NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka Internet-Draft CZ.NIC Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Expires: October 19, 2015 Cisco Systems April 17, 2015 A YANG Data Model for Routing Management draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-18 Abstract This document contains a specification of three YANG modules. Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG modules defining data models for routing protocols, route filters and other functions. The core routing data model provides common building blocks for such extensions - routing instances, routes, routing information bases (RIB), and routing protocols. 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 http://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 October 19, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries . . . 8 5. Basic Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Routing Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.1. Parameters of IPv6 Routing Instance Interfaces . . . 9 5.2. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Routing Information Base (RIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4. Routing Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4.2. Defining New Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.5. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Module "ietf-ip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 29 9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 34 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix A. The Complete Data Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A.1. Configuration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A.2. State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix B. Minimum Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol . . . . . . . 53 Appendix D. Example: NETCONF Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Appendix E. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E.1. Changes Between Versions -17 and -18 . . . . . . . . . . 62 E.2. Changes Between Versions -16 and -17 . . . . . . . . . . 63 E.3. Changes Between Versions -15 and -16 . . . . . . . . . . 63 E.4. Changes Between Versions -14 and -15 . . . . . . . . . . 64 E.5. Changes Between Versions -13 and -14 . . . . . . . . . . 64 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 E.6. Changes Between Versions -12 and -13 . . . . . . . . . . 64 E.7. Changes Between Versions -11 and -12 . . . . . . . . . . 65 E.8. Changes Between Versions -10 and -11 . . . . . . . . . . 65 E.9. Changes Between Versions -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . 65 E.10. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . 66 E.11. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 66 E.12. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 66 E.13. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 66 E.14. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 67 E.15. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 68 E.16. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 68 E.17. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 69 E.18. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1. Introduction This document contains a specification of the following YANG modules: o Module "ietf-routing" provides generic components of a routing data model. o Module "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing" module with additional data specific to IPv4 unicast. o Module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing" module with additional data specific to IPv6 unicast, including the router configuration variables required by [RFC4861]. These modules together define the so-called core routing data model, which is intended as a basis for future data model development covering more sophisticated routing systems. While these three modules can be directly used for simple IP devices with static routing (see Appendix B), their main purpose is to provide essential building blocks for more complicated data models involving multiple routing protocols, multicast routing, additional address families, and advanced functions such as route filtering or policy routing. To this end, it is expected that the core routing data model will be augmented by numerous modules developed by other IETF working groups. 2. Terminology and Notation 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]. The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]: Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o client, o message, o protocol operation, o server. The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]: o augment, o configuration data, o data model, o data node, o feature, o mandatory node, o module, o schema tree, o state data, o RPC operation. 2.1. Glossary of New Terms core routing data model: YANG data model comprising "ietf-routing", "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" modules. direct route: a route to a directly connected network. routing information base (RIB): An object containing a list of routes together with other information. See Section 5.3 for details. system-controlled entry: An entry of a list in state data ("config false") that is created by the system independently of what has been explicitly configured. See Section 4.1 for details. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 user-controlled entry: An entry of a list in state data ("config false") that is created and deleted as a direct consequence of certain configuration changes. See Section 4.1 for details. 2.2. Tree Diagrams A simplified graphical representation of the complete data tree is presented in Appendix A, and similar diagrams of its various subtrees appear in the main text. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is as follows: o Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys. o Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that make the corresponding node conditional. o Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration (read-write), "ro" state data (read-only), "-x" RPC operations, and "-n" notifications. o Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" a container with presence, and "*" denotes a "list" or "leaf-list". o Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also marked with a colon (":"). o Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not shown. 2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names In this document, names of data nodes, RPC operations and other data model objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ | if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC7223] | | ip | ietf-ip | [RFC7277] | | rt | ietf-routing | Section 7 | | v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 8 | | v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 9 | | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules 3. Objectives The initial design of the core routing data model was driven by the following objectives: o The data model should be suitable for the common address families, in particular IPv4 and IPv6, and for unicast and multicast routing, as well as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). o A simple IP routing system, such as one that uses only static routing, should be configurable in a simple way, ideally without any need to develop additional YANG modules. o On the other hand, the core routing framework must allow for complicated implementations involving multiple routing information bases (RIB) and multiple routing protocols, as well as controlled redistributions of routing information. o Device vendors will want to map the data models built on this generic framework to their proprietary data models and configuration interfaces. Therefore, the framework should be flexible enough to facilitate such a mapping and accommodate data models with different logic. 4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model The core routing data model consists of three YANG modules. The first module, "ietf-routing", defines the generic components of a routing system. The other two modules, "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing", augment the "ietf-routing" module with additional data nodes that are needed for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routing, respectively. Figures 1 and 2 show abridged views of the configuration and state data hierarchies. See Appendix A for the complete data trees. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 +--rw routing +--rw routing-instance* [name] +--rw name +--rw type? +--rw enabled? +--rw router-id? +--rw description? +--rw interfaces | +--rw interface* +--rw routing-protocols | +--rw routing-protocol* [type name] | +--rw type | +--rw name | +--rw description? | +--rw enabled? | +--rw route-preference? | +--rw static-routes | ... +--rw ribs +--rw rib* [name] +--rw name +--rw address-family? +--rw description? Figure 1: Configuration data hierarchy. +--ro routing-state +--ro routing-instance* [name] +--ro name +--ro type? +--ro router-id? +--ro interfaces | +--ro interface* +--ro routing-protocols | +--ro routing-protocol* [type name] | +--ro type | +--ro name | +--ro route-preference +--ro ribs +--ro rib* [name] +--ro name +--ro address-family +--ro default-rib? +--ro routes ... Figure 2: State data hierarchy. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the core routing data model introduces several generic components of a routing framework: routing instances, RIBs containing lists of routes, and routing protocols. Section 5 describes these components in more detail. 