Internet DRAFT - draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit
draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit
OPSAWG M. Boucadair, Ed.
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track R. Roberts, Ed.
Expires: 11 January 2024 Juniper
O. G. D. Dios
Telefonica
S. B. Giraldo
Nokia
B. Wu
Huawei Technologies
10 July 2023
YANG Data Models for 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)
draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-07
Abstract
This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment
Circuits (ACs). This model can be used for the provisioning of ACs
before or during service provisioning (e.g., Network Slice Service).
The document also specifies a module that updates other service and
network modules with the required information to bind specific
services to ACs that are created using the AC service model.
Also, the document specifies a set of reusable groupings. Whether
other service models reuse structures defined in the AC models or
simply include an AC reference is a design choice of these service
models. Utilizing the AC service model to manage ACs over which a
service is delivered has the advantage of decoupling service
management from upgrading AC components to incorporate recent AC
technologies or features.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and
Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list
(opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/boucadair/attachment-circuit-model.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope and Intended Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Position ACaaS vs. Other Data Models . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1. Why Not Using the L2SM as Reference Data Model for
ACaaS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2. Why Not Using the L3SM as Reference Data Model for
ACaaS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Sample Uses of the Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. ACs Terminated by One or Multiple Customer Edges (CEs) . 8
3.2. Separate AC Provisioning vs. Actual Service
Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Description of the Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. The Bearer Service ("ietf-bearer-svc") YANG Module . . . 11
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
4.2. The Attachment Circuit Service ("ietf-ac-svc") YANG
Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Overall Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Service Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Attachment Circuits Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.4. AC Placement Contraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.5. Attachment Circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1. The Bearer Service ("ietf-bearer-svc") YANG Module . . . 37
5.2. The AC Service ("ietf-ac-svc") YANG Module . . . . . . . 44
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.1. Create A New Bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.2. Create An AC over An Existing Bearer . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.3. Create An AC for a Known Peer SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.4. One CE, Two ACs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.5. Control Precedence over Multiple ACs . . . . . . . . . . 80
A.6. Create Multiple ACs Bound to Multiple CEs . . . . . . . . 82
A.7. Binding Attachment Circuits to an IETF Network Slice . . 83
A.8. Connecting a Virtualized Environment Running in a Cloud
Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope and Intended Use
Connectivity services are provided by networks to customers via
dedicated terminating points, such as Service Functions [RFC7665],
customer edges (CEs), peer Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBRs),
data centers gateways, or Internet Exchange Points. A connectivity
service is basically about ensuring data transfer received from or
destined to a given terminating point to or from other terminating
points within the same customer/service, an interconnection node, or
an ancillary node. The objectives for the connectivity service can
be negotiated and agreed upon between the customer and the network
provider. To facilitate data transfer within the provider network,
it is assumed that the appropriate setup is provisioned over the
links that connect customer terminating points and a provider
network, allowing successfully data exchanged over these links. The
required setup is referred to in this document as Attachment Circuits
(ACs), while the underlying link is referred to as "bearers".
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
This document adheres to the definition of an Attachment Circuit as
provided in Section 1.2 of [RFC4364], especially:
Routers can be attached to each other, or to end systems, in a
variety of different ways: PPP connections, ATM Virtual Circuits
(VCs), Frame Relay VCs, ethernet interfaces, Virtual Local Area
Networks (VLANs) on ethernet interfaces, GRE tunnels, Layer 2
Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) tunnels, IPsec tunnels, etc. We will
use the term "attachment circuit" to refer generally to some such
means of attaching to a router. An attachment circuit may be the
sort of connection that is usually thought of as a "data link", or
it may be a tunnel of some sort; what matters is that it be
possible for two devices to be network layer peers over the
attachment circuit.
When a customer requests a new value-added service, the service can
be bound to existing attachment circuits or trigger the instantiation
of new attachment circuits. The provisioning of a value-added
service should, thus, accommodate both deployments.
Also, because the instantiation of an attachment circuit requires
coordinating the provisioning of endpoints that might not belong to
the same administrative entity (customer vs. provider or distinct
operational teams within the same provider, etc.), ** providing
programmatic means to expose 'attachment circuits'-as-a-service will
greatly simplify the provisioning of value-added services** delivered
over an attachment circuits.
This document specifies a YANG service data model ("ietf-ac-svc") for
managing attachment circuits that are exposed by a network to its
customers, such as an enterprise site, a network function, a hosting
infrastructure, or a peer network provider. The model can be used
for the provisioning of ACs prior or during advanced service
provisioning (e.g., Network Slice Service).
The "ietf-ac-svc" includes a set of reusable groupings. Whether a
service model reuses structures defined in the "ietf-ac-svc" or
simply includes an AC reference (that was communicated during AC
service instantiation) is a design choice of these service models.
Relying upon the AC service model to manage ACes over which services
are delivered has the merit to decorrelate the management of the
(core) service vs. upgrade the AC components to reflect recent AC
technologies or new features (e.g., new encryption scheme, additional
routing protocol). *This document favors the approach of completely
relying upon the AC service model instead of duplicating data nodes
into specific modules of advanced services that are delivered over an
Attachment Circuit.*
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Since the provisioning of an AC requires a bearer to be in place,
this document introduces a new module called "ietf-bearer-svc" that
enables customers to manage their bearer requests. The customers can
then retrieve a provider-assigned bearer reference that they will
include in their AC service requests.
An AC service request can provide a reference to a bearer or a set of
peer SAPs. Both schemes are supported in the AC service model.
Each AC is identified with a unique identifier within a (provider)
domain. From a network provider standpoint, an AC can be bound to a
single or multiple Service Attachment Points (SAPs) [RFC9408].
Likewise, the same SAP can be bound to one or multiple ACs. However,
the mapping between an AC and a PE in the provider network that
terminates that AC is hidden to the application that makes use of the
AC service model. Such mapping information is internal to the
network controllers. As such, the details about the (node-specific)
attachment interfaces are not exposed in the AC service model.
The AC service model *does not make any assumptions about the
internal structure or even the nature or the services that will be
delivered over an attachment circuit*. Customers do not have access
to that network view other than the ACes that the ordered. For
example, the AC service model can be used to provision a set of ACes
to connect multiple sites (Site1, Site2, ..., SiteX) for customer who
also requested VPN services. If these provisioning of these services
require specific configuration on ASBR nodes, such configuration is
handled at the network level and is not exposed to the customer at
the service level. However, the network controller will have access
to such a view as the service points in these ASBRs will be exposed
as SAPs with "role" set to "ietf-sap-ntw:nni" [RFC9408].
The AC service model can be used in a variety of contexts, such as
(but not limited to) those provided in Appendix A:
* Request an attachment circuit for a known peer SAP (Appendix A.3).
* Instantiate multiple attachment circuits over the same bearer
(Appendix A.4).
* Control the precedence over multiple attachment circuits
(Appendix A.5).
* Create Multiple ACs bound to Multiple CEs (Appendix A.6).
* Bind a slice service to a set of pre-provisioned attachment
circuits (Appendix A.7).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
* Connect a Cloud Infrastructure to a service provider network
(Appendix A.8).
The examples use the IPv4 address blocks reserved for documentation
[RFC5737], the IPv6 prefix reserved for documentation [RFC3849], and
the Autonomous System (AS) numbers reserved for documentation
[RFC5398].
The YANG data models in this document conform to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342].
1.2. Position ACaaS vs. Other Data Models
The AC model specified in this document *is not a network model*
[RFC8969]. As such, the model does not expose details related to
specific nodes in the provider's network that terminate an AC. The
mapping between an AC as seen by a customer and the network
implementation of an AC is maintained by the network controllers and
is not exposed to the customer. This mapping can be maintained using
a variety of network models, such as augmented SAP AC network model
[I-D.boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit].
The AC service model *is not a device model*. A network provider may
use a variety of device models (e.g., Routing management [RFC8349] or
BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]) to provision an AC service.
1.2.1. Why Not Using the L2SM as Reference Data Model for ACaaS?
The L2SM [RFC8466] covers some AC-related considerations.
Nevertheless, the L2SM structure is primarily focused on Layer 2
aspects. For example, the L2SM part does not cover Layer 3
provisioning, which is required for the typical AC instantiation.
1.2.2. Why Not Using the L3SM as Reference Data Model for ACaaS?
Like the L2SM, the L3SM [RFC8299] addresses certain AC-related
aspects. However, the L3SM structure does not sufficiently address
layer 2 provisioning requirements. Additionally, the L3SM is
primarily designed for conventional L3VPN deployments and, as such,
has some limitations for instantiating ACs in other deployment
contexts (e.g., cloud environments). For example, the L3SM does not
provide the capability to provision multiple BGP sessions over the
same AC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The meanings of the symbols in the YANG tree diagrams are defined in
[RFC8340].
This document uses the following terms:
Bearer: A physical or logical link that connects a customer node (or
site) to a provider network. A bearer can be a wireless or wired
link. One or multiple technologies can be used to build a bearer.
The bearer type can be specified by a customer.
The operator allocates a unique bearer reference to identify a
bearer within its network (e.g., customer line identifier). Such
a reference can be retrieved by a customer and used in subsequent
service placement requests to unambiguously identify where a
service is to be bound.
The concept of bearer can be generalized to refer to the required
underlying connection for the provisioning of an attachment
circuit. One or multiple attachment circuits may be hosted over
the same bearer (e.g., multiple VLANs on the same bearer that is
provided by a physical link).
Network controller: Denotes a functional entity responsible for the
management of the service provider network.
Service orchestrator: Refers to a functional entity that interacts
with the customer of a network service. The service orchestrator
is typically responsible for the attachment circuits, the Provider
Edge (PE) selection, and requesting the activation of the
requested service to a network controller.
Service provider network: A network that is able to provide network
services (e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3, and Network Slice Services).
Service provider: A service provider that offers network services
(e.g., Layer 2 VPN, Layer 3, and Network Slice Services).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
3. Sample Uses of the Data Models
3.1. ACs Terminated by One or Multiple Customer Edges (CEs)
Figure 1 depicts two target topology flavors that involve ACs. These
topologies have the following characteristics:
* A Customer Edges (CEs) can be either a physical device or a
logical entity. Such logical entity is typically a software
component (e.g., a virtual service function that is hosted within
the provider's network or a third-party infrastructure). A CE is
seen by the network as a peer SAP.
