip (8), -- Berkeley RIP or RIP-II

is-is (9), -- Dual IS-IS

es-is (10), -- ISO 9542

ciscoIgrp (11), -- Cisco IGRP

bbnSpfIgp (12), -- BBN SPF IGP

ospf (13), -- Open Shortest Path First

bgp (14), -- Border Gateway Protocol

idpr (15) -- InterDomain Policy Routing

}

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The routing mechanism via which this route was

learned. Inclusion of values for gateway rout-

ing protocols is not intended to imply that

hosts should support those protocols."

::= { ipForwardEntry 7 }

ipForwardAge OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-only

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The number of seconds since this route was

last updated or otherwise determined to be

correct. Note that no semantics of `too old'

can be implied except through knowledge of the

routing protocol by which the route was

learned."

DEFVAL { 0 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 8 }

ipForwardInfo OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"A reference to MIB definitions specific to the

particular routing protocol which is responsi-

ble for this route, as determined by the value

specified in the route's ipForwardProto value.

If this information is not present, its value

should be set to the OBJECT IDENTIFIER { 0 0 },

which is a syntactically valid object identif-

ier, and any implementation conforming to ASN.1

and the Basic Encoding Rules must be able to

generate and recognize this value."

DEFVAL { { 0 0 } } -- 0.0

::= { ipForwardEntry 9 }

ipForwardNextHopAS OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The Autonomous System Number of the Next Hop.

When this is unknown or not relevant to the

protocol indicated by ipForwardProto, zero."

DEFVAL { 0 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 10 }

ipForwardMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"The primary routing metric for this route.

The semantics of this metric are determined by

the routing-protocol specified in the route's

ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not

used, its value should be set to -1."

DEFVAL { -1 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 11 }

ipForwardMetric2 OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"An alternate routing metric for this route.

The semantics of this metric are determined by

the routing-protocol specified in the route's

ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not

used, its value should be set to -1."

DEFVAL { -1 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 12 }

ipForwardMetric3 OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"An alternate routing metric for this route.

The semantics of this metric are determined by

the routing-protocol specified in the route's

ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not

used, its value should be set to -1."

DEFVAL { -1 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 13 }

ipForwardMetric4 OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"An alternate routing metric for this route.

The semantics of this metric are determined by

the routing-protocol specified in the route's

ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not

used, its value should be set to -1."

DEFVAL { -1 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 14 }

ipForwardMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

DESCRIPTION

"An alternate routing metric for this route.

The semantics of this metric are determined by

the routing-protocol specified in the route's

ipForwardProto value. If this metric is not

used, its value should be set to -1."

DEFVAL { -1 }

::= { ipForwardEntry 15 }

END

5. Acknowledgements

This document was produced by the Router Requirements Working Group,

of which Phil Almquist is the chair.

Chris Gunner (DEC) and Keith McCloghrie (Hughes LAN Systems) made

significant comments on it, and it is better for their input.

6. References

[1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet

Network Management Standards", RFC1052, NRI, April 1988.

[2] Cerf, V., "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network Management Review

Group", RFC1109, NRI, August 1989.

[3] Rose M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of

Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC1155,

Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.

[4] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for

Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC1156, Hughes

LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.

[5] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple

Network Management Protocol", RFC1157, SNMP Research,

Performance Systems International, Performance Systems

International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.

[6] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information

Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC

1213, Performance Systems International, March 1991.

[7] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -

Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),

International Organization for Standardization, International

Standard 8824, December 1987.

[8] 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.

[9] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, Editors, "Concise MIB Definitions",

RFC1212, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems,

March 1991.

[10] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information

Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC

1213, Performance Systems International, March 1991.

[11] Baker, F., and R. Coltun, "OSPF Version 2 Management Information

Base", RFC1253, ACC, Computer Science Center, August 1991.

7. Security Considerations

Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

8. Author's Address

Fred Baker

Advanced Computer Communications

315 Bollay Drive

Santa Barbara, CA 93117-6014

Phone: (805) 685-4455

EMail: fbaker@acc.com

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有