Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model
draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model
Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational L. Berger, Ed.
Expires: September 14, 2017 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
D. Bogdanovic
C. Hopps
Deutsche Telekom
March 13, 2017
Network Device YANG Logical Organization
draft-ietf-rtgwg-device-model-02
Abstract
This document presents an approach for organizing YANG models in a
comprehensive logical structure that may be used to configure and
operate network devices. The structure is itself represented as an
example YANG model, with all of the related component models
logically organized in a way that is operationally intuitive, but
this model is not expected to be implemented. The identified
component modules are expected to be defined and implemented on
common network devices.
This document is derived from work submitted to the IETF by members
of the informal OpenConfig working group of network operators and is
a product of the Routing Area YANG Architecture design team.
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 14, 2017.
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
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
1.1. Status of Work and Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Module Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Interface Model Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. System Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Network Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. OAM Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.6. MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Network Device Model Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
"Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models"
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-model-structure], highlights the value of
organizing individual, self-standing YANG [RFC6020] models into a
more comprehensive structure. This document builds on that work and
presents a derivative logical structure for use in representing the
networking infrastructure aspects of physical and virtual devices.
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-model-structure] and earlier versions of this
document presented a single device-centric model root, this document
no longer contains this element. Such an element would have
translated to a single device management model that would be the root
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
of all other models and was judged to be overly restrictive in terms
of definition, implementation, and operation.
The document presents a logical network device YANG organizational
structure that provides a conceptual framework for the models that
may be used to configure and operate network devices. The structure
is itself presented as an example YANG module, with all of the
related component modules logically organized in a way that is
operationally intuitive. This network device model is not expected
to be implemented, but rather provide as context for the identified
representative component modules with are expected to be defined, and
supported on typical network devices.
This document refers to two new modules that are expected to be
implemented. These models are defined to support the configuration
and operation of network-devices that allow for the partitioning of
resources from both, or either, management and networking
perspectives. Two forms of resource partitioning are referenced:
The first form provides a logical partitioning of a network device
where each partition is separately managed as essentially an
independent network element which is 'hosted' by the base network
device. These hosted network elements are referred to as logical
network elements, or LNEs, and are supported by the logical-network-
element module defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lne-model]. The module is
used to identify LNEs and associate resources from the network-device
with each LNE. LNEs themselves are represented in YANG as
independent network devices; each accessed independently.
Optionally, and when supported by the implementation, they may also
be accessed from the host system. Examples of vendor terminology for
an LNE include logical system or logical router, and virtual switch,
chassis, or fabric.
The second form provides support what is commonly referred to as
Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instances as well as Virtual
Switch Instances (VSI), see [RFC4026]. In this form of resource
partitioning multiple control plane and forwarding/bridging instances
are provided by and managed via a single (physical or logical)
network device. This form of resource partitioning is referred to as
Network Instances and are supported by the network-instance module
defined in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model]. Configuration and operation of
each network-instance is always via the network device and the
network-instance module.
This document was motivated by, and derived from,
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-model-structure]. The requirements from that
document have been combined with the requirements from "Consistent
Modeling of Operational State Data in YANG",
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate], into "NETMOD Operational State
Requirements", [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs]. This document is
aimed at the requirement related to a common model-structure,
currently Requirement 7, and also aims to provide a modeling base for
Operational State representation.
The approach taken in this (and the original) document is to organize
the models describing various aspects of network infrastructure,
focusing on devices, their subsystems, and relevant protocols
operating at the link and network layers. The proposal does not
consider a common model for higher level network services. We focus
on the set of models that are commonly used by network operators, and
suggest a corresponding organization.
A significant portion of the text and model contained in this
document was taken from the -00 of
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-model-structure].
1.1. Status of Work and Open Issues
This version of the document and structure are a product of the
Routing Area YANG Architecture design team and is very much a work in
progress rather than a final proposal. This version is a major
change from the prior version and this change was enabled by the work
on the previously mentioned Schema Mount.
Schema Mount enables a dramatic simplification of the presented
device model, particularly for "lower-end" devices which are unlikely
to support multiple network instances or logical network elements.
Should structural-mount/YSDL not be available, the more explicit tree
structure presented in earlier versions of this document will need to
be utilized.
The top open issues are:
1. This document will need to match the evolution and
standardization of [I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate] or
[I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] by the Netmod WG.
2. Interpretation of different policy containers requires
clarification.
3. It may make sense to use the identityref structuring with
hardware and QoS model.
4. Which document(s) define the base System management, network
services, and oam protocols modules is TBD. This includes the
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
possibility of simply using RFC7317 in place of the presented
System management module.
5. The model will be updated once the "opstate" requirements are
addressed.
2. Module Overview
In this document, we consider network devices that support protocols
and functions defined within the IETF Routing Area, e.g, routers,
firewalls and hosts. Such devices may be physical or virtual, e.g.,
a classic router with custom hardware or one residing within a
server-based virtual machine implementing a virtual network function
(VNF). Each device may sub-divide their resources into logical
network elements (LNEs) each of which provides a managed logical
device. Examples of vendor terminology for an LNE include logical
system or logical router, and virtual switch, chassis, or fabric.
Each LNE may also support virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) and
virtual switching instance (VSI) functions, which are referred to
below as a network instances (NIs). This breakdown is represented in
Figure 1.
,''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''`.
| Network Device (Physical or Virtual) |
| ..................... ..................... |
| : Logical Network : : Logical Network : |
| : Element : : Element : |
| :+-----+-----+-----+: :+-----+-----+-----+: |
| :| Net | Net | Net |: :| Net | Net | Net |: |
| :|Inst.|Inst.|Inst.|: :|Inst.|Inst.|Inst.|: |
| :+-----+-----+-----+: :+-----+-----+-----+: |
| : | | | | | | : : | | | | | | : |
| :..|.|...|.|...|.|..: :..|.|...|.|...|.|..: |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
`'''|'|'''|'|'''|'|'''''''''|'|'''|'|'''|'|'''''
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Interfaces Interfaces
Figure 1: Module Element Relationships
A model for LNEs is described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lne-model] and the
model for network instances is covered in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model].
The presented notional network device module can itself be thought of
as a "meta-model" as it describes the relationships between
individual models. We choose to represent it also as a simple YANG
module consisting of other models, which are in fact independent top
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
level individual models. Although it is never expected to be
implemented.
The presented modules do not follow the hierarchy of any Particular
implementation, and hence is vendor-neutral. Nevertheless, the
structure should be familiar to network operators and also readily
mapped to vendor implementations.
The overall structure is:
module: example-network-device
+--rw modules-state [RFC7895]
|
+--rw interfaces [RFC7223]
+--rw hardware
+--rw qos
|
+--rw system-management [RFC7317 or derived]
+--rw network-services
+--rw oam-protocols
|
+--rw routing [I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
+--rw mpls
+--rw ieee-dot1Q
|
+--rw acls [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
+--rw key-chains [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain]
|
+--rw logical-network-elements [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lne-model]
+--rw network-instances [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model]
The network device is composed of top level modules that can be used
to configure and operate a network device. (This is a significant
difference from earlier versions of this document where there was a
strict model hierarchy.) Importantly the network device structure is
the same for a physical network device or a logical network device,
such as those instantiated via the logical-network-element model.
Extra spacing is included to denote different types of modules
included.
YANG library [RFC7895] is included as it used to identify details of
the top level modules supported by the (physical or logical) network
device. Th ability to identify supported modules is particularly
important for LNEs which may have a set of supported modules which
differs from the set supported by the host network device.
The interface management model [RFC7223] is included at the top
level. The hardware module is a placeholder for a future device-
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
specific configuration and operational state data model. For
example, a common structure for the hardware model might include
chassis, line cards, and ports, but we leave this unspecified. The
quality of service (QoS) section is also a placeholder module for
device configuration and operational state data which relates to the
treatment of traffic across the device. This document references
augmentations to the interface module to support LNEs and NIs.
Similar elements, although perhaps only for LNEs, may also need to be
included as part of the definition of the future hardware and QoS
modules.
System management, network services, and oam protocols represent new
top level modules that are used to organize data models of similar
functions. Additional information on each is provided below.
The routing and MPLS modules provide core support for the
configuration and operation of a devices control plane and data plane
functions. IEEE dot1Q [IEEE-8021Q] is an example of another module
that provides similar functions for VLAN bridging, and other similar
modules are also possible. Each of these modules is expected to be
LNE and NI unaware, and to be instantiated as needed as part of the
LNE and NI configuration and operation supported by the logical-
network-element and network-instance modules. (Note that this is a
change from [I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg] which is currently defined
with VRF/NI semantics.)
The access control list (ACL) and key chain modules are included as
examples of other top level modules that may be supported by a
network device.
The logical network element and network instance modules enable LNEs
and NIs respectively and are defined below.
