faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 7124 - Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces


Or Display the document by number




Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          E. Beili
Request for Comments: 7124                              Actelis Networks
Updates: 5066                                              February 2014
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721

        Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 5066.  It amends that specification by
   informing the Internet community about the transition of the
   EFM-CU-MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub
   MIB Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
   Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7124.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework  . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB  . . . . .   3
   4.  Updating the MIB Modules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   RFC 5066 [RFC5066] defines two MIB modules:

      EFM-CU-MIB, with a set of objects for managing 10PASS-TS and
      2BASE-TL Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) interfaces;

      IF-CAP-STACK-MIB, with a set of objects describing cross-connect
      capability of a managed device with multi-layer (stacked)
      interfaces, extending the stack management objects in the
      Interfaces Group MIB and the Inverted Stack Table MIB modules.

   With the conclusion of the [HUBMIB] working group, the responsibility
   for the maintenance and further development of a MIB module for
   managing 2BASE-TL and 10PASS-TS interfaces has been transferred to
   the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3
   [IEEE802.3] working group.  In 2011, the IEEE developed the
   IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module, based on the original EFM-CU-MIB module
   [RFC5066].  The current revision of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB is defined in
   IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013 [IEEE802.3.1].

   The IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB and EFM-CU-MIB MIB modules can coexist.
   Existing deployments of the EFM-CU-MIB need not be upgraded, but
   operators using the MIB should expect that new equipment will use the
   IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB.

   Please note that the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transferred to
   IEEE and remains as defined in RFC 5066.  This memo provides an
   updated security considerations section for that module, since the
   original RFC did not list any security considerations for
   IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.

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].

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

3.  Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB

   The current version of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB, defined in IEEE Std
   802.3.1-2013, has MODULE-IDENTITY of ieee8023efmCuMIB with an object
   identifier allocated under the { iso(1)
   iso-identified-organization(3) ieee(111)
   standards-association-numbered-series-standards(2) lan-man-stds(802)
   ieee802dot3(3) ieee802dot3dot1mibs(1) } sub-tree.

   The EFM-CU-MIB has MODULE-IDENTITY of efmCuMIB with an object
   identifier allocated under the mib-2 sub-tree.

   The names of the objects in the first version of the
   IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB are identical to those in the EFM-CU-MIB.
   However, since both MIB modules have different OID values, they can
   coexist, allowing the management of the newer IEEE MIB-based devices
   alongside the legacy IETF MIB-based devices.

4.  Updating the MIB Modules

   With the transfer of the responsibility for maintenance and further
   development of the EFM-CU-MIB module to the IEEE 802.3 working group,
   the EFM-CU-MIB defined in RFC 5066 becomes the last version of that
   MIB module.

   All further development of the EFM Copper Interfaces MIB will be done
   by the IEEE 802.3 working group in the IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module.
   Requests and comments pertaining to EFM Copper Interfaces MIB should
   be sent to the IEEE 802.3.1 task force, currently chartered with MIB
   development, via its mailing list [LIST802.3.1].

   The IF-CAP-STACK-MIB remains under IETF control and is currently
   maintained by the [OPSAWG] working group.

5.  Security Considerations

   There are no managed objects defined in the IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module
   with 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.

   In particular, ifCapStackStatus and ifInvCapStackStatus can identify
   cross-connect capability of multi-layer (stacked) network interfaces,
   potentially revealing the underlying hardware architecture of the
   managed device.

   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),
   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.

   Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described by the
   SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations claiming
   compliance to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full support for
   authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM)
   [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826].  Implementations
   MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM)
   [RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH
   [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353].

   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.

6.  Acknowledgments

   This document was produced by the OPSAWG working group, whose efforts
   were advanced by the contributions of the following people (in
   alphabetical order):

      Dan Romascanu

      David Harrington

      Michael MacFaden

      Tom Petch

   This document updates RFC 5066, authored by Edward Beili of Actelis
   Networks, and produced by the now-concluded HUBMIB working group.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3414]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
              (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.

   [RFC3826]  Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. McCloghrie, "The
              Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the
              SNMP User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, June 2004.

   [RFC5066]  Beili, E., "Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu)
              Interfaces MIB", RFC 5066, November 2007.

7.2.  Informative References

   [HUBMIB]   IETF, "Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB (hubmib) Charter",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hubmib/charter/>.

   [IEEE802.3.1]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Management Information Base (MIB)
              Definitions for Ethernet", IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013, June
              2013, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/
              802.3.1-2013.pdf>.

   [IEEE802.3]
              IEEE, "802.3 Ethernet Working Group",
              <http://www.ieee802.org/3>.

   [LIST802.3.1]
              IEEE, "802.3 MIB Email Reflector",
              <http://www.ieee802.org/3/be/reflector.html>.

   [OPSAWG]   IETF, "Operations and Management Area Working Group
              (opsawg) Charter",
              <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/>.

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

   [RFC5591]  Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model
              for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC
              5591, June 2009.

   [RFC5592]  Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
              Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.

   [RFC6353]  Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
              Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
              RFC 6353, July 2011.

Author's Address

   Edward Beili
   Actelis Networks
   Bazel 25
   Petach-Tikva  49103
   Israel

   Phone: +972-73-237-6852
   EMail: edward.beili@actelis.com

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA