RTGWG Y. Qu Internet-Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational J. Tantsura Expires: December 31, 2018 Nuage Networks A. Lindem Cisco X. Liu Jabil A. Shaikh Google June 29, 2018 A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-03 Abstract This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Goals and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Model overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Route policy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Defined sets for policy matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Policy conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix B. Change summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 B.1. Changes between revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 29 B.2. Changes between revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 29 B.3. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model and -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1. Introduction This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] data model for routing policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage policy configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors. The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 1.1. Goals and approach This model does not aim to be feature complete -- it is a subset of the policy configuration parameters available in a variety of vendor implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing protocols. The model development approach has been to examine actual policy configurations in use across a number of operator networks. Hence the focus is on enabling policy configuration capabilities and structure that are in wide use. Despite the differences in details of policy expressions and conventions in various vendor implementations, the model reflects the observation that a relatively simple condition-action approach can be readily mapped to several existing vendor implementations, and also gives operators an intuitive and straightforward way to express policy without sacrificing flexibility. A side affect of this design decision is that legacy methods for expressing policies are not considered. Such methods could be added as an augmentation to the model if needed. Consistent with the goal to produce a data model that is vendor neutral, only policy expressions that are deemed to be widely available in existing major implementations are included in the model. Those configuration items that are only available from a single implementation are omitted from the model with the expectation they will be available in separate vendor-provided modules that augment the current model. 2. Model overview The routing policy module has three main parts: o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that are useful across many routing protocols. o A structure that allows routing protocol models to add protocol- specific policy conditions and actions though YANG augmentations. There is a complete example of this for BGP [RFC4271] policies in the proposed vendor-neutral BGP data model [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]. o A reusable grouping for attaching import and export rules in the context of routing configuration for different protocols, VRFs, etc. This also enables creation of policy chains and expressing default policy behavior. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 The module makes use of the standard Internet types, such as IP addresses, autonomous system numbers, etc., defined in RFC 6991 [RFC6991]. 3. Route policy expression Policies are expressed as a sequence of top-level policy definitions each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy statements in turn consist of simple condition-action tuples. Conditions may include multiple match or comparison operations, and similarly, actions may effect multiple changes to route attributes, or indicate a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route. This structure is shown below. +--rw routing-policy +--rw policy-definitions +--rw policy-definition* [name] +--rw name string +--rw statements +--rw statement* [name] +--rw name string +--rw conditions | ... +--rw actions ... 3.1. Defined sets for policy matching The models provides a set of generic sets that can be used for matching in policy conditions. These sets are applicable for route selection across multiple routing protocols. They may be further augmented by protocol-specific models which have their own defined sets. The supported defined sets include: o prefix sets - define a set of IP prefixes, each with an associated CIDR netmask range (or exact length) o neighbor sets - define a set of neighboring nodes by their IP addresses. These sets are used for selecting routes based on the neighbors advertising the routes. o tag set - define a set of generic tag values that can be used in matches for filtering routes The model structure for defined sets is shown below. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 +--rw routing-policy +--rw defined-sets | +--rw prefix-sets | | +--rw prefix-set* [name] | | +--rw name string | | +--rw mode? enumeration | | +--rw prefixes | | +--rw prefix-list* [ip-prefix masklength-lower | | masklength-upper] | | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix | | +--rw masklength-lower uint8 | | +--rw masklength-upper uint8 | +--rw neighbor-sets | | +--rw neighbor-set* [name] | | +--rw name string | | +--rw address* inet:ip-address | +--rw tag-sets | +--rw tag-set* [name] | +--rw name string | +--rw tag-value* tag-type 3.2. Policy conditions Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either of which may be empty). Conditions are used to match route attributes against a defined set (e.g., a prefix set), or to compare attributes against a specific value. Match conditions may be further modified using the match-set-options configuration which allows operators to change the behavior of a match. Three options are supported: o ALL - match is true only if the given value matches all members of the set. o ANY - match is true if the given value matches any member of the set. o INVERT - match is true if the given value does not match any member of the given set. Not all options are appropriate for matching against all defined sets (e.g., match ALL in a prefix set does not make sense). In the model, a restricted set of match options is used where applicable. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 Comparison conditions may similarly use options to change how route attributes should be tested, e.g., for equality or inequality, against a given value. While most policy conditions will be added by individual routing protocol models via augmentation, this routing policy model includes several generic match conditions and also the ability to test which protocol or mechanism installed a route (e.g., BGP, IGP, static, etc.). The conditions included in the model are shown below. +--rw routing-policy +--rw policy-definitions +--rw policy-definition* [name] +--rw name string +--rw statements +--rw statement* [name] +--rw conditions | +--rw call-policy? | +--rw install-protocol-eq? | +--rw match-interface | | +--rw interface? | | +--rw subinterface? | +--rw match-prefix-set | | +--rw prefix-set? | | +--rw match-set-options? | +--rw match-neighbor-set | | +--rw neighbor-set? | +--rw match-tag-set | +--rw tag-set? | +--rw match-set-options? 3.3. Policy actions When policy conditions are satisfied, policy actions are used to set various attributes of the route being processed, or to indicate the final disposition of the route, i.e., accept or reject. Similar to policy conditions, the routing policy model includes generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions. These are shown below. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 +--rw routing-policy +--rw policy-definitions +--rw policy-definition* [name] +--rw statements +--rw statement* [name] +--rw actions +--rw policy-result? policy-result-type +--rw set-metric? uint16 +--rw set-preference? uint8 3.4. Policy subroutines Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the subroutine returns an effective boolean true value to the calling policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition statement evaluating to a true value and evaluation of the policy continues (see Section 4). Note that the called policy may also modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation will be affected accordingly. Consequently, a subroutine cannot explicitly accept or reject a route. Rather it merely provides an indication that 'call-policy' condition returns boolean true or false indicating whether or not the condition matches. Route acceptance or rejection is solely determined by the top-level policy. Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a nesting depth because this varies among implementations. For example, some major implementation may only support a single level of subroutine recursion. As with any routing policy construction, care must be taken with nested policies to ensure that the effective return value results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a convenience in many routing policy constructions but creating policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be discouraged. 4. Policy evaluation Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 has either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in the chain are evaluated. If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an alternate default action is specified for the chain). 5. Applying routing policy Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy definitions (described in Section 3) that have an associated direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply- policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains, as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when no policy definition in the chain results in a final decision. +--rw apply-policy | +--rw import-policy* | +--rw default-import-policy? default-policy-type | +--rw export-policy* | +--rw default-export-policy? default-policy-type The default policy defined by the model is to reject the route for both import and export policies. 6. Routing protocol-specific policies Routing models that require the ability to apply routing policy may augment the routing policy model with protocol or other specific policy configuration. The routing policy model assumes that additional defined sets, conditions, and actions may all be added by other models. An example of this is shown below, in which the BGP configuration model in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model] adds new defined sets to match on community values or AS paths. The model similarly augments BGP- specific conditions and actions in the corresponding sections of the routing policy model. module: ietf-routing-policy Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 +--rw routing-policy +--rw defined-sets | +--rw prefix-sets | | +--rw prefix-set* [name] | | +--rw name string | | +--rw mode? enumeration | | +--rw prefixes | | +--rw prefix-list* [ip-prefix masklength-lower | | masklength-upper] | | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix | | +--rw masklength-lower uint8 | | +--rw masklength-upper uint8 | +--rw neighbor-sets | | +--rw neighbor-set* [name] | | +--rw name string | | +--rw address* inet:ip-address | +--rw tag-sets | | +--rw tag-set* [name] | | +--rw name string | | +--rw tag-value* tag-type | +--rw bgp-pol:bgp-defined-sets | +--rw bgp-pol:community-sets | | +--rw bgp-pol:community-set* [community-set-name] | | +--rw bgp-pol:community-set-name string | | +--rw bgp-pol:community-member* union | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-sets | | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set* [ext-community-set-name] | | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set-name string | | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-member* union | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-sets | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set* [as-path-set-name] | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-name string | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-member* string +--rw policy-definitions +--rw policy-definition* [name] +--rw name string +--rw statements +--rw statement* [name] +--rw name string +--rw conditions | +--rw call-policy? | +--rw source-protocol? identityref | +--rw match-interface | | +--rw interface? | | +--rw subinterface? | +--rw match-prefix-set | | +--rw prefix-set? | | +--rw match-set-options? match-set-options-type Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 | +--rw match-neighbor-set | | +--rw neighbor-set? | +--rw match-tag-set | | +--rw tag-set? | | +--rw match-set-options? match-set-options-type | +--rw bgp-pol:bgp-conditions | +--rw bgp-pol:med-eq? uint32 | +--rw bgp-pol:origin-eq? | bgp-types:bgp-origin-attr-type | +--rw bgp-pol:next-hop-in* | inet:ip-address-no-zone | +--rw bgp-pol:afi-safi-in* identityref | +--rw bgp-pol:local-pref-eq? uint32 | +--rw bgp-pol:route-type? enumeration | +--rw bgp-pol:community-count | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-length | +--rw bgp-pol:match-community-set | | +--rw bgp-pol:community-set? | | +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options? | match-set-options-type | +--rw bgp-pol:match-ext-community-set | | +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set? | | +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options? | | match-set-options-type | +--rw bgp-pol:match-as-path-set | +--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set? | +--rw bgp-pol:match-set-options? | match-set-options-type +--rw actions +--rw policy-result? policy-result-type +--rw set-metric? uint16 +--rw set-preference? uint8 +--rw bgp-pol:bgp-actions +--rw bgp-pol:set-route-origin? bgp-types:bgp-origin-attr-type +--rw bgp-pol:set-local-pref? uint32 +--rw bgp-pol:set-next-hop? bgp-next-hop-type +--rw bgp-pol:set-med? bgp-set-med-type +--rw bgp-pol:set-as-path-prepend | +--rw bgp-pol:repeat-n? uint8 +--rw bgp-pol:set-community | +--rw bgp-pol:method? enumeration | +--rw bgp-pol:options? bgp-set-community-option-type | +--rw bgp-pol:inline | | +--rw bgp-pol:communities* union | +--rw bgp-pol:reference | +--rw bgp-pol:community-set-ref? Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 +--rw bgp-pol:set-ext-community +--rw bgp-pol:method? enumeration +--rw bgp-pol:options? bgp-set-community-option-type +--rw bgp-pol:inline | +--rw bgp-pol:communities* union +--rw bgp-pol:reference +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set-ref? 7. Security Considerations Routing policy configuration has a significant impact on network operations, and, as such, any related model carries potential security risks. YANG data models are generally designed to be used with the NETCONF protocol over an SSH transport. This provides an authenticated and secure channel over which to transfer configuration and operational data. Note that use of alternate transport or data encoding (e.g., JSON over HTTPS) would require similar mechanisms for authenticating and securing access to configuration data. Most of the data elements in the policy model could be considered sensitive from a security standpoint. Unauthorized access or invalid data could cause major disruption. 8. IANA Considerations This YANG data model and the component modules currently use a temporary ad-hoc namespace. If and when it is placed on redirected for the standards track, an appropriate namespace URI will be registered in the IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. The routing policy YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. 9. YANG modules The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the sections below. 9.1. Routing policy model file "ietf-routing-policy@2018-06-25.yang" module ietf-routing-policy { yang-version "1.1"; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy"; prefix rt-pol; Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix "yang"; } import ietf-interfaces { prefix "if"; } import ietf-routing { prefix "rt"; } import ietf-interfaces-common { prefix if-cmn; } import ietf-if-l3-vlan { prefix "if-l3-vlan"; } organization "IETF RTGWG - Routing Area Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Editor: Yingzhen Qu Jeff Tantsura Acee Lindem Xufeng Liu Anees Shaikh "; description "This module describes a YANG model for routing policy configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor implementations, but supports widely used constructs for Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing protocols. This module is intended to be used in conjunction with routing protocol configuration modules (e.g., BGP) defined in other models. Route policy expression: Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy definitions, each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy statements consist of simple condition-action tuples. Conditions may include mutiple match or comparison operations, and similarly actions may be multitude of changes to route attributes or a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route. Route policy evaluation: Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol configurations using import and export configuration statements. The arguments are members of an ordered list of named policy definitions which comprise a policy chain, and optionally, an explicit default policy action (i.e., reject or accept). Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions, policy evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in the chain are evaluated. If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an alternate default action is specified for the chain). Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing policy statement conditions to reference another policy definition which applies conditions and actions from the referenced policy before returning to the calling policy statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the subroutine returns an effective true value to the calling policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false. If the Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 subroutine returns true, the calling policy continues to evaluate the remaining conditions (using a modified route if the subroutine performed any changes to the route)."; revision "2018-06-25" { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC XXXX: Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider Networks"; } // typedef statements typedef default-policy-type { // this typedef retained for name compatibiity with default // import and export policy type enumeration { enum accept-route { description "Default policy to accept the route"; } enum reject-route { description "Default policy to reject the route"; } } description "Type used to specify route disposition in a policy chain"; } typedef policy-result-type { type enumeration { enum accept-route { description "Policy accepts the route"; } enum reject-route { description "Policy rejects the route"; } } description "Type used to specify route disposition in a policy chain"; } Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 typedef tag-type { type union { type uint32; type yang:hex-string; } description "Type for expressing route tags on a local system, including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal or hexadecimal integer"; reference "RFC 2178 - OSPF Version 2 RFC 5130 - A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags"; } typedef match-set-options-type { type enumeration { enum any { description "Match is true if given value matches any member of the defined set"; } enum all { description "Match is true if given value matches all members of the defined set"; } enum invert { description "Match is true if given value does not match any member of the defined set"; } } default any; description "Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The default behavior is any, i.e., the given value matches any of the members of the defined set"; } // grouping statements grouping prefix-set { description "Configuration data for prefix sets used in policy definitions."; leaf name { type string; description "Name of the prefix set -- this is used as a label to Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 reference the set in match conditions"; } leaf mode { type enumeration { enum ipv4 { description "Prefix set contains IPv4 prefixes only"; } enum ipv6 { description "Prefix set contains IPv6 prefixes only"; } enum mixed { description "Prefix set contains mixed IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes"; } } description "Indicates the mode of the prefix set, in terms of which address families (IPv4, IPv6, or both) are present. The mode provides a hint, but the device must validate that all prefixes are of the indicated type, and is expected to reject the configuration if there is a discrepancy. The MIXED mode may not be supported on devices that require prefix sets to be of only one address family."; } } grouping prefix-set-top { description "Top-level data definitions for a list of IPv4 or IPv6 prefixes which are matched as part of a policy"; container prefix-sets { description "Enclosing container "; list prefix-set { key "name"; description "List of the defined prefix sets"; uses prefix-set; uses prefix-top; } Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 } } grouping prefix { description "Configuration data for a prefix definition"; leaf ip-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; mandatory true; description "The prefix member in CIDR notation -- while the prefix may be either IPv4 or IPv6, most implementations require all members of the prefix set to be the same address family. Mixing address types in the same prefix set is likely to cause an error."; } leaf masklength-lower { type uint8; description "Masklength range lower bound."; } leaf masklength-upper { type uint8 { range "1..128"; } must "../masklength-upper >= ../masklength-lower" { error-message "The upper bound should not be less" + "than lower bound."; } description "Masklength range upper bound. The combination of masklength-lower and masklength-upper define a range for the mask length, or single 'exact' length if masklength-lower and masklenght-upper are equal. Example: 10.3.192.0/21 through 10.3.192.0/24 would be expressed as prefix: 10.3.192.0/21, masklength-lower=21, masklength-upper=24 Example: 10.3.192.0/21 (an exact match) would be expressed as prefix: 10.3.192.0/21, masklength-lower=21, masklength-upper=21"; } Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 } grouping prefix-top { description "Top-level grouping for prefixes in a prefix list"; container prefixes { description "Enclosing container for the list of prefixes in a policy prefix list"; list prefix-list { key "ip-prefix masklength-lower masklength-upper"; description "List of prefixes in the prefix set"; uses prefix; } } } grouping neighbor-set { description "This grouping provides neighbor set definitions"; leaf name { type string; description "Name of the neighbor set -- this is used as a label to reference the set in match conditions"; } leaf-list address { type inet:ip-address; description "List of IP addresses in the neighbor set"; } } grouping neighbor-set-top { description "Top-level data definition for a list of IPv4 or IPv6 neighbors which can be matched in a routing policy"; container neighbor-sets { description "Enclosing container for the list of neighbor set definitions"; Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 list neighbor-set { key "name"; description "List of defined neighbor sets for use in policies."; uses