Internet DRAFT - draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Network Working Group A. Shaikh
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational R. Shakir
Expires: January 5, 2016 BT
K. D'Souza
C. Chase
AT&T
July 4, 2015
Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider Networks
draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model-01
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework
which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.
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 5, 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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
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.
1. Introduction
This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] data model for routing
policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in
a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be
vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage policy
configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous
environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.
1.1. Goals and approach
This model does not aim to be feature complete -- it is a subset of
the policy configuration parameters available in a variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing how
routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing
protocols. The model development approach has been to examine actual
policy configurations in use across a number of operator networks.
Hence the focus is on enabling policy configuration capabilities and
structure that are in wide use.
Despite the differences in details of policy expressions and
conventions in various vendor implementations, the model reflects the
observation that a relatively simple condition- action approach can
be readily mapped to several existing vendor implementations, and
also gives operators an intuitive and straightforward way to express
policy without sacrificing flexibility. A side affect of this design
decision is that legacy methods for expressing policies are not
considered. Such methods could be added as an augmentation to the
model if needed.
Consistent with the goal to produce a data model that is vendor
neutral, only policy expressions that are deemed to be widely
available in existing major implementations are included in the
model. Those configuration items that are only available from a
single implementation are omitted from the model with the expectation
they will be available in separate vendor-provided modules that
augment the current model.
2. Model overview
The routing policy model is defined in two YANG modules, the main
policy module, and an auxiliary module providing additional generic
types. The model has three main parts:
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related
conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that
are useful across many routing protocols.
o A structure that allows routing protocol models to add protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions though YANG augmentations.
There is a complete example of this for BGP [RFC4271] policies in
the proposed vendor-neutral BGP data model
[I-D.shaikh-idr-bgp-model].
o A reusable grouping for attaching import and export rules in the
context of routing configuration for different protocols, VRFs,
etc. This also enables creation of policy chains and expressing
default policy behavior.
These modules make use of the standard Internet types, such as IP
addresses, autonomous system numbers, etc., defined in RFC 6991
[RFC6991].
3. Route policy expression
Policies are expressed as a sequence of top-level policy definitions
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy
statements in turn consist of simple condition-action tuples.
Conditions may include multiple match or comparison operations, and
similarly, actions may effect multiple changes to route attributes,
or indicate a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route.
This structure is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| ...
+--rw actions
...
3.1. Defined sets for policy matching
The models provides a set of generic sets that can be used for
matching in policy conditions. These sets are applicable across
multiple routing protocols, and may be further augmented by protocol-
specific models which have their own defined sets. The supported
defined sets include:
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
o prefix sets - define a set of IP prefixes, each with an associated
CIDR netmask range (or exact length)
o neighbor sets - define a set of neighboring nodes by their IP
addresses
o tag set - define a set of generic tag values that can be used in
matches for filtering routes
The model structure for defined sets is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
+--rw prefix-sets
| +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name]
| +--rw prefix-set-name string
| +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| +--rw masklength-range string
+--rw neighbor-sets
| +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name]
| +--rw neighbor-set-name string
| +--rw neighbor* [address]
| +--rw address inet:ip-address
+--rw tag-sets
+--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name]
+--rw tag-set-name string
+--rw tag* [value]
+--rw value pt:tag-type
3.2. Policy conditions
Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either
of which may be empty). Conditions are used to match route
attributes against a defined set (e.g., a prefix set), or to compare
attributes against a specific value.
Match conditions may be further modified using the match-set-options
configuration which allows operators to change the behavior of a
match. Three options are supported:
o ALL - match is true only if the given value matches all members of
the set.
o ANY - match is true if the given value matches any member of the
set.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
o INVERT - match is true if the given value does not match any
member of the given set.
Not all options are appropriate for matching against all defined sets
(e.g., match ALL in a prefix set does not make sense). In the model,
a restricted set of match options is used where applicable.
