Network Working Group F. Baker
Request For Comments: 1354 ACC
July 1992
IP Forwarding Table MIB
1. The Network Management Framework
The Internet-standard Network Management Framework consists of three components. They are:
Baker [Page 1]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
RFC 1156 which defines MIB-I, the core set of managed objects for the Internet suite of protocols. RFC 1213 defines MIB-II, an evolution of MIB-I based on implementation experience and new operational requirements.
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.
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].
Baker [Page 2]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992 3. Overview 3.1. Structure of MIBThe IP Forwarding Table is quite analogous to the older ipRoute Table. The principal differences are:
4. Definitions
RFC1354-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
Baker [Page 3]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
ipForwardTable OBJECT-TYPE
Baker [Page 4]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
INTEGER,
Baker [Page 5]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
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 }
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| | | |
| PRECEDENCE | TYPE OF SERVICE | 0 |
| | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
IP TOS IP TOS
Baker [Page 6]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
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."
Baker [Page 7]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
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 }
Baker [Page 8]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
::= { ipForwardEntry 7 }
Baker [Page 9]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
ipForwardMetric1 OBJECT-TYPE
Baker [Page 10]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
ipForwardMetric5 OBJECT-TYPE
5. Acknowledgements
This document was produced by the Router Requirements Working Group, of which Phil Almquist is the chair.
6. References
[1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
Baker [Page 11]
RFC 1354 IP Forwarding Table MIB July 1992
[5] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple
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