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.
| Level | DocNum | FullName | Description |
|---|
| Mgmt | NTCIP 1201 | NTCIP Global Object (GO) Definitions | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) used by a wide range of field devices like time and versioning information. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3411 | An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks | This standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3412 | Message 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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3413 | Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications | This standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3414 | User–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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3415 | View–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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3416 | Version 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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3418 | Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) defines the MIB to configure and manage an SNMP entity. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 4293 | Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) | This standard (RFC) defines the MIB that manages an IP entity. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 6353 | Transport 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 Entity | NTCIP 1209 | NTCIP 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | NTCIP 1209 | NTCIP 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3411 | An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks | This standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3412 | Message 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3413 | Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications | This standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3414 | User–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. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3415 | View–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. |
|---|
| Facilities | IETF RFC 3416 | Version 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. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 2460 | Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification | This standard (RFC) specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 4291 | IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture | This 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. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 4443 | Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification | This standard (RFC) defines the control messages to manage IPv6. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 793 | Transmission Control Protocol | This standard (RFC) defines the main connection–oriented Transport Layer protocol used on Internet–based networks. |
|---|
| Access | NTCIP 2104 | NTCIP SP–Ethernet | This standard defines the Access Layer for center–to–field communications where the local connection is some variant of Ethernet. |
|---|
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.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Associated Standard | Associated Triple |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some 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 Bowling Green ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>ODOT ATMS |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>ODOT Traffic Signal Control System |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>OTIC Central Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>OTIC Queue Warning Detection and Warning System |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some 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 Toledo ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Municipal ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some 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 Toledo Traffic Management System |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some 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 Bowling Green Traffic Signal System |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Wood County ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Lucas County ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Lucas County Traffic Signal System |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>Municipal Traffic Signal Systems |
|---|
| Out of date (medium) | Medium | The 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) | Medium | While 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 Toledo Traffic Management System |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 Bowling Green ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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=>Municipal Traffic Signal Systems |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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=>Lucas County Traffic Signal System |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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=>Lucas County ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 ATMS |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 Bowling Green Traffic Signal System |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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=>Municipal ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 Toledo ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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) | OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>OTIC Queue Warning Detection and Warning System |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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) | OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment=>traffic situation data=>OTIC Central Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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 Traffic Signal Control System |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While 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=>Wood County ITS Field Devices |
|---|
| Update data to SNMPv3 | Low | Data has been defined for SNMPv1, but needs to be updated to SNMPv3 format. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Use TLS for SNMP Option | Low | The 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) |
|---|
| Source | Destination | Flow |
|---|
| City of Bowling Green ITS Field Devices | City of Bowling Green Traffic Signal System | traffic detector data |
|---|
| City of Bowling Green Traffic Signal System | City of Bowling Green ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| City of Toledo ITS Field Devices | City of Toledo Maintenance Dispatch (CLIC) | traffic detector data |
|---|
| City of Toledo ITS Field Devices | City of Toledo Traffic Management System | traffic detector data |
|---|
| City of Toledo Maintenance Dispatch (CLIC) | City of Toledo ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| City of Toledo Traffic Management System | City of Toledo ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | City of Bowling Green ITS Field Devices | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | City of Bowling Green Traffic Signal System | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | City of Toledo ITS Field Devices | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | City of Toledo Traffic Management System | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | Lucas County ITS Field Devices | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | Lucas County Traffic Signal System | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | Municipal ITS Field Devices | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | Municipal Traffic Signal Systems | traffic situation data |
|---|
| County and City Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | Wood County ITS Field Devices | traffic situation data |
|---|
| Lucas County ITS Field Devices | Lucas County Traffic Signal System | traffic detector data |
|---|
| Lucas County ITS Field Devices | ODOT District 2 Office | traffic detector data |
|---|
| Lucas County ITS Field Devices | ODOT Traffic Signal Control System | traffic detector data |
|---|
| Lucas County Traffic Signal System | Lucas County ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| MDOT ITS Field Equipment | MDOT Statewide TMC | traffic detector data |
|---|
| MDOT Statewide TMC | MDOT ITS Field Equipment | traffic detector control |
|---|
| Monroe County ITS Field Equipment | Monroe County Road Commission Traffic Operations Center | traffic detector data |
|---|
| Monroe County Road Commission Traffic Operations Center | Monroe County ITS Field Equipment | traffic detector control |
|---|
| Municipal ITS Field Devices | Municipal Traffic Signal Systems | traffic detector data |
|---|
| Municipal Traffic Signal Systems | Municipal ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT ATMS | ODOT District 2 Ramp Meters | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT ATMS | ODOT District 2 Wrong Way Vehicle Detection and Warning System | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | ODOT ATMS | traffic situation data |
|---|
| ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment | traffic situation data |
|---|
| ODOT Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | ODOT Traffic Signal Control System | traffic situation data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 CCTV Cameras | ODOT District 2 Office | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Office | Lucas County ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Office | ODOT District 2 CCTV Cameras | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Office | ODOT District 2 Ramp Meters | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Office | ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Ramp Meters | ODOT ATMS | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Ramp Meters | ODOT District 2 Office | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 RWIS Stations | ODOT District 2 Variable Speed Limit Signs | traffic detector coordination |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment | ODOT District 2 Office | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment | ODOT Traffic Signal Control System | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Variable Speed Limit Signs | ODOT District 2 RWIS Stations | traffic detector coordination |
|---|
| ODOT District 2 Wrong Way Vehicle Detection and Warning System | ODOT ATMS | traffic detector data |
|---|
| ODOT Traffic Signal Control System | Lucas County ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| ODOT Traffic Signal Control System | ODOT District 2 Traffic Signal Roadway Equipment | traffic detector control |
|---|
| OTIC Central Dispatch | OTIC ITS Field Devices | traffic detector control |
|---|
| OTIC Central Dispatch | OTIC Queue Warning Detection and Warning System | traffic detector control |
|---|
| OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | OTIC Central Dispatch | traffic situation data |
|---|
| OTIC Connected Vehicles Roadside Equipment | OTIC Queue Warning Detection and Warning System | traffic situation data |
|---|
| OTIC ITS Field Devices | OTIC Central Dispatch | traffic detector data |
|---|
| OTIC Queue Warning Detection and Warning System | OTIC Central Dispatch | traffic detector data |
|---|