From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 4 06:03:41 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06485 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA17623; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:00:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id CAA09577 for agentx-list; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA09569 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:56:46 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id EAA16993 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 04:56:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:24:08 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA08613 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:29:01 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Wed, 4 Aug 99 10:35 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEDE8C.5E387AA0@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:47 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEDE8C.5E387AA0@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: Table Sharing Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id CAA09570 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi , When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. If the answer is , you should not register sharable table then how one sub-agent knows that the MIB region i am registering may contain a sharable table. Thanks in advance.... Ravinder. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 4 16:11:46 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20047 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA00746; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:03:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA13707 for agentx-list; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA13701 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908042001.NAA13701@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Table Sharing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Subject: Table Sharing > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 ... > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. ... See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the registrations for individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not even necessary to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". While this would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is indeed possible for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns in the same table, resulting in a situation where different subagents will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same conceptual row. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 02:15:24 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22402 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA08332; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:12:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id XAA03741 for agentx-list; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA03733 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:10:21 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA08076 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 01:10:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 05 Aug 1999 11:37:31 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA21085 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:42:46 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Thu, 5 Aug 99 06:48 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEDF35.DFC8EBA0@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:30:09 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEDF35.DFC8EBA0@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: Thanks & Confusion ........ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:30:08 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id XAA03734 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, First of all thanks a lot for prompt reply. I think i am unable to put clearity in my question so the same follows below : I have the following doubt in table sharing :: Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 tries to register an individual row in the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master agent allow this registeration?. If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration since it has registered full table. In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to allocate index for each row it is supporting ? Bye Ravinder. ---------- From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:31 AM To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx Subject: Re: Table Sharing Hi - > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Subject: Table Sharing > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 .. > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. .. See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the registrations for individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not even necessary to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". While this would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is indeed possible for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns in the same table, resulting in a situation where different subagents will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same conceptual row. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 13:29:57 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00404 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA17568; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:26:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA07206 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA07200 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:22:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908051722.KAA07200@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Subject: Thanks & Confusion ........ > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:30:08 +0530 ... > Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 tries to register an individual row in the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master agent allow this registeration?. These registration requests are perfectly legal. > If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration since it has registered full table. Until S2's registration request is accepted by the master agent, an SNMP operation affecting 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7 would be dispatched to S1. The master agent does not need to know anything about the indexing structure. The dispatching is purely in terms of the OID tree. The subagent claiming the longest matching registration "wins". > In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to allocate index for each row it is supporting ? ... No. Any request involving an object beneath 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 that is not claimed by another subagent's registrations will be dispatched to S1. However, if S1 were to also explicitly register its rows, doing so would cause no harm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 13:53:23 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00691 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA23525; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:50:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA07518 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA07511 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA23065 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:48:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from world.std.com (pm2c-135.dialup.jlc.net [199.201.159.135]) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA00574; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A9CE87.F322A808@world.std.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:48:55 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com CC: "'agentx'" , Mark Ellison Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ References: <01BEDF35.DFC8EBA0@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Ravinder In your example, a compliant master agent would allow both the registration from S1 and the registration from S2. Your example shows an overlapping registration. A compliant master agent will dispatch to S1 for all requests that fall under 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 except for the portion registered by S2, namely 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Here, the compliant master agent would dispatch to S2 The Elements of Procedure specifies the master agent reject duplicate registrations and allow overlapping registrations. Possibly sections 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU" and 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", expecially the part about "Honoring the registry" will help here. You're encouraged to keep at this while any confusion remains :-) Regards, Mark ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > Hi, > First of all thanks a lot for prompt reply. I think i am unable to put clearity in my question so the same follows below : > > I have the following doubt in table sharing :: > > Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 tries to register an individual row in the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master agent allow this registeration?. > If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration since it has registered full table. > > In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to allocate index for each row it is supporting ? > > Bye > Ravinder. > > ---------- > From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:31 AM > To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx > Subject: Re: Table Sharing > > Hi - > > > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > > Subject: Table Sharing > > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 > .. > > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. > .. > > See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the registrations for > individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration > for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not even necessary > to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. > > I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". While this > would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is indeed possible > for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns > in the same table, resulting in a situation where different subagents > will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same > conceptual row. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 14:39:06 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01585 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA06364; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:35:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA08036 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA08031 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA05511 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:32:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA06683; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roc-mail2.ctron.com(134.141.72.230) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com via smap (4.1) id xma006632; Thu, 5 Aug 99 14:34:36 -0400 Received: from ctron-exc2.ctron.com (ctron-exc2 [134.141.3.241]) by roc-mail2.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28556; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ctron-exc2.ctron.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: <0F9F4B0DB88BD21182C20008C70922EABBCE64@corp-exc5.ctron.com> From: "Harrington, David" To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Cc: "'agentx'" Subject: RE: Thanks & Confusion ........ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:31:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Hi Ravinder, I haven't been very involved with agentX, and maybe my understanding is incorrect, so please realize that I could be wrong in what follows. If I remember correctly, the master agent determines which subagent gets the priority based on the specificity of the OID used during registration, in a manner similar to View-based ACM. While S1 registered for 1.3.6.1.2.1.2, S2 registered for 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7 which is more specific. Therefore requests that would fall into the more specific area would be sent to S2. S1 registers 1.2.3 S2 registers 1.2.3.[4-6] S3 registers 1.2.3.4.5 if the request is in the 1.2.3.4.5 branch, use S3, ELSE if the request is in the 1.2.3.[4-6] branch, use S2, ELSE if the request is in the 1.2.3 branch, use S1. Hope this helps, dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Ellison [mailto:ellison@world.std.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:49 PM > To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > Cc: 'agentx'; Mark Ellison > Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ > > > Hi, Ravinder > > In your example, a compliant master agent would allow both > the registration from S1 and the registration from S2. Your > example shows an overlapping registration. A compliant > master agent will dispatch to S1 for all requests that fall > under 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 except for the portion registered by S2, namely > 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Here, the compliant master agent > would dispatch to S2 > > The Elements of Procedure specifies the master agent reject > duplicate registrations and allow overlapping registrations. > > Possibly sections 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU" and > 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", expecially the part about > "Honoring the registry" will help here. > > You're encouraged to keep at this while any confusion remains :-) > > Regards, > > Mark > > > ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > First of all thanks a lot for prompt reply. I think > i am unable to put clearity in my question so the same follows below : > > > > I have the following doubt in table sharing :: > > > > Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full > Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 > tries to register an individual row in > the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master > agent allow this registeration?. > > If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, > this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while > registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration > since it has registered full table. > > > > In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to > allocate index for each row it is supporting ? > > > > Bye > > Ravinder. > > > > ---------- > > From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:31 AM > > To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx > > Subject: Re: Table Sharing > > > > Hi - > > > > > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > > > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > > > Subject: Table Sharing > > > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 > > .. > > > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region > containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest > of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a > particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then > how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. > > .. > > > > See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the > registrations for > > individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration > > for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not > even necessary > > to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. > > > > I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". > While this > > would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is > indeed possible > > for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns > > in the same table, resulting in a situation where different > subagents > > will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same > > conceptual row. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com > http://www.bmc.com/ > > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, > Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably > coincidental. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 16:21:52 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02802 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04546; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:19:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA08944 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA08939 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA03807 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:16:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from world.std.com (pm2c-135.dialup.jlc.net [199.201.159.135]) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA02931; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A9F139.31376E43@world.std.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:16:57 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Harrington, David" CC: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com, "'agentx'" Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ References: <0F9F4B0DB88BD21182C20008C70922EABBCE64@corp-exc5.ctron.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, David Yes, the master agent determines the "authoritative region" and dispatches as you've described (essentially longest matching subtree, ties broken by priority value). However, in your example, if the registration from S3 and S2 had the same priority and occurred in the order S1, S2, S3....Then S3 would be rejected as a duplicate of S2. The registrations of S1 and S2 (alternatively S1 and S3) are overlapping. Regards, Mark "Harrington, David" wrote: > Hi Ravinder, > > I haven't been very involved with agentX, and maybe my understanding is > incorrect, so please realize that I could be wrong in what follows. > > If I remember correctly, the master agent determines which subagent gets the > priority based on the specificity of the OID used during registration, in a > manner similar to View-based ACM. > > While S1 registered for 1.3.6.1.2.1.2, S2 registered for > 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7 which is more specific. Therefore requests that > would fall into the more specific area would be sent to S2. > > S1 registers 1.2.3 > S2 registers 1.2.3.[4-6] > S3 registers 1.2.3.4.5 > > if the request is in the 1.2.3.4.5 branch, use S3, ELSE > if the request is in the 1.2.3.[4-6] branch, use S2, ELSE > if the request is in the 1.2.3 branch, use S1. > > Hope this helps, > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Ellison [mailto:ellison@world.std.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:49 PM > > To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > > Cc: 'agentx'; Mark Ellison > > Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ > > > > > > Hi, Ravinder > > > > In your example, a compliant master agent would allow both > > the registration from S1 and the registration from S2. Your > > example shows an overlapping registration. A compliant > > master agent will dispatch to S1 for all requests that fall > > under 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 except for the portion registered by S2, namely > > 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Here, the compliant master agent > > would dispatch to S2 > > > > The Elements of Procedure specifies the master agent reject > > duplicate registrations and allow overlapping registrations. > > > > Possibly sections 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU" and > > 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", expecially the part about > > "Honoring the registry" will help here. > > > > You're encouraged to keep at this while any confusion remains :-) > > > > Regards, > > > > Mark > > > > > > ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > First of all thanks a lot for prompt reply. I think > > i am unable to put clearity in my question so the same follows below : > > > > > > I have the following doubt in table sharing :: > > > > > > Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full > > Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 > > tries to register an individual row in > > the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master > > agent allow this registeration?. > > > If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, > > this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while > > registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration > > since it has registered full table. > > > > > > In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to > > allocate index for each row it is supporting ? > > > > > > Bye > > > Ravinder. > > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:31 AM > > > To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx > > > Subject: Re: Table Sharing > > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > > > > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > > > > Subject: Table Sharing > > > > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 > > > .. > > > > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region > > containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest > > of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a > > particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then > > how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. > > > .. > > > > > > See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the > > registrations for > > > individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration > > > for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not > > even necessary > > > to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. > > > > > > I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". > > While this > > > would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is > > indeed possible > > > for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns > > > in the same table, resulting in a situation where different > > subagents > > > will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same > > > conceptual row. > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com > > http://www.bmc.com/ > > > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, > > Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > > > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably > > coincidental. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 17:09:07 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05485 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA17336; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:06:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09256 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09250 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:04:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908052104.OAA09250@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:16:57 -0400 > From: Mark Ellison > To: "Harrington, David" > CC: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com, "'agentx'" > Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ > References: <0F9F4B0DB88BD21182C20008C70922EABBCE64@corp-exc5.ctron.com> > > Hi, David > > Yes, the master agent determines the "authoritative region" and dispatches as > you've described (essentially longest matching subtree, ties broken by priority > value). > > However, in your example, if the registration from S3 and S2 had the same > priority and occurred in the order S1, S2, S3....Then S3 would be rejected as a > duplicate of S2. The registrations of S1 and S2 (alternatively S1 and S3) are > overlapping. ... > > S2 registers 1.2.3.[4-6] > > S3 registers 1.2.3.4.5 ... It depends on which document you're looking at. On page 48 of RFC 2256, in (4) of clause 7.1.5, the logic in the first two paragraphs will result in Dave's S2 and S3 registrations being classified as overlapping registrations, since its r.region and r.range elements are not exactly the same as any registered r.region value. This leads to a bit of trouble in clause 7.2.1 (1) and 7.1.5.1, in part because the VACM tie-breaking technique is not used here. (RFC 2575 says: "If multiple entries match and have the same number of sub-identifiers (when wildcarding is specified with the value of vacmViewTreeFamilyMask), then the lexicographically greatest instance of vacmViewTreeFamilyType determines the inclusion or exclusion.") This is different in draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-00.txt, where the requests could still be disambiguated if the values supplied for the r.priority element differ, but must be rejected otherwise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 17:55:05 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08884 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA27922; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:52:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09785 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA09779; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA27265; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:49:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [38.249.211.2] (helo=relay1.acecomm.com) by relay10.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) id 11CVNz-0007co-00; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:49:15 -0400 Received: from BNATALE by relay1.acecomm.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA16965; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:58:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.1.19990805174849.009f26f0@nips.acec.com> X-Sender: natale@nips.acec.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 17:53:45 -0400 To: Randy Presuhn From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com In-Reply-To: <199908052104.OAA09250@dorothy.bmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk >At 8/5/99:05:04 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi Randy, >It depends on which document you're looking at. For sure...however, just so there is no doubt on the list: <...> >This is different in draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-00.txt, where the >requests could still be disambiguated if the values supplied for the >r.priority element differ, but must be rejected otherwise. Right...and it is this document (and its imminent final edit before IESG last call) that we are now looking to for guidance. So, as you suggest, Mark's answer is correct in accordance with this document. Cordially, BobN ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 18:00:25 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09310 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA29022; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:57:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09871 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA09865; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA28718; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:56:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from world.std.com (pm2c-157.dialup.jlc.net [199.201.159.157]) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA04861; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37AA0892.3958F6E0@world.std.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 17:56:34 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn CC: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Mark Ellison , Mike Daniele Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ References: <199908052104.OAA09250@dorothy.bmc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Randy I find your reference to 2575 of great interest (...work at hand :-) I've re-read RFC 2257, sxn 7.1.5 (4). My interpretation still comes up as 'duplicate', not 'overlapping'. Specifically, the first paragraph of RFC 2275, sxn 7.1.5. (4) says: If r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers, if r.range is non-zero) is exactly the same as any currently registered value of r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers), this registration is termed a duplicate region. Would you interpret this "operative text" differently? I also think the distinction of 'dulplicate' and 'overlapping' was maintained across 2257 to rfc-update-00. Thanks for close reading of 2275 and rfc-update-00! Regards, Mark Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > > Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:16:57 -0400 > > From: Mark Ellison > [deletions] > > However, in your example, if the registration from S3 and S2 had the same > > priority and occurred in the order S1, S2, S3....Then S3 would be rejected as a > > duplicate of S2. The registrations of S1 and S2 (alternatively S1 and S3) are > > overlapping. > ... > > > S2 registers 1.2.3.[4-6] > > > S3 registers 1.2.3.4.5 > ... > > It depends on which document you're looking at. > > On page 48 of RFC 2256, in (4) of clause 7.1.5, the logic in the first > two paragraphs will result in Dave's S2 and S3 registrations being > classified as overlapping registrations, since its r.region and r.range > elements are not exactly the same as any registered r.region value. > This leads to a bit of trouble in clause 7.2.1 (1) and 7.1.5.1, in part > because the VACM tie-breaking technique is not used here. (RFC 2575 says: > "If multiple entries match and have the same number of sub-identifiers > (when wildcarding is specified with the value of vacmViewTreeFamilyMask), > then the lexicographically greatest instance of vacmViewTreeFamilyType > determines the inclusion or exclusion.") > > This is different in draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-00.txt, where the > requests could still be disambiguated if the values supplied for the > r.priority element differ, but must be rejected otherwise. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 18:22:05 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10817 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA03531; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 17:19:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA10135 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA10127 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:18:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908052218.PAA10127@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 17:56:34 -0400 > From: Mark Ellison > To: Randy Presuhn > CC: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Mark Ellison , > Mike Daniele > Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ > References: <199908052104.OAA09250@dorothy.bmc.com> ... > I've re-read RFC 2257, sxn 7.1.5 (4). My interpretation still comes up as > 'duplicate', not 'overlapping'. Specifically, the first paragraph of RFC 2275, sxn > 7.1.5. (4) says: > > If r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers, if r.range > is non-zero) is exactly the same as any currently registered value > of r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers), this > registration is termed a duplicate region. > > Would you interpret this "operative text" differently? I also think the distinction > of 'dulplicate' and 'overlapping' was maintained across 2257 to rfc-update-00. They're defined differently in the two documents. In the text you quote, "r.region" of the registration request must be "exactly the same" as a current registration. For the sequence of registrations Dave Harrington described, this would not be true, and the following paragraph in 7.1.5 would apply, resulting in the registration being classified as "overlapping". The corresponding text in the draft defines "duplicate" so that it includes this case, thus avoiding the conundrum in dispatching. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 19:16:21 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13325 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA12410; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:13:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA10567 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA10561; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA12127; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:11:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [38.249.211.2] (helo=relay1.acecomm.com) by relay10.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) id 11CWfn-00011A-00; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:11:43 -0400 Received: from BNATALE by relay1.acecomm.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17227; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:21:10 -0400 Message-Id: <4.1.19990805191049.00ad6cd0@nips.acec.com> X-Sender: natale@nips.acec.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:16:13 -0400 To: Randy Presuhn From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com In-Reply-To: <199908052218.PAA10127@dorothy.bmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk >At 8/5/99:06:18 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi Randy, Too bad this thread got stuck on this particular "Subject:" label! Mark said: >>I've re-read RFC 2257, sxn 7.1.5 (4). My interpretation still comes up as >>'duplicate', not 'overlapping'. Specifically, the first paragraph of RFC >>2275, sxn 7.1.5. (4) says: >> >> If r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers, if r.range >> is non-zero) is exactly the same as any currently registered value >> of r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers), this >> registration is termed a duplicate region. Randy said: >In the text you quote, "r.region" of the registration request must be >"exactly the same" as a current registration. I read the parenthetical comment "(or any of its set of Object Identifiers)" as covering the set of ranged OIDs...such that: >For the sequence of registrations Dave Harrington described, S3 would have definitely been a duplicate of one of S2 ranged registrations. >The corresponding text in the draft defines "duplicate" so that it >includes this case, thus avoiding the conundrum in dispatching. Good...all's well that ends well. Cordially, BobN ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 5 19:38:40 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13758 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 19:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA15562; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:35:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA10661 for agentx-list; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA10655 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:34:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908052334.QAA10655@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:16:13 -0400 > To: Randy Presuhn > From: Bob Natale > Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ > Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ... > Mark said: > >>I've re-read RFC 2257, sxn 7.1.5 (4). My interpretation still comes up as > >>'duplicate', not 'overlapping'. Specifically, the first paragraph of RFC > >>2275, sxn 7.1.5. (4) says: > >> > >> If r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers, if r.range > >> is non-zero) is exactly the same as any currently registered value > >> of r.region (or any of its set of Object Identifiers), this > >> registration is termed a duplicate region. > > Randy said: > >In the text you quote, "r.region" of the registration request must be > >"exactly the same" as a current registration. > > I read the parenthetical comment "(or any of its set of Object Identifiers)" > as covering the set of ranged OIDs...such that: That was not how I had read 2257 at all. The text on r.range_subid (elsewere refered to as r.range) led me to understand "set of Object Identifiers" in this context as being either the one-element set {r.region} or the two-element set {r.region, r.upper_bound}, depending on the value of the r.range(_subid) element. The language in the paragraph following the quoted one reinforces this reading, since it distinguishes "contains" and "subtree" from this case. > >For the sequence of registrations Dave Harrington described, > > S3 would have definitely been a duplicate of one of S2 ranged registrations. > > >The corresponding text in the draft defines "duplicate" so that it > >includes this case, thus avoiding the conundrum in dispatching. > > Good...all's well that ends well. ... Yup. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 6 03:54:04 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04099 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA09396; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:50:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id AAA13386 for agentx-list; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA13381 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 00:49:31 -0700 (PDT) From: ggs@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA09267 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:49:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:16:39 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA05074 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:22:17 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Fri, 6 Aug 99 08:27 EDT Received: by venus.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE00E.0C5036A0@venus.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM>; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:17:35 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE00E.0C5036A0@venus.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM> >From: kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM!ggs (Gouri Shankar) To: world.std.com!ellison@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM ('Mark Ellison'), ravinderv.kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM!@kailash.future.futsoft.com ("kailash.future.futsoft.com!ravinderv ") Cc: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM ("\"'agentx'\"") Subject: RE: Thanks & Confusion ........ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:17:33 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id AAA13382 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, When S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region, it means is that the table is entirely local to it, and that all the rows (instances) in the table belong to S1. Now if S2 registers 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7, it should get an error saying that the row is not free. The same thing applies even if S1 had registered a range 1.3.6.1.2.1. To 1.3.6.1.2.2. The master agent will not be aware that a table with OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1 exists within the registered range. Hence it straight away should rehect the registration from S2 for 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7 Regards Gouri -----Original Message----- From: Mark Ellison [SMTP:world.std.com!ellison] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 11:19 PM To: kailash.future.futsoft.com!ravinderv Cc: "'agentx'"; Mark Ellison Subject: Re: Thanks & Confusion ........ Hi, Ravinder In your example, a compliant master agent would allow both the registration from S1 and the registration from S2. Your example shows an overlapping registration. A compliant master agent will dispatch to S1 for all requests that fall under 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 except for the portion registered by S2, namely 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Here, the compliant master agent would dispatch to S2 The Elements of Procedure specifies the master agent reject duplicate registrations and allow overlapping registrations. Possibly sections 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU" and 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", expecially the part about "Honoring the registry" will help here. You're encouraged to keep at this while any confusion remains :-) Regards, Mark ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > Hi, > First of all thanks a lot for prompt reply. I think i am unable to put clearity in my question so the same follows below : > > I have the following doubt in table sharing :: > > Suppose a subagent S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region. Now a subagent S2 tries to register an individual row in the IF table as 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Will the master agent allow this registeration?. > If yes, how the master agent knows previously that, this row was not registered by subagent S1 as while registering S1 need not allocate index for row registration since it has registered full table. > > In the same above scenario Is there need for S1 to allocate index for each row it is supporting ? > > Bye > Ravinder. > > ---------- > From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:31 AM > To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx > Subject: Re: Table Sharing > > Hi - > > > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > > Subject: Table Sharing > > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:16:45 +0530 > .. > > When a Agentx Subagent registers a MIB region containing a sharable table like ifTable , then how the rest of the agentx subagents will get themselves registered for a particular row. As per the RFC rows cannot be shared then how the second or so subagent can register itself for that table. > .. > > See RFC 2257, especially clause 7.1.5.1. Since the registrations for > individual rows will have more sub-identifiers than the registration > for the table as a whole, there is no problem; it's not even necessary > to resort to looking at the priority field to resolve the requests. > > I'm curious as to what you mean by "rows cannot be shared". While this > would certainly be unusual, at a protocol level it is indeed possible > for different subagents to take responsibility for different columns > in the same table, resulting in a situation where different subagents > will end up with resposibility for different objects in the same > conceptual row. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 9 15:14:10 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12469 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA12380; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:06:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id MAA08907 for agentx-list; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id MAA08901 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:01:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908091901.MAA08901@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: Thanks & Confusion ........ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > From: ggs@future.futsoft.com > To: world.std.com!ellison@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM ('Mark Ellison'), > ravinderv.kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM!@kailash.future.futsoft.com ("kailash.future.futsoft.com!ravinderv ") > Cc: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM ("\"'agentx'\"") > Subject: RE: Thanks & Confusion ........ > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:17:33 +0530 > > Hi, > > When S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region, it means is that the table is entirely local to it, and that all the rows (instances) in the table belong to S1. Now if S2 registers 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7, it should get an error saying that the row is not free. This is simply not true. Both RFC 2257 and the current agentx draft clearly allow for this case; supporting such configurations was a design requirement for AgentX. > The same thing applies even if S1 had registered a range 1.3.6.1.2.1. To 1.3.6.1.2.2. The master agent will not be aware that a table with OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1 exists within the registered range. Hence it straight away should rehect the registration from S2 for 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7 ... Again, not true. See the examples on pages 49 and 50 of RFC 2257, which directly contradict this assertion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 9 16:05:05 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12901 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA16148; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:02:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA09310 for agentx-list; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA09305 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA15547 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:00:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:27:51 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id BAA19907 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:32:43 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Mon, 9 Aug 99 20:39 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE2CE.80067600@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:20:15 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE2CE.80067600@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: A Favour Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:20:13 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id NAA09306 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Please clarify the following : 1. Is fully qualified instance registration bit (INSTANCE_REGISTRATION) needed to be set for leaf registration ? Or it should be set only while registering full row in a table. 2. What is partial instance registration ? If S1 (sub-agent) have registered one sub-tree (1.3.6.1.2.1.2) and a registration PDU comes from S2 with oid 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.7 [First column of a row with index 7] , then how to determine that this is part/column of a Row ? Thanks in advance, Ravinder. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 9 17:35:53 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14098 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA20209; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:26:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09870 for agentx-list; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA09865 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA18024 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:22:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:38:39 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id CAA20403 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:40:19 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Mon, 9 Aug 99 21:46 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE2D7.E311E780@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:27:26 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE2D7.E311E780@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn@kailash.future.futsoft.com ('Randy Presuhn') Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: GetNext !!!!! Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:27:25 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id OAA09866 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi - [Ravi] Hello , > > When S1 has registered full Interfaces( 1.3.6.1.2.1.2 ) subtree/region, it means is that the table is entirely local to it, and that all the rows (instances) in the table belong to S1. Now if S2 registers 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7, it should get an error saying that the row is not free. [Randy] This is simply not true. Both RFC 2257 and the current agentx draft clearly allow for this case; supporting such configurations was a design requirement for AgentX. [Ravi] As per RFC and mail clarifications S2's registration is accepted. Now a GetNext query comes getnext(1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1) , how to decide the first lexicographical successor for this OID , as S1 need not register its all the rows(fully Qualified instances) individually. Regards, Ravinder. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 9 17:54:11 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14147 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA29829; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:49:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA10003 for agentx-list; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA09995 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:46:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908092146.OAA09995@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: GetNext !!!!! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - (Ravinder - please check your mail reader's control options for the messages you're sending. It's sending anction UUCP-style addresses, as well as failing to put reasonable line breaks in your text, making the messages painful to read on other systems.) > From ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Mon Aug 9 14:22:46 PDT 1999 > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) > To: dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn@kailash.future.futsoft.com ('Randy Presuhn') > Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Subject: GetNext !!!!! > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 02:27:25 +0530 ... (reformatted for readability) > [Ravi] As per RFC and mail clarifications S2's registration is > accepted. Now a GetNext query comes getnext(1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1) , how > to decide the first lexicographical successor for this OID , as S1 need > not register its all the rows(fully Qualified instances) individually. ... See RFC 2257 clause 7.2.1 (especially point (2)), and the definition of "authoritative region" in clause 7.1.5.1 of the same document. For further clarification, see clauses 7.1.4.1 and 7.2.1. In your specific example, if the probe value falls within the longer subtree, that's the place to start. Otherwise, S1 would be asked first. In either case, it's entirely possible that it may be necessary to ask other subagents before coming up with the final answer. This may result from, among other things, subagents registering regions for instances which do not yet exist, objects with data types not supported by the management protocol in use (e.g. Counter64 in SNMPv1), or access control. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 9 18:06:16 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14289 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA04228; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:03:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA10093 for agentx-list; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id PAA10087 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908092200.PAA10087@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: A Favour Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Subject: A Favour > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 01:20:13 +0530 ... (reformatted for readability): > 1. Is fully qualified instance registration bit > (INSTANCE_REGISTRATION) needed to be set for leaf registration ? Or it > should be set only while registering full row in a table. RFC 2257 clause 6.2.3 ("The agentx-Register-PDU") on page 24 says: | If r.region is in fact a fully qualified instance name, the | INSTANCE_REGISTRATION bit in h.flags must be set, otherwise it | must be cleared. The master agent may save this information to | optimize subsequent operational dispatching. says the same thing on page 23. (reformatted for readability): > 2. What is partial instance registration ? If S1 (sub-agent) > have registered one sub-tree (1.3.6.1.2.1.2) and a registration PDU comes > from S2 with oid 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.7 [First column of a row with index > 7] , then how to determine that this is part/column of a Row ? ... The master agent doesn't need to figure this out. The subagent is responsible for setting/ clearing this bit correctly. If the subagent does not set this bit when it should, the master agent might send more probes during a get-next walk than would otherwise be necessary, since it would not be able to know simply from the other registration information that a subtree had been exhausted and that further probing of that subtree would be unproductive. If the subagent sets this bit when it shouldn't, then the master agent might inappropriately skip over portions of this subtree during a walk. This is described in the third paragraph of "r.subtree" on page 23 of . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 11 20:46:54 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08984 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA26648; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:44:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA03781 for agentx-list; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA03769; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:41:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908120041.RAA03769@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Fwd: unrelated question Cc: Rosenberg@lancast.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - I'm forwarding this non-subscriber post to the agentx working group mailing list. You might consider CC-ing the poster in your response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) > by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA00878 > for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) > by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA02705 > for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:05:45 -0500 (CDT) > Received: by WEIR with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) > id ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:44:00 -0400 > Message-ID: > From: Rochelle Rosenberg > To: agentx@peer.com > Subject: unrelated question > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:44:00 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00" > > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00 > Content-Type: text/plain > > Does anyone know what the new RFC that > contains the mib module definition for > IANAifType-MIB? > This used to be defined in RFC1573 > which is now obsoleted by RFC2233. > > I have the CD from IETF with the latest > mibs and a grep of this did not prove > to be useful. > > thanks for your time > rochelle > > BTW, is there an equivalent SNMP mailing > list that this kind of question could be > posed to? > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00 > Content-Type: text/html > > > > > > > unrelated question > > > >