2.1. Interface Model Components
Interfaces are a crucial part of any network device's configuration
and operational state. They generally include a combination of raw
physical interfaces, link-layer interfaces, addressing configuration,
and logical interfaces that may not be tied to any physical
interface. Several system services, and layer 2 and layer 3
protocols may also associate configuration or operational state data
with different types of interfaces (these relationships are not shown
for simplicity). The interface management model is defined by
[RFC7223].
The logical-network-element and network-instance modules defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lne-model] and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model] augment the
existing interface management model in two ways: The first, by the
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
logical-network-element module, adds an identifier which is used on
physical interface types to identify an associated LNE. The second,
by the network-instance module, adds a name which is used on
interface or sub-interface types to identify an associated network
instance. Similarly, this name is also added for IPv4 and IPv6
types, as defined in [RFC7277].
The interface related augmentations are as follows:
module: ietf-logical-network-element
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface:
+--rw bind-lne-name? string
module: ietf-network-instance
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface:
+--rw bind-network-instance-name? string
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4:
+--rw bind-network-instance-name? string
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6:
+--rw bind-network-instance-name? string
The following is an example of envisioned combined usage. The
interfaces container includes a number of commonly used components as
examples:
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
+--rw if:interfaces
| +--rw interface* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw lne:bind-lne-name? string
| +--rw ethernet
| | +--rw ni:bind-network-instance-name? string
| | +--rw aggregates
| | +--rw rstp
| | +--rw lldp
| | +--rw ptp
| +--rw vlans
| +--rw tunnels
| +--rw ipv4
| | +--rw ni:bind-network-instance-name? string
| | +--rw arp
| | +--rw icmp
| | +--rw vrrp
| | +--rw dhcp-client
| +--rw ipv6
| +--rw ni:bind-network-instance-name? string
| +--rw vrrp
| +--rw icmpv6
| +--rw nd
| +--rw dhcpv6-client
The [RFC7223] defined interface model is structured to include all
interfaces in a flat list, without regard to logical or virtual
instances (e.g., VRFs) supported on the device. The bind-lne-name
and bind-network-instance-name leaves provide the association between
an interface and its associated LNE and NI (e.g., VRF or VSI).
2.2. System Management
[Editor's note: need to discuss and resolve relationship between this
structure and RFC7317 and determine if 7317 is close enough to simply
use as is.]
System management is expected to reuse definitions contained in
[RFC7317]. It is expected to be instantiated per device and LNE.
Its structure is shown below:
module: example-network-device
+--rw system-management
| +--rw system-management-global
| +--rw system-management-protocol* [type]
| +--rw type identityref
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
System-management-global is used for configuration information and
state that is independent of a particular management protocol.
System-management-protocol is a list of management protocol specific
elements. The type-specific sub-modules are expected to be defined.
The following is an example of envisioned usage:
module: example-network-device
+--rw system-management
+--rw system-management-global
| +--rw statistics-collection
| ...
+--rw system-management-protocol* [type]
| +--rw type=syslog
| +--rw type=dns
| +--rw type=ntp
| +--rw type=ssh
| +--rw type=tacacs
| +--rw type=snmp
| +--rw type=netconf
2.3. Network Services
A device may provide different network services to other devices, for
example a device my act as a DHCP server. The model may be
instantiated per device, LNE, and NI. An identityref is used to
identify the type of specific service being provided and its
associated configuration and state information. The defined
structure is as follows:
module: example-network-device
+--rw network-services
| +--rw network-service* [type]
| +--rw type identityref
The following is an example of envisioned usage: Examples shown below
include a device-based Network Time Protocol (NTP) server, a Domain
Name System (DNS) server, and a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) server:
module: example-network-device
+--rw network-services
+--rw network-service* [type]
+--rw type=ntp-server
+--rw type=dns-server
+--rw type=dhcp-server
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
2.4. OAM Protocols
OAM protocols that may run within the context of a device are grouped
within the oam-protocols model. The model may be instantiated per
device, LNE, and NI. An identifyref is used to identify the
information and state that may relate to a specific OAM protocol.
The defined structure is as follows:
module: example-network-device
+--rw oam-protocols
+--rw oam-protocol* [type]
+--rw type identityref
The following is an example of envisioned usage. Examples shown
below include Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD), Ethernet
Connectivity Fault Management (CFM), and Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol (TWAMP):
module: example-network-device
+--rw oam-protocols
+--rw oam-protocol* [type]
+--rw type=bfd
+--rw type=cfm
+--rw type=twamp
2.5. Routing
Routing protocol and IP forwarding configuration and operation
information is modeled via a routing model, such as the one defined
in [I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg].
