Diff: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15.txt - draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16.txt

	< draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15.txt	draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16.txt >

	RTGWG Y. Qu	RTGWG Y. Qu
	Internet-Draft Futurewei	Internet-Draft Futurewei
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura	Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura

	Expires: December 4, 2020 Apstra	Expires: December 20, 2020 Apstra
	A. Lindem	A. Lindem
	Cisco	Cisco
	X. Liu	X. Liu
	Volta Networks	Volta Networks

	June 2, 2020	June 18, 2020

	A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management	A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management

	draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-15	draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

	Abstract	Abstract

	This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing	This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
	routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual	routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
	operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework	operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework
	which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.	which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.

	Status of This Memo	Status of This Memo


	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.	Drafts is at https://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 December 4, 2020.	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2020.

	Copyright Notice	Copyright Notice

	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the	Copyright (c) 2020 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of	(https://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 30 ¶	skipping to change at page 2, line 30 ¶
	4.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8	4.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9	4.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10	5. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10	6. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11	7. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. YANG module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14	10. YANG module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15	10.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	11. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36	11. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37	12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39	12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

	1. Introduction	1. Introduction

	This document describes a YANG [RFC7950] data model for routing	This document describes a YANG [RFC7950] data model for routing
	policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in	policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in
	a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be	a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be
	vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage policy	vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage policy
	configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous	configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous
	environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.	environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.


	skipping to change at page 36, line 20 ¶	skipping to change at page 36, line 20 ¶
	been simplified for readability.	been simplified for readability.

	<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">	<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
	<routing-policy	<routing-policy
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">

	<defined-sets>	<defined-sets>
	<prefix-sets>	<prefix-sets>
	<prefix-set>	<prefix-set>
	<name>prefix-set-A</name>	<name>prefix-set-A</name>

		<mode>ipv4</mode>
	<prefixes>	<prefixes>
	<prefix-list>	<prefix-list>
	<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>	<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>
	<mask-length-lower>24</mask-length-lower>	<mask-length-lower>24</mask-length-lower>
	<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>	<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>
	</prefix-list>	</prefix-list>
	<prefix-list>	<prefix-list>
	<ip-prefix>10.0.0.0/16</ip-prefix>	<ip-prefix>10.0.0.0/16</ip-prefix>
	<mask-length-lower>16</mask-length-lower>	<mask-length-lower>16</mask-length-lower>
	<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>	<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>

	skipping to change at page 36, line 52 ¶	skipping to change at page 37, line 4 ¶
	<policy-definitions>	<policy-definitions>
	<policy-definition>	<policy-definition>
	<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>	<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>
	<statements>	<statements>
	<statement>	<statement>
	<name>term-0</name>	<name>term-0</name>
	<conditions>	<conditions>
	<match-tag-set>	<match-tag-set>
	<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>	<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>
	</match-tag-set>	</match-tag-set>


	</conditions>	</conditions>
	<actions>	<actions>
	<policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>	<policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
	</actions>	</actions>
	</statement>	</statement>
	</statements>	</statements>
	</policy-definition>	</policy-definition>
	</policy-definitions>	</policy-definitions>

	</routing-policy>	</routing-policy>
	</config>	</config>


		In the following example, all routes in the RIB that have been
		learned from OSPF advertisements corresponding to OSPF intra-area and
		inter-area route types should get advertised into ISIS level-2
		advertisements.

		<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
		<routing-policy
		xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">
		<policy-definitions>
		<policy-definition>
		<name>export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-ISIS-level-2</name>
		<statements>
		<statement>
		<name>term-0</name>
		<conditions>
		<match-route-type>ospf-internal-type</match-route-type>
		</conditions>
		<actions>
		<set-import-level>
		<import-level>isis-level-2</import-level>
		</set-import-level>
		<policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
		</actions>
		</statement>
		</statements>
		</policy-definition>
		</policy-definitions>
		</routing-policy>
		</config>

	12. References	12. References

	12.1. Normative references	12.1. Normative references

	[INTF-EXT-YANG]	[INTF-EXT-YANG]
	Wilton, R., Ball, D., tapsingh@cisco.com, t., and S.	Wilton, R., Ball, D., tapsingh@cisco.com, t., and S.
	Sivaraj,, "Common Interface Extension YANG Data Models",	Sivaraj,, "Common Interface Extension YANG Data Models",

	2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/	2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-
	draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/>.	intf-ext-yang/>.

	[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

	[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,	[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.


	skipping to change at page 39, line 21 ¶	skipping to change at page 40, line 12 ¶
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,	DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.

	[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol	[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
	Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,	Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

	[SUB-INTF-VLAN-YANG]	[SUB-INTF-VLAN-YANG]
	Wilton, R., Ball, D., tapsingh@cisco.com, t., and S.	Wilton, R., Ball, D., tapsingh@cisco.com, t., and S.
	Sivaraj, "Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Model", 2019,	Sivaraj, "Sub-interface VLAN YANG Data Model", 2019,

	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-sub-
	draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-model/>.	intf-vlan-model/>.

	12.2. Informative references	12.2. Informative references

	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
	Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "BGP	Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "BGP
	YANG Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-ietf-idr-	YANG Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-ietf-idr-
	bgp-model-08 (work in progress), February 2020.	bgp-model-08 (work in progress), February 2020.

	Appendix A. Acknowledgements	Appendix A. Acknowledgements


End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted	45 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/