* An AC service request may include one or multiple ACs, which may
be associated to a single CE or multiple CEs.
* CEs may be either dedicated to one single connectivity service or
host multiple connectivity services (e.g., CEs with roles of
service functions [RFC7665]).
* A network provider may bind a single AC to one or multiple peer
SAPs (e.g., CE#1 and CE#2 are tagged as peer SAPs for the same
AC). For example, and as discussed in [RFC4364], multiple CEs can
be attached to a PE over the same attachment circuit. This
scenario is typically implemented when the layer 2 infrastructure
between the CE and the network is a multipoint service.
* A single CE may terminate multiple ACs, which can be associated
with the same bearer or distinct bearers.
* Customers may request protection schemes in which the ACs
associated with their endpoints are terminated by the same PE
(e.g., CE#3), distinct PEs (e.g., CE#34), etc. The network
provider uses this request to decide where to terminate the AC in
the network provider network and also whether to enable specific
capabilities (e.g., Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
┌───────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌───────┐
│ ├──────┐ │ ├────AC─────┤ │
│ CE#1 │ │ │ ├────AC─────┤ CE#3 |
└───────┘ │ │ │ └───────┘
├───AC────┤ Network │
┌───────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ ┌───────┐
│ CE#2 ├──────┘ │ │─────AC────┤ CE#4 │
└───────┘ │ │ └────+──┘
└───────────+────────┘ |
| |
└────────────AC───────────┘
Figure 1: Examples of ACs
3.2. Separate AC Provisioning vs. Actual Service Provisioning
The procedure to provision a service in a service provider network
may depend on the practices adopted by a service provider. This
includes the flow put in place for the provisioning of advanced
network services and how they are bound to an attachment circuit.
For example, a single attachment circuit may be used to host multiple
connectivity services. In order to avoid service interference and
redundant information in various locations, a service provider may
expose an interface to manage ACs network-wide. Customers can then
request a bearer or an attachment circuit to be put in place, and
then refer to that bearer or AC when requesting services that are
bound to the bearer or AC.
Figure 2 shows the positioning of the AC service model is the overall
service delivery process.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+---------------+
| Customer |
+-------+-------+
Customer Service Model |
e.g., slice-svc, ac-svc,| and bearer-svc
+-------+-------+
| Service |
| Orchestration |
+-------+-------+
Network Model |
e.g., l3vpn-ntw, sap, and ac-ntw|
+-------+-------+
| Network |
| Orchestration |
+-------+-------+
Network Configuration Model |
+-----------+-----------+
| |
+--------+------+ +--------+------+
| Domain | | Domain |
| Orchestration | | Orchestration |
+---+-----------+ +--------+------+
Device | | |
Configuration | | |
Model | | |
+----+----+ | |
| Config | | |
| Manager | | |
+----+----+ | |
| | |
| NETCONF/CLI..................
| | |
+--------------------------------+
+----+ Bearer | | Bearer +----+
|CE#1+--------+ Network +--------+CE#2|
+----+ | | +----+
+--------------------------------+
Site A Site B
Figure 2: An Example of AC Model Usage
In order to ease the mapping between the service model and underlying
network models (e.g., L3NM, SAP), the name conventions used in
existing network data models are reused as much as possible. For
example, "local-address" is used rather than "provider-address" (or
similar) to refer to an IP address used in the provider network.
This approach is consistent with the automation framework defined in
[RFC8969].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
4. Description of the Data Models
4.1. The Bearer Service ("ietf-bearer-svc") YANG Module
Figure 3 shows the tree for managing the bearers (that is, the
properties of the attachment that are below Layer 3). A bearer can
be a wireless or wired link. A reference to a bearer is generated by
the operator. Such a reference can be used, e.g., in a subsequent
service request to create an AC. The anchoring of the AC can also be
achieved by indicating (with or without a bearer reference), a peer
SAP identifier (e.g., an identifier of a Service Function).
module: ietf-bearer-svc
+--rw bearers
+--rw placement-constraints
| +--rw constraint* [constraint-type]
| +--rw constraint-type identityref
| +--rw target
| +--rw (target-flavor)?
| +--:(id)
| | +--rw group* [group-id]
| | +--rw group-id string
| +--:(all-bearers)
| | +--rw all-other-bearers? empty
| +--:(all-groups)
| +--rw all-other-groups? empty
+--rw bearer* [id]
+--rw id string
+--rw description? string
+--rw groups
| +-- group* [group-id]
| +-- group-id string
+--rw op-comment? string
+--rw customer-point
| +--rw identified-by? identityref
| +--rw device
| | +--rw device-id? string
| | +--rw location
| | +--rw location-name? string
| | +--rw address? string
| | +--rw postal-code? string
| | +--rw state? string
| | +--rw city? string
| | +--rw country-code? string
| +--rw site
| | +--rw site-id? string
| | +--rw location
| | +--rw location-name? string
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| | +--rw address? string
| | +--rw postal-code? string
| | +--rw state? string
| | +--rw city? string
| | +--rw country-code? string
| +--rw custom-id? string
+--rw requested-type? identityref
+--ro bearer-reference? string {vpn-common:bearer-reference}?
+--rw requested-start? yang:date-and-time
+--rw requested-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-start? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--rw status
+--rw admin-status
| +--rw status? identityref
| +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
+--ro oper-status
+--ro status? identityref
+--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
Figure 3: Bearer Service Tree Structure
The same customer site (CE, NF, etc.) can terminate one or multiple
bearers; each of them uniquely identified by a reference that is
assigned by the network provider. These bearers can terminate on the
same or distinct network nodes. CEs that terminate multiple bearers
are called multi-homed CEs.
A bearer request may indicate some hints about the placement
constraints ('placement-constraints'). These constraints are used by
a provider to determine how/where to terminate a bearer in the
network side (e.g., PoP/PE selection).
The descriptions of the bearer data nodes are as follows:
'id': Used to uniquely identify a bearer. This identifier is
typically selected by the client when requesting a bearer.
'description': Includes a textual description of the bearer.
'op-comment': Includes operational comments that may be useful for
managing the bearer (building, level, etc.). No structure is
associated with this data node to accommodate all deployments.
'group': Tags a bearer with one ore more identifiers that are used
to group a set of bearers.
'customer-point': Specifies the customer terminating point for the
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
bearer. A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a
combination thereof, or a custom information when requesting a
bearer. All these schemes are supported in the model.
'requested-type': Specifies the requested bearer type (Ethernet,
wireless, etc.).
'bearer-reference': Returns an internal reference for the service
provider to identify the bearer. This reference can be used when
requesting services. Appendix A.1 provides an example about how
this reference can be retrieved by a customer.
Whether the 'bearer-reference' mirrors the content of the 'id' is
deployment specific. The module does not assume nor preclude such
schemes.
'status': Used to track the overall status of a given bearer. Both
operational and administrative status are maintained together with
a timestamp.
See [RFC9181] for more details.
4.2. The Attachment Circuit Service ("ietf-ac-svc") YANG Module
4.2.1. Overall Structure
The overall tree structure of the AC service module is shown in
Figure 4.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
...
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
...
Figure 4: Overall AC Service Tree Structure
The full ACaaS tree is available at [AC-SVC-Tree]. The full reusable
groupings defined in the ACaaS module are shown in [AC-SVC-GRP].
The rationale for deciding whether a reusable grouping should be
maintained in this document or be moved into the AC common module
[I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac] is as follows:
- Groupings that are reusable among the AC service module, AC
network module, other service models, and network models are
included in the AC common module.
- Groupings that are reusable only by other service models are
maintained in the "ietf-ac-svc" module.
Each AC is identified with a unique name ('../ac/name') within a
domain. The mapping between this AC and a local PE that terminates
the AC is hidden to the application that makes use of the AC service
model. This information is internal to the Network controller. As
such, the details about the (node-specific) attachment interfaces are
not exposed in this service model.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
The AC service model uses groupings and types defined in the AC
common model [I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac]. Therefore, the
description of these nodes are not reiterated in the following
subsections.
4.2.2. Service Profiles
4.2.2.1. Description
The 'specific-provisioning-profiles' container (Figure 5) can be used
by a service provider to maintain a set of reusable profiles. The
profiles definition are similar to those defined in [RFC9181],
including: Quality of Service (QoS), Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD), forwarding, and routing profiles. The exact
definition of the profiles is local to each service provider. The
model only includes an identifier for these profiles in order to
facilitate identifying and binding local policies when building an
AC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
module: ietf-ac-svc
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| +--rw valid-provider-identifiers
| +--rw encryption-profile-identifier* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| +--rw qos-profile-identifier* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| +--rw bfd-profile-identifier* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| +--rw forwarding-profile-identifier* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| +--rw routing-profile-identifier* [id]
| +--rw id string
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| +--rw service-profile-identifier* [id]
| +--rw id string
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
...
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
...
Figure 5: Service Profiles
As shown in Figure 5, two profile types can be defined: 'specific-
provisioning-profiles' and 'service-provisioning-profiles'. Whether
only specific profiles, service profiles, or a combination thereof
are used is local to each service provider.
The following specific provisioning profiles can be defined:
'encryption-profile-identifier': Refers to a set of policies related
to the encryption setup that can be applied when provisioning an
AC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
'qos-profile-identifier': Refers to a set of policies, such as
classification, marking, and actions (e.g., [RFC3644]).
'bfd-profile-identifier': Refers to a set of Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) policies [RFC5880] that can be invoked
when building an AC.
'forwarding-profile-identifier': Refers to the policies that apply
to the forwarding of packets conveyed within an AC. Such policies
may consist, for example, of applying Access Control Lists (ACLs).
'routing-profile-identifier': Refers to a set of routing policies
that will be invoked (e.g., BGP policies) when building an AC.
4.2.2.2. Referencing Service/Specific Profiles
All the abovementioned profiles are uniquely identified by the
NETCONF/RESTCONF server by an identifier. To ease referencing these
profiles by other data models, specific typedefs are defined for each
of these profiles. Likewise, an attachment circuit reference typedef
is defined when referencing a (global) attachment circuit by its name
is required. These typedefs SHOULD be used when other modules need a
reference to one of these profiles or attachment circuits.
