Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common
opsawg S. Barguil
Internet-Draft O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Telefonica
Expires: 2 April 2022 M. Boucadair, Ed.
Orange
Q. Wu
Huawei
29 September 2021
A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model
draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-12
Abstract
This document defines a common YANG module that is meant to be reused
by various VPN-related modules such as Layer 3 VPN and Layer 2 VPN
network models.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
Please update these statements within the document with the RFC
number to be assigned to this document:
* "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"
* "RFC XXXX: A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model";
* reference: RFC XXXX
Also, please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 April 2022.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Description of the VPN Common YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Layer 2/3 VPN Common Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Appendix A. Example of Common Data Nodes in Early L2NM/L3NM
Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1. Introduction
The IETF has specified YANG data modules for VPN services, e.g.,
Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299] or Layer 2 VPN Service
Model (L2SM) [RFC8466]. Other relevant YANG models are the Layer 3
VPN Network Model (L3NM) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] and the Layer 2
VPN Network Model (L2NM) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]. There are common
data nodes and structures that are present in all of these models or
at least a subset of them.
This document defines a common YANG module that is meant to be reused
by various VPN-related modules such as L3NM
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] and L2NM [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]: "ietf-
vpn-common" (Section 4).
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
The "ietf-vpn-common" module includes a set of identities, types, and
groupings that are meant to be reused by other VPN-related YANG
modules independently of their layer (e.g., Layer 2, Layer 3) and the
type of the module (e.g., network model, service model) including
possible future revisions of existing models (e.g., L3SM [RFC8299] or
L2SM [RFC8466]).
2. Terminology
The terminology for describing YANG modules is defined in [RFC7950].
The meaning of the symbols in tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].
The reader may refer to [RFC4026] and [RFC4176] for VPN-related
terms.
The document inherits many terms from [RFC8299] and [RFC8466] (e.g.,
Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency
Communications (URLLC), Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC)).
3. Description of the VPN Common YANG Module
The "ietf-vpn-common" module defines a set of common VPN-related
features, including:
Encapsulation features such as:
* Dot1q [IEEE802.1Q],
* QinQ [IEEE802.1ad],
* link aggregation [IEEE802.1AX], and
* Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348].
Multicast [RFC6513].
Routing features such as:
* BGP [RFC4271],
* OSPF [RFC4577][RFC6565],
* IS-IS [ISO10589],
* RIP [RFC2080][RFC2453],
* Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880][RFC7880],
and
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
* Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) [RFC5798].
Also, the module defines a set of identities, including:
'service-type': Used to identify the VPN service type. Examples of
supported service types are:
* L3VPN,
* Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) using BGP [RFC4761],
* VPLS using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC4762],
* Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC8214],
* BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN [RFC7432],
* Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC8365], and
* Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN
(PBB-EVPN) [RFC7623].
'vpn-signaling-type': Used to identify the signaling mode used for a
given service type. Examples of supported VPN signaling types
are:
* L2VPNs using BGP [RFC6624].
* LDP [RFC5036], and
* Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [RFC3931].
The module covers both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC8200] identities.
It also includes multicast related identities such as Internet Group
Management Protocol version 1 (IGMPv1) [RFC1112], IGMPv2 [RFC2236],
IGMPv3 [RFC3376], Multicast Listener Discovery version 1 (MLDv1)
[RFC2710], MLDv2 [RFC3810], and Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
[RFC7761].
The reader should refer to Section 4 for the full list of supported
identities (identities related to address families, VPN topologies,
network access types, operational and administrative status, site or
node roles, VPN service constraints, routing protocols, routes
imports and exports, bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS), etc.).
The "ietf-vpn-common" module also contains a set of reusable VPN-
related groupings. The tree diagram of the "ietf-vpn-common" module
that depicts the common groupings is provided in Figure 1.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
module: ietf-vpn-common
grouping vpn-description
+-- vpn-id? vpn-id
+-- vpn-name? string
+-- vpn-description? string
+-- customer-name? string
grouping vpn-profile-cfg
+-- valid-provider-identifiers
+-- external-connectivity-identifier* [id]
| {external-connectivity}?
| +-- id string
+-- encryption-profile-identifier* [id]
| +-- id string
+-- qos-profile-identifier* [id]
| +-- id string
+-- bfd-profile-identifier* [id]
| +-- id string
+-- forwarding-profile-identifier* [id]
| +-- id string
+-- routing-profile-identifier* [id]
+-- id string
grouping oper-status-timestamp
+--ro status? identityref
+--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
grouping service-status
+-- status
+-- admin-status
| +-- status? identityref
| +-- last-change? yang:date-and-time
+-- oper-status
+--ro status? identityref
+--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
grouping underlay-transport
+-- (type)?
+--:(abstract)
| +-- transport-instance-id? string
+--:(protocol)
+-- protocol* identityref
grouping vpn-route-targets
+-- vpn-target* [id]
| +-- id uint8
| +-- route-targets* [route-target]
| | +-- route-target rt-types:route-target
| +-- route-target-type rt-types:route-target-type
+-- vpn-policies
+-- import-policy? string
+-- export-policy? string
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
grouping route-distinguisher
...
grouping vpn-components-group
+-- groups
+-- group* [group-id]
+-- group-id string
grouping placement-constraints
+-- constraint* [constraint-type]
+-- constraint-type? identityref
+-- target
+-- (target-flavor)?
+--:(id)
| +-- group* [group-id]
| +-- group-id string
+--:(all-accesses)
| +-- all-other-accesses? empty
+--:(all-groups)
+-- all-other-groups? empty
grouping ports
...
grouping qos-classification-policy
...
Figure 1: VPN Common Tree
The description of the common groupings is provided below:
'vpn-description':
A YANG grouping that provides common administrative VPN
information such as an identifier, a name, a textual
description, and a customer name.
'vpn-profile-cfg':
A YANG grouping that defines a set of valid profiles
(encryption, routing, forwarding, etc.) that can be bound to a
Layer 2/3 VPN. This document does not make any assumption
about the structure of such profiles, but allows "gluing" a VPN
service with other parameters that can be required locally to
provide added value features to requesting customers.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
For example, a service provider may provide an external
connectivity to a VPN customer (e.g., to a private or public
cloud, Internet). Such service may involve tweaking both
filtering and NAT rules (e.g., bind a Virtual Routing and
Forwarding (VRF) interface with a NAT instance as discussed in
Section 2.10 of [RFC8512]). These added value features may be
bound to all or a subset of network accesses. Some of these
added value features may be implemented in nodes other than PEs
(e.g., a P node or even a dedicated node that hosts the NAT
function).
It is out of the scope of this document to elaborate the
structure of these profiles.
'oper-status-timestamp':
A YANG grouping that defines the operational status updates of
a VPN service or component.
'service-status':
A YANG grouping that defines the administrative and operational
status of a component. The grouping can be applied to the
whole service or an endpoint.
'underlay-transport':
A YANG grouping that defines the type of the underlay transport
for a VPN service or how that underlay is set.
