tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7367

 
 
 

Definition of Managed Objects for the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Simplified Multicast Framework Relay Set Process

Part 4 of 4, p. 51 to 65
Prev RFC Part

 


prevText      Top      Up      ToC       Page 51 
8.  IANA-SMF-MIB Definitions

   This section contains the IANA-SMF-MIB module.  This MIB module
   defines two Textual Conventions for which IANA SHOULD maintain and
   keep synchronized with the registry identified below within the
   IANAsmfOpModeIdTC and the IANAsmfRssaIdTC TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs.

   The IANAsmfOpModeIdTC defines an index that identifies through
   reference to a specific SMF operations mode.  The index is an integer
   valued named-number enumeration consisting of an integer and label.
   IANA is to create and maintain this Textual Convention.  Future
   assignments are made to anyone on a first come, first served basis.
   There is no substantive review of the request, other than to ensure
   that it is well-formed and does not duplicate an existing assignment.
   However, requests must include a minimal amount of clerical
   information, such as a point of contact (including an email address)
   and a brief description of the method being identified as a new SMF
   operations mode.

   The IANAsmfRssaIdTC defines an index that identifies through
   reference to a specific Reduced Set Selection Algorithm (RSSA).  The
   index is an integer valued named-number enumeration consisting of an
   integer and label.  IANA is to create and maintain this Textual
   Convention.

   Future assignments to the IANAsmfRssaIdTC for the index range 5-127
   require an RFC publication (either as an IETF submission or as an
   Independent submission [RFC5742]).  The category of RFC MUST be
   Standards Track.  The specific RSSAs MUST be documented in sufficient
   detail so that interoperability between independent implementations
   is possible.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 52 
   Future assignments to the IANAsmfRssaIdTC for the index range 128-239
   are private or local use only, with the type and purpose defined by
   the local site.  No attempt is made to prevent multiple sites from
   using the same value in different (and incompatible) ways.  There is
   no need for IANA to review such assignments (since IANA will not
   record these), and assignments are not generally useful for broad
   interoperability.  It is the responsibility of the sites making use
   of the Private Use range to ensure that no conflicts occur (within
   the intended scope of use).

   Future assignments to the IANAsmfRssaIdTC for the index range 240-255
   are to facilitate experimentation.  These require an RFC publication
   (either as an IETF submission or as an Independent submission
   [RFC5742]).  The category of RFC MUST be Experimental.  The RSSA
   algorithms MUST be documented in sufficient detail so that
   interoperability between independent implementations is possible.

   This MIB module references [RFC3626], [RFC5614], [RFC6621], and
   [RFC7181].

   IANA-SMF-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

   IMPORTS
       MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2
                 FROM SNMPv2-SMI     -- RFC 2578
       TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
                 FROM SNMPv2-TC;     -- RFC 2579

   ianaSmfMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
       LAST-UPDATED "201410100000Z"  -- October 10, 2014
       ORGANIZATION "IANA"
       CONTACT-INFO "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

                     Postal: ICANN
                             12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
                             Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
                             United States

                     Tel:    +1 310 301 5800
                     EMail:  iana@iana.org"
       DESCRIPTION  "This MIB module defines the
                     IANAsmfOpModeIdTC and IANAsmfRssaIdTC
                     Textual Conventions, and thus the
                     enumerated values of the
                     smfCapabilitiesOpModeID and
                     smfCapabilitiesRssaID objects defined
                     in the SMF-MIB."
       REVISION     "201410100000Z"  -- October 10, 2014

Top      Up      ToC       Page 53 
       DESCRIPTION
          "Initial version of this MIB as published in RFC 7367.

           Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
           authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

           Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
           without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
           to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
           set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
           Relating to IETF Documents
           (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
          "
       ::= { mib-2 225 }

   IANAsmfOpModeIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       STATUS       current
       DESCRIPTION
           "An index that identifies through reference to a specific
            SMF operations mode.  There are basically three styles
            of SMF operation with reduced relay sets currently
            identified:
              Independent operation 'independent(1)' -
                  SMF performs its own relay
                  set selection using information from an associated
                  MANET NHDP process.