Does anyone know what the new RFC that >
contains the mib module definition for >
IANAifType-MIB?  >
This used to be defined in RFC1573 >
which is now obsoleted by RFC2233. >

> >

I have the CD from IETF with the latest >
mibs and a grep of this did not prove >
to be useful. >

> >

        thanks for your time >
        rochelle >

> >

BTW, is there an equivalent SNMP mailing >
list that this kind of question could be >
posed to? >

> > > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00-- > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 11 21:12:57 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09159 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 21:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA01290; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:10:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id SAA03940 for agentx-list; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA03934; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA01207; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 20:09:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pet1-104208 ([192.168.104.208] helo=cerent.com) by mailhost with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 11EjNM-0001jE-00; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:09:48 -0700 Message-ID: <37B21F22.70B04998@cerent.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:10:58 -0700 From: Lauren Heintz Organization: Cerent Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn CC: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Rosenberg@lancast.com Subject: Re: Fwd: unrelated question References: <199908120041.RAA03769@dorothy.bmc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got the one I am using from: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/mib/ianaiftype.mib Note that with the MIB compiler I am using, I had to change the following... from: IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI mib-2 FROM RFC1213-MIB TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; to: IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; Otherwise, my MIB compiler complains about duplicate names in the various modules. Regards, Lauren Randy Presuhn wrote: > > Hi - > > I'm forwarding this non-subscriber post to the agentx working group > mailing list. You might consider CC-ing the poster in your response. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ > Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive > Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) > > by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA00878 > > for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT) > > Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) > > by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA02705 > > for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:05:45 -0500 (CDT) > > Received: by WEIR with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) > > id ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:44:00 -0400 > > Message-ID: > > From: Rochelle Rosenberg > > To: agentx@peer.com > > Subject: unrelated question > > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:44:00 -0400 > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00" > > > > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand > > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. > > > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00 > > Content-Type: text/plain > > > > Does anyone know what the new RFC that > > contains the mib module definition for > > IANAifType-MIB? > > This used to be defined in RFC1573 > > which is now obsoleted by RFC2233. > > > > I have the CD from IETF with the latest > > mibs and a grep of this did not prove > > to be useful. > > > > thanks for your time > > rochelle > > > > BTW, is there an equivalent SNMP mailing > > list that this kind of question could be > > posed to? > > > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00 > > Content-Type: text/html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unrelated question > > > > > > > >

Does anyone know what the new RFC that > >
contains the mib module definition for > >
IANAifType-MIB?  > >
This used to be defined in RFC1573 > >
which is now obsoleted by RFC2233. > >

> > > >

I have the CD from IETF with the latest > >
mibs and a grep of this did not prove > >
to be useful. > >

> > > >

        thanks for your time > >
        rochelle > >

> > > >

BTW, is there an equivalent SNMP mailing > >
list that this kind of question could be > >
posed to? > >