The underlay transport can be expressed as an abstract
transport instance (e.g., an identifier of a VPN+ instance
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn], a virtual network identifier
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang][RFC8453], or a network slice name
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]) or as an ordered list of
the actual protocols to be enabled in the network.
The module supports a rich set of protocol identifiers that can
be used, e.g., to refer to an underlay transport. Examples of
supported protocols are:
- IP-in-IP [RFC2003][RFC2473],
- GRE [RFC1701][RFC1702][RFC7676],
- MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510],
- Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (GENEVE)
[RFC8926],
- Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8660][RFC8663][RFC8754],
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
- Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) with traffic
engineering extensions [RFC3209], and
- BGP with labeled prefixes [RFC8277].
'vpn-route-targets':
A YANG grouping that defines Route Target (RT) import/export
rules used in a BGP-enabled VPN. This grouping can be used for
both L3VPNs [RFC4364] and L2VPNs[RFC4664]. Note that this is
modelled as a list to ease the reuse of this grouping in
modules where an RT identifier is needed (e.g., associate an
operator with RTs).
'route-distinguisher':
A YANG grouping that defines Route Distinguishers (RDs).
As depicted in Figure 2, the module supports these RD
assignment modes: direct assignment, automatic assignment from
a given pool, automatic assignment, and no assignment.
Also, the module accommodates deployments where only the
Assigned Number subfield of RDs (Section 4.2 of [RFC4364]) is
assigned from a pool while the Administrator subfield is set
to, e.g., the router-id that is assigned to a VPN node. The
module supports these modes for managing the Assigned Number
subfield: explicit assignment, auto-assignment from a pool, and
full auto-assignment.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
grouping route-distinguisher
+-- (rd-choice)?
+--:(directly-assigned)
| +-- rd? rt-types:route-distinguisher
+--:(directly-assigned-suffix)
| +-- rd-suffix? uint16
+--:(auto-assigned)
| +-- rd-auto
| +-- (auto-mode)?
| | +--:(from-pool)
| | | +-- rd-pool-name? string
| | +--:(full-auto)
| | +-- auto? empty
| +--ro auto-assigned-rd? rt-types:route-distinguisher
+--:(auto-assigned-suffix)
| +-- rd-auto-suffix
| +-- (auto-mode)?
| | +--:(from-pool)
| | | +-- rd-pool-name? string
| | +--:(full-auto)
| | +-- auto? empty
| +--ro auto-assigned-rd-suffix? uint16
+--:(no-rd)
+-- no-rd? empty
Figure 2: Route Distinguisher Grouping Subtree
'vpn-components-group':
A YANG grouping that is used to group VPN nodes, VPN network
accesses, or sites. For example, diversity or redundancy
constraints can be applied on a per-group basis.
'placement-constraints':
A YANG grouping that is used to define the placement
constraints of a VPN node, VPN network access, or site.
'ports':
A YANG grouping that defines ranges of source and destination
port numbers and operators. The subtree of this grouping is
depicted in Figure 3.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
grouping ports
+-- (source-port)?
| +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
| +-- source-port-range-or-operator
| +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
| +--:(range)
| | +-- lower-port inet:port-number
| | +-- upper-port inet:port-number
| +--:(operator)
| +-- operator? operator
| +-- port inet:port-number
+-- (destination-port)?
+--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
+-- destination-port-range-or-operator
+-- (port-range-or-operator)?
+--:(range)
| +-- lower-port inet:port-number
| +-- upper-port inet:port-number
+--:(operator)
+-- operator? operator
+-- port inet:port-number
Figure 3: Port Numbers Grouping Subtree
'qos-classification-policy':
A YANG grouping that defines a set of QoS classification
policies based on various match Layer 3/4 and application
criteria. The subtree of this grouping is depicted in
Figure 4.
The QoS match criteria reuse groupings that are defined in the
packet fields module "ietf-packet-fields" (Section 4.2 of
[RFC8519]).
Any layer 4 protocol can be indicated in the 'protocol' data
node under 'l3', but only TCP and UDP specific match criteria
are elaborated in this version as these protocols are widely
used in the context of VPN services. Future revisions can be
considered to add other Layer 4 specific parameters (e.g.,
Stream Control Transmission Protocol [RFC4960]), if needed.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
Some transport protocols use existing protocols (e.g., TCP or
UDP) as substrate. The match criteria for such protocols may
rely upon the 'protocol' under 'l3', TCP/UDP match criteria
shown in Figure 4, part of the TCP/UDP payload, or a
combination thereof. This version of the module does not
support such advanced match criteria. Future revisions of the
module may consider adding match criteria based on the
transport protocol payload (e.g., by means of a bitmask match).
grouping qos-classification-policy
+-- rule* [id]
+-- id string
+-- (match-type)?
| +--:(match-flow)
| | +-- (l3)?
| | | +--:(ipv4)
| | | | +-- ipv4
| | | | +-- dscp? inet:dscp
| | | | +-- ecn? uint8
| | | | +-- length? uint16
| | | | +-- ttl? uint8
| | | | +-- protocol? uint8
| | | | +-- ihl? uint8
| | | | +-- flags? bits
| | | | +-- offset? uint16
| | | | +-- identification? uint16
| | | | +-- (destination-network)?
| | | | | +--:(destination-ipv4-network)
| | | | | +-- destination-ipv4-network?
| | | | | inet:ipv4-prefix
| | | | +-- (source-network)?
| | | | +--:(source-ipv4-network)
| | | | +-- source-ipv4-network?
| | | | inet:ipv4-prefix
| | | +--:(ipv6)
| | | +-- ipv6
| | | +-- dscp? inet:dscp
| | | +-- ecn? uint8
| | | +-- length? uint16
| | | +-- ttl? uint8
| | | +-- protocol? uint8
| | | +-- (destination-network)?
| | | | +--:(destination-ipv6-network)
| | | | +-- destination-ipv6-network?
| | | | inet:ipv6-prefix
| | | +-- (source-network)?
| | | | +--:(source-ipv6-network)
| | | | +-- source-ipv6-network?
