RFC 1161
Network Working Group M. Rose, Editor
Request for Comments: 1161 Performance Systems International, Inc.
June 1990
SNMP over OSI
Table of Contents
1. Status of this Memo ................................... 1
2. Background ............................................ 1
2.1 A Digression on User Interfaces ...................... 2
2.1.1 Addressing Conventions for UDP-based service ....... 3
2.2 A Digression of Layering ............................. 3
3. Mapping onto CLTS ..................................... 4
3.1 Addressing Conventions ............................... 4
3.1.1 Conventions for CLNP-based service ................. 4
4. Mapping onto COTS ..................................... 4
4.1 Addressing Conventions ............................... 5
4.1.1 Conventions for TP4/CLNP-based service ............. 5
4.1.2 Conventions for TP0/X.25-based service ............. 6
5. Acknowledgements ...................................... 6
6. References ............................................ 7
7. Security Considerations................................ 8
8. Author's Address....................................... 8
1. Status of this Memo
This memo defines an experimental means for running the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over OSI transports.
This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet community,
However, after experimentation, if sufficient consensus is reached in
the Internet community, then a subsequent revision of this document
might be made an Internet standard for those systems choosing to
implement the SNMP over OSI transport services.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
2. Background
The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) as defined in [1] is
now used as an integral part of the network management framework for
TCP/IP-based internets. Together, with its companions standards,
which define the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2], and
the Management Information Base (MIB) [3], the SNMP has received
widespread deployment in many operational networks running the
Internet suite of protocols.
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 1]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
It should not be surprising that many of these sites might acquire
OSI capabilities and may wish to leverage their investment in SNMP
technology towards managing those OSI components. This memo
addresses these concerns by defining a framework for running the SNMP
in an environment which supports the OSI transport services.
In OSI, there are two such services, a connection-oriented transport
services (COTS) as defined in [4], and a connectionless-mode
transport service (CLTS) as defined in [5]. Although the primary
deployment of the SNMP is over the connectionless-mode transport
service provided by the Internet suite of protocols (i.e., the User
Datagram Protocol or UDP [6]), a design goal of the SNMP was to be
able to use either a CO-mode or CL-mode transport service. As such,
this memo describes mappings from the SNMP onto both the COTS and the
CLTS.
2.1. A Digression on User Interfaces
It is likely that user-interfaces to the SNMP will be developed that
support multiple transport backings. In an environment such as this,
it is often important to maintain a consistent addressing scheme for
users. Since the mappings described in this memo are onto the OSI
transport services, use of the textual scheme described in [7], which
describes a string encoding for OSI presentation addresses, is
recommended. The syntax defined in [7] is equally applicable towards
transport addresses.
In this context, a string encoding usually appears as:
[/][+]
where:
(1) is usually either an ASCII string enclosed
in double-quotes (e.g., "snmp"), or a hexadecimal number
(e.g., '736e6d70'H);
(2) is one of several well-known providers of a
connectivity-service, one of: "Internet=" for a
transport-service from the Internet suite of protocols,
"Int-X25=" for the 1980 CCITT X.25 recommendation, or
"NS+" for the OSI network service;
(3) is an address in a format specific to the
; and,
(4) is any additional addressing information in a
format specific to the .
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 2]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
It is not the purpose of this memo to provide an exhaustive
description of string encodings such as these. Readers should
consult [7] for detailed information on the syntax. However, this
memo recommends that, as an implementation option, user-interfaces to
the SNMP that support multiple transport backings SHOULD implement
this syntax.
2.1.1. Addressing Conventions for UDP-based service
In the context of a UDP-based transport backing, addresses would be
encoded as:
Internet=+161+2
which says that the transport service is from the Internet suite of
protocols, residing at , on port 161, using the UDP (2). The
token may be either a domain name or a dotted-quad, e.g., both
Internet=cheetah.nyser.net+161+2
and
Internet=192.52.180.1+161+2
are both valid. Note however that if domain name "cheetah.nyser.net"
maps to multiple IP addresses, then this implies multiple transport
addresses. The number of addresses examined by the application (and
the order of examination) are specific to each application.
Of course, this memo does not require that other interface schemes
not be used. Clearly, use of a simple hostname is preferable to the
string encoding above. However, for the sake of uniformity, for
those user-interfaces to the SNMP that support multiple transport
backings, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that the syntax in [7] be
adopted and even the mapping for UDP-based transport be valid.
2.2. A Digression of Layering
Although other frameworks view network management as an application,
extensive experience with the SNMP suggests otherwise. In essense,
network management is a function unlike any other user of a transport
service. The citation [8] develops this argument in full. As such,
it is inappropriate to map the SNMP onto the OSI application layer.
Rather, it is mapped to OSI transport services, in order to build on
the proven success of the Internet network management framework.
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 3]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
3. Mapping onto CLTS
Mapping the SNMP onto the CLTS is straight-forward: the elements of
procedure are identical to that of using the UDP. In particular,
note that the CLTS and the service offered by the UDP both transmit
packets of information which contain full addressing information.
Thus, mapping the SNMP onto the CLTS, a "transport address" in the
context of [1], is simply a transport-selector and network address.