              CDS-aware unicast routing operation 'routing(2)'-
                  a coexistent unicast routing
                  protocol provides dynamic relay
                  set state based upon its own control plane
                  Connected Dominating Set (CDS) or neighborhood
                  discovery information.

              Cross-layer operation 'crossLayer(3)' -
                  SMF operates using neighborhood
                  status and triggers from a
                  cross-layer information base for dynamic relay
                  set selection and maintenance.

            IANA MUST update this Textual Convention accordingly.

            The definition of this Textual Convention with the
            addition of newly assigned values is updated
            periodically by the IANA, in the
            IANA-maintained registries.  (The
            latest arrangements can be obtained by contacting the
            IANA.)

Top      Up      ToC       Page 54 
            Requests for new values SHOULD be made to IANA via
            email (iana@iana.org)."
      REFERENCE
           "See Section 7.2 'Reduced Relay Set Forwarding',
            and the Appendices A, B, and C in
            RFC 6621 - 'Simplified Multicast Forwarding',
            Macker, J., Ed., May 2012."
       SYNTAX  INTEGER {
                        independent (1),
                        routing (2),
                        crossLayer (3)
                        -- future (4-255)
       }

   IANAsmfRssaIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       STATUS       current
       DESCRIPTION
           "An index that identifies through reference to specific
            RSSAs.  Several are currently defined
            in the Appendices A, B, and C of RFC 6621.

            Examples of RSSAs already identified within
            this Textual Convention (TC) are:

              Classical Flooding (cF(1)) - is the standard
                 flooding algorithm where each node in the next
                 retransmits the information on each of its interfaces.

              Source-Based Multipoint Relay (sMPR(2)) -
                 this algorithm is used by Optimized Link State Routing
                 (OLSR) and OLSR version 2 (OLSRv2) protocols for the
                 relay of link state updates and other control
                 information (RFC 3626, RFC 7181).  Since each router
                 picks its neighboring relays independently, sMPR
                 forwarders depend upon previous hop information
                 (e.g., source Media Access Control (MAC) address) to
                 operate correctly.

              Essential Connected Dominating Set (eCDS(3)) -
                 defined in RFC 5614, this algorithm forms a single
                 CDS mesh for the SMF operating region.  Its
                 packet-forwarding rules are not dependent upon
                 previous hop knowledge in contrast to sMPR.

              Multipoint Relay Connected Dominating Set (mprCDS(4)) -
                 This algorithm is an extension to the basic sMPR
                 election algorithm that results in a shared
                 (non-source-specific) SMF CDS.  Thus, its forwarding

Top      Up      ToC       Page 55 
                 rules are not dependent upon previous hop information,
                 similar to eCDS.

            IANA MUST update this Textual Convention accordingly.

            The definition of this Textual Convention with the
            addition of newly assigned values is updated
            periodically by the IANA, in the
            IANA-maintained registries.  (The
            latest arrangements can be obtained by contacting the
            IANA.)

            Requests for new values SHOULD be made to IANA via
            email (iana@iana.org)."
       REFERENCE
          "For example, see:

           Section 8.1.1. 'SMF Message TLV Type' and the Appendices
           A, B, and C in
           RFC 6621 - 'Simplified Multicast Forwarding',
           Macker, J., Ed., May 2012.

           RFC 3626 - Clausen, T., Ed., and P. Jacquet, Ed., 'Optimized
           Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)', October 2003.

           RFC 5614 - Ogier, R. and P. Spagnolo, 'Mobile Ad Hoc
           Network (MANET) Extension of OSPF Using Connected
           Dominating Set (CDS) Flooding', August 2009.

           RFC 7181 - Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and
           U. Herberg, 'The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
           Version 2', April 2014."
       SYNTAX      INTEGER {
                           cF(1),
                           sMPR(2),
                           eCDS(3),
                           mprCDS(4)
                           -- future(5-127)
                           -- noStdAction(128-239)
                           -- experimental(240-255)
                   }

   END

Top      Up      ToC       Page 56 
9.  Security Considerations

   This section discusses security implications of the choices made in
   this SMF-MIB module.