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
| | | | inet:ipv6-prefix
| | | +-- flow-label?
| | | inet:ipv6-flow-label
| | +-- (l4)?
| | +--:(tcp)
| | | +-- tcp
| | | +-- sequence-number? uint32
| | | +-- acknowledgement-number? uint32
| | | +-- data-offset? uint8
| | | +-- reserved? uint8
| | | +-- flags? bits
| | | +-- window-size? uint16
| | | +-- urgent-pointer? uint16
| | | +-- options? binary
| | | +-- (source-port)?
| | | | +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
| | | | +-- source-port-range-or-operator
| | | | +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
| | | | +--:(range)
| | | | | +-- lower-port
| | | | | | inet:port-number
| | | | | +-- upper-port
| | | | | inet:port-number
| | | | +--:(operator)
| | | | +-- operator? operator
| | | | +-- port
| | | | inet:port-number
| | | +-- (destination-port)?
| | | +--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
| | | +-- destination-port-range-or-operator
| | | +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
| | | +--:(range)
| | | | +-- lower-port
| | | | | inet:port-number
| | | | +-- upper-port
| | | | inet:port-number
| | | +--:(operator)
| | | +-- operator? operator
| | | +-- port
| | | inet:port-number
| | +--:(udp)
| | +-- udp
| | +-- length? uint16
| | +-- (source-port)?
| | | +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
| | | +-- source-port-range-or-operator
| | | +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
| | | +--:(range)
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
| | | | +-- lower-port
| | | | | inet:port-number
| | | | +-- upper-port
| | | | inet:port-number
| | | +--:(operator)
| | | +-- operator? operator
| | | +-- port
| | | inet:port-number
| | +-- (destination-port)?
| | +--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
| | +-- destination-port-range-or-operator
| | +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
| | +--:(range)
| | | +-- lower-port
| | | | inet:port-number
| | | +-- upper-port
| | | inet:port-number
| | +--:(operator)
| | +-- operator? operator
| | +-- port
| | inet:port-number
| +--:(match-application)
| +-- match-application? identityref
+-- target-class-id? string {qos}?
Figure 4: QoS Classification Subtree
4. Layer 2/3 VPN Common Module
This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8294], and
[RFC8519]. It also uses the extension defined in [RFC8341].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-vpn-common@2021-09-10.yang"
module ietf-vpn-common {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common";
prefix vpn-common;
import ietf-netconf-acm {
prefix nacm;
reference
"RFC 8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
}
import ietf-routing-types {
prefix rt-types;
reference
"RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3";
}
import ietf-packet-fields {
prefix packet-fields;
reference
"RFC 8519: YANG Data Model for Network Access
Control Lists (ACLs)";
}
organization
"IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>
WG List: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Editor: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Author: Samier Barguil
<mailto:samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com>
Author: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>
Author: Qin Wu
<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines a common module that is meant
to be reused by various VPN-related modules (e.g.,
Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM), Layer 2 VPN Service
Model (L2SM), Layer 3 VPN Network Model (L3NM), Layer 2
VPN Network Model (L2NM)).
Copyright (c) 2021 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).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2021-09-10 {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model";
}
/******** Collection of VPN-related Features ********/
/*
* Features related to encapsulation schemes
*/
feature dot1q {
description
"Indicates the support for the Dot1q encapsulation.";
reference
"IEEE Std 802.1Q: Bridges and Bridged Networks";
}
feature qinq {
description
"Indicates the support for the QinQ encapsulation.";
reference
"IEEE Std 802.1ad: Provider Bridges";
}
feature vxlan {
description
"Indicates the support for the Virtual eXtensible
Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation.";
reference
"RFC 7348: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN):
A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2
Networks over Layer 3 Networks";
}
feature qinany {
description
"Indicates the support for the QinAny encapsulation.
The outer VLAN tag is set to a specific value but
the inner VLAN tag is set to any.";
}
feature lag-interface {
description
"Indicates the support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
between VPN network accesses.";
reference
"IEEE Std. 802.1AX: Link Aggregation";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
/*
* Features related to multicast
*/
feature multicast {
description
"Indicates multicast capabilities support in a VPN.";
reference
"RFC 6513: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs";
}
feature igmp {
description
"Indicates support for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP).";
reference
"RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting
RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2
RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
}
feature mld {
description
"Indicates support for Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD).";
reference
"RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
for IPv6";
}
feature pim {
description
"Indicates support for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM).";
reference
"RFC 7761: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
(PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)";
}
/*
* Features related to address family types
*/
feature ipv4 {
description
"Indicates IPv4 support in a VPN. That is, IPv4 traffic
can be carried in the VPN, IPv4 addresses/prefixes can
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
be assigned to a VPN network access, IPv4 routes can be
installed for the CE/PE link, etc.";
reference
"RFC 791: Internet Protocol";
}
feature ipv6 {
description
"Indicates IPv6 support in a VPN. That is, IPv6 traffic
can be carried in the VPN, IPv6 addresses/prefixes can
be assigned to a VPN network access, IPv6 routes can be
installed for the CE/PE link, etc.";
reference
"RFC 8200: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)";
}
/*
* Features related to routing protocols
*/
feature rtg-ospf {
description
"Indicates support for the OSPF as the Provider Edge (PE)/
Customer Edge (CE) routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
(PE-CE) Routing Protocol";
}
feature rtg-ospf-sham-link {
description
"Indicates support for OSPF sham links.";
reference
"RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs),
Section 4.2.7
RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
(PE-CE) Routing Protocol, Section 5";
}
feature rtg-bgp {
description
"Indicates support for BGP as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
feature rtg-rip {
description
"Indicates support for RIP as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 2453: RIP Version 2
RFC 2080: RIPng for IPv6";
}
feature rtg-isis {
description
"Indicates support for IS-IS as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
reference
"ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
domain routeing information exchange protocol for
use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
the connectionless-mode network service
(ISO 8473)";
}
feature rtg-vrrp {
description
"Indicates support for the Virtual Router Redundancy
Protocol (VRRP) in CE/PE link.";
reference
"RFC 5798: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3
for IPv4 and IPv6";
}
feature bfd {
description
"Indicates support for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
between the CE and the PE.";
reference
"RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)";
}
/*
* Features related to VPN service constraints
*/
feature bearer-reference {
description
"A bearer refers to properties of the CE-PE attachment that
are below Layer 3.
This feature indicates support for the bearer reference access
constraint. That is, the reuse of a network connection that was
already ordered to the service provider apart from the IP VPN
site.";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
feature placement-diversity {
description
"Indicates support for placement diversity constraints in the
customer premises. An example of these constraints may be to
avoid connecting a site network access to the same Provider
Edge as a target site network access.";
}
/*
* Features related to bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS)
*/
feature qos {
description
"Indicates support for Classes of Service (CoSes) in the VPN.";
}
feature inbound-bw {
description
"Indicates support for the inbound bandwidth in a VPN. That is,
support for specifying the download bandwidth from the service
provider network to the VPN site. Note that the L3SM uses
'input' to identify the same feature. That terminology should
be deprecated in favor of the one defined in this module.";
}
feature outbound-bw {
description
"Indicates support for the outbound bandwidth in a VPN. That is,
support for specifying the upload bandwidth from the VPN site
to the service provider network. Note that the L3SM uses
'output' to identify the same feature. That terminology should
be deprecated in favor of the one defined in this module.";
}
/*
* Features related to security and resilience
*/
feature encryption {
description
"Indicates support for encryption in the VPN.";
}
feature fast-reroute {
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Indicates support for Fast Reroute (FRR) capabilities for
a VPN site.";
}
/*
* Features related to advanced VPN options
*/
feature external-connectivity {
description
"Indicates support for the VPN to provide external
connectivity (e.g., Internet, private or public cloud).";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), Section 11";
}
feature extranet-vpn {
description
"Indicates support for extranet VPNs. That is, the capability of
a VPN to access a list of other VPNs.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), Section 1.1";
}
feature carriers-carrier {
description
"Indicates support for Carrier-of-Carrier VPNs.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), Section 9";
}
/*
* Address family related identities
*/
identity address-family {
description
"Defines a type for the address family.";
}
identity ipv4 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for IPv4 address family.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity ipv6 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for IPv6 address family.";
}
identity dual-stack {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for IPv4 and IPv6 address family.";
}
/*
* Identities related to VPN topology
*/
identity vpn-topology {
description
"Base identity of the VPN topology.";
}
identity any-to-any {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for any-to-any VPN topology. All VPN sites
can communicate with each other without any restrictions.";
}
identity hub-spoke {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology. All Spokes can
communicate only with Hubs but not with each other. Hubs
can communicate with each other.";
}
identity hub-spoke-disjoint {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology where Hubs cannot
communicate with each other.";
}
identity custom {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for custom VPN topologies where the role of the nodes
is not strictly Hub or Spoke. The VPN topology is controlled by
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
the import/export policies. The custom topology reflects more
complex VPN nodes such as VPN node that acts as Hub for certain
nodes and Spoke to others.";
}
/*
* Identities related to network access types
*/
identity site-network-access-type {
description
"Base identity for site network access type.";
}
identity point-to-point {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Point-to-point access type.";
}
identity multipoint {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Multipoint access type.";
}
identity irb {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Integrated Routing Bridge (IRB).