Comparison conditions may similarly use options to change how route
attributes should be tested, e.g., for equality or inequality,
against a given value.
While most policy conditions will be added by individual routing
protocol models via augmentation, this routing policy model includes
several generic match conditions and also the ability to test which
protocol or mechanism installed a route (e.g., BGP, IGP, static,
etc.). The conditions included in the model are shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw conditions
+--rw call-policy?
+--rw match-prefix-set!
| +--rw prefix-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw match-neighbor-set!
| +--rw neighbor-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw match-tag-set!
| +--rw tag-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw install-protocol-eq?
+--rw igp-conditions
3.3. Policy actions
When policy conditions are satisfied, policy actions are used to set
various attributes of the route being processed, or to indicate the
final disposition of the route, i.e., accept or reject.
Similar to policy conditions, the routing policy model includes
generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions.
These are shown below.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw actions
+--rw (route-disposition)?
| +--:(accept-route)
| | +--rw accept-route? empty
| +--:(reject-route)
| +--rw reject-route? empty
+--rw igp-actions
+--rw set-tag? pt:tag-type
3.4. Policy subroutines
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing
policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions
using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their
conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy
affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the
subroutine returns an effective boolean true value to the calling
policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition
statement evaluating to a true value and evaluation of the policy
continues (see Section 4). Note that the called policy may also
modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly,
a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation
will be affected accordingly.
Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject
to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a
nesting depth because this varies among implementations, with some
major implementations only supporting a single subroutine, for
example. As with any routing policy construction, care must be taken
with nested policies to ensure that the effective return value
results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a convenience
in many routing policy constructions but creating policies nested
beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be discouraged.
4. Policy evaluation
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement
has either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in
the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the
next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions
are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition
stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.
When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route
disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an an
alternate default action is specified for the chain).
5. Applying routing policy
Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in
various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy
definitions (described in Section 3) that have an associated
direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in
which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply-
policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As
shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains,
as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when
no policy definition in the chain results in a final decision.
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy? default-policy-type
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy? default-policy-type
The default policy defined by the model is to reject the route for
both import and export policies.
An example of using the apply-policy group in another routing model
is shown below for BGP. Here, import and export policies are applied
in the context of a particular BGP peer group. Note that the policy
chains reference policy definitions by name that are defined in the
routing policy model.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
+--rw bgp!
+--rw peer-groups
+--rw peer-group* [peer-group-name]
+--rw peer-group-name
+--rw config
| +--rw peer-as?
| +--rw local-as?
| +--rw peer-type?
| +--rw auth-password?
| +--rw remove-private-as?
| +--rw route-flap-damping?
| +--rw send-community?
| +--rw description?
| +--rw peer-group-name?
+--ro state
| +--ro peer-as?
| +--ro local-as?
| +--ro peer-type?
| +--ro auth-password?
| +--ro remove-private-as?
| +--ro route-flap-damping?
| +--ro send-community?
| +--ro description?
| +--ro peer-group-name?
| +--ro total-paths?
| +--ro total-prefixes?
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy?
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy?
| +--ro state
| +--ro import-policy*
| +--ro default-import-policy?
| +--ro export-policy*
| +--ro default-export-policy?
...
6. Routing protocol-specific policies
Routing models that require the ability to apply routing policy may
augment the routing policy model with protocol or other specific
policy configuration. The routing policy model assumes that
additional defined sets, conditions, and actions may all be added by
other models.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
An example of this is shown below, in which the BGP configuration
model in [I-D.shaikh-idr-bgp-model] adds new defined sets to match on
community values or AS paths. The model similarly augments BGP-
specific conditions and actions into the corresponding sections of
the routing policy model.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
+--rw prefix-sets
| +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name]
| +--rw prefix-set-name
| +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| +--rw ip-prefix
| +--rw masklength-range
+--rw neighbor-sets
| +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name]
| +--rw neighbor-set-name
| +--rw neighbor* [address]
| +--rw address
+--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name]
| +--rw tag-set-name
| +--rw tag* [value]
| +--rw value
+--rw bgp-pol:bgp-defined-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set* [community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set* [ext-community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set* [as-path-set-name]
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-name
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-member*
7. Security Considerations
Routing policy configuration has a significant impact on network
operations, and as such any related model carries potential security
risks.