   There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module
   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create.  Such
   objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network
   environments.  The support for SET operations in a non-secure
   environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on
   network operations.  These are the tables and objects and their
   sensitivity/vulnerability:

   o  'smfCfgAdminStatus' - this writable configuration object controls
      the operational status of the SMF process.  If this setting is
      configured inconsistently across the MANET multicast domain, then
      delivery of multicast data may be inconsistent across the domain;
      some nodes may not receive multicast data intended for them.

   o  'smfCfgRouterIDAddrType' and 'smfCfgRouterID' - these writable
      configuration objects define the ID of the SMF process.  These
      objects should be configured with a routable address defined on
      the local SMF device.  The smfCfgRouterID is a logical
      identification that MUST be configured as unique across
      interoperating SMF neighborhoods, and it is RECOMMENDED to be
      chosen as the numerically largest address contained in a node's

      'Neighbor Address List' as defined in NHDP.  A smfCfgRouterID MUST
      be unique within the scope of the operating MANET network
      regardless of the method used for selecting it.  If these objects
      are misconfigured or configured inconsistently across the MANET,
      then the ability of various RSSAs, e.g., eCDS, may be compromised.
      This would potentially result in some routers within the MANET not
      receiving multicast packets destine to them.  Hence, intentionally
      misconfiguring these objects could pose a form of Denial-of-
      Service (DoS) attack against the MANET.

   o  'smfCfgOpMode' - this writable configuration object defines the
      operational mode of the SMF process.  The operational mode defines
      how the SMF process receives its data to form its local estimate
      of the CDS.  It is recommended that the value for this object be
      set consistently across the MANET to ensure proper operation of
      the multicast packet forwarding.  If the value for this object is
      set inconsistently across the MANET, the result may be that
      multicast packet delivery will be compromised within the MANET.
      Hence, intentionally misconfiguring this object could pose a form
      DoS attack against the MANET.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 57 
   o  'smfCfgRssa' - this writable configuration object sets the
      specific RSSA for the SMF process.  If this object is set
      inconsistently across the MANET domain, multicast delivery of data
      will likely fail.  Hence, intentionally misconfiguring this object
      could pose a form DoS attack against the MANET.

   o  'smfCfgRssaMember' - this writable configuration object sets the
      'interest' of the local SMF node in participating in the CDS.
      Setting this object to 'never(3)' on a highly connected device
      could lead to frequent island formation.  Setting this object to
      'always(2)' could support data ex-filtration from the MANET
      domain.

   o  'smfCfgIpv4Dpd' - this writable configuration object sets the
      duplicate packet detection method, i.e., H-DPD or I-DPD, for
      forwarding of IPv4 multicast packets.  Forwarders may operate with
      mixed H-DPD and I-DPD modes as long as they consistently perform
      the appropriate DPD routines outlined in [RFC6621].  However, it
      is RECOMMENDED that a deployment be configured with a common mode
      for operational consistency.

   o  'smfCfgIpv6Dpd' - this writable configuration object sets the
      duplicate packet detection method for the forwarding of IPv6
      multicast packets.  Since IPv6 SMF does specify an option header,
      the interoperability constraints are not as loose as in the IPv4
      version, and forwarders SHOULD NOT operate with mixed H-DPD and
      I-DPD modes.  Hence, the value for this object SHOULD be
      consistently set within the forwarders comprising the MANET, else
      inconsistent forwarding may result unnecessary multicast packet
      dropping.

   o  'smfCfgMaxPktLifetime' - this writable configuration object sets
      the estimate of the network packet traversal time.  If set too
      small, this could lead to poor multicast data delivery ratios
      throughout the MANET domain.  This could serve as a form of DoS
      attack if this object value is set too small.

