Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
Expires: September 10, 2016 Cisco Systems
March 17, 2016
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21
Abstract
This document contains a specification of three YANG modules and one
submodule. Together they form the core routing data model which
serves as a framework for configuring and managing a routing
subsystem. It is expected that these modules will be augmented by
additional YANG modules defining data models for routing protocols,
route filters and other functions. The core routing data model
provides common building blocks for such extensions - routes, routing
information bases (RIB), and routing protocols.
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 http://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 September 10, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries . . . 8
5. Basic Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Routing Information Base (RIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Routing Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.2. Defining New Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . 12
6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Module "ietf-ip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. IPv6 Router Advertisements Submodule . . . . . . . . . . 34
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A. The Complete Data Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.1. Configuration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2. State Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. Minimum Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol . . . . . . . 51
Appendix D. Example: NETCONF <get> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix E. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
E.1. Changes Between Versions -20 and -21 . . . . . . . . . . 59
E.2. Changes Between Versions -19 and -20 . . . . . . . . . . 60
E.3. Changes Between Versions -18 and -19 . . . . . . . . . . 60
E.4. Changes Between Versions -17 and -18 . . . . . . . . . . 60
E.5. Changes Between Versions -16 and -17 . . . . . . . . . . 61
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.6. Changes Between Versions -15 and -16 . . . . . . . . . . 61
E.7. Changes Between Versions -14 and -15 . . . . . . . . . . 62
E.8. Changes Between Versions -13 and -14 . . . . . . . . . . 62
E.9. Changes Between Versions -12 and -13 . . . . . . . . . . 62
E.10. Changes Between Versions -11 and -12 . . . . . . . . . . 63
E.11. Changes Between Versions -10 and -11 . . . . . . . . . . 63
E.12. Changes Between Versions -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . 63
E.13. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . 64
E.14. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 64
E.15. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 64
E.16. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 64
E.17. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 65
E.18. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 66
E.19. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 66
E.20. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 67
E.21. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 67
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1. Introduction
This document contains a specification of the following YANG modules:
o Module "ietf-routing" provides generic components of a routing
data model.
o Module "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv4 unicast.
o Module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv6 unicast. Its
submodule "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" also augments the
"ietf-interfaces" module [RFC7223] with IPv6 router configuration
variables required by [RFC4861].
These modules together define the so-called core routing data model,
which is intended as a basis for future data model development
covering more sophisticated routing systems. While these three
modules can be directly used for simple IP devices with static
routing (see Appendix B), their main purpose is to provide essential
building blocks for more complicated data models involving multiple
routing protocols, multicast routing, additional address families,
and advanced functions such as route filtering or policy routing. To
this end, it is expected that the core routing data model will be
augmented by numerous modules developed by other IETF working groups.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
2. Terminology and Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]:
o client,
o message,
o protocol operation,
o server.
The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]:
o augment,
o configuration data,
o container,
o container with presence,
o data model,
o data node,
o feature,
o leaf,
o list,
o mandatory node,
o module,
o schema tree,
o state data,
o RPC operation.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
2.1. Glossary of New Terms
core routing data model: YANG data model comprising "ietf-routing",
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
modules.
direct route: a route to a directly connected network.
routing information base (RIB): An object containing a list of
routes together with other information. See Section 5.2 for
details.
system-controlled entry: An entry of a list in state data ("config
false") that is created by the system independently of what has
been explicitly configured. See Section 4.1 for details.
user-controlled entry: An entry of a list in state data ("config
false") that is created and deleted as a direct consequence of
certain configuration changes. See Section 4.1 for details.
2.2. Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the complete data tree is
presented in Appendix A, and similar diagrams of its various subtrees
appear in the main text.
o Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.
o Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that
make the corresponding node conditional.
o Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
(read-write), "ro" state data (read-only), "-x" RPC operations,
and "-n" notifications.
o Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" a
container with presence, and "*" denotes a "list" or "leaf-list".
o Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
marked with a colon (":").
o Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
shown.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, RPC operations and other data
model objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear
from the context in which YANG module each name is defined.
Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated
with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
| if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC7223] |
| ip | ietf-ip | [RFC7277] |
| rt | ietf-routing | Section 7 |
| v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 8 |
| v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 9 |
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] |
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules
3. Objectives
The initial design of the core routing data model was driven by the
following objectives:
o The data model should be suitable for the common address families,
in particular IPv4 and IPv6, and for unicast and multicast
routing, as well as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS).
o A simple IP routing system, such as one that uses only static
routing, should be configurable in a simple way, ideally without
any need to develop additional YANG modules.
o On the other hand, the core routing framework must allow for
complicated implementations involving multiple routing information
bases (RIB) and multiple routing protocols, as well as controlled
redistributions of routing information.
o Device vendors will want to map the data models built on this
generic framework to their proprietary data models and
configuration interfaces. Therefore, the framework should be
flexible enough to facilitate such a mapping and accommodate data
models with different logic.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model
The core routing data model consists of three YANG modules and one
submodule. The first module, "ietf-routing", defines the generic
components of a routing system. The other two modules, "ietf-ipv4-
unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing", augment the "ietf-
routing" module with additional data nodes that are needed for IPv4
and IPv6 unicast routing, respectively. Module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-
routing" has a submodule, "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements", that
defines configuration variables for IPv6 router advertisements as
required by [RFC4861]. Figures 1 and 2 show abridged views of the
configuration and state data hierarchies. See Appendix A for the
complete data trees.
+--rw routing
+--rw router-id?
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [type name]
| +--rw type
| +--rw name
| +--rw description?
| +--rw static-routes
| | +--rw v6ur:ipv6
| | | ...
| | +--rw v4ur:ipv4
| | ...
| +--rw rip:rip!
| +--rw rip:interfaces
| | ...
| +--rw rip:update-interval?
+--rw ribs
+--rw rib* [name]
+--rw name
+--rw address-family?
+--rw description?
Figure 1: Configuration data hierarchy.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
+--ro routing-state
+--ro router-id?
+--ro interfaces
| +--ro interface*
+--ro routing-protocols
| +--ro routing-protocol* [type name]
| +--ro type
| +--ro name
+--ro ribs
+--ro rib* [name]
+--ro name
+--ro address-family
+--ro default-rib?
+--ro routes
+--ro route*
...
Figure 2: State data hierarchy.
As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the core routing data model
introduces several generic components of a routing framework: routes,
RIBs containing lists of routes, and routing protocols. Section 5
describes these components in more detail.