YANG data models are generally designed to be used with the NETCONF
protocol over an SSH transport. This provides an authenticated and
secure channel over which to transfer configuration and operational
data. Note that use of alternate transport or data encoding (e.g.,
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
JSON over HTTPS) would require similar mechanisms for authenticating
and securing access to configuration data.
Most of the data elements in the policy model could be considered
sensitive from a security standpoint. Unauthorized access or invalid
data could cause major disruption.
8. IANA Considerations
This YANG data model and the component modules currently use a
temporary ad-hoc namespace. If and when it is placed on redirected
for the standards track, an appropriate namespace URI will be
registered in the IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. The routing policy
YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry
[RFC6020].
9. YANG modules
The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the
sections below.
9.1. Routing policy model
<CODE BEGINS> file routing-policy.yang
module routing-policy {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "http://openconfig.net/yang/routing-policy";
prefix "rpol";
// import some basic types
import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; }
import policy-types {prefix pt; }
// meta
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
description
"This module describes a YANG model for routing policy
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy
configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing
how routes are imported, exported, and modified across different
routing protocols. This module is intended to be used in
conjunction with routing protocol configuration models (e.g.,
BGP) defined in other modules.
Route policy expression:
Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy definitions,
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy
statements consist of simple condition-action tuples. Conditions
may include mutiple match or comparison operations, and similarly
actions may be multitude of changes to route attributes or a
final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route.
Route policy evaluation:
Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol
configurations using import and export configuration statements.
The arguments are members of an ordered list of named policy
definitions which comprise a policy chain, and optionally, an
explicit default policy action (i.e., reject or accept).
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action
statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions, policy
evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further
policy definitions in the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to
the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement
conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy
definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is
evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the
default route disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route
unless an an alternate default action is specified for the
chain).
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by
allowing policy statement conditions to reference another policy
definition which applies conditions and actions from the
referenced policy before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
the subroutine returns an effective true value to the calling
policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false. If the
subroutine returns true, the calling policy continues to evaluate
the remaining conditions (using a modified route if the
subroutine performed any changes to the route).";
revision "2015-05-15" {
description
"Initial revision";
reference "TBD";
}
// typedef statements
typedef default-policy-type {
type enumeration {
enum ACCEPT-ROUTE {
description "default policy to accept the route";
}
enum REJECT-ROUTE {
description "default policy to reject the route";
}
}
description "type used to specify default route disposition in
a policy chain";
}
// grouping statements
grouping generic-defined-sets {
description
"Data definitions for pre-defined sets of attributes used in
policy match conditions. These sets are generic and can
be used in matching conditions in different routing
protocols.";
container prefix-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for defined prefix sets for matching";
list prefix-set {
key prefix-set-name;
description
"List of the defined prefix sets";
leaf prefix-set-name {
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
type string;
description
"name / label of the prefix set -- this is used to
reference the set in match conditions";
}
list prefix {
key "ip-prefix masklength-range";
description
"List of prefix expressions that are part of the set";
leaf ip-prefix {
type inet:ip-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The prefix member in CIDR notation -- while the
prefix may be either IPv4 or IPv6, most
implementations require all members of the prefix set
to be the same address family. Mixing address types in
the same prefix set is likely to cause an error.";
}
leaf masklength-range {
type string {
pattern '^([0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+)|exact$';
}
description
"Defines a range for the masklength, or 'exact' if
