idnits 2.17.1 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 (7 December 2021) is 868 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC6991' is defined on line 199, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8340' is defined on line 203, 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: 10 June 2022 Ericsson 6 7 December 2021 8 Interface Stack Table Definition for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over 9 LAN 10 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-04 12 Abstract 14 In [RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type is one of the mainly used 15 circuit types in link state routing protocol, and highlights it is 16 important to identify the correct circuit type when forming 17 adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitor the 18 link state. 20 P2P Interface over LAN ifType value is assigned by IANA experts 21 review. This document provides an example of the ifStack for P2P 22 Interface over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control, 23 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 10 June 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 49 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 50 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 51 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 52 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 53 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 54 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 1. Introduction 70 The assignment of a value (303, available at 71 https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi- 72 numbers-5) to p2pOverLan ifType was made by expert review. To 73 simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to 74 represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P 75 Interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This 76 enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the 77 correct operating mode from interface stack without further 78 configuration(Not need to explicitly configure P2P Interface in 79 routing protocols). 81 So it is helpful to map P2P Interface over LAN type in interface 82 management stack table. And if no entry specify P2P Interface lower 83 layer, the management will suffer since lose the ability to get to 84 the lower layer specific management properties via many tools. 86 2. Requirements Language 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 90 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. 92 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type 94 If the device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the 95 "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the 96 operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry is required in 97 [RFC8343], therefore P2P Interface over LAN type should also fully 98 map to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-layer-if" 99 and "lower-layer-if"). 101 P2P interface higher layer should be network layer "ipForward" 102 (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, P2P interface lower layer 103 is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" (defined in IANA). 105 P2P interface type ifStackTable can be defined along the lines of 106 following example which complies with [RFC8343]: 108 109 isis_int 110 ianaift:ipForward 111 113 114 eth1 115 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd 116 118 119 p2p 120 ianaift:p2pOverLan 121 isis_int 122 eth1 123 false 124 down 125 down 126 127 128 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 129 130 131 132 134 Figure 1 136 4. Security Considerations 138 The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only. 139 Read operation to this table without complete protection shouldn't 140 have a negative effect on network operations. 142 5. IANA Considerations 144 In the Interface Types registry, IANA has previously assigned a value 145 of 303 for p2pOverLan with a reference of [RFC5309], as shown in 146 following table (available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi- 147 numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5). IANA is requested to amend 148 the reference to point to this document and to make a similar 149 amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module [RFC7224] which currently 150 points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to 151 be used. 153 +=========+==================+==================+ 154 | Decimal | Name | references | 155 +=========+==================+==================+ 156 | 303 | p2pOverLan | RFC5309 | 157 +---------+------------------+------------------+ 159 Figure 2 161 6. References 163 6.1. Normative references 165 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 166 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 167 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 168 . 170 [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group 171 MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000, 172 . 174 [RFC5309] Zinin, A. and N. Shen, "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN 175 in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309, 176 DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008, 177 . 179 [RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module", 180 RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014, 181 . 183 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 184 2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, IETF RFC 8174, 185 DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, 186 . 188 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 189 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, 190 . 192 [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M. 193 Ahlberg, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link", 194 RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019, 195 . 197 6.2. Informative References 199 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, June 2011, 201 . 203 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", 204 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, 205 . 207 Authors' Addresses 209 Daiying Liu 210 Ericsson 211 No.5 Lize East street 212 Beijing 213 100102 214 China 216 Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com 218 Joel Halpern 219 Ericsson 221 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 223 Congjie Zhang 224 Ericsson 226 Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com