Identity for pseudowire connections.";
}
identity loopback {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Loopback access type.";
}
/*
* Identities related to operational and administrative status
*/
identity operational-status {
description
"Base identity for the operational status.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity op-up {
base operational-status;
description
"Operational status is Up/Enabled.";
}
identity op-down {
base operational-status;
description
"Operational status is Down/Disabled.";
}
identity op-unknown {
base operational-status;
description
"Operational status is Unknown.";
}
identity administrative-status {
description
"Base identity for administrative status.";
}
identity admin-up {
base administrative-status;
description
"Administrative status is Up/Enabled.";
}
identity admin-down {
base administrative-status;
description
"Administrative status is Down/Disabled.";
}
identity admin-testing {
base administrative-status;
description
"Administrative status is up for testing purposes.";
}
identity admin-pre-deployment {
base administrative-status;
description
"Administrative status is pre-deployment phase. That is,
prior to the actual deployment of a service.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
/*
* Identities related to site or node role
*/
identity role {
description
"Base identity of a site or a node role.";
}
identity any-to-any-role {
base role;
description
"Any-to-any role.";
}
identity spoke-role {
base role;
description
"A node or a site is acting as a Spoke.";
}
identity hub-role {
base role;
description
"A node or a site is acting as a Hub.";
}
identity custom-role {
base role;
description
"VPN node with custom or complex role in the VPN. For some
sources/destinations it can behave as a Hub, but for others it
can act as a Spoke depending on the configured policy.";
}
/*
* Identities related to VPN service constraints
*/
identity placement-diversity {
description
"Base identity for access placement constraints.";
}
identity bearer-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Bearer diversity.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
The bearers should not use common elements.";
}
identity pe-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"PE diversity.";
}
identity pop-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Point Of Presence (POP) diversity.";
}
identity linecard-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Linecard diversity.";
}
identity same-pe {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Having sites connected on the same PE.";
}
identity same-bearer {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Having sites connected using the same bearer.";
}
/*
* Identities related to service types
*/
identity service-type {
description
"Base identity for service type.";
}
identity l3vpn {
base service-type;
description
"L3VPN service.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
identity vpls {
base service-type;
description
"VPLS service.";
reference
"RFC 4761: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for
Auto-Discovery and Signaling
RFC 4762: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling";
}
identity vpws {
base service-type;
description
"Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) service.";
reference
"RFC 4664: Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
(L2VPNs), Section 3.1.1";
}
identity vpws-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"EVPN used to support VPWS service.";
reference
"RFC 8214: Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN";
}
identity pbb-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) EVPNs service.";
reference
"RFC 7623: Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN
(PBB-EVPN)";
}
identity mpls-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"MPLS-based EVPN service.";
reference
"RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN";
}
identity vxlan-evpn {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
base service-type;
description
"VXLAN-based EVPN service.";
reference
"RFC 8365: A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using
Ethernet VPN (EVPN)";
}
/*
* Identities related to VPN signaling type
*/
identity vpn-signaling-type {
description
"Base identity for VPN signaling types";
}
identity bgp-signaling {
base vpn-signaling-type;
description
"Layer 2 VPNs using BGP signaling.";
reference
"RFC 6624: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for
Auto-Discovery and Signaling
RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN";
}
identity ldp-signaling {
base vpn-signaling-type;
description
"Targeted Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) signaling.";
reference
"RFC 5036: LDP Specification";
}
identity l2tp-signaling {
base vpn-signaling-type;
description
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) signaling.";
reference
"RFC 3931: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)";
}
/*
* Identities related to routing protocols
*/
identity routing-protocol-type {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Base identity for routing protocol type.";
}
identity static-routing {
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"Static routing protocol.";
}
identity bgp-routing {
if-feature "rtg-bgp";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"BGP routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
}
identity ospf-routing {
if-feature "rtg-ospf";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"OSPF routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks(VPNs)
RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
(PE-CE) Routing Protocol";
}
identity rip-routing {
if-feature "rtg-rip";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"RIP routing protocol.";
reference
"RFC 2453: RIP Version 2
RFC 2080: RIPng for IPv6";
}
identity isis-routing {
if-feature "rtg-isis";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"IS-IS routing protocol.";
reference
"ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
domain routeing information exchange protocol for
use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
the connectionless-mode network service
(ISO 8473)";
}
identity vrrp-routing {
if-feature "rtg-vrrp";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"VRRP protocol.
This is to be used when LANs are directly connected to PEs.";
reference
"RFC 5798: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3
for IPv4 and IPv6";
}
identity direct-routing {
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"Direct routing.
This is to be used when LANs are directly connected to PEs
and must be advertised in the VPN.";
}
identity any-routing {
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"Any routing protocol.
This can be, e.g., used to set policies that apply to any
routing protocol in place.";
}
identity isis-level {
if-feature "rtg-isis";
description
"Base identity for the IS-IS level.";
reference
"ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
domain routeing information exchange protocol for
use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
the connectionless-mode network service
(ISO 8473)";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity level-1 {
base isis-level;
description
"IS-IS level 1.";
}
identity level-2 {
base isis-level;
description
"IS-IS level 2.";
}
identity level-1-2 {
base isis-level;
description
"IS-IS levels 1 and 2.";
}
identity bfd-session-type {
if-feature "bfd";
description
"Base identity for the BFD session type.";
}
identity classic-bfd {
base bfd-session-type;
description
"Classic BFD.";
reference
"RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)";
}
identity s-bfd {
base bfd-session-type;
description
"Seamless BFD.";
reference
"RFC 7880: Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)";
}
/*
* Identities related to Routes Import and Export
*/
identity ie-type {
description
"Base identity for 'import/export' routing profiles.
