Internet DRAFT - draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate
draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate
Network Working Group R. Shakir
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Informational A. Shaikh
Expires: January 7, 2016 M. Hines
Google
July 6, 2015
Consistent Modeling of Operational State Data in YANG
draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01
Abstract
This document proposes an approach for modeling configuration and
operational state data in YANG [RFC6020] that is geared toward
network management systems that require capabilities beyond those
typically envisioned in a NETCONF-based management system. The
document presents the requirements of such systems and proposes a
modeling approach to meet these requirements, along with implications
and design patterns for modeling operational state in YANG.
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 January 7, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirement to interact with both intended and applied
configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operational requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Applied configuration as part of operational state . . . 6
4.2. Support for both transactional, synchronous management
systems as well as distributed, asynchronous management
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Separation of configuration and operational state data;
ability to retrieve them independently . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Ability to retrieve operational state corresponding
only to derived values, statistics, etc. . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Consistent schema locations for configuration and
corresponding operational state data . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Implications on modeling operational state . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Inclusion of applied configuration as part of operational
state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Corresponding leaves for configuration and state . . . . 9
5.3. Retrieval of only the derived, or NE-generated part of
the operational state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Consistency and predictability in the paths where
corresponding state and configuration data may be
retrieved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.5. Reuse of existing NETCONF conventions where applicable . 9
6. Proposed operational state structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Example model structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Discussion and observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Impact on model authoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Modeling design patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.1. Basic structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.2. Handling lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.3. Selective use of state data from common groupings . . 16
8.1.4. Non-corresponding configuration and state data . . . 16
9. YANG language considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Distinguishing derived operational state data and
applied configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. YANG lists as maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3. Configuration and state data hierarchy . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Example YANG base structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Example YANG list structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix D. Changes between revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
Retrieving the operational state of a network element (NE) is a
critical process for a network operator, both because it determines
how the network is currently running (for example, how many errors
are occurring on a certain link, what is the load of that link); but
also because it determines whether the intended configuration applied
by a network management system is currently operational. While
configuration changes may be relatively infrequent, accessing the
state of the network happens significantly more often. Knowing the
real-time state of the network is required for a variety of use cases
including traffic management, rapid diagnosis and recovery, and
enabling tight control loops (implying reading this data on
millisecond timescales).
Based on this operational requirement, this document seeks to
enumerate the requirements of representing both configuration and
operational state data in YANG; propose a common set of terminology;
and propose a common layout for configuration and state data such
that they can be retrieved from a NE. These proposals are based on
the assertion that YANG models should be usable via a number of
protocols (not solely IETF- defined protocols such as NETCONF and
RESTCONF), and may also be used to carry data that is pushed from
devices via streaming rather than polled.
2. Terminology
In order to understand the way in which a network operator or network
management system may need to interact with a device, it is key to
understand the different types of data that network elements may
store or master:
o intended configuration - this data represents the state that the
network operator intends the system to be in. This data is
colloquially referred to as the 'configuration' of the system.
o applied configuration - this data represents the state that the
network element is actually in, i.e., that which is currently
being run by particular software modules (e.g., the BGP daemon),
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
or other systems within the device (e.g., a secondary control-
plane, or line card).
o derived state - this data represents information which is
generated as part of the system's own interactions. For example,
derived state may consist of the results of protocol interactions
(the negotiated duplex state of an Ethernet link), statistics
(such as message queue depth), or counters (such as packet input
or output bytes).
The applied configuration and derived state can be considered as the
overall 'operational' state of the NE.
When an external system desires to change the state of the network
element, the changes are written to the intended configuration. This
may be done directly or via a set of staged changes. The process of
transitioning the intended to applied configuration may be implicit,
or explicitly controlled by the network management system (NMS).
Derived state is never directly influenced by the external NMS or
user, since it is generated based on the systems own interactions.
To this end, operational state information can be considered to be
'unknown' to the network manager.
It is notable that the intended configuration and the applied
configuration represent exactly the same set of variables (leaves).
These may have different values based on the current point in time
(e.g., if the change has not been communicated to an external
software entity), or due to missing dependencies (e.g., a particular
linecard not being installed).
