| < draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-00.txt | draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group D. Kumar | Network Working Group D. Kumar | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco | Internet-Draft Cisco | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track M. Wang | Intended status: Standards Track M. Wang | |||
| Expires: March 15, 2017 Q. Wu | Expires: April 23, 2017 Q. Wu | |||
| Huawei | Huawei | |||
| R. Rahman | R. Rahman | |||
| S. Raghavan | S. Raghavan | |||
| Cisco | Cisco | |||
| September 11, 2016 | October 20, 2016 | |||
| Generic YANG Data Model for Connection Less Operations, Administration, | Generic YANG Data Model for Connection Less Operations, Administration, | |||
| and Maintenance(OAM) protocols | and Maintenance(OAM) protocols | |||
| draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-00 | draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-01 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document presents a base YANG Data model for connectionless OAM | This document presents a base YANG Data model for connectionless OAM | |||
| protocols. It provides a technology-independent abstraction of key | protocols. It provides a technology-independent abstraction of key | |||
| OAM constructs for connectionless protocols. The Based model | OAM constructs for connectionless protocols. The Based model | |||
| presented here can be extended to include technology specific | presented here can be extended to include technology specific | |||
| details. This is leading to uniformity between OAM protocols and | details. This is leading to uniformity between OAM protocols and | |||
| support nested OAM workflows (i.e., performing OAM functions at | support nested OAM workflows (i.e., performing OAM functions at | |||
| different or same levels through a unified interface). | different or same levels through a unified interface). | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2017. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2017. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶ | |||
| 3.2. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.3. OAM-layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.3. OAM-layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.4. Test Point Locations Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.4. Test Point Locations Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.5. Test Point Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.5. Test Point Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.6. Path Discovery Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.6. Path Discovery Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 3.7. Continuity Check Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.7. Continuity Check Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 3.8. RPC definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.8. RPC definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 3.9. Relation with other OAM YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.9. Relation with other OAM YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 3.10. OAM data hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.10. OAM data hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 4. OAM YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 4. OAM YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | 5. CL model applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | 5.1. BFD Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | |||
| 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | 5.1.1. technology type extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | 5.1.2. test point attributes extension . . . . . . . . . . . 60 | |||
| 5.2. LSP ping extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | ||||
| 5.2.1. technology type extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 | ||||
| 5.2.2. test point attributes extension . . . . . . . . . . . 63 | ||||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | ||||
| 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) are important | Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) are important | |||
| networking functions that allow operators to: | networking functions that allow operators to: | |||
| 1. Monitor networks connections (Reachability Verification, | 1. Monitor networks connections (Reachability Verification, | |||
| Continuity Check). | Continuity Check). | |||
| 2. Troubleshoot failures (Fault verification and localization). | 2. Troubleshoot failures (Fault verification and localization). | |||
| skipping to change at page 59, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 59, line 13 ¶ | |||
| uses coam:path-discovery-data; | uses coam:path-discovery-data; | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| YANG module of OAM | YANG module of OAM | |||
| <CODE ENDS> | <CODE ENDS> | |||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. CL model applicability | |||
| ietf-connectionless-oam model defined in this document provides | ||||
| technology-independent abstraction of key OAM constructs for | ||||
| connectionless protocols. This model can be further extended to | ||||
| include technology specific details, e.g., adding new data nodes with | ||||
| technology specific functions and parameters into proper anchor | ||||
| points of the base model, so as to develop a technology-specific | ||||
| connectionless OAM model. | ||||
| This section demonstrates the usability of the connectionless YANG | ||||
| OAM data model to various connectionless OAM technologies, e.g., BFD, | ||||
| LSP ping. Note that, in this section, we only present several | ||||