These profiles can be reused between VPN nodes.";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
identity import {
base ie-type;
description
"'Import' routing profile.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), Section 4.3.1";
}
identity export {
base ie-type;
description
"'Export' routing profile.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), Section 4.3.1";
}
identity import-export {
base ie-type;
description
"'Import/export' routing profile.";
}
/*
* Identities related to bandwidth and QoS
*/
identity bw-direction {
description
"Base identity for the bandwidth direction.";
}
identity inbound-bw {
if-feature "inbound-bw";
base bw-direction;
description
"Inbound bandwidth.";
}
identity outbound-bw {
if-feature "outbound-bw";
base bw-direction;
description
"Outbound bandwidth.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity bw-type {
description
"Base identity for the bandwidth type.";
}
identity bw-per-cos {
if-feature "qos";
base bw-type;
description
"The bandwidth is per-CoS.";
}
identity bw-per-port {
base bw-type;
description
"The bandwidth is per-site network access.";
}
identity bw-per-site {
base bw-type;
description
"The bandwidth is per-site. It is applicable to all the site
network accesses within a site.";
}
identity bw-per-service {
base bw-type;
description
"The bandwidth is per-VPN service.";
}
identity qos-profile-direction {
if-feature "qos";
description
"Base identity for the QoS profile direction.";
}
identity site-to-wan {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Customer site to provider's network direction.
This is typically the CE-to-PE direction.";
}
identity wan-to-site {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Provider's network to customer site direction.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
This is typically the PE-to-CE direction.";
}
identity both {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Both WAN-to-Site and Site-to-WAN directions.";
}
/*
* Identities related to underlay transport instances
*/
identity transport-instance-type {
description
"Base identity for underlay transport instance type.";
}
identity virtual-network {
base transport-instance-type;
description
"Virtual network.";
reference
"RFC 8453: Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN)";
}
identity enhanced-vpn {
base transport-instance-type;
description
"Enhanced VPN (VPN+). VPN+ is an approach that is
based on existing VPN and Traffic Engineering (TE)
technologies but adds characteristics that specific
services require over and above classical VPNs.";
reference
"I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn:
A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network
(VPN+) Services";
}
identity ietf-network-slice {
base transport-instance-type;
description
"IETF network slice. An IETF network slice
is a logical network topology connecting a number of
endpoints using a set of shared or dedicated network
resources that are used to satisfy specific service
objectives.";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
reference
"I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices:
Framework for IETF Network Slices";
}
/*
* Identities related to protocol types. These types are typically
* used to identify the underlay transport.
*/
identity protocol-type {
description
"Base identity for Protocol Type.";
}
identity ip-in-ip {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on IP-in-IP.";
reference
"RFC 2003: IP Encapsulation within IP
RFC 2473: Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification";
}
identity ip-in-ipv4 {
base ip-in-ip;
description
"Transport is based on IP over IPv4.";
reference
"RFC 2003: IP Encapsulation within IP";
}
identity ip-in-ipv6 {
base ip-in-ip;
description
"Transport is based on IP over IPv6.";
reference
"RFC 2473: Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification";
}
identity gre {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).";
reference
"RFC 1701: Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
RFC 1702: Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks
RFC 7676: IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
identity gre-v4 {
base gre;
description
"Transport is based on GRE over IPv4.";
reference
"RFC 1702: Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks";
}
identity gre-v6 {
base gre;
description
"Transport is based on GRE over IPv6.";
reference
"RFC 7676: IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)";
}
identity vxlan-trans {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on VXLAN.";
reference
"RFC 7348: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN):
A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2
Networks over Layer 3 Networks";
}
identity geneve {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on Generic Network Virtualization
Encapsulation (GENEVE).";
reference
"RFC 8926: Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation";
}
identity ldp {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on LDP.";
reference
"RFC 5036: LDP Specification";
}
identity mpls-in-udp {
base protocol-type;
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Transport is MPLS in UDP.";
reference
"RFC 7510: Encapsulating MPLS in UDP";
}
identity sr {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport is based on Segment Routing (SR).";
reference
"RFC 8660: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane
RFC 8663: MPLS Segment Routing over IP
RFC 8754: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)";
}
identity sr-mpls {
base sr;
description
"Transport is based on SR with MPLS.";
reference
"RFC 8660: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane";
}
identity srv6 {
base sr;
description
"Transport is based on SR over IPv6.";
reference
"RFC 8754: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)";
}
identity sr-mpls-over-ip {
base sr;
description
"Transport is based on SR over MPLS over IP.";
reference
"RFC 8663: MPLS Segment Routing over IP";
}
identity rsvp-te {
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport setup relies upon RSVP-TE.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity bgp-lu {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
base protocol-type;
description
"Transport setup relies upon BGP-LU.";
reference
"RFC 8277: Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes";
}
identity unknown {
base protocol-type;
description
"Not known protocol type.";
}
/*
* Identities related to encapsulations
*/
identity encapsulation-type {
description
"Base identity for the encapsulation type.";
}
identity priority-tagged {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Priority-tagged interface.";
}
identity dot1q {
if-feature "dot1q";
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Dot1q encapsulation.";
}
identity qinq {
if-feature "qinq";
base encapsulation-type;
description
"QinQ encapsulation.";
}
identity qinany {
if-feature "qinany";
base encapsulation-type;
description
"QinAny encapsulation.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity vxlan {
if-feature "vxlan";
base encapsulation-type;
description
"VxLAN encapsulation.";
}
identity ethernet-type {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Ethernet encapsulation type.";
}
identity vlan-type {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"VLAN encapsulation type.";
}
identity untagged-int {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Untagged interface type.";
}
identity tagged-int {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Tagged interface type.";
}
identity lag-int {
if-feature "lag-interface";
base encapsulation-type;
description
"LAG interface type.";
}
/*
* Identities related to VLAN Tag
*/
identity tag-type {
description
"Base identity for the tag types.";
}
identity c-vlan {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
base tag-type;
description
"Indicates Customer VLAN (C-VLAN) tag, normally using
the 0x8100 Ethertype.";
}
identity s-vlan {
base tag-type;
description
"Indicates Service VLAN (S-VLAN) tag.";
}
identity s-c-vlan {
base tag-type;
description
"Uses both an S-VLAN tag and a C-VLAN tag.";
}
/*
* Identities related to VXLAN
*/
identity vxlan-peer-mode {
if-feature "vxlan";
description
"Base identity for the VXLAN peer mode.";
}
identity static-mode {
base vxlan-peer-mode;
description
"VXLAN access in the static mode.";
}
identity bgp-mode {
base vxlan-peer-mode;
description
"VXLAN access by BGP EVPN learning.";
}
/*
* Identities related to multicast
*/
identity multicast-gp-address-mapping {
if-feature "multicast";
description
"Base identity for multicast group mapping type.";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
identity static-mapping {
base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
description
"Static mapping, i.e., attach the interface to the
multicast group as a static member.";
}
identity dynamic-mapping {
base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
description
"Dynamic mapping, i.e., an interface is added to the
multicast group as a result of snooping.";
}
identity multicast-tree-type {
if-feature "multicast";
description
"Base identity for multicast tree type.";
}
identity ssm-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) tree type.";
}
identity asm-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Any-Source Multicast (ASM) tree type.";
}
identity bidir-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Bidirectional tree type.";
