Internet Engineering Task Force GMG. G.Galimberti, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track RK. R.Kunze, Ed. Expires: May 3, 2012 Deutsche Telekom Kam. Kam Lam, Ed. Alcatel-Lucent October 31, 2011 A SNMP MIB to manage black-link optical interface parameters of DWDM applications draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 Abstract This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) used by Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) in TCP/IP- based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing Optical parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) systems or characterized by the Optical Transport Network (OTN) in accordance with the Black-Link approach defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2. [ITU.G698.2] The MIB module defined in this memo can be used for Optical Parameters monitoring and/or configuration of the endpoints of Black Links. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Optical Parameters Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. Parameters at Ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.3. Optical path from point Ss to Rs . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4. Interface at point Rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.5. Alarms and Threshold definition . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.6. Performance Monitoring (PM) description . . . . . . . 12 4.1.7. Generic Parameter description . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Use of ifTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1. Use of ifTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.2. Use of ifTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3. Use of ifTable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. Relationship to the [TEMPLATE TODO] MIB . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 1. Introduction This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) used by Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) in TCP/IP- based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing Optical parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) systems or characterized by the Optical Transport Network (OTN) in accordance with the Black-Link approach defined in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] Black Link approach allows supporting an optical transmitter/receiver pair of one vendor to inject a DWDM channel and run it over an optical network composed of amplifiers, filters, add-drop multiplexers from a different vendor. From architectural point of view, the "Black Link" is a set of pre-configured/qualified network connections between the G.698.2 reference points S and R. The black links will be managed at the edges (i.e. the transmitters and receivers attached to the S and R reference points respectively) for the relevant parameters specified in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2], G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], and the performance parameters specified G.7710/Y.1701 [ITU-T G.7710] and and G.874.1 [ITU.G874.1]. The G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] provides optical parameter values for physical layer interfaces of Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems primarily intended for metro applications which include optical amplifiers. Applications are defined in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] using optical interface parameters at the single-channel connection points between optical transmitters and the optical multiplexer, as well as between optical receivers and the optical demultiplexer in the DWDM system. This Recommendation uses a methodology which does not specify the details of the optical link, e.g. the maximum fibre length, explicitly. The Recommendation currently includes unidirectional DWDM applications at 2.5 and 10 Gbit/s (with 100 GHz and 50 GHz channel frequency spacing). Work is still underway for 40 and 100 Gbit/s interfaces. There is possibility for extensions to a lower channel frequency spacing. This draft refers and supports also the draft-kunze-g698-mgnt-ctrl-framework. The building of a SNMP MIB describing the optical parameters defined in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], parameters specified G.7710/Y.1701 [ITU-T G.7710] allows the different vendors and operator to retrieve, provision and exchange information related to Optical blak links in a standardized way. This facilitates interworking in case of using optical interfaces from different vendors at the end of the link. The MIB, reporting the Optical parameters and their values, characterizes the features G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 and the performances of the optical components and allow a reliable black link design in case of multivendor optical networks. Although RFC 3591 [RFC3591] describes and defines the SNMP MIB of a number of key optical parameters, alarms and Performance Monitoring, a more complete description of optical parameters and processes can be found in the ITU-T Recommendations. Appendix A of this document provides an overview about the extensive ITU-T documentation in this area. The same considerations can be applied to the RFC 4054 [RFC4054] 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. Conventions 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] In the description of OIDs the convention: Set (S) Get (G) and Trap (T) conventions will describe the action allowed by the paramenter. 