4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries
The core routing data model defines several lists in the schema tree,
such as "rib", that have to be populated with at least one entry in
any properly functioning device, and additional entries may be
configured by a client.
In such a list, the server creates the required item as a so-called
system-controlled entry in state data, i.e., inside the "routing-
state" container.
An example can be seen in Appendix D: the "/routing-state/ribs/rib"
list has two system-controlled entries named "ipv4-master" and
"ipv6-master".
Additional entries may be created in the configuration by a client,
e.g., via the NETCONF protocol. These are so-called user-controlled
entries. If the server accepts a configured user-controlled entry,
then this entry also appears in the state data version of the list.
Corresponding entries in both versions of the list (in state data and
configuration) have the same value of the list key.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
A client may also provide supplemental configuration of system-
controlled entries. To do so, the client creates a new entry in the
configuration with the desired contents. In order to bind this entry
to the corresponding entry in the state data list, the key of the
configuration entry has to be set to the same value as the key of the
state entry.
Deleting a user-controlled entry from the configuration list results
in the removal of the corresponding entry in the state data list. In
contrast, if a system-controlled entry is deleted from the
configuration list, only the extra configuration specified in that
entry is removed but the corresponding state data entry remains in
the list.
5. Basic Building Blocks
This section describes the essential components of the core routing
data model.
5.1. Route
Routes are basic elements of information in a routing system. The
core routing data model defines only the following minimal set of
route attributes:
o "destination-prefix": IP prefix specifying the set of destination
addresses for which the route may be used. This attribute is
mandatory.
o "route-preference": an integer value (also known as administrative
distance) that is used for selecting a preferred route among
routes with the same destination prefix. A lower value means a
more preferred route.
o "next-hop": determines the action to be performed with a packet.
Routes are primarily state data that appear as entries of RIBs
(Section 5.2) but they may also be found in configuration data, for
example as manually configured static routes. In the latter case,
configurable route attributes are generally a subset of route
attributes described above.
5.2. Routing Information Base (RIB)
Every implementation of the core routing data model manages one or
more routing information bases (RIB). A RIB is a list of routes
complemented with administrative data. Each RIB contains only routes
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
of one address family. An address family is represented by an
identity derived from the "rt:address-family" base identity.
In the core routing data model, RIBs are state data represented as
entries of the list "/routing-state/ribs/rib". The contents of RIBs
are controlled and manipulated by routing protocol operations which
may result in route additions, removals and modifications. This also
includes manipulations via the "static" and/or "direct" pseudo-
protocols, see Section 5.3.1.
For every supported address family, exactly one RIB MUST be marked as
the so-called default RIB. Its role is explained in Section 5.3.
Simple router implementations that do not advertise the feature
"multiple-ribs" will typically create one system-controlled RIB per
supported address family, and mark it as the default RIB.
More complex router implementations advertising the "multiple-ribs"
feature support multiple RIBs per address family that can be used for
policy routing and other purposes.
5.3. Routing Protocol
The core routing data model provides an open-ended framework for
defining multiple routing protocol instances. Each routing protocol
instance MUST be assigned a type, which is an identity derived from
the "rt:routing-protocol" base identity. The core routing data model
defines two identities for the direct and static pseudo-protocols
(Section 5.3.1).
Multiple routing protocol instances of the same type MAY be
configured.
5.3.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols
The core routing data model defines two special routing protocol
types - "direct" and "static". Both are in fact pseudo-protocols,
which means they are confined to the local device and do not exchange
any routing information with adjacent routers.
Every implementation of the core routing data model MUST provide
exactly one instance of the "direct" pseudo-protocol type. It is the
source of direct routes for all configured address families. Direct
routes are normally supplied by the operating system kernel, based on
the configuration of network interface addresses, see Section 6.2.
Direct routes MUST be installed in default RIBs of all supported
address families.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
A pseudo-protocol of the type "static" allows for specifying routes
manually. It MAY be configured in zero or multiple instances,
although a typical configuration will have exactly one instance.
5.3.2. Defining New Routing Protocols
It is expected that future YANG modules will create data models for
additional routing protocol types. Such a new module has to define
the protocol-specific configuration and state data, and it has to
integrate it into the core routing framework in the following way:
o A new identity MUST be defined for the routing protocol and its
base identity MUST be set to "rt:routing-protocol", or to an
identity derived from "rt:routing-protocol".
o Additional route attributes MAY be defined, preferably in one
place by means of defining a YANG grouping. The new attributes
have to be inserted by augmenting the definitions of the nodes
/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route
and
/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route,
and possibly other places in the configuration, state data,
notifications, and RPC input or output.
o Configuration parameters and/or state data for the new protocol
can be defined by augmenting the "routing-protocol" data node
under both "/routing" and "/routing-state".
By using a "when" statement, the augmented configuration parameters
and state data specific to the new protocol SHOULD be made
conditional and valid only if the value of "rt:type" or "rt:source-
protocol" is equal to the new protocol's identity.
It is also RECOMMENDED that protocol-specific data nodes be
encapsulated in an appropriately named container with presence. Such
a container may contain mandatory data nodes that are otherwise
forbidden at the top level of an augment.
The above steps are implemented by the example YANG module for the
RIP routing protocol in Appendix C.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
5.4. RPC Operations
The "ietf-routing" module defines one RPC operation:
o fib-route: query the routing system for the active route in the
Forwarding Information Base (FIB). It is the route that is
currently used for sending datagrams to a destination host whose
address is passed as the input parameter.
5.5. Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements
YANG module "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" (Section 9.1), which is
a submodule of the "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module, augments the
configuration and state data of IPv6 interfaces with definitions of
the following variables as required by [RFC4861], sec. 6.2.1:
o send-advertisements,
o max-rtr-adv-interval,
o min-rtr-adv-interval,
o managed-flag,
o other-config-flag,
o link-mtu,
o reachable-time,
o retrans-timer,
o cur-hop-limit,
o default-lifetime,
o prefix-list: a list of prefixes to be advertised.
The following parameters are associated with each prefix in the
list:
* valid-lifetime,
* on-link-flag,
* preferred-lifetime,
* autonomous-flag.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
NOTES:
1. The "IsRouter" flag, which is also required by [RFC4861], is
implemented in the "ietf-ip" module [RFC7277] (leaf
"ip:forwarding").
2. The original specification [RFC4861] allows the implementations
to decide whether the "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime"
parameters remain the same in consecutive advertisements, or
decrement in real time. However, the latter behavior seems
problematic because the values might be reset again to the
(higher) configured values after a configuration is reloaded.