the prefix has an exact length.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 through 10.3.192.0/24 would be
expressed as prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: 21..24.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 would be expressed as
prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: exact";
}
}
}
}
container neighbor-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for defined neighbor sets for matching";
list neighbor-set {
key neighbor-set-name;
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
description
"Definitions for neighbor sets";
leaf neighbor-set-name {
type string;
description
"name / label of the neighbor set -- this is used to
reference the set in match conditions";
}
list neighbor {
key "address";
description
"list of addresses that are part of the neighbor set";
leaf address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"IP address of the neighbor set member";
}
}
}
}
container tag-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for defined tag sets for matching";
list tag-set {
key tag-set-name;
description
"Definitions for tag sets";
leaf tag-set-name {
type string;
description
"name / label of the tag set -- this is used to reference
the set in match conditions";
}
list tag {
key "value";
description
"list of tags that are part of the tag set";
leaf value {
type pt:tag-type;
description
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
"Value of the tag set member";
}
}
}
}
}
grouping local-generic-conditions {
description
"Condition statement definitions for consideration of a local
characteristic of a route";
leaf install-protocol-eq {
type identityref {
base pt:install-protocol-type;
}
description
"Condition to check the protocol / method used to install
which installed the route into the local routing table";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-group {
description
"Grouping containing options relating to how a particular set
should be matched";
leaf match-set-options {
type pt:match-set-options-type;
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour of the
match operation";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-restricted-group {
description
"Grouping for a restricted set of match operation modifiers";
leaf match-set-options {
type pt:match-set-options-restricted-type;
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour of the
match operation. This leaf only supports matching on ANY
member of the set or inverting the match. Matching on ALL is
not supported)";
}
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
grouping generic-conditions {
description "Condition statement definitions for checking
membership in a generic defined set";
container match-prefix-set {
presence
"The presence of this container indicates that the routes
should match the prefix-set referenced.";
description
"Match a referenced prefix-set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options leaf";
leaf prefix-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/prefix-sets/" +
"prefix-set/prefix-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined prefix set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
container match-neighbor-set {
presence
"The presence of this container indicates that the routes
should match the neighbour set referenced";
description
"Match a referenced neighbor set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options-leaf";
leaf neighbor-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/neighbor-sets/" +
"neighbor-set/neighbor-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined neighbor set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
container match-tag-set {
presence
"The presence of this container indicates that the routes
should match the tag-set referenced";
description
"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined
in the match-options-set leaf";
leaf tag-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" +
"/tag-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined tag set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
uses local-generic-conditions;
}
grouping igp-generic-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP policy conditions";
}
grouping igp-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP-specific policy conditions";
container igp-conditions {
description "Policy conditions for IGP attributes";
uses igp-generic-conditions;
}
}
grouping generic-actions {
description
"Definitions for common set of policy action statements that
manage the disposition or control flow of the policy";
choice route-disposition {
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
description
"Select the final disposition for the route, either
accept or reject.";
leaf accept-route {
type empty;
description "accepts the route into the routing table";
}
leaf reject-route {
type empty;
description "rejects the route";
}
}
}
grouping igp-actions {
description "grouping for IGP-specific policy actions";
container igp-actions {
description "Actions to set IGP route attributes; these actions
apply to multiple IGPs";
leaf set-tag {
type pt:tag-type;
description
"Set the tag value for OSPF or IS-IS routes.";
}
}
}
container routing-policy {
description
"top-level container for all routing policy configuration";
container defined-sets {
description
"Predefined sets of attributes used in policy match
statements";
uses generic-defined-sets;
// uses bgp-defined-sets;
// don't see a need for IGP-specific defined sets at this point
// e.g., for OSPF, IS-IS, etc.
