| < draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-19.txt | draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-20.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| skipping to change at page 1, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 14 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Draft Futurewei | Internet-Draft Futurewei | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura | Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura | |||
| Expires: February 18, 2021 Apstra | Expires: February 18, 2021 Apstra | |||
| A. Lindem | A. Lindem | |||
| Cisco | Cisco | |||
| X. Liu | X. Liu | |||
| Volta Networks | Volta Networks | |||
| August 17, 2020 | August 17, 2020 | |||
| A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management | A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management | |||
| draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-19 | draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-20 | |||
| 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 5, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | |||
| [RFC8340]. | [RFC8340]. | |||
| 2.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names | 2.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names | |||
| In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model | In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model | |||
| objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from | 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, | the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, | |||
| names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the | names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the | |||
| corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. | corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. | |||
| +------------+--------------------+----------------------+ | +---------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ | |||
| | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | | | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | | |||
| +------------+--------------------+----------------------+ | +---------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ | |||
| | if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] | | | if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | rt | ietf-routing | [RFC8349] | | | rt | ietf-routing | [RFC8349] | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | | | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | | | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | if-ext | ietf-if-extensions | [INTF-EXT-YANG] | | | if-ext | ietf-if-extensions | [INTF-EXT-YANG] | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | if-l3-vlan | ietf-if-l3-vlan | [SUB-INTF-VLAN-YANG] | | | if-flex | ietf-if-flexible-encapsulation | [SUB-INTF-VLAN-YANG] | | |||
| +------------+--------------------+----------------------+ | +---------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ | |||
| Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules | Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules | |||
| 3. Model overview | 3. Model overview | |||
| The routing policy module has three main parts: | The routing policy module has three main parts: | |||
| o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related | o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related | |||
| conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that | conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that | |||
| are useful across many routing protocols. | are useful across many routing protocols. | |||
| skipping to change at page 36, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 36, line 18 ¶ | |||
| description | description | |||
| "Set the application tag for the route."; | "Set the application tag for the route."; | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| } | } | |||
| <CODE ENDS> | CODE ENDS> | |||
| 11. Policy examples | 11. Policy examples | |||
| Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the | Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the | |||
| routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are | routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are | |||
| defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has | defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has | |||
| 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 | |||
| End of changes. 3 change blocks. | ||||
| 17 lines changed or deleted | 17 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/ | ||||