Moreover, no implementation is known to use the decrementing
behavior. The "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module therefore
assumes the former behavior with constant values.
6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules
The semantics of the core routing data model also depends on several
configuration parameters that are defined in other YANG modules.
6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces"
The following boolean switch is defined in the "ietf-interfaces" YANG
module [RFC7223]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
then all routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on that
interface.
6.2. Module "ietf-ip"
The following boolean switches are defined in the "ietf-ip" YANG
module [RFC7277]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
then all IPv4 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
that interface.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
then the forwarding of IPv4 datagrams through this interface MUST
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
be disabled. However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv4
routing functions, such as routing protocols.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
then all IPv6 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
that interface.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
then the forwarding of IPv6 datagrams through this interface MUST
be disabled. However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv6
routing functions, such as routing protocols.
In addition, the "ietf-ip" module allows for configuring IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses and network prefixes or masks on network layer
interfaces. Configuration of these parameters on an enabled
interface MUST result in an immediate creation of the corresponding
direct route. The destination prefix of this route is set according
to the configured IP address and network prefix/mask, and the
interface is set as the outgoing interface for that route.
7. Routing Management YANG Module
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing@2016-03-09.yang"
module ietf-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing";
prefix "rt";
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix "yang";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
WG Chair: Kent Watsen
<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Editor: Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines essential components for the management
of a routing subsystem.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.";
revision 2016-03-09 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
/* Features */
feature multiple-ribs {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports user-defined
RIBs.
Servers that do not advertise this feature SHOULD provide
exactly one system-controlled RIB per supported address family
and make them also the default RIBs. These RIBs then appear as
entries of the list /routing-state/ribs/rib.";
}
feature router-id {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports configuration
of an explicit 32-bit router ID that is used by some routing
protocols.
Servers that do not advertise this feature set a router ID
algorithmically, usually to one of configured IPv4 addresses.
However, this algorithm is implementation-specific.";
}
/* Identities */
identity address-family {
description
"Base identity from which identities describing address
families are derived.";
}
identity ipv4 {
base address-family;
description
"This identity represents IPv4 address family.";
}
identity ipv6 {
base address-family;
description
"This identity represents IPv6 address family.";
}
identity routing-protocol {
description
"Base identity from which routing protocol identities are
derived.";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
}
identity direct {
base routing-protocol;
description
"Routing pseudo-protocol that provides routes to directly
connected networks.";
}
identity static {
base routing-protocol;
description
"Static routing pseudo-protocol.";
}
/* Type Definitions */
typedef route-preference {
type uint32;
description
"This type is used for route preferences.";
}
/* Groupings */
grouping address-family {
description
"This grouping provides a leaf identifying an address
family.";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base address-family;
}
mandatory "true";
description
"Address family.";
}
}
grouping router-id {
description
"This grouping provides router ID.";
leaf router-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"A 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad that is used by
some routing protocols identifying a router.";
reference
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2.";
}
}
grouping special-next-hop {
description
"This grouping provides a leaf with an enumeration of special
next-hops.";
leaf special-next-hop {
type enumeration {
enum blackhole {
description
"Silently discard the packet.";
}
enum unreachable {
description
"Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
message indicating that the destination host is
unreachable.";
}
enum prohibit {
description
"Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
message indicating that the communication is
administratively prohibited.";
}
enum receive {
description
"The packet will be received by the local system.";
}
}
description
"Special next-hop options.";
}
}
grouping next-hop-content {
description
"Generic parameters of next-hops in static routes.";
choice next-hop-options {
mandatory "true";
description
"Options for next-hops in static routes.
Modules for address families MUST augment this choice with
the 'next-hop-address' case, which is a leaf containing a
gateway address of that address family.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
It is expected that further cases will be added through
augments from other modules, e.g., for Equal-Cost Multipath
routing (ECMP).";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
case special-next-hop {
uses special-next-hop;
}
}
}
grouping next-hop-state-content {
description
"Generic parameters of next-hops in state data.";
choice next-hop-options {
mandatory "true";
description
"Options for next-hops in state data.
Modules for address families MUST augment this choice with
the 'next-hop-address' case, which is a leaf containing a
gateway address of that address family.
It is expected that further cases will be added through
augments from other modules, e.g., for ECMP or recursive
next-hops.";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-state-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
case special-next-hop {
uses special-next-hop;
}
}
}
grouping route-metadata {
description
"Common route metadata.";
leaf source-protocol {
type identityref {
base routing-protocol;
}
mandatory "true";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"Type of the routing protocol from which the route
originated.";
}
leaf active {
type empty;
description
"Presence of this leaf indicates that the route is preferred
among all routes in the same RIB that have the same
destination prefix.";
}
leaf last-updated {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Time stamp of the last modification of the route. If the
route was never modified, it is the time when the route was
inserted into the RIB.";
}
}
/* State data */
container routing-state {
config "false";
description
"State data of the routing subsystem.";
uses router-id {
description
"Global router ID.
It may be either configured or assigned algorithmically by
the implementation.";
}
container interfaces {
description
"Network layer interfaces used for routing.";
leaf-list interface {
type if:interface-state-ref;
description
"Each entry is a reference to the name of a configured
network layer interface.";
}
}
container routing-protocols {
description
"Container for the list of routing protocol instances.";
list routing-protocol {
key "type name";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"State data of a routing protocol instance.
An implementation MUST provide exactly one
system-controlled instance of the type 'direct'. Other
instances MAY be created by configuration.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base routing-protocol;
}
description
"Type of the routing protocol.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the routing protocol instance.
For system-controlled instances this name is persistent,
i.e., it SHOULD NOT change across reboots.";
}
}
}
container ribs {
description
"Container for RIBs.";
list rib {
key "name";
min-elements "1";
description
"Each entry represents a RIB identified by the 'name' key.
All routes in a RIB MUST belong to the same address
family.
An implementation SHOULD provide one system-controlled
default RIB for each supported address family.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the RIB.";
}
uses address-family;
leaf default-rib {
if-feature multiple-ribs;
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"This flag has the value of 'true' if and only if the RIB
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
is the default RIB for the given address family.
