idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 777 has weird spacing: '...-family ide...' == Line 811 has weird spacing: '...rotocol ide...' == Line 821 has weird spacing: '...ro type ide...' == Line 822 has weird spacing: '...ro name str...' == Line 826 has weird spacing: '...-family ide...' == (1 more instance...) == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 25, 2020) is 1401 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5714 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Lindem 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track Y. Qu 5 Expires: December 27, 2020 Futurewei 6 June 25, 2020 8 RIB YANG Data Model 9 draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-04 11 Abstract 13 The Routing Information Base (RIB) is a list of routes and their 14 corresponding administrative data and operational state. 16 RFC 8349 defines the basic building blocks for RIB, and this model 17 augments it to support multiple next-hops (aka, paths) for each route 18 as well as additional attributes. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2020. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.1. Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Design of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.1. RIB Tags and Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Multiple next-hops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.3. Repair path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. RIB Model Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. RIB YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 66 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 67 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 68 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 69 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 70 Appendix A. Combined Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 71 Appendix B. ietf-rib-extension.yang example . . . . . . . . . . 20 72 Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 75 1. Introduction 77 This document defines a YANG, [RFC6020][RFC7950], data model which 78 extends the generic data model for RIB by augmenting the ietf-routing 79 model as defined in [RFC8349]. 81 RIB is a collection of best routes from all routing protocols. 82 Within a protocol routes are selected based on the metrics in use by 83 that protocol, and the protocol install its best routes to RIB. RIB 84 selects the best route by comparing the route preference (aka, 85 administrative distance) of the associated protocol. 87 The augmentations described herein extend the RIB to support multiple 88 paths per route, route metrics, and administrative tags. 90 The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management 91 Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. 93 2. Terminology and Notation 95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 97 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 98 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 99 capitals, as shown here. 101 The following terms are defined in [RFC8342]: 103 o client 105 o server 107 o configuration 109 o system state 111 o operational state 113 o intended configuration 115 The following terms are defined in [RFC7950]: 117 o action 119 o augment 121 o container 123 o container with presence 125 o data model 127 o data node 129 o feature 131 o leaf 133 o list 135 o mandatory node 137 o module 139 o schema tree 140 o RPC (Remote Procedure Call) operation 142 2.1. Glossary of New Terms 144 Routing Information Base (RIB): An object containing a list of 145 routes, together with other information. See [RFC8349] 146 Section 5.2 for details. 148 2.2. Tree Diagrams 150 Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in 151 [RFC8340]. 153 2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names 155 In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model 156 objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from 157 the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, 158 names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the 159 corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. 161 +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ 162 | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | 163 +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ 164 | if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] | 165 | | | | 166 | rt | ietf-routing | [RFC8349] | 167 | | | | 168 | v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | [RFC8349] | 169 | | | | 170 | v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | [RFC8349] | 171 | | | | 172 | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | 173 +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ 175 Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules 177 3. Design of the Model 179 The YANG definitions in this document augment the ietf-routing model 180 defined in [RFC8349], which provides a basis for routing system data 181 model development. Together with modules defined in [RFC8349], a 182 generic RIB Yang model is defined to implement and monitor a RIB. 184 The models in [RFC8349] also define the basic configuration and 185 operational state for both IPv4 and IPv6 static routes and this 186 document also provides augmentations for static routes to support 187 multiple next-hop and more next-hop attributes. 