Network Working Group S. Hares
Request for Comments: 1574 Merit/NSFNET
Obsoletes: 1139 C. Wittbrodt
Category: Informational Stanford University/BARRNet
February 1994
Essential Tools for the OSI Internet
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies the following three necessary tools to debug
problems in the deployment and maintenance of networks using ISO 8473
(CLNP):
- ping or OSI Echo function
- traceroute function which uses the OSI Echo function
- routing table dump function
These CLNS tools are the basics required for hosts and routers for
CLNS network support. It is intended that this document specify the
most basic support level required for CLNS hosts and routers.
To support some of the needed tools (ping and traceroute) this memo
specifies the mechanism specified in RFC 1575 [3].
Table of Contents
Section 1. Conventions ....................................... 2
Section 2. Introduction ...................................... 2
Section 3. Specification ..................................... 2
Section 3.1 Ping ............................................. 3
Section 3.1.1 Protocol Support ............................... 3
Section 3.1.2 Functions supported by the ping utility ........ 3
Section 3.2 Traceroute ....................................... 3
Section 3.2.1 Basic Traceroute ............................... 4
Section 3.2.2 Use of Partial Source route in traceroute ...... 5
Section 3.2.3 Information needed from a Traceroute utility ... 6
Section 3.3 OSI routing table dump ........................... 6
Section 3.4 MIB variables available via SNMP ................. 7
Section 3.4.1 Summary of MIB Variables ....................... 8
Section 3.4.2 ASN.1 Syntax for these MIB variables ........... 8
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 1]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
Section 4. OSI HOST.txt format ............................... 10
Section 5. Acknowledgements .................................. 11
Section 6. References ........................................ 12
Section 7. Security Considerations ........................... 12
Section 8. Author's Addresses ................................ 13
1. Conventions
The following language conventions are used in the items of
specification in this document:
o MUST, SHALL, or MANDATORY -- the item is an absolute
requirement of the specification.
o SHOULD or RECOMMENDED -- the item should generally be followed
for all but exceptional circumstances.
o MAY or OPTIONAL -- the item is truly optional and may be
followed or ignored according to the needs of the implementor.
2. Introduction
Currently in the Internet, OSI protocols are being used more and
more. As the network managers of an Internet once predominantly a
TCP/IP network began deploying parts of the emerging OSI Internet, it
became apparent that network layer OSI network debugging tools were
almost nonexistent. When such tools existed, different
implementations didn't work together.
As stated in RFC 1575, a simple network layer mechanism is necessary
to allow systems to be probed to test network layer integrity. For
the purposes of running OSI networks the authors of this document
believe that other tools are necessary too. Other tools described
below are an echo function, a traceroute function, and a routing
table dump. What this document defines is the minimum subset of
tools that are necessary to allow for the debugging of network
problems.
3. Specification
This document's purpose is to specify a standard ping, traceroute,
and OSI routing table dumping mechanisms for use for the ISO 8473
(CLNP) protocol in the OSI Internet. A detailed description of the
specified mechanisms is below. These mechanism MUST be available on
every router (inter mediate system) or host (end system) that
provides OSI service for the Internet. These three functions are the
basic tool set for the OSI network layer for the Internet.
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 2]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
3.1. Ping
3.1.1. Protocol Support
The long term echo mechanism, as described in 1575, requires the use
of two new type values in the packet header of the ISO 8473 Network
Protocol Data Units (NPDUs), or preferably packets. The two values
are:
1E(hex) - for the echo-request Selector and,
1F(hex) - for the echo-response Selector.
Nodes which support ISO 8473 but do not support these two new values
(for the type code option field in the header of an ISO 8473 packet)
MUST send back an error packet if the ERROR report flag is set in the
packet.
To support a ping function for ISO 8473, all end systems (hosts) and
intermediate systems (routers) MUST support the "long term" echo
function as defined by RFC 1575 [3] AND also set the ERROR report
flag in the 8473 header.
The setting of the ERROR report flag is required because this allows
a way for a compliant host or router to ping a non-compliant host or
router. When a non-complaint host or router receives a "ping" packet
with the new type function (Echo Request Selector), it MUST attempt
to return an ISO 8473 error packet to the originating host, thus
showing reachability.
3.1.2. Functions supported by the ping utility
A ping utility MUST be able to provide the Round trip time of each
packet, plus the average minimum and maximum RTT over several ping
packets. When an error packet is received by the node, the ping
utility MUST report the error code to the user.
3.2. Traceroute
The CLNP trace is similar to the ping utility except that it utilizes
the "Lifetime" field in the ISO 8473 packet. Hosts and routers that
support OSI MUST also support CLNP trace. The "Lifetime" field
serves the same function as the Time To Live (TTL) field does in an
IP packet. A node (router or host) cannot forward ISO 8473 packet
with a value for the Lifetime of zero. If the ERROR REPORT flag is
set in the ISO 8473 packet, an error packet, will be returned to the
originator of the packet.
