US: NTCIP Transportation Sensors - SNMPv3/TLS

Description

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: NTCIP Transportation Sensors with those for I–F: SNMPv3/TLS. The US: NTCIP Transportation Sensors standards include upper–layer standards required to implement center–to–field transportation sensors (e.g., vehicle detectors) communications (e.g., real–time). The I–F: SNMPv3/TLS standards include lower–layer standards that support secure center–to–field and field–to–field communications using simple network management protocol (SNMPv3); implementations are strongly encouraged to use the TLS for SNMP security option for this solution to ensure adequate security.

Includes Standards

LevelDocNumFullNameDescription
MgmtNTCIP 1201NTCIP Global Object (GO) DefinitionsThis standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) used by a wide range of field devices like time and versioning information.
MgmtIETF RFC 3411An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management FrameworksThis standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture.
MgmtIETF RFC 3412Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in managing the message processing and dispatching subsystem of an SNMP entity.
MgmtIETF RFC 3413Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ApplicationsThis standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys.
MgmtIETF RFC 3414User–based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in configuring and managing the user–based security model.
MgmtIETF RFC 3415View–based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that supports the configuration and management of the View–based access control model of SNMP.
MgmtIETF RFC 3416Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) defines the message structure and protocol operations used by SNMPv3.
MgmtIETF RFC 3418Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) defines the MIB to configure and manage an SNMP entity.
MgmtIETF RFC 4293Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)This standard (RFC) defines the MIB that manages an IP entity.
SecurityIETF RFC 6353Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) defines how to use the TLS authentication service to provide authentication within the access control mechanism of SNMP.
ITS Application EntityNTCIP 1209NTCIP Object Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems (TSS)This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) to monitor and control transportation system sensors that measure real–time vehicular traffic information.
FacilitiesNTCIP 1209NTCIP Object Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems (TSS)This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) to monitor and control transportation system sensors that measure real–time vehicular traffic information.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3411An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management FrameworksThis standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3412Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in managing the message processing and dispatching subsystem of an SNMP entity.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3413Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ApplicationsThis standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3414User–based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in configuring and managing the user–based security model.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3415View–based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that supports the configuration and management of the View–based access control model of SNMP.
FacilitiesIETF RFC 3416Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) defines the message structure and protocol operations used by SNMPv3.
TransNetIETF RFC 2460Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationThis standard (RFC) specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng.
TransNetIETF RFC 4291IP Version 6 Addressing ArchitectureThis standard (RFC) defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. It includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.
TransNetIETF RFC 4443Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationThis standard (RFC) defines the control messages to manage IPv6.
TransNetIETF RFC 793Transmission Control ProtocolThis standard (RFC) defines the main connection–oriented Transport Layer protocol used on Internet–based networks.
AccessNTCIP 2104NTCIP SP–EthernetThis standard defines the Access Layer for center–to–field communications where the local connection is some variant of Ethernet.

Readiness: High–Moderate

Readiness Description

One significant or possibly a couple minor issues. For existing deployments, the chosen solution likely has identified security or management issues not addressed by the communications solution. Deployers should consider additional security measures, such as communications link and physical security as part of these solutions. They should also review the management issues to see if they are relevant to their deployment and would require mitigation. For new deployments, the deployment efforts should consider a path to addressing these issues as a part of their design activities. The solution does not by itself provide a fully secure implementation without additional work.

Issues

IssueSeverityDescriptionAssociated StandardAssociated Triple
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Stow DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Barberton DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Barberton Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Twinsburg Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Hudson DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Hudson Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Summit County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Summit County DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Portage County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Other Municipalities Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Stow Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Twinsburg DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Kent Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Kent DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Green Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Green DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Cuyahoga Falls DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Akron Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Akron DMS
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>ODOT District 4 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Data not fully defined (medium)MediumSome of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Other Municipalities DMS
Out of date (medium)MediumThe standard includes normative references to other standards that have been subject to significant changes that can impact interoperability or security of systems and the industry has not specified if and how these updates should be implemented for deployments of this standard.IETF RFC 6353 TLS for SNMP(All)
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Other Municipalities DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Twinsburg DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Barberton DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Barberton Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Twinsburg Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Hudson DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Hudson Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Summit County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Summit County DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>ODOT District 4 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Other Municipalities Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Akron DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Stow Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Stow DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Kent Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Kent DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Green Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Green DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Cuyahoga Falls DMS
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>City of Akron Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Use case not considered in design (medium)MediumWhile the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort.(None)County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Portage County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment
Update data to SNMPv3LowData has been defined for SNMPv1, but needs to be updated to SNMPv3 format.(None)(All)
Use TLS for SNMP OptionLowThe standard allows for multiple security mechanisms. The only defined mechanism that meets the requirements for C–ITS is the one based on TLS.(None)(All)