4.2.3. Attachment Circuits Profiles
The 'ac-group-profile' defines reusable parameters for a set of ACes.
Each profile is identified by 'name'. Some of the data nodes can be
adjusted at the 'ac'. These adjusted values take precedence over the
global values. The structure of 'ac-group-profile' is similar to the
one used to model each 'ac' (Figure 7).
4.2.4. AC Placement Contraints
The 'placement-constraints' specifies the placement constraints of an
AC. For example, this container can be used to request avoiding to
connecting two ACes to the same PE. The full set of supported
constraints is defined in [RFC9181] (see 'placement-diversity', in
particular).
The structure of 'placement-constraints' is shown in Figure 6.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| +--rw constraint* [constraint-type]
| +--rw constraint-type identityref
| +--rw target
| +--rw (target-flavor)?
| +--:(id)
| | +--rw group* [group-id]
| | +--rw group-id string
| +--:(all-accesses)
| | +--rw all-other-accesses? empty
| +--:(all-groups)
| +--rw all-other-groups? empty
+--rw ac* [name]
...
Figure 6: Placement Constraints Subtree Structure
4.2.5. Attachment Circuits
The structure of 'attachment-circuits' is shown in Figure 7.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
+--rw customer-name? string
+--rw description? string
+--rw requested-start? yang:date-and-time
+--rw requested-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-start? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--rw peer-sap-id* string
+--rw ac-group-profile* ac-group-reference
+--rw group* [group-id]
| +--rw group-id string
| +--rw precedence? identityref
+--rw name string
+--rw service-profile* service-profile-reference
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
...
Figure 7: Attachment Circuits Tree Structure
The description of the data nodes is as follows:
'customer-name': Indicates the name of the customer who ordered the
AC.
'description': Includes a textual description of the AC.
'peer-sap-id': Includes references to the remote endpoints of an
attachment circuit [RFC9408].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
'ac-group-profile': Indicates references to one or more profiles
that are defined in Section 4.2.3.
'group': Lists the groups to which an AC belongs [RFC9181]. For
example, the 'group-id' is used to associate redundancy or
protection constraints of ACes. An example is provided in
Appendix A.5.
'name': Associates a name that uniquely identifies an AC within a
service provider network.
'l2-connection': See Section 4.2.5.1.
'ip-connection': See Section 4.2.5.2.
'routing': See Section 4.2.5.3.
'oam': See Section 4.2.5.7.
'security': See Section 4.2.5.8.
'service': See Section 4.2.5.9.
4.2.5.1. Layer 2 Connection Structure
The 'l2-connection' container (Figure 8) is used to configure the
relevant Layer 2 properties of an AC including: encapsulation details
and tunnel terminations. For the encapsulation details, the model
supports the definition of the type as well as the Identifiers (e.g.,
VLAN-IDs) of each of the encapsulation-type defined. For the second
case, attributes for pseudowire, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS),
and Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) tunnel terminations
are included. This structure relies upon the common groupings
defined in [I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac].
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
+--rw customer-name? string
+--rw description? string
+--rw requested-start? yang:date-and-time
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw requested-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-start? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--rw peer-sap-id* string
+--rw ac-group-profile* ac-group-reference
+--rw group* [group-id]
| +--rw group-id string
| +--rw precedence? identityref
+--rw name string
+--rw l2-connection
| +--rw encapsulation
| | +--rw type? identityref
| | +--rw dot1q
| | | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | | +--rw cvlan-id? uint16
| | +--rw priority-tagged
| | | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | +--rw qinq
| | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | +--rw svlan-id uint16
| | +--rw cvlan-id uint16
| +--rw (l2-service)?
| | +--:(l2-tunnel-service)
| | | +--rw l2-tunnel-service
| | | +--rw type? identityref
| | | +--rw pseudowire
| | | | +--rw vcid? uint32
| | | | +--rw far-end? union
| | | +--rw vpls
| | | | +--rw vcid? uint32
| | | | +--rw far-end* union
| | | +--rw vxlan
| | | +--rw vni-id uint32
| | | +--rw peer-mode? identityref
| | | +--rw peer-ip-address* inet:ip-address
| | +--:(l2vpn)
| | +--rw l2vpn-id? vpn-common:vpn-id
| +--rw bearer-reference? string
| {vpn-common:bearer-reference}?
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
...
Figure 8: Layer 2 Connection Tree Structure
4.2.5.2. IP Connection Structure
The 'ip-connection' container is used to configure the relevant IP
properties of an AC. The model supports the usage of dynamic and
static addressing. This structure relies upon the common groupings
defined in [I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac]. Both IPv4 and IPv6
parameters are supported.
Figure 9 shows the structure of the IPv4 connection.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| +--rw ipv4 {vpn-common:ipv4}?
| | +--rw local-address?
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | +--rw virtual-address?
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | +--rw prefix-length? uint8
| | +--rw address-allocation-type?
| | | identityref
| | +--rw (allocation-type)?
| | +--:(dynamic)
| | | +--rw (address-assign)?
| | | | +--:(number)
| | | | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address? uint16
| | | | +--:(explicit)
| | | | +--rw customer-addresses
| | | | +--rw address-pool* [pool-id]
| | | | +--rw pool-id string
| | | | +--rw start-address
| | | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--rw end-address?
| | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--rw (provider-dhcp)?
| | | | +--:(dhcp-service-type)
| | | | +--rw dhcp-service-type?
| | | | enumeration
| | | +--rw (dhcp-relay)?
| | | +--:(customer-dhcp-servers)
| | | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers
| | | +--rw server-ip-address*
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | +--:(static-addresses)
| | +--rw address* [address-id]
| | +--rw address-id string
| | +--rw customer-address? inet:ipv4-address
| +--rw ipv6 {vpn-common:ipv6}?
| ...
Figure 9: Layer 3 Connection Tree Structure (IPv4)
Figure 10 shows the structure of the IPv6 connection.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| +--rw ipv4 {vpn-common:ipv4}?
| | ...
| +--rw ipv6 {vpn-common:ipv6}?
| +--rw local-address?
| | inet:ipv6-address
| +--rw virtual-address?
| | inet:ipv6-address
| +--rw prefix-length? uint8
| +--rw address-allocation-type?
| | identityref
| +--rw (allocation-type)?
| +--:(dynamic)
| | +--rw (address-assign)?
| | | +--:(number)
| | | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address? uint16
| | | +--:(explicit)
| | | +--rw customer-addresses
| | | +--rw address-pool* [pool-id]
| | | +--rw pool-id string
| | | +--rw start-address
| | | | inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw end-address?
| | | inet:ipv6-address
| | +--rw (provider-dhcp)?
| | | +--:(dhcp-service-type)
| | | +--rw dhcp-service-type?
| | | enumeration
| | +--rw (dhcp-relay)?
| | +--:(customer-dhcp-servers)
| | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers
| | +--rw server-ip-address*
| | inet:ipv6-address
| +--:(static-addresses)
| +--rw address* [address-id]
| +--rw address-id string
| +--rw customer-address? inet:ipv6-address
...
Figure 10: Layer 3 Connection Tree Structure (IPv6)
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
4.2.5.3. Routing
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 11, the 'routing-protocols'
container defines the required parameters to enable the desired
routing features for an AC. One or more routing protocols can be
associated with an AC. Such routing protocols will be then enabled
between a PE and the customer terminating points. Each routing
instance is uniquely identified by the combination of the 'id' and
'type' to accommodate scenarios where multiple instances of the same
routing protocol have to be configured on the same link.
In addition to static routing, the module supports BGP, OSPF, IS-IS,
and RIP. It also includes a reference to the 'routing-profile-
identifier' defined in Section 4.2.2, so that additional constraints
can be applied to a specific instance of each routing protocol.
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
+--rw customer-name? string
+--rw description? string
+--rw requested-start? yang:date-and-time
+--rw requested-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-start? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--rw peer-sap-id* string
+--rw ac-group-profile* ac-group-reference
+--rw group* [group-id]
| +--rw group-id string
| +--rw precedence? identityref
+--rw name string
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
...
Figure 11: Routing Tree Structure
4.2.5.3.1. Static Routing
The static tree structure is shown in Figure 12.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | +--rw cascaded-lan-prefixes
| | +--rw ipv4-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop]
| | | {vpn-common:ipv4}?
| | | +--rw lan inet:ipv4-prefix
| | | +--rw lan-tag? string
| | | +--rw next-hop union
| | | +--rw metric? uint32
| | | +--rw status
| | | +--rw admin-status
| | | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | | +--ro oper-status
| | | +--ro status? identityref
| | | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--rw ipv6-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop]
| | {vpn-common:ipv6}?
| | +--rw lan inet:ipv6-prefix
| | +--rw lan-tag? string
| | +--rw next-hop union
| | +--rw metric? uint32
| | +--rw status
| | +--rw admin-status
| | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro oper-status
| | +--ro status? identityref
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| +--rw ospf
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
Figure 12: Static Routing Tree Structure
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
4.2.5.3.2. BGP
The BGP tree structure is shown in Figure 13.
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | +--rw peer-groups
| | | +--rw peer-group* [name]
| | | +--rw name string
| | | +--ro local-address? inet:ip-address
| | | +--ro local-as? inet:as-number
| | | +--rw peer-as? inet:as-number
| | | +--rw address-family? identityref
| | | +--rw authentication
| | | +--rw enable? boolean
| | | +--rw keying-material
| | | +--rw (option)?
| | | +--:(ao)
| | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean
| | | | +--rw ao-keychain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(md5)
| | | | +--rw md5-keychain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(explicit)
| | | +--rw key-id? uint32
| | | +--rw key? string
| | | +--rw crypto-algorithm?
| | | identityref
| | +--rw neighbor* [id]
| | +--rw id string
| | +--rw remote-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--ro local-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--rw peer-group?
| | | -> ../../peer-groups/peer-group/name
| | +--ro local-as? inet:as-number
| | +--rw peer-as? inet:as-number
| | +--rw address-family? identityref
| | +--rw authentication
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| | | +--rw enable? boolean
| | | +--rw keying-material
| | | +--rw (option)?
| | | +--:(ao)
| | | | +--rw enable-ao? boolean
| | | | +--rw ao-keychain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(md5)
| | | | +--rw md5-keychain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(explicit)
| | | +--rw key-id? uint32
| | | +--rw key? string
| | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? identityref
| | +--rw status
| | +--rw admin-status
| | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro oper-status
| | +--ro status? identityref
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw ospf
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
Figure 13: BGP Tree Structure
Similar to [RFC9182], this version of the ACaaS assumes that
parameters specific to the TCP-AO are preconfigured as part of the
key chain that is referenced in the ACaaS. No assumption is made
about how such a key chain is preconfigured. However, the structure
of the key chain should cover data nodes beyond those in [RFC8177],
mainly SendID and RecvID (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]).
