Internet DRAFT - draft-unyte-netconf-udp-pub-channel
draft-unyte-netconf-udp-pub-channel
NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: September 28, 2020 A. Clemm
Futurewei
T. Graf
Swisscom
P. Francois
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT
March 27, 2020
UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry
draft-unyte-netconf-udp-pub-channel-01
Abstract
This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming
telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is
proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism
which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because
of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better
transit performance can be achieved.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2020.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Transport Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Dynamic Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Configured Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Fragmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Using DTLS to Secure UPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Port Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. DTLS Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Sending Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UPC . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
1. Introduction
Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a
collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better
performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and
bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based
alternatives.
Sub-Notif [RFC8639] defines a mechanism that allows a collector to
subscribe to updates of YANG-defined data that is maintained in a
YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates the management and
control of subscriptions from the transport that is used to actually
stream and deliver the data. Three transports, NETCONF transport
[RFC8640], RESTCONF transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif] and
HTTPS transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif], have been defined so
far for the notification messages.
While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in
its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream
telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a
distributed architecture. The transports that have been defined so
far, NETCONF and HTTP, are ultimately based on TCP and lack the
efficiency needed to stream data continuously at high velocity. A
lighter-weight, more efficient transport, e.g. a transport based on
UDP is needed.
o Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connections from,
for example, many line cards equipped on different devices.
o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will
further improve the performance.
o Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher
frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, which is
important for streaming telemetry.
This document specifies a higher-performance transport option for
Sub-Notif that leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the
distributed data collection mechanism described in
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, the centralized design requires
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push
server, presumably on a main board, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved. What
is needed instead is the support for a distributed mechanism that
allows to directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g. one from
each line card, without needing to first pass them through an
additional processing stage for internal consolidation, but still
allowing those substreams to be managed and controlled via a single
subscription. The proposed UDP based Publication Channel (UPC)
natively supports the distributed data collection mechanism.
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC8200].
While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the
subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed
in [RFC8639] with extensions
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators].
2. Terminologies
Streaming Telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics.
3. Transport Mechanisms
For a complete pub-sub mechanism, this section will describe how the
UPC is used to interact with the Subscription Channel relying on
NETCONF or RESTCONF.
3.1. Dynamic Subscription
Dynamic subscriptions for Sub-Notif are configured and managed via
signaling messages transported over NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040]. The Sub-Notif defined RPCs which are sent and responded
via the Subscription Channel (a), between the Subscriber and the
Subscription Server of the Publisher. In this case, only one
Receiver is associated with the Subscriber. In the Publisher, there
may be multiple data originators. Notification messages are pushed
on separate channels (b), from different data originators to the
Receiver.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Publisher |
| | | |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | RPC:establish-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:modify-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:delete-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 2 Call Flow For Dynamic Subscription
In the case of dynamic subscription, the Receiver and the Subscriber
SHOULD be colocated. So UPC can use the source IP address of the
Subscription Channel as it's destination IP address. The Receiver
MUST support listening messages at the IANA-assigned PORT-X or PORT-
Y, but MAY be configured to listen at a different port.
For dynamic subscription, the Publication Channels MUST share fate
with the subscription session. In other words, when the delete-
subscription is received or the subscription session is broken, all
the associated Publication Channels MUST be closed.
3.2. Configured Subscription
For a Configured Subscription, there is no guarantee that the
Subscriber is currently in place with the associated Receiver(s). As
defined in Sub-Notif, the subscription configuration contains the
location information of all the receivers, including the IP address
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
and the port number. So that the data originator can actively send
generated messages to the corresponding Receivers via the UPC.
The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the pushing is started.
Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without any wait.
All the subscription state notifications, as defined in [RFC8639],
MUST be encapsulated to be separated notification messages.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Publisher |
| | | |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | Capability Exchange | |
<----------------------------------------> |
| | | |
| | Edit config(create) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription started | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | Edit config(delete) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription terminated | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 3 Call Flow For Configured Subscription
4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel
4.1. Design Overview
As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried in the transport protocols, e.g. TLS, HTTP2. The following
figure shows the overview of the typical UPC message structure.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
o The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification
message.
o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
channel transports. The common encoding method includes GPB [1],
CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for both single notification and
multiple bundled notifications.
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Fig. 4 UDP Publication Message Overview
4.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header
The UPC Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification message.
The data format is shown as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Vers. | Header Length | ET | Message Length |
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Message-Generator-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 3 UPC Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
o Vers.: represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version.
The initial version value is 0.
o Header Length: is the length of the message header, measured in
octets, including both the fixed header and the options.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
o ET: is a 4 bits identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed:
* 0: GPB;
* 1: CBOR;
* 2: JSON;
* 3: XML;
* others are reserved.
o Message Length: is the total length of the message within one UDP
datagram, measured in octets, including the message header.
o Message-Generator-ID: is a 32-bit identifier of the process which
created the notification message. This allows disambiguation of
an information source, such as the identification of different
line cards sending the notification messages. The source IP
address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT be interpreted as the
identifier for the host that originated the UPC message. The
entity sending the UPC message could be merely a relay.
o The Message ID is generated continuously by the message generator.
