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