   o  'smfCfgDpdEntryMaxLifetime' - this writable configuration object
      sets the maximum lifetime (in seconds) for the cached DPD records
      for the combined IPv4 and IPv6 methods.  If the memory is running
      low prior to the MaxLifetime being exceeded, the local SMF devices
      should purge the oldest records first.  If this object value is
      set too small, then the effectiveness of the SMF DPD algorithms
      may become greatly diminished causing a higher than necessary
      packet load on the MANET.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 58 
   o  'smfCfgNhdpRssaMesgTLVIncluded' - this writable configuration
      object indicates whether or not the associated NHDP messages
      include the RSSA Message TLV.  It is highly RECOMMENDED that this
      object be set to 'true(1)' when the SMF operation mode is set to
      independent as this information will inform the local forwarder of
      the RSSA implemented in neighboring forwarders and is used to
      ensure consistent forwarding across the MANET.  While it is
      possible that SMF neighbors MAY be configured differently with
      respect to the RSSA and still operate cooperatively, but these
      cases will vary dependent upon the algorithm types designated and
      this situation SHOULD be avoided.

   o  'smfCfgNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded' - this writable configuration
      object indicates whether or not the associated NHDP messages
      include the RSSA Address Block TLV.  The
      smfNhdpRssaAddrBlockTLVIncluded is optional in all cases as it
      depends on the existence of an address block that may not be
      present.  If this SMF device is configured with NHDP, then this
      object should be set to 'true(1)' as this TLV enables CDS relay
      algorithm operation and configuration to be shared among 2-hop
      neighborhoods.  Some relay algorithms require 2-hop neighbor
      configuration in order to correctly select relay sets.

   o  'smfCfgAddrForwardingTable' - the writable configuration objects
      in this table indicate which multicast IP addresses are to be
      forwarded by this SMF node.  Misconfiguration of rows within this
      table can limit the ability of this SMF device to properly forward
      multicast data.

   o  'smfCfgInterfaceTable' - the writable configuration objects in
      this table indicate which SMF node interfaces are participating in
      the SMF packet forwarding process.  Misconfiguration of rows
      within this table can limit the ability of this SMF device to
      properly forward multicast data.

   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a
   MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
   vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus important to
   control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly
   to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over
   the network via SNMP.  These are the tables and objects and their
   sensitivity/vulnerability:

   o  'smfNodeRsStatusIncluded' - this readable state object indicates
      whether or not this SMF node is part of the CDS.  Being part of
      the CDS makes this node a distinguished device.  It could be
      exploited for data ex-filtration, or DoS attacks.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 59 
   o  'smfStateNeighborTable' - the readable state objects in this table
      indicate current neighbor nodes to this SMF node.  Exposing this
      information to an attacker could allow the attacker easier access
      to the larger MANET domain.

   The remainder of the objects in the SMF-MIB module are performance
   counter objects.  While these give an indication of the activity of
   the SMF process on this node, it is not expected that exposing these
   values poses a security risk to the MANET network.

   SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
   Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPsec),
   even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is
   allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects
   in this MIB module.

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

   Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT
   RECOMMENDED.  Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to
   enable cryptographic security.  It is then a customer/operator
   responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an
   instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to
   the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate
   rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them.

10.  Applicability Statement

   This document describes objects for configuring parameters of the
   Simplified Multicast Forwarding [RFC6621] process on a Mobile Ad Hoc
   Network (MANET) router.  This MIB module, denoted SMF-MIB, also
   reports state and performance information and notifications.  This
   section provides some examples of how this MIB module can be used in
   MANET network deployments.  A fuller discussion of MANET network
   management use cases and challenges is out of scope for this
   document.

   SMF is designed to allow MANET routers to forward IPv4 and IPv6
   packets over the MANET and cover the MANET nodes through the
   automatic discovery of efficient estimates of the Minimum Connected
   Dominating Set (MCDS) of nodes within the MANET.  The MCDS is

Top      Up      ToC       Page 60 
   estimated using the Relay Set Selection Algorithms (RSSAs) discussed
   within this document.  In the following, three scenarios are listed
   where this MIB module is useful:

   o  For a Parking Lot Initial Configuration Situation - it is common
      for the vehicles comprising the MANET being forward deployed at a
      remote location, e.g., the site of a natural disaster, to be off-
      loaded in a parking lot where an initial configuration of the
      networking devices is performed.  The configuration is loaded into
      the devices from a fixed-location Network Operations Center (NOC)
      at the parking lot, and the vehicles are stationary at the parking
      lot while the configuration changes are made.  Standards-based
      methods for configuration management from the co-located NOC are
      necessary for this deployment option.  The set of interesting
      configuration objects for the SMF process are listed within this
      MIB module.