Different subscribers share the same Message ID sequence.
o Options: is a variable-length field in the TLV format. When the
Header Length is larger than 12 octets, which is the length of the
fixed header, Options TLVs follows directly after the fixed
message header(i.e., Message ID). The details of the Options are
described in the respective sections below.
4.3. Options
All the options are defined with the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+
| Type | Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
~ Value ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 5 Fragmentation Option Format
o Type: 1 octet of the value Type;
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
o Length: 1 octet of the TLV Length, including the Type and Length;
o Value: 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
4.3.1. Fragmentation Option
UDP palyload has a theoretical length limitation to 65535. Other
encapsulation headers will make the actual payload even shorter.
Binary encodings like GPB and CBOR can make the message compact. So
that the message can be encapsulated within one UDP packet, and
fragmentation will not easily happen. However, text encodings like
JSON and XML can easily make the message exceed the UDP length
limitation.
On the other hand, IPv4 and IPv6 will fragment when the IP packet
exceeds the Maximum Transmission Unit(MTU). Fragmented IP packets
have risk to be dropped by the intermediate network devices.
UPC provides a configurable max-fragmentation-size to control the
size of each message.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+
| Type | Length |
+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+
| Fragment Number |L|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-+
Fig. 6 Fragmentation Option Format
The Fragmentation Option is available when the message content is
fragmented into multiple pieces. Different fragments of one message
share the same Message ID. This option contains:
Type: indicates Fragmentation Option. The Type value is to be
asigned.
Length: is a fixed value of 6 octets.
Fragment Number: indicates the sequence number of the current
fragment.
L: is a flag to indicate whether the current fragment is the last
one. When 0 is set, current fragment is not the last one, hence more
fragments are expected. When 1 is set, current fragment is the last
one.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
4.4. Data Encoding
Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It
is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options
in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the
subscription data model with additional identity statements used to
refer to requested encodings.
Implementation may support different encoding method per
subscription. When bundled notifications is supported between the
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled as one message.
5. Using DTLS to Secure UPC
The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347] is
designed to meet the requirements of applications that need secure
datagram transport.
DTLS can be used as a secure transport to counter all the primary
threats to UDP based Publication Channel:
o Confidentiality to counter disclosure of the message contents.
o Integrity checking to counter modifications to a message on a hop-
by-hop basis.
o Server or mutual authentication to counter masquerade.
In addition, DTLS also provides:
o A cookie exchange mechanism during handshake to counter Denial of
Service attacks.
o A sequence number in the header to counter replay attacks.
5.1. Transport
As shown in Figure 7, the DTLS is layered next to the UDP transport
is to provide reusable security and authentication functions over
UDP. No DTLS extension is required to enable UPC messages over DTLS.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
+-----------------------------+
| UPC Message |
+-----------------------------+
| DTLS |
+-----------------------------+
| UDP |
+-----------------------------+
| IP |
+-----------------------------+
Fig. 7: Protocol Stack for DTLS secured UPC
The application implementer will map a unique combination of the
remote address, remote port number, local address, and local port
number to a session.
Each UPC message is delivered by the DTLS record protocol, which
assigns a sequence number to each DTLS record. Although the DTLS
implementer may adopt a queue mechanism to resolve reordering, it may
not assure that all the messages are delivered in order when mapping
on the UDP transport.
Since UDP is an unreliable transport, with DTLS, an originator or
relay may not realize that a collector has gone down or lost its DTLS
connection state, so messages may be lost.
The DTLS record has its own sequence number, the encryption and
decryption will done by DTLS layer, UPC Message layer will not
concern this.
5.2. Port Assignment
The Publisher is always a DTLS client, and the Receiver is always a
DTLS server. The Receivers MUST support accepting UPC Messages on
the UDP port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to listen on a different
port. The Publisher MUST support sending UPC messages to the UDP
port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to send messages to a different
port. The Publisher MAY use any source UDP port for transmitting
messages.
5.3. DTLS Session Initiation
The Publisher initiates a DTLS connection by sending a DTLS Client
Hello to the Receiver. Implementations MUST support the denial of
service countermeasures defined by DTLS. When these countermeasures
are used, the Receiver responds with a DTLS Hello Verify Request
containing a cookie. The Publisher responds with a DTLS Client Hello
containing the received cookie, which initiates the DTLS handshake.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
The Publisher MUST NOT send any UPC messages before the DTLS
handshake has successfully completed.
Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and MUST support the
mandatory to implement cipher suite, which is
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA [RFC5246] as specified in DTLS 1.0. If
additional cipher suites are supported, then implementations MUST NOT
negotiate a cipher suite that employs NULL integrity or
authentication algorithms.
Where privacy is REQUIRED, then implementations must either negotiate
a cipher suite that employs a non-NULL encryption algorithm or else
achieve privacy by other means, such as a physically secured network.