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
+---------+
| | transition intended
|intended | to applied
| config +---------+
| | |
+---------+ |
^ | config: true
+----------|------------------------------------+
| | config: false
| |
| |
| +-----------------------------+
| | | operational state |
| | +----v----+ +-----------+ |
| | | | | | |
+ | | applied | | derived | | operational:true
same +------>| config | | state |<-------+
leaves | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| +---------+ +-----------+ |
+-----------------------------+
The relationship between intended and applied configuration, and
derived state. The combination of the applied and derived state is
referred to as the operational state.
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the different types of state
referred to above. The intended configuration (which is read/write)
is the only 'config: true' data. The remaining operational state
(consisting of applied configuration and derived state) is read-only.
Only derived state is marked as operational data.
Where the terms 'intended', 'applied', 'derived' and 'operational'
are used throughout this document to refer to configuration or state,
this should be read as explained above.
3. Requirement to interact with both intended and applied configuration
An operator or network management system has key requirements to be
able to interact with both the intended and applied configuration.
The type of interaction with each type of data does differ, however.
The intended configuration is writable by the managing entity. That
is, intended configuration is the means through which the NMS informs
the network element of its desire to change the state of the system.
An NMS may read back this intended configuration in order to
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
determine the state that the network element is currently trying to
apply.
Once such changes have been made to the intended configuration, the
NMS interacts with the read-only applied configuration to determine
whether the change that was requested has been applied. The NMS can
only influence changes to the applied configuration based on writing
changes to the intended configuration. The applied configuration
cannot be directly changed itself. It is therefore a common
operation for an NMS to write to the intended configuration, and
subsequently read the applied configuration to determine whether the
change has been instantiated. It is therefore of great importance to
have a means by which the intended and applied configuration can be
easily related to one another programmatically within a single schema
to avoid complex mapping between a particular intended configuration
leaf and the corresponding applied configuration.
Similarly, it is also important to have operational state data for a
particular entity easily related to the applied and intended
configuration without requiring complex mapping. It should be noted
that this does not imply that the NMS layer that is retrieving the
operational state data understands the semantics of each data
element, but rather that it can retrieve the required set of
elements. A number of existing NMS architectures have a logical
division between the elements of the system responsible for
interacting with the network elements themselves, and those that are
responsible for data processing, such that general data retrieval and
parsing should be considered separate activities.
4. Operational requirements
The proposed modeling approach described in this document is
motivated by a number of operational requirements.
4.1. Applied configuration as part of operational state
The definition of operational state in [RFC6244] includes read-only
transient data that is the result of system operation or protocol
interactions, and data that is typically thought of as counters or
statistics. In many operational use cases it is also important to
distinguish between the intended value of a configuration variable
and its actual configured state, as described above. In non-
transactional or asynchronous environments, for example, these may be
different and it is important to know when they are different or when
they have converged (see requirement #2). For this reason, we
consider the applied configuration as an additional important element
of the operational state. This is not considered in [RFC6244].
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
4.2. Support for both transactional, synchronous management systems as
well as distributed, asynchronous management systems
In a synchronous system, configuration changes are transactional and
committed as an atomic unit. This implies that the management system
knows the success or failure of the configuration change based on the
return value, and hence knows that the intended configuration matches
what is on the system (i..e, what has been applied). In particular,
the value of any configuration variable should always reflect the
(intended) configured value. Synchronous operation is generally
associated with a NETCONF-based system that provides transactional
semantics for all changes.
In an asynchronous system, configuration changes to the system may
not be reflected immediately, even though the change operation
returns success. Rather, the change is verified by observing the
state of the system, for example based on notifications, or
continuously streamed values of the state. In this case, the value
of a configuration variable may not reflect the intended configured
value at a given point in time.
The asynchronous use case is important because synchronous operation
may not always be possible. For example, in a large scale
environment, the management system may not need to wait for all
changes to complete if it is acceptable to proceed while some
configuration values are being updated. In addition, not all devices
may support transactional changes, making asynchronous operation a
requirement. Moreover, using observed state to infer the configured
value allows the management system to learn the time taken to
complete various configuration changes.