The routing module is expected to include all IETF defined control
plane protocols, such as BGP, OSPF, LDP and RSVP-TE. It is also
expected to support configuration and operation of or more routing
information bases (RIB). A RIB is a list of routes complemented with
administrative data. Finally, policy is expected to be represented
within each control plane protocol and RIB.
The anticipated structure is as follows:
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
module: example-network-device
+--rw rt:routing [I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
+--rw control-plane-protocol* [type]
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw policy
+--rw rib* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw description? string
+--rw policy
2.6. MPLS
MPLS data plane related information is grouped together, as with the
previously discussed modules, is unaware of VRFs/NIs. The model may
be instantiated per device, LNE, and NI. MPLS control plane
protocols are expected to be included in Section 2.5. MPLS may reuse
and build on [I-D.openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model] or other
emerging models and has an anticipated structure as follows:
module: example-network-device
+--rw mpls
+--rw global
+--rw lsps* [type]
+--rw type identityref
Type refers to LSP type, such as static, traffic engineered or
routing congruent. The following is an example of such usage:
module: example-network-device
+--rw mpls
+--rw global
+--rw lsps* [type]
+--rw type=static
+--rw type=constrained-paths
+--rw type=igp-congruent
3. Security Considerations
The network-device model structure described in this document does
not define actual configuration and state data, hence it is not
directly responsible for security risks.
Each of the component models that provide the corresponding
configuration and state data should be considered sensitive from a
security standpoint since they generally manipulate aspects of
network configurations. Each component model should be carefully
evaluated to determine its security risks, along with mitigations to
reduce such risks.
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
LNE portion is TBD
NI portion is TBD
4. IANA Considerations
This YANG model currently uses a temporary ad-hoc namespace. If it
is placed or redirected for the standards track, an appropriate
namespace URI will be registered in the "IETF XML Registry"
[RFC3688]. The YANG structure modules will be registered in the
"YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020].
5. Network Device Model Structure
<CODE BEGINS> file "example-network-device@2017-03-13.yang"
module example-network-device {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "urn:example:network-device";
prefix "nd";
// import some basic types
// meta
organization "IETF RTG YANG Design Team Collaboration
with OpenConfig";
contact
"Routing Area YANG Architecture Design Team -
<rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>";
description
"This module describes a model structure for YANG
configuration and operational state data models. Its intent is
to describe how individual device protocol and feature models
fit together and interact.";
revision "2017-03-13" {
description
"IETF Routing YANG Design Team Meta-Model";
reference "TBD";
}
// extension statements
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
// identity statements
identity oam-protocol-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of OAM protocols";
}
identity network-service-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of network services";
}
identity system-management-protocol-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of system management
protocols";
}
identity oam-service-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) services.";
}
identity control-plane-protocol-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of control-plane protocols";
}
identity mpls-lsp-type {
description
"Base identity for derivation of MPLS LSP typs";
}
// typedef statements
// grouping statements
grouping ribs {
description
"Routing Information Bases (RIBs) supported by a
network-instance";
container ribs {
description
"RIBs supported by a network-instance";
list rib {
key "name";
min-elements "1";
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
description
"Each entry represents a RIB identified by the
'name' key. All routes in a RIB must belong to the
same address family.
For each routing instance, an implementation should
provide one system-controlled default RIB for each
supported address family.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the RIB.";
}
reference "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg";
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Description of the RIB";
}
// Note that there is no list of interfaces within
container policy {
description "Policy specific to RIB";
}
}
}
}
// top level device definition statements
container ietf-yang-library {
description
"YANG Module Library as defined in
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library";
}
container interfaces {
description
"Interface list as defined by RFC7223/RFC7224";
}
container hardware {
description
"Hardware / vendor-specific data relevant to the platform.
This container is an anchor point for platform-specific
configuration and operational state data. It may be further
organized into chassis, line cards, ports, etc. It is
expected that vendor or platform-specific augmentations
would be used to populate this part of the device model";
}
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
container qos {
description "QoS features, for example policing, shaping, etc.";
}
container system-management {
description
"System management for physical or virtual device.";
container system-management-global {
description "System management - with reuse of RFC 7317";
}
list system-management-protocol {
key "type";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base system-management-protocol-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"Syslog, ssh, TACAC+, SNMP, NETCONF, etc.";
}
description "List of system management protocol
configured for a logical network
element.";
}
}
container network-services {
description
"Container for list of configured network
services.";
list network-service {
key "type";
description
"List of network services configured for a
network instance.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base network-service-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The network service type supported within
a network instance, e.g., NTP server, DNS
server, DHCP server, etc.";
}
}
}
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
container oam-protocols {
description
"Container for configured OAM protocols.";
list oam-protocol {
key "type";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base oam-protocol-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) protocol type, e.g., BFD,
TWAMP, CFM, etc.";
}
description
"List of configured OAM protocols.";
}
}
container routing {
description
"The YANG Data Model for Routing Management revised to be
Network Instance / VRF independent. ";
// Note that there is no routing or network instance
list control-plane-protocol {
key "type";
description
"List of control plane protocols configured for
a network instance.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base control-plane-protocol-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The control plane protocol type, e.g., BGP,
OSPF IS-IS, etc";
}
container policy {
description
"Protocol specific policy,
reusing [RTG-POLICY]";
}
}
list rib {
key "name";
description
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
"Each entry represents a RIB identified by the
'name' key. All routes in a RIB must belong to the
same address family.