> > > > > > > > ------ =_NextPart_001_01BEE418.B69A8C00-- > > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 12 03:39:10 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA27382 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 03:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA04117; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 02:36:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id AAA05746 for agentx-list; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA05741 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou2.bmc.com (fw-us-hou2.bmc.com [172.17.1.236]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA03821 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 02:34:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27725; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:33:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id JAA23086; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:33:17 +0200 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:33:17 +0200 Message-Id: <199908120733.JAA23086@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: lauren.heintz@cerent.com CC: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Rosenberg@lancast.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org In-reply-to: <37B21F22.70B04998@cerent.com> (message from Lauren Heintz on Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:10:58 -0700) Subject: Re: Fwd: unrelated question References: <199908120041.RAA03769@dorothy.bmc.com> <37B21F22.70B04998@cerent.com> Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk >>>>> Lauren Heintz writes: Lauren> I got the one I am using from: Lauren> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/mib/ianaiftype.mib Lauren> Note that with the MIB compiler I am using, I had to change Lauren> the following... IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI mib-2 FROM RFC1213-MIB TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; Lauren> to: IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; Lauren> Otherwise, my MIB compiler complains about duplicate names in Lauren> the various modules. Two comments: 1) I agree that the imports for IANAifType-MIB should be fixed. Bert Wijnen knows about this issue but it seems that it is in general really hard to get IANA MIBs updated correctly. (The IANA DISMAN language MIB simply disappeared when the ID was published as an RFC and all attempts to get it out of nowhere were not successful so far. Looks like the IETF has a serious problem with IANA right now.) 2) Your compiler should not complain about duplicate names in this case. I think it is legal to define a descriptor in two different modules with the same value. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity in the IANAifType-MIB module since mib-2 is only imported from RFC1213-MIB. Since we are talking about the IANAifType-MIB: A recent addition to IANAifType is `if-gsn (145)' which contains a hyphen where it should not. [I CC'ed this to mibs@ops.ietf.org since this topic does not really belong to the agentx WG. Please send any further responses/comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org.] Juergen -- Juergen Schoenwaelder schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany. (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289) From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 12 10:28:30 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12546 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA23996; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:25:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id HAA07861 for agentx-list; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA07856 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou2.bmc.com (fw-us-hou2.bmc.com [172.17.1.236]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA23748 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:22:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from northrelay03.pok.ibm.com (northrelay03.pok.ibm.com [9.117.200.23]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA215796; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:21:06 -0400 Received: from BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (bldvma.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.64.30]) by northrelay03.pok.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.04) with SMTP id KAA34068; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:21:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199908121421.KAA34068@northrelay03.pok.ibm.com> Received: by BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP Level 310) via spool with SMTP id 9754 ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:20:17 MDT Date: Thu, 12 Aug 99 16:18:54 DST From: "Bert Wijnen" To: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: Fwd: unrelated question Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Ref: Your note of Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:33:17 +0200 Subject: Re: Fwd: unrelated question Juergen wrote: >... > 1) I agree that the imports for IANAifType-MIB should be fixed. Bert > Wijnen knows about this issue but it seems that it is in general > really hard to get IANA MIBs updated correctly. (The IANA DISMAN > language MIB simply disappeared when the ID was published as an RFC > and all attempts to get it out of nowhere were not successful so > far. Looks like the IETF has a serious problem with IANA right > now.) > I am working on this with IANA people. That things are slow is all to blame on me. I will also pick up the change for that IMPORTs from SNMPv2-SMI instead of RFC1213. Bert From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 12 10:36:23 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13161 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA25607; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:33:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id HAA07907 for agentx-list; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA07902 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:31:23 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou2.bmc.com (fw-us-hou2.bmc.com [172.17.1.236]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA24496 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:31:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:58:01 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id UAA31952 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:03:59 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Thu, 12 Aug 99 15:09 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE4FB.DF019660@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:50:04 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE4FB.DF019660@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: Sub-Agent Status .... Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:50:02 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi , Is there any way to check out from SNMP manager whether associated sub-agent is up/down. Like for checking the status of Master, sub-agent sends Ping PDU , how to achieve the reverse ? As in Agentx MIB also there is support for information which will be replied by Master itself mean to say that if i query for any OID related to Agentx MIB, master from its database will reply to it without consulting the sub-agent. So i am not left with any OID that can get me status of Sub-agent. Thanks, Ravinder. PS: I have added line break in mail message , if still readability problem is there , let me know. Also there is some problem with POP3 mail server so i can not do anything for mail address UUCP style display. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 12 13:56:20 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19291 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA16843; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:53:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA09275 for agentx-list; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA09270 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou2.bmc.com (fw-us-hou2.bmc.com [172.17.1.236]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA16376 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:51:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: (kzm@localhost) by foxhound.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) id KAA00335; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:49:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Keith McCloghrie Message-Id: <199908121749.KAA00335@foxhound.cisco.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: unrelated question To: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (Juergen Schoenwaelder) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lauren.heintz@cerent.com, agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Rosenberg@lancast.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <199908120733.JAA23086@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> from "Juergen Schoenwaelder" at Aug 12, 99 09:33:17 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lauren> I got the one I am using from: > > Lauren> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/mib/ianaiftype.mib > > Lauren> Note that with the MIB compiler I am using, I had to change > Lauren> the following... > > IMPORTS > MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI > mib-2 FROM RFC1213-MIB > TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; > > Lauren> to: > > IMPORTS > MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI > mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI > TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; > > Lauren> Otherwise, my MIB compiler complains about duplicate names in > Lauren> the various modules. I don't understand "duplicate names" unless your MIB compiler is (incorrectly) importing everything defined in the specified MIB modules, instead of importing only the specified descriptors/identifiers. Keith. > Two comments: > > 1) I agree that the imports for IANAifType-MIB should be fixed. Bert > Wijnen knows about this issue but it seems that it is in general > really hard to get IANA MIBs updated correctly. (The IANA DISMAN > language MIB simply disappeared when the ID was published as an RFC > and all attempts to get it out of nowhere were not successful so > far. Looks like the IETF has a serious problem with IANA right > now.) > > 2) Your compiler should not complain about duplicate names in this > case. I think it is legal to define a descriptor in two different > modules with the same value. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity in > the IANAifType-MIB module since mib-2 is only imported from > RFC1213-MIB. > > Since we are talking about the IANAifType-MIB: A recent addition to > IANAifType is `if-gsn (145)' which contains a hyphen where it should > not. > > [I CC'ed this to mibs@ops.ietf.org since this topic does not really > belong to the agentx WG. Please send any further responses/comments > to mibs@ops.ietf.org.] > Juergen > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw > Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks > Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany. (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289) > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 12 15:36:58 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21247 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA11427; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:33:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id MAA09836 for agentx-list; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA09831 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou2.bmc.com (fw-us-hou2.bmc.com [172.17.1.236]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA09403 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:30:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from iota.zk3.dec.com (iota.zk3.dec.com [16.140.32.65]) by mail13.digital.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/WV2.0g) with ESMTP id PAA05223; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zk3.dec.com by iota.zk3.dec.com (8.7.6/UNX 1.7/1.1.20.3/24Apr98-0811AM) id PAA0000009573; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B31F3E.65339621@zk3.dec.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:23:43 -0400 From: Mike Daniele Organization: Compaq 64-bit UNIX networking X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 X5.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com CC: "'agentx'" Subject: Re: Sub-Agent Status .... References: <01BEE4FB.DF019660@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > Hi , > Is there any way to check out from SNMP manager > whether associated sub-agent is up/down. Like for > checking the status of Master, sub-agent sends Ping > PDU , how to achieve the reverse ? As in Agentx MIB > also there is support for information which will be replied > by Master itself mean to say that if i query for any OID > related to Agentx MIB, master from its database will reply > to it without consulting the sub-agent. So i am not left with > any OID that can get me status of Sub-agent. A subagent, its sessions, and its registrations are represented in various rows of the various tables in the AgentX MIB. This tells you the status (from the standpoint of the master agent) of all subagents, as well as the state of their configurations. If a connection exists, the subagent has connected. If sessions exists for that connection, the subagent has sent the AgentX Open pdu. If registrations exist, ... The master agent should update its mib data when subagents unregister, close sessions, disconnect, etc. Hope this helps, Mike > > Thanks, > Ravinder. > > PS: I have added line break in mail message , if still > readability problem is there , let me know. Also there is > some problem with POP3 mail server so i can not do > anything for mail address UUCP style display. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 13 10:49:08 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02235 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA07619; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:46:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id HAA16641 for agentx-list; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA16636 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA06668 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:42:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from COCOWHEAT-13.SLIP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU (COCOWHEAT-13.SLIP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.120.104]) by smtp1.andrew.cmu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13453 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:39:30 -0400 From: Matt White To: "'agentx'" Subject: Re: Sub-Agent Status .... Message-ID: <2532867168.934540770@COCOWHEAT-13.SLIP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU> In-Reply-To: <37B31F3E.65339621@zk3.dec.com> Originator-Info: login-id=mwhite; server=cyrus.andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry (Win32) [1.4.2.1, s/n S-100002] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think the question was: How do you tell if a particular subagent is responsive? Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a generic way of doing this besides having the master make a query against a registered OID. Not too pretty though I am not sure just how big a problem this is in real life. -Matt --On Thursday, August 12, 1999, 3:23 PM -0400 Mike Daniele wrote: > ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > >> Hi , >> Is there any way to check out from SNMP manager >> whether associated sub-agent is up/down. Like for >> checking the status of Master, sub-agent sends Ping >> PDU , how to achieve the reverse ? As in Agentx MIB >> also there is support for information which will be replied >> by Master itself mean to say that if i query for any OID >> related to Agentx MIB, master from its database will reply >> to it without consulting the sub-agent. So i am not left with >> any OID that can get me status of Sub-agent. > > A subagent, its sessions, and its registrations are represented in various > rows of the various tables in the AgentX MIB. This tells you the status > (from the standpoint of the master agent) of all subagents, as well as > the state of their configurations. > > If a connection exists, the subagent has connected. > > If sessions exists for that connection, the subagent has sent the AgentX > Open pdu. > > If registrations exist, ... > > The master agent should update its mib data when subagents > unregister, close sessions, disconnect, etc. > > Hope this helps, > Mike > >> >> Thanks, >> Ravinder. >> >> PS: I have added line break in mail message , if still >> readability problem is there , let me know. Also there is >> some problem with POP3 mail server so i can not do >> anything for mail address UUCP style display. > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 13 13:54:37 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06815 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA16930; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:49:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA17987 for agentx-list; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA17977 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:46:21 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA16380 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:46:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:13:41 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id XAA10621 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:16:50 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Fri, 13 Aug 99 18:24 EDT Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:24:58 -0400 (EDT) >From: kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: cmu.edu!mwhite@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (Matt White) Cc: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx@kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM ('agentx') Subject: Re: Sub-Agent Status .... In-Reply-To: <2532867168.934540770@COCOWHEAT-13.SLIP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU> Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Hi, Ya my question was absolutely the one mentioned by Matt. But as per Matt response i think i should stop considering in this direction :-). Mike replied my question to some extent but problem may occur if interaction between Master and Sub-agent is not through TCP but through IPC say message Queues , i prefer IPC when Master and sub-agent both are on same board/Processor. Thanks & Regards, Ravinder. On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Matt White wrote: > I think the question was: How do you tell if a particular subagent is > responsive? > > Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a generic way of doing this > besides having the master make a query against a registered OID. Not too > pretty though I am not sure just how big a problem this is in real life. > > > -Matt > > > --On Thursday, August 12, 1999, 3:23 PM -0400 Mike Daniele > wrote: > > > ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > > > >> Hi , > >> Is there any way to check out from SNMP manager > >> whether associated sub-agent is up/down. Like for > >> checking the status of Master, sub-agent sends Ping > >> PDU , how to achieve the reverse ? As in Agentx MIB > >> also there is support for information which will be replied > >> by Master itself mean to say that if i query for any OID > >> related to Agentx MIB, master from its database will reply > >> to it without consulting the sub-agent. So i am not left with > >> any OID that can get me status of Sub-agent. > > > > A subagent, its sessions, and its registrations are represented in various > > rows of the various tables in the AgentX MIB. This tells you the status > > (from the standpoint of the master agent) of all subagents, as well as > > the state of their configurations. > > > > If a connection exists, the subagent has connected. > > > > If sessions exists for that connection, the subagent has sent the AgentX > > Open pdu. > > > > If registrations exist, ... > > > > The master agent should update its mib data when subagents > > unregister, close sessions, disconnect, etc. > > > > Hope this helps, > > Mike > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ravinder. > >> > >> PS: I have added line break in mail message , if still > >> readability problem is there , let me know. Also there is > >> some problem with POP3 mail server so i can not do > >> anything for mail address UUCP style display. > > > > > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 13 16:14:41 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09808 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA15015; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:08:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA19074 for agentx-list; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA19069 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA14485 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:05:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from iota.zk3.dec.com (iota.zk3.dec.com [16.140.32.65]) by mail13.digital.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/WV2.0g) with ESMTP id QAA31185; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zk3.dec.com by iota.zk3.dec.com (8.7.6/UNX 1.7/1.1.20.3/24Apr98-0811AM) id QAA0000022576; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B47902.1E47EF82@zk3.dec.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:58:58 -0400 From: Mike Daniele Organization: Compaq 64-bit UNIX networking X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 X5.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Ellison CC: agentx-email Subject: Re: --- AgentX "WG Last Call" -- summary of issues --- References: <378FA4DB.D3B2D378@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Ellison wrote: > Hello folks- > > This email enumerates what I think the current issues are for the two AgentX WG > I-Ds that are currently in last call. It appears that there are only three open > issues, so I'll list those first. Comments and discussion (and resolution :-) > are encouraged. > > Once we've converged on resolutions, I can edit these documents. > > Regards, > > Mark > AgentX WG Editor > > ------------------ > > 1. (MIB) agentxSessionAdminStatus > > - leave as is, or > > - introduce a RowStatus and limit (in description) > the possible state transitions (active->destroy)? > I'm neutral on this one. > > 2. (MIB) xxxTimeOut objects > > - what should we use for MAX-ACCESS? read-only. > > - do we want a MIN-ACCESS in the compliance section? no. > > - (RFC) probably want to loosen text related to sub-agent timeout > values in registrations- they are "suggestions"? i think this makes sense. specifically, i am suggesting this: In section 7.2.1 modify clause 4) (c) to be c) otherwise (or if the specified value is not practical), the master agent's implementaton-specific default value > > - Do we need another MIB object (agentxMaxTimeout ?), or, is a change > in the RFC sufficient without another MIB object? > I don't think we need this new MIB object. > > 3. add a range to the Unsigned32 indices so that a value of zero is > excluded as a valid value. We do not want an index to be zero. > > - I think we've already run through this at the bake-off, and it seems > that zero(0) is OK as a sessionID. Since sessionID is used as an > Index, I don't think we want limit the index values further. > I agree (that we do not want to exclude 0 as a valid value). > > ---- the rest of these are editorial things I've accounted for ---------- > ---- but am listing here as a sanity check ------------------------------ ... Thanks, Mike From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 16 12:31:46 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27795 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA22413; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:28:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id JAA10366 for agentx-list; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id JAA10360 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:25:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908161625.JAA10360@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Sub-Agent Status .... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - fwd fyi. the spam filters (inappropriately) blocked this post. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) > by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA07252 > for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 01:30:05 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) > by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id DAA03598 > for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 03:30:03 -0500 (CDT) > Received: from ribble.server.csc.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.124.242]) > by mailhub2.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) > id 11GI9P-0005ab-00; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:29:51 +0100 > Received: from daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (root@daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk [138.253.125.132]) > by ribble.server.csc.liv.ac.uk (8.8.8/LUCS-DTS-3.0M10) with ESMTP id JAA02559; > Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:29:50 +0100 (BST) > Received: from daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (daves@localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk (8.8.7/LUCS-DTS-3.0D9) with ESMTP id JAA05052; > Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:30:03 +0100 > Message-Id: <199908160830.JAA05052@daves.staff.csc.liv.ac.uk> > X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 > To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com > Subject: Re: Sub-Agent Status .... > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:24:58 EDT." > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:30:03 +0100 > From: Dave Shield > > > problem may occur if > > interaction between Master and Sub-agent is not through > > TCP but through IPC say message Queues , i prefer IPC > > when Master and sub-agent both are on same board/Processor. > > In terms of AgentX, that sounds like a "transport mapping" issue to me. > > The protocol draft just specifies mappings for TCP connections > and Unix domain sockets, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't > use other forms of IPC to pass AgentX PDUs back and forth. And the > MIB seems to bear this out, since the Connection Table column > 'TransportType' includes a choice of 'sharedMem(4)' as well as the > catch-all 'other(5)'. > > So you can still tell whether there's a connection established > in the eyes of the master, regardless of the transport used. > The question of whether the subagent is actually responsive is also > independent of the transport used - you still need to suck it and see. > > Or at least, that's how I read things. > > Dave > > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 17 17:50:03 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06682 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA09442; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:44:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id OAA04581 for agentx-list; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA04576 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:39:57 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA08626 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:39:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:07:19 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id DAA14397 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 03:12:04 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Tue, 17 Aug 99 22:19 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE925.8C444A20@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:58:28 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE925.8C444A20@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Cc: zk3.dec.com!daniele@kailash.future.futsoft.com ('mike') Subject: Timeout ..... Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:58:27 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id OAA04577 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I am finding following issues while implementing Agentx , may be implementation specific but still to be on safe side i want a bit clarification : 1. My subagent has sent any pkt (open/index allot/Reg ) now problem is how long the sub-agent should wait for response from Master assuming there is no pkt loss as connection oriented but still Master may be overloaded and may take time in responding , this blocks my sub-agent con-current PDU processing if it waits for particular PDU's reponse sent by it to Master. If answer to this is you should have timer for getting response, then managing timer will be a overhead for every PDU sent. 2. The sub-agent has allocated index before registering and is mentioned in RFC if response for this Registration is "duplicateRegistration" then deallocate the index. In this scenario index-deallocation is clear , but say i have sent an unregister PDU for a fully qualified row in a table , now shall the sub-agent should send corresponding index-deallocation PDU to free the index for that row or Master will take care of it. If Master then RFC also says that while allocating index master need not aware of type of index , so master is finding it difficult to free by seeing just the OID. Thanks & Regards, Ravinder. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 17 19:35:56 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08295 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA27640; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:31:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA05482 for agentx-list; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA05476 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:31:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <199908172331.QAA05476@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Timeout ..... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - (I re-formatted the original message for readability) > From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com > From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') > Cc: zk3.dec.com!daniele@kailash.future.futsoft.com ('mike') > Subject: Timeout ..... > Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:58:27 +0530 > > Hi, > > I am finding following issues while implementing Agentx , may > be implementation specific but still to be on safe side i want > a bit clarification : > > 1. My subagent has sent any pkt (open/index allot/Reg ) now problem is > how long the sub-agent should wait for response from Master assuming > there is no pkt loss as connection oriented but still Master may be > overloaded and may take time in responding , this blocks my sub-agent > con-current PDU processing if it waits for particular PDU's reponse sent > by it to Master. If answer to this is you should have timer for getting > response, then managing timer will be a overhead for every PDU sent. Blocking while expecting a response is rarely a good idea. Consider the case where the master agent dispatches a get request after your subagent sends its request. Will it know what to do? > 2. The sub-agent has allocated index before registering and is mentioned > in RFC if response for this Registration is "duplicateRegistration" then > deallocate the index. In this scenario index-deallocation is clear , but > say i have sent an unregister PDU for a fully qualified row in a table > , now shall the sub-agent should send corresponding index-deallocation > PDU to free the index for that row or Master will take care of it. If > Master then RFC also says that while allocating index master need not > aware of type of index , so master is finding it difficult to free by > seeing just the OID. ... Index allocation and registration should be completely decoupled in a master agent. Registration requests should have no effect on index alllocation, and vice versa. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com http://www.bmc.com/ Voice: +1 408 616-3100 BMC Software, Inc. 965 Stewart Drive Fax: +1 408 616-3101 Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 18 02:21:04 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA26491 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA08051; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:18:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id XAA08628 for agentx-list; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA08621 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:15:55 -0700 (PDT) From: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA07818 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 01:15:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified [203.197.140.36]) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Integralis SMTPRS 2.04) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:42:41 +0530 Received: from kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM (kamban.fsoftmadras.ndf.com [192.168.254.10]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA20145 for <@kailash:agentx@dorothy.bmc.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:47:39 +0530 Received: from future.futsoft.com by kamban.FsoftMadras.NDF.COM; Wed, 18 Aug 99 06:54 EDT Received: by srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM with Microsoft Mail id <01BEE96D.8B7BB540@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM>; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:33:51 +0530 Message-Id: <01BEE96D.8B7BB540@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> >From: future.futsoft.com!ravinderv (Ravinder Verma) To: dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn@kailash.future.futsoft.com ('Randy Presuhn') Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com ('agentx') Subject: RE: Timeout ..... Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:33:49 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, My response to Randy's reply is inlined ... ---------- From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:01 AM To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx Subject: Re: Timeout ..... > 1. My subagent has sent any pkt (open/index allot/Reg ) now problem is > how long the sub-agent should wait for response from Master assuming > there is no pkt loss as connection oriented but still Master may be > overloaded and may take time in responding , this blocks my sub-agent > con-current PDU processing if it waits for particular PDU's reponse sent > by it to Master. If answer to this is you should have timer for getting > response, then managing timer will be a overhead for every PDU sent. [Randy] Blocking while expecting a response is rarely a good idea. Consider the case where the master agent dispatches a get request after your subagent sends its request. Will it know what to do? [Ravi] In the scenario of Master agent i have no problem as anyhow i have to start timer for it to wait for o.timeout [time event]sent by sub-agent during session establishment. So here Master agent is associated with time event for every pkt it is dispatching to sub-agent. But here what i mean is the sub-agent has sent say a open PDU now how long the sub-agent should wait [ for event say master_response to this open, it is not blocking rather waiting for just an event of many ] ? > 2. The sub-agent has allocated index before registering and is mentioned > in RFC if response for this Registration is "duplicateRegistration" then > deallocate the index. In this scenario index-deallocation is clear , but > say i have sent an unregister PDU for a fully qualified row in a table > , now shall the sub-agent should send corresponding index-deallocation > PDU to free the index for that row or Master will take care of it. If > Master then RFC also says that while allocating index master need not > aware of type of index , so master is finding it difficult to free by > seeing just the OID. .. [Randy] Index allocation and registration should be completely decoupled in a master agent. Registration requests should have no effect on index alllocation, and vice versa. [Ravi] Index allocation is clear , let me put my question this way : If i have sent an unregister PDU for a full row in a sharable table , is there need for that index occupied by this row to be de-allocated , if not the Master database will grow rapidly as it is maintaining what all the indexes it has allocated ? If yes then who will de-allocate master itself or sub-agent has to send seperate index Deallocate-PDU. Regards, Ravi. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 18 09:18:56 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA06532 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA22785; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:15:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id GAA10852 for agentx-list; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA10847 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 06:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA22333 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:12:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from iota.zk3.dec.com (iota.zk3.dec.com [16.140.32.65]) by mail13.digital.com (8.9.2/8.9.2/WV2.0g) with ESMTP id JAA15287; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zk3.dec.com by iota.zk3.dec.com (8.7.6/UNX 1.7/1.1.20.3/24Apr98-0811AM) id JAA0000020132; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37BAAF94.EF698D32@zk3.dec.com> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:05:24 -0400 From: Mike Daniele Organization: Compaq 64-bit UNIX networking X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; OSF1 X5.0 alpha) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ravinderv@future.futsoft.com CC: "'Randy Presuhn'" , "'agentx'" Subject: Re: Timeout ..... References: <01BEE96D.8B7BB540@srinagar.FsoftMadras.ADF.