   o  For Mobile vehicles with Low Bandwidth Satellite Link to a Fixed
      NOC - Here the vehicles carrying the MANET routers carry multiple
      wireless interfaces, one of which is a relatively low-bandwidth
      on-the-move satellite connection that interconnects a fix NOC to
      the nodes of the MANET.  Standards-based methods for monitoring
      and fault management from the fixed NOC are necessary for this
      deployment option.

   o  For Fixed NOC and Mobile Local Manager in Larger Vehicles - for
      larger vehicles, a hierarchical network management arrangement is
      useful.  Centralized network management is performed from a fixed
      NOC while local management is performed locally from within the
      vehicles.  Standards-based methods for configuration, monitoring,
      and fault management are necessary for this deployment option.

   Here we provide an example of the simplest of configurations to
   establish an operational multicast forwarding capability in a MANET.
   This discussion only identifies the configuration necessary through
   the SMF-MIB module and assumes that other configuration has occurred.
   Assume that the MANET is to support only IPv4 addressing and that the
   MANET nodes are to be configured in the context of the Parking Lot
   Initialization case above.  Then, the SMF-MIB module defines ten
   configuration OIDs and two configuration tables, i.e., the
   smfCfgAddrForwardingTable and the smfCfgInterfaceTable.  Of the ten
   OIDs defined, all but one, i.e., the smfCfgRouterID, have DEFVAL
   clauses that allow for a functional configuration of the SMF process
   within the MANET.  The smfCfgRouterIDType defaults to 'ipv4' so the
   smfCfgRouterID can be set as, e.g., (assuming the use of the Net-SNMP
   toolkit),:

   snmpset [options] <smfCfgRouterID_OID>.0 a 192.0.2.100

Top      Up      ToC       Page 61 
   If the smfCfgAddrForwardingTable is left empty, then the SMF local
   forwarder will forward all multicast addresses.  So this table does
   not require configuration if you want to have the MANET forward all
   multicast addresses.

   All that remains is to configure at least one row in the
   smfCfgInterfaceTable.  Assume that the node has a wireless interface
   with an <ifName>='wlan0' and an <ifIndex>='1'.  All of the objects in
   the rows of the smfCfgInterfaceTable have a DEFVAL clause; hence,
   only the RowStatus object needs to be set.  So the SMF process will
   be activated on the 'wlan0' interface by the following network
   manager snmpset command:

   snmpset [options] <smfCfgIfRowStatus>.1 i active(1)

   At this point, the configured forwarder will begin a Classical
   Flooding algorithm to forward all multicast addresses IPv4 packets it
   receives.

   To provide a more efficient multicast forwarding within the MANET,
   the network manager could walk the smfCapabilitiesTable to identify
   other SMF Operational Modes, for example:

   snmpwalk [options] <smfCapabilitiesTable>

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesIndex.1 = INTEGER: 1

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesIndex.2 = INTEGER: 2

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesOpModeID.1 = INTEGER: cfOnly(1)

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesOpModeiD.2 = INTEGER: independent(2)

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesRssaID.1 = INTEGER: cF(1)

   SMF-MIB::smfCapabilitiesRssaID.2 = INTEGER: eCDS(3)

   In this example, the forwarding device also supports the Essential
   Connected Dominating Set (eCDS) RSSA with the forwarder in the
   'independent(2)' operational mode.  If the network manager were to
   then issue an snmpset, for example:

   snmpset [options] <smfCfgOperationalMode>.0 i 2

   then the local forwarder would switch its forwarding behavior from
   Classical Flooding to the more efficient eCDS flooding.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 62 
11.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines two MIB modules:

   1.  SMF-MIB is defined in Section 7 and is an experimental MIB
       module.

   2.  IANA-SMF-MIB is defined in Section 8 and is an IANA MIB module
       that IANA maintains.

   Thus, IANA has completed three actions:

   IANA has allocated an OBJECT IDENTIFIER value and recorded it in the
   SMI Numbers registry in the subregistry called "SMI Experimental
   Codes" under the experimental branch (1.3.6.1.3).

