idnits 2.17.1 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-03.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 30, 2021) is 1030 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC6991' is defined on line 202, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8340' is defined on line 206, 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: January 1, 2022 Ericsson 6 June 30, 2021 8 Interface Stack Table Definition for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over 9 LAN 10 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-03 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. 20 Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN ifType value is assigned by 21 IANA experts review. This document provides an example of the 22 ifStack for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN ifType to 23 facilitate operational control, maintenance and statistics. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2022. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 3. Interface Stack Table for Point to Point (P2P) Interface Type 3 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 The assignment of a value (303, available at 72 https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi- 73 numbers-5) to p2pOverLan ifType was made by expert review. To 74 simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to 75 represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a Point to 76 Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface 77 stack. This enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically 78 inherit the correct operating mode from interface stack without 79 further configuration(Not need to explicitly configure Point to Point 80 Interface in routing protocols). 82 So it is helpful to map Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type 83 in interface management stack table. And if no entry specify Point 84 to Point (P2P) Interface lower layer, the management will suffer 85 since lose the ability to get to the lower layer specific management 86 properties via many tools. 88 2. Requirements Language 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 92 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. 94 3. Interface Stack Table for Point to Point (P2P) Interface Type 96 If the device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the 97 "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the 98 operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry is required in 99 [RFC8343], therefore Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN type 100 should also fully map to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" 101 ("higher-layer-if" and "lower-layer-if"). 103 Point to Point (P2P) interface higher layer should be network layer 104 "ipForward" (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, Point to Point 105 (P2P) interface lower layer is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" 106 (defined in IANA). 108 Point to Point (P2P) interface type ifStackTable can be defined along 109 the lines of following example which complies with [RFC8343]: 111 112 isis_int 113 ianaift:ipForward 114 116 117 eth1 118 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd 119 121 122 p2p 123 ianaift:p2pOverLan 124 isis_int 125 eth1 126 false 127 down 128 down 129 130 131 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 132 133 134 135 137 Figure 1 139 4. Security Considerations 141 The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only. 142 Read operation to this table without complete protection shouldn't 143 have a negative effect on network operations. 145 5. IANA Considerations 147 In the Interface Types registry, IANA has previously assigned a value 148 of 303 for p2pOverLan with a reference of [RFC5309], as shown in 149 following table (available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi- 150 numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5). IANA is requested to amend 151 the reference to point to this document and to make a similar 152 amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module [RFC7224] which currently 153 points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to 154 be used. 156 +=========+==================+==================+ 157 | Decimal | Name | references | 158 +=========+==================+==================+ 159 | 303 | p2pOverLan | RFC5309 | 160 +---------+------------------+------------------+ 162 Figure 2 164 6. References 166 6.1. Normative references 168 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 169 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 170 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 171 . 173 [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group 174 MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000, 175 . 177 [RFC5309] Zinin, A. and N. Shen, "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN 178 in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309, 179 DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008, 180 . 182 [RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module", 183 RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014, 184 . 186 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 187 2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, IETF RFC 8174, 188 DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, 189 . 191 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 192 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, 193 . 195 [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M. 196 Ahlberg, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link", 197 RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019, 198 . 200 6.2. Informative References 202 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, 203 DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, June 2011, 204 . 206 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", 207 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, 208 . 210 Authors' Addresses 212 Daiying Liu 213 Ericsson 214 No.5 Lize East street 215 Beijing 100102 216 China 218 Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com 220 Joel Halpern 221 Ericsson 223 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 225 Congjie Zhang 226 Ericsson 228 Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com