3.1. Addressing Conventions
Unlike the Internet suite of protocols, OSI does not use well-known
ports. Rather demultiplexing occurs on the basis of "selectors",
which are opaque strings of octets, which have meaning only at the
destination. In order to foster interoperable implementations of the
SNMP over the CLTS, it is necessary define a selector for this
purpose.
3.1.1. Conventions for CLNP-based service
When the CLTS is used to provide the transport backing for the SNMP,
demultiplexing will occur on the basis of transport selector. The
transport selector used shall be the four ASCII characters
snmp
Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be
textual, described as:
"snmp"/NS+
where:
(1) is a hex string defining the nsap, e.g.,
"snmp"/NS+4900590800200038bafe00
Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
on the transport selector
snmp-trap
which consists of nine ASCII characters.
4. Mapping onto COTS
Mapping the SNMP onto the COTS is more difficult as the SNMP does not
specifically require an existing connection. Thus, the mapping
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 4]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
consists of establishing a transport connection, sending one or more
SNMP messages on that connection, and then releasing the transport
connection.
Consistent with the SNMP model, the initiator of a connection should
not require that responses to a request be returned on that
connection. However, if a responder to a connection sends SNMP
messages on a connection, then these MUST be in response to requests
received on that connection.
Ideally, the transport connection SHOULD be released by the
initiator, however, note that the responder may release the
connection due to resource limitations. Further note, that the
amount of time a connection remains established is implementation-
specific. Implementors should take care to choose an appropriate
dynamic algorithm.
Also consistent with the SNMP model, the initiator should not
associate any reliability characteristics with the use of a
connection. Issues such as retransmission of SNMP messages, etc.,
always remain with the SNMP application, not with the transport
service.
4.1. Addressing Conventions
Unlike the Internet suite of protocols, OSI does not use well-known
ports. Rather demultiplexing occurs on the basis of "selectors",
which are opaque strings of octets, which have meaning only at the
destination. In order to foster interoperable implementations of the
SNMP over the COTS, it is necessary define a selector for this
purpose. However, to be consistent with the various connectivity-
services, different conventions, based on the actual underlying
service, will be used.
4.1.1. Conventions for TP4/CLNP-based service
When a COTS based on the TP4/CLNP is used to provide the transport
backing for the SNMP, demultiplexing will occur on the basis of
transport selector. The transport selector used shall be the four
ASCII characters
snmp
Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be
textual, described as:
"snmp"/NS+
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 5]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
where:
(1) is a hex string defining the nsap, e.g.,
"snmp"/NS+4900590800200038bafe00
Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
on the transport selector
snmp-trap
which consists of nine ASCII characters.
4.1.2. Conventions for TP0/X.25-based service
When a COTS based on the TP0/X.25 is used to provide the transport
backing for the SNMP, demultiplexing will occur on the basis of X.25
protocol-ID. The protocol-ID used shall be the four octets
03018200
Thus, using the string encoding of [7], such addresses may be textual
described as:
Int-X25=+PID+03018200
where:
(1) is the X.121 DTE, e.g.,
Int-X25=23421920030013+PID+03018200
Similarly, SNMP traps are, by convention, sent to a manager listening
on the protocol-ID
03019000
5. Acknowledgements
This document was produced by the SNMP Working Group:
Karl Auerbach, Epilogue Technology
David Bridgham, Epilogue Technology
Brian Brown, Synoptics
John Burress, Wellfleet
Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
James R. Davin, MIT-LCS
Mark S. Fedor, PSI, Inc.
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 6]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
Stan Froyd, ACC
Satish Joshi, Synoptics
Ken Key, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Gary Malkin, FTP Software
Randy Mayhew, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems
Marshall T. Rose, PSI, Inc. (chair)
Greg Satz, cisco
Martin Lee Schoffstall, PSI, Inc.
Bob Stewart, Xyplex
Geoff Thompson, Synoptics
Bill Versteeg, Network Research Corporation
Wengyik Yeong, PSI, Inc.
6. References
[1] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "A Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157, SNMP Research,
Performance Systems International, Performance Systems
International, and MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.
[2] Rose M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1155,
Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.
[3] McCloghrie K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.
[4] Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
"Transport Service Definition", International Organization for
Standardization, International Standard 8072, June 1986.
[5] Information Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection,
"Transport Service Definition - Addendum 1: Connectionless-mode
Transmission", International Organization for Standardization,
International Standard 8072/AD 1, December 1986.
[6] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
Sciences Institute, November 1980.
[7] Kille, S., "A String Encoding of Presentation Address", Research
Note RN/89/14, Department of Computer Science, University College
London, February 1989.
[8] Case, J., Davin, J., Fedor, M., and M. Schoffstall, "Network
Management and the Design of SNMP", ConneXions (ISSN 0894-5926),
Volume 3, Number 3, March 1989.
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 7]
RFC 1161 SNMP over OSI June 1990
7. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
8. Author's Address
Marshall T. Rose
PSI, Inc.
PSI California Office
P.O. Box 391776
Mountain View, CA 94039
Phone: (415) 961-3380
Email: mrose@PSI.COM
IETF SNMP Working Group [Page 8]