5.4. Sending Data
All UPC messages MUST be sent as DTLS "application_data". It is
possible that multiple UPC messages be contained in one DTLS record,
or that a publication message be transferred in multiple DTLS
records. The application data is defined with the following ABNF
[RFC5234] expression:
APPLICATION-DATA = 1*UPC-FRAME
UPC-FRAME = MSG-LEN SP UPC-MSG
MSG-LEN = NONZERO-DIGIT *DIGIT
SP = %d32
NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57
DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT
UPC-MSG is defined in section 5.2.
5.5. Closure
A Publisher MUST close the associated DTLS connection if the
connection is not expected to deliver any UPC Messages later. It
MUST send a DTLS close_notify alert before closing the connection. A
Publisher (DTLS client) MAY choose to not wait for the Receiver's
close_notify alert and simply close the DTLS connection. Once the
Receiver gets a close_notify from the Publisher, it MUST reply with a
close_notify.
When no data is received from a DTLS connection for a long time
(where the application decides what "long" means), Receiver MAY close
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
the connection. The Receiver (DTLS server) MUST attempt to initiate
an exchange of close_notify alerts with the Publisher before closing
the connection. Receivers that are unprepared to receive any more
data MAY close the connection after sending the close_notify alert.
Although closure alerts are a component of TLS and so of DTLS, they,
like all alerts, are not retransmitted by DTLS and so may be lost
over an unreliable network.
6. Congestion Control
Congestion control mechanisms that respond to congestion by reducing
traffic rates and establish a degree of fairness between flows that
share the same path are vital to the stable operation of the Internet
[RFC2914]. While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion control
mechanism. Because streaming telemetry can generate unlimited
amounts of data, transferring this data over UDP is generally
problematic. It is not recommended to use the UDP based publication
channel over congestion-sensitive network paths. The only
environments where the UDP based publication channel may be used are
managed networks. The deployments require the network path has been
explicitly provisioned for the UDP based publication channel through
traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting or capacity
reservations. The UPC message contains continuous Message ID which
can be used to deduce the congestion based on the packet loss
detected by the collector. Hence the collector can notice the device
to use a lower exporting rate. The interaction to control the
exporting rate on the device is out of the scope of this document.
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UPC
The YANG model defined in Section 9 has two leafs augmented into one
place of Sub-Notif [RFC8639], plus one identities.
module: ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications
augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver:
+--rw address? inet:ip-address
+--rw port? inet:port-number
+--rw enable-fragmentation? boolean
+--rw max-fragmentation-size? uint32
8. YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications@2020-03-26.yang"
module ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications";
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
prefix upcsn;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
reference
"RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Editor: Guangying Zheng
<mailto:zhengguangying@huawei.com>
Editor: Tianran Zhou
<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Editor: Alexander Clemm
<mailto:alexander.clemm@huawei.com>";
description
"Defines UDP Publish Channel as a supported transport for subscribed
event notifications.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-03-26 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
"RFC XXXX: UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry";
}
identity upc {
base sn:transport;
description
"UPC is used as transport for notification messages and state
change notifications.";
}
identity encode-cbor {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using CBOR as described in RFC 7049.";
reference
"RFC 7049: Concise Binary Object Representation";
}
identity encode-gpb {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using GPB.";
}
grouping target-receiver {
description
"Provides a reusable description of a UPC target receiver.";
leaf address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"IP address of target upc receiver, which can be IPv4 address or
IPV6 address.";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"Port number of target UPC receiver, if not specify, system
should use default port number.";
}
leaf enable-fragmentation {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"The switch for the fragmentation feature. When disabled, the
publisher will not allow fragmentation for a very large data";
}
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
leaf max-fragmentation-size {
when "../enable-fragmentation = true";
type uint32;
description "UPC provides a configurable max-fragmentation-size
to control the size of each message.";
}
}
augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
description
"This augmentation allows UPC specific parameters to be
exposed for a subscription.";
uses target-receiver;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns three UDP port numbers in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "upc" and
"upc-dtls". These ports will be the default ports for the UDP based
Publication Channel for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is the
registration template following the rules in [RFC6335].
Service Name: upc
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP based Publication Channel
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
Service Name: upc-dtls
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP based Publication Channel (DTLS)
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Y
IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the IETF XML Registry
[RFC3688]. The following URI is suggested:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document also requests a new YANG module name in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC7950] with the following suggestion:
name: ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications
prefix: upcsn
reference: RFC XXXX
10. Security Considerations
TBD
11. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim
Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8639>.
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
[RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8640>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif]
Jethanandani, M. and K. Watsen, "An HTTPS-based Transport
for Configured Subscriptions", draft-ietf-netconf-https-
notif-02 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Jenkins, T., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., and A.
Clemm, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles", draft-
ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08 (work in progress),
November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif]
Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and
A. Bierman, "Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and
Datastores over RESTCONF", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
notif-15 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., and A. Clemm, "Subscription
to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-netconf-multi-
stream-originators-10 (work in progress), November 2019.
12.3. URIs
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
Authors' Addresses
Guangying Zheng
Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel March 2020
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Alexander Clemm
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, California
USA
Email: alex@futurewei.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
Zuerich 8045
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Pierre Francois
INSA-Lyon
Lyon
France
Email: pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
NL
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Zheng, et al. Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 20]