}
container policy-definitions {
description
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
"Enclosing container for the list of top-level policy
definitions";
list policy-definition {
key name;
description
"List of top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique
name. These policy definitions are expected to be
referenced (by name) in policy chains specified in import/
export configuration statements.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the top-level policy definition -- this name
is used in references to the current policy";
}
container statements {
description
"Enclosing container for policy statements";
list statement {
key name;
// TODO: names of policy statements within a policy defn
// should be optional, however, YANG requires a unique id
// for lists; not sure that a compound key works either;
// need to investigate further.
ordered-by user;
description
"Policy statements group conditions and actions within
a policy definition. They are evaluated in the order
specified (see the description of policy evaluation
at the top of this module.";
leaf name {
type string;
description "name of the policy statement";
}
container conditions {
description "Condition statements for this
policy statement";
leaf call-policy {
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
type leafref {
path "/rpol:routing-policy/" +
"rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"rpol:policy-definition/rpol:name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description
"Applies the statements from the specified policy
definition and then returns control the current
policy statement. Note that the called policy may
itself call other policies (subject to
implementation limitations). This is intended to
provide a policy 'subroutine' capability. The
called policy should contain an explicit or a
default route disposition that returns an effective
true (accept-route) or false (reject-route),
otherwise the behavior may be ambiguous and
implementation dependent";
}
uses generic-conditions;
uses igp-conditions;
}
container actions {
description "Action statements for this policy
statement";
uses generic-actions;
uses igp-actions;
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping apply-policy-config {
description
"Configuration data for routing policies";
leaf-list import-policy {
type leafref {
path "/rpol:routing-policy/rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"rpol:policy-definition/rpol:name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list of policy names in sequence to be applied on
receiving a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-import-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT-ROUTE;
description
"explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the import policy chain is satisfied.";
}
leaf-list export-policy {
type leafref {
path "/rpol:routing-policy/rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"rpol:policy-definition/rpol:name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list of policy names in sequence to be applied on
sending a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-export-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT-ROUTE;
description
"explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the export policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-state {
description
"Operational state associated with routing policy";
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
//TODO: identify additional state data beyond the intended
//policy configuration.
}
grouping apply-policy-group {
description
"Top level container for routing policy applications. This
grouping is intended to be used in routing models where
needed.";
container apply-policy {
description
"Anchor point for routing policies in the model.
Import and export policies are with respect to the local
routing table, i.e., export (send) and import (receive),
depending on the context.";
container config {
description
"Policy configuration data.";
uses apply-policy-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state for routing policy";
uses apply-policy-config;
uses apply-policy-state;
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9.2. Routing policy types
<CODE BEGINS> file policy-types.yang
module policy-types {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "http://openconfig.net/yang/policy-types";
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
prefix "ptypes";
// import some basic types
import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; }
// meta
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
description
"This module contains general data definitions for use in routing
policy. It can be imported by modules that contain protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions.";
revision "2015-05-15" {
description
"Initial revision";
reference "TBD";
}
// identity statements
identity attribute-comparison {
description
"base type for supported comparison operators on route
attributes";
}
identity attribute-eq {
base attribute-comparison;
description "== comparison";
}
identity attribute-ge {
base attribute-comparison;
description ">= comparison";
}
identity attribute-le {
base attribute-comparison;
description "<= comparison";
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
typedef match-set-options-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
}
enum ALL {
description "match is true if given value matches all
members of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT {
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set";
}
typedef match-set-options-restricted-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT {
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set. Note this type is a
restricted version of the match-set-options-type.";
//TODO: restriction on enumerated types is only allowed in
//YANG 1.1. Until then, we will require this additional type
}
grouping attribute-compare-operators {
description "common definitions for comparison operations in
condition statements";
leaf operator {
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
type identityref {
base attribute-comparison;
}
description
"type of comparison to be performed";
}
leaf value {
type uint32;
description
"value to compare with the community count";
}
}
typedef tag-type {
type union {
type uint32;
type yang:hex-string;
}
description "type for expressing route tags on a local system,
including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal or
hexidecimal integer";
reference
"RFC 2178 OSPF Version 2
RFC 5130 A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using
Administrative Tags";
}
identity install-protocol-type {
description
"Base type for protocols which can install prefixes into the
RIB";
}
identity BGP {
base install-protocol-type;
description "BGP";
reference "RFC 4271";
}
identity ISIS {
base install-protocol-type;
description "IS-IS";
reference "ISO/IEC 10589";
}
identity OSPF {
base install-protocol-type;
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
description "OSPFv2";
reference "RFC 2328";
}
identity OSPF3 {
base install-protocol-type;
description "OSPFv3";
reference "RFC 5340";
}
identity STATIC {
base install-protocol-type;
description "Locally-installed static route";
}
identity DIRECTLY-CONNECTED {
base install-protocol-type;
description "A directly connected route";
}
identity LOCAL-AGGREGATE {
base install-protocol-type;
description "Locally defined aggregate route";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
10. Policy examples
Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the
routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are
defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has
been simplified for readability.