4. Overview In this document, the term OTN (Optical Transport Network) system is used to describe devices that are compliant with the requirements specified in the ITU-T Recommendations G.872 [ITU.G872], G.709 [ITU.G709] , G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], and G.874.1 [ITU.G874.1] while refers to G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] for the Black Link and DWDM parameter description. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Figure 1 shows a set of reference points, for the linear "black-link" approach, for single-channel connection (Ss and Rs) between transmitters (Tx) and receivers (Rx). Here the DWDM network elements include an OM and an OD (which are used as a pair with the opposing element), one or more optical amplifiers and may also include one or more OADMs. +-------------------------------------------------+ Ss | DWDM Network Elements | Rs +---+ | | | \ / | | | +---+ Tx L1----|->| \ +------+ +------+ / |--|--->Rx L1 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ Tx L2----|->| OM |-->|------|->| OADM |--|------|->| OD |--|--->Rx L2 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +---+ Tx L3----|->| / | DWDM | | ^ | DWDM | \ |--|--->Rx L3 +---+ | | / | Link +----|--|----+ Link | \ | | +---+ +-----------+ | | +----------+ +--+ +--+ | | v | +-----+ +-----+ |RxLx | |TxLx | +-----+ +-----+ Ss = reference point at the DWDM network element tributary output Rs = reference point at the DWDM network element tributary input Lx = Lambda x OM = Optical Mux OD = Optical Demux OADM = Optical Add Drop Mux from Fig. 5.1/G.698.2 Figure 1: Linear Black Link G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] defines also Ring Black Link configurations [Fig. 5.2/G.698.2] and Bidiractional Black Link configurations [Fig. 5.3/G.698.2] 4.1. Optical Parameters Description The black links are managed at the edges, i.e. at the transmitters (Tx) and receivers (Rx) attached to the S and R reference points respectively. The parameters that could be managed at the black link edges are specified in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] for the optical G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 interface, in G.798 [ITU.G798] for the equipment aspect, and in G.7710/Y.1701 [ITU.G7710] and G.874 [ITU.G874] for fault management and performance monitoring. The definitions of the optical parameters are provided below to increase the readability of the document, where the definition is ended by (G) the parameter can be retrieve with a GET, when (S) it can be provisioned by a SET, (G,S) can be either GET and SET. To support the management of these parameters, the SNMP MIB in RFC 3591 [RFC3591] is extended with a new MIB module defined in section 56 of this document. This new MIB module includes the definition of XXX, which represents the parameters at Tx (S) and Rx (R). Editor Note: Yet to be decided, XXX could be OChr configuration and monitoring tables. 4.1.1. General The following general parameters from G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2] and G.694.1 [ITU.G694.1] provide general information at the optical interface reference points. Minimum channel spacing: This is the minimum nominal difference in frequency (in GHz) between two adjacent channels (G). Bit rate/line coding of optical tributary signals: Optical tributary signal class NRZ 2.5G (from nominally 622 Mbit/s to nominally 2.67 Gbit/s) or NRZ 10G nominally 2.4 Gbit/s to nominally 10.71 Gbit/s. (nominally 2.4 Gbit/s to nominally 10.71 Gbit/s). 40Gbit/s and 100Gbit/s are under study (G, S). FEC Coding: This parameter indicate what Forward Error Correction (FEC) code is used at Ss and Rs (G, S) (not mentioned in G.698). EDITOR NOTE: Need to check whether this parameter is to be put in "vendor specific" parameter or can be a standard paramenter as defined in G.698.2. Is this the various adaptations (FEC encoding types) specified in G.798 clauses 12.3.1.1 (with FEC), 12.3.1.2 (without FEC), and 12.3.1.5 (vender-specific FEC) . Maximum bit error ratio (BER): This parameter indicate the maximum Bit error rate can be supported by the application at the Receiver. In case of FEC applications it is intended after the FEC correction (G) . G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Fiber type: Fiber type as per fibre types are chosen from those defined in ITU-T Recs G.652, G.653, and G.655 (G,S) . Wavelength Range (see G.694.1): [ITU.G694.1] This parameter indicate minimum and maximum wavelength spectrum (G) in a definite wavelength Band (L, C and S). Wavelength Value (see G.694.1): This parameter indicates the wavelength value that Ss and Rs will be set to work (G, S). Vendor Transceiver Class: Other than specifying all the Transceiver parameter, it might be convenient for the vendors to summarize a set of parameters in a single proprietary parameter: the Class of transceiver. The Transceiver classification will be based on the Vendor Name and the main TX and RX parameters (i.e. Trunk Mode, Framing, Bit rate, Trunk Type, Channel Band, Channel Grid, Modulation Format, Channel Modulation Format, FEC Coding, Electrical Signal Framing at Tx, Minimum maximum Chromatic Disperion (CD) at Rx, Maximum Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) at Rx, Maximum differential group delay at Rx, Loopbacks, TDC, Pre-FEC BER, Q-factor, Q-margin,etc.). If this parameter is used, the MIB parameters specifying the Transceiver characteristics may not be significant and the vendor will be responsible to specify the Class contents and values. The Vendor can publish the parameters of its Classes or declare to be compatible with published Classes.(G) Optional for compliance. (not mentioned in G.698) single-channel application codes (see G.698.2): This parameter indicates the transceiver application code at Ss and Rs as defined in [ITU.G698.2] Chapter 5.3 - this parameter can be called Optical Interface Identifier OII as per [draft-martinelli-wson-interface-class] (G, S). 