Network Working Group A. Shaikh
RTGWG Y. Qu
Internet-Draft Google Huawei
Intended status: Informational R. Shakir J. Tantsura
Expires: October 8, 2016 Jive Communications
K. D'Souza
C. Chase
AT&T
April 6, 2016
Routing Policy Configuration September 4, 2018 Nuage Networks
A. Lindem
Cisco
X. Liu
Jabil
A. Shaikh
Google
March 3, 2018
A YANG Data Model for Service Provider Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-01 Routing Policy Management
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-02
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework
which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 8, 2016. September 4, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(https://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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Goals and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
2. Model overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Route policy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Defined sets for policy matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Policy conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
9. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
9.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Routing policy types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10
10. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 27
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 27
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 27
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 27
Appendix B. Change summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 28
B.1. Changes between revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 28
B.2. Changes between revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. 28
B.3. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
and -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 28
1. Introduction
This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] data model for
routing policy configuration based on operational usage and best
practices in a variety of service provider networks. The model is
intended to be vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage
policy configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous
environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA)[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].
1.1. Goals and approach
This model does not aim to be feature complete -- it is a subset of
the policy configuration parameters available in a variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing how
routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing
protocols. The model development approach has been to examine actual
policy configurations in use across a number of operator networks.
Hence the focus is on enabling policy configuration capabilities and
structure that are in wide use.
Despite the differences in details of policy expressions and
conventions in various vendor implementations, the model reflects the
observation that a relatively simple condition- action condition-action approach can be
readily mapped to several existing vendor implementations, and also
gives operators an intuitive and straightforward way to express
policy without sacrificing flexibility. A side affect of this design
decision is that legacy methods for expressing policies are not
considered. Such methods could be added as an augmentation to the
model if needed.
Consistent with the goal to produce a data model that is vendor
neutral, only policy expressions that are deemed to be widely
available in existing major implementations are included in the
model. Those configuration items that are only available from a
single implementation are omitted from the model with the expectation
they will be available in separate vendor-provided modules that
augment the current model.
2. Model overview
The routing policy model is defined in two YANG modules, the main
policy module, and an auxiliary module providing additional generic
types. The model has three main parts:
o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related
conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that
are useful across many routing protocols.
o A structure that allows routing protocol models to add protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions though YANG augmentations.
There is a complete example of this for BGP [RFC4271] policies in
the proposed vendor-neutral BGP data model
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model].
o A reusable grouping for attaching import and export rules in the
context of routing configuration for different protocols, VRFs,
etc. This also enables creation of policy chains and expressing
default policy behavior.
These modules make
The module makes use of the standard Internet types, such as IP
addresses, autonomous system numbers, etc., defined in RFC 6991
[RFC6991].
3. Route policy expression
Policies are expressed as a sequence of top-level policy definitions
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy
statements in turn consist of simple condition-action tuples.
Conditions may include multiple match or comparison operations, and
similarly, actions may effect multiple changes to route attributes,
or indicate a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route.
This structure is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| ...
+--rw actions
...
3.1. Defined sets for policy matching
The models provides a set of generic sets that can be used for
matching in policy conditions. These sets are applicable for route
selection across multiple routing protocols, and protocols. They may be further
augmented by protocol-
specific protocol-specific models which have their own defined
sets. The supported defined sets include:
o prefix sets - define a set of IP prefixes, each with an associated
CIDR netmask range (or exact length)
o neighbor sets - define a set of neighboring nodes by their IP
addresses
addresses. These sets are used for selecting routes based on the
neighbors advertising the routes.
o tag set - define a set of generic tag values that can be used in
matches for filtering routes
The model structure for defined sets is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
| +--rw prefix-sets
| | +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name] [name]
| | +--rw prefix-set-name name string
| | +--rw mode? enumeration
| | +--rw prefixes
| | +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| | +--rw masklength-range string
| +--rw neighbor-sets
| | +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name] [name]
| | +--rw neighbor-set-name name string
| +--rw neighbor* [address] | +--rw address address* inet:ip-address
| +--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name] [name]
| +--rw tag-set-name name string
| +--rw tag* [value]
+--rw value pt:tag-type tag-value* tag-type
3.2. Policy conditions
Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either
of which may be empty). Conditions are used to match route
attributes against a defined set (e.g., a prefix set), or to compare
attributes against a specific value.