189 3.1. RIB Tags and Preference 191 Individual routes tags will be supported at both the route and next- 192 hop level. A preference per next-hop is also supported for selection 193 of the most preferred reachable static route. 195 3.2. Multiple next-hops 197 Both Ipv4 and IPv6 static route configuration defined in [RFC8349] 198 have been augmented with a multi-next-hop option. 200 A static route/prefix can be configured to have multiple next-hops, 201 each with their own tag and route preference. 203 In RIB, a route may have multiple next-hops. They can be either 204 equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), or they may have different metrics. 206 3.3. Repair path 208 The IP Fast Reroute (IPFRR) pre-computes repair paths by routing 209 protocols [RFC5714], and the best repair path is installed in RIB. 211 A repair path is augmented in RIB operation state for each path. 213 4. RIB Model Tree 215 The tree associated with the "ietf-rib-extension" module follows. 216 The meaning of the symbols can be found in [RFC8340]. The ietf- 217 routing.yang tree with the augmentations herein is included in 218 Appendix A. 220 module: ietf-rib-extension 221 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 222 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4 223 /v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options 224 /v4ur:simple-next-hop: 225 +--rw preference? uint32 226 +--rw tag? uint32 227 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 228 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4 229 /v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options 230 /v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop: 231 +--rw preference? uint32 232 +--rw tag? uint32 233 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 234 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6 235 /v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options 236 /v6ur:simple-next-hop: 238 +--rw preference? uint32 239 +--rw tag? uint32 240 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 241 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6 242 /v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options 243 /v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop: 244 +--rw preference? uint32 245 +--rw tag? uint32 246 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib: 247 +--ro rib-summary-statistics 248 +--ro total-routes? uint32 249 +--ro total-active-routes? uint32 250 +--ro total-route-memory? uint64 251 +--ro protocol-rib-statistics* [] 252 +--ro rib-protocol? identityref 253 +--ro protocol-total-routes? uint32 254 +--ro protocol-active-routes? uint32 255 +--ro protocol-route-memory? uint64 256 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route: 257 +--ro metric? uint32 258 +--ro tag? uint32 259 +--ro application-tag? uint32 260 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route 261 /rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop: 262 +--ro repair-path 263 +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref 264 +--ro next-hop-address? inet:ip-address 265 +--ro metric? uint32 266 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route 267 /rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:special-next-hop: 268 +--ro repair-path 269 +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref 270 +--ro next-hop-address? inet:ip-address 271 +--ro metric? uint32 272 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route 273 /rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list 274 /rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop: 275 +--ro repair-path 276 +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref 277 +--ro next-hop-address? inet:ip-address 278 +--ro metric? uint32 280 5. RIB YANG Model 282 file "ietf-rib-extension@2020-06-25.yang" 283 module ietf-rib-extension { 284 yang-version "1.1"; 285 namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension"; 286 prefix rib-ext; 288 import ietf-inet-types { 289 prefix "inet"; 290 } 292 import ietf-interfaces { 293 prefix "if"; 294 } 296 import ietf-routing { 297 prefix "rt"; 298 } 300 import ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing { 301 prefix "v4ur"; 302 } 304 import ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing { 305 prefix "v6ur"; 306 } 308 organization 309 "IETF RTGWG - Routing Working Group"; 311 contact 312 "WG Web: 313 WG List: 315 Author: Acee Lindem 316 317 Author: Yingzhen Qu 318 "; 320 description 321 "This YANG module extends the generic data model for 322 RIB by augmenting the ietf-netmod-routing-cfg 323 model. It is intended that the module will be extended 324 by vendors to define vendor-specific RIB parameters. 326 This YANG model conforms to the Network Management 327 Datastore Architecture (NDMA) as described in RFC 8242. 329 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as 330 authors of the code. All rights reserved. 