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ravinderv@future.futsoft.com wrote: > Hi, > My response to Randy's reply is inlined ... > ---------- > From: Randy Presuhn[SMTP:dorothy.bmc.com!rpresuhn] > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:01 AM > To: dorothy.bmc.com!agentx > Subject: Re: Timeout ..... > > > 1. My subagent has sent any pkt (open/index allot/Reg ) now problem is > > how long the sub-agent should wait for response from Master assuming > > there is no pkt loss as connection oriented but still Master may be > > overloaded and may take time in responding , this blocks my sub-agent > > con-current PDU processing if it waits for particular PDU's reponse sent > > by it to Master. If answer to this is you should have timer for getting > > response, then managing timer will be a overhead for every PDU sent. > > [Randy] Blocking while expecting a response is rarely a good idea. > Consider the case where the master agent dispatches a get > request after your subagent sends its request. Will it > know what to do? > [Ravi] In the scenario of Master agent i have no problem as anyhow i have to > start timer for it to wait for o.timeout [time event]sent by sub-agent > during session establishment. > So here Master agent is associated with time event for > every pkt it is dispatching to sub-agent. But here what i mean is > the sub-agent has sent say a open PDU now how long the sub-agent > should wait [ for event say master_response to this open, it is not blocking > rather waiting for just an event of many ] ? I think the answer is to a large extent based on what API or framework your AgentX code runs in. As you say, it's implementation-specific. [Ours is a library of services that keeps internal state based on the master agent's responses, so in effect waits forever.] > > > > 2. The sub-agent has allocated index before registering and is mentioned > > in RFC if response for this Registration is "duplicateRegistration" then > > deallocate the index. In this scenario index-deallocation is clear , but > > say i have sent an unregister PDU for a fully qualified row in a table > > , now shall the sub-agent should send corresponding index-deallocation > > PDU to free the index for that row or Master will take care of it.If > > Master then RFC also says that while allocating index master need not > > aware of type of index , so master is finding it difficult to free by > > seeing just the OID. > .. > > [Randy] Index allocation and registration should be completely decoupled > in a master agent. Registration requests should have no effect > on index alllocation, and vice versa. > [Ravi] Index allocation is clear , let me put my question this way : > If i have sent an unregister PDU for a full row in a sharable > table , is there need for that index occupied by this row to > be de-allocated , if not the Master database will grow rapidly > as it is maintaining what all the indexes it has allocated ? > If yes then who will de-allocate master itself or sub-agent has > to send seperate index Deallocate-PDU. the subagent should send a separate deallocate pdu. mike > > > Regards, > Ravi. From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 19 12:25:38 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09881 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA20150; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:21:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id JAA28003 for agentx-list; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA27997; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA19258; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:18:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [38.249.211.2] (helo=relay1.acecomm.com) by relay10.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) id 11HUtJ-0003Mh-00; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:18:13 -0400 Received: from natale by relay1.acecomm.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18902; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:27:38 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990819114807.009a4100@nips.acec.com> X-Sender: natale@nips.acec.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:16:27 -0400 To: Mark Ellison From: Bob Natale Subject: AgentX drafts for AD/IESG review Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Hi Mark, The Working Group last call period has concluded for the current documents: www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-03.txt www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-00.txt Can you please do the final edits to the drafts (based upon feedback received on the list and my note below), post them to the list, and submit them to the I-D editor. I will then formally ask Bert to undertake the AD review process, hopefully leading to IESG Last Call for the RFC 2257 update to recycle at Proposed and for the MIB to be issued as a Proposed Standard. I believe that Mike's recent feedback (posted to the list) on your small open issues list resolved everything except for the question of what to do about the agentxSessionAdminStatus object in the MIB...which he left open wrt its current semantics vs changing its SYNTAX to RowStatus (with subsetting of RowStatus semantics in the DESCRIPTION). After reviewing this issue and considering the feedback on the list, my decision is to leave the object as it is currently defined, with the DESCRIPTION and MODULE_COMPLIANCE text enriched as per the following exchange between Mike and Bert last month: >Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:40:39 -0400 >>So... I would say RowStatus is probably best. >>But in nay event, you should explain that 'up' cannot be SET. >>And in the Compliance you should specify that too as a >>WRITE-SYNTAX and then only list the 'down' value. > >RowStatus seems inappropriate to me for rows that can only be >de-activated (as opposed to created and/or activated) by a >SetRequest. > >I agree the description should state the only possible value >to Set is 'down'. > >Mike Other than that, please call directly on Lauren and/or Mike for rapid resolution if any minor editorial items remain (which do not warrant re-opening WG last call review) with the MIB or the protocol document respectively. Please plan to complete this task on or before Wed, 8/25/99. If you cannot make that time frame, please let me (and Bert) know when you will be able to do so. Thanks. Cordially, BobN ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 23 20:03:01 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01395 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 20:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA00353; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:56:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id QAA13870 for agentx-list; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA13850 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA29596 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:51:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from world.std.com (pm2b-52.dialup.jlc.net [199.201.159.52]) by verdi.jlc.net (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA01207; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37C1DE39.4F9CAC3D@world.std.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:50:17 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Natale CC: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, Mark Ellison Subject: Re: AgentX drafts for AD/IESG review References: <4.2.0.58.19990819114807.009a4100@nips.acec.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've attached three text files to this email as follows: (1) the change log (filename = review10) (2) draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt (filename = agentx.txt) (3) draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt (filename = agentx_mib.txt) Hopefully, you find everything in order, per the AgentX WG last call. Respectfully, Mark Bob Natale wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The Working Group last call period has concluded for the > current documents: > > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-03.txt > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-00.txt > > Can you please do the final edits to the drafts (based > upon feedback received on the list and my note below), > post them to the list, and submit them to the I-D editor. > I will then formally ask Bert to undertake the AD > review process, hopefully leading to IESG Last Call > for the RFC 2257 update to recycle at Proposed and > for the MIB to be issued as a Proposed Standard. > > I believe that Mike's recent feedback (posted to the > list) on your small open issues list resolved everything > except for the question of what to do about the > agentxSessionAdminStatus object in the MIB...which he > left open wrt its current semantics vs changing its > SYNTAX to RowStatus (with subsetting of RowStatus > semantics in the DESCRIPTION). > > After reviewing this issue and considering the feedback > on the list, my decision is to leave the object as it is > currently defined, with the DESCRIPTION and MODULE_COMPLIANCE > text enriched as per the following exchange between Mike > and Bert last month: > > >Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:40:39 -0400 > >>So... I would say RowStatus is probably best. > >>But in nay event, you should explain that 'up' cannot be SET. > >>And in the Compliance you should specify that too as a > >>WRITE-SYNTAX and then only list the 'down' value. > > > >RowStatus seems inappropriate to me for rows that can only be > >de-activated (as opposed to created and/or activated) by a > >SetRequest. > > > >I agree the description should state the only possible value > >to Set is 'down'. > > > >Mike > > Other than that, please call directly on Lauren and/or Mike > for rapid resolution if any minor editorial items remain > (which do not warrant re-opening WG last call review) with > the MIB or the protocol document respectively. > > Please plan to complete this task on or before Wed, 8/25/99. > If you cannot make that time frame, please let me (and Bert) > know when you will be able to do so. Thanks. > > Cordially, > > BobN > ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- > Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] > Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] > bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com > ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- --------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="review10" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="review10" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Based upon the last call comments received, I've updated both the AgentX protocol specification and the AgentX MIB. Of the open issues, which appear on the WG home page, at http://www.scguild.com/agentx the following has occured: 1. (MIB) agentxSessionAdminStatus - leave as is, or - introduce a RowStatus and limit (in description) the possible state transitions (active->destroy)? ** this object has been left as is. Reason: same results are acheivable by setting object to "down" as is changing the object to a RowStatus TC; and less change impact 2. (MIB) xxxTimeOut objects - what should we use for MAX-ACCESS? ** the agentxDefaultTimeout object changed from read-write to read-only. Also, the DESCRIPTION clause for this object has been changed to reflect the changes to section 7.1.2 (4)(c) of the AgentX protocol specification. (see the changes section, below) - do we want a MIN-ACCESS in the compliance section? ** no - (RFC) probably want to loosen text related to sub-agent timeout values in registrations- they are "suggestions"? ** yes - see changes section, below. - Do we need another MIB object (agentxMaxTimeout ?), or, is a change in the RFC sufficient without another MIB object? ** no 3. add a range to the Unsigned32 indices so that a value of zero is excluded as a valid value. We do not want an index to be zero. - I think we've already run through this at the bake-off, and it seems that zero(0) is OK as a sessionID. Since sessionID is used as an Index, I don't think we want limit the index values further. ** no change Changes to the AgentX protocol specification -------------------------------------------- - bumped revision from "00" to "01". - changed date of publication to "23 August 1999" - changed expiration date to "February 2000" - restored D. Francisco to front page, as editor of previous version - removed D. Francisco from section 10. - restored D. Francisco to section 11. - added honorable mention of R. Presuhn in section 10. - corrected contact information for B. Wijnen in section 11. - corrected company affiliation for M. Daniele on front page and in section 11. - modified section 7.2.1 (4)(c) to the following: c) otherwise, or, if the specified value is not practical, the master agent's implementaton-specific default value - modified Appendix A. relative to changes in 7.2.1. (4)(c) Changes to the AgentX MIB ------------------------- - bumped the I-D version from "03" to "04" - removed the word "experimental" from the Abstract - replaced "SNMPv2 SMI" with "SMIv2" in the Abstract - replaced "SNMPv1 SMI" with "SMIv1" in the Abstract - set the expiration information to "February 2000" - modified "goals" in the Introduction (section 2) as follows: The goals of the AgentX MIB are: - List the set of subagent connections that currently have logical sessions open with the master agent. - Identify each subagent connection transport address and type. - Identify each subagent session vendor, AgentX protocol version, and other characteristics. - Identify the set of MIB objects each session implements, the context in which the objects are registered, and the priority of the registration. - Determine protocol operational parameters such as the timeout interval for responses from a session and the priority at which a session registers a particular MIB region. - Allow (but do not require) managers to explicitly close subagent sessions with the master agent. --- MIB Stuff ---vvvv - modified LAST-UPDATED to "9908230000Z" -- Midnight 23 August 1999 - modified CONTACT-INFO to reflect mailing list move from "peer.com" to "dorothy.bmc.com" - modified CONTACT-INFO by adding email archive and FTP repository information - added a REVISION clause - "Initial version of the AGENTX-MIB" - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxMasterAgentXVer object to the following: "The AgentX protocol version supported by this master agent. The current protocol version is 1. Note that the master agent must also allow interaction with earlier version subagents. " - changed the agentxDefaultTimeout object from a MAX-ACCESS of "read-write" to a MAX-ACCESS of "read-only" (companion changes in the AgentX protocol specification apply here, allowing implementation-specific overide of impractical timeout values by the master agent). - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxDefaultTimeout object to the following: "The default length of time, in seconds, that the master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message to a session before it regards the subagent as not responding. This is a system-wide value that may override the timeout value associated with a particular session (agentxSessionTimeout) or a particular registered MIB region (agentxRegTimeout). If the associated value of agentxSessionTimeout and agentxRegTimeout are zero, or impractical in accordance with implementation-specific procedure of the master agent, the value represented by this object will be the effective timeout value for the master agent to await a response to a dispatch from a given subagent. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxSessionTimeout object to the following: "The length of time, in seconds, that a master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message to this session before it regards the subagent as not responding. This value is taken from the o.timeout field of the agentx-Open-PDU. This is a session-specific value that may be overridden by values associated with the specific registered MIB regions (see agentxRegTimeout). A value of zero(0) indicates that the master agent's default timeout value should be used (see agentxDefaultTimeout). " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxRegTimeout object to the following: "The timeout value, in seconds, for responses to requests associated with this registered MIB region. A value of zero(0) indicates the default value (indicated by by agentxSessionTimeout or agentxDefaultTimeout) is to be used. This value is taken from the r.timeout field of the agentx-Register-PDU. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxSessionAdminStatus object to the following: "The administrative (desired) status of the session. Setting the value to 'down(2)' closes the subagent session (with c.reason set to 'reasonByManager'). " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxSessionEntry object to the following: "Information about a single open session between the AgentX master agent and a subagent is contained in this entry. An entry is created when a new session is successfully established and is destroyed either when the subagent transport connection has terminated or when the subagent session is closed. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxSessionAgentXVer object to the following: "The version of the AgentX protocol supported by the session. This must be less than or equal to the value of agentxMasterAgentXVer. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxRegistrationEntry object to the following: "Contains information for a single registered region. An entry is created when a session successfully registers a region and is destroyed for any of three reasons: this region is unregistered by the subagent, the session is closed, or the subagent connection is closed. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxRegContext object to the following: "The context in which the session supports the objects in this region. A zero-length context indicates the default context. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxRegStart object to the following: "The starting OBJECT IDENTIFIER of this registration entry. The session identified by agentxSessionIndex implements objects starting at this value (inclusive). Note that this value could identify an object type, an object instance, or a partial object instance. " - changed the DESCRIPTION clause of the agentxRegPriority object to the following: "The registration priority. Lower values have higher priority. This value is taken from r.priority in the register PDU. Sessions should use the value of 127 for r.priority if a default value is desired. " - changed reference in DESCRIPTION of agentxSessionDescr object from MIB-2 to RFC 1907. - removed Compliance reference to agentxDefaultTimeout --------------^^^^^ - remove "and/or read-create" from section 7 boiler-plate text. - added reference [19] RFC 1907 - checked compilation --------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="agentx.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="agentx.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit INTERNET-DRAFT M. Daniele Compaq Computer Corporation B. Wijnen T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp. M. Ellison, Ed. Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. D. Francisco. Ed. Cisco Systems, Inc. 23 August 1999 Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo defines a standardized framework for extensible SNMP agents. It defines processing entities called master agents and subagents, a protocol (AgentX) used to communicate between them, and the elements of procedure by which the extensible agent processes SNMP protocol messages. This memo obsoletes RFC 2257. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 1] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Table of Contents 1. Introduction.....................................................4 2. The SNMP Management Framework....................................4 2.1. A Note on Terminology........................................5 3. Extending the MIB................................................5 3.1. Motivation for AgentX........................................6 4. AgentX Framework.................................................6 4.1. AgentX Roles.................................................7 4.2. Applicability................................................8 4.3. Design Features of AgentX....................................9 4.4. Non-Goals...................................................10 5. AgentX Encodings................................................10 5.1. Object Identifier...........................................11 5.2. SearchRange.................................................12 5.3. Octet String................................................13 5.4. Value Representation........................................14 6. Protocol Definitions............................................16 6.1. AgentX PDU Header...........................................16 6.1.1. Context.................................................18 6.2. AgentX PDUs.................................................19 6.2.1. The agentx-Open-PDU.....................................19 6.2.2. The agentx-Close-PDU....................................20 6.2.3. The agentx-Register-PDU.................................21 6.2.4. The agentx-Unregister-PDU...............................25 6.2.5. The agentx-Get-PDU......................................27 6.2.6. The agentx-GetNext-PDU..................................28 6.2.7. The agentx-GetBulk-PDU..................................30 6.2.8. The agentx-TestSet-PDU..................................31 6.2.9. The agentx-CommitSet, -UndoSet, -CleanupSet PDUs........33 6.2.10. The agentx-Notify-PDU..................................33 6.2.11. The agentx-Ping-PDU....................................34 6.2.12. The agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU...........................35 6.2.13. The agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU.........................36 6.2.14. The agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU............................37 6.2.15. The agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU.........................39 6.2.16. The agentx-Response-PDU................................40 7. Elements of Procedure...........................................42 7.1. Processing AgentX Administrative Messages...................42 7.1.1. Processing the agentx-Open-PDU..........................43 7.1.2. Processing the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU.................44 7.1.3. Processing the agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU...............46 7.1.4. Processing the agentx-Register-PDU......................46 7.1.4.1. Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees.........47 7.1.4.2. Registering Stuff...................................47 7.1.4.2.1. Registration Priority...........................48 AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 2] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.1.4.2.2. Index Allocation................................48 7.1.4.2.3. Examples........................................49 7.1.5. Processing the agentx-Unregister-PDU....................51 7.1.6. Processing the agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU..................52 7.1.7. Processing the agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU...............52 7.1.8. Processing the agentx-Close-PDU.........................52 7.1.9. Detecting Connection Loss...............................53 7.1.10. Processing the agentx-Notify-PDU.......................53 7.1.11. Processing the agentx-Ping-PDU.........................54 7.2. Processing Received SNMP Protocol Messages..................54 7.2.1. Dispatching AgentX PDUs.................................54 7.2.1.1. agentx-Get-PDU......................................57 7.2.1.2. agentx-GetNext-PDU..................................57 7.2.1.3. agentx-GetBulk-PDU..................................58 7.2.1.4. agentx-TestSet-PDU..................................59 7.2.1.5. Dispatch............................................60 7.2.2. Subagent Processing.....................................60 7.2.3. Subagent Processing of agentx-Get, GetNext, GetBulk-PDUs........................................60 7.2.3.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-Get-PDU...........61 7.2.3.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetNext-PDU.......61 7.2.3.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetBulk-PDU.......62 7.2.4. Subagent Processing of agentx-TestSet, -CommitSet, -UndoSet, -CleanupSet-PDUs..........................63 7.2.4.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-TestSet-PDU.......63 7.2.4.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CommitSet-PDU.....64 7.2.4.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-UndoSet-PDU.......64 7.2.4.4. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CleanupSet-PDU....65 7.2.5. Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses.............65 7.2.5.1. Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs.......65 7.2.5.2. Processing of Responses to agentx-Get-PDUs..........66 7.2.5.3. Processing of Responses to agentx-GetNext-PDU and agentx-GetBulk-PDU..............................66 7.2.5.4. Processing of Responses to agentx-TestSet-PDUs......67 7.2.5.5. Processing of Responses to agentx-CommitSet-PDUs....68 7.2.5.6. Processing of Responses to agentx-UndoSet-PDUs......68 7.2.6. Sending the SNMP Response-PDU...........................69 7.2.7. MIB Views...............................................69 7.3. State Transitions...........................................69 7.3.1. Set Transaction States..................................69 7.3.2. Transport Connection States.............................71 7.3.3. Session States..........................................72 8. Transport Mappings..............................................73 8.1. AgentX over TCP.............................................73 8.1.1. Well-known Values.......................................73 8.1.2. Operation...............................................73 8.2. AgentX over UNIX-domain Sockets.............................74 8.2.1. Well-known Values.......................................74 8.2.2. Operation...............................................74 9. Security Considerations.........................................74 AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 3] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 10. Acknowledgements...............................................76 11. Authors' and Editor's Addresses................................76 12. References.....................................................77 13. Notices........................................................80 14. Full Copyright Statement.......................................80 Appendix A. Changes relative to RFC 2257 ..........................81 1. Introduction This memo defines a standardized framework for extensible SNMP agents. It defines processing entities called master agents and subagents, a protocol (AgentX) used to communicate between them, and the elements of procedure by which the extensible agent processes SNMP protocol messages. This memo obsoletes RFC 2257. It is worth noting that most of the changes are for the purpose of clarification. The only changes affecting AgentX protocol messages on the wire are: - The agentx-Notify-PDU and agentx-Close-PDU now generate an agentx-Response-PDU - Three new error codes are available: parseFailed(266), requestDenied(267), and processingError(268) Appendix A provides a detailed list of changes relative to RFC 2257. 2. The SNMP Management Framework The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major components: An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [1]. Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in RFC 1155 [2], RFC 1212 [3] and RFC 1215 [4]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described in RFC 2578 [5], RFC 2579 [6] and RFC 2580 [7]. Message protocols for transferring management information. The first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and described in RFC 1157 [8]. A second version of the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [9] and RFC 1906 [10]. The third version of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [10], RFC 2572 [11] and RFC 2574 [12]. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 4] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Protocol operations for accessing management information. The first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1157 [8]. A second set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905 [13]. A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [14] and the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575 [15]. A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [16]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. 2.1. A Note on Terminology The term "variable" refers to an instance of a non-aggregate object type defined according to the conventions set forth in the SMIv2 (RFC 2578, [5]) or the textual conventions based on the SMIv2 (RFC 2579 [6]). The term "variable binding" normally refers to the pairing of the name of a variable and its associated value. However, if certain kinds of exceptional conditions occur during processing of a retrieval request, a variable binding will pair a name and an indication of that exception. A variable-binding list is a simple list of variable bindings. The name of a variable is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER, which is the concatenation of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding object type together with an OBJECT IDENTIFIER fragment identifying the instance. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding object-type is called the OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix of the variable. 3. Extending the MIB New MIB modules that extend the Internet-standard MIB are continuously being defined by various IETF working groups. It is also common for enterprises or individuals to create or extend enterprise-specific or experimental MIBs. As a result, managed devices are frequently complex collections of manageable components that have been independently installed on a managed node. Each component provides instrumentation for the managed objects defined in the MIB module(s) it implements. The SNMP framework does not describe how the set of managed objects supported by a particular agent may be changed dynamically. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 5] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 3.1. Motivation for AgentX This very real need to dynamically extend the management objects within a node has given rise to a variety of "extensible agents", which typically comprise - a "master" agent that is available on the standard transport address and that accepts SNMP protocol messages - a set of "subagents" that each contain management instrumentation - a protocol that operates between the master agent and subagents, permitting subagents to "connect" to the master agent, and the master agent to multiplex received SNMP protocol messages amongst the subagents. - a set of tools to aid subagent development, and a runtime (API) environment that hides much of the protocol operation between a subagent and the master agent. The wide deployment of extensible SNMP agents, coupled with the lack of Internet standards in this area, makes it difficult to field SNMP- manageable applications. A vendor may have to support several different subagent environments (APIs) in order to support different target platforms. It can also become quite cumbersome to configure subagents and (possibly multiple) master agents on a particular managed node. Specifying a standard protocol for agent extensibility (AgentX) provides the technical foundation required to solve both of these problems. Independently developed AgentX-capable master agents and subagents will be able to interoperate at the protocol level. Vendors can continue to differentiate their products in all other respects. 4. AgentX Framework Within the SNMP framework, a managed node contains a processing entity, called an agent, which has access to management information. Within the AgentX framework, an agent is further defined to consist of - a single processing entity called the master agent, which sends and receives SNMP protocol messages in an agent role (as specified by the SNMP framework documents) but typically has little or no direct access to management information. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 6] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - zero or more processing entities called subagents, which are "shielded" from the SNMP protocol messages processed by the master agent, but which have access to management information. The master and subagent entities communicate via AgentX protocol messages, as specified in this memo. Other interfaces (if any) on these entities, and their associated protocols, are outside the scope of this document. While some of the AgentX protocol messages appear similar in syntax and semantics to the SNMP, bear in mind that AgentX is not SNMP. The internal operations of AgentX are invisible to an SNMP entity operating in a manager role. From a manager's point of view, an extensible agent behaves exactly as would a non-extensible (monolithic) agent that has access to the same management instrumentation. This transparency to managers is a fundamental requirement of AgentX, and is what differentiates AgentX subagents from SNMP proxy agents. 4.1. AgentX Roles An entity acting in a master agent role performs the following functions: - Accepts AgentX session establishment requests from subagents. - Accepts registration of MIB regions by subagents. - Sends and accepts SNMP protocol messages on the agent's specified transport addresses. - Implements the agent role Elements of Procedure specified for the administrative framework applicable to the SNMP protocol message, except where they specify performing management operations. (The application of MIB views, and the access control policy for the managed node, are implemented by the master agent.) - Provides instrumentation for the MIB objects defined in RFC 1907 [17], and for any MIB objects relevant to any administrative framework it supports. - Sends and receives AgentX protocol messages to access management information, based on the current registry of MIB regions. - Forwards notifications on behalf of subagents. An entity acting in a subagent role performs the following functions: - Initiates AgentX sessions with the master agent. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 7] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - Registers MIB regions with the master agent. - Instantiates managed objects. - Binds OIDs within its registered MIB regions to actual variables. - Performs management operations on variables. - Initiates notifications. 4.2. Applicability It is intended that this memo specify the smallest amount of required behavior necessary to achieve the largest benefit, that is, to cover a very large number of possible MIB implementations and configurations with minimum complexity and low "cost of entry". This section discusses several typical usage scenarios. 1) Subagents implement separate MIB modules -- for example, subagent `A' implements "mib-2", subagent `B' implements "host-resources". It is anticipated that this will be the most common subagent configuration. 2) Subagents implement rows in a "simple table". A simple table is one in which row creation is not specified, and for which the MIB does not define an object that counts entries in the table. Examples of simple tables are rdbmsDbTable, udpTable, and hrSWRunTable. This is the most commonly defined type of MIB table, and probably represents the next most typical configuration that AgentX would support. 3) Subagents share MIBs along non-row partitions. Subagents register "chunks" of the MIB that represent multiple rows, due to the nature of the MIB's index structure. Examples include registering ipNetToMediaEntry.n, where n represents the ifIndex value for an interface implemented by the subagent, and tcpConnEntry.a.b.c.d, where a.b.c.d represents an IP address on an interface implemented by the subagent. AgentX supports these three common configurations, and all permutations of them, completely. The consensus is that they comprise a very large majority of current and likely future uses of multi-vendor extensible agent configurations. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 8] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 4) Subagents implement rows in tables that permit row creation, for example, the RMON historyControlTable. To implement row creation in such tables, at least one AgentX subagent must register at a point "higher" in the OID tree than an individual row (per AgentX's dispatching procedure). 5) Subagents implement rows in tables whose MIB also defines an object that counts entries in the table, for example the MIB-2 ifTable (due to ifNumber). The subagent that implements such a counter object (like ifNumber) must go beyond AgentX to correctly implement it. This is an implementation issue (and most new MIB designs no longer include such objects). Scenarios in these latter 2 categories were thought to occur somewhat rarely in configurations where subagents are independently implemented by different vendors. The focus of a standard protocol, however, must be in just those areas where multi-vendor interoperability must be assured. Note that it would be inefficient (due to AgentX registration overhead) to share a table among AgentX subagents if the table contains very dynamic instances, and each subagent registers fully qualified instances. ipRouteTable could be an example of such a table in some environments. 4.3. Design Features of AgentX The primary features of the design described in this memo are: 1) A general architectural division of labor between master agent and subagent: The master agent is MIB ignorant and SNMP omniscient, while the subagent is SNMP ignorant and MIB omniscient (for the MIB variables it instantiates). That is, master agents, exclusively, are concerned with SNMP protocol operations and the translations to and from AgentX protocol operations needed to carry them out; subagents are exclusively concerned with management instrumentation; and neither should intrude on the other's territory. 