Supports Interfaces

SourceDestinationFlow
City of Akron Traffic Operations CenterCity of Akron Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Akron Traffic Operations CenterCity of Akron Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Akron Traffic SensorsCity of Akron Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Akron Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Akron Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Barberton Maintenance DispatchCity of Barberton Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Barberton Traffic Operations CenterCity of Barberton Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Barberton Traffic SensorsCity of Barberton Maintenance Dispatchtraffic detector data
City of Barberton Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Barberton Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance DispatchCity of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Operations CenterCity of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic SensorsCity of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance Dispatchtraffic detector data
City of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Green Maintenance DispatchCity of Green Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Green Traffic Operations CenterCity of Green Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Green Traffic Operations CenterCity of Green Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Green Traffic SensorsCity of Green Maintenance Dispatchtraffic detector data
City of Green Traffic SensorsCity of Green Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Green Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Green Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Hudson Traffic Operations CenterCity of Hudson Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Hudson Traffic Operations CenterCity of Hudson Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Hudson Traffic Operations CenterCity of Hudson Wrong Way Vehicle Detection and Warning Systemstraffic detector control
City of Hudson Traffic SensorsCity of Hudson Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Hudson Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Hudson Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Hudson Wrong Way Vehicle Detection and Warning SystemsCity of Hudson Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Kent Traffic Operations CenterCity of Kent Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Kent Traffic Operations CenterCity of Kent Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Kent Traffic SensorsCity of Kent Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Kent Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Kent Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Stow Maintenance DispatchCity of Stow Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Stow Traffic Operations CenterCity of Stow Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Stow Traffic SensorsCity of Stow Maintenance Dispatchtraffic detector data
City of Stow Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Stow Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Twinsburg Traffic Operations CenterCity of Twinsburg Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
City of Twinsburg Traffic Operations CenterCity of Twinsburg Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
City of Twinsburg Traffic SensorsCity of Twinsburg Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
City of Twinsburg Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentCity of Twinsburg Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Akron DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Akron Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Barberton DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Barberton Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Cuyahoga Falls DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Cuyahoga Falls Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Green DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Green Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Hudson DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Hudson Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Kent DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Kent Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Stow DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Stow Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Twinsburg DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentCity of Twinsburg Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentOther Municipalities DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentOther Municipalities Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentPortage County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentSummit County DMStraffic situation data
County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentSummit County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
ODOT ATMSODOT District 4 Ramp Meterstraffic detector control
ODOT ATMSODOT District 4 Vehicle Detection Devicestraffic detector control
ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside EquipmentODOT District 4 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic situation data
ODOT District 4 OfficeODOT District 4 Vehicle Detection Devicestraffic detector control
ODOT District 4 Ramp MetersODOT ATMStraffic detector data
ODOT District 4 RWIS StationsODOT District 4 Variable Speed Limit Signstraffic detector coordination
ODOT District 4 Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentODOT Traffic Signal Control Systemtraffic detector data
ODOT District 4 Variable Speed Limit SignsODOT District 4 RWIS Stationstraffic detector coordination
ODOT District 4 Vehicle Detection DevicesODOT ATMStraffic detector data
ODOT District 4 Vehicle Detection DevicesODOT District 4 Officetraffic detector data
ODOT Traffic Signal Control SystemODOT District 4 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
Other Municipalities Traffic Operations CentersOther Municipalities Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
Other Municipalities Traffic Operations CentersOther Municipalities Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
Other Municipalities Traffic SensorsOther Municipalities Traffic Operations Centerstraffic detector data
Other Municipalities Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentOther Municipalities Traffic Operations Centerstraffic detector data
Portage County Traffic Operations CenterPortage County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
Portage County Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentPortage County Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
Summit County Traffic Operations CenterSummit County Traffic Sensorstraffic detector control
Summit County Traffic Operations CenterSummit County Traffic Signal Roadway Equipmenttraffic detector control
Summit County Traffic SensorsSummit County Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data
Summit County Traffic Signal Roadway EquipmentSummit County Traffic Operations Centertraffic detector data