Match conditions may be further modified using the match-set-options
configuration which allows operators to change the behavior of a
match. Three options are supported:
o ALL - match is true only if the given value matches all members of
the set.
o ANY - match is true if the given value matches any member of the
set.
o INVERT - match is true if the given value does not match any
member of the given set.
Not all options are appropriate for matching against all defined sets
(e.g., match ALL in a prefix set does not make sense). In the model,
a restricted set of match options is used where applicable.
Comparison conditions may similarly use options to change how route
attributes should be tested, e.g., for equality or inequality,
against a given value.
While most policy conditions will be added by individual routing
protocol models via augmentation, this routing policy model includes
several generic match conditions and also the ability to test which
protocol or mechanism installed a route (e.g., BGP, IGP, static,
etc.). The conditions included in the model are shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw conditions
| +--rw call-policy?
| +--rw install-protocol-eq?
| +--rw match-interface
| | +--rw match-interface? interface?
| +--rw match-prefix-set! match-prefix-set
| | +--rw prefix-set?
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| +--rw match-neighbor-set! match-neighbor-set
| | +--rw neighbor-set?
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| | match-set-options-restricted-type
| +--rw match-tag-set! match-tag-set
| +--rw tag-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw install-protocol-eq?
+--rw igp-conditions
match-set-options-restricted-type
3.3. Policy actions
When policy conditions are satisfied, policy actions are used to set
various attributes of the route being processed, or to indicate the
final disposition of the route, i.e., accept or reject.
Similar to policy conditions, the routing policy model includes
generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions.
These are shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw actions
+--rw (route-disposition)?
| +--:(accept-route)
| | +--rw accept-route? empty
| +--:(reject-route)
| +--rw reject-route? empty
+--rw igp-actions
+--rw set-tag? pt:tag-type policy-result? policy-result-type
3.4. Policy subroutines
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing
policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions
using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their
conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy
affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the
subroutine returns an effective boolean true value to the calling
policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition
statement evaluating to a true value and evaluation of the policy
continues (see Section 4). Note that the called policy may also
modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly,
a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation
will be affected accordingly. Consequently, a subroutine cannot
explicitly accept or reject a route. Rather it merely provides an
indication that 'call-policy' condition returns boolean true or false
indicating whether or not the condition matches. Route acceptance or
rejection is solely determined by the top-level policy.
Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject
to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a
nesting depth because this varies among implementations, with implementations. For
example, some major implementations implementation may only supporting support a single subroutine, for
example. level of
subroutine recursion. As with any routing policy construction, care
must be taken with nested policies to ensure that the effective
return value results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a
convenience in many routing policy constructions but creating
policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be
discouraged.
4. Policy evaluation
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement
has either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the
current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in
the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the
next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions
are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition
stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.
When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route
disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an an
alternate default action is specified for the chain).
5. Applying routing policy
Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in
various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy
definitions (described in Section 3) that have an associated
direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in
which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply-
policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As
shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains,
as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when
no policy definition in the chain results in a final decision.
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy? default-policy-type
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy? default-policy-type
The default policy defined by the model is to reject the route for
both import and export policies.
An example of using the apply-policy group in another routing model
is shown below for BGP. Here, import and export policies are applied
in the context of a particular BGP peer group. Note that the policy
chains reference policy definitions by name that are defined in the
routing policy model.
+--rw bgp!
+--rw peer-groups
+--rw peer-group* [peer-group-name]
+--rw peer-group-name
+--rw config
| +--rw peer-as?
| +--rw local-as?
| +--rw peer-type?
| +--rw auth-password?
| +--rw remove-private-as?
| +--rw route-flap-damping?
| +--rw send-community?
| +--rw description?
| +--rw peer-group-name?
+--ro state
| +--ro peer-as?
| +--ro local-as?
| +--ro peer-type?
| +--ro auth-password?
| +--ro remove-private-as?
| +--ro route-flap-damping?
| +--ro send-community?
| +--ro description?
| +--ro peer-group-name?
| +--ro total-paths?
| +--ro total-prefixes?
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy?
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy?
| +--ro state
| +--ro import-policy*
| +--ro default-import-policy?
| +--ro export-policy*
| +--ro default-export-policy?
