Host Resources MIB (RFC 1514) Implementation Report Bobby Krupczak Empire Technologies, Inc. 2675 Paces Ferry Rd Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339 770.384.0184 rdk@empire.com I. Introduction RFC 1514 defines an Internet standards track MIB specification for the management of host systems which include desktop computers, servers, and embedded devices such as printers. The MIB specification is located at the following position in the global MIB tree: iso(1).org(3).dod(6).internet(1).mgmt(2).mib-2(1).host(25) Implementation and deployment of this MIB specification has reached a level warranting its advancement through the Internet standards track. The IETF standards process [RFC 2026] requires at least two independent and interoperable implementations for advancing a protocol (or, in this case, a MIB specification) to draft standard. Consequently, an implementation report is necessary and is contained in this document. The IETF standards process also requires that MIB specifications must be in SMIv2 [RFC 2578] format in order to advance. RFC 1514 is now under revision to bring it in line with the structure of management information for SNMPv2 (SMIv2). That revision, [Draft-ops-hostmib-01.txt], represents only syntactic changes to RFC 1514; it consist primarily of minor MIB object clarifications and enhancements and in no way changes the semantics of any of the MIB objects in the original specification. Few formal or informal guidelines, other than those contained in [RFC 2438], exist for the format of such a report. Consequently, this document's format is relatively concise and straightforward and is structured as follows. Section II outlines the different RFC 1514 implementations (e.g. in SNMP Agents) while Section III outlines SNMP management software written to RFC 1514 and which interoperability data are known. Section IV provides an implementation cross reference while Section V concludes the report. It should be noted, however, that the listing of implementations documented in this MIB specification is neither exhaustive nor complete and does not claim to be so. II. MIB Implementation Status The Host Resources MIB RFC 1514 has been implemented on computer systems running a variety of operating systems including Windows NT, UNIX variants, and embedded systems (e.g. printers). This section discusses MIB implementation and compliance information for several known RFC 1514 agents. It does not purport, nor is it required, to provide a total listing and examination of all RFC 1514 implementation Due to the economics of software development today, many companies license SNMP agent engine implementation source code from one of several toolkit vendors and then implement specific MIB specifications themselves. RFC 1514 implementations are typical of this trend; many of the implementations documented in this report are built on top of a commercial off-the-shelf SNMP agent toolkit. Due to the fact that choice of SNMP engine toolkits may be considered proprietary and trade secret by the respective RFC 1514 implementors, this implementation report does not divulge this information. However, this implementation report does document the origin of the RFC 1514 MIB implementation itself. RFC 1514 defines five major groups of MIB objects; they are the System, Storage, Device, Running Software, and Installed Software groups. Contained within these groups are both scalar and tabular objects. To make this report more concise, implementation data is reported by major MIB group with exceptions, if any, noted. The RFC 1514 implementations contained in this report include: Digital UNIX implementation by Digital Equipment Corporation (now Compaq), Netware implementation by Novell, Dynix implementation by Sequent, NT implementation by Paul Freeman and Associates (PFA), UNIX and NT by Empire Technologies, Linux by the UCD consortium, Lexmark Printer implementation, and HP printer implementation. Each implementation is discussed in a subsequent subsection. Valid implementations also exist from, but are not documented in this implementation report, Microsoft (purportedly being bundled with Windows 2000) and from a group of European-based developers (bundled with some Linux distributions). II.A Digital/Digital-UNIX Digital's implementation of RFC 1514, for Digital UNIX, is independently implemented and is documented in the Digital UNIX release notes. It implements all major groups of the MIB specification with the exception of the hrPrinterTable (25.5) and the hrSWInstalled group (25.6). II.B Novell/Netware Novell's implementation of RFC 1514, for Netware operating systems, is independently implemented and runs as a Netware Loadable Module (or NLM). It implements all major groups of the MIB specification with the exception of the hrPrinterTable (25.5). II.C Sequent/Dynix Sequent has implemented RFC 1514 on its own variant of UNIX (Dynix). Its implementation is independent and supports all major groups except the hrPrinterTable (25.5). At the time of this report, however, a MIB walk was unavailable. Consequently, this agent's implementation data cannot be verified and should not be included in the decision as to whether RFC 1514 warrants standards-track advancement. II.D PFA/NT Paul Freeman and Associates (PFA) has implemented RFC 1514 as a sub-agent within the Microsoft SNMP service. Its implementation is independent and supports all the major groups, including the hrPrinterTable (25.5), with the