4.2.5.3.3. OSPF
The OSPF tree structure is shown in Figure 14.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| +--rw ospf
| | +--rw address-family? identityref
| | +--rw area-id yang:dotted-quad
| | +--rw metric? uint16
| | +--rw authentication
| | | +--rw enable? boolean
| | | +--rw keying-material
| | | +--rw (option)?
| | | +--:(auth-key-chain)
| | | | +--rw key-chain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(auth-key-explicit)
| | | +--rw key-id? uint32
| | | +--rw key? string
| | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? identityref
| | +--rw status
| | +--rw admin-status
| | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro oper-status
| | +--ro status? identityref
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
Figure 14: OSPF Tree Structure
4.2.5.4. IS-IS
The IS-IS tree structure is shown in Figure 15.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw ospf
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | +--rw address-family? identityref
| | +--rw area-address area-address
| | +--rw authentication
| | | +--rw enable? boolean
| | | +--rw keying-material
| | | +--rw (option)?
| | | +--:(auth-key-chain)
| | | | +--rw key-chain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(auth-key-explicit)
| | | +--rw key-id? uint32
| | | +--rw key? string
| | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? identityref
| | +--rw status
| | +--rw admin-status
| | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro oper-status
| | +--ro status? identityref
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
Figure 15: IS-IS Tree Structure
4.2.5.5. RIP
The RIP tree structure is shown in Figure 16.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw ospf
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | +--rw address-family? identityref
| | +--rw authentication
| | | +--rw enable? boolean
| | | +--rw keying-material
| | | +--rw (option)?
| | | +--:(auth-key-chain)
| | | | +--rw key-chain?
| | | | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| | | +--:(auth-key-explicit)
| | | +--rw key? string
| | | +--rw crypto-algorithm? identityref
| | +--rw status
| | +--rw admin-status
| | | +--rw status? identityref
| | | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro oper-status
| | +--ro status? identityref
| | +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw vrrp
| ...
Figure 16: RIP Tree Structure
'address-family' indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address
families are to be activated. For example, this parameter is used to
determine whether RIPv2 [RFC2453], RIP Next Generation (RIPng), or
both are to be enabled [RFC2080].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
4.2.5.6. VRRP
The model also supports the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
[RFC5798] on an AC (Figure 17).
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw routing-profiles* [id]
| | +--rw id routing-profile-reference
| | +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw static
| | ...
| +--rw bgp
| | ...
| +--rw ospf
| | ...
| +--rw isis
| | ...
| +--rw rip
| | ...
| +--rw vrrp
| +--rw address-family? identityref
| +--rw status
| +--rw admin-status
| | +--rw status? identityref
| | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--ro oper-status
| +--ro status? identityref
| +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
Figure 17: VRRP Tree Structure
4.2.5.7. OAM
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 18, the 'oam' container
defines OAM-related parameters of an AC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
...
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| +--rw bfd {vpn-common:bfd}?
| +--rw holdtime? uint32
| +--rw status
| +--rw admin-status
| | +--rw status? identityref
| | +--rw last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--ro oper-status
| +--ro status? identityref
| +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
...
Figure 18: OAM Tree Structure
4.2.5.8. Security
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 19, the 'security' container
defines a set of AC security parameters.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
...
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| +--rw encryption {vpn-common:encryption}?
| | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw layer? enumeration
| +--rw encryption-profile
| +--rw (profile)?
| +--:(provider-profile)
| | +--rw provider-profile?
| | encryption-profile-reference
| +--:(customer-profile)
| +--rw customer-key-chain?
| key-chain:key-chain-ref
+--rw service
...
Figure 19: Security Tree Structure
4.2.5.9. Service
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 20, the 'service' container
defines the following data nodes:
'mtu': Specifies the Layer 2 MTU, in bytes, for the AC.
'svc-pe-to-ce-bandwidth': Indicates the inbound bandwidth of the AC
(i.e., download bandwidth from the service provider to the
customer site).
'svc-ce-to-pe-bandwidth': Indicates the outbound bandwidth of the AC
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
(i.e., upload bandwidth from the customer site to the service
provider).
Both 'svc-pe-to-ce-bandwidth' and 'svc-ce-to-pe-bandwidth' can be
represented using the Committed Information Rate (CIR), the Excess
Information Rate (EIR), or the Peak Information Rate (PIR). Both
reuse the 'bandwidth-per-type' grouping defined in
[I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac].
+--rw specific-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw service-provisioning-profiles
| ...
+--rw attachment-circuits
+--rw ac-group-profile* [name]
| ...
+--rw placement-constraints
| ...
+--rw ac* [name]
...
+--rw l2-connection
| ...
+--rw ip-connection
| ...
+--rw routing-protocols
| ...
+--rw oam
| ...
+--rw security
| ...
+--rw service
+--rw mtu? uint32
+--rw svc-pe-to-ce-bandwidth {vpn-common:inbound-bw}?
| +--rw bandwidth* [bw-type]
| +--rw bw-type identityref
| +--rw (type)?
| +--:(per-cos)
| | +--rw cos* [cos-id]
| | +--rw cos-id uint8
| | +--rw cir? uint64
| | +--rw cbs? uint64
| | +--rw eir? uint64
| | +--rw ebs? uint64
| | +--rw pir? uint64
| | +--rw pbs? uint64
| +--:(other)
| +--rw cir? uint64
| +--rw cbs? uint64
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
| +--rw eir? uint64
| +--rw ebs? uint64
| +--rw pir? uint64
| +--rw pbs? uint64
+--rw svc-ce-to-pe-bandwidth {vpn-common:outbound-bw}?
+--rw bandwidth* [bw-type]
+--rw bw-type identityref
+--rw (type)?
+--:(per-cos)
| +--rw cos* [cos-id]
| +--rw cos-id uint8
| +--rw cir? uint64
| +--rw cbs? uint64
| +--rw eir? uint64
| +--rw ebs? uint64
| +--rw pir? uint64
| +--rw pbs? uint64
+--:(other)
+--rw cir? uint64
+--rw cbs? uint64
+--rw eir? uint64
+--rw ebs? uint64
+--rw pir? uint64
+--rw pbs? uint64
Figure 20: Bandwidth Tree Structure
5. YANG Modules
5.1. The Bearer Service ("ietf-bearer-svc") YANG Module
This module uses types defined in [RFC6991] and [RFC9181].
<CODE BEGINS>
file ietf-bearer-svc@2022-11-30.yang
module ietf-bearer-svc {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bearer-svc";
prefix bearer-svc;
import ietf-vpn-common {
prefix vpn-common;
reference
"RFC 9181: A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and Layer 3
VPNs";
}
import ietf-ac-common {
prefix ac-common;
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
reference
"RFC CCCC: A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits";
}
import ietf-ac-svc {
prefix ac-svc;
reference
"RFC XXXX: YANG Service Data Models for Attachment Circuits";
}
organization
"IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>
WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Editor: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Author: Richard Roberts
<mailto:rroberts@juniper.net>
Author: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>
Author: Samier Barguil
<mailto:ssamier.barguil_giraldo@nokia.com>
Author: Bo Wu
<mailto:lana.wubo@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines a generic YANG model for exposing
network bearers as a service.
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC xxx; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2022-11-30 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC xxxx: A YANG Service Data Model for Attachment Circuits";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
// Identities
identity identification-type {
description
"Base identity for identification of bearers.";
}
identity device-id {
base identification-type;
description
"Identification of bearers based on device..";
}
identity site-id {
base identification-type;
description
"Identification of bearers based on site.";
}
identity site-and-device-id {
base identification-type;
description
"Identification of bearers based on site and device.";
}
identity custom {
base identification-type;
description
"Identification of bearers based on other custom criteria.";
}
identity bearer-type {
description
"Base identity for bearers type.";
}
identity ethernet {
base bearer-type;
description
"Ethernet.";
}
identity wireless {
base bearer-type;
description
"Wireless.";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
identity network-termination-hint {
base vpn-common:placement-diversity;
description
"A hint about the termination at the network side
is provided (e.g., geoproximity).";
}
grouping location-information {
description
"Basic location information";
container location {
description
"Location of the node.";
leaf location-name {
type string;
description
"Provides a location name. This data node can be mapped, e.g., to the 3GPP
NRM IOC ManagedElement.";
}
leaf address {
type string;
description
"Address (number and street) of the device/site.";
}
leaf postal-code {
type string;
description
"Postal code of the device/site.";
}
leaf state {
type string;
description
"State of the device/site. This leaf can also be
used to describe a region for a country that
does not have states.";
}
leaf city {
type string;
description
"City of the device/site.";
}
leaf country-code {
type string {
pattern '[A-Z]{2}';
}
description
"Country of the device/site.