4.3. Separation of configuration and operational state data; ability to
retrieve them independently
These requirements are also mentioned in [RFC3535]:
o It is necessary to make a clear distinction between configuration
data, data that describes operational state, and statistics.
o It is required to be able to fetch separately configuration data,
operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be
able to compare these between devices.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
4.4. Ability to retrieve operational state corresponding only to
derived values, statistics, etc.
When the management system operates in synchronous mode, it should be
able to retrieve only the operational state corresponding to the
system determined values, such as negotiated values, protocol
determined values, or statistics and counters. Since in synchronous
mode the intended and applied configuration values are identical,
sending the applied configuration state is redundant.
4.5. Consistent schema locations for configuration and corresponding
operational state data
This requirement implies that a common convention is used throughout
the schema to locate configuration and state data so that the
management system can infer how to access one or the other without
needing significant external context. When considering applied
configuration as part of operational state (as discussed in
Section 4.1), it is similarly required that the intended value vs.
actual value for a particular configuration variable should be
possible to locate with minimal, if any, mapping information.
This requirement becomes more evident when considering the
composition of individual data models into a higher-level model for a
complete device (e.g., /device[name=devXY]/protocols/routing/...) or
even higher layer models maintained by network operators (e.g., /ope
ratorX/global/continent[name=eur]/pop[name=paris]/device[name=devXY]
/...). If each model has it's own way to separate configuration and
state data, then this information must be known at potentially every
subtree of the composed model.
From an operator perspective it is highly desirable that data nodes
are accessible via a single data model - rather than requiring
different 'views' of the same data model. This greatly simplifies
NMS operation, and eliminates ambiguity for a single path. That is,
it avoids the need for an NMS to provide a <RPC-call, path> tuple to
uniquely identify a data node. A path should be sufficient to
uniquely reference to a piece of data. Utilizing a single data model
and set of paths wherever possible, ensures that this existing
convention can be continued, and ambiguity of a particular path's
value and meaning can be avoided.
5. Implications on modeling operational state
The requirements in Section 4 give rise to a number of new
considerations for modeling operational state. Some of the key
implications are summarized below.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
5.1. Inclusion of applied configuration as part of operational state
This implies that a copy of the configurable (i.e., writable) values
should be included as read-only variables in containers for
operational state, in addition to the derived variables that are
traditionally thought of as state data (counters, negotiated values,
etc.).
5.2. Corresponding leaves for configuration and state
Any configuration leaf should have a corresponding state leaf. The
opposite is clearly not true -- some parts of the model may only have
derived state variables, for example the contents of a routing table
that are populated by a dynamic routing protocols like BGP or IS-IS.
5.3. Retrieval of only the derived, or NE-generated part of the
operational state
YANG and NETCONF do not currently differentiate between state that is
derived by the NE, state representing statistics, and state
representing applied configuration -- all state is simply marked as
'config false' or read-only. To retrieve only the state that is not
part of intended configuration, we require a new way to tag such
data. This is proposed in this document as a YANG extension.
Alternatively, as described in [RFC6244], a new NETCONF datastore for
operational state that is just for derived state could also be used
to allow <get> (or similar) operations to specify just that part of
the state.
5.4. Consistency and predictability in the paths where corresponding
state and configuration data may be retrieved
To avoid arbitrary placement of state and configuration data
containers, the most consistent options would be at the root of the
model (as done in [YANG-IF]) or at the leaves, i.e., at the start or
end of the paths. When operators compose models into a higher level
model, the root of the model is no longer well-defined, and hence
neither is the start of the path. For these reasons, we propose
placing configuration and state separation at leaves of the model.
5.5. Reuse of existing NETCONF conventions where applicable
Though not a specific requirement, models for operational state
should take advantage of existing protocol mechanisms where possible,
e.g., to retrieve configuration and state data. As mentioned above,
this does not mean that the solution for modeling operational state
and configuration data should be limited to NETCONF architecture or
protocols.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
6. Proposed operational state structure
Below we show an example model structure that meets the requirements
described above for all three types of data we are considering:
o intended configuration
o applied configuration
o derived state
6.1. Example model structure
The example below shows a partial model (in ascii tree format) for
managing Ethernet aggregate interfaces (leveraging data definitions
from [RFC7223]):
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
+--rw interfaces
+--rw interface* [name]
+--rw name -> ../config/name
+--rw config
| ...