| snippets of technology-specific model extensions for illustrative | ||||
| purposes. The complete model extensions should be worked on in | ||||
| respective protocol working groups. | ||||
| 5.1. BFD Extension | ||||
| The following sections shows how the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model | ||||
| can be extended to cover BFD technology. For this purpose, a set of | ||||
| extension are introduced such as technology-type extension and test- | ||||
| point attributes extension. | ||||
| Note that in BFD WG, there is a BFD yang data model | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] to be produced. Users can choose to use both BFD | ||||
| model and "ietf-connectioless-oam" as basis and augment the "ietf- | ||||
| connectionless-oam" model with bfd specific details. The bfd | ||||
| specific details can be the grouping defined in the BFD model. | ||||
| 5.1.1. technology type extension | ||||
| No BFD technology type has been defined in the "ietf-connectionless- | ||||
| oam" model. Therefore a technology type extension is required in the | ||||
| LIME BFD model. | ||||
| The snippet below depicts an example of augmenting "bfd" type into | ||||
| the ietf-connectionless-oam": | ||||
| augment "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/" | ||||
| +"coam:location-type/coam:ipv4-location-type" | ||||
| +"/coam:test-point-ipv4-location-list/" | ||||
| +"coam:test-point-locations/coam:technology" | ||||
| +"/coam:technology-string" | ||||
| { | ||||
| leaf bfd{ | ||||
| type string; | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| 5.1.2. test point attributes extension | ||||
| To derive a model for bfd technology, the "ietf-connectionless-oam" | ||||
| model can be extended. Some data nodes for bfd specific parameters | ||||
| can be defined and inserted into the proper "test-point-location" | ||||
| list. Or some new "location-type" cases can be added to support the | ||||
| some bfd technologies such as "bfd over MPLS-TE", etc. | ||||
| 5.1.2.1. Define and insert new nodes into corresponding test-point- | ||||
| location | ||||
| In the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model, multiple "test-point- | ||||
| location" lists are defined under the "location-type" choice node. | ||||
| Therefore, to derive model for some bfd technologies( such as ip | ||||
| single-hop, ip multi-hops, etc), data nodes for bfd specific details | ||||
| can be defined and inserted into corresponding "test-point-locations" | ||||
| list. In this section, we reuse some groupings which are defined in | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] to derive following example. | ||||
| The snippet below shows how the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model can | ||||
| be extended to "BFD IP single-hop": | ||||
| augment "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/" | ||||
| +"coam:location-type/coam:ipv4-location-type" | ||||
| +"/coam:test-point-ipv4-location-list/" | ||||
| +"coam:test-point-locations" | ||||
| { | ||||
| container session-cfg { | ||||
| description "BFD IP single-hop session configuration"; | ||||
| list sessions { | ||||
| key "interface dest-addr"; | ||||
| description "List of IP single-hop sessions"; | ||||
| leaf interface { | ||||
| type if:interface-ref; | ||||
| description | ||||
| "Interface on which the BFD session is running."; | ||||
| } | ||||
| leaf dest-addr { | ||||
| type inet:ip-address; | ||||
| description "IP address of the peer"; | ||||
| } | ||||
| uses bfd:bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms; | ||||
| uses bfd:bfd-grouping-echo-cfg-parms; | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| Edit note: To prevent new attribute to be defined in the CL extension | ||||
| model,[I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] should define the attributes that are used | ||||
| by CL model as grouping, then CL extension model can reuse these | ||||
| grouping. We will make accordingly change when these grouping are | ||||
| available in the BFD model. | ||||
| Similar augmentations can be defined to support other BFD | ||||
| technologies such as BFD IP multi-hop, BFD over MPLS, etc. | ||||
| 5.1.2.2. Add new location-type cases | ||||
| In the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model, If no a proper "test-point- | ||||
| locations" can be extended, new "location-type" cases can be defined | ||||
| and inserted into the "location-type" choice node. | ||||
| Therefore, the model user can flexible add "location-type" to support | ||||
| other kinds of test point which are not defined in the "ietf- | ||||
| connectionless-oam" model. In this section, we add a new "location- | ||||
| type" case and reuse some groupings which are defined in | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] to derive the following example. | ||||
| The snippet below shows how the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model can | ||||
| be extended to "BFD over MPLS-TE": | ||||
| augment "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/coam:location-type"{ | ||||
| case te-location{ | ||||
| list test-point-location-list{ | ||||
| key "tunnel-name"; | ||||
| leaf tunnel-name{ | ||||
| type leafref{ | ||||
| path "/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel/te:name"; | ||||
| } | ||||
| description | ||||
| "point to a te instance."; | ||||
| } | ||||
| uses bfd:bfd-grouping-common-cfg-parms; | ||||
| uses bfd-mpls:bfd-encap-cfg; | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| Similar augmentations can be defined to support other BFD | ||||
| technologies such as BFD over LAG, etc. | ||||
| 5.2. LSP ping extension | ||||