2) A standard protocol and "rules of engagement" to enable interoperability between management instrumentation and extensible agents. 3) Mechanisms for independently developed subagents to integrate into the extensible agent on a particular managed node in such a way that they need not be aware of any other existing subagents. 4) A simple, deterministic registry and dispatching algorithm. For a given extensible agent configuration, there is a single subagent who is "authoritative" for any particular region of the MIB (where "region" may extend from an entire MIB down to a single object- instance). AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 9] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 5) Performance considerations. It is likely that the master agent and all subagents will reside on the same host, and in such cases AgentX is more a form of inter-process communication than a traditional communications protocol. Some of the design decisions made with this in mind include: - 32-bit alignment of data within PDUs - Native byte-order encoding by subagents - Large AgentX PDU payload sizes. 4.4. Non-Goals 1) Subagent-to-subagent communication. This is out of scope, due to the security ramifications and complexity involved. 2) Subagent access (via the master agent) to MIB variables. This is not addressed, since various other mechanisms are available and it was not a fundamental requirement. 3) The ability to accommodate every conceivable extensible agent configuration option. This was the most contentious aspect in the development of this protocol. In essence, certain features currently available in some commercial extensible agent products are not included in AgentX. Although useful or even vital in some implementation strategies, the rough consensus was that these features were not appropriate for an Internet Standard, or not typically required for independently developed subagents to coexist. The set of supported extensible agent configurations is described above, in Section 4.2, "Applicability". Some possible future version of the AgentX protocol may provide coverage for one or more of these "non-goals" or for new goals that might be identified after greater deployment experience. 5. AgentX Encodings AgentX PDUs consist of a common header, followed by PDU-specific data of variable length. Unlike SNMP PDUs, AgentX PDUs are not encoded using the BER (as specified in ISO 8824 [18]), but are transmitted as a contiguous byte stream. The data within this stream is organized to provide natural alignment with respect to the start of the PDU, permitting direct (integer) access by the processing entities. The first four fields in the header are single-byte values. A bit (NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER) in the third field (h.flags) is used to indicate the byte ordering of all multi-byte integer values in the PDU, including those which follow in the header itself. This is described in more detail in Section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header", below. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 10] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 PDUs are depicted in this memo using the following convention (where byte 1 is the first transmitted byte): +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | byte 1 | byte 2 | byte 3 | byte 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | byte 5 | byte 6 | byte 7 | byte 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Fields marked "" are reserved for future use and must be zero-filled. 5.1. Object Identifier An object identifier is encoded as a 4-byte header, followed by a variable number of contiguous 4-byte fields representing sub-identifiers. This representation (termed Object Identifier) is as follows: Object Identifier +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | include | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Object Identifier header fields: n_subid The number (0-128) of sub-identifiers in the object identifier. An ordered list of "n_subid" 4-byte sub-identifiers follows the 4-byte header. prefix An unsigned value used to reduce the length of object identifier encodings. A non-zero value "x" is interpreted as the first sub-identifier after "internet" (1.3.6.1), and indicates an implicit prefix "internet.x" to the actual sub-identifiers encoded in the Object Identifier. For example, a prefix field value 2 indicates an implicit prefix "1.3.6.1.2". A value of 0 in the prefix field indicates there is no prefix to the sub-identifiers. include AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 11] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Used only when the Object Identifier is the start of a SearchRange, as described in section 5.2, "SearchRange". sub-identifier 1, 2, ... n_subid A 4-byte unsigned integer, encoded according to the header's NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit. A null Object Identifier consists of the 4-byte header with all bytes set to 0. Examples: sysDescr.0 (1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1.2.3.4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.2. SearchRange A SearchRange consists of two Object Identifiers. In its communication with a subagent, the master agent uses a SearchRange to identify a requested variable binding, and, in GetNext and GetBulk operations, to set an upper bound on the names of managed object instances the subagent may send in reply. The first Object Identifier in a SearchRange (called the starting OID) indicates the beginning of the range. It is frequently (but not necessarily) the name of a requested variable binding. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 12] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 The "include" field in this OID's header is a boolean value (0 or 1) indicating whether or not the starting OID is included in the range. The second object identifier (ending OID) indicates the non-inclusive end of the range, and its "include" field is always 0. A null value for ending OID indicates an unbounded SearchRange. Example: To indicate a search range from 1.3.6.1.2.1.25.2 (inclusive) to 1.3.6.1.2.1.25.2.1 (exclusive), the SearchRange would be (start) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 25 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (end) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 25 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ A SearchRangeList is a contiguous list of SearchRanges. 5.3. Octet String An octet string is represented by a contiguous series of bytes, beginning with a 4-byte integer (encoded according to the header's NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit) whose value is the number of octets in the octet string, followed by the octets themselves. This representation is termed an Octet String. If the last octet does not end on a 4-byte offset from the start of the Octet String, padding bytes are appended to achieve alignment of following data. This padding must be added even if the Octet String is the last item in the PDU. Padding bytes must be zero filled. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 13] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ A null Octet String consists of a 4-byte length field set to 0. 5.4. Value Representation Variable bindings may be encoded within the variable-length portion of some PDUs. The representation of a variable binding (termed a VarBind) consists of a 2-byte type field, a name (Object Identifier), and the actual value data. VarBind +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | v.type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (v.name) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (v.data) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ VarBind fields: v.type Indicates the variable binding's syntax, and must be one of the following values: Integer (2), Octet String (4), Null (5), AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 14] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Object Identifier (6), IpAddress (64), Counter32 (65), Gauge32 (66), TimeTicks (67), Opaque (68), Counter64 (70), noSuchObject (128), noSuchInstance (129), endOfMibView (130) v.name The Object Identifier which names the variable. v.data The actual value, encoded as follows: - Integer, Counter32, Gauge32, and TimeTicks are encoded as 4 contiguous bytes, according to the header's NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit. - Counter64 is encoded as 8 contiguous bytes, according to the header's NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit. - Object Identifiers are encoded as described in section 5.1, Object Identifier. - IpAddress, Opaque, and Octet String are all octet strings and are encoded as described in section 5.3, "Octet String", Octet String. Note that the octets used to represent IpAddress are always ordered most significant to least significant. Value data always follows v.name whenever v.type is one of the above types. These data bytes are present even if they will not be used (as, for example, in certain types of index allocation). - Null, noSuchObject, noSuchInstance, and endOfMibView do not contain any encoded value. Value data never follows v.name in these cases. Note that the VarBind itself does not contain the value size. That information is implied for the fixed-length types, and explicitly contained in the encodings of variable-length types Object Identifier and Octet String). AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 15] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 A VarBindList is a contiguous list of VarBinds. Within a VarBindList, a particular VarBind is identified by an index value. The first VarBind in a VarBindList has index value 1, the second has index value 2, and so on. 6. Protocol Definitions 6.1. AgentX PDU Header The AgentX PDU header is a fixed-format, 20-octet structure: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version | h.type | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An AgentX PDU header contains the following fields: h.version The version of the AgentX protocol (1 for this memo). h.type The PDU type; one of the following values: agentx-Open-PDU (1), agentx-Close-PDU (2), agentx-Register-PDU (3), agentx-Unregister-PDU (4), agentx-Get-PDU (5), agentx-GetNext-PDU (6), agentx-GetBulk-PDU (7), agentx-TestSet-PDU (8), agentx-CommitSet-PDU (9), agentx-UndoSet-PDU (10), agentx-CleanupSet-PDU (11), agentx-Notify-PDU (12), agentx-Ping-PDU (13), agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU (14), agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU (15), agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU (16), agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU (17), agentx-Response-PDU (18) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 16] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 The set of PDU types for "administrative processing" are 1-4 and 12-17. The set of PDU types for "SNMP request processing" are 5-11. h.flags A bitmask, with bit 0 the least significant bit. The bit definitions are as follows: Bit Definition --- ---------- 0 INSTANCE_REGISTRATION 1 NEW_INDEX 2 ANY_INDEX 3 NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT 4 NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER 5-7 (reserved) The NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit applies to all multi-byte integer values in the entire AgentX packet, including the remaining header fields. If set, then network byte order (most significant byte first; "big endian") is used. If not set, then least significant byte first ("little endian") is used. The NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit applies to all AgentX PDUs. The NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit is used only in the AgentX PDUs described in section 6.1.1, "Context". The NEW_INDEX and ANY_INDEX bits are used only within the agentx-IndexAllocate-, and -IndexDeallocate-PDUs. The INSTANCE_REGISTRATION bit is used only within the agentx-Register-PDU. h.sessionID The session ID uniquely identifies a session over which AgentX PDUs are exchanged between a subagent and the master agent. The session ID has no significance and no defined value in the agentx-Open-PDU sent by a subagent to open a session with the master agent; in this case, the master agent will assign a unique session ID that it will pass back in the corresponding agentx-Response-PDU. From that point on, that same session ID will appear in every AgentX PDU exchanged over that session between the master and the subagent. A subagent may establish multiple AgentX sessions by sending multiple agentx-Open-PDUs to the master agent. In master agents that support multiple transport protocols, the sessionID should be globally unique rather than unique just to a particular transport. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 17] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 h.transactionID The transaction ID uniquely identifies, for a given session, the single SNMP management request (and single SNMP PDU) with which an AgentX PDU is associated. If a single SNMP management request results in multiple AgentX PDUs being sent by the master agent with the same session ID, each of these AgentX PDUs must contain the same transaction ID; conversely, AgentX PDUs sent during a particular session, that result from distinct SNMP management requests, must have distinct transaction IDs within the limits of the 32-bit field). Note that the transaction ID is not the same as the SNMP PDU's request-id (as described in section 4.1 of RFC 1905 [13], nor is it the same as the SNMP Message's msgID (as described in section 6.2 of RFC 2572 [11]), nor can it be, since a master agent might receive SNMP requests with the same request-ids or msgIDs from different managers. The transaction ID has no significance and no defined value in AgentX administrative PDUs, i.e., AgentX PDUs that are not associated with an SNMP management request. h.packetID A packet ID generated by the sender for all AgentX PDUs except the agentx-Response-PDU. In an agentx-Response-PDU, the packet ID must be the same as that in the received AgentX PDU to which it is a response. A master agent might use this field to associate subagent response PDUs with their corresponding request PDUs. A subagent might use this field to correlate responses to multiple (batched) registrations. h.payload_length The size in octets of the PDU contents, excluding the 20-byte header. As a result of the encoding schemes and PDU layouts, this value will always be either 0, or a multiple of 4. 6.1.1. Context In the SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c, the community string may be used as an index into a local repository of configuration information that may include community profiles or more complex context information. In SNMPv3 this notion of "context" is formalized (see section 3.3.1 in RFC 2571 [1]. AgentX provides a mechanism for transmitting a context specification within relevant PDUs, but does not place any constraints on the content of that specification. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 18] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 An optional context field may be present in the agentx-Register-, UnRegister-, AddAgentCaps-, RemoveAgentCaps-, Get-, GetNext-, GetBulk-, IndexAllocate-, IndexDeallocate-, Notify-, TestSet-, and Ping- PDUs. If the NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit in the AgentX header field h.flags is clear, then there is no context field in the PDU, and the operation refers to the default context. (This does not mean there is a zero-length Octet String, it means there is no Octet String present.) If the NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit is set, then a context field immediately follows the AgentX header, and the operation refers to that specific context. The context is represented as an Octet String. There are no constraints on its length or contents. Thus, all of these AgentX PDUs (that is, those listed immediately above) refer to, or "indicate" a context, which is either the default context, or a non-default context explicitly named in the PDU. 6.2. AgentX PDUs 6.2.1. The agentx-Open-PDU An agentx-Open-PDU is generated by a subagent to request establishment of an AgentX session with the master agent. (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (1) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | o.timeout | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 19] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (o.id) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | subidentifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | subidentifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (o.descr) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Open-PDU contains the following fields: o.timeout The length of time, in seconds, that a master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message on a session before it regards the subagent as not responding. This is the default value for the session, and may be overridden by values associated with specific registered MIB regions. The default value of 0 indicates that there is no session-wide default value. o.id An Object Identifier that identifies the subagent. Subagents that do not support such an notion may send a null Object Identifier. o.descr An Octet String containing a DisplayString describing the subagent. 6.2.2. The agentx-Close-PDU An agentx-Close-PDU issued by either a subagent or the master agent terminates an AgentX session. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 20] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (2) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c.reason | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Close-PDU contains the following field: c.reason An enumerated value that gives the reason that the master agent or subagent closed the AgentX session. This field may take one of the following values: reasonOther(1) None of the following reasons reasonParseError(2) Too many AgentX parse errors from peer reasonProtocolError(3) Too many AgentX protocol errors from peer reasonTimeouts(4) Too many timeouts waiting for peer reasonShutdown(5) Sending entity is shutting down reasonByManager(6) Due to Set operation; this reason code can be used only by the master agent, in response to an SNMP management request. 6.2.3. The agentx-Register-PDU An agentx-Register-PDU is generated by a subagent for each region of the MIB variable naming tree (within one or more contexts) that it wishes to support. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 21] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (3) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (r.context) (OPTIONAL) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | r.timeout | r.priority | r.range_subid | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (r.subtree) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (r.upper_bound) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | optional upper-bound sub-identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Register-PDU contains the following fields: r.context An optional non-default context. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 22] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 r.timeout The length of time, in seconds, that a master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message on a session before it regards the subagent as not responding. r.timeout applies only to messages that concern MIB objects within r.subtree. It overrides both the session's default value (if any) indicated when the AgentX session with the master agent was established, and the master agent's default timeout. The default value for r.timeout is 0 (no override). r.priority A value between 1 and 255, used to achieve a desired configuration when different sessions register identical or overlapping regions. Subagents with no particular knowledge of priority should register with the default value of 127. In the master agent's dispatching algorithm, smaller values of r.priority take precedence over larger values, as described in section 7.1.4.1, "Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees". r.subtree An Object Identifier that names the basic subtree of a MIB region for which a subagent indicates its support. The term "subtree" is used generically here, it may represent a fully-qualified instance name, a partial instance name, a MIB table, an entire MIB, etc. The choice of what to register is implementation-specific; this memo does not specify permissible values. Standard practice however is for a subagent to register at the highest level of the naming tree that makes sense. Registration of fully- qualified instances is typically done only when a subagent can perform management operations only on particular rows of a conceptual table. If r.subtree is in fact a fully qualified instance name, the INSTANCE_REGISTRATION bit in h.flags must be set, otherwise it must be cleared. The master agent may save this information to optimize subsequent operational dispatching. r.range_subid Permits specifying a range in place of one of r.subtree's sub-identifiers. If this value is 0, no range is being specified and there is no r.upper_bound field present in the PDU. In this case the MIB region being registered is the single subtree named by r.subtree. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 23] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Otherwise the "r.range_subid"-th sub-identifier in r.subtree is a range lower bound, and the range upper bound sub-identifier (r.upper_bound) immediately follows r.subtree. In this case the MIB region being registered is the union of the subtrees formed by enumerating this range. Note that r.range_subid indicates the (1-based) index of this sub-identifier within the OID represented by r.subtree, regardless of whether or not r.subtree is encoded using a prefix. (See the example below.) r.upper_bound The upper bound of a sub-identifier's range. This field is present only if r.range_subid is not 0. The use of r.range_subid and r.upper_bound provide a general shorthand mechanism for specifying a MIB region. For example, if r.subtree is the OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.7, r.range_subid is 10, and r.upper_bound is 22, the specified MIB region can be denoted 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. Registering this region is equivalent to registering the union of subtrees 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.1.7 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.2.7 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.3.7 ... 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.22.7 One expected use of this mechanism is registering a conceptual row with a single PDU. In the example above, the MIB region happens to be row 7 of the RFC 1573 ifTable. The actual PDU would be: (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (3) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | r.timeout | r.priority | 10 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 24] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (r.subtree) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 6 | 2 | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 7 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (r.upper_bound) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 22 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Note again that here r.range_subid is 10, even though n_subid in r.subtree is only 6. r.range_subid may be used at any level within a subtree, it need not represent row-level registration. This mechanism may be used in any way that is convenient for a subagent to achieve its registrations. 6.2.4. The agentx-Unregister-PDU The agentx-Unregister-PDU is sent by a subagent to remove a MIB region that was previously registered on this session. (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (4) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 25] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (u.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | u.priority | u.range_subid | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (u.subtree) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (u.upper_bound) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | optional upper-bound sub-identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Unregister-PDU contains the following fields: u.context An optional non-default context. u.priority The priority at which this region was originally registered. u.subtree Indicates a previously-registered region of the MIB that a subagent no longer wishes to support. u.range_subid Indicates a sub-identifier in u.subtree is a range lower bound. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 26] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 u.upper_bound The upper bound of the range sub-identifier. This field is present in the PDU only if u.range_subid is not 0. 6.2.5. The agentx-Get-PDU (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (5) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (g.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (g.sr) (start 1) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | include | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 27] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (end 1) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... (start n) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | include | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (end n) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Get-PDU contains the following fields: g.context An optional non-default context. g.sr A SearchRangeList containing the requested variables for this session. Within the agentx-Get-PDU, the Ending OIDs within SearchRanges are null-valued Object Identifiers. 6.2.6. The agentx-GetNext-PDU (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (6) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 28] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (g.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (g.sr) (start 1) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | include | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (end 1) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... (start n) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | include | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 29] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (end n) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... An agentx-GetNext-PDU contains the following fields: g.context An optional non-default context. g.sr A SearchRangeList containing the requested variables for this session. 6.2.7. The agentx-GetBulk-PDU (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (7) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (g.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 30] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | g.non_repeaters | g.max_repetitions | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (g.sr) ... An agentx-GetBulk-PDU contains the following fields: g.context An optional non-default context. g.non_repeaters The number of variables in the SearchRangeList that are not repeaters. g.max_repetitions The maximum number of repetitions requested for repeating variables. g.sr A SearchRangeList containing the requested variables for this session. 6.2.8. The agentx-TestSet-PDU (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (8) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 31] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (t.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (t.vb) (VarBind 1) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | v.type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 32] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (VarBind n) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | v.type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-TestSet-PDU contains the following fields: t.context An optional non-default context. t.vb A VarBindList containing the requested VarBinds for this subagent. 6.2.9. The agentx-CommitSet, -UndoSet, -CleanupSet PDUs These PDUs consist of the AgentX header only. The agentx-CommitSet-, -UndoSet-, and -Cleanup-PDUs are used in processing an SNMP SetRequest operation. 6.2.10. The agentx-Notify-PDU An agentx-Notify-PDU is sent by a subagent to cause the master agent to forward a notification. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 33] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (12) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (n.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (n.vb) ... An agentx-Notify-PDU contains the following fields: n.context An optional non-default context. n.vb A VarBindList whose contents define the actual PDU to be sent. This memo places the following restrictions on its contents: - If the subagent supplies sysUpTime.0, it must be present as the first varbind. - snmpTrapOID.0 must be present, as the second varbind if sysUpTime.0 was supplied, as the first if it was not. 6.2.11. The agentx-Ping-PDU The agentx-Ping-PDU is sent by a subagent to the master agent to monitor the master agent's ability to receive and send AgentX PDUs over their AgentX session. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 34] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (13) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (p.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-Ping-PDU may contain the following field: p.context An optional non-default context. Using p.context a subagent can retrieve the sysUpTime value for a specific context, if required. 6.2.12. The agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU An agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU is sent by a subagent to request allocation of a value for specific index objects. Refer to section 7.1.4.2, "Registering Stuff", for suggested usage. (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (14) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 35] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (i.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (i.vb) ... An agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU contains the following fields: i.context An optional non-default context. i.vb A VarBindList containing the index names and values requested for allocation. 6.2.13. The agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU An agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU is sent by a subagent to release previously allocated index values. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (15) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 36] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (i.context) OPTIONAL +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Padding (as required) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (i.vb) ... An agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU contains the following fields: i.context An optional non-default context. i.vb A VarBindList containing the index names and values to be released. 6.2.14. The agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU An agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU is generated by a subagent to inform the master agent of agent capabilities for the specified session. (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (16) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 37] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (a.context) (OPTIONAL) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Optional Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (a.id) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (a.descr) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Optional Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU contains the following fields: a.context An optional non-default context. a.id An Object Identifier containing the value of an invocation of the AGENT-CAPABILITIES macro, which the master agent exports as a value of sysORID for the indicated context. (Recall that the value of an invocation of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES macro is an object identifier that describes a precise level of support with respect to implemented MIB modules. A more complete discussion of the AGENT-CAPABILITIES macro and related sysORID values can be found in section 6 of RFC 2580 [7].) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 38] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 a.descr An Octet String containing a DisplayString to be used as the value of sysORDescr corresponding to the sysORID value above. 6.2.15. The agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU An agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU is generated by a subagent to request that the master agent stop exporting a particular value of sysORID. This value must have previously been advertised by the subagent in an agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU for this session. (AgentX header) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (17) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (a.context) (OPTIONAL) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet String Length (L) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet 1 | Octet 2 | Octet 3 | Octet 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Octet L - 1 | Octet L | Optional Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (a.id) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | n_subid | prefix | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-identifier #n_subid | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ An agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU contains the following fields: a.context An optional non-default context. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 39] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 a.id An ObjectIdentifier containing the value of sysORID that should no longer be exported. 6.2.16. The agentx-Response-PDU +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.version (1) | h.type (18) | h.flags | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.sessionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.transactionID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.packetID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | h.payload_length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | res.sysUpTime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | res.error | res.index | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... An agentx-Response-PDU contains the following fields: h.sessionID If this is a response to an agentx-Open-PDU, then it contains the new and unique sessionID (as assigned by the master agent) for this session. Otherwise it must be identical to the h.sessionID value in the PDU to which this PDU is a response. h.transactionID Must be identical to the h.transactionID value in the PDU to which this PDU is a response. In an agentx response PDU from the master agent to the subagent, the value of h.transactionID has no significance and can be ignored by the subagent. h.packetID Must be identical to the h.packetID value in the PDU to which this PDU is a response. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 40] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 res.sysUpTime This field contains the current value of sysUpTime for the context indicated within the PDU to which this PDU is a response. It is relevant only in agentx response PDUs sent from the master agent to a subagent in response to the set of administrative PDUs listed in section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header". In an agentx response PDU from the subagent to the master agent, the value of res.sysUpTime has no significance and is ignored by the master agent. res.error Indicates error status. Within responses to the set of "administrative" PDU types listed in section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header", values are limited to the following: noAgentXError (0), openFailed (256), notOpen (257), indexWrongType (258), indexAlreadyAllocated (259), indexNoneAvailable (260), indexNotAllocated (261), unsupportedContext (262), duplicateRegistration (263), unknownRegistration (264), unknownAgentCaps (265), parseError (266), requestDenied (267), processingError (268) Within responses to the set of "SNMP request processing" PDU types listed in section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header", values may also include those defined for errors in the SNMPv2 PDU (RFC 1905 [13]). res.index In error cases, this is the index of the failed variable binding within a received request PDU. (Note: As explained in section 5.4, "Value Representation", the index values of variable bindings within a variable binding list are 1-based.) A VarBindList may follow res.index, depending on which AgentX PDU is being responded to. These data are specified in the subsequent elements of procedure. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 41] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7. Elements of Procedure This section describes the actions of protocol entities (master agents and subagents) implementing the AgentX protocol. Note, however, that it is not intended to constrain the internal architecture of any conformant implementation. The actions of AgentX protocol entities can be broadly categorized under two headings, each of which is described separately: (1) processing AgentX administrative messages (e.g., registration requests from a subagent to a master agent); and (2) processing SNMP messages (the coordinated actions of a master agent and one or more subagents in processing, for example, a received SNMP GetRequest-PDU). 