exception of the hrSWInstalled group (25.6). II.E Empire/UNIX-NT Empire Technologies has implemented RFC 1514 on a variety of UNIX variants as well as NT. On NT, Empire's implementation runs as a sub-agent within the Microsoft SNMP service and as a stand alone agent on UNIX. Its implementation is independent and supports all the major groups with the exception of the hrPrinterTable (25.5). II.F UCD/UNIX A loose consortium of developers, led by Wes Hardarker at the University of California Davis, develops and maintains an Open Source SNMP Agent. That agent provides some support for the Host Resources MIB on a variety of UNIX implementations and is now bundled with many Linux distributions. On Solaris/Sparc, the UCD implementation did not support most groups within the hrDevice (25.3); consequently, the list of groups supported includes hrSystem (25.1), hrStorage (25.2), hrFSTable (25.3.8) , hrSWRun (25.4) , hrSWRunPerf (25.5), and hrSWInstalled (25.6). Because the majority of the hrDevice (25.3) group is not supported, it is questionable whether one should really consider if this implementation really does ``support'' the Host Resources MIB specification. We include its implementation in this report because at least one major SNMP management software vendor has certified interoperability with it. II.G Lexmark/Printer Lexmark has implemented some RFC 1514 MIB groups as part of their support for the Printer MIB. Their implementation is an independent one and includes support for all the major groups with the exception of the optional hrSWRun (25.4), hrSWRunPerf (25.5), and the hrSWInstalled (25.6) groups. It does, however, support product identifier values for Lexmark equipment and represents one of only a few vendors that actively support product/equipment registration. II.H HP/Printer HP has implemented some RFC 1514 MIB groups as part of their support for the Printer MIB. The origins of their implementation are unknown at the time of writing of this report. Their support for the Host Resources MIB includes many of the major groups with the exception of the hrSystem (25.1), hrProcessorTable (25.3.3), hrNetworkTable (25.3.4), hrSWRun (25.4), hrSWRunPerf (25.5), and the hrSWInstalled (25.6) groups. It does, however, support product identifier values for HP equipment and represents one of only a few vendors that actively support product/equipment registration. III SNMP Management Software RFC 2026 dictates that multiple (at least two) independent, and interoperable implementations of a protocol (or MIB specification) must exist in order for it to advance through the Internet standards process. Since, by definition, SNMP agents do not normally interact with each other, this requirement must be relaxed a bit to show that multiple, independent implementations can interoperate with multiple, independent management software applications written to the generic MIB specification. This section divides agent/manager interoperability into syntactic and semantic components. It should be emphasized, however, that the listing included in this implementation report is neither exhaustive nor complete. Further, interoperability data, with respect to management software, is only reported for agents implementations also documented in this report. III.A Syntactic Interoperability Syntactic interoperability represents and warrants that multiple, independent SNMP management software implementations can query (via SNMP) multiple, independent agent implementations and correctly display their results. That is, can SNMP management software correctly import the RFC 1514 MIB specification and query, without error, implementations of that specification. On this level of interoperability, much data has been gathered. Syntactic interoperability exists between a plethora of SNMP management software and the agent implementations documented in this implementation report. The RFC 1514 MIB specification has been compiled or parsed, and imported into multiple management software applications including SunNet Manager, HP OpenView Network Node Manager (more commonly referred to as HPOV), Cabletron Spectrum, IBM NetView, and Empire's MIB Manager. All have also demonstrated the ability to syntactically query and display data from independent RFC 1514 implementations. Undoubtedly, many many other qualifying SNMP management software applications also exist. III.B Semantic Interoperability Semantic interoperability represents and warrants that multiple, independent SNMP management software applications, specifically coded to the RFC 1514 MIB specification in order to take advantage of semantic knowledge represented by its implementation, can query (via SNMP) multiple, independent agent implementations and function correctly. That is, applications have been specifically written to the Host Resources MIB, for host diagnostics and reporting purposes, and can interoperate with multiple independent implementations. On this much greater level of interoperability, several commercial off-the-shelf applications have been written and deployed. Concord's Network Health application is a network and system reporting package that provides long-term trend and performance analysis. Its Server module has been coded to work with the RFC 1514 MIB specification. Concord ``certifies'' agent implementations by specifically testing their software against them and judging the validity of the reports produced using data gathered from those implementations. Concord has certified RFC 1514 implementations from Empire (UNIX and NT), PFA (NT), Novell (Netware), and UCD (UNIX). Lucent's VitalSuite is a network, system, and application performance reporting package which also uses RFC 1514 data for retrieving system performance information. Interoperability testing with Empire's implementation (UNIX, NT) and Novell's (Netware) has been performed. Interoperability testing has been performed with other agents but their RFC 1514 implementation status is unknown and therefore not discussed in this implementation report. Empire's AdvantEDGE View application provides, in a sense, an element manager for its own implementation of the RFC 1514 MIB specification. AdvantEDGE View has also been tested (both syntactically and semantically) against the Empire, PFA, UCD, and HP Printer implementations. Cabletron has developed a series of Host Modules which encapsulate semantic knowledge of MIB specifications and agents' implementation of those specifications. Cabletron has tested against at least two different implementations: Empire's UNIX/NT implementation as well as Novell's implementation for its Netware operating system. Lastly, software products from DeskTalk (Trend) and INS/Lucent (EnterprisePro or ePro) have been coded to the RFC 1514 specification. However, at the time this implementation report was written, interoperability data (with agents other than Empire's) was unknown. IV Agent MIB Group Implementation Cross Reference This section presents an implementation cross-reference chart summarizing the implementation data contained Section II. It labels RFC 1514 implementations A-H corresponding to their Section II sub-section letter. For example, column A represents implementation data from Section II.A for the Digital RFC 1514 implementation for Digital UNIX. The MIB groups, represented in the left column, are those defined in RFC 1514. The Device Group, due to its size and scope, has been broken down into sub-groups corresponding to the major MIB branches contained within it. Group/Agent A B C D E F G H -------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- System Y Y X Y Y Y Y N Storage Y Y X Y Y Y Y Y DeviceTable Y Y X Y Y N Y Y ProcessorTable Y Y X Y Y N Y N NetworkTable Y Y X Y Y N Y N PrinterTable N N N Y N N Y Y DiskStorTable Y Y X Y Y N Y Y PartitionTable Y Y X Y Y N Y Y FSTable Y Y X Y Y Y Y Y SWRunTable Y Y X Y Y Y N N SWRunPerfTable Y Y X Y Y Y N N SWInstalledTable N Y X N Y Y N N Y = group/table supported N = group/table not supported X = not verified through SNMP walk V. Conclusions The Host Resources MIB specification contained in RFC 1514 has met the conditions for advancement along the IETF standards track. RFC 1514 is currently at Proposed Standard and has met the following conditions for advancement to Draft. 1) There exists at least two independent implementations that interoperate with at least two independent management applications. This implementation report has documented at least 8 full/partial RFC 1514 implementations and a plethora of management software that is able, both syntactically and semantically, to interoperate with multiple RFC 1514 implementations. While an exhaustive nor complete RFC 1514 implementation list has been presented, necessary and sufficient conditions have been met. 2) RFC 1514 has remained at Proposed Standard for at least six months. In actuality, it has been at Proposed Standard status for at least six years! 3) RFC 1514 has undergone an extensive peer review process; the latest SMIv2 draft version of the Host Resources MIB specification, contained in draft-ops-hostmib-01.txt reflects the clarification and improvement based on several years experience in developing and deploying it. RFC 1514 has already achieved de facto ``standard'' status for interoperable host management using Internet Management protocols. RFC 1514 has been deployed in commercial products by several vendors and coded to by several vendors of commercial off-the-shelf SNMP management software. The proliferation of these products, both agents and management software, have proven the usefulness and acceptance of this specification. Consequently, advancing the Host Resources MIB specification is warranted. VI. Bibliography RFC 2026 Internet Standards Process RFC 2400 INTERNET OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS, Sept 1998 RFC 1514 Host Resources MIB, Sept 1993 RFC 2578 Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) RFC 2438 Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track draft-ops-hostmib-01.txt Host Resources MIB (SMIv2) Digital UNIX Release Notes PFA Release Notes VII. Acknowledgments Chris Wellens (chrisw@iwl.com) provided helpful suggestions and comments regarding format and content of implementation reports. Steve Bostock provided implementation information and a MIB walk of Novell's Netware implementation. Lloyd Young provided implementation information and a MIB walk of Lexmark's implementation. Steve Waldbusser provided interoperability data about Lucent VitalSuite as well as comments and suggestions on the contents of this report. VIII. Document Revision History #$Id: implementation.txt,v 1.3 1999/11/23 02:50:34 rdk Exp rdk $ #$Log: implementation.txt,v $ # Revision 1.3 1999/11/23 02:50:34 rdk # Checkpoint before submission; after INS feedback # # Revision 1.2 1999/11/15 20:09:39 rdk # Checkpoint before submitting to Bert # # Revision 1.1 1999/11/15 02:57:02 rdk # Initial revision