4.1.2. Parameters at Ss The following parameters for the interface at point S are defined in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]. Maximum and minimum mean channel output power: The mean launched power at Ss is the average power (in dBm) of a pseudo-random data sequence coupled into the DWDM link. It is defined as the rhange (Max and Min ) of the parameter (G, S) G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Minimum and maximum central frequency: The central frequency is the nominal single-channel frequency (in THz) on which the digital coded information of the particular optical channel is modulated by use of the NRZ line code. The central frequencies of all channels within an application lie on the frequency grid for the minimum channel spacing of the application given in ITU-T Rec. G.694.1. This parameter give the Maximum and minimum frequency interval the channel must be modulated (G) Maximum spectral excursion: This is the maximum acceptable difference between the nominal central frequency (in GHz) of the channel and the minus 15 dB points of the transmitter spectrum furthest from the nominal central frequency measured at point Ss. (G) Maximum transmitter (residual) dispersion OSNR penalty (B.3/G.959.1) [ITU.G959.1] Defines a reference receiver that this penalty is measured with. Lowest OSNR at Ss with worst case (residual) dispersion minus the Lowest OSNR at Ss with no dispersion. Lowest OSNR at Ss with no dispersion (G) Minimum side mode suppression ratio, Minimum channel extinction ratio, Eye mask: Although are defined in G.698.2 are not supported by this draft. 4.1.3. Optical path from point Ss to Rs The following parameters for the optical path from point S and R are defined in G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]. Maximum and minimum (residual) chromatic dispersion: These parameters define the maximum and minimum value of the optical path "end to end chromatic dispersion" (in ps/nm) that the system shall be able to tolerate. (G) Minimum optical return loss at Ss: These parameter defines minimum optical return loss (in dB) of the cable plant at the source reference point (Ss), including any connectors (G) Maximum discrete reflectance between SS and RS: Optical reflectance is defined to be the ratio of the reflected optical power present at a point, to the optical power incident to that point. Control of reflections is discussed extensively in ITU-T Rec. G.957 (G) G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Maximum differential group delay: Differential group delay (DGD) is the time difference between the fractions of a pulse that are transmitted in the two principal states of polarization of an optical signal. For distances greater than several kilometres, and assuming random (strong) polarization mode coupling, DGD in a fibre can be statistically modelled as having a Maxwellian distribution. (G) Maximum polarisation dependent loss: The polarisation dependent loss (PDL) is the difference (in dB) between the maximum and minimum values of the channel insertion loss (or gain) of the black-link from point SS to RS due to a variation of the state of polarization (SOP) over all SOPs. (G) Maximum inter-channel crosstalk: Inter-channel crosstalk is defined as the ratio of total power in all of the disturbing channels to that in the wanted channel, where the wanted and disturbing channels are at different wavelengths. The parameter specify the isolation of a link conforming to the "black-link" approach such that under the worst- case operating conditions the inter-channel crosstalk at any reference point RS is less than the maximum inter-channel crosstalk value (G) Maximum interferometric crosstalk: This parameter places a requirement on the isolation of a link conforming to the "black-link" approach such that under the worst case operating conditions the interferometric crosstalk at any reference point RS is less than the maximum interferometric crosstalk value. (G) Maximum optical path OSNR penalty: The optical path OSNR penalty is defined as the difference between the Lowest OSNR at Rs and Lowest OSNR at Ss that meets the BER requirement (G) Maximum ripple: Although is defined in G.698.2, this parameter is not supported by this draft. 4.1.4. Interface at point Rs The following parameters for the interface at point R are defined in G.698.2. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Maximum and minimum mean input power: The maximum and minimum values of the average received power (in dBm) at point Rs. (G) Minimum optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR): The minimum optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR) is the minimum value of the ratio of the signal power in the wanted channel to the highest noise power density in the range of the central frequency plus and minus the maximum spectral excursion (G) Receiver OSNR tolerance: The receiver OSNR tolerance is defined as the minimum value of OSNR at point Rs that can be tolerated while maintaining the maximum BER of the application. (G) Maximum reflectance at receiver: Although is defined in G.698.2, this parameter is not supported by this draft. 