A default RIB always receives direct routes. By default
it also receives routes from all routing protocols.";
}
container routes {
description
"Current content of the RIB.";
list route {
description
"A RIB route entry. This data node MUST be augmented
with information specific for routes of each address
family.";
leaf route-preference {
type route-preference;
description
"This route attribute, also known as administrative
distance, allows for selecting the preferred route
among routes with the same destination prefix. A
smaller value means a more preferred route.";
}
container next-hop {
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content;
}
uses route-metadata;
}
}
}
}
}
/* Configuration Data */
container routing {
description
"Configuration parameters for the routing subsystem.";
uses router-id {
if-feature router-id;
description
"Configuration of the global router ID. Routing protocols
that use router ID can use this parameter or override it
with another value.";
}
container routing-protocols {
description
"Configuration of routing protocol instances.";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
list routing-protocol {
key "type name";
description
"Each entry contains configuration of a routing protocol
instance.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base routing-protocol;
}
description
"Type of the routing protocol - an identity derived from
the 'routing-protocol' base identity.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the routing protocol instance.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the routing protocol instance.";
}
container static-routes {
when "../type='rt:static'" {
description
"This container is only valid for the 'static' routing
protocol.";
}
description
"Configuration of the 'static' pseudo-protocol.
Address-family-specific modules augment this node with
their lists of routes.";
}
}
}
container ribs {
description
"Configuration of RIBs.";
list rib {
key "name";
description
"Each entry contains configuration for a RIB identified by
the 'name' key.
Entries having the same key as a system-controlled entry
of the list /routing-state/ribs/rib are used for
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
configuring parameters of that entry. Other entries define
additional user-controlled RIBs.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the RIB.
For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf
must be the same as the name of the corresponding entry
in state data.
For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be
used.";
}
uses address-family {
description
"Address family of the RIB.
It is mandatory for user-controlled RIBs. For
system-controlled RIBs it can be omitted, otherwise it
must match the address family of the corresponding state
entry.";
refine "address-family" {
mandatory "false";
}
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the RIB.";
}
}
}
}
/* RPC operations */
rpc fib-route {
description
"Return the active FIB route that is used for sending packets
to a destination address.";
input {
container destination-address {
description
"Network layer destination address.
Address family specific modules MUST augment this
container with a leaf named 'address'.";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
uses address-family;
}
}
output {
container route {
description
"The active FIB route for the specified destination.
If no active FIB route exists for the destination address,
no output is returned - the server SHALL send an
<rpc-reply> containing a single element <ok>.
Address family specific modules MUST augment this list
with appropriate route contents.";
uses address-family;
container next-hop {
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content;
}
uses route-metadata;
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2016-03-09.yang"
module ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing";
prefix "v4ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
WG Chair: Kent Watsen
<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Editor: Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
configuration and state data for IPv4 unicast routing.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.";
revision 2016-03-09 {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Identities */
identity ipv4-unicast {
base rt:ipv4;
description
"This identity represents the IPv4 unicast address family.";
}
/* State data */
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments an IPv4 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options" {
when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv4 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
/* Configuration data */
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-protocols/rt:routing-protocol/"
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
+ "rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv4 unicast.";
container ipv4 {
description
"Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "destination-prefix";
description
"A list of static routes.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory "true";
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
container next-hop {
description
"Configuration of next-hop.";
uses rt:next-hop-content {
augment "next-hop-options" {
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv4 static routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
/* RPC operations */
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
}
description
"This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of
the 'rt:fib-route' operation.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
operation.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/"
+ "rt:next-hop-options" {
when "../rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
operation.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2016-03-09.yang"
module ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing";
prefix "v6ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
include ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements {
revision-date 2016-03-09;
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
WG Chair: Kent Watsen
<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Editor: Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
configuration and state data for IPv6 unicast routing.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.";
revision 2016-03-09 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Identities */
identity ipv6-unicast {
base rt:ipv6;
description
"This identity represents the IPv6 unicast address family.";
}
/* State data */
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments an IPv6 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options" {
when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv6 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
/* Configuration data */
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-protocols/rt:routing-protocol/"
+ "rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv6 unicast.";
container ipv6 {
description
"Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "destination-prefix";
description
"A list of static routes.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory "true";
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
container next-hop {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"Configuration of next-hop.";
uses rt:next-hop-content {
augment "next-hop-options" {
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv6 static routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
/* RPC operations */
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of
the 'rt:fib-route' operation.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
operation.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
}
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/"
+ "rt:next-hop-options" {
when "../rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"Augment 'next-hop-options' in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
operation.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9.1. IPv6 Router Advertisements Submodule
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements@2016-03-09.yang"
submodule ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements {
belongs-to ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {
prefix "v6ur";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
import ietf-ip {
prefix "ip";
}
organization
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
WG Chair: Kent Watsen
<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Editor: Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-ip' module with
configuration and state data of IPv6 router advertisements.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6).";
revision 2016-03-09 {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* State data */
augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
description
"Augment interface state data with parameters of IPv6 router
advertisements.";
container ipv6-router-advertisements {
description
"Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
leaf send-advertisements {
type boolean;
description
"A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic
Router Advertisements and responds to Router
Solicitations.";
}
leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "4..1800";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
}
leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "3..1350";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
}
leaf managed-flag {
type boolean;
description
"The value that is placed in the 'Managed address
configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
}
leaf other-config-flag {
type boolean;
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"The value that is placed in the 'Other configuration' flag
field in the Router Advertisement.";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
description
"The value that is placed in MTU options sent by the
router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are
sent.";
}
leaf reachable-time {
type uint32 {
range "0..3600000";
}
units "milliseconds";
description
"The value that is placed in the Reachable Time field in
the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A
value of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf retrans-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
description
"The value that is placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf cur-hop-limit {
type uint8;
description
"The value that is placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf default-lifetime {
type uint16 {
range "0..9000";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The value that is placed in the Router Lifetime field of
Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
A value of zero indicates that the router is not to be
used as a default router.";
}
container prefix-list {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
description
"A list of prefixes that are placed in Prefix Information
options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the
interface.
By default, these are all prefixes that the router
advertises via routing protocols as being on-link for the
interface from which the advertisement is sent.";
list prefix {
key "prefix-spec";
description
"Advertised prefix entry and its parameters.";
leaf prefix-spec {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 address prefix.";
}
leaf valid-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
description
"The value that is placed in the Valid Lifetime in the
Prefix Information option. The designated value of all
1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity.
An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
consecutive advertisements except when it is
explicitly changed in configuration.";
}
leaf on-link-flag {
type boolean;
description
"The value that is placed in the on-link flag ('L-bit')
field in the Prefix Information option.";
}
leaf preferred-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
description
"The value that is placed in the Preferred Lifetime in
the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The
designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
infinity.