| The following sections shows how the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model | ||||
| can be extended to cover LSP ping technology. For this purpose, a | ||||
| set of extension are introduced such as technology-type extension and | ||||
| test-point attributes extension. | ||||
| Note that in MPLS WG, there is a LSP Ping yang data model | ||||
| [I-D.draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg] to be produced. Users can | ||||
| choose to use both LSP Ping model and "ietf-connectioless-oam" as | ||||
| basis and augment the "ietf-connectionless-oam" model with LSP Ping | ||||
| specific details. The LSP Ping specific details can be the grouping | ||||
| defined in the LSP ping model. | ||||
| 5.2.1. technology type extension | ||||
| No lsp-ping technology type has been defined in the "ietf- | ||||
| connectionless-oam" model. Therefore a technology type extension is | ||||
| required in the LIME LSP ping model. | ||||
| The snippet below depicts an example of augmenting "lsp-ping" type | ||||
| into the "ietf-connectionless-oam": | ||||
| augment "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/" | ||||
| +"coam:location-type/coam:ipv4-location-type" | ||||
| +"/coam:test-point-ipv4-location-list/" | ||||
| +"coam:test-point-locations/coam:technology" | ||||
| +"/coam:technology-string" | ||||
| { | ||||
| leaf lsp-ping{ | ||||
| type string; | ||||
| } | ||||
| } | ||||
| 5.2.2. test point attributes extension | ||||
| In order to derive a model for lsp-ping, the "ietf-connectionless- | ||||
| oam" model can be extended. Some data nodes for lsp-ping specific | ||||
| parameters can be defined and inserted into the proper "test-point- | ||||
| location" list. | ||||
| User can reuse the attributes or groupings which are defined in | ||||
| [I-D.draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg] to derive the "lime lsp | ||||
| ping" model. | ||||
| The snippet below depicts an example of augmenting lsp ping | ||||
| attributes into the "test-point-locations" list: | ||||
| augment "/nd:networks/nd:network/nd:node/" | ||||
| +"coam:location-type/coam:ipv4-location-type" | ||||
| +"/coam:test-point-ipv4-location-list/" | ||||
| +"coam:test-point-locations" | ||||
| { | ||||
| list lsp-ping { | ||||
| key "lsp-ping-name"; | ||||
| leaf lsp-ping-name { | ||||
| type string { | ||||
| length "1..31"; | ||||
| } | ||||
| mandatory "true"; | ||||
| description "LSP Ping test name."; | ||||
| ...... | ||||
| } | ||||
| Edit note: To prevent new attribute to be defined in the CL extension | ||||
| model,[I-D.draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg] should define the | ||||
| attributes that are used by CL model as grouping, then CL extension | ||||
| model can reuse these grouping. We will make accordingly change when | ||||
| these grouping are available in the LSP ping model. | ||||
| 6. Security Considerations | ||||
| TBD. | TBD. | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688] | This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688] | |||
| [RFC3688]. Following the format in RFC 3688, the following | [RFC3688]. Following the format in RFC 3688, the following | |||
| registration is requested to be made: | registration is requested to be made: | |||
| URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam | URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam | |||
| Registrant Contact: The IESG. | Registrant Contact: The IESG. | |||
| XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. | XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. | |||
| This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names | This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names | |||
| registry [RFC6020]. | registry [RFC6020]. | |||
| name: ietf-connectionless-oam namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam | name: ietf-connectionless-oam namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam | |||
| prefix: goam reference: RFC XXXX | prefix: goam reference: RFC XXXX | |||
| 7. Normative References | 8. Normative References | |||
| [I-D.draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo] | [I-D.draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo] | |||
| Clemm, A., Medved, J., Tkacik, T., Varga, R., Bahadur, N., | Clemm, A., Medved, J., Tkacik, T., Varga, R., Bahadur, N., | |||
| Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for | Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for | |||
| Network Topologies", I-D draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network- | Network Topologies", I-D draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network- | |||
| topo-05, July 2016. | topo-05, July 2016. | |||
| [I-D.draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg] | ||||
| Zheng, L., Aldrin, S., Zheng, G., Mirsky, G., and R. | ||||
| Rahman, "Yang Data Model for LSP-PING", I-D draft-zheng- | ||||
| mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg-03, March 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] | ||||
| Zheng, L., Rahman, R., Networks, J., Jethanandani, M., and | ||||
| G. Mirsky, "Yang Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding | ||||
| Detection (BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-yang-03 (work in | ||||
| progress), July 2016. | ||||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for | [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for | |||
| the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, | the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>. | |||
| End of changes. 9 change blocks. | ||||
| 11 lines changed or deleted | 241 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||