...
6. Routing protocol-specific policies
Routing models that require the ability to apply routing policy may
augment the routing policy model with protocol or other specific
policy configuration. The routing policy model assumes that
additional defined sets, conditions, and actions may all be added by
other models.
An example of this is shown below, in which the BGP configuration
model in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model] adds new defined sets to match on
community values or AS paths. The model similarly augments BGP-
specific conditions and actions into in the corresponding sections of the
routing policy model.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
+--rw prefix-sets
| +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name]
| +--rw prefix-set-name
| +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| +--rw ip-prefix
| +--rw masklength-range
+--rw neighbor-sets
| +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name]
| +--rw neighbor-set-name
| +--rw neighbor* [address]
| +--rw address
+--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name]
| +--rw tag-set-name
| +--rw tag* [value]
| +--rw value
+--rw bgp-pol:bgp-defined-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set* [community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set*
| [ext-community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set* [as-path-set-name]
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-name
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-member*
7. Security Considerations
Routing policy configuration has a significant impact on network
operations, and and, as such such, any related model carries potential
security risks.
YANG data models are generally designed to be used with the NETCONF
protocol over an SSH transport. This provides an authenticated and
secure channel over which to transfer configuration and operational
data. Note that use of alternate transport or data encoding (e.g.,
JSON over HTTPS) would require similar mechanisms for authenticating
and securing access to configuration data.
Most of the data elements in the policy model could be considered
sensitive from a security standpoint. Unauthorized access or invalid
data could cause major disruption.
8. IANA Considerations
This YANG data model and the component modules currently use a
temporary ad-hoc namespace. If and when it is placed on redirected
for the standards track, an appropriate namespace URI will be
registered in the IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. The routing policy
YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry
[RFC6020].
9. YANG modules
The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the
sections below.
9.1. Routing policy model
<CODE BEGINS> file "openconfig-routing-policy.yang" "ietf-routing-policy@2018-02-26.yang"
module openconfig-routing-policy ietf-routing-policy {
yang-version "1";
// namespace "1.1";
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy";
prefix "oc-rpol";
// import some basic types rt-pol;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet; "inet";
}
import openconfig-interfaces ietf-yang-types {
prefix oc-if; "yang";
}
import openconfig-policy-types ietf-interfaces {
prefix oc-pol-types; "if";
}
import openconfig-extensions ietf-routing {
prefix oc-ext; "rt";
}
import ietf-interfaces-common {
prefix if-cmn;
}
import ietf-if-l3-vlan {
prefix "if-l3-vlan";
}
// meta
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
"IETF RTGWG - Routing Area Working Group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/>
WG List: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editor: Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
Jeff Tantsura
<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>
Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng_liu@jabil.com>
Anees Shaikh
<mailto:aashaikh@google.com>";
description
"This module describes a YANG model for routing policy
configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy
configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for
managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across
different routing protocols. This module is intended to be used
in conjunction with routing protocol configuration models modules
(e.g., BGP) defined in other modules. models.
Route policy expression:
Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy definitions,
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements.
Policy statements consist of simple condition-action tuples.
Conditions may include mutiple match or comparison operations,
and similarly actions may be multitude of changes to route
attributes or a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the
route.
Route policy evaluation:
Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol
configurations using import and export configuration statements.
The arguments are members of an ordered list of named policy
definitions which comprise a policy chain, and optionally, an
explicit default policy action (i.e., reject or accept).
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action
statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions,
policy evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and
no further policy definitions in the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to
the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement
conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy
definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is
evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the
default route disposition action is performed (i.e.,
reject-route unless an an alternate default action is specified
for the chain).