332 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or 333 without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject 334 to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License 335 set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 336 Relating to IETF Documents 337 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 339 This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; 340 see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; 342 revision 2020-06-25 { 343 description 344 "Initial RFC Version"; 345 reference 346 "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for RIB Extensions."; 347 } 349 /* Groupings */ 350 grouping rib-statistics { 351 description "Statistics grouping used for RIB augmentation"; 352 container rib-summary-statistics { 353 config false; 354 description "Container for RIB statistics"; 355 leaf total-routes { 356 type uint32; 357 description 358 "Total routes in the RIB from all protocols"; 359 } 360 leaf total-active-routes { 361 type uint32; 362 description 363 "Total active routes in the RIB"; 364 } 365 leaf total-route-memory { 366 type uint64; 367 description 368 "Total memory for all routes in the RIB from all 369 protocol clients"; 370 } 371 list protocol-rib-statistics { 372 description "List protocol statistics"; 373 leaf rib-protocol { 374 type identityref { 375 base rt:routing-protocol; 376 } 377 description "Routing protocol for statistics"; 378 } 379 leaf protocol-total-routes { 380 type uint32; 381 description 382 "Total number routes for protocol in the RIB"; 383 } 384 leaf protocol-active-routes { 385 type uint32; 386 description 387 "Number active routes for protocol in the RIB"; 388 } 389 leaf protocol-route-memory { 390 type uint64; 391 description 392 "Total memory for all routes in the RIB for protocol"; 393 } 394 } 395 } 396 } 398 grouping next-hop { 399 description 400 "Next-hop grouping"; 401 leaf interface { 402 type if:interface-ref; 403 description 404 "Outgoing interface"; 405 } 406 leaf address { 407 type inet:ip-address; 408 description 409 "IPv4 or IPv6 Address of the next-hop"; 410 } 411 } 413 grouping attributes { 414 description 415 "Common attributes applicable to all paths"; 416 leaf metric { 417 type uint32; 418 description 419 "The metric is a numeric value that indicating the 420 cost of the route from the perspective of the routing 421 protocol installing the route. In general, routes with 422 a lower metric installed by the same routing protocol 423 are lower cost to reach and are preferable to routes 424 with a higher metric. However, metrics from different 425 routing protocols are not directly comparable."; 426 } 427 leaf tag { 428 type uint32; 429 description 430 "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate with the 431 route that can be used for policy decisions such as 432 advertisement and filtering of the route."; 433 } 434 leaf application-tag { 435 type uint32; 436 description 437 "The application-specific tag is an additional tag that 438 can be used applications that require semantics and/or 439 policy different from that of the tag. For example, 440 the tag is usually automatically advertised in OSPF 441 AS-External Link State Advertisements (LSAs) while this 442 application-specific tag is not advertised implicitly."; 443 } 444 } 445 grouping repair-path { 446 container repair-path { 447 description 448 "IP Fast Reroute next-hop repair path"; 449 leaf outgoing-interface { 450 type if:interface-state-ref; 451 description 452 "Name of the outgoing interface."; 453 } 454 leaf next-hop-address { 455 type inet:ip-address; 456 description 457 "IP address of the next hop."; 458 } 459 leaf metric { 460 type uint32; 461 description 462 "The metric for the repair path. While the IP Fast 463 Reroute re-route repair is local and the metric is 464 not advertised externally, the metric for repair path 465 is useful for troubleshooting purposes."; 466 } 467 reference 468 "RFC 5714: IP Fast Reroute Framework."; 469 } 470 } 472 augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" 473 + "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4/" 474 + "v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options/" 475 + "v4ur:simple-next-hop" 476 { 477 description 478 "Augment 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv4 unicast route."; 479 leaf preference { 480 type uint32; 481 default "1"; 482 description 483 "The preference is used to select among multiple static 484 routes, Routes with a lower preference next-hop are 485 preferred and equal preference routes result in 486 Equal-Cost-Mult-Path (ECMP) static routes."; 487 } 488 leaf tag { 489 type uint32; 490 default "0"; 491 description 492 "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate with the 493 route that can be used for policy decisions such as 494 advertisement and filtering of the route."; 495 } 496 } 498 augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" 499 + "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4/" 500 + "v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options/" 501 + "v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop" 502 { 503 description 504 "Augment static route configuration 'next-hop-list'."; 506 leaf preference { 507 type uint32; 508 default "1"; 509 description 510 "The preference is used to select among multiple static 511 routes, Routes with a lower preference next-hop are 512 preferred and equal preference routes result in 513 Equal-Cost-Mult-Path (ECMP) static routes."; 514 } 