Repository navigation
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathrfc2741.txt
More file actions
5099 lines (3372 loc) · 195 KB
/
Copy pathrfc2741.txt
File metadata and controls
5099 lines (3372 loc) · 195 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Network Working Group M. Daniele
Request for Comments: 2741 Compaq Computer Corporation
Obsoletes: 2257 B. Wijnen
Category: Standards Track T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp.
M. Ellison, Ed.
Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.
D. Francisco. Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 2000
Agent Extensibility (AgentX) Protocol
Version 1
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.
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
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
5. AgentX Encodings................................................11
5.1. Object Identifier...........................................11
5.2. SearchRange.................................................13
5.3. Octet String................................................14
5.4. Value Representation........................................15
6. Protocol Definitions............................................17
6.1. AgentX PDU Header...........................................17
6.1.1. Context.................................................20
6.2. AgentX PDUs.................................................20
6.2.1. The agentx-Open-PDU.....................................20
6.2.2. The agentx-Close-PDU....................................22
6.2.3. The agentx-Register-PDU.................................23
6.2.4. The agentx-Unregister-PDU...............................27
6.2.5. The agentx-Get-PDU......................................29
6.2.6. The agentx-GetNext-PDU..................................30
6.2.7. The agentx-GetBulk-PDU..................................32
6.2.8. The agentx-TestSet-PDU..................................34
6.2.9. The agentx-CommitSet, -UndoSet, -CleanupSet PDUs........35
6.2.10. The agentx-Notify-PDU..................................36
6.2.11. The agentx-Ping-PDU....................................37
6.2.12. The agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU...........................37
6.2.13. The agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU.........................38
6.2.14. The agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU............................39
6.2.15. The agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU.........................41
6.2.16. The agentx-Response-PDU................................43
7. Elements of Procedure...........................................45
7.1. Processing AgentX Administrative Messages...................45
7.1.1. Processing the agentx-Open-PDU..........................46
7.1.2. Processing the agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU.................47
7.1.3. Processing the agentx-IndexDeallocate-PDU...............49
7.1.4. Processing the agentx-Register-PDU......................50
7.1.4.1. Handling Duplicate and Overlapping Subtrees.........50
7.1.4.2. Registering Stuff...................................51
7.1.4.2.1. Registration Priority...........................51
7.1.4.2.2. Index Allocation................................51
7.1.4.2.3. Examples........................................53
7.1.5. Processing the agentx-Unregister-PDU....................55
7.1.6. Processing the agentx-AddAgentCaps-PDU..................55
7.1.7. Processing the agentx-RemoveAgentCaps-PDU...............55
7.1.8. Processing the agentx-Close-PDU.........................56
7.1.9. Detecting Connection Loss...............................56
7.1.10. Processing the agentx-Notify-PDU.......................56
7.1.11. Processing the agentx-Ping-PDU.........................57
7.2. Processing Received SNMP Protocol Messages..................58
7.2.1. Dispatching AgentX PDUs.................................58
7.2.1.1. agentx-Get-PDU......................................61
7.2.1.2. agentx-GetNext-PDU..................................61
7.2.1.3. agentx-GetBulk-PDU..................................62
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
7.2.1.4. agentx-TestSet-PDU..................................63
7.2.1.5. Dispatch............................................64
7.2.2. Subagent Processing.....................................64
7.2.3. Subagent Processing of agentx-Get, GetNext, GetBulk-PDUs65
7.2.3.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-Get-PDU...........65
7.2.3.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetNext-PDU.......66
7.2.3.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-GetBulk-PDU.......66
7.2.4. Subagent Processing of agentx-TestSet, -CommitSet,
-UndoSet, -CleanupSet-PDUs..............................67
7.2.4.1. Subagent Processing of the agentx-TestSet-PDU.......68
7.2.4.2. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CommitSet-PDU.....69
7.2.4.3. Subagent Processing of the agentx-UndoSet-PDU.......69
7.2.4.4. Subagent Processing of the agentx-CleanupSet-PDU....70
7.2.5. Master Agent Processing of AgentX Responses.............70
7.2.5.1. Common Processing of All AgentX Response PDUs.......70
7.2.5.2. Processing of Responses to agentx-Get-PDUs..........70
7.2.5.3. Processing of Responses to agentx-GetNext-PDU and
agentx-GetBulk-PDU..................................71
7.2.5.4. Processing of Responses to agentx-TestSet-PDUs......72
7.2.5.5. Processing of Responses to agentx-CommitSet-PDUs....73
7.2.5.6. Processing of Responses to agentx-UndoSet-PDUs......74
7.2.6. Sending the SNMP Response-PDU...........................74
7.2.7. MIB Views...............................................74
7.3. State Transitions...........................................75
7.3.1. Set Transaction States..................................75
7.3.2. Transport Connection States.............................77
7.3.3. Session States..........................................78
8. Transport Mappings..............................................79
8.1. AgentX over TCP.............................................79
8.1.1. Well-known Values.......................................79
8.1.2. Operation...............................................79
8.2. AgentX over UNIX-domain Sockets.............................80
8.2.1. Well-known Values.......................................80
8.2.2. Operation...............................................80
9. Security Considerations.........................................81
10. Acknowledgements...............................................82
11. Authors' and Editor's Addresses................................83
12. References.....................................................84
13. Notices........................................................86
Appendix A. Changes relative to RFC 2257 ..........................87
Full Copyright Statement ..........................................91
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [27].
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 STD 16,
RFC 1155 [2], STD 16, RFC 1212 [3] and RFC 1215 [4]. The second
version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [5], STD 58,
RFC 2579 [6] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [7].
Message protocols for transferring management information. The first
version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and described
in STD 15, 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
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
STD 15, 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 (STD
58, RFC 2578, [5]) or the textual conventions based on the SMIv2 (STD
58, 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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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:
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
- 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.
- 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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
- 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.
- 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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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.
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
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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).
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
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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.
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 "<reserved>" 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:
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
Object Identifier
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| n_subid | prefix | include | <reserved> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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
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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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.
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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 | <reserved> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(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:
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
Integer (2),
Octet String (4),
Null (5),
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.
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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).
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 | <reserved> |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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),
Daniele, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2741 AgentX January 2000
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)
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