+--ro state
| | ...
| +--ro counters
| +--ro discontinuity-time yang:date-and-time
| +--ro in-octets? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-unicast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-broadcast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-multicast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-discards? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-errors? yang:counter64
| +--ro in-unknown-protos? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-octets? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-unicast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-broadcast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-multicast-pkts? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-discards? yang:counter64
| +--ro out-errors? yang:counter64
+--rw aggregation!
+--rw config
| +--rw lag-type? aggregation-type
| +--rw min-links? uint16
+--ro state
| +--ro lag-type? aggregation-type
| +--ro min-links? uint16
| +--ro members* ocif:interface-ref
+--rw lacp!
+--rw config
| +--rw interval? lacp-period-type
+--rw members* [interface]
| +--rw interface ocif:interface-ref
| +--ro state
| +--ro activity? lacp-activity-type
| +--ro timeout? lacp-timeout-type
| +--ro synchronization? lacp-synch-type
| +--ro aggregatable? boolean
| +--ro collecting? boolean
| +--ro distributing? boolean
+--ro state
+--ro interval? lacp-period-type
In this model, the path to the intended configuration (rw) items at
the aggregate interface level is:
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/aggregation/config/...
The corresponding applied configuration and derived state is located
at:
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/aggregation/state/...
This container holds a read-only copy of the intended configuration
variables (lag-type and min-links) - the applied configuration - as
well as a generated list of member interfaces (the members leaf-list)
for the aggregate that is active when the lag-type indicates a
statically configured aggregate (which is derived state). Note that
although the paths to config and state containers are symmetric, the
state container contains additional derived variables.
The model has an additional hierarchy level for aggregate interfaces
that are maintained using LACP. For these, the configuration path
is:
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/aggregation/lacp/config/...
with the corresponding state container (in this case with only the
state corresponding to the applied configuration) at:
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/aggregation/lacp/state/...
There is an additional list of members for LACP-managed aggregates
with only a state container:
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/aggregation/lacp/
members[name=ifName]/state/...
Note that it is not required that both a state and a config container
be present at every leaf. It may be convenient to include an empty
config container to make it more explicit to the management system
that there are no configuration variables at this location in the
data tree.
Finally, we can see that the generic interface object also has config
and state containers (these are abbreviated for clarity). The state
container has a subcontainer for operational state corresponding to
counters and statistics that are valid for any interface type:
/interfaces/interface[name=ifName]/state/counters/...
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
7. Discussion and observations
A number of issues have been raised with the proposed solution, which
are documented below, along with the authors observations relating to
these issues.
1. The proposed solution decreases the readability of a YANG data
model for some, or the ease of writing a model for others. It is
difficult to make this judgment without being subjective - the
complexity in model writing (as is noted in the above section) is
only at the expense of meeting the operational requirement
described in this document. The authors consider that this is a
fair trade-off between one-time modeling complexity. It could
also be observed that a common convention for representing
operational state data alongside configuration improved
readability.
2. Data is duplicated on the wire by this proposal. The intention
of defining a set of annotations for data (operational: true, or
the data-type flag proposed below) is in order to allow RPCs to
be defined which return only specific types of data. For
example, a >get-operational< call may return only values with
operational: true so that an NMS can return a specific set of
data to the requesting entity.