4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries The core routing data model defines several lists in the schema tree, for example "routing-instance" or "rib", that have to be populated with at least one entry in any properly functioning device, and additional entries may be configured by a client. In such a list, the server creates the required item as a so-called system-controlled entry in state data, i.e., inside the "routing- state" container. Additional entries may be created in the configuration by a client, e.g., via the NETCONF protocol. These are so-called user-controlled entries. If the server accepts a configured user-controlled entry, then this entry also appears in the state data version of the list. Corresponding entries in both versions of the list (in state data and configuration) have the same value of the list key. The user may also provide supplemental configuration of system- controlled entries. To do so, the user creates a new entry in the configuration with the desired contents. In order to bind this entry with the corresponding entry in the state data list, the key of the configuration entry has to be set to the same value as the key of the state entry. An example can be seen in Appendix D: the "/routing-state/routing- instance" list has a single system-controlled entry whose "name" key has the value "rtr0". This entry is configured by the "/routing/ routing-instance" entry whose "name" key is also "rtr0". Deleting a user-controlled entry from the configuration list results in the removal of the corresponding entry in the state data list. In contrast, if a system-controlled entry is deleted from the configuration list, only the extra configuration specified in that entry is removed but the corresponding state data entry remains in the list. 5. Basic Building Blocks This section describes the essential components of the core routing data model. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 5.1. Routing Instance The core routing data model supports one or more routing instances appearing as entries of the "routing-instance" list. Each routing instance has separate configuration and state data under "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance" and "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing- instance", respectively. The semantics of the term "routing instance" is deliberately left undefined. It is expected that future YANG modules will define data models for specific types of routing instances, such as VRF (virtual routing and forwarding) instances that are used for BGP/MPLS virtual private networks [RFC4364]. For each type of routing instance, an identity derived from "rt:routing-instance" SHALL be defined. This identity is then referred to by the value of the "type" leaf (a child node of "routing-instance" list). Each network layer interface has to be assigned to one or more routing instances in order to be able to participate in packet forwarding, routing protocols and other operations of those routing instances. The assignment is accomplished by placing a corresponding (system- or user-controlled) entry in the leaf-list of routing instance interfaces ("rt:interface"). Each entry is the name of a configured network layer interface, see the "ietf-interfaces" module [RFC7223]. 5.1.1. Parameters of IPv6 Routing Instance Interfaces YANG module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" (Section 9) augments the configuration and state data of interfaces with definitions of the following variables as required by [RFC4861], sec. 6.2.1: o send-advertisements, o max-rtr-adv-interval, o min-rtr-adv-interval, o managed-flag, o other-config-flag, o link-mtu, o reachable-time, o retrans-timer, Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o cur-hop-limit, o default-lifetime, o prefix-list: a list of prefixes to be advertised. The following parameters are associated with each prefix in the list: * valid-lifetime, * on-link-flag, * preferred-lifetime, * autonomous-flag. NOTES: 1. The "IsRouter" flag, which is also required by [RFC4861], is implemented in the "ietf-ip" module [RFC7277] (leaf "ip:forwarding"). 2. The original specification [RFC4861] allows the implementations to decide whether the "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime" parameters remain the same in consecutive advertisements, or decrement in real time. However, the latter behavior seems problematic because the values might be reset again to the (higher) configured values after a configuration is reloaded. Moreover, no implementation is known to use the decrementing behavior. The "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module therefore assumes the former behavior with constant values. 5.2. Route Routes are basic elements of information in a routing system. The core routing data model defines only the following minimal set of route attributes: o "destination-prefix": IP prefix specifying the set of destination addresses for which the route may be used. This attribute is mandatory. o "route-preference": an integer value (also known as administrative distance) that is used for selecting a preferred route among routes with the same destination prefix. A lower value means a more preferred route. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o "next-hop": determines the action to be performed with a packet. Routes are primarily state data that appear as entries of RIBs (Section 5.3) but they may also be found in configuration data, for example as manually configured static routes. In the latter case, configurable route attributes are generally a subset of route attributes described above. 5.3. Routing Information Base (RIB) Every routing instance manages one or more routing information bases (RIB). A RIB is a list of routes complemented with administrative data. Each RIB contains only routes of one address family. An address family is represented by an identity derived from the "rt:address-family" base identity. In the core routing data model, RIBs are state data represented as entries of the list "/routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib". The contents of RIBs are controlled and manipulated by routing protocol operations which may result in route additions, removals and modifications. This also includes manipulations via the "static" and/or "direct" pseudo-protocols, see Section 5.4.1. Each routing instance has, for every supported address family, one RIB marked as the so-called default RIB. Its role is explained in Section 5.4. Simple router implementations that do not advertise the feature "multiple-ribs" will typically create one system-controlled RIB per routing instance and supported address family, and mark it as the default RIB. More complex router implementations advertising the "multiple-ribs" feature support multiple RIBs per address family that can be used for policy routing and other purposes. 5.4. Routing Protocol The core routing data model provides an open-ended framework for defining multiple routing protocol instances within a routing instance. Each routing protocol instance MUST be assigned a type, which is an identity derived from the "rt:routing-protocol" base identity. The core routing data model defines two identities for the direct and static pseudo-protocols (Section 5.4.1). Multiple routing protocol instances of the same type MAY be configured within the same routing instance. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 5.4.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols The core routing data model defines two special routing protocol types - "direct" and "static". Both are in fact pseudo-protocols, which means they are confined to the local device and do not exchange any routing information with adjacent routers. Every routing instance MUST implement exactly one instance of the "direct" pseudo-protocol type. It is the source of direct routes for all configured address families. Direct routes are normally supplied by the operating system kernel, based on the configuration of network interface addresses, see Section 6.2. Direct routes MUST be installed in default RIBs of all supported address families. A pseudo-protocol of the type "static" allows for specifying routes manually. It MAY be configured in zero or multiple instances, although a typical configuration will have exactly one instance per routing instance. 5.4.2. Defining New Routing Protocols It is expected that future YANG modules will create data models for additional routing protocol types. Such a new module has to define the protocol-specific configuration and state data, and it has to fit it into the core routing framework in the following way: o A new identity MUST be defined for the routing protocol and its base identity MUST be set to "rt:routing-protocol", or to an identity derived from "rt:routing-protocol". o Additional route attributes MAY be defined, preferably in one place by means of defining a YANG grouping. The new attributes have to be inserted by augmenting the definitions of the nodes /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route and /rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route, and possibly other places in the configuration, state data, notifications, and RPC input or output. o Configuration parameters and/or state data for the new protocol can be defined by augmenting the "routing-protocol" data node under both "/routing" and "/routing-state". Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o Per-interface configuration, including activation of the routing protocol on individual interfaces, can use references to entries in the leaf-list of routing instance's interfaces (rt:interface). By using the "when" statement, the augmented configuration parameters and state data specific to the new protocol SHOULD be made conditional and valid only if the value of "rt:type" or "rt:source- protocol" is equal to the new protocol's identity. It is also RECOMMENDED that protocol-specific data nodes be encapsulated in appropriately named containers. The above steps are implemented by the example YANG module for the RIP routing protocol in Appendix C. 5.5. RPC Operations The "ietf-routing" module defines one RPC operation: o fib-route: query a routing instance for the active route in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB). It is the route that is currently used for sending datagrams to a destination host whose address is passed as an input parameter. 6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules The semantics of the core routing data model also depends on several configuration parameters that are defined in other YANG modules. 