An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
consecutive advertisements except when it is
explicitly changed in configuration.";
}
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
leaf autonomous-flag {
type boolean;
description
"The value that is placed in the Autonomous Flag field
in the Prefix Information option.";
}
}
}
}
}
/* Configuration data */
augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
description
"Augment interface configuration with parameters of IPv6 router
advertisements.";
container ipv6-router-advertisements {
description
"Configuration of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
leaf send-advertisements {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic
Router Advertisements and responds to Router
Solicitations.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvSendAdvertisements.";
}
leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "4..1800";
}
units "seconds";
default "600";
description
"The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
MaxRtrAdvInterval.";
}
leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "3..1350";
}
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
units "seconds";
must ". <= 0.75 * ../max-rtr-adv-interval" {
description
"The value MUST NOT be greater than 75 % of
'max-rtr-adv-interval'.";
}
description
"The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.
The default value to be used operationally if this leaf is
not configured is determined as follows:
- if max-rtr-adv-interval >= 9 seconds, the default value
is 0.33 * max-rtr-adv-interval;
- otherwise it is 0.75 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
MinRtrAdvInterval.";
}
leaf managed-flag {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The value to be placed in the 'Managed address
configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvManagedFlag.";
}
leaf other-config-flag {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The value to be placed in the 'Other configuration' flag
field in the Router Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvOtherConfigFlag.";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in MTU options sent by the router.
A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are sent.";
reference
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvLinkMTU.";
}
leaf reachable-time {
type uint32 {
range "0..3600000";
}
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Reachable Time field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvReachableTime.";
}
leaf retrans-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvRetransTimer.";
}
leaf cur-hop-limit {
type uint8;
description
"The value to be placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).
If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use
the value specified in IANA Assigned Numbers that was in
effect at the time of implementation.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvCurHopLimit.
IANA: IP Parameters,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters";
}
leaf default-lifetime {
type uint16 {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
range "0..9000";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The value to be placed in the Router Lifetime field of
Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
It MUST be either zero or between max-rtr-adv-interval and
9000 seconds. A value of zero indicates that the router is
not to be used as a default router. These limits may be
overridden by specific documents that describe how IPv6
operates over different link layers.
If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use
a value of 3 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvDefaultLifeTime.";
}
container prefix-list {
description
"Configuration of prefixes to be placed in Prefix
Information options in Router Advertisement messages sent
from the interface.
Prefixes that are advertised by default but do not have
their entries in the child 'prefix' list are advertised
with the default values of all parameters.
The link-local prefix SHOULD NOT be included in the list
of advertised prefixes.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvPrefixList.";
list prefix {
key "prefix-spec";
description
"Configuration of an advertised prefix entry.";
leaf prefix-spec {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 address prefix.";
}
choice control-adv-prefixes {
default "advertise";
description
"The prefix either may be explicitly removed from the
set of advertised prefixes, or parameters with which
it is advertised may be specified (default case).";
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
leaf no-advertise {
type empty;
description
"The prefix will not be advertised.
This can be used for removing the prefix from the
default set of advertised prefixes.";
}
case advertise {
leaf valid-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
default "2592000";
description
"The value to be placed in the Valid Lifetime in
the Prefix Information option. The designated
value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
infinity.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvValidLifetime.";
}
leaf on-link-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the on-link flag
('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information
option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvOnLinkFlag.";
}
leaf preferred-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
must ". <= ../valid-lifetime" {
description
"This value MUST NOT be greater than
valid-lifetime.";
}
default "604800";
description
"The value to be placed in the Preferred Lifetime
in the Prefix Information option. The designated
value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
infinity.";
reference
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvPreferredLifetime.";
}
leaf autonomous-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the Autonomous Flag
field in the Prefix Information option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvAutonomousFlag.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
10. IANA Considerations
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number (and remove this note).
This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
registry [RFC3688]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC6020]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
prefix: rt
reference: RFC XXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
prefix: v4ur
reference: RFC XXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
prefix: v6ur
reference: RFC XXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This document registers the following YANG submodule in the YANG
Module Names registry [RFC6020]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements
parent: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
reference: RFC XXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Security Considerations
Configuration and state data conforming to the core routing data
model (defined in this document) are designed to be accessed via the
NETCONF protocol [RFC6241]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure
transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is
SSH [RFC6242]. The NETCONF access control model [RFC6536] provides
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF users to a pre-
configured subset of all available NETCONF protocol operations and
content.
A number of data nodes defined in the YANG modules belonging to the
configuration part of the core routing data model are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., "config true" in YANG terms,
which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive
or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations to
these data nodes, such as "edit-config", can have negative effects on
the network if the protocol operations are not properly protected.
The vulnerable "config true" parameters and subtrees are the
following:
/routing/routing-protocols/routing-protocol: This list specifies the
routing protocols configured on a device.
/routing/ribs/rib: This list specifies the RIBs configured for the
device.
Unauthorised access to any of these lists can adversely affect the
routing subsystem of both the local device and the network. This may
lead to network malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate
destinations and other problems.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Nitin Bahadur, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
Bogdanovic, Jeff Haas, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Sriganesh Kini,
David Lamparter, Andrew McGregor, Jan Medved, Xiang Li, Stephane
Litkowski, Thomas Morin, Tom Petch, Bruno Rijsman,
Juergen Schoenwaelder, Phil Shafer, Dave Thaler, Yi Yang, Derek Man-
Kit Yeung and Jeffrey Zhang for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, DOI 10.17487/RFC6087,
January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6087>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
Appendix A. The Complete Data Trees
This appendix presents the complete configuration and state data
trees of the core routing data model. See Section 2.2 for an
explanation of the symbols used. Data type of every leaf node is
shown near the right end of the corresponding line.
A.1. Configuration Data
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
+--rw routing
+--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
+--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol* [type name]
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw name string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw static-routes
| | +--rw v6ur:ipv6
| | | +--rw v6ur:route* [destination-prefix]
| | | +--rw v6ur:destination-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix
| | | +--rw v6ur:description? string
| | | +--rw v6ur:next-hop
| | | +--rw (v6ur:next-hop-options)
| | | +--:(v6ur:outgoing-interface)
| | | | +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref
| | | +--:(v6ur:special-next-hop)
| | | | +--rw v6ur:special-next-hop? enumeration
| | | +--:(v6ur:next-hop-address)
| | | +--rw v6ur:next-hop-address? inet:ipv6-address
| | +--rw v4ur:ipv4
| | +--rw v4ur:route* [destination-prefix]
| | +--rw v4ur:destination-prefix inet:ipv4-prefix
| | +--rw v4ur:description? string
| | +--rw v4ur:next-hop
| | +--rw (v4ur:next-hop-options)
| | +--:(v4ur:outgoing-interface)
| | | +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref
| | +--:(v4ur:special-next-hop)
| | | +--rw v4ur:special-next-hop? enumeration
| | +--:(v4ur:next-hop-address)
| | +--rw v4ur:next-hop-address? inet:ipv4-address
| +--rw rip:rip!