7.1. Processing AgentX Administrative Messages This subsection describes the actions of AgentX protocol entities in processing AgentX administrative messages. Such messages include those involved in establishing and terminating an AgentX session between a subagent and a master agent, those by which a subagent requests allocation of instance index values, and those by which a subagent communicates to a master agent which MIB regions it supports. Processing is defined specifically for each PDU type in its own section. For the master agent, many of these PDU types require the same initial processing steps. This common processing is defined here, and referenced as needed in the PDU type-specific descriptions. Common Processing: The master agent initially processes a received AgentX PDU as follows: 1) An agentx-Response-PDU is created, res.sysUpTime is set to the value of sysUpTime.0 for the default context, res.error is set to `noAgentXError', and res.index is set to 0. 2) If the received PDU cannot be parsed, res.error is set to `parseError'. Examples of a parse error are - PDU length (h.payload) too short to contain current construct (Object Identifier header indicates more sub-identifiers, VarBind v.type indicates data follows, etc) - An unrecognized value is encountered for h.type, v.type, etc. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 42] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 3) Otherwise, if h.sessionID does not correspond to a currently established session with this subagent, res.error is set to `notOpen'. 4) Otherwise, if the NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit is set and the master agent does not support the indicated context, res.error is set to `unsupportedContext'. If the master agent does support the indicated context, the value of res.sysUpTime is set to the value of sysUpTime.0 for that context. Note: Non-default contexts might be added on the fly by the master agent, or the master agent might require such non-default contexts to be pre-configured. The choice is implementation-specific. 5) If resources cannot be allocated or some other condition prevents processing, res.error is set to `processingError'. 6) At this point, if res.error is not `noAgentXError', the received PDU is not processed further. If the received PDU's header was successfully parsed, the AgentX-Response-PDU is sent in reply. If the received PDU contained a VarBindList which was successfully parsed, the AgentX-Response-PDU contains the identicial VarBindList. If the received PDU's header was not successfully parsed or for some other reason the master agent cannot send a reply, processing is complete. 7.1.1. Processing the agentx-Open-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-Open-PDU, it processes it as follows: 1) An agentx-Response-PDU is created, res.sysUpTime is set to the value of sysUpTime.0 for the default context, res.error is set to `noAgentXError', and res.index is set to 0. 2) If the received PDU cannot be parsed, res.error is set to `parseError'. 3) Otherwise, if the master agent is unable to open an AgentX session for any reason, res.error is set to `openFailed'. 4) Otherwise: The master agent assigns a sessionID to the new session and puts the value in the h.sessionID field of the agentx-Response-PDU. This value must be unique among all existing open sessions. The master agent retains session-specific information from the PDU for this session: AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 43] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - The NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER value in h.flags is retained. All subsequent AgentX protocol operations initiated by the master agent for this session must use this byte ordering and set this bit accordingly. The subagent typically sets this bit to correspond to its native byte ordering, and typically does not vary byte ordering for an initiated session. The master agent must be able to decode each PDU according to the h.flag NETWORK_BYTE_ORDER bit in the PDU, but does not need to toggle its retained value for the session if the subagent varies its byte ordering. - The o.timeout value is used in calculating response timeout conditions for this session. This field is also referenced in the AgentX MIB (a work-in-progress) by the agentxSessionTimeout object. - The o.id and o.descr fields are used for informational purposes. These two fields are also referenced in the AgentX MIB (a work-in-progress) by the agentxSessionObjectID object, and by the agentxSessionDescr object. 5) The agentx-Response-PDU is sent with the res.error field indicating the result of the session initiation. If processing was successful, an AgentX session is considered established between the master agent and the subagent. An AgentX session is a distinct channel for the exchange of AgentX protocol messages between a master agent and one subagent, qualified by the session-specific attributes listed in 4) above. AgentX session establishment is initiated by the subagent. An AgentX session can be terminated by either the master agent or the subagent. 7.1.2. Processing the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) Each VarBind in the VarBindList is processed until either all are successful, or one fails. If any VarBind fails, the agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply containing the original VarBindList, with res.index set to indicate the failed VarBind, and with res.error set as described subsequently. All other VarBinds are ignored; no index values are allocated. VarBinds are processed as follows: - v.name is the OID prefix of the MIB OBJECT-TYPE for which a value is to be allocated. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 44] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - v.type is the syntax of the MIB OBJECT-TYPE for which a value is to be allocated. - v.data indicates the specific index value requested. If the NEW_INDEX or the ANY_INDEX bit is set, the actual value in v.data is ignored and an appropriate index value is generated. a) If there are no currently allocated index values for v.name in the indicated context, and v.type does not correspond to a valid index type value, the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexWrongType'. b) If there are currently allocated index values for v.name in the indicated context, but the syntax of those values does not match v.type, the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexWrongType'. c) Otherwise, if both the NEW_INDEX and ANY_INDEX bits are clear, allocation of a specific index value is being requested. If the requested index is already allocated for v.name in the indicated context, the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexAlreadyAllocated'. d) Otherwise, if the NEW_INDEX bit is set, the master agent should generate the next available index value for v.name in the indicated context, with the constraint that this value must not have been allocated (even if subsequently released) to any subagent since the last re-initialization of the master agent. If no such value can be generated, the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexNoneAvailable'. e) Otherwise, if the ANY_INDEX bit is set, the master agent should generate an index value for v.name in the indicated context, with the constraint that this value is not currently allocated to any subagent. If no such value can be generated, then the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexNoneAvailable'. 2) If all VarBinds are processed successfully, the agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply with res.error set to `noAgentXError'. A VarBindList is included that is identical to the one sent in the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU, except that VarBinds requesting a NEW_INDEX or ANY_INDEX value are generated with an appropriate value. See section 7.1.4.2, "Registering Stuff" for more information on how subagents should perform index allocations. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 45] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.1.3. Processing the agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) Each VarBind in the VarBindList is processed until either all are successful, or one fails. If any VarBind fails, the agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply, containing the original VarBindList, with res.index set to indicate the failed VarBind, and with res.error set as described subsequently. All other VarBinds are ignored; no index values are released. VarBinds are processed as follows: - v.name is the name of the index for which a value is to be released - v.type is the syntax of the index object - v.data indicates the specific index value to be released. The NEW_INDEX and ANY_INDEX bits are ignored. a) If the index value for the named index is not currently allocated to this session, the VarBind fails and res.error is set to `indexNotAllocated'. 2) If all VarBinds are processed successfully, res.error is set to `noAgentXError' and the agentx-Response-PDU is sent. A VarBindList is included which is identical to the one sent in the agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU. All released index values are now available, and may be used in response to subsequent allocation requests for ANY_INDEX values and in response to subsequest allocation requests for the particular index value. 7.1.4. Processing the agentx-Register-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-Register-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: If any of the union of subtrees defined by this MIB region is exactly the same as any subtree defined by a MIB region currently registered within the indicated context, those subtrees are termed "duplicate subtrees". AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 46] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 If any of the union of subtrees defined by this MIB region overlaps, or is itself overlapped by, any subtree defined by a MIB region currently registered within the indicated context, those subtrees are termed "overlapping subtrees". 1) If this registration would result in duplicate subtrees registered with the same value of r.priority, the request fails and an agentx-Response-PDU is returned with res.error set to `duplicateRegistration'. 2) Otherwise, if the master agent does not wish to permit this registration for implementation-specific reasons, the request fails and an agentx-Response-PDU is returned with res.error set to `requestDenied'. 3) Otherwise, the agentx-Response-PDU is returned with res.error set to `noAgentXError'. The master agent adds this MIB region to its registration data store for the indicated context, to be considered during the dispatching phase for subsequently received SNMP protocol messages. 7.1.4.1. Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees As a result of this registration algorithm there are likely to be duplicate and/or overlapping subtrees within the registration data store of the master agent. Whenever the master agent's dispatching algorithm (see section 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs") determines that there are multiple subtrees that could potentially contain the same MIB object instances, the master agent selects one to use, termed the 'authoritative region', as follows: 1) Choose the one whose original agentx-Register-PDU r.subtree contained the most subids, i.e., the most specific r.subtree. Note: The presence or absence of a range subid has no bearing on how "specific" one object identifier is compared to another. 2) If still ambiguous, there were duplicate subtrees. Choose the one whose original agentx-Register-PDU specified the smaller value of r.priority. 7.1.4.2. Registering Stuff This section describes more fully how AgentX subagents use the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU and agentx-Register-PDU to achieve desired configurations. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 47] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.1.4.2.1. Registration Priority The r.priority field in the agentx-Register-PDU is intended to be manipulated by human administrators to achieve a desired subagent configuration. Typically this would be needed where a legacy application registers a specific subtree, and a different (configurable) application may need to become authoratative for the identical subtree. The result of this configuration (the same subtree registered on different sessions with different priorities) is that the session using the better priority (see section 7.1.4.1, "Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees") will be authoratative. The other session will simply never be dispatched to. This is useful in the case described above, but is NOT useful in other cases, particularly when subagents share tables indexed by arbitrary values (see below). In general, subagents should register using the default priority (127). 7.1.4.2.2. Index Allocation Index allocation is a service provided by an AgentX master agent. It provides generic support for sharing MIB conceptual tables among subagents who are assumed to have no knowledge of each other. The master agent maintains a database of index objects (OIDs), and, for each index, the values that have been allocated for it. It is unaware of what MIB variables (if any) the index objects represent. By convention, subagents use the MIB variable listed in the INDEX clause as the index object for which values must be allocated. For tables indexed by multiple variables, values may be allocated for each index (although this is frequently unnecessary; see example 2 below). The subagent may request allocation of a) a specific index value b) an index value that is not currently allocated c) an index value that has never been allocated The last two alternatives reflect the uniqueness and constancy requirements present in many MIB specifications for arbitrary integer indexes (e.g., ifIndex in the IF-MIB (RFC 2233 [19]), snmpFddiSMTIndex in the FDDI MIB (RFC 1285 [20]), or sysApplInstallPkgIndex in the System Application MIB (RFC 2287 [21])). The need for subagents to share tables using such indexes is the main motivation for index allocation in AgentX. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 48] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 It is important to note that index allocation and MIB region registration are not coupled in the master agent. The current state of index allocations is not considered when processing registration requests, and the current registry is not considered when processing index allocation requests. (This is mainly to accomodate non-AgentX subagents.) AgentX subagents should follow the model of "first request allocation of an index, then register the corresponding region". Then a successful index allocation request gives a subagent a good hint (but no guarantee) of what it should be able to register. The registration may fail (with `duplicateRegistration') because some other subagent session has already registered that row of the table. The recommended mechanism for subagents to register conceptual rows in a shared table is 1) Successfully allocate an index value. 2) Use that value to fully qualify the MIB region(s), and attempt to register using the default priority. 3) If the registration fails with `duplicateRegistration' deallocate the previously allocated index value(s) for this row and go to step 1). Note that index allocation is necessary only when the index in question is an arbitrary value, and hence the subagent has no other reasonable way to determine which index values to use. When index values have intrinsic meaning it is not expected that subagents will allocate their index values. For example, RFC 1514's table of running software processes (hrSWRunTable) is indexed by the system's native process identifier (pid). A subagent implementing the row of hrSWRunTable corresponding to its own process would simply register the region defining that row's object instances without allocating index values. 7.1.4.2.3. Examples Example 1: A subagent implements an interface, and wishes to register a single row of the RFC 2233 ifTable. It requests an allocation for the index object "ifIndex", for a value that has never been allocated (since ifIndex values must be unique). The master agent returns the value "7". AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 49] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 The subagent now attempts to register row 7 of ifTable, by specifying a MIB region in the agentx-Register-PDU of 1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.[1-22].7. If the registration succeeds, no further processing is required. The master agent will dispatch to this subagent correctly. If the registration failed with `duplicateRegistration', the subagent should deallocate the failed index, request allocation of a new index i, and attempt to register ifTable.[1-22].i, until successful. Example 2: This same subagent wishes to register ipNetToMediaTable rows corresponding to its interface (ifIndex i). Due to the structure of this table, no further index allocation need be done. The subagent can register the MIB region ipNetToMediaTable.[1-4].i, It is claiming responsibility for all rows of the table whose value of ipNetToMediaIfIndex is i. Example 3: A network device consists of a set of processors, each of which accepts network connections for a unique set of IP addresses. Further, each processor contains a subagent that implements tcpConnTable. In order to represent tcpConnTable for the entire managed device, the subagents need to share tcpConnTable. In this case, no index allocation need be done at all. Each subagent can register a MIB region of tcpConnTable.[1-5].a.b.c.d, where a.b.c.d represents an unique IP address of the individual processor. Each subagent is claiming responsibility for the region of tcpConnTable where the value of tcpConnLocalAddress is a.b.c.d. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 50] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Example 4: The Application Management MIB (RFC 2564 [22]) uses two objects to index several tables. A partial description of them is: applSrvIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..'ffffffff'h) MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An applSrvIndex is the system-unique identifier of an instance of a service. The value is unique not only across all instances of a given service, but also across all services in a system." applSrvName OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The human-readable name of a service. Where appropriate, as in the case where a service can be identified in terms of a single protocol, the strings should be established names such as those assigned by IANA and found in STD 2 [23], or defined by some other authority. In some cases private conventions apply and the string should in these cases be consistent with these non- standard conventions. An applicability statement may specify the service name(s) to be used." Since applSrvIndex is an arbitrary value, it would be reasonable for subagents to allocate values for this index. applSrvName however has intrinsic meaning and any values a subagent would use should be known a priori, hence it is not reasonable for subagents to allocate values of this index. 7.1.5. Processing the agentx-Unregister-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-Unregister-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) If u.subtree, u.priority, u.range_subid (and if u.range_subid is not 0, u.upper_bound), and the indicated context do not match an existing registration made during this session, the agentx-Response-PDU is returned with res.error set to `unknownRegistration'. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 51] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 2) Otherwise, the agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply with res.error set to `noAgentXError', and the previous registration is removed from the registration data store. 7.1.6. Processing the agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) The master agent adds this agent capabilities information to the sysORTable for the indicated context. An agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply with res.error set to `noAgentXError'. 7.1.7. Processing the agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) If the combination of a.id and the optional a.context does not represent a sysORTable entry that was added by this subagent during this session, the agentx-Response-PDU is returned with res.error set to `unknownAgentCaps'. 2) Otherwise the master agent deletes the corresponding sysORTable entry and sends in reply the agentx-Response-PDU, with res.error set to `noAgentXError'. 7.1.8. Processing the agentx-Close-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-Close-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages", with the exception that step 4) is not performed since the agentx-Close-PDU does may not contain a context field. If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) The master agent closes the AgentX session as described below, and sends in reply the agentx-Response-PDU with res.error set to `noAgentXError': - All MIB regions that have been registered during this session are unregistered, as described in section 7.1.5, "Processing the agentx-Unregister-PDU". - All index values allocated during this session are freed, as described in section 7.1.3, "Processing the agentx- IndexDeallocate-PDU". AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 52] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - All sysORID values that were registered during this session are removed, as described in section 7.1.7, "Processing the agentx- RemoveAgentCaps-PDU". The master agent does not maintain state for closed sessions. If a subagent wishes to re-establish a session after it has been closed, it needs to re-register MIB regions, agent capabilities, etc. 7.1.9. Detecting Connection Loss If a master agent is able to detect (from the underlying transport) that a subagent cannot receive AgentX PDUs, it should close all affected AgentX sessions as described in section 7.1.8, "Processing the agentx-Close-PDU", step 1). 7.1.10. Processing the agentx-Notify-PDU A subagent sending SNMPv1 trap information must map this into (minimally) a value of snmpTrapOID.0, as described in 3.1.2 of RFC 1908 [24]. When the master agent receives an agentx-Notify-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) If the first VarBind is sysUpTime.0; (a) if the second VarBind is not snmpTrapOID.0, res.error is set to `processingError' and res.index to 2 (b) otherwise these two VarBinds are used as the first two VarBinds within the generated notification. 2) If the first VarBind is not sysUpTime.0; (a) if the first VarBind is not snmpTrapOID.0, res.error is set to `processingError' and res.index to 1 (b) otherwise this VarBind is used for snmpTrapOID.0 within the generated notification, and the master agent uses the current value of sysUpTime.0 for the indicated context as sysUpTime.0 within the notification. 3) An agentx-Response-PDU is sent containing the original VarBindList, and with res.error and res.index set as described above. If res.error is `noAgentXError', notifications are sent according to the implementation-specific configuration of the master agent. If SNMPv1 Trap PDUs are generated, the recommended mapping is as described in RFC 2089 [25]. If res.error indicates an error in processing, no notifications are generated. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 53] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Note that the master agent's successful response indicates the agentx-Notify-PDU was received and validated. It does not indicate that any particular notifications were actually generated or received by notification targets. 7.1.11. Processing the agentx-Ping-PDU When the master agent receives an agentx-Ping-PDU, it performs the common processing described in section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". If as a result res.error is `noAgentXError', processing continues as follows: 1) An agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply. If a subagent does not receive a response to its pings, or if it is able to detect (from the underlying transport) that the master agent is not able to receive AgentX messages, then it eventually must initiate a new AgentX session, re-register its MIB regions, etc. 7.2. Processing Received SNMP Protocol Messages When an SNMP GetRequest, GetNextRequest, GetBulkRequest, or SetRequest protocol message is received by the master agent, the master agent applies its access control policy. In particular, for SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c protocol messages, the master agent applies the Elements of Procedure defined in section 4.1 of RFC 1157 [8] that apply to receiving entities. For SNMPv3, the master agent applies an Access Control Model, possibly the View-based Access Control Model (see RFC 2575 [15]), as described in section 3.1.2 and section 4.3 of RFC 2571 [1]. For SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c, the master agent uses the community string as an index into a local repository of configuration information that may include community profiles or more complex context information. For SNMPv3, the master agent uses the SNMP Context (see section 3.3.1 of RFC 2571 [1]) for these purposes. If application of the access control policy results in a valid SNMP request PDU, then an SNMP Response-PDU is constructed from information gathered in the exchange of AgentX PDUs between the master agent and one or more subagents. Upon receipt and initial validation of an SNMP request PDU, a master agent uses the procedures described below to dispatch AgentX PDUs to the proper subagents, marshal the subagent responses, and construct an SNMP response PDU. 7.2.1. Dispatching AgentX PDUs Upon receipt and initial validation of an SNMP request PDU, a master agent uses the procedures described below to dispatch AgentX PDUs to the proper subagents. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 54] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 General Rules of Procedure While processing a particular SNMP request, the master agent may send one or more AgentX PDUs on one or more subagent sessions. The following rules of procedure apply in general to the AgentX master agent. PDU-specific rules are listed in the applicable sections. 1) Honoring the registry Because AgentX supports registration of duplicate and overlapping regions, it is possible for the master agent to obtain a value for a requested varbind from within multiple registered MIB regions. The master agent must ensure that the value (or exception) actually returned in the SNMP response PDU is taken from the authoritative region (as defined in section 7.1.4.1, "Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees"). 2) GetNext and GetBulk Processing The master agent may choose to send agentx-Get-PDUs while servicing an SNMP GetNextRequest-PDU. The master agent may choose to send agentx-Get-PDUs or agentx-GetNext-PDUs while servicing an SNMP GetBulkRequest-PDU. One possible reason for this would be if the current iteration has targeted instance-level registrations. The master agent may choose to "scope" the possible instances returned by a subagent by specifying an ending OID in the SearchRange. If such scoping is used, typically the ending OID would be the first lexicographical successor to the target region that was registered on a session other than the target session. Regardless of this choice, rule (1) must be obeyed. The master agent may require multiple request-response iterations on the same subagent session, to determine the final value of all requested variables. All AgentX PDUs sent on the session while processing a given SNMP request must contain identical values of transactionID. Each different SNMP request processed by the master agent must present a unique value of transactionID (within the limits of the 32-bit field) to the session. 3) Number and order of variables sent per AgentX PDU For Get/GetNext/GetBulk operations, at any stage of the possibly iterative process, the master agent may need to dispatch several SearchRanges to a particular subagent session. The master agent may send one, some, or all of the SearchRanges in a single AgentX PDU. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 55] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 The master agent must ensure that the correct contents and ordering of the VarBindList in the SNMP Response-PDU are maintained. The following rules govern the number of VarBinds in a given AgentX PDU: a) The subagent must support processing of AgentX PDUs with multiple VarBinds. b) When processing an SNMP Set request, the master agent must send all of the VarBinds applicable to a particular subagent session in a single agentx-TestSet-PDU. c) When processing an SNMP Get, GetNext, or GetBulk request, the master agent may send a single AgentX PDU on the session with all applicable VarBinds, or multiple PDUs with single VarBinds, or something in between those extremes. The determination of which method to use in a particular case is implementation-specific. 4) Timeout Values The master agent chooses a timeout value for each MIB region being queried, which is a) the value specified during registration of the MIB region, if it was non-zero b) otherwise, the value specified during establishment of the session in which this region was subsequently registered, if that value was non-zero c) otherwise, or, if the specified value is not practical, the master agent's implementaton-specific default value When an AgentX PDU that references multiple MIB regions is dispatched, the timeout value used for the PDU is the maximum value of the timeouts so determined for each of the referenced MIB regions. 5) Context If the master agent has determined that a specific non-default context is associated with the SNMP request PDU, that context is encoded into the AgentX PDU's context field and the NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit is set in h.flags. Otherwise, no context Octet String is added to the PDU, and the NON_DEFAULT_CONTEXT bit is cleared. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 56] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.2.1.1. agentx-Get-PDU Each variable binding in the SNMP request PDU is processed as follows: (1) Identify the target MIB region. Within a lexicographically ordered set of registered MIB regions, valid for the indicated context, locate the authoritative region (according to section 7.1.4.1, "Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees") that contains the binding's name. (2) If no such region exists, the variable binding is not processed further, and its value is set to `noSuchObject'. (3) Identify the subagent session in which this region was registered, termed the target session. (4) If this is the first variable binding to be dispatched over the target session in a request-response exchange entailed in the processing of this management request: - Create an agentx-Get-PDU for this session, with the header fields initialized as described above (see section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header"). (5) Add a SearchRange to the end of the target session's PDU for this variable binding. - The variable binding's name is encoded into the starting OID. - The ending OID is encoded as null. 7.2.1.2. agentx-GetNext-PDU Each variable binding in the SNMP request PDU is processed as follows: (1) Identify the target MIB region. Within a lexicographically ordered set of registered MIB regions, valid for the indicated context, locate the authoritative region (according to section 7.1.4.1, "Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees") that a) contains the variable binding's name and is not a fully qualified instance, or b) is the first lexicographical successor to the variable binding's name. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 57] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 (2) If no such region exists, the variable binding is not processed further, and its value is set to `endOfMibView'. (3) Identify the subagent session in which this region was registered, termed the target session. (4) If this is the first variable binding to be dispatched over the target session in a request-response exchange entailed in the processing of this management request: - Create an agentx-GetNext-PDU for the session, with the header fields initialized as described above (see section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header"). (5) Add a SearchRange to the end of the target session's agentx-GetNext-PDU for this variable binding. - if (1a) applies, the variable binding's name is encoded into the starting OID, and the OID's "include" field is set to 0. - if (1b) applies, the target region's r.subtree is encoded into the starting OID, and its "include" field is set to 1. (This is the recommended method. An implementation may choose to use a Starting OID value that preceeds r.subtree, in which case the include bit must be 0. A starting OID value that succeeds r.subtree is not permitted.) - the Ending OID for the SearchRange is encoded to be either NULL, or a value that lexicographically succeeds the Starting OID. This is an implementation-specific choice depending on how the master agent wishes to "scope" the possible returned instances. 7.2.1.3. agentx-GetBulk-PDU (Note: The outline of the following procedure is based closely on section 4.2.3, "The GetBulkRequest-PDU" of RFC 1905 [13]. Please refer to it for details on the format of the SNMP GetBulkRequest-PDU itself.) Each variable binding in the request PDU is processed as follows: (1) Identify the authoritative target region and target session, exactly as described for the agentx-GetNext-PDU (see section 7.2.1.2, "agentx-GetNext-PDU"). (2) If this is the first variable binding to be dispatched over the target session in a request-response exchange entailed in the processing of this management request: AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 58] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - Create an agentx-GetBulk-PDU for the session, with the header fields initialized as described above (see section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header"). (3) Add a SearchRange to the end of the target session's agentx-GetBulk-PDU for this variable binding, as described for the agentx-GetNext-PDU. If the variable binding was a non-repeater in the original request PDU, it must be a non-repeater in the agentx-GetBulk-PDU. The value of g.max_repetitions in the agentx-GetBulk-PDU may be less than (but not greater than) the value in the original request PDU. The master agent may make such alterations due to simple sanity checking, optimizations for the current iteration based on the registry, the maximum possible size of a potential Response-PDU, known constraints of the AgentX transport, or any other implementation-specific constraint. 7.2.1.4. agentx-TestSet-PDU AgentX employs test-commit-undo-cleanup phases to achieve "as if simultaneous" semantics of the SNMP SetRequest-PDU within the extensible agent. The initial phase involves the agentx-TestSet-PDU. Each variable binding in the SNMP request PDU is processed in order, as follows: (1) Identify the target MIB region and target session exactly as described in section 7.2.1.1, "agentx-Get-PDU", step 1). Within a lexicographically ordered set of OID ranges, valid for the indicated context, locate the authoritative range that contains the variable binding's name. (2) If no such target region exists, this variable binding fails with an error of `notWritable'. Processing is complete for this request. (3) If this is the first variable binding to be dispatched over the target session in a request-response exchange entailed in the processing of this management request: - create an agentx-TestSet-PDU for the session, with the header fields initialized as described above (see section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header"). (4) Add a VarBind to the end of the target session's PDU for this variable binding, as described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 59] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Note that all VarBinds applicable to a given session must be sent in a single agentx-TestSet-PDU. 7.2.1.5. Dispatch A timeout value is calculated for each PDU to be sent, which is the maximum value of the timeouts determined for each of the PDU's SearchRanges (as described above in section 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", item 4). Each pending PDU is mapped (via its h.sessionID value) to a particular transport domain/endpoint, as described in section 8 (Transport Mappings). 7.2.2. Subagent Processing A subagent initially processes a received AgentX PDU as follows: - If the received PDU is an agentx-Response-PDU: 1) If there are any errors parsing or interpreting the PDU, it is silently dropped. 2) Otherwise the response is matched to the original request via h.packetID, and handled in an implementation-specific manner. For example, if this response indicates an error attempting to register a MIB region, the subagent may wish to register a different region, or log an error and halt, etc. - If the received PDU is any other type: 1) an agentx-Response-PDU is created whose header fields are identical to the received request PDU except that h.type is set to Response, res.error to `noError', res.index to 0, and the VarBindList to null. 2) If the received PDU cannot be parsed, res.error is set to `parseError'. 3) Otherwise, if h.sessionID does not correspond to a currently established session, res.error is set to `notOpen'. 4) At this point, if res.error is not `noError', the received PDU is not processed further. If the received PDU's header was successfully parsed, the AgentX-Response-PDU is sent in reply. If the received PDU's header was not successfully parsed or for some other reason the subagent cannot send a reply, processing is complete. 7.2.3. Subagent Processing of agentx-Get, GetNext, GetBulk-PDUs A conformant AgentX subagent must support the agentx-Get, -GetNext, and -GetBulk PDUs, and must support multiple variables being supplied in each PDU. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 60] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 When a subagent receives an agentx-Get-, GetNext-, or GetBulk-PDU, it performs the indicated management operations and returns an agentx-Response-PDU. Each SearchRange in the request PDU's SearchRangeList is processed as described below, and a VarBind is added in the corresponding location of the agentx-Response-PDU's VarbindList. If processing should fail for any reason not described below, res.error is set to `genErr', res.index to the index of the failed SearchRange, the VarBindList is reset to null, and this agentx-Response-PDU is returned to the master agent. 7.2.3.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-Get-PDU Upon the subagent's receipt of an agentx-Get-PDU, each SearchRange in the request is processed as follows: (1) The starting OID is copied to v.name. (2) If the starting OID exactly matches the name of a variable instantiated by this subagent within the indicated context and session, v.type and v.data are encoded to represent the variable's syntax and value, as described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". (3) Otherwise, if the starting OID does not match the object identifier prefix of any variable instantiated within the indicated context and session, the VarBind is set to `noSuchObject', in the manner described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". (4) Otherwise, the VarBind is set to `noSuchInstance' in the manner described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". 7.2.3.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetNext-PDU Upon the subagent's receipt of an agentx-GetNext-PDU, each SearchRange in the request is processed as follows: (1) The subagent searches for a variable within the lexicographically ordered list of variable names for all variables it instantiates (without regard to registration of regions) within the indicated context and session, as follows: - if the "include" field of the starting OID is 0, the variable's name is the closest lexicographical successor to the starting OID. - if the "include" field of the starting OID is 1, the variable's name is either equal to, or the closest lexicographical successor to, the starting OID. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 61] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - If the ending OID is not null, the variable's name lexicographically precedes the ending OID. If a variable is successfully located, v.name is set to that variable's name. v.type and v.data are encoded to represent the variable's syntax and value, as described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". (2) If the subagent cannot locate an appropriate variable, v.name is set to the starting OID, and the VarBind is set to `endOfMibView', in the manner described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". 7.2.3.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetBulk-PDU A maximum of N + (M * R) VarBinds are returned, where N equals g.non_repeaters, M equals g.max_repetitions, and R is (number of SearchRanges in the GetBulk request) - N. The first N SearchRanges are processed exactly as for the agentx-GetNext-PDU. If M and R are both non-zero, the remaining R SearchRanges are processed iteratively to produce potentially many VarBinds. For each iteration i, such that i is greater than zero and less than or equal to M, and for each repeated SearchRange s, such that s is greater than zero and less than or equal to R, the (N+((i-1)*R)+s)-th VarBind is added to the agentx-Response-PDU as follows: 1) The subagent searches for a variable within the lexicographically ordered list of variable names for all variables it instantiates (without regard to registration of regions) within the indicated context and session, for which the following are all true: - The variable's name is the (i)-th lexicographical successor to the (N+s)-th requested OID. (Note that if i is 0 and the "include" field is 1, the variable's name may be equivalent to, or the first lexicographical successor to, the (N+s)-th requested OID.) - If the ending OID is not null, the variable's name lexicographically precedes the ending OID. If all of these conditions are met, v.name is set to the located variable's name. v.type and v.data are encoded to represent the variable's syntax and value, as described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 62] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 2) If no such variable exists, the VarBind is set to `endOfMibView' as described in section 5.4, "Value Representation". v.name is set to v.name of the (N+((i-2)*R)+s)-th VarBind unless i is currently 1, in which case it is set to the value of the starting OID in the (N+s)-th SearchRange. Note that further iterative processing should stop if - For any iteration i, all s values of v.type are `endOfMibView'. - An AgentX transport constraint or other implementation-specific constraint is reached. 7.2.4. Subagent Processing of agentx-TestSet, -CommitSet, -UndoSet, -CleanupSet-PDUs A conformant AgentX subagent must support the agentx-TestSet, -CommitSet, -UndoSet, and -CleanupSet PDUs, and must support multiple variables being supplied in the agentx-TestSet-PDU. These four PDUs are used to collectively perform the indicated management operation. An agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply to each of the PDUs (except -CleanupSet), to inform the master agent of the state of the operation. The master agent must serialize Set transactions for each session. That is, a session need not handle multiple concurrent Set transactions. These Response-PDUs do not contain a VarBindList. 7.2.4.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-TestSet-PDU Upon the subagent's receipt of an agentx-TestSet-PDU, each VarBind in the PDU is validated until they are all successful, or until one fails, as described in section 4.2.5 of RFC 1905 [13]. The subagent validates variables with respect to the context and session indicated in the testSet-PDU. If each VarBind is successful, the subagent has a further responsibility to ensure the availability of all resources (memory, write access, etc.) required for successfully carrying out a subsequent agentx-CommitSet operation. If this cannot be guaranteed, the subagent should set res.error to `resourceUnavailable'. As a result of this validation step, an agentx-Response-PDU is sent in reply whose res.error field is set to one of the following SNMPv2 PDU error-status values (see section 3, "Definitions", in RFC 1905 [13]): noError (0), AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 63] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 genErr (5), noAccess (6), wrongType (7), wrongLength (8), wrongEncoding (9), wrongValue (10), noCreation (11), inconsistentValue (12), resourceUnavailable (13), notWritable (17), inconsistentName (18) If this value is not `noError', the res.index field must be set to the index of the VarBind for which validation failed. Implementation of rigorous validation code may be one of the most demanding aspects of subagent development. Implementors are strongly encouraged to do this right, so as to avoid if at all possible the extensible agent's having to return `commitFailed' or `undoFailed' during subsequent processing. 7.2.4.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CommitSet-PDU The agentx-CommitSet-PDU indicates that the subagent should actually perform (as described in the post-validation sections of 4.2.5 of RFC 1905 [13]) the management operation indicated by the previous TestSet-PDU. After carrying out the management operation, the subagent sends in reply an agentx-Response-PDU whose res.error field is set to one of the following SNMPv2 PDU error-status values (see section 3, "Definitions", in RFC 1905 [13]): noError (0), commitFailed (14) If this value is `commitFailed', the res.index field must be set to the index of the VarBind (as it occured in the agentx-TestSet-PDU) for which the operation failed. Otherwise res.index is set to 0. 7.2.4.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-UndoSet-PDU The agentx-UndoSet-PDU indicates that the subagent should undo the management operation requested in a preceding CommitSet-PDU. The undo process is as described in section 4.2.5 of RFC 1905 [13]. After carrying out the undo process, the subagent sends in reply an agentx-Response-PDU whose res.error field is set to one of the following SNMPv2 PDU error-status values (see section 3, "Definitions", in RFC 1905 [13]): noError (0), undoFailed (15) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 64] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 If this value is `undoFailed', the res.index field must be set to the index of the VarBind (as it occured in the agentx-TestSet-PDU) for which the operation failed. Otherwise res.index is set to 0. This PDU also signals the end of processing of the management operation initiated by the previous TestSet-PDU. The subagent should release resources, etc. as described in section 7.2.4.4, "Subagent Processing of the agentx-CleanupSet-PDU". 7.2.4.4. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CleanupSet-PDU The agentx-CleanupSet-PDU signals the end of processing of the management operation requested in the previous TestSet-PDU. This is an indication to the subagent that it may now release any resources it may have reserved in order to carry out the management request. No response is sent by the subagent. 7.2.5. Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses The master agent now marshals all subagent AgentX response PDUs and builds an SNMP response PDU. In the next several subsections, the initial processing of all subagent AgentX response PDUs is described, followed by descriptions of subsequent processing for each specific subagent Response. 7.2.5.1. Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs 1) If a response is not received on a session within the timeout interval for this dispatch, it is treated as if the subagent had returned `genErr' and processed as described below. A timeout may be due to a variety of reasons, and does not necessarily denote a failed or malfunctioning subagent. As such, the master agent's response to a subagent timeout is implementation-specific, but with the following constraint: A session that times out on three consecutive AgentX requests is considered unable to respond, and the master agent must close the AgentX session as described in section 7.1.8, "Processing the agentx-Close-PDU", step (2). 2) Otherwise, the h.packetID, h.sessionID, and h.transactionID fields of the AgentX response PDU are used to correlate subagent responses. If the response does not pertain to this SNMP operation, it is ignored. 3) Otherwise, the responses are processed jointly to form the SNMP response PDU. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 65] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.2.5.2. Processing of Responses to agentx-Get-PDUs After common processing of the subagent's response to an agentx-Get-PDU (see section 7.2.5.1, "Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs", above), processing continues with the following steps: 1) For any received AgentX response PDU, if res.error is not `noError', the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to this value. If res.error contains an AgentX specific value (e.g. `parseError'), the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to a value of genErr instead. Also, the SNMP response PDU's error index is set to the index of the variable binding corresponding to the failed VarBind in the subagent's AgentX response PDU. All other AgentX response PDUs received due to processing this SNMP request are ignored. Processing is complete; the SNMP Response PDU is ready to be sent (see section 7.2.6, "Sending the SNMP Response-PDU"). 2) Otherwise, the content of each VarBind in the AgentX response PDU is used to update the corresponding variable binding in the SNMP Response-PDU. 7.2.5.3. Processing of Responses to agentx-GetNext-PDU and agentx-GetBulk-PDU After common processing of the subagent's response to an agentx-GetNext-PDU or agentx-GetBulk-PDU (see section 7.2.5.1, "Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs", above), processing continues with the following steps: 1) For any received AgentX response PDU, if res.error is not `noError', the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to this value. If res.error contains an AgentX specific value (e.g. `parseError'), the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to a value of genErr instead. Also, the SNMP response PDU's error index is set to the index of the variable binding corresponding to the failed VarBind in the subagent's AgentX response PDU. All other AgentX response PDUs received due to processing this SNMP request are ignored. Processing is complete; the SNMP response PDU is ready to be sent (see section 7.2.6, "Sending the SNMP Response-PDU"). 2) Otherwise, the content of each VarBind in the AgentX response PDU is used to update the corresponding VarBind in the SNMP response PDU. After all expected AgentX response PDUs have been processed, if any VarBinds still contain the value `endOfMibView' in their v.type fields, processing must continue: AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 66] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 3) A new iteration of AgentX request dispatching is initiated (as described in section 7.2.1.2, "agentx-GetNext-PDU"), in which only those VarBinds whose v.type is `endOfMibView' are processed. 4) For each such VarBind, an authoratative target MIB region is identified in which the master agent expects to find suitable MIB variables. The target session is the one on which this new target region was registered. The starting OID in each SearchRange is set to the value of v.name for the corresponding VarBind, and its "include" field is set to 0. 5) The value of transactionID must be identical to the value used during the previous iteration. 6) The AgentX PDUs are sent on the target session(s), and the responses are received and processed according to the steps described in section 7.2.5, "Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses". 7) This process continues iteratively until a complete SNMP Response-PDU has been built, or until there remain no authoratative MIB regions to query. Note that r.subtree for the new target region identified in step 4) may not lexicographically succeed r.subtree for the region that has returned `endOfMibView'. For example, consider the following registry: session A `mib-2' (1.3.6.1.2.1) session B `ip' (1.3.6.1.2.1.4) session C `tcp' (1.3.6.1.2.1.6) If while processing a GetNext-Request-PDU session B returns `endOfMibView' for a variable name within 1.3.6.1.2.1.4, the target MIB region identified in step 4) would be 1.3.6.1.2.1 (since it may contain variables whose names preceed 1.3.6.1.2.1.6). Note also that if session A returned variables from within 1.3.6.1.2.1.6, they must be discarded since session A is NOT authoratative for that region. 7.2.5.4. Processing of Responses to agentx-TestSet-PDUs After common processing of the subagent's response to an agentx-TestSet-PDU (see section 7.2.5.1, "Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs", above), processing continues with the further exchange of AgentX PDUs. The value of h.transactionID in the agentx-CommitSet, -UndoSet, and -CleanupSet-PDUs must be identical to the value sent in the testSet-PDU. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 67] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 The state transitions and PDU sequences are depicted in section 7.3, "State Transitions". The set of all sessions who have been sent an agentx-TestSet-PDU for this particular transaction are referred to below as "involved sessions". 1) If any target session's response is not `noError', all other agentx-Response-PDUs received due to processing this SNMP request are ignored. An agentx-CleanupSet-PDU is sent to all involved sessions. Processing is complete; the SNMP response PDU is constructed as described below in 7.2.6, "Sending the SNMP Response-PDU". 2) Otherwise an agentx-CommitSet-PDU is sent to all involved sessions. 7.2.5.5. Processing of Responses to agentx-CommitSet-PDUs After common processing of the subagent's response to an agentx-CommitSet-PDU (see section 7.2.5.1, "Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs", above), processing continues with the following steps: 1) If any response is not `noError', all other agentx-Response-PDUs received due to processing this SNMP request are ignored. An agentx-UndoSet-PDU is sent to each target session that has been sent an agentx-CommitSet-PDU. An agentx-CleanupSet-PDU is sent to the remainder of the involved sessions. 2) Otherwise an agentx-CleanupSet-PDU is sent to all involved sessions. Processing is complete; the SNMP response PDU is constructed as described below in section 7.2.6, "Sending the SNMP Response-PDU". 7.2.5.6. Processing of Responses to agentx-UndoSet-PDUs After common processing of the subagent's response to an agentx-UndoSet-PDU (see section 7.2.5.1, "Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs", above), processing continues with the following steps: 1) If any response is not `noError' the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to this value. If res.error contains an AgentX specific value (e.g. `parseError'), the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to a value of genErr instead. Also, the SNMP response PDU's error index is set to the index of the VarBind corresponding to the failed VarBind in the agentx-TestSet-PDU. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 68] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Otherwise the SNMP response PDU's error code is set to `noError' and its error index to 0. 7.2.6. Sending the SNMP Response-PDU Once the processing described in section 7.2.5, "Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses" is complete, there is an SNMP response PDU available. The master agent now implements the Elements of Procedure for the applicable version of the SNMP protocol in order to encapsulate the PDU into a message, and transmit it to the originator of the SNMP management request. Note that this may involve altering the PDU contents (for instance, to replace the original VarBinds if an error condition is to be returned). The response PDU may also be altered in order to support the SNMPv1 PDU. In such cases the required PDU mapping is that defined in RFC 2089 [25]. (Note in particular that the rules for handling Counter64 syntax may require re-sending AgentX GetBulk or GetNext PDUs until a VarBind of suitable syntax is returned.) 7.2.7. MIB Views AgentX subagents are not aware of MIB views, since view information is not contained in AgentX PDUs. As stated above, the descriptions of procedures in section 7, "Elements of Procedure", of this memo are not intended to constrain the internal architecture of any conformant implementation. In particular, the master agent procedures described in section 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs" and in section 7.2.5, "Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses" may be altered so as to optimize AgentX exchanges when implementing MIB views. Such optimizations are beyond the scope of this memo. But note that section 7.2.3, "Subagent Processing of agentx-Get, GetNext, GetBulk- PDUs", defines subagent behavior in such a way that alteration of SearchRanges may be used in such optimizations. 7.3. State Transitions State diagrams are presented from the master agent's perspective for transport connection and session establishment, and from the subagent's perspective for Set transaction processing. 7.3.1. Set Transaction States The following table presents, from the subagent's perspective, the state transitions involved in Set transaction processing: AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 69] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 STATE +---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- | A | B | C | D | E | (Initial | TestOK | Commit | Test | Commit | State) | | OK | Fail | Fail | | | | | EVENT | | | | | ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- | 7.2.4.1 | | | | Receive | All varbinds | | | | TestSet | OK? | X | X | X | X PDU | Yes ->B | | | | | No ->D | | | | ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- | | 7.2.4.2 | | | Receive | | NoError? | | | Commit- | X | Yes ->C | X | X | X Set PDU | | No ->E | | | ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- Receive | | | 7.2.4.3 | |7.2.4.3 UndoSet | X | X | ->done | X | ->done PDU | | | | | ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- Receive | | 7.2.4.4 | 7.2.4.4 |7.2.4.4 | Cleanup- | X | ->done | ->done | ->done | X Set PDU | | | | | ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- Session | | rollback | undo | | Loss | ->done | ->done | ->done | ->done | ->done ---------+---------------+--------------+---------+--------+-------- There are three possible sequences that a subagent may follow for a particular set transaction: 1) TestSet CommitSet CleanupSet 2) TestSet CommitSet UndoSet 3) TestSet CleanupSet Note that a single PDU sequence may result in multiple paths through the finite state machine (FSM). For example, the sequence TestSet CommitSet UndoSet may walk through either of these two state sequences: (initial) TestOK CommitOK (done) (initial) TestOK CommitFail (done) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 70] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.3.2. Transport Connection States The following table presents, from the master agent's perspective, the state transitions involved in transport connection setup and teardown: STATE +--------------+-------------- | A | B | No transport | Transport | | connected | | EVENT | | ----------------+--------------+-------------- Transport | | connect | ->B | X indication | | ----------------+--------------+-------------- Receive | | if no resources Open-PDU | | available | | reject, else | X | establish | | session | | | | ->B ----------------+--------------+-------------- Receive | | if matching Response-PDU | | session id, | | feed to that | X | session's FSM | | else ignore | | | | ->B ----------------+--------------+-------------- Receive other | | if matching PDUs | | session id, | | feed to that | X | session's FSM | | else reject | | | | ->B ----------------+--------------+-------------- Transport | |notify all disconnect | |sessions on indication | X |this transport | | | | ->A ----------------+--------------+-------------- AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 71] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 7.3.3. Session States The following table presents, from the master agent's perspective, the state transitions involved in session setup and teardown: STATE +-------------+---------------- | A | B | No session | Session | | established EVENT | | ---------------+-------------+---------------- | 7.1.1 | Receive | | X Open PDU | ->B | ---------------+-------------+---------------- | | 7.1.8 Receive | X | Close PDU | | ->A ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.4 Register PDU | X | | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.5 Unregister | X | PDU | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | Get PDU | | GetNext PDU | | GetBulk PDU | X | X TestSet PDU | | CommitSet PDU | | UndoSet PDU | | CleanupSet PDU | | ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.10 Notify PDU | X | | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive Ping | | 7.1.11 PDU | X | | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- (continued next page) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 72] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.2 IndexAllocate | X | PDU | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.3 IndexDeallocate| X | PDU | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.6 AddAgentxCaps | X | PDU | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.1.7 RemoveAgentxCap| X | PDU | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | 7.2.5 Response PDU | X | | | ->B ---------------+-------------+---------------- Receive | | Other PDU | X | X ---------------+-------------+---------------- 8. Transport Mappings The same AgentX PDU formats, encodings, and elements of procedure are used regardless of the underlying transport. 8.1. AgentX over TCP 8.1.1. Well-known Values The master agent accepts TCP connection requests for the well-known port 705. Subagents connect to the master agent using this port number. 8.1.2. Operation Once a TCP connection has been established, the AgentX peers use this connection to carry all AgentX PDUs. Multiple AgentX sessions may be established using the same TCP connection. AgentX PDUs are sent within an AgentX session. AgentX peers are responsible for mapping the h.sessionID to a particular TCP connection. The AgentX entity must not "interleave" AgentX PDUs within the TCP byte stream. All the bytes of one PDU must be sent before any bytes of a different PDU. The receiving entity must be prepared for TCP to deliver byte sequences that do not coincide with AgentX PDU boundaries. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 73] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 8.2. AgentX over UNIX-domain Sockets Many (BSD-derived) implementations of the UNIX operating system support the UNIX pathname address family (AF_UNIX) for socket communications. This provides a convenient method of sending and receiving data between processes on the same host. Mapping AgentX to this transport is useful for environments that - wish to guarantee subagents are running on the same managed node as the master agent, and where - sockets provide better performance than TCP or UDP, especially in the presence of heavy network I/O 8.2.1. Well-known Values The master agent creates a well-known UNIX-domain socket endpoint called "/var/agentx/master". (It may create other, implementation-specific endpoints.) This endpoint name uses the character set encoding native to the managed node, and represents a UNIX-domain stream (SOCK_STREAM) socket. 8.2.2. Operation Once a connection has been established, the AgentX peers use this connection to carry all AgentX PDUs. Multiple AgentX sessions may be established using the same connection. AgentX PDUs are sent within an AgentX session. AgentX peers are responsible for mapping the h.sessionID to a particular connection. The AgentX entity must not "interleave" AgentX PDUs within the socket byte stream. All the bytes of one PDU must be sent before any bytes of a different PDU. The receiving entity must be prepared for the socket to deliver byte sequences that do not coincide with AgentX PDU boundaries. 9. Security Considerations This memo defines a protocol between two processing entities, one of which (the master agent) is assumed to perform authentication of received SNMP requests and to control access to management information. The master agent performs these security operations independently of the other processing entity (the subagent). AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 74] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Security considerations require three questions to be answered: 1. Is a particular subagent allowed to initiate a session with a particular master agent? 2. During an AgentX session, is any SNMP security-related information (for example, community names) passed from the master agent to the subagent? 3. During an AgentX session, what part of the MIB tree is this subagent allowed to register? The answer to the third question is: A subagent can register any subtree (subject to AgentX elements of procedure, section 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU"). Currently there is no access control mechanism defined in AgentX. A concern here is that a malicious subagent that registers an unauthorized "sensitive" subtree, could see modification requests to those objects, or by giving its own clever answer to NMS queries, could cause the NMS to do something that leads to information disclosure or other damage. The answer to the second question is: No. Now we can answer the first question. AgentX does not contain a mechanism for authorizing/refusing session initiations. Thus, controlling subagent access to the master agent may only be done at a lower layer (e.g., transport). An AgentX subagent can connect to a master agent using either a network transport mechanism (e.g., TCP), or a "local" mechanism (e.g., shared memory, named pipes). In the case where a local transport mechanism is used and both subagent and master agent are running on the same host, connection authorization can be delegated to the operating system features. The answer to the first security question then becomes: "If and only if the subagent has sufficient privileges, then the operating system will allow the connection". If a network transport is used, currently there is no inherent security. Transport Layer Security or SSL could be used to control subagent connections, but that is beyond the scope of this document. Thus it is recommended that subagents always run on the same host as the master agent and that operating system features be used to ensure that only properly authorized subagents can establish connections to the master agent. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 75] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 10. Acknowledgements The initial development of this memo was heavily influenced by the DPI 2.0 specification RFC 1592 [26]. This document was produced by the IETF Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Working Group, and benefited especially from the contributions of the following working group members: David Battle, Uri Blumenthal, Jeff Case, Maria Greene, Lauren Heintz, Dave Keeney, Harmen van der Linde, Bob Natale, Aleksey Romanov, Don Ryan, and Juergen Schoenwaelder. An honorable mention is extended to Randy Presuhn in recognition for his numerous technical contributions to this specification; for his many answers provided on (and hosting of) the AgentX e-mail list and ftp site, and, for the valued support and guidance Randy provided to the Working Group chair. The AgentX Working Group is chaired by: Bob Natale ACE*COMM Corporation 704 Quince Orchard Road Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Phone: +1-301-721-3000 Fax: +1-301-721-3001 EMail: bnatale@acecomm.com 11. Authors' and Editor's Addresses Mike Daniele Compaq Computer Corporation 110 Spit Brook Rd Nashua, NH 03062 Phone: +1-603-881-1423 EMail: daniele@zk3.dec.com Bert Wijnen IBM T.J.Watson Research Schagen 33 3461 GL Linschoten Netherlands Phone: +31-348-432-794 EMail: wijnen@vnet.ibm.com AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 76] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 Mark Ellison (WG editor) Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. 33 Eastview Drive, Suite #10 Wilton, NH 03086 Phone: +1-603-654-2703 EMail: ellison@world.std.com Dale Francisco (editor) Cisco Systems 150 Castilian Dr Goleta CA 93117 Phone: +1-805-961-3642 Fax: +1-805-961-3600 EMail: dfrancis@cisco.com 12. References [1] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [2] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155, STD 16, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990 [3] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", RFC 1212, STD 16, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, March 1991 [4] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, Performance Systems International, March 1991 [5] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", RFC 2578, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 [6] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", RFC 2579, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 77] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 [7] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", RFC 2580, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 [8] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", RFC 1157, STD 15, SNMP Research, Performance Systems International, Performance Systems International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990. [9] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [11] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, SNMP Research, Inc., Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [12] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [13] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [14] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC 2573, SNMP Research, Inc., Secure Computing Corporation, Cisco Systems, April 1999 [15] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, IBM T. J. Watson Research, BMC Software, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., April 1999 [16] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, SNMP Research, Inc., TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc., Ericsson, Cisco Systems, April 1999 AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 78] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 [17] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1907, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [18] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December, 1987). [19] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB using SMIv2", RFC 2233, Cisco Systems, FTP Software, November 1997. [20] Case, J., "FDDI Management Information Base", RFC 1285, SNMP Research, Incorporated, January 1992. [21] Krupczak, C., and Saperia, J., "Definitions of System-Level Managed Objects for Applications", RFC 2287, Empire Technologies, Inc., BGS Systems Inc., April 1997. [22] Kalbfleisch, C., Krupczak, C., Presuhn, R., and Saperia, J., "Application Management MIB", RFC 2564, Verio, Inc., Empire Technologies, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IronBridge Networks, May 1999. [23] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, ISI, October 1994. [24] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Coexistence between Version 1 and Version 2 of the Internet- standard Network Management Framework", RFC 1908, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [25] Wijnen, B. and D. Levi, "V2ToV1: Mapping SNMPv2 onto SNMPv1 Within a Bilingual SNMP Agent", RFC 2089, IBM, SNMP Research, Inc, January 1997. [26] Wijnen, B., Carpenter, G., Curran, K., Sehgal, A. and G. Waters, "Simple Network Management Protocol: Distributed Protocol Interface, Version 2.0", RFC 1592, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., Bell Northern Research, Ltd., March 1994. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 79] 13. Notices The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such propritary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 14. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. AgentX Working Group Expires December 1999 [Page 80] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 A. Changes relative to RFC 2257 Changes on the wire: - The agentx-Notify-PDU and agentx-Close-PDU now generate an agentx-Response-PDU. - The res.error field may contain three new error codes: parseFailed(266), requestDenied(267), and processingError(268). Clarifications to the text of the memo: - Modified the text of step (4) in section 4.2, "Applicability" to separate the two concerns of row creation, and counters that count rows. - The use of the r.range_subid field is more clearly defined in section 6.2.3, "The agentx-Register-PDU". - Default priority (127) for registration added to the description of r.priority in section 6.2.3, "The agentx-Register-PDU". - Made the distinction of "administrative processing" PDUs and "SNMP request processing" PDUs in section 6.1, "AgentX PDU Header" description of h.type. This distinction is used in the Elements of Procedure relative to the res.sysuptime and res.error fields. - Rewrote portions of text in section 6.2.3, "The agentx-Register- PDU" to be more explicit about the following points: - There is a default registration prority of 127. - Improved the description of r.range_subid, independent of the prefix in r.region. - Improved description and examples of how to use the registration mechanism. - Added a description for r.upper_bound. - changed r.region to r.subtree (because the text used the terms "region", "range", and "OID range" in too loose a fashion. r.subtree can not represent anything more by itself than a simple subtree. In conjunction with r.range_subid and r.upper_bound, it can represent a "region", that is, a union of subtrees) - Modified the text in section 6.2.4, "The agentx-Unregister-PDU" to include a description of u.range_subid and u.upper_bound - Added use of the `requestDenied' error code in section 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU". Daniele, et. al. Expires February 2000 [Page 81] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - Removed text in section 7, "Elements of Procedure" on parse errors and protocol errors. - Added a new section, 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages" which defines common processing and how to use the `parseError' and `processingError' instead of closing a session, and how to handle context. - Removed the common processing text from the other administrative processing Elements of Procedure sections, and added a reference to section 7.1, "Processing AgentX Administrative Messages". The affected sections are: - 7.1.2, "Processing the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU" - 7.1.3, "Processing the agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU" - 7.1.4, "Processing the agentx-Register-PDU" - 7.1.5, "Processing the agentx-Unregister-PDU" - 7.1.6, "Processing the agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU" - 7.1.7, "Processing the agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU" - 7.1.8, "Processing the agentx-Close-PDU" - 7.1.10, "Processing the agentx-Notify-PDU" - 7.1.11, "Processing the agentx-Ping-PDU" - Reworked the text in section 7.1.1, "Processing the agentx-Open- PDU" to include new error codes, and, to eliminate reference to an indicated context. Modified the text in Section 7.1.10, "Processing the agentx-Notify- PDU" to state that context checking is performed. - Substantially modified the text in section 7.1.4.1, "Handling - Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees". - Removed the section on "Using the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU" and added section 7.1.4.2, "Registering Stuff". This change is intended to provide a more concise and a more cohesive description of how things are supposed to work. - Modified the test in section 7.1.5, "Processing the agentx- Unregister-PDU" to require a match on u.range_subid and on u.upper_bound when these fields were applicable in the corresponding agentx-Register-PDU. - Removed all references to "splitting", and all uses of the term "OID range". The text now refers to regions or subtrees directly, and relies on rule (1), "Honoring the Registry", in section 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs". Daniele, et. al. Expires February 2000 [Page 82] Internet Draft AgentX 23 August 1999 - Modified text in clause 4(c) of section 7.2.1, "Dispatching AgentX PDUs", clarifying that the master agent can use its implementation-specific default timeout value when the timeout value registered by the subagent is impractical. - Added text in section 7.2.2, "Subagent Processing" describing common processing. - Added an example to the text in section 7.2.5.3, "Processing of Responses to agentx-GetNext-PDU and agentx-GetBulk-PDU", and, removed the definition of "contains" from this section. - Modified the text in section 8.1.2, "Operation" to explicitly prohibit interleaved sends, and, added a caution about exchanging AgentX messages via TCP. - Modified text to be more explicit that the OID in the agentx-Allocate-PDU is an OBJECT-TYPE and does not contain any instance sub-identifiers. - Replaced the term "subagent" with the term "session" in many places throughout the text. - Modified the text relative to master agent processing of the agentx-TestSet-PDU, agentx-CommitSet-PDU, and the agentx-UndoSet-PDU to explicitly state that only "involved" sessions receive an agentx-CommitSet-PDU, and possibly, an agentx-UndoSet-PDU. - Modified the text to use the term "transaction", instead of "packet" (and others), where appropriate. This helps distinguish the overall transaction from a particular sequence of packets or PDUs. - Modified the text to explicitly state that a session is not required to support concurrent sets. - Added section 13, "Notices". Daniele, et. al. Expires February 2000 [Page 83] --------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="agentx_mib.