Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface January 2022
Liu, et al. Expires 15 July 2022 [Page]
Network Working Group
Intended Status:
D. Liu
J. Halpern
C. Zhang

Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN


[RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type is one of the mainly used circuit types in the link state routing protocol, and highlights it is important to identify the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the link state.

The P2P interface over LAN ifType value is assigned by IANA experts review. This document provides advice to the ifStack for the P2P interface over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control, maintenance and statistics.

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

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 15 July 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The assignment of a value (303, available at to p2pOverLan ifType was made by expert review. To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the correct operating mode from interface stack without further configuration (No need to explicitly configure the P2P interface in routing protocols).

It is helpful to map the P2P interface over LAN type in the interface management stack table. And if no entry specify the P2P interface lower layer, the management suffers loses the ability to get to the lower layer specific management properties via many tools.

The purpose of this document is to suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over LAN type, and provide examples.

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174].

3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type

If the device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry is required in [RFC8343], therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-layer-if" and "lower-layer-if").

The P2P interface higher layer should be network layer "ipForward" (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, the P2P interface lower layer is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" (defined in IANA).

The P2P interface type ifStackTable can be defined along the lines of following example which complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991] [RFC8340]:



              <!-- counters now shown here -->
Figure 1

4. Security Considerations

The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only. Read operation to this table without complete protection should not have a negative effect on network operations.

5. IANA Considerations

In the Interface Types registry, IANA has previously assigned a value of 303 for p2pOverLan with a reference of [RFC5309], as shown in following table (available at IANA is requested to amend the reference to point to this document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module [RFC7224] which currently points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to be used.

| Decimal |    Name      |          references            |
|  303    |  p2pOverLan  | [this document when published] |
Figure 2

6. References

6.1. Normative references

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, , <>.
Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309, DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, , <>.
Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module", RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, , <>.
Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M. Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link", RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, , <>.

6.2. Informative References

Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, , <>.
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, , <>.

Authors' Addresses

Daiying Liu
No.5 Lize East street
Joel Halpern
Congjie Zhang