| +--rw rip:interfaces
| | +--rw rip:interface* [name]
| | +--rw rip:name if:interface-ref
| | +--rw rip:enabled? boolean
| | +--rw rip:metric? rip-metric
| +--rw rip:update-interval? uint8
+--rw ribs
+--rw rib* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw address-family? identityref
+--rw description? string
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
A.2. State Data
+--ro routing-state
+--ro router-id? yang:dotted-quad
+--ro interfaces
| +--ro interface* if:interface-state-ref
+--ro routing-protocols
| +--ro routing-protocol* [type name]
| +--ro type identityref
| +--ro name string
+--ro ribs
+--ro rib* [name]
+--ro name string
+--ro address-family identityref
+--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}?
+--ro routes
+--ro route*
+--ro route-preference? route-preference
+--ro next-hop
| +--ro (next-hop-options)
| +--:(outgoing-interface)
| | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-state-ref
| +--:(special-next-hop)
| | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration
| +--:(v6ur:next-hop-address)
| | +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address? inet:ipv6-address
| +--:(v4ur:next-hop-address)
| +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address? inet:ipv4-address
+--ro source-protocol identityref
+--ro active? empty
+--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
+--ro v6ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix
+--ro rip:metric? rip-metric
+--ro rip:tag? uint16
+--ro v4ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix
Appendix B. Minimum Implementation
Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user-
defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers. This appendix
gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum
of available functions. Such an implementation may be used for hosts
or very simple routers.
A minimum implementation does not support the feature "multiple-
ribs". This means that a single system-controlled RIB is available
for each supported address family - IPv4, IPv6 or both. These RIBs
are also the default RIBs. No user-controlled RIBs are allowed.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
In addition to the mandatory instance of the "direct" pseudo-
protocol, a minimum implementation should support configuring
instance(s) of the "static" pseudo-protocol.
Platforms with severely constrained resources may use deviations for
restricting the data model, e.g., limiting the number of "static"
routing protocol instances.
Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol
This appendix demonstrates how the core routing data model can be
extended to support a new routing protocol. The YANG module
"example-rip" shown below is intended as an illustration rather than
a real definition of a data model for the RIP routing protocol. For
the sake of brevity, this module does not obey all the guidelines
specified in [RFC6087]. See also Section 5.3.2.
module example-rip {
namespace "http://example.com/rip";
prefix "rip";
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
identity rip {
base rt:routing-protocol;
description
"Identity for the RIP routing protocol.";
}
typedef rip-metric {
type uint8 {
range "0..16";
}
}
grouping route-content {
description
"This grouping defines RIP-specific route attributes.";
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
}
leaf tag {
type uint16;
default "0";
description
"This leaf may be used to carry additional info, e.g. AS
number.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "rt:source-protocol = 'rip:rip'" {
description
"This augment is only valid for a routes whose source
protocol is RIP.";
}
description
"RIP-specific route attributes.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
description
"RIP-specific route attributes in the output of 'active-route'
RPC.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-protocols/rt:routing-protocol" {
when "rt:type = 'rip:rip'" {
description
"This augment is only valid for a routing protocol instance
of type 'rip'.";
}
container rip {
presence "RIP configuration";
description
"RIP instance configuration.";
container interfaces {
description
"Per-interface RIP configuration.";
list interface {
key "name";
description
"RIP is enabled on interfaces that have an entry in this
list, unless 'enabled' is set to 'false' for that
entry.";
leaf name {
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
type if:interface-ref;
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
}
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
default "1";
}
}
}
leaf update-interval {
type uint8 {
range "10..60";
}
units "seconds";
default "30";
description
"Time interval between periodic updates.";
}
}
}
}
Appendix D. Example: NETCONF <get> Reply
This section contains a sample reply to the NETCONF <get> message,
which could be sent by a server supporting (i.e., advertising them in
the NETCONF <hello> message) the following YANG modules:
o ietf-interfaces [RFC7223],
o iana-if-type [RFC7224],
o ietf-ip [RFC7277],
o ietf-routing (Section 7),
o ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing (Section 8),
o ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing (Section 9).
We assume a simple network set-up as shown in Figure 3: router "A"
uses static default routes with the "ISP" router as the next-hop.
IPv6 router advertisements are configured only on the "eth1"
interface and disabled on the upstream "eth0" interface.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
+-----------------+
| |
| Router ISP |
| |
+--------+--------+
|2001:db8:0:1::2
|192.0.2.2
|
|
|2001:db8:0:1::1
eth0|192.0.2.1
+--------+--------+
| |
| Router A |
| |
+--------+--------+
eth1|198.51.100.1
|2001:db8:0:2::1
|
Figure 3: Example network configuration
A reply to the NETCONF <get> message sent by router "A" would then be
as follows:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rpc-reply
message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"
xmlns:v6ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type"
xmlns:ip="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip"
xmlns:rt="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing">
<data>
<if:interfaces>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth0</if:name>
<if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:description>
Uplink to ISP.
</if:description>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>192.0.2.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:1::1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:autoconf>
<ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
</ip:autoconf>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth1</if:name>
<if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:description>
Interface to the internal network.
</if:description>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>198.51.100.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:2::1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:autoconf>
<ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
</ip:autoconf>
<v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
<v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
</v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
</if:interfaces>
<if:interfaces-state>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth0</if:name>
<if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:phys-address>00:0C:42:E5:B1:E9</if:phys-address>
<if:oper-status>up</if:oper-status>
<if:statistics>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
<if:discontinuity-time>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</if:discontinuity-time>
</if:statistics>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>192.0.2.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:1::1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
<v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
<v6ur:prefix-list>
<v6ur:prefix>
<v6ur:prefix-spec>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:prefix-spec>
</v6ur:prefix>
</v6ur:prefix-list>
</v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth1</if:name>
<if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:phys-address>00:0C:42:E5:B1:EA</if:phys-address>
<if:oper-status>up</if:oper-status>
<if:statistics>
<if:discontinuity-time>2015-10-24T17:11:29+02:00</if:discontinuity-time>
</if:statistics>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>198.51.100.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:2::1</ip:ip>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
<v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
<v6ur:prefix-list>
<v6ur:prefix>
<v6ur:prefix-spec>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:prefix-spec>
</v6ur:prefix>
</v6ur:prefix-list>
</v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
</if:interfaces-state>
<rt:routing>
<rt:router-id>192.0.2.1</rt:router-id>
<rt:routing-protocols>
<rt:routing-protocol>
<rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
<rt:name>st0</rt:name>
<rt:description>
Static routing is used for the internal network.