For each routing instance, an implementation should
provide one system-controlled default RIB for each
supported address family.";
leaf name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"The name of the RIB.";
}
reference "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg";
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Description of the RIB";
}
// Note that there is no list of interfaces within
container policy {
description "Policy specific to RIB";
}
}
}
container mpls {
description "MPLS and TE configuration";
container global {
description "Global MPLS configuration";
}
list lsps {
key "type";
description
"List of LSP types.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base mpls-lsp-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"MPLS and Traffic Engineering protocol LSP types,
static, LDP/SR (igp-congruent),
RSVP TE (constrained-paths) , etc.";
}
}
}
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
container ieee-dot1Q {
description
"The YANG Data Model for VLAN bridges as defined by the IEEE";
}
container ietf-acl {
description "Packet Access Control Lists (ACLs) as specified
in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model";
}
container ietf-key-chain {
description "Key chains as specified in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain;";
}
container logical-network-element {
description
"This module is used to support multiple logical network
elements on a single physical or virtual system.";
}
container network-instance {
description
"This module is used to support multiple network instances
within a single physical or virtual device. Network
instances are commonly know as VRFs (virtual routing
and forwarding) and VSIs (virtual switching instances).";
}
// rpc statements
// notification statements
}
<CODE ENDS>
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lne-model]
Berger, L., Hopps, C., Lindem, A., and D. Bogdanovic,
"YANG Logical Network Elements", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-
model-01 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ni-model]
Berger, L., Hopps, C., Lindem, A., and D. Bogdanovic,
"YANG Network Instances", draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01
(work in progress), October 2016.
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
Bogdanovic, D., Koushik, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-09 (work in progress), October
2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs]
Watsen, K. and T. Nadeau, "Terminology and Requirements
for Enhanced Handling of Operational State", draft-ietf-
netmod-opstate-reqs-04 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management", draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-25 (work in
progress), November 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-yang-key-chain]
Lindem, A., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., Zhang, Z., and Y.
Yang, "Routing Key Chain YANG Data Model", draft-ietf-
rtgwg-yang-key-chain-15 (work in progress), February 2017.
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
[I-D.openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model]
George, J., Fang, L., eric.osborne@level3.com, e., and R.
Shakir, "MPLS / TE Model for Service Provider Networks",
draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-02 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-model-structure]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and L. Fang,
"Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models",
draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling
of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-
netmod-opstate-01 (work in progress), July 2015.
[IEEE-8021Q]
Holness, M., "IEEE 802.1Q YANG Module Specifications",
IEEE-Draft http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2015/
new-mholness-yang-8021Q-0515-v04.pdf, May 2015.
[RFC7895] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module
Library", RFC 7895, DOI 10.17487/RFC7895, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7895>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
This document is derived from draft-openconfig-netmod-model-
structure-00. We thank the Authors of that document and acknowledge
their indirect contribution to this work. The authors include: Anees
Shaikh, Rob Shakir, Kevin D'Souza, Luyuan Fang, Qin Wu, Stephane
Litkowski and Gang Yan.
This work was discussed in and produced by the Routing Area Yang
Architecture design team. Members at the time of writing included
Acee Lindem, Anees Shaikh, Christian Hopps, Dean Bogdanovic, Lou
Berger, Qin Wu, Rob Shakir, Stephane Litkowski, and Gang Yan.
The identityref approach was proposed by Mahesh Jethanandani.
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RTG YANG Device Model March 2017
Authors' Addresses
Acee Lindem (editor)
Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
USA
Email: acee@cisco.com
Lou Berger (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Dean Bogdanovic
Email: ivandean@gmail.com
Christan Hopps
Deutsche Telekom
Email: chopps@chopps.org
Lindem, et al. Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 22]