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by
allowing policy statement conditions to reference another policy
definition which applies conditions and actions from the
referenced policy before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then
the subroutine returns an effective true value to the calling
policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false. If the
subroutine returns true, the calling policy continues to
evaluate the remaining conditions (using a modified route if the
subroutine performed any changes to the route).";
oc-ext:openconfig-version "2.0.0";
revision "2016-03-28" "2018-02-26" {
description
"OpenConfig public release";
"Initial revision.";
reference "2.0.0";
"RFC XXXX: Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service
Provider Networks";
}
// typedef statements
typedef default-policy-type {
// this typedef retained for name compatibiity with default
// import and export policy
type enumeration {
enum ACCEPT_ROUTE accept-route {
description "default
"Default policy to accept the route";
}
enum REJECT_ROUTE reject-route {
description "default
"Default policy to reject the route";
}
}
description "type
"Type used to specify default route disposition in
a policy chain";
}
typedef policy-result-type {
type enumeration {
enum accept-route {
description "Policy accepts the route";
}
enum reject-route {
description "Policy rejects the route";
}
}
description
"Type used to specify route disposition in
a policy chain";
}
typedef tag-type {
type union {
type uint32;
type yang:hex-string;
}
description "Type for expressing route tags on a local system,
including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal
or hexadecimal integer";
reference
"RFC 2178 - OSPF Version 2
RFC 5130 - A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using
Administrative Tags";
}
typedef match-set-options-type {
type enumeration {
enum any {
description "Match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
}
enum all {
description "Match is true if given value matches all
members of the defined set";
}
enum invert {
description "Match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default any;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is any, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set";
}
// grouping statements
grouping prefix-set-config prefix-set {
description
"Configuration data for prefix sets used in policy
definitions.";
leaf prefix-set-name name {
type string;
description
"name / label
"Name of the prefix set -- this is used as a label to
reference the set in match conditions";
}
leaf mode {
type enumeration {
enum ipv4 {
description
"Prefix set contains IPv4 prefixes only";
}
enum ipv6 {
description
"Prefix set contains IPv6 prefixes only";
}
grouping prefix-set-state
enum mixed {
description
"Operational state data for
"Prefix set contains mixed IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes";
}
}
description
"Indicates the mode of the prefix sets"; set, in terms of which
address families (IPv4, IPv6, or both) are present. The
mode provides a hint, but the device must validate that all
prefixes are of the indicated type, and is expected to
reject the configuration if there is a discrepancy. The
MIXED mode may not be supported on devices that require
prefix sets to be of only one address family.";
}
}
grouping prefix-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definitions for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
prefixes which are matched as part of a policy";
container prefix-sets {
description
"Enclosing container ";
list prefix-set {
key prefix-set-name; "name";
description
"List of the defined prefix sets";
leaf prefix-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/prefix-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to prefix name list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix sets";
uses prefix-set-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses prefix-set-config;
uses prefix-set-state;
} prefix-set;
uses prefix-top;
}
}
}
grouping prefix-config prefix {
description
"Configuration data for a prefix definition";
leaf ip-prefix {
type inet:ip-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The prefix member in CIDR notation -- while the
prefix may be either IPv4 or IPv6, most
implementations require all members of the prefix set
to be the same address family. Mixing address types in
the same prefix set is likely to cause an error.";
}
leaf masklength-range {
type string {
pattern '^([0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+)|exact$'; '([0-9]{2}\.\.[0-9]{2})|([0-9]{2})';
}
description
"Defines a range for the masklength, or 'exact' if
the prefix has an exact length.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 through 10.3.192.0/24 would be
expressed as prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: 21..24.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 would be expressed as
prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: exact";
}
}
grouping prefix-state {
description
"Operational state data for prefix definitions";
}
grouping prefix-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for prefixes in a prefix list";
container prefixes {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of prefixes in a policy
prefix list";
list prefix prefix-list {
key "ip-prefix masklength-range";
description
"List of prefixes in the prefix set";
leaf ip-prefix {
type leafref {
path "../config/ip-prefix";
}
description
"Reference to the ip-prefix list key.";
}
leaf masklength-range {
type leafref {
path "../config/masklength-range";
}
description
"Reference to the masklength-range list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix definition";
uses prefix-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for prefix definition";
uses prefix-config;
uses prefix-state;
} prefix;
}
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-config neighbor-set {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides neighbor set definitions";
leaf neighbor-set-name name {
type string;
description
"name / label
"Name of the neighbor set -- this is used as a label
to reference the set in match conditions";
}
leaf-list address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"List of IP addresses in the neighbor set";
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-state {
description
"Operational state data for neighbor set definitions";
}
