idnits 2.17.1
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-02.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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5309]), which it
shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
documents in question.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
== The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
2119 boilerplate text.
-- The document date (June 24, 2021) is 1035 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6991' is defined on line 196, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC8340' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Network Working Group D. Liu
3 Internet-Draft J. Halpern
4 Intended status: Informational C. Zhang
5 Expires: December 26, 2021 Ericsson
6 June 24, 2021
8 Interface Stack Table Definition for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over
9 LAN
10 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-02
12 Abstract
14 In [RFC5309] defines the Point to Point (P2P) circuit type is one of
15 the mainly used circuit types in link state routing protocol, and
16 highlights it is important to identify the correct circuit type when
17 forming adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and
18 monitor the link state. This document adds Point to Point (P2P)
19 Interface over LAN type (ifType) management stack tables mapping to
20 provide benefit for operational control, maintenance and statistics.
22 Status of This Memo
24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
37 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2021.
39 Copyright Notice
41 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
42 document authors. All rights reserved.
44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
47 publication of this document. Please review these documents
48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
52 described in the Simplified BSD License.
54 Table of Contents
56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
57 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
58 3. Interface Stack Table for Point to Point (P2P) Interface Type 2
59 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
60 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
61 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
62 6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
63 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
64 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
66 1. Introduction
68 To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to
69 represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a Point to
70 Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface
71 stack. This enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically
72 inherit the correct operating mode from interface stack without
73 further configuration(Not need to explicitly configure Point to Point
74 Interface in routing protocols).
76 So it is helpful to map Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type
77 in interface management stack table. And if no entry specify Point
78 to Point (P2P) Interface lower layer, the management will suffer
79 since lose the ability to get to the lower layer specific management
80 properties via many tools.
82 2. Requirements Language
84 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
85 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
86 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174].
88 3. Interface Stack Table for Point to Point (P2P) Interface Type
90 If the device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the
91 "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the
92 operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry is required in
93 [RFC8343], therefore Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type
94 should also fully map to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable"
95 ("higher-layer-if" and "lower-layer-if").
97 Point to Point (P2P) interface higher layer should be network layer
98 "ipForward" (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, Point to Point
99 (P2P) interface lower layer is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd"
100 (defined in IANA).
102 Point to Point (P2P) interface type ifStackTable can be defined along
103 the lines of following example which complies with [RFC8343]:
105
106 isis_int
107 ianaift:ipForward
108
110
111 eth1
112 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd
113
115
116 p2p
117 ianaift:p2pOverLan
118 isis_int
119 eth1
120 false
121 down
122 down
123
124
125 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
126
127
128
129
131 Figure 1
133 4. Security Considerations
135 The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only.
136 Read operation to this table without complete protection shouldn't
137 have a negative effect on network operations.
139 5. IANA Considerations
141 In the Interface Types registry, IANA has previously assigned a value
142 of 303 for p2pOverLan with a reference of [RFC5309], as shown in
143 following table (available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-
144 numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5). IANA is requested to amend
145 the reference to point to this document and to make a similar
146 amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module [RFC7224] which currently
147 points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to
148 be used.
150 +=========+==================+==================+
151 | Decimal | Name | references |
152 +=========+==================+==================+
153 | 303 | p2pOverLan | RFC5309 |
154 +---------+------------------+------------------+
156 Figure 2
158 6. References
160 6.1. Normative references
162 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
163 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
164 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
165 .
167 [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
168 MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
169 .
171 [RFC5309] Zinin, A. and N. Shen, "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN
172 in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309,
173 DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008,
174 .
176 [RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
177 RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
178 .
180 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
181 2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, IETF RFC 8174,
182 DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
183 .
185 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
186 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
187 .
189 [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M.
190 Ahlberg, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link",
191 RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019,
192 .
194 6.2. Informative References
196 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
197 DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, June 2011,
198 .
200 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams",
201 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
202 .
204 Authors' Addresses
206 Daiying Liu
207 Ericsson
208 No.5 Lize East street
209 Beijing 100102
210 China
212 Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com
214 Joel Halpern
215 Ericsson
217 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
219 Congjie Zhang
220 Ericsson
222 Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com