<routing-policy>
<defined-sets>
<prefix-sets>
<prefix-set>
<prefix-set-name>prefix-set-A</prefix-set-name>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>24..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>10.0.0.0/16</ip-prefix>
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
<masklength-range>16..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.168.0.0/19</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>19..24</masklength-range>
</prefix>
</prefix-set>
</prefix-sets>
<tag-sets>
<tag-set>
<tag-set-name>cust-tag1</tag-set-name>
<tag>
<value>10</value>
</tag>
</tag-set>
</tag-sets>
</defined-sets>
<policy-definitions>
<policy-definition>
<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>
<statements>
<statement>
<name>term-0</name>
<conditions>
<install-protocol-eq>OSPF3</install-protocol-eq>
<match-tag-set>
<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>
</match-tag-set>
</conditions>
<actions>
<accept-route />
</actions>
</statement>
</statements>
</policy-definition>
</policy-definitions>
</routing-policy>
<bgp>
<global>
<config>
<as>65517</as>
</config>
</global>
<peer-groups>
<peer-group>
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
<peer-group-name>PG1</peer-group-name>
<config>
<peer-as>65518</peer-as>
<peer-type>EXTERNAL</peer-type>
</config>
<apply-policy>
<config>
<export-policy>export-tagged-BGP</export-policy>
</config>
</apply-policy>
</peer-group>
</peer-groups>
</bgp>
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2014.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
July 2013.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January
2004.
11.2. Informative references
[I-D.shaikh-idr-bgp-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., Patel, K., Hares, S., D'Souza, K.,
Bansal, D., Clemm, A., Alex, A., Jethanandani, M., and X.
Liu, "BGP Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-
shaikh-idr-bgp-model-02 (work in progress), June 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-00 (work in progress), March 2015.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document
and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh
George, Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric
Osborne, Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, and Russ
White.
Appendix B. Change summary
B.1. Changes between revisions -00 and -01
The -01 revision of the policy model reflects a number of changes to
the data model based on additional operator, reviewer, and
implementor feedback.
o Modified the apply-policy container to use the pattern for
modeling operational state described in
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate].
o Updated prefix lists to use ip-prefix type and masklength range to
better enable range-checking and validation. Added an 'exact'
option to the masklength range.
o Changed accept / reject route to be within a choice statement.
o Added enclosing containers to lists.
o Minor changes to leaf-lists in defined sets definitions; also to
apply-policy container structure.
o Added second type of match-options set to handle restricted case
of only ANY | INVERT (i.e., without ALL). The restricted
enumerated type is now associated with the appropriate types of
sets.
o Moved install-protocol-type identity to policy-types module.
o Removed require-instance statements from leafrefs pending
availability in YANG 1.1.
o Fixed discrepancies in the example shown in the document, and
simplified the example.
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model July 2015
Authors' Addresses
Anees Shaikh
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: aashaikh@google.com
Rob Shakir
BT
pp. C3L, BT Centre
81, Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
UK
Email: rob.shakir@bt.com
URI: http://www.bt.com/
Kevin D'Souza
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Ave
Middletown, NJ
US
Email: kd6913@att.com
Chris Chase
AT&T
9505 Arboretum Blvd
Austin, TX
US
Email: chase@labs.att.com
Shaikh, et al. Expires January 5, 2016 [Page 30]