}
identity multicast-rp-discovery-type {
if-feature "multicast";
description
"Base identity for Rendezvous Point (RP) discovery type.";
}
identity auto-rp {
base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Auto-RP discovery type.";
}
identity static-rp {
base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
description
"Static type.";
}
identity bsr-rp {
base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
description
"Bootstrap Router (BSR) discovery type.";
}
identity group-management-protocol {
if-feature "multicast";
description
"Base identity for multicast group management protocol.";
}
identity igmp-proto {
base group-management-protocol;
description
"IGMP.";
reference
"RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting
RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2
RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
}
identity mld-proto {
base group-management-protocol;
description
"MLD.";
reference
"RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
for IPv6";
}
identity pim-proto {
if-feature "pim";
base routing-protocol-type;
description
"PIM.";
reference
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"RFC 7761: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
(PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)";
}
identity igmp-version {
if-feature "igmp";
description
"Base identity for IGMP version.";
}
identity igmpv1 {
base igmp-version;
description
"IGMPv1.";
reference
"RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting";
}
identity igmpv2 {
base igmp-version;
description
"IGMPv2.";
reference
"RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2";
}
identity igmpv3 {
base igmp-version;
description
"IGMPv3.";
reference
"RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
}
identity mld-version {
if-feature "mld";
description
"Base identity for MLD version.";
}
identity mldv1 {
base mld-version;
description
"MLDv1.";
reference
"RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity mldv2 {
base mld-version;
description
"MLDv2.";
reference
"RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
for IPv6";
}
/*
* Identities related to traffic types
*/
identity tf-type {
description
"Base identity for the traffic type.";
}
identity multicast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Multicast traffic.";
}
identity broadcast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Broadcast traffic.";
}
identity unknown-unicast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Unknown unicast traffic.";
}
/*
* Identities related to customer applications
*/
identity customer-application {
description
"Base identity for customer applications.";
}
identity web {
base customer-application;
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Web applications (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS).";
}
identity mail {
base customer-application;
description
"Mail application.";
}
identity file-transfer {
base customer-application;
description
"File transfer application (e.g., FTP, SFTP).";
}
identity database {
base customer-application;
description
"Database application.";
}
identity social {
base customer-application;
description
"Social-network application.";
}
identity games {
base customer-application;
description
"Gaming application.";
}
identity p2p {
base customer-application;
description
"Peer-to-peer application.";
}
identity network-management {
base customer-application;
description
"Management application (e.g., Telnet, syslog,
SNMP).";
}
identity voice {
base customer-application;
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Voice application.";
}
identity video {
base customer-application;
description
"Video conference application.";
}
identity embb {
base customer-application;
description
"Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) application.
Note that an eMBB application demands network performance with a
wide variety of characteristics, such as data rate, latency,
loss rate, reliability, and many other parameters.";
}
identity urllc {
base customer-application;
description
"Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications
(URLLC) application. Note that an URLLC application demands
network performance with a wide variety of characteristics, such
as latency, reliability, and many other parameters.";
}
identity mmtc {
base customer-application;
description
"Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) application.
Note that an mMTC application demands network performance with
a wide variety of characteristics, such as data rate, latency,
loss rate, reliability, and many other parameters.";
}
/*
* Identities related to service bundling
*/
identity bundling-type {
description
"The base identity for the bundling type. It supports a subset or
all CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service.";
}
identity multi-svc-bundling {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
base bundling-type;
description
"Multi-service bundling, i.e., multiple C-VLAN IDs
can be associated with an L2VPN service at a site.";
}
identity one2one-bundling {
base bundling-type;
description
"One-to-one service bundling, i.e., each L2VPN can
be associated with only one C-VLAN ID at a site.";
}
identity all2one-bundling {
base bundling-type;
description
"All-to-one bundling, i.e., all C-VLAN IDs are mapped
to one L2VPN service.";
}
/*
* Identities related to Ethernet Services
*/
identity control-mode {
description
"Base Identity for the type of control mode on Layer 2
Control Protocol (L2CP).";
}
identity peer {
base control-mode;
description
"'peer' mode, i.e., participate in the protocol towards the CE.
Peering is common for Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
and the Ethernet Local Management Interface (E-LMI) and,
occasionally, for Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP).
For VPLSs and VPWSs, the subscriber can also request that the
peer service provider enables spanning tree.";
}
identity tunnel {
base control-mode;
description
"'tunnel' mode, i.e., pass to the egress or destination site. For
Ethernet Private Lines (EPLs), the expectation is that L2CP
frames are tunnelled.";
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
identity discard {
base control-mode;
description
"'Discard' mode, i.e., discard the frame.";
}
identity neg-mode {
description
"Base identity for the negotiation mode.";
}
identity full-duplex {
base neg-mode;
description
"Full-duplex negotiation mode.";
}
identity auto-neg {
base neg-mode;
description
"Auto-negotiation mode.";
}
/******** Collection of VPN-related Types ********/
typedef vpn-id {
type string;
description
"Defines an identifier that is used with a VPN module.
This can be, for example, a service identifier, a node
identifier, etc.";
}
/******* VPN-related reusable groupings *******/
grouping vpn-description {
description
"Provides common VPN information.";
leaf vpn-id {
type vpn-common:vpn-id;
description
"A VPN identifier that uniquely identifies a VPN.
This identifier has a local meaning, e.g., within
a service provider network.";
}
leaf vpn-name {
type string;
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Used to associate a name with the service
in order to facilitate the identification of
the service.";
}
leaf vpn-description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of a VPN.";
}
leaf customer-name {
type string;
description
"Name of the customer that actually uses the VPN.";
}
}
grouping vpn-profile-cfg {
description
"Grouping for VPN Profile configuration.";
container valid-provider-identifiers {
description
"Container for valid provider profile identifiers.";
list external-connectivity-identifier {
if-feature "external-connectivity";
key "id";
description
"List for profile identifiers that uniquely identify profiles
governing how external connectivity is provided to a VPN.
A profile indicates the type of external connectivity
(Internet, cloud, etc.), the sites/nodes that are associated
with a connectivity profile, etc. A profile can also indicate
filtering rules and/or address translation rules. Such
features may involve PE, P, or dedicated nodes as a function
of the deployment.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Identification of an external connectivity profile. The
profile only has significance within the service provider's
administrative domain.";
}
}
list encryption-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List for encryption profile identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Identification of the encryption profile to be used. The
profile only has significance within the service provider's
administrative domain.";
}
}
list qos-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List for QoS Profile Identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Identification of the QoS profile to be used. The
profile only has significance within the service provider's
administrative domain.";
}
}
list bfd-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List for BFD profile identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Identification of the BFD profile to be used. The
profile only has significance within the service provider's
administrative domain.";
}
}
list forwarding-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List for forwarding profile identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Identification of the forwarding profile to be used.