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="agentx_mib.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit INTERNET-DRAFT L. Heintz Cerent Corporation S. Gudur Independent Consultant M. Ellison, Ed. Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. 23 August 1999 Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP Agents Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects managing SNMP agents that use the Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol. This memo specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant to the SMIv2, and semantically identical to the peer SMIv1 definitions. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 1] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet community. Table of Contents 1. The SNMP Management Framework ............................... 3 2. Introduction ................................................ 3 3. AgentX MIB Overview ......................................... 4 4. Managed Object Definitions for AgentX ....................... 6 5. Intellectual Property ....................................... 18 6. Acknowledgements ............................................ 18 7. Security Considerations ..................................... 19 8. References .................................................. 21 9. Authors' and Editor's Addresses ............................. 24 10. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 24 AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 2] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 1. The SNMP Management Framework The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major components: - An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [1]. - Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in RFC 1155 [2], RFC 1212 [3] and RFC 1215 [4]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described in RFC 2578 [5], RFC 2579 [6] and RFC 2580 [7]. - Message protocols for transferring management information. The first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and described in RFC 1157 [8]. A second version of the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [9] and RFC 1906 [10]. The third version of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [10], RFC 2572 [11] and RFC 2574 [12]. - Protocol operations for accessing management information. The first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1157 [8]. A second set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905 [13]. - A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [14] and the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575 [15]. A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [16]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the MIB. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 3] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 2. Introduction The SNMP Agent Extensibility Protocol (AgentX) is a protocol used to distribute the implementation of an SNMP agent amongst a single "master agent" and multiple "subagents". See [17] for details about the AgentX protocol. The goals of the AgentX MIB are: - List the set of subagent connections that currently have logical sessions open with the master agent. - Identify each subagent connection transport address and type. - Identify each subagent session vendor, AgentX protocol version, and other characteristics. - Identify the set of MIB objects each session implements, the context in which the objects are registered, and the priority of the registration. - Determine protocol operational parameters such as the timeout interval for responses from a session and the priority at which a session registers a particular MIB region. - Allow (but do not require) managers to explicitly close subagent sessions with the master agent. 3. AgentX MIB Overview This MIB is organized into four groups. The agentxGeneral group provides information describing the master agent's AgentX support, including the protocol version supported. The agentxConnection group provides information describing the current set of connections capable of carrying AgentX sessions. The agentxSession group provides information describing the current set of AgentX sessions. The agentxRegistration group provides information describing the current set of registrations. Three tables form the heart of this mib. These are the connection, session, and registration tables. Entries in the registration table exist in a many-to-one relationship with entries in the session table. This relationship is expressed through the two common indices, agentxSessionIndex and agentxConnIndex. Entries in the registration table also exist in a many-to-one relationship with entries in the connection table. This AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 4] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 relationship is expressed through the common index, agentxConnIndex. Entries in the session table exist in a many-to-one relationship with entries in the connection table. This relationship is expressed through the common index, agentxConnIndex. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 5] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 4. Managed Object Definitions for AgentX AGENTX-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Unsigned32, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI SnmpAdminString FROM SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, TimeStamp, TruthValue, TDomain FROM SNMPv2-TC; agentxMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "9908230000Z" -- Midnight 23 August 1999 ORGANIZATION "AgentX Working Group" CONTACT-INFO "WG-email: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subscribe: agentx-request@dorothy.bmc.com WG-email Archive: ftp://ftp.peer.com/pub/agentx/archives FTP repository: ftp://ftp.peer.com/pub/agentx http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/agentx-charter.html Chair: Bob Natale ACE*COMM Corporation Email: bnatale@acecomm.com WG editor: Mark Ellison Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. Email: ellison@world.std.com Co-author: Lauren Heintz Cerent Corporation, EMail: lauren.heintz@cerent.com Co-author: Smitha Gudur Independent Consultant Email: sgudur@hotmail.com " DESCRIPTION "This is the MIB module for the SNMP Agent Extensibility Protocol (AgentX). This MIB module will be implemented by the master agent. " REVISION "9908230000Z" DESCRIPTION "Rev 1.0 -- 23 August 1999 00:00 ellison initial version, published in RFC xxxx. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 6] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 " -- To be assigned by IANA. ::= { mib-2 ? } -- To be assigned by IANA. -- Textual Conventions AgentxTAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Denotes a transport service address. This is identical to the TAddress textual convention (SNMPv2-SMI) except that zero-length values are permitted. " SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) -- Administrative assignments agentxObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxMIB 1 } agentxGeneral OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxObjects 1 } agentxConnection OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxObjects 2 } agentxSession OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxObjects 3 } agentxRegistration OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxObjects 4 } agentxDefaultTimeout OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..255) UNITS "seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The default length of time, in seconds, that the master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message to a session before it regards the subagent as not responding. This is a system-wide value that may override the timeout value associated with a particular session (agentxSessionTimeout) or a particular registered MIB region (agentxRegTimeout). If the associated value of agentxSessionTimeout and agentxRegTimeout are zero, or impractical in accordance with implementation-specific procedure of the master agent, the value represented by this object will be the effective timeout value for the master agent to await a response to a dispatch from a given subagent. " DEFVAL { 5 } ::= { agentxGeneral 1 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 7] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 agentxMasterAgentXVer OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (1..255) MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The AgentX protocol version supported by this master agent. The current protocol version is 1. Note that the master agent must also allow interaction with earlier version subagents. " ::= { agentxGeneral 2 } -- The AgentX Subagent Connection Group agentxConnTableLastChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime when the last row creation or deletion occurred in the agentxConnectionTable. " ::= { agentxConnection 1 } agentxConnectionTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF AgentxConnectionEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The agentxConnectionTable tracks all current AgentX transport connections. There may be zero, one, or more AgentX sessions carried on a given AgentX connection. " ::= { agentxConnection 2 } agentxConnectionEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX AgentxConnectionEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An agentxConnectionEntry contains information describing a single AgentX transport connection. A connection may be used to support zero or more AgentX sessions. An entry is created when a new transport connection is established, and is destroyed when the transport connection is terminated. " INDEX { agentxConnIndex } ::= { agentxConnectionTable 1 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 8] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 AgentxConnectionEntry ::= SEQUENCE { agentxConnIndex Unsigned32, agentxConnOpenTime TimeStamp, agentxConnTransportDomain TDomain, agentxConnTransportAddress AgentxTAddress } agentxConnIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "agentxConnIndex contains the value that uniquely identifies an open transport connection used by this master agent to provide AgentX service. Values of this index should not be re-used. The value assigned to a given transport connection is constant for the lifetime of that connection. " ::= { agentxConnectionEntry 1 } agentxConnOpenTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime when this connection was established and, therefore, its value when this entry was added to the table. " ::= { agentxConnectionEntry 2 } agentxConnTransportDomain OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TDomain MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The transport protocol in use for this connection to the subagent. " ::= { agentxConnectionEntry 3 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 9] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 agentxConnTransportAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX AgentxTAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The transport address of the remote (subagent) end of this connection to the master agent. This object may be zero-length for unix-domain sockets (and possibly other types of transport addresses) since the subagent need not bind a filename to its local socket. " ::= { agentxConnectionEntry 4 } -- The AgentX Subagent Session Group agentxSessionTableLastChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime when the last row creation or deletion occurred in the agentxSessionTable. " ::= { agentxSession 1 } agentxSessionTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF AgentxSessionEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A table of AgentX subagent sessions currently in effect. " ::= { agentxSession 2 } agentxSessionEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX AgentxSessionEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Information about a single open session between the AgentX master agent and a subagent is contained in this entry. An entry is created when a new session is successfully established and is destroyed either when the subagent transport connection has terminated or when the subagent session is closed. " INDEX { agentxConnIndex, agentxSessionIndex } ::= { agentxSessionTable 1 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 10] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 AgentxSessionEntry ::= SEQUENCE { agentxSessionIndex Unsigned32, agentxSessionObjectID OBJECT IDENTIFIER, agentxSessionDescr SnmpAdminString, agentxSessionAdminStatus INTEGER, agentxSessionOpenTime TimeStamp, agentxSessionAgentXVer INTEGER, agentxSessionTimeout INTEGER } agentxSessionIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A unique index for the subagent session. It is the same as h.sessionID defined in the agentx header. Note that if a subagent's session with the master agent is closed for any reason its index should not be re-used. " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 1 } agentxSessionObjectID OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This is taken from the o.id field of the agentx-Open-PDU. This attribute will report a value of '0.0' for subagents not supporting the notion of an AgentX session object identifier. " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 2 } agentxSessionDescr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A textual description of the session. This is analogous to sysDescr defined in the SNMPv2-MIB in RFC 1907 [19] and is taken from the o.descr field of the agentx-Open-PDU. This attribute will report a zero-length string value for subagents not supporting the notion of a session description. " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 3 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 11] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 agentxSessionAdminStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { up(1), down(2) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The administrative (desired) status of the session. Setting the value to 'down(2)' closes the subagent session (with c.reason set to 'reasonByManager'). " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 4 } agentxSessionOpenTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime when this session was opened and, therefore, its value when this entry was added to the table. " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 5 } agentxSessionAgentXVer OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (1..255) MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The version of the AgentX protocol supported by the session. This must be less than or equal to the value of agentxMasterAgentXVer. " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 6 } agentxSessionTimeout OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..255) UNITS "seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 12] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 DESCRIPTION "The length of time, in seconds, that a master agent should allow to elapse after dispatching a message to this session before it regards the subagent as not responding. This value is taken from the o.timeout field of the agentx-Open-PDU. This is a session-specific value that may be overridden by values associated with the specific registered MIB regions (see agentxRegTimeout). A value of zero(0) indicates that the master agent's default timeout value should be used (see agentxDefaultTimeout). " ::= { agentxSessionEntry 7 } -- The AgentX Registration Group agentxRegistrationTableLastChange OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TimeStamp MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of sysUpTime when the last row creation or deletion occurred in the agentxRegistrationTable. " ::= { agentxRegistration 1 } agentxRegistrationTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF AgentxRegistrationEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A table of registered regions. " ::= { agentxRegistration 2 } agentxRegistrationEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX AgentxRegistrationEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Contains information for a single registered region. An entry is created when a session successfully registers a region and is destroyed for any of three reasons: this region is unregistered by the session, the session is closed, or the subagent connection is closed. " INDEX { agentxConnIndex, agentxSessionIndex, agentxRegIndex } ::= { agentxRegistrationTable 1 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 13] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 AgentxRegistrationEntry ::= SEQUENCE { agentxRegIndex Unsigned32, agentxRegContext OCTET STRING, agentxRegStart OBJECT IDENTIFIER, agentxRegRangeSubId Unsigned32, agentxRegUpperBound Unsigned32, agentxRegPriority Unsigned32, agentxRegTimeout INTEGER, agentxRegInstance TruthValue } agentxRegIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "agentxRegIndex uniquely identifies a registration entry. This value is constant for the lifetime of an entry. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 1 } agentxRegContext OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OCTET STRING MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The context in which the session supports the objects in this region. A zero-length context indicates the default context. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 2 } agentxRegStart OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The starting OBJECT IDENTIFIER of this registration entry. The session identified by agentxSessionIndex implements objects starting at this value (inclusive). Note that this value could identify an object type, an object instance, or a partial object instance. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 3 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 14] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 agentxRegRangeSubId OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "agentxRegRangeSubId is used to specify the range. This is taken from r.region_subid in the registration PDU. If the value of this object is zero, no range is specified. If it is non-zero, it identifies the `nth' sub-identifier in r.region for which this entry's agentxRegUpperBound value is substituted in the OID for purposes of defining the region's upper bound. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 4 } agentxRegUpperBound OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "agentxRegUpperBound represents the upper-bound sub-identifier in a registration. This is taken from the r.upper_bound in the registration PDU. If agentxRegRangeSubid (r.region_subid) is zero, this value is also zero and is not used to define an upper bound for this registration. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 5 } agentxRegPriority OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The registration priority. Lower values have higher priority. This value is taken from r.priority in the register PDU. Sessions should use the value of 127 for r.priority if a default value is desired. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 6 } agentxRegTimeout OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER (0..255) UNITS "seconds" MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 15] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 DESCRIPTION "The timeout value, in seconds, for responses to requests associated with this registered MIB region. A value of zero(0) indicates the default value (indicated by by agentxSessionTimeout or agentxDefaultTimeout) is to be used. This value is taken from the r.timeout field of the agentx-Register-PDU. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 7 } agentxRegInstance OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of agentxRegInstance is `true' for registrations for which the INSTANCE_REGISTRATION was set, and is `false' for all other registrations. " ::= { agentxRegistrationEntry 8 } -- Conformance Statements for AgentX agentxConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxMIB 2 } agentxMIBGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxConformance 1 } agentxMIBCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { agentxConformance 2 } -- Compliance Statements for AgentX agentxMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement for SNMP entities that implement the AgentX protocol. Note that a compliant agent can implement all objects in this MIB module as read-only. " MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { agentxMIBGroup } OBJECT agentxSessionAdminStatus MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required. " ::= { agentxMIBCompliances 1 } AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 16] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 agentxMIBGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { agentxDefaultTimeout, agentxMasterAgentXVer, agentxConnTableLastChange, agentxConnOpenTime, agentxConnTransportDomain, agentxConnTransportAddress, agentxSessionTableLastChange, agentxSessionTimeout, agentxSessionObjectID, agentxSessionDescr, agentxSessionAdminStatus, agentxSessionOpenTime, agentxSessionAgentXVer, agentxRegistrationTableLastChange, agentxRegContext, agentxRegStart, agentxRegRangeSubId, agentxRegUpperBound, agentxRegPriority, agentxRegTimeout, agentxRegInstance } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "All accessible objects in the AgentX MIB. " ::= { agentxMIBGroups 1 } END AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 17] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 5. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 6. Acknowledgements This document is the result of the efforts of the IETF AgentX Working Group (WG). This MIB is an evolution of the Subagent MIB by Bert Wijnen (wijnen@vnet.ibm.com) which in turn was derived from the SMUX-MIB by Marshall Rose [18]. Thanks are in order to the following AgentX WG members: Mike Daniele (Compaq Computer Corporation) Dale Francisco (Cisco Systems) Bob Natale (ACE*COMM Corporation) Randy Presuhn (BMC Software, Inc.) Shawn Routhier (Epilogue) Mike Thatcher (Independent Consultant) Special acknowledgement is made to: Maria Greene (Xedia) AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 18] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 Special acknowledgement is also made to the following individuals for participating in the 1998 AgentX testing summit (bakeoff) held in Sunnyvale, California: Jeff Case (SNMP Research, Inc.) Mike Daniele (Compaq Computer Corporation) Mark Ellison (Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.) Lauren Heintz (BMC Software, Inc.) Verne Hyde (Independent Consultant) Bob Natale (ACE*COMM Corporation) Shawn Routhier (Epilogue) Mike Thatcher (Independent Consultant) Bert Wijnen (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center) 7. Security Considerations There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB that have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write. 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. There are a number of managed objects in this MIB that may contain sensitive information. These are: agentxDefaultTimeout and agentxSessionAdminStatus. Setting agentxDefaultTimeout to an inappropriately small value can prevent new subagent sessions from being usable. Setting agentxSessionAdminStatus to an inappropriate value can effectively prevent access to management information, or provide access to inappropriate information. It is thus important to control even GET access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over the network via SNMP. Not all versions of SNMP provide features for such a secure environment. SNMPv1 by itself is not a secure environment. 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. It is recommended that the implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework. Specifically, the use of the User-based Security Model RFC 2574 [12] and the View-based Access Control Model RFC 2575 [15] is recommended. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 19] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 It is then a customer/user responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB, 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. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 20] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 8. References [1] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [2] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155, STD 16, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990 [3] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", RFC 1212, STD 16, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, March 1991 [4] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, Performance Systems International, March 1991 [5] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", RFC 2578, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 [6] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", RFC 2579, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 [7] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", RFC 2580, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999 [8] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", RFC 1157, STD 15, SNMP Research, Performance Systems International, Performance Systems International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990. [9] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 21] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 [10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [11] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, SNMP Research, Inc., Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [12] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999 [13] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [14] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC 2573, SNMP Research, Inc., Secure Computing Corporation, Cisco Systems, April 1999 [15] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, IBM T. J. Watson Research, BMC Software, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., April 1999 [16] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, SNMP Research, Inc., TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc., Ericsson, Cisco Systems, April 1999 [17] Daniele, M., Wijnen, B., and D. Francisco, "Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol, Version 1", RFC 2257 Digital Equipment Corporation, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., Cisco Systems, Januuary, 1998 [18] Rose, M., "SNMP MUX Protocol and MIB", RFC1227, Performance Systems International, May 1991. [19] The SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1907, January AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 22] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 1996. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 23] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 9. Authors' and Editor's Addresses Lauren Heintz Cerent Corporation 1450 North McDowell Blvd. Petaluma, CA 94954-6515 USA Phone: +1 707-793-1714 EMail: lauren.heintz@cerent.com Smitha Gudur Independent Consultant EMail: sgudur@hotmail.com Mark Ellison (WG editor) Ellison SOftware Consulting, Inc. 33 Eastview Drive, Suite #10 Wilton, NH 03086 USA Phone: +1 603-654-2703 Email: ellison@world.std.com 10. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 24] Internet Draft AgentX MIB 23 August 1999 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. AgentX Working Group Expires February 2000 [Page 25] --------------3DB5FBFF28BBE200B356CDBD-- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 25 07:09:15 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17892 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA15466; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:03:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id DAA07367 for agentx-list; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA07362 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id FAA14605 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:59:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17061; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908251059.GAA17061@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:59:17 -0400 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SNMP Agent Extensibility Working Group of the IETF. Title : Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol Version 1 Author(s) : M. Daniele, B. Wijnen, M. Ellison, D. Francisco Filename : draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt Pages : 83 Date : 24-Aug-99 This memo defines a standardized framework for extensible SNMP agents. It defines processing entities called master agents and subagents, a protocol (AgentX) used to communicate between them, and the elements of procedure by which the extensible agent processes SNMP protocol messages. This memo obsoletes RFC 2257. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990824075720.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990824075720.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Wed Aug 25 07:11:15 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17963 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA15489; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:03:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id DAA07374 for agentx-list; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA07369 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 03:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id FAA14632 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:59:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17076; Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908251059.GAA17076@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:59:24 -0400 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SNMP Agent Extensibility Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for Extensible SNMP Agents Author(s) : L. Heintz, S. Gudur, M. Ellison Filename : draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt Pages : 25 Date : 24-Aug-99 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects managing SNMP agents that use the Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol. This memo specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant to the SMIv2, and semantically identical to the peer SMIv1 definitions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990824075734.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990824075734.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Aug 26 17:02:57 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-1.bmc.com [198.207.223.250]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29519 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA00224; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:59:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA07103 for agentx-list; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA07098 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA29235 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:55:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [38.249.211.2] (helo=relay1.acecomm.com) by relay10.smtp.psi.net with smtp (Exim 1.90 #1) id 11K6Y4-0004ax-00; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:55:04 -0400 Received: from BNATALE by relay1.acecomm.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04250; Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:04:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990826162646.00afa008@nips.acec.com> X-Sender: natale@nips.acec.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:57:51 -0400 To: wijnen@vnet.ibm.com From: Bob Natale Subject: Request IESG consideration of AgentX protocol and MIB specs Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, randy@psg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Hi Bert, This a formal request from the Chair on behalf of the AgentX Working Group that the following AgentX documents be reviewed by the ADs and then considered by the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-rfc-update-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-agentx-mib-04.txt The first document is the update to (and replacement for) RFC 2257; the second is the AgentX MIB. We request that these two documents be considered and processed together as they are closely related. We are recommending that the protocol specification (RFC 2257 replacement) recycle at Proposed Standard status due to the length of time between the two versions and to the nature of some of the changes made to the docment. We believe these documents represent the solid consensus of the WG. The work of the design team (authors, editors, bake-off-#1 participants, and regular contributors to the AgentX e-mail list) has been widely reviewed at several past IETF meetings and on an on-going basis on the e-mail list. We know of no open technical issues at this time and no strong technical objections to any of the technical resolutions. We are aware of a sizable number (at least 8) of commercial, academic, and open-source implementations, either being deployed to end-users already or under active development at this time. We have tentative plans for a bake-off-#2 in the near-term future and anticipate additional implementation and deployment activity as a by-product of that event. While many, many people have contributed to the evolution of the AgentX specifications into IETF-worthy standards documents, I would especially like to thank the following individuals for their considerable donations of time, intelligence, and effort in bringing the current versions to completion: - Mark Ellison, editor - Mike Daniele, primary protocol author - Lauren Heintz, primary MIB author - Randy Preshun, tireless e-mail list admin, technical contributor, and overall AgentX evangelist. Cordially, BobN ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 27 10:50:53 1999 Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (fw-us-hou-2.bmc.com [198.207.223.251]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04182 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:50:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.bmc.com [192.146.153.65]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA08820; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:47:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id HAA14288 for agentx-list; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tangelo.bmc.com (root@tangelo.bmc.com [172.17.7.166]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA14283 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw-us-hou1.bmc.com (fw-us-hou1.bmc.com [172.17.0.250]) by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17135)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA08500 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:46:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.132.206]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA272526; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:45:31 -0400 Received: from BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (bldvma.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.64.30]) by westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.04) with SMTP id IAA99412; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:45:54 -0600 Message-Id: <199908271445.IAA99412@westrelay03.boulder.ibm.com> Received: by BLDVMA.boulder.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP Level 310) via spool with SMTP id 0253 ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 07:29:35 MDT Date: Fri, 27 Aug 99 15:28:09 DST From: "Bert Wijnen" To: bnatale@acecomm.com cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, randy@psg.com Subject: Request IESG consideration of AgentX protocol and MIB specs Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk Ref: Your note of Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:57:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Request IESG consideration of AgentX protocol and MIB specs Bob and WG, thanks for the hard work. The docs are on my plate now. Bert