Expressed as ISO ALPHA-2 code.";
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
}
}
grouping placement-constraints {
description
"Constraints related to placement of a bearer.";
list constraint {
if-feature vpn-common:placement-diversity;
key "constraint-type";
description
"List of constraints.";
leaf constraint-type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:placement-diversity;
}
must "not(derived-from-or-self(current(), "
+ "'vpn-common:bearer-diverse') or "
+ "derived-from-or-self(current(), "
+ "'vpn-common:same-bearer'))" {
error-message "Only bearer-specific diversity"
+ "constraints must be provided.";
}
description
"Diversity constraint type for bearers.";
}
container target {
description
"The constraint will apply against this list of
groups.";
choice target-flavor {
description
"Choice for the group definition.";
case id {
list group {
key "group-id";
description
"List of groups.";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"The constraint will apply against this
particular group ID.";
}
}
}
case all-bearers {
leaf all-other-bearers {
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other
bearers of a site.";
}
}
case all-groups {
leaf all-other-groups {
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other
groups managed by the customer.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
container bearers {
description
"Main container for the bearers.";
container placement-constraints {
description
"Diversity constraint type.";
uses placement-constraints;
}
list bearer {
key "id";
description
"Maintains a list of bearers.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"An identifier of the bearer.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"A description of this bearer.";
}
uses vpn-common:vpn-components-group;
leaf op-comment {
type string;
description
"Includes comments that can be shared with operational teams and
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
which may be useful for the activation of a bearer. This may include,
for example, information about the building, level, etc.";
}
container customer-point {
description
"Base container to link the Bearer existence";
leaf identified-by {
type identityref {
base identification-type;
}
description
"Attribute used to identify the bearer";
}
container device {
when
"derived-from-or-self(../identified-by, "
+ "'device-id') or derived-from-or-self(../identified-by, "
+ "'site-and-device-id')" {
description
"Only applicable if identified-by is device.";
}
description
"Bearer is linked to device.";
leaf device-id {
type string;
description
"Identifier for the device where that bearer belongs.";
}
uses location-information;
}
container site {
when
"derived-from-or-self(../identified-by, "
+ "'site-id') or derived-from-or-self(../identified-by, "
+ "'site-and-device-id')" {
description
"Only applicable if identified-by is site.";
}
description
"Bearer is linked to a site.";
leaf site-id {
type string;
description
"Identifier for the site or sites where that bearer belongs.";
}
uses location-information;
}
leaf custom-id {
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
when "derived-from-or-self(../identified-by, "
+ "'custom')" {
description
"Only enabled id identified-by is custom.";
}
type string;
description
"The semantic of this identifier is shared between the
customer/provider using out-of-band means.";
}
}
leaf requested-type {
type identityref {
base bearer-type;
}
description
"Type of the requested bearer (e.g., Ethernet or wireless)";
}
leaf bearer-reference {
if-feature "vpn-common:bearer-reference";
type string;
config false;
description
"This is an internal reference for the service provider
to identify the bearers.";
}
leaf-list ac-refs {
type ac-svc:attachment-circuit-reference;
config false;
description
"Specifies the set of ACes that are bound to the bearer.";
}
uses ac-common:op-instructions;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5.2. The AC Service ("ietf-ac-svc") YANG Module
This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC9181], [RFC8177],
and [I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
<CODE BEGINS>
file ietf-ac-svc@2022-11-30.yang
module ietf-ac-svc {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-svc";
prefix ac-svc;
import ietf-ac-common {
prefix ac-common;
reference
"RFC CCCC: A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits";
}
import ietf-vpn-common {
prefix vpn-common;
reference
"RFC 9181: A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and Layer 3
VPNs";
}
import ietf-netconf-acm {
prefix nacm;
reference
"RFC 8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 4";
}
import ietf-key-chain {
prefix key-chain;
reference
"RFC 8177: YANG Data Model for Key Chains";
}
organization
"IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>
WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Editor: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Author: Richard Roberts
<mailto:rroberts@juniper.net>
Author: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>
Author: Samier Barguil
<mailto:ssamier.barguil_giraldo@nokia.com>
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Author: Bo Wu
<mailto:lana.wubo@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines a YANG model for exposing
attachment circuits as a service (ACaaS).
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2022-11-30 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: YANG Service Data Models for Attachment Circuits";
}
/* A set of typedefs to ease referencing cross-modules */
typedef attachment-circuit-reference {
type leafref {
path "/ac-svc:attachment-circuits/ac-svc:ac/ac-svc:name";
}
description
"Defines a reference to an attachment circuit that can be used
by other modules.";
}
typedef ac-group-reference {
type leafref {
path "/ac-svc:attachment-circuits/ac-group-profile/name";
}
description
"Defines a reference to an attachment circuit profile.";
}
typedef encryption-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"/ac-svc:specific-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/ac-svc:encryption-profile-identifier/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to an encryption profile for referencing
purposes.";
}
typedef qos-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
"/ac-svc:specific-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/ac-svc:qos-profile-identifier/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to a QoS profile for referencing purposes.";
}
typedef bfd-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
"/ac-svc:specific-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/ac-svc:bfd-profile-identifier/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to a BFD profile for referencing purposes.";
}
typedef forwarding-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
"/ac-svc:specific-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/ac-svc:forwarding-profile-identifier/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to a forwarding profile for referencing purposes.";
}
typedef routing-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
"/ac-svc:specific-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/ac-svc:routing-profile-identifier/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to a routing profile for referencing purposes.";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
typedef service-profile-reference {
type leafref {
path
"/ac-svc:service-provisioning-profiles/ac-svc:service-profile-identifier"
+ "/ac-svc:id";
}
description
"Defines a type to a service profile for referencing purposes.";
}
/******************** Reusable groupings ********************/
// Basic Layer 2 connection
grouping l2-connection-basic {
description
"Defines Layer 2 protocols and parameters that can be factorized
when provisioning Layer 2 connectivity among multiple ACs.";
container encapsulation {
description
"Container for Layer 2 encapsulation.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:encapsulation-type;
}
description
"Encapsulation type.";
}
container dot1q {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'vpn-common:dot1q')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged interface
is 'dot1q'.";
}
description
"Tagged interface.";
uses ac-common:dot1q;
}
container qinq {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'vpn-common:qinq')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged interface
is 'qinq'.";
}
description
"Includes QinQ parameters.";
uses ac-common:qinq;
}
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
// Full Layer 2 connection
grouping l2-connection {
description
"Defines Layer 2 protocols and parameters that are used to enable
AC connectivity.";
container encapsulation {
description
"Container for Layer 2 encapsulation.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:encapsulation-type;
}
description
"Encapsulation type.";
}
container dot1q {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'vpn-common:dot1q')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged interface
is 'dot1q'.";
}
description
"Tagged interface.";
uses ac-common:dot1q;
}
container priority-tagged {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:priority-tagged')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is
'priority-tagged'.";
}
description
"Priority-tagged interface.";
uses ac-common:priority-tagged;
}
container qinq {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'vpn-common:qinq')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged interface
is 'qinq'.";
}
description
"Includes QinQ parameters.";
uses ac-common:qinq;
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
}
choice l2-service {
description
"The Layer 2 connectivity service can be provided by indicating
a pointer to an L2VPN or by specifying a Layer 2 tunnel
service.";
container l2-tunnel-service {
description
"Defines a Layer 2 tunnel termination.
It is only applicable when a tunnel is required.";
uses ac-common:l2-tunnel-service;
}
case l2vpn {
leaf l2vpn-id {
type vpn-common:vpn-id;
description
"Indicates the L2VPN service associated with an Integrated
Routing and Bridging (IRB) interface.";
}
}
}
leaf bearer-reference {
if-feature "vpn-common:bearer-reference";
type string;
description
"This is an internal reference for the service provider
to identify the bearer associated with this AC.";
}
}
// Basic IP connection
grouping ip-connection-basic {
description
"Defines basic IP connection parameters.";
container ipv4 {
if-feature "vpn-common:ipv4";
description
"IPv4-specific parameters.";
uses ac-common:ipv4-connection-basic;
}
container ipv6 {
if-feature "vpn-common:ipv6";
description
"IPv6-specific parameters.";
uses ac-common:ipv6-connection-basic;
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
// Full IP connection
grouping ip-connection {
description
"Defines IP connection parameters.";
container ipv4 {
if-feature "vpn-common:ipv4";
description
"IPv4-specific parameters.";
uses ac-common:ipv4-connection;
}
container ipv6 {
if-feature "vpn-common:ipv6";
description
"IPv6-specific parameters.";
uses ac-common:ipv6-connection;
}
}
// Routing protocol list
grouping routing-protocol-list {
description
"List of routing protocols used on the AC.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:routing-protocol-type;
}
description
"Type of routing protocol.";
}
list routing-profiles {
key "id";
description
"Routing profiles.";
leaf id {
type routing-profile-reference;
description
"Reference to the routing profile to be used.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:ie-type;
}
description
"Import, export, or both.";
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
}
}
// BGP Service
grouping bgp-svc {
description
"Configuration specific to BGP.";
container peer-groups {
description
"Configuration for BGP peer-groups";
list peer-group {
key "name";
description
"List of BGP peer-groups configured on the local system -
uniquely identified by peer-group name";
uses ac-common:bgp-peer-group-with-name;
leaf local-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"The local IP address that will be used to establish
the BGP session.";
}
uses ac-common:bgp-authentication;
}
}
list neighbor {
key "id";
description
"List of BGP neighbors.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"A neighbor identifier.";
}
leaf remote-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"The remote IP address of this entry's BGP peer.
If this leaf is not present, this means that the primary
customer IP address is used as remote IP address.";
}
leaf local-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"The local IP address that will be used to establish
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
the BGP session.";
}
leaf peer-group {
type leafref {
path "../../peer-groups/peer-group/name";
}
description
"The peer-group with which this neighbor is associated.";
}
uses ac-common:bgp-peer-group-without-name;
uses ac-common:bgp-authentication;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
}
// OSPF Service
grouping ospf-svc {
description
"Service configuration specific to OSPF.";
uses ac-common:ospf-basic;
uses ac-common:ospf-authentication;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
// IS-IS Service
grouping isis-svc {
description
"Service configuration specific to IS-IS.";
uses ac-common:isis-basic;
uses ac-common:isis-authentication;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
// RIP Service
grouping rip-svc {
description
"Service configuration specific to RIP routing.";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:address-family;
}
description
"Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families
are to be activated.";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
uses ac-common:rip-authentication;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
// VRRP Service
grouping vrrp-svc {
description
"Service configuration specific to VRRP.";
reference
"RFC 5798: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:address-family;
}
description
"Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both
address families are to be enabled.";
}
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
// Basic routing parameters
grouping routing-basic {
description
"Defines basic parameters for routing protocols.";
list routing-protocol {
key "id";
description
"List of routing protocols used on the AC.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Unique identifier for the routing protocol.";
}
uses routing-protocol-list;
container bgp {
when
"derived-from-or-self(../type, 'vpn-common:bgp-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is BGP.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to BGP.";
container peer-groups {
description
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"Configuration for BGP peer-groups";
list peer-group {
key "name";
description
"List of BGP peer-groups configured on the local system -
uniquely identified by peer-group name";
uses ac-common:bgp-peer-group-with-name;
}
}
}
container ospf {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:ospf-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is OSPF.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to OSPF.";
uses ac-common:ospf-basic;
}
container isis {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:isis-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is IS-IS.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to IS-IS.";
uses ac-common:isis-basic;
}
container rip {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:rip-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is RIP.