neighbor-set; } } } grouping tag-set { description "This grouping provides tag set definitions."; leaf name { type string; description "Name of the tag set -- this is used as a label to reference the set in match conditions"; } leaf-list tag-value { type tag-type; description "Value of the tag set member"; } } grouping tag-set-top { description "Top-level data definitions for a list of tags which can be matched in policies"; container tag-sets { description "Enclosing container for the list of tag sets."; list tag-set { key "name"; description "List of tag set definitions."; uses tag-set; } } } Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 grouping match-set-options-group { description "Grouping containing options relating to how a particular set should be matched"; leaf match-set-options { type match-set-options-type; description "Optional parameter that governs the behavior of the match operation"; } } grouping match-set-options-restricted-group { description "Grouping for a restricted set of match operation modifiers"; leaf match-set-options { type match-set-options-type { enum any { description "Match is true if given value matches any member of the defined set"; } enum invert { description "Match is true if given value does not match any member of the defined set"; } } description "Optional parameter that governs the behavior of the match operation. This leaf only supports matching on ANY member of the set or inverting the match. Matching on ALL is not supported"; } } grouping match-interface-condition { description "This grouping provides interface match condition"; container match-interface { leaf interface { type leafref { path "/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:name"; } description Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 "Reference to a base interface. If a reference to a subinterface is required, this leaf must be specified to indicate the base interface."; } leaf subinterface { type leafref { path "/if:interfaces/if:interface/if-cmn:encapsulation" + "/if-l3-vlan:dot1q-vlan" + "/if-l3-vlan:outer-tag/if-l3-vlan:vlan-id"; } description "Reference to a subinterface -- this requires the base interface to be specified using the interface leaf in this container. If only a reference to a base interface is requuired, this leaf should not be set."; } description "Container for interface match conditions"; } } grouping prefix-set-condition { description "This grouping provides prefix-set conditions"; container match-prefix-set { leaf prefix-set { type leafref { path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/" + "prefix-sets/prefix-set/name"; } description "References a defined prefix set"; } uses match-set-options-restricted-group; description "Match a referenced prefix-set according to the logic defined in the match-set-options leaf"; } } grouping neighbor-set-condition { description "This grouping provides neighbor-set conditions"; container match-neighbor-set { leaf neighbor-set { Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 type leafref { path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/neighbor-sets/" + "neighbor-set/name"; require-instance true; } description "References a defined neighbor set"; } description "Match a referenced neighbor set according to the logic defined in the match-set-options-leaf"; } } grouping tag-set-condition { description "This grouping provides tag-set conditions"; container match-tag-set { leaf tag-set { type leafref { path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" + "/name"; require-instance true; } description "References a defined tag set"; } uses match-set-options-restricted-group; description "Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined in the match-options-set leaf"; } } grouping generic-conditions { description "Condition statement definitions for checking membership in a generic defined set"; uses match-interface-condition; uses prefix-set-condition; uses neighbor-set-condition; uses tag-set-condition; } grouping policy-conditions { description Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 "Data for general policy conditions, i.e., those not related to match-sets"; leaf call-policy { type leafref { path "../../../../../../" + "rt-pol:policy-definitions/" + "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name"; require-instance true; } description "Applies the statements from the specified policy definition and then returns control the current policy statement. Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject to implementation limitations). This is intended to provide a policy 'subroutine' capability. The called policy should contain an explicit or a default route disposition that returns an effective true (accept-route) or false (reject-route), otherwise the behavior may be ambiguous and implementation dependent"; } leaf source-protocol { type identityref { base rt:control-plane-protocol; } description "Condition to check the protocol / method used to install the route into the local routing table"; } } grouping policy-conditions-top { description "Top-level grouping for policy conditions"; container conditions { description "Condition statements for the current policy statement"; uses policy-conditions; uses generic-conditions; } } Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 grouping policy-statements { description "Data for policy statements"; leaf name { type string; description "Name of the policy statement"; } } grouping policy-actions { description "Top-level grouping for policy actions"; container actions { description "Top-level container for policy action statements"; leaf policy-result { type policy-result-type; description "Select the final disposition for the route, either accept or reject."; } leaf set-metric { type uint16; description "Set a new metric for the route."; } leaf set-preference { type uint8; description "Set a new preference for the route."; } } } grouping policy-statements-top { description "Top-level grouping for the policy statements list"; container statements { description "Enclosing container for policy statements"; list statement { Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 key "name"; ordered-by user; description "Policy statements group conditions and actions within a policy definition. They are evaluated in the order specified (see the description of policy evaluation at the top of this module."; uses policy-statements; uses policy-conditions-top; uses policy-actions; } } } grouping policy-definitions { description "This grouping provides policy definitions"; leaf name { type string; description "Name of the top-level policy definition -- this name is used in references to the current policy"; } } grouping apply-policy-import { description "Grouping for applying import policies"; leaf-list import-policy { type leafref { path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" + "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name"; require-instance true; } ordered-by user; description "List of policy names in sequence to be applied on receiving a routing update in the current context, e.g., for the current peer group, neighbor, address family, etc."; } leaf default-import-policy { Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 type default-policy-type; default reject-route; description "Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition in the import policy chain is satisfied."; } } grouping apply-policy-export { description "Grouping for applying export policies"; leaf-list export-policy { type leafref { path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" + "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name"; require-instance true; } ordered-by user; description "List of policy names in sequence to be applied on sending a routing update in the current context, e.g., for the current peer group, neighbor, address family, etc."; } leaf default-export-policy { type default-policy-type; default reject-route; description "Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition in the export policy chain is satisfied."; } } grouping apply-policy { description "Configuration data for routing policies"; uses apply-policy-import; uses apply-policy-export; container apply-policy-state { description "Operational state associated with routing policy"; Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 //TODO: identify additional state data beyond the intended //policy configuration. } } grouping apply-policy-group { description "Top level container for routing policy applications. This grouping is intended to be used in routing models where needed."; container apply-policy { description "Anchor point for routing policies in the model. Import and export policies are with respect to the local routing table, i.e., export (send) and import (receive), depending on the context."; uses apply-policy; } } container routing-policy { description "Top-level container for all routing policy"; container defined-sets { description "Predefined sets of attributes used in policy match statements"; uses prefix-set-top; uses neighbor-set-top; uses tag-set-top; } container policy-definitions { description "Enclosing container for the list of top-level policy definitions"; list policy-definition { key "name"; description "List of top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 name. These policy definitions are expected to be referenced (by name) in policy chains specified in import or export configuration statements."; uses policy-definitions; uses policy-statements-top; } } } } 10. Policy examples Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has been simplified for readability. 11. References 11.1. Normative references [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture", draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-10 (work in progress), January 2018. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January 2004. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, October 2014. [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, July 2013. Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . 11.2. Informative references [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model] Patel, K., Jethanandani, M., and S. Hares, "BGP Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-03 (work in progress), May 2018. Appendix A. Acknowledgements The routing policy module defined in this draft is based on the OpenConfig route policy model. The authors would like to thank to OpenConfig for their contributions, especially Rob Shakir, Kevin D'Souza, and Chris Chase. The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh George, Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric Osborne, Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, and Russ White. Appendix B. Change summary B.1. Changes between revisions -01 and -02 Updated the model to use IETF modules and be NMDA compliant. B.2. Changes between revisions -00 and -01 Updated policy model with additional condition for matching interfaces. B.3. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model and -00 This revision updates the draft name to reflect adoption as a working document in the RTGWG. Minor changes include updates to references and updated author contact information. Authors' Addresses Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model June 2018 Yingzhen Qu Huawei 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara CA 95050 USA Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com Jeff Tantsura Nuage Networks Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Acee Lindem Cisco 301 Mindenhall Way Cary, NC 27513 US Email: acee@cisco.com Xufeng Liu Jabil 8281 Greensboro Drive, Suite 200 Mclean, VA 22102 US Email: xufeng_liu@jabil.com Anees Shaikh Google 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043 US Email: aashaikh@google.com Qu, et al. Expires December 31, 2018 [Page 30]