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 3]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
3.2.1. Basic Traceroute
If a ISO 8473 echo-request packet is sent with "Lifetime" field value
of 1, the first hop node (router or end system) will return an error
packet to the originator the packet. If the first hop node supports
the echo-request type field the error code will be either:
A0 (hex) - Lifetime Expired while Data Unit in Transit
A1 (hex) - Lifetime Expired during Re-assembly
If the first hop node does not support echo-request type field, the
error code will be:
B0 (hex) - Unsupported Option not Specified.
When trying to trace a route to a remote node, the destination
address in the echo-request packet sent should be this remote
destination. By using increasing values in the "Lifetime" field a
route can be traced through the network to the remote node. This
traceroute function should be implemented on each system (host or
router) to allow a user to trace a network path to a remote host or
router.
The error message is used as evidence of the reachability and
identity of the first hop. The originator then sends a packet with a
"lifetime" field value of 2. The first hop decrements the "Lifetime"
and because the "Lifetime" is still greater than 0, it forwards it
on. The second hop decrements the "Lifetime" field value and sends
an error packet (ER NPDU) with one of the two "Lifetime Expired"
error codes listed above to the originator. This sequence is
repeated until either:
- the remote host is reached an either an echo-response packet is
sent back or (for nodes that do not have the required Echo
support) an error packet is sent back, or
- the an error packet is received with error code (B0) indicating
that a node will not pass the echo-response packet, or
- an error packet is received with one of the following errors:
80(hex) - Destination Address Unreachable
81(hex) - Destination Address Unknown.
If any of the following Error codes are received in an error packet,
a second packet should be sent by the originating node:
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 4]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
CodeReason from 8473
-----------------------------
00(hex) - Reason not specified
01(hex) - Protocol procedure error
02(hex) - Incorrect checksum
03(hex) - Packet Discarded due to Congestion
04(hex) - Header Syntax Error (cannot be parsed)
05(hex) - Segmentation needed but not permitted
06(hex) - Incomplete packet received
07(hex) - Duplicate Option
B1(hex) - Unsupported Protocol Version
B2(hex) - Unsupported Security Option
B3(hex) - Unsupported Source Routeing Option
B4(hex) - Unsupported Recording of Route Option
C0(hex) - Reassembly Interface
If one of these error is detected, an error value should be returned
to the user. More than one echo packet, may be sent at a "Lifetime"
value. The number of additional echo packets is left up to the
implementation of this traceroute function.
If one of the following errors is received, AND "partial source
route" is not specified in the echo-request packets, send a second
echo-request packet to the destination at a "Lifetime" value:
Code Reason from 8473
--------------------------------
90(hex) Unspecified Source Routeing Error
91(hex) Syntax Error in Source Routeing Field
92(hex) Unknown Address in Source Routeing Field
93(hex) Path not Acceptable
(The echo-request packet may have been damaged while traversing
through the network.)
3.2.2. Use of Partial Source route in traceroute
The current IP traceroute has a 3rd party or "loose source route"
function. The ISO 8473 protocol also supports a "partial source
routeing" function. However, if a node (router or host) does not
support the "partial source routing" function an ISO 8473 packet gets
passed along the path "exactly as though the function has not been
selected. The packet shall not be discarded for this reason." [2]
In order utilize the partial source route function in the OSI
traceroute, a node must set the "source routeing" option and "partial
source routeing" parameter within that option. A 3rd party, or
"loose source route" traceroute function requires that a node send an
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 5]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
echo-request packet with the "loose source routeing" field set. The
functioning of the 3rd party/"loose source route" traceroute is the
same except the following errors cause the traceroute to be
terminated:
Code Reason from ISO 8473
--------------------------------------------------
92 Unknown Address in Source Routeing Field
93 Path not Acceptable
These errors may indicate a problem with the "loose source route"
listed in the echo-request packet for this destination. Additional
packets with the same lifetime will only repeat this error. These
errors should be reported to the user of the traceroute function.
3.2.3. Information needed from a Traceroute utility
A traceroute utility should provide the following information to the
user:
- the identity of systems that comprise the path or route
to the destination (the identifiers are called Network
Entity Titles or NETs in OSI and ISO 8473)
- ping times (in Round trip times) for each
hop in the path,
- error codes from error packet received as a
response to the an echo-request packet, and
- any other error conditions encountered
by traceroute.
3.3. OSI routing table dump
Each OSI host (end system) or router (intermediate system) MUST be
able to dump any of its routing tables. Routing tables may come from
the:
a.) the ES-IS information
b.) static
c.) IS-IS
d.) IDRP
or any other source.
