idnits 2.17.1 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (24 May 2022) is 702 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: 25 November 2022 Ericsson 6 24 May 2022 8 Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P) 9 Interface over LAN 10 draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12 12 Abstract 14 RFC 5309 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 This document provides advice about the ifStack for the P2P interface 21 over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control, maintenance and 22 statistics. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 November 2022. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 48 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 49 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 50 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 51 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 52 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 53 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if . . . . 3 61 3.2. P2P Interface Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 1. Introduction 74 [RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type and highlights that it is 75 important to identify the correct circuit type when forming 76 adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the 77 link state. 79 To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to 80 represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P 81 interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This 82 enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the 83 correct operating mode from the interface stack without further 84 configuration (No need to explicitly configure the P2P interface in 85 routing protocols). 87 It is helpful to map the P2P interface over LAN type in the interface 88 management stack table. If no entry specifies the P2P interface 89 lower layer, management tools lose the ability to retrieve and 90 measure properties specific to lower layers. 92 The P2P interface over LAN type is intended to be used solely as a 93 means to signal in standard network management protocols that make 94 use of ifStackTables that the upper layer interface is P2P interface, 95 and thus the upper and lower layers of P2P over LAN type will be 96 expected to apply appropriate semantics: In general, P2P over LAN 97 type higher layer SHOULD always be "ipForward" (Value 142, 98 [Assignment]), and the P2P over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any 99 appropriate link data layer of "ipForward". 101 The assignment of 303, as the value for p2pOverLan ifType was made by 102 Expert Review [Assignment]. So the purpose of this document is to 103 request IANA to add this document as a reference to ifType 303, as 104 well as suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over 105 LAN type, and provide examples. 107 It should be noted that this document reflects the operating model 108 used on some routers. Other routers that use different models may 109 not represent a P2P as a separate interface. 111 2. Requirements Language 113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 115 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. 117 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type 119 3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if 121 If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the 122 "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the 123 operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in 124 [RFC8343]. Therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also be 125 fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher- 126 layer-if" and "lower-layer-if", defined in [RFC8343]). 128 In ifStackTable the P2P interface over LAN type higher layer SHALL be 129 network layer "ipForward" to enable IP routing, and the P2P interface 130 over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any link data layer that can be 131 bound to "ipForward" including "ethernetCsmacd", "ieee8023adLag", 132 "l2vlan", and so on (defined in IANA). 134 The P2P interface over LAN type ifStackTable can be defined along the 135 lines of following example (In the example, "lower-layer-if" takes 136 "ethernetCsmacd" but in fact, "lower-layer-if" can be any other 137 available link data layer. See Appendix A for more examples) which 138 complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991]: 140 141 142 isis_int 143 ianaift:ipForward 144 146 147 eth1 148 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd 149 151 152 p2p 153 ianaift:p2pOverLan 154 isis_int 155 eth1 156 false 157 down 158 down 159 160 161 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 162 163 164 165 166 168 Figure 1 170 3.2. P2P Interface Statistics 172 Because multiple IP interfaces can be bound to one physical port, the 173 statistics on the physical port SHOULD be a complete set which 174 includes statistics of all upper layer interfaces. Therefore, each 175 p2p interface collects and displays traffic that has been sent to it 176 via higher layers or received from it via lower layers. 178 3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State 180 The P2P interface can be shutdown independently of the underlying 181 interface. 183 If the P2P interface is administratively up, then the "oper-status", 184 defined in [RFC8343], of that interface SHALL fully reflect state of 185 the underlying interface; if the P2P interface is administratively 186 down, then the "oper-status" of that interface SHALL be down. 187 Examples can be found in Appendix A. 189 4. Security Considerations 191 The writeable attribute "admin-status" of p2povervlan ifType is 192 inherited from [RFC8343]. Other objects associated with the 193 p2povervlan ifType are read-only. With this in mind, the 194 considerations discussed Section 7 of [RFC8343] otherwise apply to 195 the p2povervlan ifType. 197 5. IANA Considerations 199 In the Interface Types registry, IANA has assigned a value of 303 for 200 p2pOverLan [Assignment] with a reference of [RFC5309]. IANA is 201 requested to amend the reference for that code point to be to this 202 document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type 203 module (originally specified in [RFC7224]) which currently points to 204 [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to be used. 206 6. Acknowledgements 208 The authors would like to thank Rob Wilton for his reviews and 209 valuable comments and suggestions. 211 7. References 213 7.1. Normative references 215 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 216 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 218 . 220 [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group 221 MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000, 222 . 224 [RFC5309] Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation 225 over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309, 226 DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008, 227 . 229 [RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module", 230 RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014, 231 . 233 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 234 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 235 May 2017, . 237 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 238 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, 239 . 241 [RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M. 242 Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link", 243 RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019, 244 . 246 7.2. Informative References 248 [Assignment] 249 "Interface Types (ifType)", 250 . 253 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 254 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 255 . 257 Appendix A. Examples 259 In the case of underlying interface is VLAN sub-interface, the 260 ifStackTable should be defined as: 262 263 264 isis_int 265 ianaift:ipForward 266 268 269 eth1_valn1 270 ianaift:l2vlan 271 273 274 p2p 275 ianaift:p2pOverLan 276 isis_int 277 eth1_valn1 278 false 279 down 280 down 281 282 283 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 284 285 286 287 288 290 Figure 2 292 In the case of underlying interface is LAG, the ifStackTable should 293 be defined as: 295 296 297 isis_int 298 ianaift:ipForward 299 301 302 eth1_lag1 303 ianaift:ieee8023adLag 304 306 307 p2p 308 ianaift:p2pOverLan 309 isis_int 310 eth1_lag1 311 false 312 down 313 down 314 315 316 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 317 318 319 320 321 323 Figure 3 325 In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are both 326 administratively up, and the underlying interface operational status 327 is up: 329 330 331 p2p 332 ianaift:p2pOverLan 333 isis_int 334 eth1 335 up 336 up 337 338 340 Figure 4 342 In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are 343 administratively up, but the underlying interface operational status 344 is down: 346 347 348 p2p 349 ianaift:p2pOverLan 350 isis_int 351 eth1 352 up 353 down 354 355 357 Figure 5 359 In the case of P2P interface is administratively down: 361 362 363 p2p 364 ianaift:p2pOverLan 365 isis_int 366 eth1 367 down 368 down 369 370 372 Figure 6 374 In the case of P2P interface is administratively up but underlying is 375 administratively down: 377 378 379 p2p 380 ianaift:p2pOverLan 381 isis_int 382 eth1 383 up 384 down 385 386 388 Figure 7 390 Authors' Addresses 392 Daiying Liu 393 Ericsson 394 No.5 Lize East street 395 Beijing 396 100102 397 China 398 Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com 400 Joel Halpern 401 Ericsson 402 Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com 404 Congjie Zhang 405 Ericsson 406 Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com