grouping neighbor-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definition for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
neighbors which can be matched in a routing policy";
container neighbor-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of neighbor set
definitions";
list neighbor-set {
key neighbor-set-name; "name";
description
"List of defined neighbor sets for use in policies.";
leaf neighbor-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/neighbor-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to the neighbor set name list key.";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for neighbor sets.";
uses neighbor-set-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for neighbor sets.";
uses neighbor-set-config;
uses neighbor-set-state;
} neighbor-set;
}
}
}
grouping tag-set-config tag-set {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides tag set definitions.";
leaf tag-set-name name {
type string;
description
"name / label
"Name of the tag set -- this is used as a label to reference
the set in match conditions";
}
leaf-list tag-value {
type oc-pol-types:tag-type; tag-type;
description
"Value of the tag set member";
}
}
grouping tag-set-state {
description
"Operational state data for tag set definitions.";
}
grouping tag-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definitions for a list of tags which can
be matched in policies";
container tag-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of tag sets.";
list tag-set {
key tag-set-name; "name";
description
"List of tag set definitions.";
leaf tag-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/tag-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to the tag set name list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for tag sets";
uses tag-set-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for tag sets";
uses tag-set-config;
uses tag-set-state;
} tag-set;
}
}
}
grouping generic-defined-sets {
description
"Data definitions for pre-defined sets of attributes used in
policy match conditions. These sets are generic and can
be used in matching conditions in different routing
protocols.";
uses prefix-set-top;
uses neighbor-set-top;
uses tag-set-top;
}
grouping match-set-options-group {
description
"Grouping containing options relating to how a particular set
should be matched";
leaf match-set-options {
type oc-pol-types:match-set-options-type; match-set-options-type;
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour behavior of the
match operation";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-restricted-group {
description
"Grouping for a restricted set of match operation modifiers";
leaf match-set-options {
type oc-pol-types:match-set-options-restricted-type; match-set-options-type {
enum any {
description "Match is true if given value matches any
member of the defined set";
}
enum invert {
description "Match is true if given value does not match
any member of the defined set";
}
}
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour behavior of the
match operation. This leaf only supports matching on ANY
member of the set or inverting the match. Matching on ALL
is not supported)"; supported";
}
}
grouping match-interface-condition-config match-interface-condition {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides interface match condition";
uses oc-if:interface-ref-common;
}
grouping match-interface-condition-state
container match-interface {
description
"Operational state data for
leaf interface match condition";
}
grouping match-interface-condition-top {
type leafref {
path "/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:name";
}
description
"Top-level grouping for
"Reference to a base interface. If a reference to a
subinterface is required, this leaf must be specified
to indicate the interface match condition";
container match-interface base interface.";
}
leaf subinterface {
description
"Top-level container for interface match conditions";
container config
type leafref {
path "/if:interfaces/if:interface/if-cmn:encapsulation"
+ "/if-l3-vlan:dot1q-vlan"
+ "/if-l3-vlan:outer-tag/if-l3-vlan:vlan-id";
}
description
"Configuration data for
"Reference to a subinterface -- this requires the base
interface match conditions";
uses match-interface-condition-config; to be specified using the interface leaf in
this container. If only a reference to a base interface
is requuired, this leaf should not be set.";
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data
"Container for interface match conditions";
uses match-interface-condition-config;
uses match-interface-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-config prefix-set-condition {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides prefix-set conditions";
container match-prefix-set {
leaf prefix-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/prefix-sets/" "../../../../../../../defined-sets/" +
"prefix-set/prefix-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
"prefix-sets/prefix-set/name";
}
description "References a defined prefix set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for prefix-set conditions";
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for prefix-set conditions";
container match-prefix-set {
description
"Match a referenced prefix-set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options leaf";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for a prefix-set condition";
uses prefix-set-condition-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for a prefix-set condition";
uses prefix-set-condition-config;
uses prefix-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-config neighbor-set-condition {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides neighbor-set conditions";
container match-neighbor-set {
leaf neighbor-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/neighbor-sets/" "../../../../../../../defined-sets/neighbor-sets/" +
"neighbor-set/neighbor-set-name";
//TODO:
"neighbor-set/name";
require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined neighbor set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for neighbor-set conditions";
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for neighbor-set conditions";
container match-neighbor-set {
description
"Match a referenced neighbor set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options-leaf";
container config {
description
"Configuration data ";
uses neighbor-set-condition-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses neighbor-set-condition-config;