515 leaf tag { 516 type uint32; 517 default "0"; 518 description 519 "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate with the 520 route that can be used for policy decisions such as 521 advertisement and filtering of the route."; 522 } 523 } 525 augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" 526 + "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6/" 527 + "v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options/" 528 + "v6ur:simple-next-hop" 529 { 530 description 531 "Augment 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv6 unicast route."; 532 leaf preference { 533 type uint32; 534 default "1"; 535 description 536 "The preference is used to select among multiple static 537 routes, Routes with a lower preference next-hop are 538 preferred and equal preference routes result in 539 Equal-Cost-Mult-Path (ECMP) static routes."; 540 } 541 leaf tag { 542 type uint32; 543 default "0"; 544 description 545 "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate with the 546 route that can be used for policy decisions such as 547 advertisement and filtering of the route."; 548 } 549 } 551 augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/" 552 + "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6/" 553 + "v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options/" 554 + "v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop" 555 { 556 description 557 "Augment static route configuration 'next-hop-list'."; 559 leaf preference { 560 type uint32; 561 default "1"; 562 description 563 "The preference is used to select among multiple static 564 routes, Routes with a lower preference next-hop are 565 preferred and equal preference routes result in 566 Equal-Cost-Mult-Path (ECMP) static routes."; 567 } 568 leaf tag { 569 type uint32; 570 default "0"; 571 description 572 "The tag is a 32-bit opaque value associate with the 573 route that can be used for policy decisions such as 574 advertisement and filtering of the route."; 575 } 576 } 578 augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib" 579 { 580 description "Augment a RIB with statistics"; 581 uses rib-statistics; 582 } 584 augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" 585 + "rt:routes/rt:route" 586 { 587 description 588 "Augment a route in RIB with tag."; 589 uses attributes; 590 } 592 augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" 593 + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" 594 + "rt:simple-next-hop" 595 { 596 description 597 "Add more parameters to a path."; 598 uses repair-path; 599 } 601 augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" 602 + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" 603 + "rt:special-next-hop" 604 { 605 description 606 "Add more parameters to a path."; 607 uses repair-path; 608 } 610 augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" 611 + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" 612 + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" 613 { 614 description 615 "This case augments the 'next-hop-options' in the routing 616 model."; 617 uses repair-path; 618 } 619 } 620 622 6. Security Considerations 624 The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data 625 that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such 626 as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer 627 is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure 628 transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer 629 is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS 630 [RFC5246]. 632 The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to 633 restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a pre- 634 configured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol 635 operations and content. 637 There are a number of data nodes defined in ietf-rib-extensions.yang 638 module that are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, 639 which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive 640 or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., 641 edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection can have a 642 negative effect on network operations. For these augmentations to 643 ietf-routing.yang, the ability to delete, add, and modify IPv4 and 644 IPv6 static routes would allow traffic to be misrouted. 646 Some of the readable data nodes in the ietf-rib-extensions.yang 647 module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network 648 environments. It is thus important to control read access (e.g., via 649 get, get-config, or notification) to these data nodes. The exposure 650 of the Routing Information Base (RIB) will expose the routing 651 topology of the network. This may be undesirable since both due to 652 the fact that exposure may facilitate other attacks. Additionally, 653 network operators may consider their topologies to be sensitive 654 confidential data. 656 All the security considerations for [RFC8349] writable and readable 657 data nodes apply to the augmentations described herein. 659 7. IANA Considerations 661 This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry 662 [XML-REGISTRY]. Following the format in [RFC3688], the following 663 registration is requested to be made: 665 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib-extension 667 Registrant Contact: The IESG. 669 XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. 