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