6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces" The following boolean switch is defined in the "ietf-interfaces" YANG module [RFC7223]: /if:interfaces/if:interface/if:enabled If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface, the device MUST behave exactly as if that interface was not assigned to any routing instance at all. 6.2. Module "ietf-ip" The following boolean switches are defined in the "ietf-ip" YANG module [RFC7277]: /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:enabled Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface, then all IPv4 routing functions related to that interface MUST be disabled. /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:forwarding If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface, then the forwarding of IPv4 datagrams to and from this interface MUST be disabled. However, the interface may participate in other IPv4 routing functions, such as routing protocols. /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:enabled If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface, then all IPv6 routing functions related to that interface MUST be disabled. /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:forwarding If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface, then the forwarding of IPv6 datagrams to and from this interface MUST be disabled. However, the interface may participate in other IPv6 routing functions, such as routing protocols. In addition, the "ietf-ip" module allows for configuring IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and network prefixes or masks on network layer interfaces. Configuration of these parameters on an enabled interface MUST result in an immediate creation of the corresponding direct route. The destination prefix of this route is set according to the configured IP address and network prefix/mask, and the interface is set as the outgoing interface for that route. 7. Routing Management YANG Module RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note). file "ietf-routing@2015-04-17.yang" module ietf-routing { namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing"; prefix "rt"; import ietf-yang-types { prefix "yang"; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 14] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 } import ietf-interfaces { prefix "if"; } organization "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder Editor: Ladislav Lhotka "; description "This YANG module defines essential components for the management of a routing subsystem. Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2015-04-17 { description "Initial revision."; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 reference "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management"; } /* Features */ feature multiple-ribs { description "This feature indicates that the server supports user-defined RIBs. Servers that do not advertise this feature SHOULD provide exactly one system-controlled RIB per routing-instance and supported address family and make them also the default RIBs. These RIBs then appear as entries of the list /routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib."; } feature router-id { description "This feature indicates that the server supports configuration of an explicit 32-bit router ID that is used by some routing protocols. Servers that do not advertise this feature set a router ID algorithmically, usually to one of configured IPv4 addresses. However, this algorithm is implementation-specific."; } /* Identities */ identity address-family { description "Base identity from which identities describing address families are derived."; } identity ipv4 { base address-family; description "This identity represents IPv4 address family."; } identity ipv6 { base address-family; description "This identity represents IPv6 address family."; } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 16] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 identity routing-instance { description "Base identity from which identities describing routing instance types are derived."; } identity default-routing-instance { base routing-instance; description "This identity represents either a default routing instance, or the only routing instance on systems that do not support multiple instances."; } identity routing-protocol { description "Base identity from which routing protocol identities are derived."; } identity direct { base routing-protocol; description "Routing pseudo-protocol that provides routes to directly connected networks."; } identity static { base routing-protocol; description "Static routing pseudo-protocol."; } /* Type Definitions */ typedef routing-instance-ref { type leafref { path "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:name"; } description "This type is used for leafs that reference a routing instance configuration."; } typedef routing-instance-state-ref { type leafref { path "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:name"; } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 17] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 description "This type is used for leafs that reference state data of a routing instance."; } typedef route-preference { type uint32; description "This type is used for route preferences."; } /* Groupings */ grouping address-family { description "This grouping provides a leaf identifying an address family."; leaf address-family { type identityref { base address-family; } mandatory "true"; description "Address family."; } } grouping router-id { description "This grouping provides router ID."; leaf router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "A 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad that is used by some routing protocols identifying a router."; reference "RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2."; } } grouping special-next-hop { description "This grouping provides a leaf with an enumeration of special next-hops."; leaf special-next-hop { type enumeration { enum blackhole { description Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 18] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 "Silently discard the packet."; } enum unreachable { description "Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error message indicating that the destination host is unreachable."; } enum prohibit { description "Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error message indicating that the communication is administratively prohibited."; } enum receive { description "The packet will be received by the local system."; } } description "Special next-hop options."; } } grouping next-hop-content { description "Generic parameters of next-hops in static routes."; choice next-hop-options { mandatory "true"; description "Options for next-hops in static routes. It is expected that other cases will be added through augments from other modules, e.g., for Equal-Cost Multipath routing (ECMP)."; case simple-next-hop { description "Simple next-hop is specified as an outgoing interface, next-hop address or both. Address-family-specific modules are expected to provide 'next-hop-address' leaf via augmentation."; leaf outgoing-interface { type leafref { path "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:interfaces/" + "rt:interface"; } description Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 19] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 "Name of the outgoing interface."; } } case special-next-hop { uses special-next-hop; } } } grouping next-hop-state-content { description "Generic parameters of next-hops in state data."; choice next-hop-options { mandatory "true"; description "Options for next-hops in state data. It is expected that other cases will be added through augments from other modules, e.g., for ECMP or recursive next-hops."; case simple-next-hop { description "Simple next-hop is specified as an outgoing interface, next-hop address or both. Address-family-specific modules are expected to provide 'next-hop-address' leaf via augmentation."; leaf outgoing-interface { type leafref { path "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/" + "rt:interfaces/rt:interface"; } description "Name of the outgoing interface."; } } case special-next-hop { uses special-next-hop; } } } grouping route-metadata { description "Common route metadata."; leaf source-protocol { type identityref { base routing-protocol; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 20] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 } mandatory "true"; description "Type of the routing protocol from which the route originated."; } leaf active { type empty; description "Presence of this leaf indicates that the route is preferred among all routes in the same RIB that have the same destination prefix."; } leaf last-updated { type yang:date-and-time; description "Time stamp of the last modification of the route. If the route was never modified, it is the time when the route was inserted into the RIB."; } } /* State data */ augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface" { description "This augment adds a wrapped leaf-list to interface state data."; leaf routing-instance { type routing-instance-state-ref; must "../if:name=/rt:routing-state/" + "rt:routing-instance[rt:name=current()]/rt:interfaces/" + "rt:interface" { error-message "The interface is not assigned to the routing instance."; description "The reference must mirror a corresponding assignment under routing-instance."; } description "The name of the routing instance to which the interface is assigned."; } } container routing-state { config "false"; description Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 21] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 "State data of the routing subsystem."; list routing-instance { key "name"; min-elements "1"; description "Each list entry is a container for state data of a routing instance. An implementation MUST support routing instance(s) of the type 'rt:default-routing-instance', and MAY support other types. An implementation MAY restrict the number of routing instances of each supported type. An implementation SHOULD create at least one system-controlled instance, and MAY allow the clients to create user-controlled routing instances in configuration."; leaf name { type string; description "The name of the