For IPv4, the model assumes that RIP
version 2 is used.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to RIP routing.";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:address-family;
}
description
"Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both
address families are to be activated.";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
container vrrp {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:vrrp-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is the
Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP).";
}
description
"Configuration specific to VRRP.";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:address-family;
}
description
"Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families
are to be enabled.";
}
}
}
}
// Full routing parameters
grouping routing {
description
"Defines routing protocols.";
list routing-protocol {
key "id";
description
"List of routing protocols used on the AC.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Unique identifier for the routing protocol.";
}
uses routing-protocol-list;
container static {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:static-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is static routing
protocol.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to static routing.";
container cascaded-lan-prefixes {
description
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"LAN prefixes from the customer.";
uses ac-common:ipv4-static-rtg;
uses ac-common:ipv6-static-rtg;
}
}
container bgp {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:bgp-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is BGP.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to BGP.";
uses bgp-svc {
refine "peer-groups/peer-group/local-address" {
config false;
}
refine "neighbor/local-address" {
config false;
}
}
}
container ospf {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:ospf-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is OSPF.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to OSPF.";
uses ospf-svc;
}
container isis {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:isis-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is IS-IS.";
}
description
"Configuration specific to IS-IS.";
uses isis-svc;
}
container rip {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:rip-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is RIP.
For IPv4, the model assumes that RIP version 2 is used.";
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
}
description
"Configuration specific to RIP routing.";
uses rip-svc;
}
container vrrp {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'vpn-common:vrrp-routing')" {
description
"Only applies when the protocol is the Virtual Router
Redundancy Protocol (VRRP).";
}
description
"Configuration specific to VRRP.";
uses vrrp-svc;
}
}
}
// Encryption choice
grouping encryption-choice {
description
"Container for the encryption profile.";
choice profile {
description
"Choice for the encryption profile.";
case provider-profile {
leaf provider-profile {
type encryption-profile-reference;
description
"Reference to a provider encryption profile.";
}
}
case customer-profile {
leaf customer-key-chain {
type key-chain:key-chain-ref;
description
"Customer-supplied key chain.";
}
}
}
}
// Basic security parameters
grouping ac-security-basic {
description
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"AC-specific security parameters.";
container encryption {
if-feature "vpn-common:encryption";
description
"Container for AC security encryption.";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
description
"If set to 'true', traffic encryption on the connection
is required. Otherwise, it is disabled.";
}
leaf layer {
when "../enabled = 'true'" {
description
"Included only when encryption is enabled.";
}
type enumeration {
enum layer2 {
description
"Encryption occurs at Layer 2.";
}
enum layer3 {
description
"Encryption occurs at Layer 3.
For example, IPsec may be used when a customer requests
Layer 3 encryption.";
}
}
description
"Indicates the layer on which encryption is applied.";
}
}
container encryption-profile {
when "../encryption/enabled = 'true'" {
description
"Indicates the layer on which encryption is enabled.";
}
description
"Container for the encryption profile.";
uses encryption-choice;
}
}
// Bandwith
grouping bandwidth {
description
"Container for bandwidth.";
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
container svc-pe-to-ce-bandwidth {
if-feature "vpn-common:inbound-bw";
description
"From the customer site's perspective, the inbound
bandwidth of the AC or download bandwidth from the
service provider to the site.";
uses ac-common:bandwidth-per-type;
}
container svc-ce-to-pe-bandwidth {
if-feature "vpn-common:outbound-bw";
description
"From the customer site's perspective, the outbound
bandwidth of the AC or upload bandwidth from
the CE to the PE.";
uses ac-common:bandwidth-per-type;
}
}
// Basic AC parameter
grouping ac-basic {
description
"Grouping for basic parameters for an attachment circuit.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"An identifier of the AC.";
}
container l2-connection {
description
"Defines Layer 2 protocols and parameters that are required to
enable AC connectivity.";
uses l2-connection-basic;
}
container ip-connection {
description
"Defines IP connection parameters.";
uses ip-connection-basic;
}
container routing-protocols {
description
"Defines routing protocols.";
uses routing-basic;
}
container oam {
description
"Defines the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
mechanisms used.";
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
container bfd {
if-feature "vpn-common:bfd";
description
"Container for BFD.";
uses ac-common:bfd;
}
}
container security {
description
"AC-specific security parameters.";
uses ac-security-basic;
}
container service {
description
"AC-specific bandwith parameters.";
leaf mtu {
type uint32;
units "bytes";
description
"Layer 2 MTU.";
}
uses bandwidth;
}
}
// Full AC parameters
grouping ac {
description
"Grouping for an attachment circuit.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"A name of the AC. Data models that need to reference an attachment
circuits should use attachment-circuit-reference.";
}
leaf-list service-profile {
type service-profile-reference;
description
"A reference to a service profile.";
}
container l2-connection {
description
"Defines Layer 2 protocols and parameters that are required to
enable AC connectivity.";
uses l2-connection;
}
container ip-connection {
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
description
"Defines IP connection parameters.";
uses ip-connection;
}
container routing-protocols {
description
"Defines routing protocols.";
uses routing;
}
container oam {
description
"Defines the OAM mechanisms used.";
container bfd {
if-feature "vpn-common:bfd";
description
"Container for BFD.";
uses ac-common:bfd;
uses vpn-common:service-status;
}
}
container security {
description
"AC-specific security parameters.";
uses ac-security-basic;
}
container service {
description
"AC-specific bandwith parameters.";
uses bandwidth;
}
}
/******************** Main AC containers ********************/
container specific-provisioning-profiles {
description
"Contains a set of valid profiles to reference for an AC.";
uses ac-common:ac-profile-cfg;
}
container service-provisioning-profiles {
description
"Contains a set of valid profiles to reference for an AC.";
list service-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List of generic service profile identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
description
"Identification of the service profile to be used.
The profile only has significance within the service
provider's administrative domain.";
}
}
nacm:default-deny-write;
}
container attachment-circuits {
description
"Main container for the attachment circuits.";
list ac-group-profile {
key "name";
description
"Maintains a list of profiles that are shared among
a set of ACs.";
uses ac;
}
container placement-constraints {
description
"Diversity constraint type.";
uses vpn-common:placement-constraints;
}
list ac {
key "name";
description
"Global provisioning of attachment circuits.";
leaf customer-name {
type string;
description
"Indicates the name of the customer that requested this AC.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Associates a description with an AC.";
}
uses ac-common:op-instructions;
leaf-list peer-sap-id {
type string;
description
"One or more peer SAPs can be indicated.";
}
leaf-list ac-group-profile {
type ac-group-reference;
description
"A reference to an AC profile.";
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
list group {
key "group-id";
description
"List of group-ids.";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"Indicates the group-id to which the network access
belongs.";
}
leaf precedence {
type identityref {
base ac-common:precedence-type;
}
description
"Defines redundancy of an AC.";
}
}
uses ac;
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
6. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document define schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in these YANG modules that
are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
and delete operations to these data nodes without proper protection
or authentication can have a negative effect on network operations.
These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/
vulnerability in the "ietf-ac-svc" module:
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
* TBC
* TBC
Some of the readable data nodes in these YANG module may be
considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config,
or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and
data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability in the "ietf-ac-svc"
module:
'customer-name', 'l2-connection', and 'ip-connection': An attacker
can retrieve privacy-related information, which can be used to
track a customer. Disclosing such information may be considered a
violation of the customer-provider trust relationship.
'keying-material': An attacker can retrieve the cryptographic keys
protecting the underlying connectivity services (routing, in
particular). These keys could be used to inject spoofed routing
advertisements.
Several data nodes ('bgp', 'ospf', 'isis', and 'rip') rely upon
[RFC8177] for authentication purposes. As such, the AC service
module inherits the security considerations discussed in Section 5 of
[RFC8177]. Also, these data nodes support supplying explicit keys as
strings in ASCII format. The use of keys in hexadecimal string
format would afford greater key entropy with the same number of key-
string octets. However, such a format is not included in this
version of the AC service model, because it is not supported by the
underlying device modules (e.g., [RFC8695]).
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register the following URIs in the "ns"
subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bearer-svc
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-svc
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
IANA is requested to register the following YANG modules in the "YANG
Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters"
registry.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Name: ietf-bearer-svc
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-bearer-svc
Prefix: bearer-svc
Reference: RFC xxxx
Name: ietf-ac-svc
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-svc
Prefix: ac-svc
Reference: RFC xxxx
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S.,
and B. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment
Circuits", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-boro-
opsawg-teas-common-ac-02, 3 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boro-opsawg-
teas-common-ac-02>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3688>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4364>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5880>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6020>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6991>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8177>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC9181] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., and Q. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and
Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9181, DOI 10.17487/RFC9181, February
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9181>.
8.2. Informative References
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
[AC-SVC-GRP]
"Reusable Groupings in Service Attachment Circuits", 2023,
<https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boucadair/attachment-
circuit-model/main/yang/full-trees/ac-svc-groupings.txt>.
[AC-SVC-Tree]
"Full Service Attachment Circuit Tree Structure", 2023,
<https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boucadair/attachment-
circuit-model/main/yang/full-trees/ac-svc-without-
groupings.txt>.
[I-D.boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S.,
and B. Wu, "A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment
Circuits", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-boro-
opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-02, 9 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boro-opsawg-
ntw-attachment-circuit-02>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG
Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17, 5
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-17>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
Wu, B., Dhody, D., Rokui, R., Saad, T., Han, L., and J.
Mullooly, "A YANG Data Model for the IETF Network Slice
Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-05, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-05>.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2080>.
[RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2453>.
[RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., Cohen, R., and B.
Moore, "Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information
Model", RFC 3644, DOI 10.17487/RFC3644, November 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3644>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3849>.