uses neighbor-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping tag-set-condition-config tag-set-condition {
description
"Configuration data for
"This grouping provides tag-set condition statements"; conditions";
container match-tag-set {
leaf tag-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" "../../../../../../../defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" +
"/tag-set-name";
//TODO:
"/name";
require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined tag set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping tag-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for tag-set condition statements";
}
grouping tag-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for tag-set conditions";
container match-tag-set {
description
"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined
in the match-options-set leaf";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for tag-set conditions";
uses tag-set-condition-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data tag-set conditions";
uses tag-set-condition-config;
uses tag-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping generic-conditions {
description "Condition statement definitions for checking
membership in a generic defined set";
uses match-interface-condition-top; match-interface-condition;
uses prefix-set-condition-top; prefix-set-condition;
uses neighbor-set-condition-top;
uses tag-set-condition-top;
}
grouping igp-generic-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP policy conditions";
}
grouping igp-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP-specific policy conditions";
container igp-conditions {
description "Policy conditions for IGP attributes"; neighbor-set-condition;
uses igp-generic-conditions;
} tag-set-condition;
}
grouping generic-actions {
description
"Definitions for common set of policy action statements that
manage the disposition or control flow of the policy";
choice route-disposition
leaf policy-result {
type policy-result-type;
description
"Select the final disposition for the route, either
accept or reject.";
leaf accept-route {
type empty;
description "accepts the route into the routing table";
}
leaf reject-route {
type empty;
description "rejects the route";
}
}
}
grouping igp-actions-config {
description
"Configuration data for IGP policy actions";
leaf set-tag {
type oc-pol-types:tag-type;
description
"Set the tag value for OSPF or IS-IS routes.";
}
}
grouping igp-actions-state {
description
"Operational state data for IGP policy actions ";
}
grouping igp-actions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping ";
container igp-actions {
description
"Actions to set IGP route attributes; these actions
apply to multiple IGPs";
container config {
description
"Configuration data ";
uses igp-actions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses igp-actions-config;
uses igp-actions-state;
}
}
}
grouping policy-conditions-config policy-conditions {
description
"Configuration data
"Data for general policy conditions, i.e., those
not related to match-sets";
leaf call-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/" "../../../../../../" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definitions/"
"rt-pol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
//TODO:
"rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance should be added when
//it is supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description
"Applies the statements from the specified policy
definition and then returns control the current
policy statement. Note that the called policy may
itself call other policies (subject to
implementation limitations). This is intended to
provide a policy 'subroutine' capability. The
called policy should contain an explicit or a
default route disposition that returns an
effective true (accept-route) or false
(reject-route), otherwise the behavior may be
ambiguous and implementation dependent";
}
leaf install-protocol-eq {
type identityref {
base oc-pol-types:INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE; rt:control-plane-protocol;
}
description
"Condition to check the protocol / method used to install
the route into the local routing table";
}
}
grouping policy-conditions-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy conditions";
}
grouping policy-conditions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for policy conditions";
container conditions {
description
"Condition statements for the current policy statement";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy conditions";
uses policy-conditions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy conditions";
uses policy-conditions-config;
uses policy-conditions-state;
} policy-conditions;
uses generic-conditions;
uses igp-conditions;
}
}
grouping policy-statements-config policy-statements {
description
"Configuration data
"Data for policy statements";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"name
"Name of the policy statement";
}
}
grouping policy-statements-state policy-actions {
description
"Operational state data for policy statements";
}
grouping policy-actions-config {
description
"Configuration data
"Grouping for policy actions";
uses generic-actions;
}
grouping policy-actions-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy actions";
}
grouping policy-actions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for policy actions";
container actions {
description
"Top-level container for policy action statements";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy actions";
uses policy-actions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy actions";
uses policy-actions-config;
uses policy-actions-state;
}
uses igp-actions-top; policy-actions;
}
}
grouping policy-statements-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for the policy statements list";
container statements {
description
"Enclosing container for policy statements";
list statement {
key name;
// TODO: names of policy statements within a policy
// definition should be optional, however, YANG
// requires a unique id for lists; not sure that a
// compound key works either -- need to investigate
// further. "name";
ordered-by user;
description
"Policy statements group conditions and actions
within a policy definition. They are evaluated in
the order specified (see the description of policy
evaluation at the top of this module.";
leaf name {
type leafref {
path "../config/name";
}