Each system MUST be able to dump the routing table entries via some
out of band mechanism. A method MUST exist to provide these. A show
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 6]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
osi routes command SHOULD be created with the following options:
- a for all routes
- esis for es-is routes
- isis for is-is routes
- idrp for idrp routes
- static for static routes
- other for routes from other sources.
In addition, routing tables SHOULD be available via either SNMP or
CMIP. The specification of CMIP variables are outside the scope of
this specification. Section 3.4 specifies the RFC 1238 MIB variables
which MUST be available via SNMP. These two variables simply allow
the user to get some basic CLNS routing information.
Please note that not all the information requested is available via
the CLNS MIB. Due to this fact, it is anticipated that additional
work on a CLNS MIB will be done in the future. When a new MIB is
written, it is anticipated that this document will be updated to
include the additional MIB variables to collect such things as the
ES-IS cache.
3.4. MIB variables available via SNMP
The Simple Network Management Protocol [6] plays an important role in
monitoring of multi-protocol, managed resources in the Internet. By
convention, SNMP is mapped onto User Datagram Protocol (UDP), 6);
however, in those situations where it is not possible to communicate
with an ISO 8473 managed resource using SNMP over UDP, or where
communication with an ISO 8473 managed resource using SNMP/UDP is not
possible/appropriate, SNMP messages should be mapped onto an OSI
transport (7) The following Managed Objects for the SNMP SHOULD be
supported to facilitate remote monitoring using the SNMP:
The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) plays an important role
in monitoring of multi-protocol, managed resources in the Internet.
By convention, SNMP is mapped onto User Datagram Protocol (UDP);
however in those situations where it is not possible to communicate
with an ISO 8473 managed resource using SNMP over UDP, or where
communication with an ISO 8473 managed resource using SNMP/UDP is not
possible/appropriate, SNMP should be mapped onto an OSI transport
(8). The following Managed Objects SHOULD be supported for remoted
monitoring using SNMP:
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 7]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
3.4.1. Summary of MIB Variables
RFC 1238 CLNS MIB [5]
1) clnpAddrTable - Addresses for Interfaces
2) clnpRoutingTable - OSI routes in system routing table.
3.4.2. ASN.1 Syntax for these MIB variables
The ASN.1 syntax for the two variables in CLNS MIB (RFC 1238) is
included below for easy reference. That RFC remains the
authoritative source for the MIB definitions.
1) clnpAddrTable
clnpAddrTable OBJECT-TYPE
object.id = .... {clnp 21 }
clnpAddrTable = SEQUENCE OF ClnpAddrEntry
CLNPAddrEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
clnpAdEntAddr
CLNPAddres,
clnpAdEntIfIndex,
INTEGER,
clnpAdEntReasmMaxSize
INTEGER (0...65535);
}
clnpAdEntAddr = ClnpAddress
clnpAddress = OCTET string (Size (1...20);
clnpAdEntIfIndex = INTEGER;
clnpAdEntReasmMaxSize = INTEGER (0...65535); #
Descriptions of Table entry values:
clnpAdEntAddr - CLNP address for this interface value
clnpAdEntIfIndex - Interface Index value corresponding to
IfIndex value.
clnpAdEntReasmMaxSize = Maximum size of a pdu that can be
reassembled from incoming PDUs
received on this interface.
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 8]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
2) clnpRoutingTable
object id =....{clnp 22}
clnpRoutingTable = SEQUENCE OF ClnpRouteEntry;