routing instance. For system-controlled instances the name is persistent, i.e., it SHOULD NOT change across reboots."; } leaf type { type identityref { base routing-instance; } description "The routing instance type."; } uses router-id { description "Global router ID. It may be either configured or assigned algorithmically by the implementation."; } container interfaces { description "Network layer interfaces belonging to the routing instance."; leaf-list interface { type if:interface-state-ref; description "Each entry is a reference to the name of a configured network layer interface."; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 22] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 } } container routing-protocols { description "Container for the list of routing protocol instances."; list routing-protocol { key "type name"; description "State data of a routing protocol instance. An implementation MUST provide exactly one system-controlled instance of the type 'direct'. Other instances MAY be created by configuration."; leaf type { type identityref { base routing-protocol; } description "Type of the routing protocol."; } leaf name { type string; description "The name of the routing protocol instance. For system-controlled instances this name is persistent, i.e., it SHOULD NOT change across reboots."; } leaf route-preference { type route-preference; mandatory "true"; description "The value of route preference (administrative distance) assigned to all routes generated by the routing protocol instance. A lower value means a more preferred route."; } } } container ribs { description "Container for RIBs."; list rib { key "name"; min-elements "1"; description "Each entry represents a RIB identified by the 'name' Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 23] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 key. All routes in a RIB MUST belong to the same address family. For each routing instance, an implementation SHOULD provide one system-controlled default RIB for each supported address family."; leaf name { type string; description "The name of the RIB."; } uses address-family; leaf default-rib { if-feature multiple-ribs; type boolean; default "true"; description "This flag has the value of 'true' if and only if the RIB is the default RIB for the given address family. A default RIB always receives direct routes. By default it also receives routes from all routing protocols."; } container routes { description "Current content of the RIB."; list route { description "A RIB route entry. This data node MUST be augmented with information specific for routes of each address family."; leaf route-preference { type route-preference; description "This route attribute, also known as administrative distance, allows for selecting the preferred route among routes with the same destination prefix. A smaller value means a more preferred route."; } container next-hop { description "Route's next-hop attribute."; uses next-hop-state-content; } uses route-metadata; } } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 24] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 } } } } /* Configuration Data */ container routing { description "Configuration parameters for the routing subsystem."; list routing-instance { key "name"; description "Configuration of a routing instance."; leaf name { type string; description "The name of the routing instance. For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf must be the same as the name of the corresponding entry in state data. For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be used."; } leaf type { type identityref { base routing-instance; } default "rt:default-routing-instance"; description "The type of the routing instance."; } leaf enabled { type boolean; default "true"; description "Enable/disable the routing instance. If this parameter is false, the parent routing instance is disabled and does not appear in state data, despite any other configuration that might be present."; } uses router-id { if-feature router-id; description "Configuration of the global router ID. Routing protocols Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 25] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 that use router ID can use this parameter or override it with another value."; } leaf description { type string; description "Textual description of the routing instance."; } container interfaces { description "Assignment of the routing instance's interfaces."; leaf-list interface { type if:interface-ref; description "The name of a configured network layer interface to be assigned to the routing-instance."; } } container routing-protocols { description "Configuration of routing protocol instances."; list routing-protocol { key "type name"; description "Each entry contains configuration of a routing protocol instance."; leaf type { type identityref { base routing-protocol; } description "Type of the routing protocol - an identity derived from the 'routing-protocol' base identity."; } leaf name { type string; description "An arbitrary name of the routing protocol instance."; } leaf description { type string; description "Textual description of the routing protocol instance."; } leaf enabled { type boolean; default "true"; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 26] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 description "Enable/disable the routing protocol instance. If this parameter is false, the parent routing protocol instance is disabled and does not appear in state data, despite any other configuration that might be present."; } leaf route-preference { type route-preference; description "The value of route preference (administrative distance). The default value depends on the routing protocol type, and may also be implementation-dependent."; } container static-routes { when "../type='rt:static'" { description "This container is only valid for the 'static' routing protocol."; } description "Configuration of the 'static' pseudo-protocol. Address-family-specific modules augment this node with their lists of routes."; } } } container ribs { description "Configuration of RIBs."; list rib { key "name"; description "Each entry contains configuration for a RIB identified by the 'name' key. Entries having the same key as a system-controlled entry of the list /routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib are used for configuring parameters of that entry. Other entries define additional user-controlled RIBs."; leaf name { type string; description "The name of the RIB. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 27] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf must be the same as the name of the corresponding entry in state data. For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be used."; } uses address-family { description "Address family of the RIB. It is mandatory for user-controlled RIBs. For system-controlled RIBs it can be omitted, otherwise it must match the address family of the corresponding state entry."; refine "address-family" { mandatory "false"; } } leaf description { type string; description "Textual description of the RIB."; } } } } } /* RPC operations */ rpc fib-route { description "Return the active FIB route that a routing-instance uses for sending packets to a destination address."; input { leaf routing-instance-name { type routing-instance-state-ref; mandatory "true"; description "Name of the routing instance whose forwarding information base is being queried. If the routing instance with name equal to the value of this parameter doesn't exist, then this operation SHALL fail with error-tag 'data-missing' and error-app-tag 'routing-instance-not-found'."; } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 28] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 container destination-address { description "Network layer destination address. Address family specific modules MUST augment this container with a leaf named 'address'."; uses address-family; } } output { container route { description "The active FIB route for the specified destination. If the routing instance has no active FIB route for the destination address, no output is returned - the server SHALL send an containing a single element . Address family specific modules MUST augment this list with appropriate route contents."; uses address-family; container next-hop { description "Route's next-hop attribute."; uses next-hop-state-content; } uses route-metadata; } } } } 8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note). file "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2015-04-17.yang" module ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing { namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"; prefix "v4ur"; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 29] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 import ietf-routing { prefix "rt"; } import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } organization "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder Editor: Ladislav Lhotka "; description "This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic configuration and state data for IPv4 unicast routing. Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2015-04-17 { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 30] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management"; } /* Identities */ identity ipv4-unicast { base rt:ipv4; description "This identity represents the IPv4 unicast address family."; } /* State data */ augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route" { when "../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments an IPv4 unicast route."; leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "IPv4 destination prefix."; } } augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" + "rt:simple-next-hop" { when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'simple-next-hop' case of IPv4 unicast routes."