description
"Reference to list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy statements";
uses policy-statements-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy statements";
uses policy-statements-config;
uses policy-statements-state;
} policy-statements;
uses policy-conditions-top;
uses policy-actions-top;
}
}
}
grouping defined-sets-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for defined set definitions";
container defined-sets policy-definitions {
description
"Predefined sets of attributes used in policy match
statements";
uses generic-defined-sets;
}
}
"This grouping policy-definitions-config {
description
"Configuration data for provides policy definitions";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the top-level policy definition -- this name
is used in references to the current policy";
}
}
grouping policy-definitions-state apply-policy-import {
description
"Operational state data for policy definitions";
}
grouping policy-definitions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for the policy definition list";
container policy-definitions {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of top-level policy
definitions";
list policy-definition {
key name;
description
"List of top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique
name. These policy definitions are expected to be
referenced (by name) in policy chains specified in import
or export configuration statements.";
leaf name {
type leafref {
path "../config/name";
}
description
"Reference to the list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy defintions";
uses policy-definitions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy definitions";
uses policy-definitions-config;
uses policy-definitions-state;
}
uses policy-statements-top;
}
}
}
grouping routing-policy-top {
description
"Top level container for OpenConfig routing policy";
container routing-policy {
description
"Top-level container for all routing policy configuration";
uses defined-sets-top;
uses policy-definitions-top;
}
}
grouping apply-policy-import-config {
description
"Configuration data
"Grouping for applying import policies";
leaf-list import-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/oc-rpol:policy-definitions/" "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
//TODO:
"rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list
"List of policy names in sequence to be applied on
receiving a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-import-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT_ROUTE; reject-route;
description
"explicitly
"Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the import policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-export-config apply-policy-export {
description
"Configuration data
"Grouping for applying export policies";
leaf-list export-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/oc-rpol:policy-definitions/" "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
//TODO:
"rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list
"List of policy names in sequence to be applied on
sending a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-export-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT_ROUTE; reject-route;
description
"explicitly
"Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the export policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-config apply-policy {
description
"Configuration data for routing policies";
uses apply-policy-import-config; apply-policy-import;
uses apply-policy-export-config;
}
grouping apply-policy-export;
container apply-policy-state {
description
"Operational state associated with routing policy";
//TODO: identify additional state data beyond the intended
//policy configuration.
}
}
grouping apply-policy-group {
description
"Top level container for routing policy applications. This
grouping is intended to be used in routing models where
needed.";
container apply-policy {
description
"Anchor point for routing policies in the model.
Import and export policies are with respect to the local
routing table, i.e., export (send) and import (receive),
depending on the context.";
container config {
description
"Policy configuration data.";
uses apply-policy-config; apply-policy;
}
}
container state routing-policy {
config false;
description
"Operational state
"Top-level container for all routing policy";
uses apply-policy-config;
uses apply-policy-state;
}
}
}
uses routing-policy-top;
}
<CODE ENDS>
9.2. Routing policy types
<CODE BEGINS> file "openconfig-policy-types.yang"
module openconfig-policy-types {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-policy-types";
prefix "oc-pol-types";
// import some basic types
import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; }
import openconfig-extensions
container defined-sets { prefix oc-ext; }
// meta
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
description
"This module contains general data definitions for use
"Predefined sets of attributes used in routing
policy. It can be imported by modules that contain protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions.";
oc-ext:openconfig-version "2.0.0";
revision "2016-03-28" {
description
"OpenConfig public release";
reference "2.0.0"; match
statements";
uses prefix-set-top;
uses neighbor-set-top;
uses tag-set-top;
}
// identity statements
identity ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON
container policy-definitions {
description
"base type
"Enclosing container for supported comparison operators on route
attributes";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_EQ {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description "== comparison";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_GE {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description ">= comparison";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_LE {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description "<= comparison";
}
typedef match-set-options-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
}
enum ALL {
description "match is true if given value matches all
members of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT {
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set";
}
typedef match-set-options-restricted-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member list of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT top-level policy
definitions";
list policy-definition {
key "name";