              Decimal | Name    | Description   | Reference
              --------+---------+---------------+------------
               126    | smfMib  | SMF-MIB       | [RFC7367]

   IANA has allocated an OBJECT IDENTIFIER value and recorded it in the
   SMI Numbers registry in the subregistry called "SMI Network
   Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB" under the mib-2 branch
   (1.3.6.1.2.1).

              Decimal | Name          | Description     | Reference
              --------+---------------+-----------------+------------
               225    | ianaSmfMIB    | IANA-SMF-MIB    | [RFC7367]
   IANA maintains a MIB module called ianaSmfMIB and has populated it
   with the initial MIB module defined in Section 8 of this document by
   creating a new entry in the registry "IANA Maintained MIBs" called
   "IANA-SMF-MIB".

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2578]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
              Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2578>.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 63 
   [RFC2579]  McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD
              58, RFC 2579, April 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2579>.

   [RFC2580]  McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
              "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
              April 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2580>.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
              "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
              Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3410>.

   [RFC3411]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
              Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411,
              December 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3411>.

   [RFC3414]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
              (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3414>.

   [RFC3418]  Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the
              Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
              3418, December 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3418>.

   [RFC3626]  Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "Optimized Link State Routing
              Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, October 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3626>.

   [RFC3826]  Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. McCloghrie, "The
              Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher Algorithm in the
              SNMP User-based Security Model", RFC 3826, June 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3826>.

   [RFC4001]  Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J.
              Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network
              Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4001>.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 64 
   [RFC5591]  Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security Model
              for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD
              78, RFC 5591, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5591>.

   [RFC5592]  Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
              Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5592>.

   [RFC5614]  Ogier, R. and P. Spagnolo, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
              Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS)
              Flooding", RFC 5614, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5614>.

   [RFC5742]  Alvestrand, H. and R. Housley, "IESG Procedures for
              Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions", BCP
              92, RFC 5742, December 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5742>.

   [RFC6353]  Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
              Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
              STD 78, RFC 6353, July 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6353>.

   [RFC6621]  Macker, J., "Simplified Multicast Forwarding", RFC 6621,
              May 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6621>.

   [RFC7181]  Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Jacquet, P., and U. Herberg,
              "The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2", RFC
              7181, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7181>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4293]  Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
              Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4293>.

   [RFC5132]  McWalter, D., Thaler, D., and A. Kessler, "IP Multicast
              MIB", RFC 5132, December 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5132>.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 65 
Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments from Sean
   Harnedy in the early phases of the development of this MIB module.
   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dan Romascanu, Juergen
   Shoenwaelder, Stephen Hanna, and Brian Haberman for their careful
   review of this document and their insightful comments.  We also wish
   to thank the entire MANET WG for many reviews of this document.
   Further, the authors would like to thank James Nguyen for his careful
   review and comments on this MIB module and his work on the
   definitions of the follow-on MIB modules to configure specific RSSAs
   related to SMF.  Further, the authors would like to acknowledge the
   work of James Nguyen, Brian Little, Ryan Morgan, and Justin Dean on
   their software development of the SMF-MIB.

Contributors

   This MIB document uses the template authored by D.  Harrington that
   is based on contributions from the MIB Doctors, especially Juergen
   Schoenwaelder, Dave Perkins, C.M.  Heard, and Randy Presuhn.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert G. Cole
   US Army CERDEC
   6010 Frankford Road
   Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland  21005
   United States

   Phone: +1 443 395 8744
   EMail: robert.g.cole@us.army.mil


   Joseph Macker
   Naval Research Laboratory
   Washington, D.C.  20375
   United States

   EMail: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil


   Brian Adamson
   Naval Research Laboratory
   Washington, D.C.  20375
   United States

   EMail: adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil