- Home
- RFCs by Subject
- transport
- transport mapping
transport mapping
Transport Mappings: carrying one protocol over another transport: X-over-TLS/TCP/UDP/QUIC bindings and transport models
Within this page
transport mapping RFCs (52)
RFC 9952: Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for CoAP over DTLS
Informational- M. S. Lenders
- C. Amsüss
- T. C. Schmidt
- M. Wählisch
- March 2026
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document specifies an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) services that are secured by DTLS.
Abstract
This document specifies an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) services that are secured by DTLS.
RFC 9887: Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- T. Dahm
- J. Heasley
- D.C. Medway Gash
- A. Ota
- December 2025
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3 to secure the communication channel between a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) client and server. TACACS+ is a protocol used for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) in networked environments. The original TACACS+ protocol does not mandate the use of encryption or secure transport. This specification defines a profile for using TLS 1.3 with TACACS+, including guidance on authentication, connection establishment, and operational considerations. The goal is to enhance the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of TACACS+ traffic, aligning the protocol with modern security best practices.
This document updates RFC 8907.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3 to secure the communication channel between a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) client and server. TACACS+ is a protocol used for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) in networked environments. The original TACACS+ protocol does not mandate the use of encryption or secure transport. This specification defines a profile for using TLS 1.3 with TACACS+, including guidance on authentication, connection establishment, and operational considerations. The goal is to enhance the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of TACACS+ traffic, aligning the protocol with modern security best practices.
This document updates RFC 8907.
RFC 9715: IP Fragmentation Avoidance in DNS over UDP
Informational- K. Fujiwara
- P. Vixie
- January 2025
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The widely deployed Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) feature in the DNS enables a DNS receiver to indicate its received UDP message size capacity, which supports the sending of large UDP responses by a DNS server. Large DNS/UDP messages are more likely to be fragmented, and IP fragmentation has exposed weaknesses in application protocols. It is possible to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS by limiting the response size where possible and signaling the need to upgrade from UDP to TCP transport where necessary. This document describes techniques to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS.
Abstract
The widely deployed Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) feature in the DNS enables a DNS receiver to indicate its received UDP message size capacity, which supports the sending of large UDP responses by a DNS server. Large DNS/UDP messages are more likely to be fragmented, and IP fragmentation has exposed weaknesses in application protocols. It is possible to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS by limiting the response size where possible and signaling the need to upgrade from UDP to TCP transport where necessary. This document describes techniques to avoid IP fragmentation in DNS.
RFC 9566: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
Informational- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- A. Malis
- April 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes how the DetNet IP data plane can support the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for the DetNet MPLS data plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology.
Abstract
This document describes how the DetNet IP data plane can support the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for the DetNet MPLS data plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology.
RFC 9456: Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP
Proposed Standard- K. Vaughn
- November 2023
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document updates RFC 6353 ("Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)") to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (TLS 1.3) and Datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (DTLS 1.3), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS 1.3". This document is compatible with (D)TLS 1.2 and is intended to be compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS.
This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353.
Abstract
This document updates RFC 6353 ("Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)") to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (TLS 1.3) and Datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (DTLS 1.3), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS 1.3". This document is compatible with (D)TLS 1.2 and is intended to be compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS.
This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353.
RFC 9250: DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections
Proposed Standard- C. Huitema
- S. Dickinson
- A. Mankin
- May 2022
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport confidentiality for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to those provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient packet-loss recovery than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC 7858, and latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP. This specification describes the use of DoQ as a general-purpose transport for DNS and includes the use of DoQ for stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and zone transfer scenarios.
Abstract
This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport confidentiality for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to those provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient packet-loss recovery than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC 7858, and latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP. This specification describes the use of DoQ as a general-purpose transport for DNS and includes the use of DoQ for stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and zone transfer scenarios.
RFC 9210: BCP 235: DNS Transport over TCP - Operational Requirements
Best Current Practice- J. Kristoff
- D. Wessels
- March 2022
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document updates RFCs 1123 and 1536. This document requires the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be carried over TCP on the Internet as a Best Current Practice. This operational requirement is aligned with the implementation requirements in RFC 7766. The use of TCP includes both DNS over unencrypted TCP as well as over an encrypted TLS session. The document also considers the consequences of this form of DNS communication and the potential operational issues that can arise when this Best Current Practice is not upheld.
Abstract
This document updates RFCs 1123 and 1536. This document requires the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be carried over TCP on the Internet as a Best Current Practice. This operational requirement is aligned with the implementation requirements in RFC 7766. The use of TCP includes both DNS over unencrypted TCP as well as over an encrypted TLS session. The document also considers the consequences of this form of DNS communication and the potential operational issues that can arise when this Best Current Practice is not upheld.
RFC 9103: DNS Zone Transfer over TLS
Proposed Standard- W. Toorop
- S. Dickinson
- S. Sahib
- P. Aras
- A. Mankin
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
DNS zone transfers are transmitted in cleartext, which gives attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by eavesdropping on network connections. The DNS Transaction Signature (TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality. This document specifies the use of TLS, rather than cleartext, to prevent zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers: XFR over TLS (XoT). Additionally, this specification updates RFC 1995 and RFC 5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections and RFC 7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport.
Abstract
DNS zone transfers are transmitted in cleartext, which gives attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by eavesdropping on network connections. The DNS Transaction Signature (TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality. This document specifies the use of TLS, rather than cleartext, to prevent zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers: XFR over TLS (XoT). Additionally, this specification updates RFC 1995 and RFC 5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections and RFC 7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport.
RFC 9025: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
Proposed Standard- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- L. Berger
- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- April 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is based on the operation of MPLS-over-UDP technology.
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is based on the operation of MPLS-over-UDP technology.
RFC 8894: Simple Certificate Enrolment Protocol
Informational- P. Gutmann
- September 2020
- IETF publication
- General Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Simple Certificate Enrolment Protocol (SCEP), a PKI protocol that leverages existing technology by using Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS, formerly known as PKCS #7) and PKCS #10 over HTTP. SCEP is the evolution of the enrolment protocol sponsored by Cisco Systems, which enjoys wide support in both client and server implementations, as well as being relied upon by numerous other industry standards that work with certificates.
Abstract
This document specifies the Simple Certificate Enrolment Protocol (SCEP), a PKI protocol that leverages existing technology by using Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS, formerly known as PKCS #7) and PKCS #10 over HTTP. SCEP is the evolution of the enrolment protocol sponsored by Cisco Systems, which enjoys wide support in both client and server implementations, as well as being relied upon by numerous other industry standards that work with certificates.
RFC 8473: Token Binding over HTTP
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- M. Nystroem
- D. Balfanz
- N. Harper
- J. Hodges
- October 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
RFC 8323: CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets
Proposed Standard- C. Bormann
- S. Lemay
- H. Tschofenig
- K. Hartke
- B. Silverajan
- B. Raymor
- February 2018
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), although inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.
Some environments benefit from the availability of CoAP carried over reliable transports such as TCP or Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document outlines the changes required to use CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets transports. It also formally updates RFC 7641 for use with these transports and RFC 7959 to enable the use of larger messages over a reliable transport.
Abstract
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), although inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.
Some environments benefit from the availability of CoAP carried over reliable transports such as TCP or Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document outlines the changes required to use CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets transports. It also formally updates RFC 7641 for use with these transports and RFC 7959 to enable the use of larger messages over a reliable transport.
RFC 7930: Larger Packets for RADIUS over TCP
Experimental- S. Hartman
- August 2016
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The RADIUS-over-TLS experiment described in RFC 6614 has opened RADIUS to new use cases where the 4096-octet maximum size limit of a RADIUS packet proves problematic. This specification extends the RADIUS-over-TCP experiment (RFC 6613) to permit larger RADIUS packets. This specification compliments other ongoing work to permit fragmentation of RADIUS authorization information. This document registers a new RADIUS code, an action that required IESG approval.
Abstract
The RADIUS-over-TLS experiment described in RFC 6614 has opened RADIUS to new use cases where the 4096-octet maximum size limit of a RADIUS packet proves problematic. This specification extends the RADIUS-over-TCP experiment (RFC 6613) to permit larger RADIUS packets. This specification compliments other ongoing work to permit fragmentation of RADIUS authorization information. This document registers a new RADIUS code, an action that required IESG approval.
RFC 7850: Registering Values of the SDP 'proto' Field for Transporting RTP Media over TCP under Various RTP Profiles
Proposed Standard- S. Nandakumar
- April 2016
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification establishes a registry of profile names for use by higher-level control protocols, such as the Session Description Protocol (SDP), to refer to the transport methods. This specification describes the following new SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP: 'TCP/RTP/AVPF', 'TCP/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP', and 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF'.
Abstract
The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) specification establishes a registry of profile names for use by higher-level control protocols, such as the Session Description Protocol (SDP), to refer to the transport methods. This specification describes the following new SDP transport protocol identifiers for transporting RTP Media over TCP: 'TCP/RTP/AVPF', 'TCP/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVP', 'TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF', 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP', and 'TCP/TLS/RTP/AVPF'.
RFC 7766: DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements
Proposed Standard- J. Dickinson
- S. Dickinson
- R. Bellis
- A. Mankin
- D. Wessels
- March 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies the requirement for support of TCP as a transport protocol for DNS implementations and provides guidelines towards DNS-over-TCP performance on par with that of DNS-over-UDP. This document obsoletes RFC 5966 and therefore updates RFC 1035 and RFC 1123.
Abstract
This document specifies the requirement for support of TCP as a transport protocol for DNS implementations and provides guidelines towards DNS-over-TCP performance on par with that of DNS-over-UDP. This document obsoletes RFC 5966 and therefore updates RFC 1035 and RFC 1123.
RFC 7472: Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) over HTTPS Transport Binding and the 'ipps' URI Scheme
Proposed Standard- I. McDonald
- M. Sweet
- March 2015
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document defines the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) over HTTPS transport binding and the corresponding 'ipps' URI scheme, which is used to designate the access to the network location of a secure IPP print service or a network resource managed by such a service.
This document defines an alternate IPP transport binding to that defined in the original IPP URL Scheme (RFC 3510), but this document does not update or obsolete RFC 3510.
Abstract
This document defines the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) over HTTPS transport binding and the corresponding 'ipps' URI scheme, which is used to designate the access to the network location of a secure IPP print service or a network resource managed by such a service.
This document defines an alternate IPP transport binding to that defined in the original IPP URL Scheme (RFC 3510), but this document does not update or obsolete RFC 3510.
RFC 6876: A Posture Transport Protocol over TLS (PT-TLS)
Proposed Standard- P. Sangster
- N. Cam-Winget
- J. Salowey
- February 2013
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies PT-TLS, a TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) protocol. The PT-TLS protocol carries the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) message exchange under the protection of a Transport Layer Security (TLS) secured tunnel.
Abstract
This document specifies PT-TLS, a TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) protocol. The PT-TLS protocol carries the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) message exchange under the protection of a Transport Layer Security (TLS) secured tunnel.
RFC 6679: Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP
Proposed Standard- M. Westerlund
- I. Johansson
- C. Perkins
- P. O'Hanlon
- K. Carlberg
- August 2012
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This memo specifies how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) can be used with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) running over UDP, using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) as a feedback mechanism. It defines a new RTCP Extended Report (XR) block for periodic ECN feedback, a new RTCP transport feedback message for timely reporting of congestion events, and a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) extension used in the optional initialisation method using Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE). Signalling and procedures for negotiation of capabilities and initialisation methods are also defined. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo specifies how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) can be used with the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) running over UDP, using the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) as a feedback mechanism. It defines a new RTCP Extended Report (XR) block for periodic ECN feedback, a new RTCP transport feedback message for timely reporting of congestion events, and a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) extension used in the optional initialisation method using Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE). Signalling and procedures for negotiation of capabilities and initialisation methods are also defined. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6613: RADIUS over TCP
Experimental- A. DeKok
- May 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Remote Authentication Dial-In User Server (RADIUS) protocol has, until now, required the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as the underlying transport layer. This document defines RADIUS over the Transmission Control Protocol (RADIUS/TCP), in order to address handling issues related to RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/TLS). It permits TCP to be used as a transport protocol for RADIUS only when a transport layer such as TLS or IPsec provides confidentiality and security. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
The Remote Authentication Dial-In User Server (RADIUS) protocol has, until now, required the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as the underlying transport layer. This document defines RADIUS over the Transmission Control Protocol (RADIUS/TCP), in order to address handling issues related to RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/TLS). It permits TCP to be used as a transport protocol for RADIUS only when a transport layer such as TLS or IPsec provides confidentiality and security. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 6546: Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS
Proposed Standard- B. Trammell
- April 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a common XML format for document exchange, and Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of network operators and enterprises. This document specifies an application-layer protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages over HTTP/TLS. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a common XML format for document exchange, and Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of network operators and enterprises. This document specifies an application-layer protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages over HTTP/TLS. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6587: Transmission of Syslog Messages over TCP
Historic- R. Gerhards
- C. Lonvick
- April 2012
- IETF publication
Abstract
There have been many implementations and deployments of legacy syslog over TCP for many years. That protocol has evolved without being standardized and has proven to be quite interoperable in practice. This memo describes how TCP has been used as a transport for syslog messages. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
Abstract
There have been many implementations and deployments of legacy syslog over TCP for many years. That protocol has evolved without being standardized and has proven to be quite interoperable in practice. This memo describes how TCP has been used as a transport for syslog messages. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
RFC 6353: STD 78: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Internet Standard- W. Hardaker
- July 2011
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of an SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.
This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of an SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.
This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6053: Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Informational- E. Haleplidis
- K. Ogawa
- W. Wang
- J. Hadi Salim
- November 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE). RFC 3654 has defined the ForCES requirements, and RFC 3746 has defined the ForCES framework.
This document is an implementation report for the ForCES Protocol, Model, and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol-based Transport Mapping Layer (SCTP TML) documents, and includes a report on interoperability testing and the current state of ForCES implementations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE). RFC 3654 has defined the ForCES requirements, and RFC 3746 has defined the ForCES framework.
This document is an implementation report for the ForCES Protocol, Model, and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol-based Transport Mapping Layer (SCTP TML) documents, and includes a report on interoperability testing and the current state of ForCES implementations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6012: Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog
Proposed Standard- J. Salowey
- T. Petch
- R. Gerhards
- H. Feng
- October 2010
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the transport of syslog messages over the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. It provides a secure transport for syslog messages in cases where a connectionless transport is desired.
Abstract
This document describes the transport of syslog messages over the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. It provides a secure transport for syslog messages in cases where a connectionless transport is desired.
RFC 5966: DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements
Proposed Standard- R. Bellis
- August 2010
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
This document updates the requirements for the support of TCP as a transport protocol for DNS implementations. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 7766
Abstract
This document updates the requirements for the support of TCP as a transport protocol for DNS implementations. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5953: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Proposed Standard- W. Hardaker
- August 2010
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of a SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.
This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 6353
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of a SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.
This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.
This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5810: Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification
Proposed Standard- A. Doria
- J. Hadi Salim
- R. Haas
- H. Khosravi
- W. Wang
- L. Dong
- R. Gopal
- J. Halpern
- March 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) protocol. The ForCES protocol is used for communications between Control Elements (CEs) and Forwarding Elements (FEs) in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). This specification is intended to meet the ForCES protocol requirements defined in RFC 3654. Besides the ForCES protocol, this specification also defines the requirements for the Transport Mapping Layer (TML). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) protocol. The ForCES protocol is used for communications between Control Elements (CEs) and Forwarding Elements (FEs) in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). This specification is intended to meet the ForCES protocol requirements defined in RFC 3654. Besides the ForCES protocol, this specification also defines the requirements for the Transport Mapping Layer (TML). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5811: SCTP-Based Transport Mapping Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Proposed Standard- J. Hadi Salim
- K. Ogawa
- March 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines the SCTP-based TML (Transport Mapping Layer) for the ForCES (Forwarding and Control Element Separation) protocol. It explains the rationale for choosing the SCTP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol) and also describes how this TML addresses all the requirements required by and the ForCES protocol. [STANDARDS TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines the SCTP-based TML (Transport Mapping Layer) for the ForCES (Forwarding and Control Element Separation) protocol. It explains the rationale for choosing the SCTP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol) and also describes how this TML addresses all the requirements required by and the ForCES protocol. [STANDARDS TRACK]
RFC 5734: STD 69: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP
Internet Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- August 2009
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 4934. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 4934. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5608: Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Usage for Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Transport Models
Proposed Standard- K. Narayan
- D. Nelson
- August 2009
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo describes the use of a Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) authentication and authorization service with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) secure Transport Models to authenticate users and authorize creation of secure transport sessions. While the recommendations of this memo are generally applicable to a broad class of SNMP Transport Models, the examples focus on the Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo describes the use of a Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) authentication and authorization service with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) secure Transport Models to authenticate users and authorize creation of secure transport sessions. While the recommendations of this memo are generally applicable to a broad class of SNMP Transport Models, the examples focus on the Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5590: STD 78: Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Internet Standard- D. Harrington
- J. Schoenwaelder
- June 2009
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document defines a Transport Subsystem, extending the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) architecture defined in RFC 3411. This document defines a subsystem to contain Transport Models that is comparable to other subsystems in the RFC 3411 architecture. As work is being done to expand the transports to include secure transports, such as the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol and Transport Layer Security (TLS), using a subsystem will enable consistent design and modularity of such Transport Models. This document identifies and describes some key aspects that need to be considered for any Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a Transport Subsystem, extending the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) architecture defined in RFC 3411. This document defines a subsystem to contain Transport Models that is comparable to other subsystems in the RFC 3411 architecture. As work is being done to expand the transports to include secure transports, such as the Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol and Transport Layer Security (TLS), using a subsystem will enable consistent design and modularity of such Transport Models. This document identifies and describes some key aspects that need to be considered for any Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5592: Secure Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Proposed Standard- D. Harrington
- J. Salowey
- W. Hardaker
- June 2009
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), using the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.
This memo also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for monitoring and managing the Secure Shell Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), using the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol.
This memo also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for monitoring and managing the Secure Shell Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5425: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog
Proposed Standard- F. Miao
- Y. Ma
- J. Salowey
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. This document describes the security threats to syslog and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. This document describes the security threats to syslog and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.
RFC 5426: Transmission of Syslog Messages over UDP
Proposed Standard- A. Okmianski
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the transport for syslog messages over UDP/ IPv4 or UDP/IPv6. The syslog protocol layered architecture provides for support of any number of transport mappings. However, for interoperability purposes, syslog protocol implementers are required to support this transport mapping. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the transport for syslog messages over UDP/ IPv4 or UDP/IPv6. The syslog protocol layered architecture provides for support of any number of transport mappings. However, for interoperability purposes, syslog protocol implementers are required to support this transport mapping. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5166: Metrics for the Evaluation of Congestion Control Mechanisms
Informational- S. Floyd
- March 2008
- IRTF publication
Abstract
This document discusses the metrics to be considered in an evaluation of new or modified congestion control mechanisms for the Internet. These include metrics for the evaluation of new transport protocols, of proposed modifications to TCP, of application-level congestion control, and of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms in the router. This document is the first in a series of documents aimed at improving the models that we use in the evaluation of transport protocols.
This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group (TMRG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or any other community) about the metrics that congestion control mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of trade-offs between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of trade-offs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of optimizing for a single metric. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document discusses the metrics to be considered in an evaluation of new or modified congestion control mechanisms for the Internet. These include metrics for the evaluation of new transport protocols, of proposed modifications to TCP, of application-level congestion control, and of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms in the router. This document is the first in a series of documents aimed at improving the models that we use in the evaluation of transport protocols.
This document is a product of the Transport Modeling Research Group (TMRG), and has received detailed feedback from many members of the Research Group (RG). As the document tries to make clear, there is not necessarily a consensus within the research community (or the IETF community, the vendor community, the operations community, or any other community) about the metrics that congestion control mechanisms should be designed to optimize, in terms of trade-offs between throughput and delay, fairness between competing flows, and the like. However, we believe that there is a clear consensus that congestion control mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of trade-offs between a range of metrics, rather than in terms of optimizing for a single metric. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5021: Extended Kerberos Version 5 Key Distribution Center (KDC) Exchanges over TCP
Proposed Standard- S. Josefsson
- August 2007
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes an extensibility mechanism for the Kerberos V5 protocol when used over TCP transports. The mechanism uses the reserved high-bit in the length field. It can be used to negotiate TCP-specific Kerberos extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes an extensibility mechanism for the Kerberos V5 protocol when used over TCP transports. The mechanism uses the reserved high-bit in the length field. It can be used to negotiate TCP-specific Kerberos extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4934: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP
Draft Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- May 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 3734. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5734
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 3734. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4712: Transport Mappings for Real-time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON) Protocol Data Unit (PDU)
Proposed Standard- A. Siddiqui
- D. Romascanu
- E. Golovinsky
- M. Rahman
- Y. Kim
- October 2006
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This memo specifies two transport mappings of the \%Real-Time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON) information model defined in RFC 4710 using TCP as a native transport and the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to carry the RAQMON information from a RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report Collector (RRC). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo specifies two transport mappings of the \%Real-Time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON) information model defined in RFC 4710 using TCP as a native transport and the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to carry the RAQMON information from a RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report Collector (RRC). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4404: Definitions of Managed Objects for Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP)
Proposed Standard- R. Natarajan
- A. Rijhsinghani
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Transport Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP) entities, which are used to interconnect Fibre Channel (FC) fabrics with IP networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP) entities, which are used to interconnect Fibre Channel (FC) fabrics with IP networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4380: Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)
Proposed Standard- C. Huitema
- February 2006
- IETF publication
Abstract
We propose here a service that enables nodes located behind one or more IPv4 Network Address Translations (NATs) to obtain IPv6 connectivity by tunneling packets over UDP; we call this the Teredo service. Running the service requires the help of "Teredo servers" and "Teredo relays". The Teredo servers are stateless, and only have to manage a small fraction of the traffic between Teredo clients; the Teredo relays act as IPv6 routers between the Teredo service and the "native" IPv6 Internet. The relays can also provide interoperability with hosts using other transition mechanisms such as "6to4". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
We propose here a service that enables nodes located behind one or more IPv4 Network Address Translations (NATs) to obtain IPv6 connectivity by tunneling packets over UDP; we call this the Teredo service. Running the service requires the help of "Teredo servers" and "Teredo relays". The Teredo servers are stateless, and only have to manage a small fraction of the traffic between Teredo clients; the Teredo relays act as IPv6 routers between the Teredo service and the "native" IPv6 Internet. The relays can also provide interoperability with hosts using other transition mechanisms such as "6to4". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3821: Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP)
Proposed Standard- M. Rajagopal
- E. Rodriguez
- R. Weber
- July 2004
- IETF publication
- Transport Area
Abstract
Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP) describes mechanisms that allow the interconnection of islands of Fibre Channel storage area networks over IP-based networks to form a unified storage area network in a single Fibre Channel fabric. FCIP relies on IP-based network services to provide the connectivity between the storage area network islands over local area networks, metropolitan area networks, or wide area networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Fibre Channel Over TCP/IP (FCIP) describes mechanisms that allow the interconnection of islands of Fibre Channel storage area networks over IP-based networks to form a unified storage area network in a single Fibre Channel fabric. FCIP relies on IP-based network services to provide the connectivity between the storage area network islands over local area networks, metropolitan area networks, or wide area networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3822: Finding Fibre Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities Using Service Location Protocol version 2 (SLPv2)
Proposed Standard- D. Peterson
- July 2004
- IETF publication
- Transport Area
Abstract
This document defines the use of Service Location Protocol version 2 (SLPv2) by Fibre Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines the use of Service Location Protocol version 2 (SLPv2) by Fibre Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3734: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP
Proposed Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- March 2004
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4934
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3417: STD 62: Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
Internet Standard- R. Presuhn
- December 2002
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document defines the transport of Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) messages over various protocols. This document obsoletes RFC 1906. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines the transport of Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) messages over various protocols. This document obsoletes RFC 1906. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3430: Simple Network Management Protocol Over Transmission Control Protocol Transport Mapping
Experimental- J. Schoenwaelder
- December 2002
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo defines a transport mapping for using the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over TCP. The transport mapping can be used with any version of SNMP. This document extends the transport mappings defined in STD 62, RFC 3417. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo defines a transport mapping for using the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) over TCP. The transport mapping can be used with any version of SNMP. This document extends the transport mappings defined in STD 62, RFC 3417. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 2818: HTTP Over TLS
Informational- E. Rescorla
- May 2000
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 9110
Abstract
This memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2487: SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS
Proposed Standard- P. Hoffman
- January 1999
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP service that allows an SMTP server and client to use transport-layer security to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3207
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP service that allows an SMTP server and client to use transport-layer security to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1906: Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
Draft Standard- J. Case
- K. McCloghrie
- M. Rose
- S. Waldbusser
- January 1996
- IETF publication
- Network Management Area
Abstract
It is the purpose of this document to define how the SNMPv2 maps onto an initial set of transport domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3417
Abstract
It is the purpose of this document to define how the SNMPv2 maps onto an initial set of transport domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1859: ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control over TCP RFC1006 extension
Informational- Y. Pouffary
- October 1995
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document is an extension to STD35, RFC1006, a standard for the Internet community. The document does not duplicate the protocol definitions contained in RFC1006 and in International Standard ISO 8073. It supplements that information with the description of how to implement ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control on top of TCP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
This document is an extension to STD35, RFC1006, a standard for the Internet community. The document does not duplicate the protocol definitions contained in RFC1006 and in International Standard ISO 8073. It supplements that information with the description of how to implement ISO Transport Class 2 Non-use of Explicit Flow Control on top of TCP. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1613: cisco Systems X.25 over TCP (XOT)
Informational- J. Forster
- G. Satz
- G. Glick
- R. Day
- May 1994
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo documents a method of sending X.25 packets over IP internets by encapsulating the X.25 Packet Level in TCP packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
This memo documents a method of sending X.25 packets over IP internets by encapsulating the X.25 Packet Level in TCP packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 1449: Transport Mappings for version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
Proposed Standard- J. Case
- K. McCloghrie
- M. Rose
- S. Waldbusser
- April 1993
- IETF publication
- Network Management Area
Abstract
It is the purpose of this document to define how the SNMPv2 maps onto an initial set of transport domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1906
Abstract
It is the purpose of this document to define how the SNMPv2 maps onto an initial set of transport domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1095: Common Management Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT)
Unknown- U.S. Warrier
- L. Besaw
- April 1989
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo defines a network management architecture that uses the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common Management Information Services/Common Management Information Protocol (CMIS/CMIP) in a TCP/IP environment. This architecture provides a means by which control and monitoring information can be exchanged between a manager and a remote network element. In particular, this memo defines the means for implementing the Draft International Standard (DIS) version of CMIS/CMIP on top of Internet transport protocols for the purpose of carrying management information defined in the Internet-standard management information base. DIS CMIS/CMIP is suitable for deployment in TCP/IP networks while CMIS/CMIP moves toward becoming an International Standard. Together with the relevant ISO standards and the companion RFCs that describe the initial structure of management information and management information base, these documents provide the basis for a comprehensive architecture and system for managing TCP/IP- based internets, and in particular the Internet.
Obsoleted by RFC 1189
Abstract
This memo defines a network management architecture that uses the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common Management Information Services/Common Management Information Protocol (CMIS/CMIP) in a TCP/IP environment. This architecture provides a means by which control and monitoring information can be exchanged between a manager and a remote network element. In particular, this memo defines the means for implementing the Draft International Standard (DIS) version of CMIS/CMIP on top of Internet transport protocols for the purpose of carrying management information defined in the Internet-standard management information base. DIS CMIS/CMIP is suitable for deployment in TCP/IP networks while CMIS/CMIP moves toward becoming an International Standard. Together with the relevant ISO standards and the companion RFCs that describe the initial structure of management information and management information base, these documents provide the basis for a comprehensive architecture and system for managing TCP/IP- based internets, and in particular the Internet.
Subscribe to transport mapping
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.