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set. Note this type is a
restricted version
"List of the match-set-options-type.";
//TODO: restriction on enumerated types is only allowed in
//YANG 1.1. Until then, we will require this additional type
}
grouping attribute-compare-operators {
description "common top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique
name. These policy definitions for comparison operations in
condition statements";
leaf operator {
type identityref {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
}
description
"type of comparison to be performed";
}
leaf value {
type uint32;
description
"value are expected to compare with the community count";
}
}
typedef tag-type {
type union {
type uint32;
type yang:hex-string;
}
description "type for expressing route tags on a local system,
including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal or
hexidecimal integer";
reference
"RFC 2178 OSPF Version 2
RFC 5130 A Policy Control Mechanism
referenced (by name) in IS-IS Using
Administrative Tags";
}
identity INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE {
description
"Base type for protocols which can install prefixes into the
RIB";
}
identity BGP {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "BGP";
reference "RFC 4271";
}
identity ISIS {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "IS-IS";
reference "ISO/IEC 10589";
}
identity OSPF {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "OSPFv2";
reference "RFC 2328";
}
identity OSPF3 {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "OSPFv3";
reference "RFC 5340";
}
identity STATIC {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "Locally-installed static route"; policy chains specified in import
or export configuration statements.";
uses policy-definitions;
uses policy-statements-top;
}
identity DIRECTLY_CONNECTED {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "A directly connected route";
}
identity LOCAL_AGGREGATE {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "Locally defined aggregate route";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
10. Policy examples
Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the
routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are
defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has
been simplified for readability.
<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<routing-policy xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">
<defined-sets>
<prefix-sets>
<prefix-set>
<prefix-set-name>prefix-set-A</prefix-set-name>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>24..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>10.0.0.0/16</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>16..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.168.0.0/19</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>19..24</masklength-range>
</prefix>
</prefix-set>
</prefix-sets>
<tag-sets>
<tag-set>
<tag-set-name>cust-tag1</tag-set-name>
<tag>
<value>10</value>
</tag>
</tag-set>
</tag-sets>
</defined-sets>
<policy-definitions>
<policy-definition>
<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>
<statements>
<statement>
<name>term-0</name>
<conditions>
<install-protocol-eq xmlns:ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">ns:OSPF3</install-protocol-eq>
<match-tag-set>
<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>
</match-tag-set>
</conditions>
<actions>
<accept-route />
</actions>
</statement>
</statements>
</policy-definition>
</policy-definitions>
</routing-policy>
</config>
<?yfile include="file:///tmp/routing-policy-example-draft.xml"?>
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC6020]
[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]
Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore
Architecture", draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-10
(work in progress), January 2018.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 6020,
October 2014. 3688, January
2004.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2014.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
July 2013.
[RFC3688] Mealling,
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The IETF XML Registry", YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 3688, January
2004. 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
11.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., Patel, K., Hares, S., D'Souza, K.,
Bansal, D., Clemm, A., Alex, Zhdankin, A., Jethanandani, M., and
X. Liu, "BGP Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling
of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-
netmod-opstate-01
ietf-idr-bgp-model-02 (work in progress), July 2015. 2016.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The routing policy module defined in this draft is based on the
OpenConfig route policy model. The authors would like to thank to
OpenConfig for their contributions, especially Rob Shakir, Kevin
D'Souza, and Chris Chase.
The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document
and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh
George, Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric
Osborne, Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, and Russ
White.
Appendix B. Change summary
B.1. Changes between revisions -01 and -02
Updated the model to use IETF modules and be NMDA compliant.
B.2. Changes between revisions -00 and -01
Updated policy model with additional condition for matching
interfaces.
B.2.
B.3. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model and -00
This revision updates the draft name to reflect adoption as a working
document in the RTGWG. Minor changes include updates to references
and updated author contact information.
Authors' Addresses
Yingzhen Qu
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara CA 95050
USA
Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Acee Lindem
Cisco
301 Mindenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
US
Email: acee@cisco.com
Xufeng Liu
Jabil
8281 Greensboro Drive, Suite 200
Mclean, VA 22102
US
Email: xufeng_liu@jabil.com
Anees Shaikh
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: aashaikh@google.com
Rob Shakir
Jive Communications, Inc.
1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
Email: rjs@rob.sh
Kevin D'Souza
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Ave
Middletown, NJ
US
Email: kd6913@att.com
Chris Chase
AT&T
9505 Arboretum Blvd
Austin, TX
US
Email: chase@labs.att.com