</rt:description>
<rt:static-routes>
<v4ur:ipv4>
<v4ur:route>
<v4ur:destination-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</v4ur:destination-prefix>
<v4ur:next-hop>
<v4ur:next-hop-address>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop-address>
</v4ur:next-hop>
</v4ur:route>
</v4ur:ipv4>
<v6ur:ipv6>
<v6ur:route>
<v6ur:destination-prefix>::/0</v6ur:destination-prefix>
<v6ur:next-hop>
<v6ur:next-hop-address>2001:db8:0:1::2</v6ur:next-hop-address>
</v6ur:next-hop>
</v6ur:route>
</v6ur:ipv6>
</rt:static-routes>
</rt:routing-protocol>
</rt:routing-protocols>
</rt:routing>
<rt:routing-state>
<rt:interfaces>
<rt:interface>eth0</rt:interface>
<rt:interface>eth1</rt:interface>
</rt:interfaces>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
<rt:routing-protocols>
<rt:routing-protocol>
<rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
<rt:name>st0</rt:name>
</rt:routing-protocol>
</rt:routing-protocols>
<rt:ribs>
<rt:rib>
<rt:name>ipv4-master</rt:name>
<rt:address-family>v4ur:ipv4-unicast</rt:address-family>
<rt:default-rib>true</rt:default-rib>
<rt:routes>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:destination-prefix>192.0.2.1/24</v4ur:destination-prefix>
<rt:next-hop>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:destination-prefix>198.51.100.0/24</v4ur:destination-prefix>
<rt:next-hop>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:destination-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</v4ur:destination-prefix>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:static</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:route-preference>5</rt:route-preference>
<rt:next-hop>
<v4ur:next-hop-address>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop-address>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
</rt:routes>
</rt:rib>
<rt:rib>
<rt:name>ipv6-master</rt:name>
<rt:address-family>v6ur:ipv6-unicast</rt:address-family>
<rt:default-rib>true</rt:default-rib>
<rt:routes>
<rt:route>
<v6ur:destination-prefix>2001:db8:0:1::/64</v6ur:destination-prefix>
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
<rt:next-hop>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v6ur:destination-prefix>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:destination-prefix>
<rt:next-hop>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v6ur:destination-prefix>::/0</v6ur:destination-prefix>
<rt:next-hop>
<v6ur:next-hop-address>2001:db8:0:1::2</v6ur:next-hop-address>
</rt:next-hop>
<rt:source-protocol>rt:static</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:route-preference>5</rt:route-preference>
<rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
</rt:routes>
</rt:rib>
</rt:ribs>
</rt:routing-state>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
<!-- Local Variables: -->
<!-- nxml-child-indent: 1 -->
<!-- End: -->
Appendix E. Change Log
RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
E.1. Changes Between Versions -20 and -21
o Routing instances were removed.
o IPv6 RA parameters were moved to the "ietf-ipv6-router-
advertisements".
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.2. Changes Between Versions -19 and -20
o Assignment of L3 interfaces to routing instances is now part of
interface configuration.
o Next-hop options in configuration were aligned with state data.
o It is recommended to enclose protocol-specific configuration in a
presence container.
E.3. Changes Between Versions -18 and -19
o The leaf "route-preference" was removed from the "routing-
protocol" container in both "routing" and "routing-state".
o The "vrf-routing-instance" identity was added in support of a
common routing-instance type in addition to the "default-routing-
instance".
o Removed "enabled" switch from "routing-protocol".
E.4. Changes Between Versions -17 and -18
o The container "ribs" was moved under "routing-instance" (in both
"routing" and "routing-state").
o Typedefs "rib-ref" and "rib-state-ref" were removed.
o Removed "recipient-ribs" (both state and configuration).
o Removed "connected-ribs" from "routing-protocol" (both state and
configuration).
o Configuration and state data for IPv6 RA were moved under
"if:interface" and "if:interface-state".
o Assignment of interfaces to routing instances now use leaf-list
rather than list (both config and state). The opposite reference
from "if:interface" to "rt:routing-instance" was changed to a
single leaf (an interface cannot belong to multiple routing
instances).
o Specification of a default RIB is now a simple flag under "rib"
(both config and state).
o Default RIBs are marked by a flag in state data.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.5. Changes Between Versions -16 and -17
o Added Acee as a co-author.
o Removed all traces of route filters.
o Removed numeric IDs of list entries in state data.
o Removed all next-hop cases except "simple-next-hop" and "special-
next-hop".
o Removed feature "multipath-routes".
o Augmented "ietf-interfaces" module with a leaf-list of leafrefs
pointing form state data of an interface entry to the routing
instance(s) to which the interface is assigned.
E.6. Changes Between Versions -15 and -16
o Added 'type' as the second key component of 'routing-protocol',
both in configuration and state data.
o The restriction of no more than one connected RIB per address
family was removed.
o Removed the 'id' key of routes in RIBs. This list has no keys
anymore.
o Remove the 'id' key from static routes and make 'destination-
prefix' the only key.
o Added 'route-preference' as a new attribute of routes in RIB.
o Added 'active' as a new attribute of routes in RIBs.
o Renamed RPC operation 'active-route' to 'fib-route'.
o Added 'route-preference' as a new parameter of routing protocol
instances, both in configuration and state data.
o Renamed identity 'rt:standard-routing-instance' to 'rt:default-
routing-instance'.
o Added next-hop lists to state data.
o Added two cases for specifying next-hops indirectly - via a new
RIB or a recursive list of next-hops.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
o Reorganized next-hop in static routes.
o Removed all 'if-feature' statements from state data.
E.7. Changes Between Versions -14 and -15
o Removed all defaults from state data.
o Removed default from 'cur-hop-limit' in config.
E.8. Changes Between Versions -13 and -14
o Removed dependency of 'connected-ribs' on the 'multiple-ribs'
feature.
o Removed default value of 'cur-hop-limit' in state data.
o Moved parts of descriptions and all references on IPv6 RA
parameters from state data to configuration.
o Added reference to RFC 6536 in the Security section.