[RFC5398] Huston, G., "Autonomous System (AS) Number Reservation for
Documentation Use", RFC 5398, DOI 10.17487/RFC5398,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5398>.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5737, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5737>.
[RFC5798] Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5798>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5925>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6151>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6952>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7665>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8299>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8340>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
[RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for
Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8349>.
[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8466>.
[RFC8695] Liu, X., Sarda, P., and V. Choudhary, "A YANG Data Model
for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)", RFC 8695,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8695, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8695>.
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8969>.
[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., Munoz, L., and A. Aguado, "A YANG Network Data Model
for Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9182, DOI 10.17487/RFC9182,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9182>.
[RFC9408] Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., Wu,
Q., and V. Lopez, "A YANG Network Data Model for Service
Attachment Points (SAPs)", RFC 9408, DOI 10.17487/RFC9408,
June 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9408>.
Appendix A. Examples
This section includes a non-exhaustive list of examples to illustrate
the use of the service models defined in this document.
A.1. Create A New Bearer
An example of a request message body to create a bearer is shown in
Figure 21.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
{
"ietf-bearer-svc:bearers": {
"bearer": [
{
"id": "an-identifier",
"description": "A bearer example",
"customer-point": {
"device": {
"device-id": "CE_X_SITE_Y"
}
},
"requested-type": "ietf-bearer-svc:ethernet"
}
]
}
}
Figure 21: Example of a Message Body to Create A New Bearer
A bearer-reference is then generated by the controller for this
bearer. Figure 22 shows the example of a response message body that
is sent by the controller to reply to a GET request:
{
"ietf-bearer-svc:bearers": {
"bearer": [
{
"id": "an-identifier",
"description": "A bearer example",
"customer-point": {
"device": {
"device-id": "CE_X_SITE_Y"
}
},
"requested-type": "ietf-bearer-svc:ethernet",
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
}
]
}
}
Figure 22: Example of a Response Message Body with the Bearer
Reference
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
A.2. Create An AC over An Existing Bearer
An example of a request message body to create a simple AC over an
existing bearer is shown in Figure 23. The bearer reference is
assumed to be known to both the customer and the network provider.
Such a reference can be retrieved, e.g., following the example
described in Appendix A.1 or using other means (including, exchanged
out-of-band or via proprietary APIs).
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac4585",
"description": "An AC on an existing bearer",
"requested-ac-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q"
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 23: Example of a Message Body to Request an AC over an
Existing Bearer
Figure 24 shows the message body of a response received from the
controller and which indicates the "cvlan-id" that was assigned for
the requested AC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac4585",
"description": "An AC on an existing bearer",
"requested-ac-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan",
"cvlan-id": 550
}
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 24: Example of a Message Body of a Response to Assign a
CVLAN ID
A.3. Create An AC for a Known Peer SAP
An example of a request to create a simple AC, when the peer SAP is
known, is shown in Figure 25. In this example, the peer SAP
identifier points to an identifier of a service function. The
(topological) location of that service function is assumed to be
known to the network controller. For example, this can be determined
as part of an on-demand procedure to instantiate a service function
in a cloud. That instantiated service function can be granted a
connectivity service via the provider network.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac4585",
"description": "An AC on an existing bearer",
"requested-ac-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"peer-sap-id": [
"nf-termination-ip"
],
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan",
"cvlan-id": 550
}
}
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 25: Example of a Message Body to Request an AC with a Peer SAP
A.4. One CE, Two ACs
Let’s consider the example of an eNodeB (CE) that is directly
connected to the access routers of the mobile backhaul (see
Figure 26). In this example, two ACs are needed to service the
eNodeB (e.g., distinct VLANs for Control and User Planes).
+-------------+ +------------------+
| | | PE |
| | | 192.0.2.1 |
| eNodeB |==================| 2001:db8::1 |
| | vlan 1 | |
| |==================| |
| | vlan 2 | |
| | Direct | |
+-------------+ Routing | |
| |
| |
| |
+------------------+
Figure 26: Example of a CE-PE ACs
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
An example of a request to create the ACs to service the eNodeB is
shown in Figure 27. This example assumes that static addressing is
used for both ACs.
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "a first ac with a same peer node",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q"
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-address"
},
"ipv6": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-address"
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:direct-routing"
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "a second ac with a same peer node",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q"
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-address"
},
"ipv6": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-address"
},
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:direct-routing"
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 27: Example of a Message Body to Request Two ACes on The
Same Link (Not Recommended)
Figure 28 shows the message body of a response received from the
controller.
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "a first ac with a same peer node",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 1
}
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"local-address": "192.0.2.1",
"prefix-length": 30,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.2"
}
]
},
"ipv6": {
"local-address": "2001:db8::1",
"prefix-length": 64,
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "2001:db8::2"
}
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:direct-routing"
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "a second ac with a same peer node",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 2
}
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"local-address": "192.0.2.1",
"prefix-length": 30,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.2"
}
]
},
"ipv6": {
"local-address": "2001:db8::1",
"prefix-length": 64,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "2001:db8::2"
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:direct-routing"
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 28: Example of a Message Body of a Response to Create Two
ACes on The Same Link (Not Recommended)
The example shown Figure 28 is not optimal as it includes many
redundant data. Figure 29 shows a more compact request that
factorizes all the redundant data.
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac-group-profile": [
{
"id": "simple-node-profile",
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"local-address": "192.0.2.1",
"prefix-length": 30,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.2"
}
]
},
"ipv6": {
"local-address": "2001:db8::1",
"prefix-length": 64,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"customer-address": "2001:db8::2"
}
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:direct-routing"
}
]
}
}
],
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "a first ac with a same peer node",
"ac-group-profile": ["simple-node-profile"],
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 1
}
}
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "a second ac with a same peer node",
"ac-group-profile": ["simple-node-profile"],
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 2
}
}
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 29: Example of a Message Body to Request Two ACes on The
Same Link (Node Profile)
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
A customer may request adding a new AC by simply referring to an
existing per-node AC profile as shown in Figure 30. This AC inherits
all the data that was enclosed in the indicated per-node AC profile
(IP addressing, routing, etc.).
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac3",
"description": "a third AC with a same peer node",
"ac-group-profile": [
"simple-node-profile"
],
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 3
}
},
"bearer-reference": "line-156"
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 30: Example of a Message Body to Add a new AC over an
existing link (Node Profile)
A.5. Control Precedence over Multiple ACs
When multiple ACs are requested by the same customer for the same
site, the request can tag one of these ACs as "primary" and the other
ones as "secondary". An example of such a request is shown in
Figure 32. In this example, both ACs are bound to the same "group-
id", and the "precedence" data node is set as a function of the
intended role of each AC (primary or secondary).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
┌───┐
ac1: primary │ │
┌────────────────────┤PE1│
┌───┐ │ bearerX@site1 │ │
│ ├───────┘ └───┘
│CE │
│ ├───────┐ ┌───┐
└───┘ │ ac2: secondary │ │
└────────────────────┤PE2│
bearerY@site1 │ │
└───┘
Figure 31: An Example Topology for AC Precedence Enforcement
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "Example to illustrate AC precedence usage",
"group": [
{
"group-id": "1",
"precedence": "ietf-ac-common:primary"
}
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "bearerX@site1"
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "Example to illustrate AC precedence usage",
"group": [
{
"group-id": "1",
"precedence": "ietf-ac-common:secondary"
}
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "bearerY@site1"
}
}
]
}
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Figure 32: Example of a Message Body to Associate a Precedence
Level with ACs
A.6. Create Multiple ACs Bound to Multiple CEs
Figure 33 shows an example of CEs that are interconnected by a
service provider network.
+----------------------------------+
+----+ | | +----+
| CE1+-------+ +-------+ CE3|
+----+ | | +----+
| Network |
+----+ | | +----+
|CE2 +-------+ +-------+ CE4|
+----+ | | +----+
+----------------------------------+
Figure 33: Network Topology Example
Figure 34 depicts an example of the message body of a response to a
request to instantiate the various ACs that are shown in Figure 33.
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac-group-profile": [
{
"id": "simple-profile",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"cvlan-id": 1
}
}
}
}
],
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "First site",
"ac-group-profile": [
"simple-profile"
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "ce1-network"
}
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "Second Site",
"ac-group-profile": [
"simple-profile"
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "ce2-network"
}
},
{
"name": "ac3",
"description": "Third site",
"ac-group-profile": [
"simple-profile"
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "ce3-network"
}
},
{
"name": "ac4",
"description": "Another site",
"ac-group-profile": [
"simple-profile"
],
"l2-connection": {
"bearer-reference": "ce4-network"
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 34: Example of a Message Body of a Request to Create
Multiple ACs bound to Multiple CEs
A.7. Binding Attachment Circuits to an IETF Network Slice
This example shows how the AC service model complements
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] to connect a site to a
slice service.
First, Figure 35 describes the end-to-end network topology as well
the orchestration scopes:
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
* The topology is made up of two sites (site1 and site2),
interconnected via a Transport Network (e.g. IP/MPLS Network). A
Network Function is deployed within each site in a dedicated IP
Subnet.
* A 5G SMO is responsible for the deployment Network Functions and
the indirect management of a local Gateway (i.e., CE device).
* An IETF Network Slice Controller is responsible for the deployment
of IETF Network Slices across the TN.
Network Functions are deployed within each site.