The profile only has significance within the service
provider's administrative domain.";
}
}
list routing-profile-identifier {
key "id";
description
"List for Routing Profile Identifiers.";
leaf id {
type string;
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Identification of the routing profile to be used by the
routing protocols within sites, vpn-network-accesses, or
vpn-nodes for refering VRF's import/export policies.
The profile only has significance within the service
provider's administrative domain.";
}
}
nacm:default-deny-write;
}
}
grouping oper-status-timestamp {
description
"This grouping defines some operational parameters for the
service.";
leaf status {
type identityref {
base operational-status;
}
config false;
description
"Operations status.";
}
leaf last-change {
type yang:date-and-time;
config false;
description
"Indicates the actual date and time of the service status
change.";
}
}
grouping service-status {
description
"Service status grouping.";
container status {
description
"Service status.";
container admin-status {
description
"Administrative service status.";
leaf status {
type identityref {
base administrative-status;
}
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Administrative service status.";
}
leaf last-change {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Indicates the actual date and time of the service status
change.";
}
}
container oper-status {
description
"Operational service status.";
uses oper-status-timestamp;
}
}
}
grouping underlay-transport {
description
"This grouping defines the type of underlay transport for the
VPN service or how that underlay is set. It can include an
identifier to an abstract transport instance to which the VPN
is grafted or indicate a technical implementation that is
expressed as an ordered list of protocols.";
choice type {
description
"A choice based on the type of underlay transport
constraints.";
case abstract {
description
"Indicates that the transport constraint is an abstract
concept.";
leaf transport-instance-id {
type string;
description
"An optional identifier of the abstract transport instance.";
}
leaf instance-type {
type identityref {
base transport-instance-type;
}
description
"Indicates a transport instance type. For example, it can
be a VPN+, an IETF network slice, a virtual network, etc.";
}
}
case protocol {
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"Indicates a list of protocols.";
leaf-list protocol {
type identityref {
base protocol-type;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"A client ordered list of transport protocols.";
}
}
}
}
grouping vpn-route-targets {
description
"A grouping that specifies Route Target (RT) import-export rules
used in a BGP-enabled VPN.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
RFC 4664: Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
(L2VPNs)";
list vpn-target {
key "id";
description
"Route targets. AND/OR operations may be defined
based on the RTs assigment.";
leaf id {
type uint8;
description
"Identifies each VPN Target.";
}
list route-targets {
key "route-target";
description
"List of RTs.";
leaf route-target {
type rt-types:route-target;
description
"Conveys an RT value.";
}
}
leaf route-target-type {
type rt-types:route-target-type;
mandatory true;
description
"Import/export type of the RT.";
}
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
container vpn-policies {
description
"VPN service policies. It contains references to the
import and export policies to be associated with the
VPN service.";
leaf import-policy {
type string;
description
"Identifies the 'import' policy.";
}
leaf export-policy {
type string;
description
"Identifies the 'export' policy.";
}
}
}
grouping route-distinguisher {
description
"Grouping for route distinguisher (RD).";
choice rd-choice {
description
"Route distinguisher choice between several options
on providing the route distinguisher value.";
case directly-assigned {
description
"Explicitly assign an RD value.";
leaf rd {
type rt-types:route-distinguisher;
description
"Indicates an RD value that is explicitly
assigned.";
}
}
case directly-assigned-suffix {
description
"The value of the Assigned Number subfield of the RD.
The Administrator subfield of the RD will be
based on other configuration information such as
router-id or ASN.";
leaf rd-suffix {
type uint16;
description
"Indicates the value of the Assigned Number
subfield that is explicitly assigned.";
}
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
case auto-assigned {
description
"The RD is auto-assigned.";
container rd-auto {
description
"The RD is auto-assigned.";
choice auto-mode {
description
"Indicates the auto-assignment mode. RD can be
automatically assigned with or without
indicating a pool from which the RD should be
taken.
For both cases, the server will auto-assign an RD
value 'auto-assigned-rd' and use that value
operationally.";
case from-pool {
leaf rd-pool-name {
type string;
description
"The auto-assignment will be made from the pool
identified by the rd-pool-name.";
}
}
case full-auto {
leaf auto {
type empty;
description
"Indicates an RD is fully auto-assigned.";
}
}
}
leaf auto-assigned-rd {
type rt-types:route-distinguisher;
config false;
description
"The value of the auto-assigned RD.";
}
}
}
case auto-assigned-suffix {
description
"The value of the Assigned Number subfield will
be auto-assigned. The Administrator subfield
will be based on other configuration information such as
router-id or ASN.";
container rd-auto-suffix {
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"The Assigned Number subfield is auto-assigned.";
choice auto-mode {
description
"Indicates the auto-assignment mode of the Assigned Number
subfield. This number can be automatically assigned
with or without indicating a pool from which the value
should be taken.
For both cases, the server will auto-assign
'auto-assigned-rd-suffix' and use that value to build
the RD that will be used operationally.";
case from-pool {
leaf rd-pool-name {
type string;
description
"The assignment will be made from the pool identified
by the rd-pool-name.";
}
}
case full-auto {
leaf auto {
type empty;
description
"Indicates that the Assigned Number is fully auto
assigned.";
}
}
}
leaf auto-assigned-rd-suffix {
type uint16;
config false;
description
"Includes the value of the Assigned Number subfield that
is auto-assigned .";
}
}
}
case no-rd {
description
"Use the empty type to indicate RD has no value and is not to
be auto-assigned.";
leaf no-rd {
type empty;
description
"No RD is assigned.";
}
}
}
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
}
grouping vpn-components-group {
description
"Grouping definition to assign group-ids to associate VPN nodes,
sites, or network accesses.";
container groups {
description
"Lists the groups to which a VPN node, a site, or a network
access belongs to.";
list group {
key "group-id";
description
"List of group-ids.";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"Is the group-id to which a VPN node, a site, or a network
access belongs to.";
}
}
}
}
grouping placement-constraints {
description
"Constraints for placing a network access.";
list constraint {
key "constraint-type";
description
"List of constraints.";
leaf constraint-type {
type identityref {
base placement-diversity;
}
description
"Diversity constraint type.";
}
container target {
description
"The constraint will apply against this list of groups.";
choice target-flavor {
description
"Choice for the group definition.";
case id {
list group {
key "group-id";
description
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
"List of groups.";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"The constraint will apply against this particular
group-id.";
}
}
}
case all-accesses {
leaf all-other-accesses {
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other network
accesses of a site.";
}
}
case all-groups {
leaf all-other-groups {
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other groups that
the customer is managing.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping ports {
description
"Choice of specifying a source or destination port numbers.";
choice source-port {
description
"Choice of specifying the source port or referring to a group
of source port numbers.";
container source-port-range-or-operator {
description
"Source port definition.";
uses packet-fields:port-range-or-operator;
}
}
choice destination-port {
description
"Choice of specifying a destination port or referring to a group
of destination port numbers.";
container destination-port-range-or-operator {
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
description
"Destination port definition.";
uses packet-fields:port-range-or-operator;
}
}
}
grouping qos-classification-policy {
description
"Configuration of the traffic classification policy.";
list rule {
key "id";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of marking rules.";
leaf id {
type string;
description
"An identifier of the QoS classification policy rule.";
}
choice match-type {
default "match-flow";
description
"Choice for classification.";
case match-flow {
choice l3 {
description
"Either IPv4 or IPv6.";
container ipv4 {
description
"Rule set that matches IPv4 header.";
uses packet-fields:acl-ip-header-fields;
uses packet-fields:acl-ipv4-header-fields;
}
container ipv6 {
description
"Rule set that matches IPv6 header.";
uses packet-fields:acl-ip-header-fields;
uses packet-fields:acl-ipv6-header-fields;
}
}
choice l4 {
description
"Includes Layer 4 specific information.