671 This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names 672 registry [RFC6020]. 674 name: ietf-acl namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-rib- 675 extension prefix: ietf-rib-ext reference: RFC XXXX 677 8. References 679 8.1. Normative References 681 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 682 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 683 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 684 . 686 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 687 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 688 . 690 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 691 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 692 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 693 . 695 [RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", 696 RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010, 697 . 699 [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for 700 the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, 701 DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, 702 . 704 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., 705 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol 706 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, 707 . 709 [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure 710 Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, 711 . 713 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 714 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 715 . 717 [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", 718 RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, 719 . 721 [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF 722 Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, 723 . 725 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 726 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 727 May 2017, . 729 [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration 730 Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, 731 DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, 732 . 734 [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., 735 and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture 736 (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, 737 . 739 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 740 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, 741 . 743 [RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for 744 Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349, 745 DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018, 746 . 748 8.2. Informative References 750 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", 751 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, 752 . 754 [XML-REGISTRY] 755 Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, January 756 2004. 758 Appendix A. Combined Tree Diagram 760 This appendix includes the combined ietf-routing.yang and ietf-rib- 761 extensions.yang tree diagram. 763 module: ietf-routing 764 +--rw routing 765 | +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad 766 | +--ro interfaces 767 | | +--ro interface* if:interface-ref 768 | +--rw control-plane-protocols 769 | | +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name] 770 | | +--rw type identityref 771 | | +--rw name string 772 | | +--rw description? string 773 | | +--rw static-routes 774 | +--rw ribs 775 | +--rw rib* [name] 776 | +--rw name string 777 | +--rw address-family identityref 778 | +--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}? 779 | +--ro routes 780 | | +--ro route* [] 781 | | +--ro route-preference? route-preference 782 | | +--ro next-hop 783 | | | +--ro (next-hop-options) 784 | | | +--:(simple-next-hop) 785 | | | | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref 786 | | | +--:(special-next-hop) 787 | | | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration 788 | | | +--:(next-hop-list) 789 | | | +--ro next-hop-list 790 | | | +--ro next-hop* [] 791 | | | +--ro outgoing-interface? 792 | | | if:interface-ref 793 | | +--ro source-protocol identityref 794 | | +--ro active? empty 795 | | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time 796 | +---x active-route 797 | | +--ro output 798 | | +--ro route 799 | | +--ro next-hop 800 | | | +--ro (next-hop-options) 801 | | | +--:(simple-next-hop) 802 | | | | +--ro outgoing-interface? 803 | | | | if:interface-ref 804 | | | +--:(special-next-hop) 805 | | | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration 806 | | | +--:(next-hop-list) 807 | | | +--ro next-hop-list 808 | | | +--ro next-hop* [] 809 | | | +--ro outgoing-interface? 810 | | | if:interface-ref 811 | | +--ro source-protocol identityref 812 | | +--ro active? empty 813 | | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time 814 | +--rw description? string 815 o--ro routing-state 816 +--ro router-id? yang:dotted-quad 817 o--ro interfaces 818 | o--ro interface* if:interface-state-ref 819 o--ro control-plane-protocols 820 | o--ro control-plane-protocol* [type name] 821 | o--ro type identityref 822 | o--ro name string 823 o--ro ribs 824 o--ro rib* [name] 825 o--ro name string 826 +--ro address-family identityref 827 o--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}? 