5G SMO IETF NSC 5G SMO
│ (TN ORCHESTRATOR) │
│ │ │
◄─────┴─────► ◄─────────┴────────► ◄────┴─────►
Site1 TRANSPORT NETWORK Site2
┌───┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌───┐
│NF1│ │ │ │NF2│
└─┬─┘ ┌───┐ ┌─┴─┐ ┌─┴─┐ ┌───┐ └─┬─┘
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
──┴─────┤GW1├────────┤PE1│ │PE2├────────┤GW2├────┴──
▲ │ │ ▲ │ │ │ │ ▲ │ │ ▲
│ └───┘ │ └─┬─┘ └─┬─┘ │ └───┘ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ └──────────────┘ │ │
LAN1 │ │ LAN2
198.51.100.0/24 │ │ 203.0.113.0/24
│ │
│ │
Physical Link ID: Physical Link ID:
bearerX@site1 bearerX@site2
Figure 35: An Example of a Network Topology Used to Deploy Slices
Figure 36 describes the logical connectivity enforced thanks to both
IETF Network Slice and Attachment Circuit models.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
AS 65536 ◄────BGP───► AS 65550
┌───┐ ┌────────┐ ┌───┐
│NF1│ 192.0.2.0/30 │ │ 192.0.2.4/30 │NF2│
└─┬─┘ ┌───┐ ┌──┴┐ ┌┴──┐ ┌───┐ └─┬─┘
│ │ │.1 .2│ │ │ │.6 .5│ │ │
──┴─────┤GW1│----------│PE1│ │PE2│----------│GW2├────┴──
│ │ vlan-id │ │ │ │ vlan-id │ │
└───┘ 100 └──┬┘ └┬──┘ 200 └───┘
198.51.100.0/24 │ │ 203.0.113.0/24
└────────┘
sdp1 sdp2
◄─────────► ◄────────────► ◄─────────►
Attachment Ietf Network Attachment
Circuit Slice Circuit
ac1 EMBB_UP ac2
ac1 properties:
- bearer-reference: bearerX@site1
- vlan-id: 100
- CE address (GW1): 192.0.2.1/30
- PE address: 192.0.2.2/30
- Routing: static 198.51.100.0/24 via
192.0.2.1 tag primary_UP_slice
ac2 properties:
- bearer-reference: bearerY@site2
- vlan-id: 200
- CE address (GW2): 192.0.2.5/30
- PE address: 192.0.2.6/30
- Routing: BGP local-as:65536
customer-as:65550
customer-address: 192.0.2.5
Figure 36: Logical Overview
Figure 37 shows the message body of the request to create the
required ACs using the Attachment Circuit module.
=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"description": "Connection to site1 on vlan 100",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan"
},
"bearer-reference": "bearerX@site1"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-\
address"
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:static-routing",
"static": {
"cascaded-lan-prefixes": {
"ipv4-lan-prefixes": [
{
"lan": "198.51.100.0/24",
"next-hop": "192.0.2.1",
"lan-tag": "primary_UP_slice"
}
]
}
}
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "Connection to site2 on vlan 200",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan"
}
},
"bearer-reference": "bearerY@site2"
},
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-\
address"
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:bgp-routing",
"bgp": {
"neighbor": [
{
"id": "1",
"peer-as": 65550
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 37: Message Body of a Request to Create Required ACs
Figure 38 shows the message body of a reponse received from the
controller.
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac1",
"description": "Connection to site1 on vlan 100",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan",
"cvlan-id": 100
}
},
"bearer-reference": "bearerX@site1"
},
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"local-address": "192.0.2.2",
"prefix-length": 30,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.1"
}
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:static-routing",
"static": {
"cascaded-lan-prefixes": {
"ipv4-lan-prefixes": [
{
"lan": "198.51.100.0/24",
"next-hop": "192.0.2.1",
"lan-tag": "primary_UP_slice"
}
]
}
}
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "ac2",
"description": "Connection to site2 on vlan 200",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan",
"cvlan-id": 200
}
},
"bearer-reference": "bearerY@site2"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
"local-address": "192.0.2.6",
"prefix-length": 30,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.5"
}
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:bgp-routing",
"bgp": {
"neighbor": [
{
"id": "1",
"peer-as": 65550,
"local-as": 65536
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 38: Example of a Message Body of a Response Indicating the
Creation of the ACs
Figure 39 shows the message body of the request to create the a slice
service bound to the ACs created using Figure 37. Only references to
these ACs are included in the Slice Service request. This example
assumes that the module that "glues" the service/AC is also supported
by the NSC.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================
{
"ietf-network-slice-service:network-slice-services": {
"slo-sle-templates": {
"slo-sle-template": [
{
"id": "low-latency-template",
"template-description": "Lowest possible latencey \
forwarding behavior"
}
]
},
"slice-service": [
{
"service-id": "Slice URLLC_UP",
"service-description": "Dedicate TN Slice for URLLC-UP",
"slo-sle-template": "low-latency-template",
"status": {},
"sdps": {
"sdp": [
{
"sdp-id": "sdp1",
"ac-svc-name": ["ac1"]
},
{
"sdp-id": "sdp2",
"ac-svc-name": ["ac2"]
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 39: Message Body of a Request to Create a Slice Service
Referring to the ACs
A.8. Connecting a Virtualized Environment Running in a Cloud Provider
This example (Figure 40) shows how the AC service model can be used
to connect a Cloud Infrastructure to a service provider network.
This example makes the following assumptions:
1. A customer (e.g., Mobile Network Team or partner) has a
virtualized infrastructure running in a Cloud Provider. A
simplistic deployment is represented here with a set of Virtual
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Machines running in a Virtual Private Environment. The
deployment and management of this infrastructure is achieved via
private APIs that are supported by the Cloud Provider: this
realization is out of the scope of this document.
2. The connectivity to the Data Center is achieved thanks to a
service based on direct attachment (physical connection), which
is delivered upon ordering via an API exposed by the Cloud
Provider. When ordering that connection, a unique "Connection
Identifier" is generated and returned via the API.
3. The customer provisions the networking logic within the Cloud
Provider based on that unique connection Identifier (i.e.,
logical interfaces, IP addressing, and routing).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
.--------------------------------------------------------.
| Cloud Provider DC |
| |
| |
| ┌───┐ ┌───┐ ┌───┐ |
| │VM1│ │VM2│ │VM3│ Virtual Private Cloud |
| └─┬─┘ └─┬─┘ └─┬─┘ |
| │.2 │.5 │.12 198.51.100.0/24 |
| ─┴─────┴─────┴───┬─────────────────────── |
| │.1 |
| ┌───┴────┐ |
| │ CLOUD │ BGP_ASN: 65536 |
| │PROVIDER│ BGP md5: |
| │ GW │ "nyxNER_c5sdn608fFQl3331d" |
| └───┬────┘ |
| │ ▲ .2 |
'--------------------│-│---------------------------------'
│ │
Direct Interconnection │ │
connection_id: │BGP vlan-id:50
1234-56789 │ │ 192.0.2.0/24
│ │
│ │ .1
.--------------------│-▼---------------------------------.
| If-A┌──┴──┐ Service Provider Network |
| │ │ |
| │ PE1 │ BGP_ASN: 65550 |
| │ │ |
| └─────┘ |
| |
| |
| |
| |
'--------------------------------------------------------'
Figure 40: An Example of Realization for Connecting a Cloud Site
Figure 41 illustrates the pre-provisioning logic for the physical
connection to the Cloud Provider. After this connection is delivered
to the service provider, the network inventory is updated with
"bearer-reference" set to the value of the "Connection Identifier".
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Customer Cloud
Orchestration DIRECT INTERCONNECTION ORDERING (API) Provider
──────────────────────────────────────────────►
Connection Created with "Connection ID:1234-56789
◄───────────────────────────────────────────────
x
x
x
x
Physical Connection 1234-56789 is delivered and
connected to PE1
Network Inventory Updated with:
bearer-reference: 1234-56789 for PE1/Interface If-A
Figure 41: Illustration of Pre-provisioning
Next, API workflows can be initiated:
* Cloud Provider for the configuration as per (3) above.
* Service provider network via the Attachment Circuit model. This
request can be used in conjunction with additional requests based
on L3SM (VPN provisioning) or Network Slice Service model (5G
hybrid Cloud deployment).
Figure 42 shows the message body of the request to create the
required ACs to connect the Cloud Provider Virtualized (VM) using the
Attachment Circuit module.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac--BXT-DC-customer-VPC-foo",
"description": "Connection to Cloud Provider BXT on \
connection 1234-56789",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q"
},
"bearer-reference": "1243-56789"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"address-allocation-type": "ietf-ac-common:static-\
address"
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:bgp-routing",
"bgp": {
"neighbor": [
{
"id": "1",
"peer-as": 65536
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 42: Message Body of a Request to Create the ACs for
Connecting to the Cloud Provider
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Figure 43 shows the message body of the response received from the
provider. Note that this Cloud Provider mandates the use of MD5
authentication for establishing BGP connections.
The module supports MD5 to basically accommodate the installed BGP
base (including by some Cloud Providers). Note that MD5 suffers
from the security weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of [RFC6151]
and Section 2.1 of [RFC6952].
=============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================
{
"ietf-ac-svc:attachment-circuits": {
"ac": [
{
"name": "ac--BXT-DC-customer-VPC-foo",
"description": "Connection to Cloud Provider BXT on \
connection 1234-56789",
"requested-start": "2023-12-12T05:00:00.00Z",
"l2-connection": {
"encapsulation": {
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:dot1q",
"dot1q": {
"tag-type": "ietf-vpn-common:c-vlan",
"cvlan-id": 50
}
},
"bearer-reference": "1243-56789"
},
"ip-connection": {
"ipv4": {
"local-address": "192.0.2.1",
"prefix-length": 24,
"address": [
{
"address-id": "1",
"customer-address": "192.0.2.2"
}
]
}
},
"routing-protocols": {
"routing-protocol": [
{
"id": "1",
"type": "ietf-vpn-common:bgp-routing",
"bgp": {
"neighbor": [
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
{
"id": "1",
"peer-as": 65536,
"local-as": 65550,
"authentication": {
"keying-material": {
"md5-keychain": "nyxNER_c5sdn608fFQl3331d"
}
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 43: Message Body of a Response to the Request to Create
ACs for Connecting to the Cloud Provider
Acknowledgments
Thanks to TBC for the comments.
Contributors
Victor Lopez
Nokia
Email: victor.lopez@nokia.com
Ivan Bykov
Ribbon Communications
Email: Ivan.Bykov@rbbn.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI
Email: ke-oogaki@kddi.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft ACaaS July 2023
Luis Angel Munoz
Vodafone
Email: luis-angel.munoz@vodafone.com
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
Orange
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Richard Roberts (editor)
Juniper
Email: rroberts@juniper.net
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Samier Barguil Giraldo
Nokia
Email: samier.barguil_giraldo@nokia.com
Bo Wu
Huawei Technologies
Email: lana.wubo@huawei.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 11 January 2024 [Page 97]