ClnpRouteEntry = SEQUENCE OF {
clnpRouteDest,
clnpRouteIfIndex,
clnpRouteMetric1,
clnpRouteMetric2,
clnpRouteMetric3,
clnpRouteNextHop,
clnpRouteType,
clnpRouteProto,
clnpRouteAge,
clnpRouteInfo}
clnpRoutDest ::= ClnpAddress; # Address in Route table
# (prefix or full address
clnpRouteIfIndex ::= Integer; # IfIndex value for
# interface next hop can
# be reached through.
clnpRouteMetric1 ::= Integer; # primary routing metric
# for this protocol.
# Specific meaning
# depends on clnpRouteProto
# value -1 if not used
clnpRouteMetric2 ::= Integer; # alternate routing metric
# for this protocol.
# Specific meaning
# depends on clnpRouteProto
# value -1 if not used
clnpRouteMetric3 ::= Integer; # alternate routing metric
# for this protocol.
# Specific meaning
# depends on clnpRouteProto
# value -1 if not used
clnpRouteMetric4::= Integer; # alternate routing metric
# for this protocol.
# Specific meaning
# depends on clnpRouteProto
# value -1 if not used
clnpRouteNextHop::= ClnpAddress; # Address of Next Hop in
# Routing
# Table
clnpRouteType::=INTEGER {
other (1), # none of following
invalid (2), # an invalid route
direct(3), # a direct route
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 9]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
remote(4)} # a remote route
clnprouteProto::= INTEGER {
other (1), # none of the following
# (manually configured
# falls in this category)
local(2), # configured entries
netmngt(3), # set via Network
# management
is-is(9), # ISO 10589
ciscoIgrp(11), # Ciscos OSI IGRP
ospf(13), # OSPF set
bgp(14), # BGP sets
idrp(15) # addition suggested to
# rfc 1238
# in processing
clnpRouteMetric5::= Integer; # alternate routing metric
# for this protocol.
# Specific meaning
# depends on clnpRouteProto
# value -1 if not used
clnpRouteInfo ::= OBJECT-ID; # protocol id that
# installed this route
}
4. OSI HOST.txt format
The OSI format for addresses allows addresses to be 20 bytes. In the
long term, a Directory service (DNS service or OSI Directory service
(X.500)), will provide a host name to address mapping. The process
of getting OSI capable DNS and Directory service may require OSI
pathway to already be set-up. Most host and router systems use a
fixed table to provide this name to NSAP address mapping in order to
get OSI working on their system. The current operational problem is
each implementation has a different format. This document defines a
fixed format so that these initial name to NSAP mapping files can be
shared through-out the internet.
To conform to this document, a host or router supporting CLNS MUST
have support a "osi host.txt" file with the format below. The "osi
host.txt" file may be used for other OSI applications or TUBA
applications. For these other applications, other fields may be
defined but the definition of these is outside the scope of this
specification.
OSI applications may use another file name for osi address
information. NSAP addresses in any osi address information MUST use
the format below. This host name to NSAP mapping MUST be available
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 10]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
for use by the following utilities on CLNS hosts and routers:
- OSI Echo (Ping) function,
- OSI traceroute function, and
- router table look-up for CLNS
routing information
Host and router systems MUST also support a NSAP to name mapping by
the Domain Name Service Directory or or the OSI Directory service
(X.500).
Format of osi hosts file:
<NSAP Address> <name1> <name2> ...<name>
The NSAP Address should be in the following format:
<first octet>.<2nd octet 3rd octet>.<4th octet 5 octet>.
comments on the above format:
The NSAP octets should be expressed in hexidecimal. The dots are aids
to help read the NSAP address, and MUST NOT be required for an NSAP
address parsing. However, each NSAP address file MUST be able to
have the ability to handle the insertion of dots. The location of
the inserted dots within an NSAP address MUST NOT have any
significance other than to make the address easier to read.
An example of this use in the GOSIP format is:
47.0005.80ff.ff00.0000.0001.0001.0a0b.0c0d.0204.00
An example of this format in ANSI format is:
39.480f.8000.0500.0000.0001.0001.0a0b0c0d.0204.00
This value quickly shows the AFI and the NSEL octets on either end.
<name1> <name2> <name> - Indicates a sequence of name associated
with this nsap address.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Dave
Piscitello. He not only kept the document accurate, but also helped
us to get rid of the ISO jargon and make the document more readable.
Thanks to Paulina Knibbe for her work with the host.txt format. We
would also like to thank members of the Network OSI Operations
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 11]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
Working Group of the IETF for their comments.
6. References
[1] ISO/IEC 8473, Information Processing Systems, "Protocol for
Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service and Provision
of Underlying Service", May 1987.
[2] Hagens, R., "An Echo Function for ISO 8473", RFC 1139, IETF-OSI
Working Group, January 1990.
[3] Hares, S., and C. Wittbrodt, "CLNP echo (ISO 8473)", RFC 1575,
Merit/NSFNET, Stanford University/BARRNet, February 1994.
[4] ISO/IEC DIS 10747 Information Processing Systems -
Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems -
Protocol for Exchange of Inter-domain Routeing Information among
Intermediate Systems to Support Forwarding of ISO 8473 packets.
[5] Satz, G., "Connectionless-mode Network Service Management
Information Base - for use with Connectionless Network Protocol
(ISO 8473) and End system to Intermediate System Protocol (ISO
9452)", RFC 1238, cisco Systems, Inc., June 1991.
[6] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple
Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, SNMP Research,
Performance Systems International, Performance Systems
International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990.
[7] Rose, M., "SNMP over OSI", RFC 1418, Dover Beach Consulting,
Inc., March 1993.
[8] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Transport Service,
International Organization for Standardization. International
Standard 8602, December 1987.
7. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 12]RFC 1574 Essential Tools for the OSI Internet February 1994
8. Authors' Addresses
Susan K. Hares
MERIT/NSFNET
Internet Engineering
1075 Beal Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2112
Phone: (313) 936-3000
EMail: skh@merit.edu
Cathy J. Wittbrodt
Stanford University/BARRNet
Networking Systems
Pine Hall 115
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (415) 725-5481
EMail: cjw@magnolia.Stanford.EDU
Hares & Wittbrodt [Page 13]