3. The proposal does not allow items that are not configured,
configured but not present, or system configured. A common
example which is quoted is where there are elements that are not
configured, or are system-generated based on some other
configuration. For example, consider a model whereby an 'all'
interface is configured, which corresponds to all interfaces on
the system. In this case, the intended configuration should
include only the 'all' interface which is configured. This
intended configuration should be reflected to the applied
configuration. The operational state should contain per-
interface (e.g., eth0, Fa0/1) values relating to the interface
entities that exist in the network. The intended configuration
corresponds solely to a particular interface (e.g., eth0) --
there should be no corresponding 'intended' configuration. In
these cases, there is no 'intended' configuration for an entity,
but there is an 'applied' configuration present. One challenge
here relates to the fact that YANG's list semantics currently
imply that that the "config true" interface-name leaf has been
set - in practice, it is unlikely that this list key is actually
configurable in any real system (it must correspond to a real
interface, which has an explicit name according to the system
implementation). Additionally, this could be resolved with the
alternative map type described later in this document.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
4. It is not clear what to do when the intended and applied
configuration differ. The proposal made in this document makes
no presumption as to the actions that are taken when intended and
applied leaves for a certain value differ. In fact, it is the
expectation of the authors that there is separation between
elements of the NMS that are responsible for retrieving data from
network elements, as opposed to those that need to understand
process this data. The fact that this layer interacting with the
network can retrieve both intended and applied configuration, and
find the corresponding operational state data in a consistent
manner is independently useful regardless of whether the
semantics of the contained data are understood.
5. An operational-path statement could be used to point between
intended and applied configuration. Essentially, this proposal
moves the mapping dictionary on a per-leaf basis within the data
model itself. It appears to be a more complex solution that the
proposed approach within this document which does not require any
need to build a per-leaf mapping.
6. Models that do not follow the proposed pattern would not be
usable. Models that do not follow the structural convention for
modeling operational state data would require some refactoring to
meet the requirements described in this document. However, by
following the design pattern for YANG grouping described in
Section Section 8.1.1 it becomes possible to leverage existing
modules by importing them and reusing the groupings. More
specifically, if models are designed with only configuration or
state related data leaf nodes in groupings, another model could
create the required structure and reuse these groupings.
8. Impact on model authoring
One drawback of structuring operational and configuration data in
this way is the added complexity in authoring the models, relative to
the way some models are currently built with state and config split
at the root of the individual model (e.g., in [RFC7223], [RFC7317],
and [IETF-RTG]). Moving the config and state containers to each leaf
adds a one-time modeling effort, which is somewhat dependent on the
model structure itself (how many layers of container hierarchy,
number of lists, etc.) However, we feel this effort is justified by
the resulting simplicity with which management systems can access and
correlate state and configuration data.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
8.1. Modeling design patterns
We propose some specific YANG modeling design patterns that are be
useful for building models following these conventions.
8.1.1. Basic structure
Since leaves that are created under the 'config' container also
appear under the 'state' container, it is recommended that the
following conventions are used to ensure that the schema remain as
simple as possible:
o A grouping for the intended configuration data items is created -
with a specific naming convention to indicate that such variables
are configurable, such as a suffix like '-config' or '_config'.
For example, the OpenConfig BGP model [OC-BGP] adopts the
convention of appending "_config" to the name of the grouping.
o A grouping for the derived state data items is created, with a
similar naming convention as above, i.e., with a suffix such as
'-state' or '_state'. The BGP model uses "_state".
o A 'structural' grouping is created that instantiates both the
'config' and 'state' containers. The 'config' container should
include the "-config" grouping, whilst the state container has
both the "-config" and "-state" groupings, along with the 'config
false' statement.
A simple example in YANG is shown in Appendix B.
8.1.2. Handling lists
In YANG 1.0, lists have requirements that complicate the creation of
the parallel configuration and state data structures. First, keys
must be children of the list; they cannot be further down the data
hierarchy within a subsequent container. For example, the
'interface' list cannot be keyed by /interfaces/interface/config/
name. Second, YANG requires that the list key is part of the
configuration or state data in each list member.
We consider two possible approaches for lists:
1. list keys appear only at the top level of the list, i.e., not
duplicated under the 'config' or 'state' containers within the
list
2. the data represented by the list key appears in the config and
state containers, and a key with type leafref is used in the top
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
level of the list pointing to the corresponding data node in the
config (or state) container.
Option 1 has the advantage of not duplicating data, but treats the
data item (or items) that are keys as special cases, i.e., not
included in the config or state containers. Option 2 is appealing in
that configurable data always appears in the config container, but
requires an arguably unnecessary key pointing to the data from the
top level of the list.