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IPv4 address of the next-hop."; } } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 31] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 /* Configuration data */ augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/" + "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" { description "This augment defines the configuration of the 'static' pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv4 unicast."; container ipv4 { description "Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance consists of a list of routes."; list route { key "destination-prefix"; ordered-by "user"; description "A user-ordered list of static routes."; leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv4-prefix; mandatory "true"; description "IPv4 destination prefix."; } leaf description { type string; description "Textual description of the route."; } container next-hop { description "Configuration of next-hop."; uses rt:next-hop-content { augment "next-hop-options" { description "Add next-hop address case."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IPv4 address of the next-hop."; } } } } } } } /* RPC operations */ Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 32] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" { when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IPv4 destination address."; } } augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" { when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "IPv4 destination prefix."; } } augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/" + "rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" { when "../rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IPv4 address of the next-hop."; } } } Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 33] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note). file "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2015-04-17.yang" module ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing { namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"; prefix "v6ur"; import ietf-routing { prefix "rt"; } import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } import ietf-interfaces { prefix "if"; } import ietf-ip { prefix "ip"; } organization "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder Editor: Ladislav Lhotka "; description "This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 34] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 configuration and state data for IPv6 unicast routing. Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2015-04-17 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management"; } /* Identities */ identity ipv6-unicast { base rt:ipv6; description "This identity represents the IPv6 unicast address family."; } /* State data */ augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/ip:ipv6" { description "Augment interface state data with IPv6-specific parameters of router interfaces."; container ipv6-router-advertisements { description "Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements."; leaf send-advertisements { type boolean; description Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 35] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 "A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic Router Advertisements and responds to Router Solicitations."; } leaf max-rtr-adv-interval { type uint16 { range "4..1800"; } units "seconds"; description "The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from the interface."; } leaf min-rtr-adv-interval { type uint16 { range "3..1350"; } units "seconds"; description "The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from the interface."; } leaf managed-flag { type boolean; description "The value that is placed in the 'Managed address configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement."; } leaf other-config-flag { type boolean; description "The value that is placed in the 'Other configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement."; } leaf link-mtu { type uint32; description "The value that is placed in MTU options sent by the router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are sent."; } leaf reachable-time { type uint32 { range "0..3600000"; } units "milliseconds"; description "The value that is placed in the Reachable Time field in Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 36] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value of zero means unspecified (by this router)."; } leaf retrans-timer { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; description "The value that is placed in the Retrans Timer field in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value of zero means unspecified (by this router)."; } leaf cur-hop-limit { type uint8; description "The value that is placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value of zero means unspecified (by this router)."; } leaf default-lifetime { type uint16 { range "0..9000"; } units "seconds"; description "The value that is placed in the Router Lifetime field of Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds. A value of zero indicates that the router is not to be used as a default router."; } container prefix-list { description "A list of prefixes that are placed in Prefix Information options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the interface. By default, these are all prefixes that the router advertises via routing protocols as being on-link for the interface from which the advertisement is sent."; list prefix { key "prefix-spec"; description "Advertised prefix entry and its parameters."; leaf prefix-spec { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "IPv6 address prefix."; } leaf valid-lifetime { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 37] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 type uint32; units "seconds"; description "The value that is placed in the Valid Lifetime in the Prefix Information option. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity. An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in consecutive advertisements except when it is explicitly changed in configuration."; } leaf on-link-flag { type boolean; description "The value that is placed in the on-link flag ('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information option."; } leaf preferred-lifetime { type uint32; units "seconds"; description "The value that is placed in the Preferred Lifetime in the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity. An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in consecutive advertisements except when it is explicitly changed in configuration."; } leaf autonomous-flag { type boolean; description "The value that is placed in the Autonomous Flag field in the Prefix Information option."; } } } } } augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route" { when "../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast."; } description Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 38] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 "This leaf augments an IPv6 unicast route."; leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "IPv6 destination prefix."; } } augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" + "rt:simple-next-hop" { when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'simple-next-hop' case of IPv6 unicast routes."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 address of the next-hop."; } } /* Configuration data */ augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6" { description "Augment interface configuration with IPv6-specific parameters of router interfaces."; container ipv6-router-advertisements { description "Configuration of IPv6 Router Advertisements."; leaf send-advertisements { type boolean; default "false"; description "A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic Router Advertisements and responds to Router Solicitations."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvSendAdvertisements."; } leaf max-rtr-adv-interval { type uint16 { range "4..1800"; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 39] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 } units "seconds"; default "600"; description "The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from the interface."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - MaxRtrAdvInterval."; } leaf min-rtr-adv-interval { type uint16 { range "3..1350"; } units "seconds"; must ". <= 0.75 * ../max-rtr-adv-interval" { description "The value MUST NOT be greater than 75 % of 'max-rtr-adv-interval'."; } description "The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements from the interface. The default value to be used operationally if this leaf is not configured is determined as follows: - if max-rtr-adv-interval >= 9 seconds, the default value is 0.33 * max-rtr-adv-interval; - otherwise it is 0.75 * max-rtr-adv-interval."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - MinRtrAdvInterval."; } leaf managed-flag { type boolean; default "false"; description "The value to be placed in the 'Managed address configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvManagedFlag."; } leaf other-config-flag { type boolean; default "false"; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 40] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 description "The value to be placed in the 'Other configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvOtherConfigFlag."; } leaf link-mtu { type uint32; default "0"; description "The value to be placed in MTU options sent by the router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are sent."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvLinkMTU."; } leaf reachable-time { type uint32 { range "0..3600000"; } units "milliseconds"; default "0"; description "The value to be placed in the Reachable Time field in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value of zero means unspecified (by this router)."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvReachableTime."; } leaf retrans-timer { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; default "0"; description "The value to be placed in the Retrans Timer field in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value of zero means unspecified (by this router)."