E.9. Changes Between Versions -12 and -13
o Wrote appendix about minimum implementation.
o Remove "when" statement for IPv6 router interface state data - it
was dependent on a config value that may not be present.
o Extra container for the next-hop list.
o Names rather than numeric ids are used for referring to list
entries in state data.
o Numeric ids are always declared as mandatory and unique. Their
description states that they are ephemeral.
o Descriptions of "name" keys in state data lists are required to be
persistent.
o
o Removed "if-feature multiple-ribs;" from connected-ribs.
o "rib-name" instead of "name" is used as the name of leafref nodes.
o "next-hop" instead of "nexthop" or "gateway" used throughout, both
in node names and text.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.10. Changes Between Versions -11 and -12
o Removed feature "advanced-router" and introduced two features
instead: "multiple-ribs" and "multipath-routes".
o Unified the keys of config and state versions of "routing-
instance" and "rib" lists.
o Numerical identifiers of state list entries are not keys anymore,
but they are constrained using the "unique" statement.
o Updated acknowledgements.
E.11. Changes Between Versions -10 and -11
o Migrated address families from IANA enumerations to identities.
o Terminology and node names aligned with the I2RS RIB model: router
-> routing instance, routing table -> RIB.
o Introduced uint64 keys for state lists: routing-instance, rib,
route, nexthop.
o Described the relationship between system-controlled and user-
controlled list entries.
o Feature "user-defined-routing-tables" changed into "advanced-
router".
o Made nexthop into a choice in order to allow for nexthop-list
(I2RS requirement).
o Added nexthop-list with entries having priorities (backup) and
weights (load balancing).
o Updated bibliography references.
E.12. Changes Between Versions -09 and -10
o Added subtree for state data ("/routing-state").
o Terms "system-controlled entry" and "user-controlled entry"
defined and used.
o New feature "user-defined-routing-tables". Nodes that are useful
only with user-defined routing tables are now conditional.
o Added grouping "router-id".
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
o In routing tables, "source-protocol" attribute of routes now
reports only protocol type, and its datatype is "identityref".
o Renamed "main-routing-table" to "default-routing-table".
E.13. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09
o Fixed "must" expression for "connected-routing-table".
o Simplified "must" expression for "main-routing-table".
o Moved per-interface configuration of a new routing protocol under
'routing-protocol'. This also affects the 'example-rip' module.
E.14. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08
o Changed reference from RFC6021 to RFC6021bis.
E.15. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07
o The contents of <get-reply> in Appendix D was updated: "eth[01]"
is used as the value of "location", and "forwarding" is on for
both interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6.
o The "must" expression for "main-routing-table" was modified to
avoid redundant error messages reporting address family mismatch
when "name" points to a non-existent routing table.
o The default behavior for IPv6 RA prefix advertisements was
clarified.
o Changed type of "rt:router-id" to "ip:dotted-quad".
o Type of "rt:router-id" changed to "yang:dotted-quad".
o Fixed missing prefixes in XPath expressions.
E.16. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06
o Document title changed: "Configuration" was replaced by
"Management".
o New typedefs "routing-table-ref" and "route-filter-ref".
o Double slashes "//" were removed from XPath expressions and
replaced with the single "/".
o Removed uniqueness requirement for "router-id".
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
o Complete data tree is now in Appendix A.
o Changed type of "source-protocol" from "leafref" to "string".
o Clarified the relationship between routing protocol instances and
connected routing tables.
o Added a must constraint saying that a routing table connected to
the direct pseudo-protocol must not be a main routing table.
E.17. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05
o Routing tables are now global, i.e., "routing-tables" is a child
of "routing" rather than "router".
o "must" statement for "static-routes" changed to "when".
o Added "main-routing-tables" containing references to main routing
tables for each address family.
o Removed the defaults for "address-family" and "safi" and made them
mandatory.
o Removed the default for route-filter/type and made this leaf
mandatory.
o If there is no active route for a given destination, the "active-
route" RPC returns no output.
o Added "enabled" switch under "routing-protocol".
o Added "router-type" identity and "type" leaf under "router".
o Route attribute "age" changed to "last-updated", its type is
"yang:date-and-time".
o The "direct" pseudo-protocol is always connected to main routing
tables.
o Entries in the list of connected routing tables renamed from
"routing-table" to "connected-routing-table".
o Added "must" constraint saying that a routing table must not be
its own recipient.
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.18. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04
o Changed "error-tag" for both RPC operations from "missing element"
to "data-missing".
o Removed the decrementing behavior for advertised IPv6 prefix
parameters "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime".
o Changed the key of the static route lists from "seqno" to "id"
because the routes needn't be sorted.
o Added 'must' constraint saying that "preferred-lifetime" must not
be greater than "valid-lifetime".
E.19. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03
o Module "iana-afn-safi" moved to I-D "iana-if-type".
o Removed forwarding table.
o RPC "get-route" changed to "active-route". Its output is a list
of routes (for multi-path routing).
o New RPC "route-count".
o For both RPCs, specification of negative responses was added.
o Relaxed separation of router instances.
o Assignment of interfaces to router instances needn't be disjoint.
o Route filters are now global.
o Added "allow-all-route-filter" for symmetry.
o Added Section 6 about interactions with "ietf-interfaces" and
"ietf-ip".
o Added "router-id" leaf.
o Specified the names for IPv4/IPv6 unicast main routing tables.
o Route parameter "last-modified" changed to "age".
o Added container "recipient-routing-tables".
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
E.20. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02
o Added module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing".
o The example in Appendix D now uses IP addresses from blocks
reserved for documentation.
o Direct routes appear by default in the forwarding table.
o Network layer interfaces must be assigned to a router instance.
Additional interface configuration may be present.
o The "when" statement is only used with "augment", "must" is used
elsewhere.
o Additional "must" statements were added.
o The "route-content" grouping for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast now
includes the material from the "ietf-routing" version via "uses
rt:route-content".
o Explanation of symbols in the tree representation of data model
hierarchy.
E.21. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01
o AFN/SAFI-independent stuff was moved to the "ietf-routing" module.
o Typedefs for AFN and SAFI were placed in a separate "iana-afn-
safi" module.
o Names of some data nodes were changed, in particular "routing-
process" is now "router".
o The restriction of a single AFN/SAFI per router was lifted.
o RPC operation "delete-route" was removed.
o Illegal XPath references from "get-route" to the datastore were
fixed.
o Section "Security Considerations" was written.
Authors' Addresses
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management March 2016
Ladislav Lhotka
CZ.NIC
Email: lhotka@nic.cz
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
Email: acee@cisco.com
Lhotka & Lindem Expires September 10, 2016 [Page 68]