4.1.5. Alarms and Threshold definition This section describes the Alarms and the Thresholds at Ss and Rs points according to ITU-T Recommendations G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], and G.874.1 [ITU.G874.1]. OTN alarms defined in RFC3591: Threshold Crossing Alert (TCA Alarm) LOW-TXPOWER HIGH-TXPOWER LOW-RXPOWER HIGH-RXPOWER Loss of Signal (LOS) Loss of Frame (LOF) Server Signal Failure-P (SSF-P) Loss of Multiframe (LOM) OTN Thresholds (for TCA) defined in RFC3591 G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 LOW-TXPOWER HIGH-TXPOWER LOW-RXPOWER HIGH-RXPOWER As the above parameters/alarms are already defined in RFC3591, they are out of scope of this document and the RFC3591 will continue to be the only reference for them The list below reports the new Alarms and Thresholds not managed in RFC3591 4.1.6. Performance Monitoring (PM) description This section describes the Performance Monitoring parameters and their thresholds at Ss and Rs points (Near -End and Far-End)according to ITU-T Recommendations G.826 [ITU.G826], G.8201 [ITU.G8201], G.709 [ITU.G709], G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], and G.874.1 [ITU.G874.1]. EDITOR NOTE: The list of PM parameters in this section needs to be revised. Should only include those PM parameters resulted from the defects and PM primitives specified in G.798 clauses 12.2.2 and 12.3.1. Failure Counts (fc) : Number of Failures occurred in an observation periond (G) Errored Seconds (es) : It is a one-second period in which one or more bits are in error or during which Loss of Signal (LOS) or Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) is detected (G) Severely Errored Seconds (ses) : It is a one-second period which has a bit-error ratio = 1x10Eminus3 or during which Loss of Signal (LOS) or Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) is detected (G) Unavailable Seconds (uas) : A period of unavailable time begins at the onset of ten consecutive SES events. These ten seconds are considered to be part of unavailable time. A new period of available time begins at the onset of ten consecutive non-SES events. These ten seconds are considered to be part of available time (G) G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Background Block Errors (bbe) : An errored block not occurring as part of an SES(G) Error Seconds Ratio (esr) : The ratio of ES in available time to total seconds in available time during a fixed measurement interval(G) Severely Errored Seconds Ratio (sesr) : The ratio of SES in available time to total seconds in available time during a fixed measurement interval(G) Background Block Errored Seconds Ratio (bber) : The ratio of Background Block Errors (BBE) to total blocks in available time during a fixed measurement interval. The count of total blocks excludes all blocks during SESs.(G) FEC corrected Bit Error (FECcorrErr): The number of bits corrected by the FEC are counted over one second (G) FEC un-corrected Bit Error : The number of bits un-corrected by the FEC are counted over one second (G) Pre-FEC Bit Error : The number of Errored bits at receiving side before the FEC function counted over one second (G) OTN Valid Intervals : The number of contiguous 15 minute intervals for which valid OTN performance monitoring data is available for the particular interface (G) FEC Valid Intervals : The number of contiguous 15 minute intervals for which valid FEC PM data is available for the particular interface.(G) 4.1.7. Generic Parameter description This section describes the Generic Parameters at Ss and Rs points according to ITU-T Recommendations G.872 [ITU.G872], G.709 [ITU.G709], G.798 [ITU.G798], G.874 [ITU.G874], and G.874.1 [ITU.G874.1]. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Interface Admin Status : The Administrative Status of an Interface: Up/Down - In Service/ Out of Service (can be Automatic in Service) (G/S) Interface Operational Status : The Operational Status of an Interface: Up/Down - In Service/Out of Service (G) 4.2. Use of ifTable This section specifies how the MIB II interfaces group, as defined in RFC 2863 [RFC2863], is used for the link ends of a black link. Only the ifGeneralInformationGroup will be supported for the ifTable and the ifStackTable to maintain the relationship between the OChr and OPS layers. The OChr and OPS layers are managed in the ifTable using IfEntries that correlate to the layers depicted in Figure T.B.D. For example, a device with TX and/or RX will have an Optical Physical Section (OPS) layer, and an Optical Channel with reduced functionality (OChr) layer. There is a one to one relationship between the OPS and OChr layers. EDITOR NOTE: more to be provided 4.2.1. Use of ifTable Use of ifTable for OPS Layer 4.2.2. Use of ifTable Use of ifTable for OChr Layer 4.2.3. Use of ifTable Use of ifStackTable 5. Structure of the MIB Module EDITOR NOTE:text will be provided based on the MIB module in Section 6 6. Object Definitions EDITOR NOTE: Once the scope in Section 1 and the parameters in Section 4 are finalized, a MIB module will be defined. It could be an extension to the OPT-IF-MIB module of RFC 3591. >>> G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 OPT-IF-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Gauge32, Integer32, Unsigned32, transmission FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowPointer, RowStatus, TruthValue FROM SNMPv2-TC SnmpAdminString FROM SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF ifIndex FROM IF-MIB; -- This is the MIB module for the optical parameters associated with the black link end points. 7. Relationship to Other MIB Modules 7.1. Relationship to the [TEMPLATE TODO] MIB 7.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS 8. Definitions [TEMPLATE TODO]: put your valid MIB module here. A list of tools that can help automate the process of checking MIB definitions can be found at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-review-tools.html 9. Security Considerations There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 o There are no management objects defined in this MIB module that have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. So, if this MIB module is implemented correctly, then there is no risk that an intruder can alter or create any management objects of this MIB module via direct SNMP SET operations. Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over the network via SNMP. SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec), even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB module. It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for authentication and privacy). Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 10. IANA Considerations Option #1: G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry: Descriptor OBJECT IDENTIFIER value ---------- ----------------------- sampleMIB { mib-2 XXX } Option #2: Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication): the IANA is requested to assign a value for "XXX" under the 'mib-2' subtree and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. When the assignment has been made, the RFC Editor is asked to replace "XXX" (here and in the MIB module) with the assigned value and to remove this note. Note well: prior to official assignment by the IANA, an internet draft MUST use placeholders (such as "XXX" above) rather than actual numbers. See RFC4181 Section 4.5 for an example of how this is done in an internet draft MIB module. Option #3: This memo includes no request to IANA. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 11. Contributors Arnold Mattheus Deutsche Telekom Darmstadt Germany email a.mattheus@telekom.de Manuel Paul Deutsche Telekom Berlin Germany email Manuel.Paul@telekom.de Frank Luennemann Deutsche Telekom Munster Germany email Frank.Luennemann@telekom.de Najam Saquib Cisco Ludwig-Erhard-Strasse 3 ESCHBORN, HESSEN 65760 GERMANY email nasaquib@cisco.com Walid Wakim Cisco 9501 Technology Blvd ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS 60018 UNITED STATES email wwakim@cisco.com Ori Gerstel Cisco 32 HaMelacha St., (HaSharon Bldg) SOUTH NETANYA, HAMERKAZ 42504 ISRAEL email ogerstel@cisco.com 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "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. [RFC3591] Lam, H-K., Stewart, M., and A. Huynh, "Definitions of Managed Objects for the Optical Interface Type", RFC 3591, September 2003. [ITU.G698.2] International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing applications with single channel optical interfaces", ITU- T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009. [ITU.G709] International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation G.709, March 2003. [ITU.G872] International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872, November 2001. [ITU.G798] International Telecommunications Union, "Characteristics of optical transport network hierarchy equipment functional blocks", ITU-T Recommendation G.798, October 2010. [ITU.G874] International Telecommunications Union, "Management aspects of optical transport network elements", ITU- T Recommendation G.874, July 2010. [ITU.G874.1] International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation G.874.1, January 2002. [ITU.G959.1] International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport network physical layer interfaces", ITU-T Recommendation G.959.1, November 2009. [ITU.G826] International Telecommunications Union, "End-to-end error performance parameters and objectives for international, constant bit-rate digital paths and connections", ITU- T Recommendation G.826, November 2009. [ITU.G8201] International Telecommunications Union, "Error performance parameters and objectives for multi-operator international paths within the Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU- T Recommendation G.8201, September 2003. [ITU.G694.1] International Telecommunications Union, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid", ITU- T Recommendation G.694.1, June 2002. [ITU.G7710] International Telecommunications Union, "Common equipment management function requirements", ITU-T Recommendation G.7710, May 2008. 12.2. 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. [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, June 1999. [RFC4181] Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005. [I-D.kunze-g-698-2-management-control-framework] Kunze, R., "A framework for Management and Control of optical interfaces supporting G.698.2", draft-kunze-g-698-2-management-control-framework-00 (work in progress), July 2011. G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 [RFC4054] Strand, J. and A. Chiu, "Impairments and Other Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054, May 2005. Appendix A. Change Log This optional section should be removed before the internet draft is submitted to the IESG for publication as an RFC. Note to RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication as an RFC. Appendix B. Open Issues Note to RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication as an RFC. Authors' Addresses Gabriele Galimberti (editor) Cisco Via Philips,12 20052 - Monza Italy Phone: +390392091462 Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com Ruediger Kunze (editor) Deutsche Telekom Dddd, xx Berlin Germany Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx Email: RKunze@telekom.de G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib-01 October 2011 Hing-Kam Lam (editor) Alcatel-Lucent D, x New Jersey USA Phone: +19085820672 Email: kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com G.Galimberti, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 22]