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