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvRetransTimer."; } leaf cur-hop-limit { type uint8; description "The value to be placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 41] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 of zero means unspecified (by this router). If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use the value specified in IANA Assigned Numbers that was in effect at the time of implementation."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvCurHopLimit. IANA: IP Parameters, http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters"; } leaf default-lifetime { type uint16 { range "0..9000"; } units "seconds"; description "The value to be placed in the Router Lifetime field of Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds. It MUST be either zero or between max-rtr-adv-interval and 9000 seconds. A value of zero indicates that the router is not to be used as a default router. These limits may be overridden by specific documents that describe how IPv6 operates over different link layers. If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use a value of 3 * max-rtr-adv-interval."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvDefaultLifeTime."; } container prefix-list { description "Configuration of prefixes to be placed in Prefix Information options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the interface. Prefixes that are advertised by default but do not have their entries in the child 'prefix' list are advertised with the default values of all parameters. The link-local prefix SHOULD NOT be included in the list of advertised prefixes."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvPrefixList."; list prefix { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 42] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 key "prefix-spec"; description "Configuration of an advertised prefix entry."; leaf prefix-spec { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "IPv6 address prefix."; } choice control-adv-prefixes { default "advertise"; description "The prefix either may be explicitly removed from the set of advertised prefixes, or parameters with which it is advertised may be specified (default case)."; leaf no-advertise { type empty; description "The prefix will not be advertised. This can be used for removing the prefix from the default set of advertised prefixes."; } case advertise { leaf valid-lifetime { type uint32; units "seconds"; default "2592000"; description "The value to be placed in the Valid Lifetime in the Prefix Information option. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvValidLifetime."; } leaf on-link-flag { type boolean; default "true"; description "The value to be placed in the on-link flag ('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information option."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvOnLinkFlag."; } leaf preferred-lifetime { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 43] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 type uint32; units "seconds"; must ". <= ../valid-lifetime" { description "This value MUST NOT be greater than valid-lifetime."; } default "604800"; description "The value to be placed in the Preferred Lifetime in the Prefix Information option. The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvPreferredLifetime."; } leaf autonomous-flag { type boolean; default "true"; description "The value to be placed in the Autonomous Flag field in the Prefix Information option."; reference "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) - AdvAutonomousFlag."; } } } } } } } augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/" + "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" { description "This augment defines the configuration of the 'static' pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv6 unicast."; container ipv6 { description "Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance consists of a list of routes."; list route { key "destination-prefix"; ordered-by "user"; description "A user-ordered list of static routes."; Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 44] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv6-prefix; mandatory "true"; description "IPv6 destination prefix."; } leaf description { type string; description "Textual description of the route."; } container next-hop { description "Configuration of next-hop."; uses rt:next-hop-content { augment "next-hop-options" { description "Add next-hop address case."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 address of the next-hop."; } } } } } } } /* RPC operations */ augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" { when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 destination address."; } } augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 45] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf destination-prefix { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "IPv6 destination prefix."; } } augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/" + "rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" { when "../rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" { description "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast."; } description "This leaf augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route' operation."; leaf next-hop-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 address of the next-hop."; } } } 10. IANA Considerations RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the actual RFC number (and remove this note). This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]: Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 46] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------------- URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. -------------------------------------------------------------------- This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]: -------------------------------------------------------------------- name: ietf-routing namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing prefix: rt reference: RFC XXXX -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- name: ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing prefix: v4ur reference: RFC XXXX -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- name: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing prefix: v6ur reference: RFC XXXX -------------------------------------------------------------------- Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 47] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 11. Security Considerations Configuration and state data conforming to the core routing data model (defined in this document) are designed to be accessed via the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is SSH [RFC6242]. The NETCONF access control model [RFC6536] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF users to a pre- configured subset of all available NETCONF protocol operations and content. A number of data nodes defined in the YANG modules belonging to the configuration part of the core routing data model are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., "config true" in YANG terms, which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations to these data nodes, such as "edit-config", can have negative effects on the network if the protocol operations are not properly protected. The vulnerable "config true" subtrees and data nodes are the following: /routing/routing-instance/interfaces/interface: This list assigns a network layer interface to a routing instance and may also specify interface parameters related to routing. /routing/routing-instance/routing-protocols/routing-protocol: This list specifies the routing protocols configured on a device. /routing/routing-instance/ribs/rib: This list specifies the RIBs configured for the device. Unauthorized access to any of these lists can adversely affect the routing subsystem of both the local device and the network. This may lead to network malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate destinations and other problems. 12. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Nitin Bahadur, Martin Bjorklund, Dean Bogdanovic, Jeff Haas, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Sriganesh Kini, David Lamparter, Andrew McGregor, Jan Medved, Xiang Li, Stephane Litkowski, Thomas Morin, Tom Petch, Bruno Rijsman, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Phil Shafer, Dave Thaler, Yi Yang, Derek Man- Kit Yeung and Jeffrey Zhang for their helpful comments and suggestions. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 48] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007. [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, October 2010. [RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A. Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, June 2011. [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, July 2013. [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 7223, May 2014. [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", RFC 7277, June 2014. 13.2. Informative References [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. [RFC6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011. [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011. [RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, March 2012. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 49] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 Appendix A. The Complete Data Trees This appendix presents the complete configuration and state data trees of the core routing data model. See Section 2.2 for an explanation of the symbols used. Data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the corresponding line. A.1. Configuration Data Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 50] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 +--rw routing +--rw routing-instance* [name] +--rw name string +--rw type? identityref +--rw enabled? boolean +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad +--rw description? string +--rw interfaces | +--rw interface* if:interface-ref +--rw routing-protocols | +--rw routing-protocol* [type name] | +--rw type identityref | +--rw name string | +--rw description? string | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw route-preference? route-preference | +--rw static-routes | +--rw v6ur:ipv6 | | +--rw v6ur:route* [destination-prefix] | | +--rw v6ur:destination-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix | | +--rw v6ur:description? string | | +--rw v6ur:next-hop | | +--rw (next-hop-options) | | +--:(simple-next-hop) | | | +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface? | | +--:(special-next-hop) | | | +--rw v6ur:special-next-hop? | | +--:(next-hop-address) | | +--rw v6ur:next-hop-address? | +--rw v4ur:ipv4 | +--rw v4ur:route* [destination-prefix] | +--rw v4ur:destination-prefix inet:ipv4-prefix | +--rw v4ur:description? string | +--rw v4ur:next-hop | +--rw (next-hop-options) | +--:(simple-next-hop) | | +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface? | +--:(special-next-hop) | | +--rw v4ur:special-next-hop? | +--:(next-hop-address) | +--rw v4ur:next-hop-address? +--rw ribs +--rw rib* [name] +--rw name string +--rw address-family? identityref +--rw description? string Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 51] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 A.2. State Data +--ro routing-state +--ro routing-instance* [name] +--ro name string +--ro type? identityref +--ro router-id? yang:dotted-quad +--ro interfaces | +--ro interface* if:interface-state-ref +--ro routing-protocols | +--ro routing-protocol* [type name] | +--ro type identityref | +--ro name string | +--ro route-preference route-preference +--ro ribs +--ro rib* [name] +--ro name string +--ro address-family identityref +--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}? +--ro routes +--ro route* +--ro route-preference? route-preference +--ro next-hop | +--ro (next-hop-options) | +--:(simple-next-hop) | | +--ro outgoing-interface? | | +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address? | | +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address? | +--:(special-next-hop) | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration +--ro source-protocol identityref +--ro active? empty +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time +--ro v6ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix Appendix B. Minimum Implementation Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user- defined routing tables, are intended only for advanced routers. This appendix gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum of available functions. Such an implementation may be used for hosts or very simple routers. A minimum implementation will provide a single system-controlled routing instance, and will not allow clients to create any user- controlled instances. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 52] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 Typically, the feature "multiple-ribs" will not be supported. This means that a single system-controlled RIB is available for each supported address family - IPv4, IPv6 or both. These RIBs must be the default RIBs. No user-controlled RIBs are allowed. In addition to the mandatory instance of the "direct" pseudo- protocol, a minimum implementation should support configuring instance(s) of the "static" pseudo-protocol. Platforms with severely constrained resources may use deviations for restricting the data model, e.g., limiting the number of "static" routing protocol instances. Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol This appendix demonstrates how the core routing data model can be extended to support a new routing protocol. The YANG module "example-rip" shown below is intended as an illustration rather than a real definition of a data model for the RIP routing protocol. For the sake of brevity, this module does not obey all the guidelines specified in [RFC6087]. See also Section 5.4.2. module example-rip { namespace "http://example.com/rip"; prefix "rip"; import ietf-routing { prefix "rt"; } identity rip { base rt:routing-protocol; description "Identity for the RIP routing protocol."; } typedef rip-metric { type uint8 { range "0..16"; } } grouping route-content { description "This grouping defines RIP-specific route attributes."; leaf metric { Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 53] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 type rip-metric; } leaf tag { type uint16; default "0"; description "This leaf may be used to carry additional info, e.g. AS number."; } } augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" + "rt:routes/rt:route" { when "rt:source-protocol = 'rip:rip'" { description "This augment is only valid for a routes whose source protocol is RIP."; } description "RIP-specific route attributes."; uses route-content; } augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" { description "RIP-specific route attributes in the output of 'active-route' RPC."; uses route-content; } augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/" + "rt:routing-protocol" { when "rt:type = 'rip:rip'" { description "This augment is only valid for a routing protocol instance of type 'rip'."; } container rip { description "RIP instance configuration."; container interfaces { description "Per-interface RIP configuration."; list interface { key "name"; description "RIP is enabled on interfaces that have an entry in this list, unless 'enabled' is set to 'false' for that Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 54] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 entry."; leaf name { type leafref { path "../../../../../../rt:interfaces/rt:interface"; } } leaf enabled { type boolean; default "true"; } leaf metric { type rip-metric; default "1"; } } } leaf update-interval { type uint8 { range "10..60"; } units "seconds"; default "30"; description "Time interval between periodic updates."; } } } } Appendix D. Example: NETCONF Reply This section contains a sample reply to the NETCONF message, which could be sent by a server supporting (i.e., advertising them in the NETCONF message) the following YANG modules: o ietf-interfaces [RFC7223], o ietf-ip [RFC7277], o ietf-routing (Section 7), o ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing (Section 8), o ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing (Section 9). We assume a simple network set-up as shown in Figure 3: router "A" uses static default routes with the "ISP" router as the next-hop. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 55] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 IPv6 router advertisements are configured only on the "eth1" interface and disabled on the upstream "eth0" interface. +-----------------+ | | | Router ISP | | | +--------+--------+ |2001:db8:0:1::2 |192.0.2.2 | | |2001:db8:0:1::1 eth0|192.0.2.1 +--------+--------+ | | | Router A | | | +--------+--------+ eth1|198.51.100.1 |2001:db8:0:2::1 | Figure 3: Example network configuration A reply to the NETCONF message sent by router "A" would then be as follows: eth0 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd Uplink to ISP. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 56] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 192.0.2.1 24 true 2001:0db8:0:1::1 64 true false eth1 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd Interface to the internal network. 198.51.100.1 24 true 2001:0db8:0:2::1 64 true false eth0 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd 00:0C:42:E5:B1:E9 up rtr0 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 57] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 2014-10-24T17:11:27+00:58 true 1500 192.0.2.1 24 true 1500 2001:0db8:0:1::1 64 true 2001:db8:0:2::/64 eth1 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd 00:0C:42:E5:B1:EA up rtr0 2014-10-24T17:11:27+00:59 true 1500 198.51.100.1 24 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 58] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 true 1500 2001:0db8:0:2::1 64 true 2001:db8:0:2::/64 rtr0 Router A 192.0.2.1 eth0 eth1 rt:static st0 Static routing is used for the internal network. 0.0.0.0/0 192.0.2.2 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 59] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 ::/0 2001:db8:0:1::2 rtr0 eth0 eth1 rt:static st0 5 ipv4-master v4ur:ipv4-unicast true 192.0.2.1/24 eth0 0 rt:direct 2014-10-24T17:11:27+01:00 198.51.100.0/24 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 60] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 eth1 rt:direct 0 2014-10-24T17:11:27+01:00 0.0.0.0/0 rt:static 5 192.0.2.2 2014-10-24T18:02:45+01:00 ipv6-master v6ur:ipv6-unicast true 2001:db8:0:1::/64 eth0 rt:direct 0 2014-10-24T17:11:27+01:00 2001:db8:0:2::/64 eth1 rt:direct 0 2014-10-24T17:11:27+01:00 ::/0 Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 61] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 2001:db8:0:1::2 rt:static 5 2014-10-24T18:02:45+01:00 Appendix E. Change Log RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC. E.1. Changes Between Versions -17 and -18 o The container "ribs" was moved under "routing-instance" (in both "routing" and "routing-state"). o Typedefs "rib-ref" and "rib-state-ref" were removed. o Removed "recipient-ribs" (both state and configuration). o Removed "connected-ribs" from "routing-protocol" (both state and configuration). o Configuration and state data for IPv6 RA were moved under "if:interface" and "if:interface-state". o Assignment of interfaces to routing instances now use leaf-list rather than list (both config and state). The opposite reference from "if:interface" to "rt:routing-instance" was changed to a single leaf (an interface cannot belong to multiple routing instances). o Specification of a default RIB is now a simple flag under "rib" (both config and state). o Default RIBs are marked by a flag in state data. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 62] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 E.2. Changes Between Versions -16 and -17 o Added Acee as a co-author. o Removed all traces of route filters. o Removed numeric IDs of list entries in state data. o Removed all next-hop cases except "simple-next-hop" and "special- next-hop". o Removed feature "multipath-routes". o Augmented "ietf-interfaces" module with a leaf-list of leafrefs pointing form state data of an interface entry to the routing instance(s) to which the interface is assigned. E.3. Changes Between Versions -15 and -16 o Added 'type' as the second key component of 'routing-protocol', both in configuration and state data. o The restriction of no more than one connected RIB per address family was removed. o Removed the 'id' key of routes in RIBs. This list has no keys anymore. o Remove the 'id' key from static routes and make 'destination- prefix' the only key. o Added 'route-preference' as a new attribute of routes in RIB. o Added 'active' as a new attribute of routes in RIBs. o Renamed RPC operation 'active-route' to 'fib-route'. o Added 'route-preference' as a new parameter of routing protocol instances, both in configuration and state data. o Renamed identity 'rt:standard-routing-instance' to 'rt:default- routing-instance'. o Added next-hop lists to state data. o Added two cases for specifying next-hops indirectly - via a new RIB or a recursive list of next-hops. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 63] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o Reorganized next-hop in static routes. o Removed all 'if-feature' statements from state data. E.4. Changes Between Versions -14 and -15 o Removed all defaults from state data. o Removed default from 'cur-hop-limit' in config. E.5. Changes Between Versions -13 and -14 o Removed dependency of 'connected-ribs' on the 'multiple-ribs' feature. o Removed default value of 'cur-hop-limit' in state data. o Moved parts of descriptions and all references on IPv6 RA parameters from state data to configuration. o Added reference to RFC 6536 in the Security section. E.6. Changes Between Versions -12 and -13 o Wrote appendix about minimum implementation. o Remove "when" statement for IPv6 router interface state data - it was dependent on a config value that may not be present. o Extra container for the next-hop list. o Names rather than numeric ids are used for referring to list entries in state data. o Numeric ids are always declared as mandatory and unique. Their description states that they are ephemeral. o Descriptions of "name" keys in state data lists are required to be persistent. o o Removed "if-feature multiple-ribs;" from connected-ribs. o "rib-name" instead of "name" is used as the name of leafref nodes. o "next-hop" instead of "nexthop" or "gateway" used throughout, both in node names and text. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 64] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 E.7. Changes Between Versions -11 and -12 o Removed feature "advanced-router" and introduced two features instead: "multiple-ribs" and "multipath-routes". o Unified the keys of config and state versions of "routing- instance" and "rib" lists. o Numerical identifiers of state list entries are not keys anymore, but they are constrained using the "unique" statement. o Updated acknowledgements. E.8. Changes Between Versions -10 and -11 o Migrated address families from IANA enumerations to identities. o Terminology and node names aligned with the I2RS RIB model: router -> routing instance, routing table -> RIB. o Introduced uint64 keys for state lists: routing-instance, rib, route, nexthop. o Described the relationship between system-controlled and user- controlled list entries. o Feature "user-defined-routing-tables" changed into "advanced- router". o Made nexthop into a choice in order to allow for nexthop-list (I2RS requirement). o Added nexthop-list with entries having priorities (backup) and weights (load balancing). o Updated bibliography references. E.9. Changes Between Versions -09 and -10 o Added subtree for state data ("/routing-state"). o Terms "system-controlled entry" and "user-controlled entry" defined and used. o New feature "user-defined-routing-tables". Nodes that are useful only with user-defined routing tables are now conditional. o Added grouping "router-id". Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 65] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o In routing tables, "source-protocol" attribute of routes now reports only protocol type, and its datatype is "identityref". o Renamed "main-routing-table" to "default-routing-table". E.10. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09 o Fixed "must" expresion for "connected-routing-table". o Simplified "must" expression for "main-routing-table". o Moved per-interface configuration of a new routing protocol under 'routing-protocol'. This also affects the 'example-rip' module. E.11. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08 o Changed reference from RFC6021 to RFC6021bis. E.12. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07 o The contents of in Appendix D was updated: "eth[01]" is used as the value of "location", and "forwarding" is on for both interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6. o The "must" expression for "main-routing-table" was modified to avoid redundant error messages reporting address family mismatch when "name" points to a non-existent routing table. o The default behavior for IPv6 RA prefix advertisements was clarified. o Changed type of "rt:router-id" to "ip:dotted-quad". o Type of "rt:router-id" changed to "yang:dotted-quad". o Fixed missing prefixes in XPath expressions. E.13. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06 o Document title changed: "Configuration" was replaced by "Management". o New typedefs "routing-table-ref" and "route-filter-ref". o Double slashes "//" were removed from XPath expressions and replaced with the single "/". o Removed uniqueness requirement for "router-id". Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 66] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 o Complete data tree is now in Appendix A. o Changed type of "source-protocol" from "leafref" to "string". o Clarified the relationship between routing protocol instances and connected routing tables. o Added a must constraint saying that a routing table connected to the direct pseudo-protocol must not be a main routing table. E.14. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05 o Routing tables are now global, i.e., "routing-tables" is a child of "routing" rather than "router". o "must" statement for "static-routes" changed to "when". o Added "main-routing-tables" containing references to main routing tables for each address family. o Removed the defaults for "address-family" and "safi" and made them mandatory. o Removed the default for route-filter/type and made this leaf mandatory. o If there is no active route for a given destination, the "active- route" RPC returns no output. o Added "enabled" switch under "routing-protocol". o Added "router-type" identity and "type" leaf under "router". o Route attribute "age" changed to "last-updated", its type is "yang:date-and-time". o The "direct" pseudo-protocol is always connected to main routing tables. o Entries in the list of connected routing tables renamed from "routing-table" to "connected-routing-table". o Added "must" constraint saying that a routing table must not be its own recipient. Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 67] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 E.15. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04 o Changed "error-tag" for both RPC operations from "missing element" to "data-missing". o Removed the decrementing behavior for advertised IPv6 prefix parameters "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime". o Changed the key of the static route lists from "seqno" to "id" because the routes needn't be sorted. o Added 'must' constraint saying that "preferred-lifetime" must not be greater than "valid-lifetime". E.16. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03 o Module "iana-afn-safi" moved to I-D "iana-if-type". o Removed forwarding table. o RPC "get-route" changed to "active-route". Its output is a list of routes (for multi-path routing). o New RPC "route-count". o For both RPCs, specification of negative responses was added. o Relaxed separation of router instances. o Assignment of interfaces to router instances needn't be disjoint. o Route filters are now global. o Added "allow-all-route-filter" for symmetry. o Added Section 6 about interactions with "ietf-interfaces" and "ietf-ip". o Added "router-id" leaf. o Specified the names for IPv4/IPv6 unicast main routing tables. o Route parameter "last-modified" changed to "age". o Added container "recipient-routing-tables". Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 68] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 E.17. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02 o Added module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing". o The example in Appendix D now uses IP addresses from blocks reserved for documentation. o Direct routes appear by default in the forwarding table. o Network layer interfaces must be assigned to a router instance. Additional interface configuration may be present. o The "when" statement is only used with "augment", "must" is used elsewhere. o Additional "must" statements were added. o The "route-content" grouping for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast now includes the material from the "ietf-routing" version via "uses rt:route-content". o Explanation of symbols in the tree representation of data model hierarchy. E.18. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01 o AFN/SAFI-independent stuff was moved to the "ietf-routing" module. o Typedefs for AFN and SAFI were placed in a separate "iana-afn- safi" module. o Names of some data nodes were changed, in particular "routing- process" is now "router". o The restriction of a single AFN/SAFI per router was lifted. o RPC operation "delete-route" was removed. o Illegal XPath references from "get-route" to the datastore were fixed. o Section "Security Considerations" was written. Authors' Addresses Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 69] Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management April 2015 Ladislav Lhotka CZ.NIC Email: lhotka@nic.cz Acee Lindem Cisco Systems Email: acee@cisco.com Lhotka & Lindem Expires October 19, 2015 [Page 70]