idnits 2.17.1
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-06.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 February 2022) is 810 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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: 11 August 2022 Ericsson
6 7 February 2022
8 Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P)
9 Interface over LAN
10 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-06
12 Abstract
14 [RFC5309] defines the Point-to-Point (P2P) circuit type, one of the
15 two circuit types used in the link state routing protocols, and
16 highlights that it is important to identify the correct circuit type
17 when forming adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and
18 monitoring the link state.
20 The P2P interface over LAN ifType value 303, has been assigned by
21 IANA Expert Review, and this document requests IANA to add this
22 document as a reference to ifType 303. This document provides advice
23 about the ifStack for the P2P interface over LAN ifType to facilitate
24 operational control, maintenance and statistics.
26 Status of This Memo
28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
41 This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 August 2022.
43 Copyright Notice
45 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
46 document authors. All rights reserved.
48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
50 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
51 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
52 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
53 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
54 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
55 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
57 Table of Contents
59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
60 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
61 3. Interface Stack Table for 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 [RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type and highlights that it is
72 important to identify the correct circuit type when forming
73 adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the
74 link state.
76 The assignment of 303, as the value for p2pOverLan ifType was made by
77 Expert Review [Assignment]. This document requests IANA to add this
78 document as a reference to ifType 303.
80 To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to
81 represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P
82 interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This
83 enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the
84 correct operating mode from the interface stack without further
85 configuration (No need to explicitly configure the P2P interface in
86 routing protocols).
88 It is helpful to map the P2P interface over LAN type in the interface
89 management stack table. And if no entry specifies the P2P interface
90 lower layer, the management suffers loses the ability to get to the
91 lower layer specific management properties via many tools.
93 The purpose of this document is to suggest how to use
94 ifStackTable for the P2P interface over LAN type, and provide
95 examples.
97 2. Requirements Language
99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
101 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174].
103 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type
105 If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the
106 "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the
107 operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in
108 [RFC8343], therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also be
109 fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-
110 layer-if" and "lower-layer-if").
112 The P2P interface higher layer should be network layer "ipForward"
113 (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, the P2P interface lower
114 layer is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" (defined in IANA).
116 The P2P interface type ifStackTable can be defined along the lines of
117 following example which complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991] [RFC8340]:
119
120 isis_int
121 ianaift:ipForward
122
124
125 eth1
126 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd
127
129
130 p2p
131 ianaift:p2pOverLan
132 isis_int
133 eth1
134 false
135 down
136 down
137
138
139 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
140
141
142
143
144 Figure 1
146 4. Security Considerations
148 The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only.
149 Read operation to this table should not have a negative effect on
150 network operations.
152 5. IANA Considerations
154 In the Interface Types registry, IANA has been assigned a value of
155 303 for p2pOverLan [Assignment] with a reference of [RFC5309]. IANA
156 is requested to amend the reference for that code point to be to this
157 document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type
158 module [RFC7224] which currently points to [RFC8561], as this
159 document explains how the ifType is to be used.
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] Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation
175 over LAN 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", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
185 May 2017, .
187 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
188 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
189 .
191 [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M.
192 Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link",
193 RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019,
194 .
196 6.2. Informative References
198 [Assignment]
199 "Interface Types (ifType)",
200 .
203 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
204 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
205 .
207 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
208 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
209 .
211 Authors' Addresses
213 Daiying Liu
214 Ericsson
215 No.5 Lize East street
216 Beijing
217 100102
218 China
220 Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com
222 Joel Halpern
223 Ericsson
225 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
227 Congjie Zhang
228 Ericsson
230 Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com