Appendix C shows a simple example of both options.
8.1.3. Selective use of state data from common groupings
In a number of cases, it is desirable that the same grouping be used
within different places in a model - but state information is only
relevant in one of these paths. For example, considering BGP, peer
configuration is relevant to both a "neighbor" (i.e., an individual
BGP peer), and also to a peer-group (a set of peers). Counters
relating to the number of received prefixes, or queued messages, are
relevant only within the 'state' container of the peer (rather than
the peer-group). In this case, use of the 'augment' statement to add
specific leaves to only one area of the tree is recommended, since it
allows a common grouping to be utilized otherwise.
8.1.4. Non-corresponding configuration and state data
There are some instances where only an operational state container is
relevant without a corresponding configuration data container. For
example, the list of currently active member interfaces in a LACP-
managed LAG is typically reported by the system as operational state
that is governed by the LACP protocol. Such data is not directly
configured. Similarly, counters and statistics do not have
corresponding configuration. In these cases, we can either omit the
config container from such leaves, or provide an empty container as
described earlier. With both options, the management system is able
to infer that such data is not configurable.
9. YANG language considerations
In adopting the approach described in this document for modeling
operational state data in YANG, we encounter several language
limitations that are described below. We discuss some initial
thoughts on possible changes to the language to more easily enable
the proposed model for operational state modeling.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
9.1. Distinguishing derived operational state data and applied
configuration
As mentioned in Section 4, we require a way to separately query
operational state that is not part of applied configuration (e.g.,
protocol-determined data, counters, etc.). YANG and NETCONF do not
distinguish types of operational state data, however. To overcome
this, we currently use a YANG language extension to mark such data as
'operational: true'. Ideally, this could be generalized beyond the
current 'config: true / false' to mark "data-type: intended", "data-
type: applied", "data-type: derived" to allow filtering of particular
types of data by a protocol RPC.
9.2. YANG lists as maps
YANG has two list constructs, the 'leaf-list' which is similar to a
list of scalars (arrays) in other programming languages, and the
'list' which allows a keyed list of complex structures, where the key
is also part of the data values. As described in Section 8.1.2, the
current requirements on YANG list keys require either duplication of
data, or treating some data (i.e., those that comprise list keys) as
a special case. One solution is to generalize lists to be more like
map data structures found in most modern programming languages, where
each list member has a key that is not required to part of the
configuration or state data, and also not subject to existing
"config-under-state limitations. This allows list keys to be
arbitrarily defined by the user if desired, or based on values of
data nodes. In the latter case, the specification of which data
nodes are used in constructing the list key could be indicated in the
meta-data associated with the key.
9.3. Configuration and state data hierarchy
YANG does not allow read-write configuration data to be child nodes
of read-only operational state data. This requires the definition of
separate state and config containers as described above. However, it
may be desirable to simplify the schema by 'flattening', e.g., having
the operational state as the root of the data tree, with only config
containers needed to specify the variables that are writable (in
general, the configuration data is much smaller than operational
state data). Naming the containers explicitly according the config /
state convention makes the intent of the data clear, and should allow
relaxing of the current YANG restrictions. That is, a read-write
config container makes explicit the nature of the enclosed data even
if the parent data nodes are read-only. This of course requires that
all data in a config container are in fact configurable -- this is
one of the motivations of pushing such containers as far down in the
schema hierarchy as possible.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
10. Security Considerations
This document addresses the structure of configuration and
operational state data, both of which should be considered sensitive
from a security standpoint. Any data models that follow the proposed
structuring must be carefully evaluated to determine its security
risks. In general, access to both configuration (write) and
operational state (read) data must be controlled through appropriate
access control and authorization mechanisms.
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6244] Shafer, P., "An Architecture for Network Management Using
NETCONF and YANG", RFC 6244, June 2011.
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, May 2014.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, August 2014.