This version focuses on TCP and UDP.";
container tcp {
description
"Rule set that matches TCP header.";
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
uses packet-fields:acl-tcp-header-fields;
uses ports;
}
container udp {
description
"Rule set that matches UDP header.";
uses packet-fields:acl-udp-header-fields;
uses ports;
}
}
}
case match-application {
leaf match-application {
type identityref {
base customer-application;
}
description
"Defines the application to match.";
}
}
}
leaf target-class-id {
if-feature "qos";
type string;
description
"Identification of the class of service. This identifier is
internal to the administration.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document define schemas for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
The "ietf-vpn-common" module defines a set of identities, types, and
groupings. These nodes are intended to be reused by other YANG
modules. The module does not expose by itself any data nodes which
are writable, contain read-only state, or RPCs. As such, there are
no additional security issues to be considered relating to the "ietf-
vpn-common" module.
Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document
should identify the corresponding security considerations. For
example, reusing some of these groupings will expose privacy-related
information (e.g., customer-name). Disclosing such information may
be considered as a violation of the customer-provider trust
relationship.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "ns"
subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in
the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
Parameters" registry.
name: ietf-vpn-common
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common
maintained by IANA: N
prefix: vpn-common
reference: RFC XXXX
7. Acknowledgements
During the discussions of this work, helpful comments and reviews
were received from (listed alphabetically): Alejandro Aguado, Raul
Arco, Miguel Cros Cecilia, Joe Clarke, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel,
Roque Gagliano, Christian Jacquenet, Kireeti Kompella, Julian Lucek,
Tom Petch, Erez Segev, and Paul Sherratt. Many thanks to them.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement number 101015857 Secured autonomic
traffic management for a Tera of SDN flows (Teraflow).
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
Many thanks to Radek Krejci for the yangdoctors review, Wesley Eddy
for the tsvart review, Ron Bonica and Victoria Pritchard for the
Rtgdir review, Joel Halpern for the genart review, Tim Wicinski for
the opsdir review, and Suresh Krishnan for the intdir review.
Special thanks to Robert Wilton for the AD review.
Thanks to Roman Danyliw, Lars Eagert, Warren Kumari, Erik Kline,
Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Benjamin Kaduk, and Eric Vyncke for the IESG
review.
8. Contributors
Italo Busi
Huawei Technologies
Email: Italo.Busi@huawei.com
Luis Angel Munoz
Vodafone
Email: luis-angel.munoz@vodafone.com
Victor Lopez Alvarez
Telefonica
Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8519] Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]
Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., and L. A.
Munoz, "A Layer 2 VPN Network YANG Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-06, 12
September 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-opsawg-l2nm-06.txt>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm]
Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., Munoz, L. A.,
and A. Aguado, "A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-15,
28 September 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang]
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bryskin, I., and B. Y.
Yoon, "A YANG Data Model for VN Operation", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-12,
25 August 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-12.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+)
Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-enhanced-vpn-08, 12 July 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-
vpn-08.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Gray, E., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
Makhijani, K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura,
"Framework for IETF Network Slices", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-04, 23
August 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
teas-ietf-network-slices-04.txt>.
[IEEE802.1ad]
"Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Amendment 4: Provider
Bridges", IEEE Std 802.1ad-2005, 2006.
[IEEE802.1AX]
"Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020, 2020.
[IEEE802.1Q]
"Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2018, 6
July 2018.
[ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", 2002,
<International Standard 10589:2002, Second Edition>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.
[RFC1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.
[RFC1702] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks", RFC 1702,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1702, October 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1702>.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2080>.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.
[RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3931>.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[RFC4176] El Mghazli, Y., Ed., Nadeau, T., Boucadair, M., Chan, K.,
and A. Gonguet, "Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private
Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management", RFC 4176,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4176, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4176>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the
Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487/RFC4577,
June 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4577>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5798] Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
[RFC6565] Pillay-Esnault, P., Moyer, P., Doyle, J., Ertekin, E., and
M. Lundberg, "OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
(PE-CE) Routing Protocol", RFC 6565, DOI 10.17487/RFC6565,
June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6565>.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
[RFC7676] Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support
for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 7676,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7676, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7676>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.
[RFC8512] Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar, S., Jacquenet, C.,
Vinapamula, S., and Q. Wu, "A YANG Module for Network
Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation
(NPT)", RFC 8512, DOI 10.17487/RFC8512, January 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8512>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8663] Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx,
W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8663>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
"Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
Appendix A. Example of Common Data Nodes in Early L2NM/L3NM Designs
In order to avoid data nodes duplication and to ease passing data
among layers (i.e., from the service layer to the network layer and
vice versa), early versions of the L3NM reused many of the data nodes
that are defined in the L3SM. Nevertheless, that approach was
abandoned because that design was interpreted as if the deployment of
L3NM depends on L3SM, while this is not required. For example, a
service provider may decide to use the L3NM to build its L3VPN
services without exposing the L3SM to customers.
Likewise, early versions of the L2NM reused many of the data nodes
that are defined in both L2SM and L3NM. An example of L3NM groupings
reused in L2NM is shown in Figure 5. Such data nodes reuse was
interpreted as if the deployment of the L2NM requires the support of
the L3NM; which is not required.
module ietf-l2vpn-ntw {
...
import ietf-l3vpn-ntw {
prefix l3vpn-ntw;
reference
"RFC NNNN: A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model";
}
...
container l2vpn-ntw {
...
container vpn-services {
list vpn-service {
...
uses l3vpn-ntw:service-status;
uses l3vpn-ntw:svc-transport-encapsulation;
...
}
}
...
}
}
Figure 5: Excerpt from the L2NM YANG Module
Authors' Addresses
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft VPN Common YANG Model September 2021
Samier Barguil
Telefonica
Madrid
Spain
Email: samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica
Madrid
Spain
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
Orange
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Barguil, et al. Expires 2 April 2022 [Page 70]