828 o--ro routes 829 | o--ro route* [] 830 | o--ro route-preference? route-preference 831 | o--ro next-hop 832 | | +--ro (next-hop-options) 833 | | +--:(simple-next-hop) 834 | | | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref 835 | | +--:(special-next-hop) 836 | | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration 837 | | +--:(next-hop-list) 838 | | +--ro next-hop-list 839 | | +--ro next-hop* [] 840 | | +--ro outgoing-interface? 841 | | if:interface-ref 842 | +--ro source-protocol identityref 843 | +--ro active? empty 844 | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time 845 o---x active-route 846 +--ro output 847 o--ro route 848 o--ro next-hop 849 | +--ro (next-hop-options) 850 | +--:(simple-next-hop) 851 | | +--ro outgoing-interface? 852 | | if:interface-ref 853 | +--:(special-next-hop) 854 | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration 855 | +--:(next-hop-list) 856 | +--ro next-hop-list 857 | +--ro next-hop* [] 858 | +--ro outgoing-interface? 859 | if:interface-ref 860 +--ro source-protocol identityref 861 +--ro active? empty 862 +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time 864 module: ietf-rib-extension 865 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 866 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4 867 /v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options 868 /v4ur:simple-next-hop: 869 +--rw preference? uint32 870 +--rw tag? uint32 871 +--rw application-tag? uint32 872 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 873 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v4ur:ipv4 874 /v4ur:route/v4ur:next-hop/v4ur:next-hop-options 875 /v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop-list/v4ur:next-hop: 876 +--rw preference? uint32 877 +--rw tag? uint32 878 +--rw application-tag? uint32 879 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 880 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6 881 /v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options 882 /v6ur:simple-next-hop: 883 +--rw preference? uint32 884 +--rw tag? uint32 885 +--rw application-tag? uint32 886 augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols 887 /rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes/v6ur:ipv6 888 /v6ur:route/v6ur:next-hop/v6ur:next-hop-options 889 /v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop-list/v6ur:next-hop: 890 +--rw preference? uint32 891 +--rw tag? uint32 892 +--rw application-tag? uint32 893 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib: 894 +--ro rib-summary-statistics 895 +--ro total-routes? uint32 896 +--ro total-active-routes? uint32 897 +--ro total-route-memory? uint64 898 +--ro protocol-rib-statistics* [] 899 +--ro rib-protocol? identityref 900 +--ro protocol-total-routes? uint32 901 +--ro protocol-active-routes? uint32 902 +--ro protocol-route-memory? uint64 903 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route: 904 +--ro metric? uint32 905 +--ro tag? uint32 906 +--ro application-tag? uint32 907 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes: 908 +--ro repair-route* [id] 909 +--ro id string 910 +--ro next-hop 911 | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref 912 | +--ro next-hop-address? inet:ip-address 913 +--ro metric? uint32 914 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop 915 /rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop: 916 +--ro repair-path? -> /rt:routing/ribs/rib/routes/repair-route/id 917 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop 918 /rt:next-hop-options/rt:special-next-hop: 919 +--ro repair-path? -> /rt:routing/ribs/rib/routes/repair-route/id 920 augment /rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop 921 /rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list 922 /rt:next-hop: 923 +--ro repair-path? -> /rt:routing/ribs/rib/routes/repair-route/id 925 Appendix B. ietf-rib-extension.yang example 927 The following is an XML example using the RIB extension module and 928 RFC 8349. 930 932 933 934 static 935 static-routing-protocol 936 937 939 940 0.0.0.0/0 941 942 192.0.2.2 943 945 30 946 948 99 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 ipv4-master 958 960 v4ur:ipv4-unicast 961 true 962 963 965 1 966 967 10.0.0.1 968 969 200 970 971 972 974 0.0.0.0/0 975 976 978 192.0.2.2 979 980 5 981 static 982 2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00 983 984 985 987 192.1.1.0/24 988 989 991 192.0.2.2 992 994 1 995 996 110 997 999 ospf:ospf 1000 2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00 1001 1002 1003 1004 1006 1008 Appendix C. Acknowledgments 1010 The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. 1012 The authors wish to thank Les Ginsberg, Krishna Deevi, and Suyoung 1013 Yoon for their helpful comments and suggestions. 1015 The authors wish to thank Tom Petch and Rob Wilton for review and 1016 comments. 1018 Authors' Addresses 1020 Acee Lindem 1021 Cisco Systems 1022 301 Midenhall Way 1023 Cary, NC 27513 1024 USA 1026 EMail: acee@cisco.com 1028 Yingzhen Qu 1029 Futurewei 1030 2330 Central Expressway 1031 Santa Clara, CA 95050 1032 USA 1034 EMail: yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com