11.2. Informative references
[IETF-RTG]
Lhotka, L., "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management",
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-16 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[OC-BGP] Shaikh, A., D'Souza, K., Bansal, D., and R. Shakir, "BGP
Configuration Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-
shaikh-idr-bgp-model-01 (work in progress), March 2015.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for valuable input to this document from:
Lou Berger, Martin Bjorklund, Paul Borman, Chris Chase, Raymond Cheh,
Feihong Chen, Benoit Claise, Josh George, Carl Moberg, Jason Sterne,
Jim Uttaro, and Kent Watsen.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
Appendix B. Example YANG base structure
Below we show an example of the basic YANG building block for
organizing configuration and operational state data as described in
Section 6
grouping example-config {
description "configuration data for example container";
leaf conf-1 {
type empty;
}
leaf conf-2 {
type string;
}
}
grouping example-state {
description
"operational state data (derived, counters, etc.) for example
container";
leaf state-1 {
type boolean;
operational true;
}
leaf state-2 {
type string;
}
container counters {
description
"operational state counters for example container";
operational true;
leaf counter-1 {
type uint32;
}
leaf counter-2 {
type uint64;
}
}
}
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
grouping example-structure {
description
"top level grouping for the example container -- this is used
to put the config and state subtrees in the appropriate
location";
container example {
description
"top-level container for the example data";
container config {
uses example-config;
}
container state {
config false;
uses example-config;
uses example-state;
}
}
}
uses example-structure;
The corresponding YANG data tree is:
+--rw example
+--rw config
| +--rw conf-1? empty
| +--rw conf-2? string
+--ro state
+--ro conf-1? empty
+--ro conf-2? string
+--ro state-1? boolean
+--ro state-2? string
+--ro counters
+--ro counter-1? uint32
+--ro counter-2? uint64
Appendix C. Example YANG list structure
As described in Section 8.1.2, there are two options we consider for
building lists according to the proposed structure. Both are shown
in the example YANG snippet below. The groupings defined above in
Appendix B are reused here.
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
grouping example-no-conf2-config {
description
"configuration data for example container but without the conf-2
data leaf which is used as a list key";
leaf conf-1 {
type empty;
}
}
grouping example-structure {
description
"top level grouping for the example container -- this is used
to put the config and state subtrees in the appropriate
location";
list example {
key conf-2;
description
"top-level list for the example data";
leaf conf-2 {
type leafref {
path "../config/conf-2";
}
}
container config {
uses example-config;
}
container state {
config false;
uses example-config;
uses example-state;
}
}
list example2 {
key conf-2;
description
"top-level list for the example data";
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
leaf conf-2 {
type string;
}
container config {
uses example-no-conf2-config;
}
container state {
config false;
uses example-no-conf2-config;
uses example-state;
}
}
}
uses example-structure;
The corresponding YANG data tree is shown below for both styles of
lists.
+--rw example* [conf-2]
| +--rw conf-2 -> ../config/conf-2
| +--rw config
| | +--rw conf-1? empty
| | +--rw conf-2? string
| +--ro state
| +--ro conf-1? empty
| +--ro conf-2? string
| +--ro state-1? boolean
| +--ro state-2? string
| +--ro counters
| +--ro counter-1? uint32
| +--ro counter-2? uint64
+--rw example2* [conf-2]
+--rw conf-2 string
+--rw config
| +--rw conf-1? empty
+--ro state
+--ro conf-1? empty
+--ro state-1? boolean
+--ro state-2? string
+--ro counters
+--ro counter-1? uint32
+--ro counter-2? uint64
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Modeling Operational State July 2015
Appendix D. Changes between revisions -00 and -01
The -01 revision of this documents reflects a number of discussions
with implementors and members of several IETF working groups,
including NETMOD. Major changes from the prior version are
summarized below.
o Updated introduction to provide additional background on
operational requirements.
o Added a detailed terminology section and diagram to provide
definitions of different types of modeled data based on working
group discussions.
o Added new discussion section summarizing issues that have been
raised with the proposal as well as operator observations and
comment.
Authors' Addresses
Rob Shakir
BT
pp. C3L, BT Centre
81, Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
UK
Email: rob.shakir@bt.com
URI: http://www.bt.com/
Anees Shaikh
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: aashaikh@google.com
Marcus Hines
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: hines@google.com
Shakir, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 23]
