Internet DRAFT - draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg
draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg
Network Working Group L. Zheng
Internet-Draft G. Zheng
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 13, 2019 G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
R. Rahman
F. Iqbal
Cisco Systems
January 9, 2019
YANG Data Model for LSP-Ping
draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg-10
Abstract
When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always
be detected by the MPLS control plane. RFC 8029 defines a mechanism
that would enable users to detect such failure and to isolate faults.
YANG, defined in RFC 6020 and RFC 7950, is a data modeling language
used to specify the contents of a conceptual data stores that allows
networked devices to be managed using NETCONF, as specified in RFC
6241. This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to
configure and manage LSP-Ping.
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 July 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Support of Long Running Command with NETCONF . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Design of the Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. The Configuration of Control Information . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Configuration of Schedule Parameters . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Display of Result Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Data Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Interaction with other MPLS OAM Tools Models . . . . . . . . 9
6. LSP-Ping YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Configuration of Control Information . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. The Configuration of Schedule Parameters . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. Display of Result Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always
be detected by the MPLS control plane. [RFC8029] defines a mechanism
that would enable users to detect such failure and to isolate faults.
YANG, defined in [RFC6020] and [RFC7950], is a data modeling language
that was introduced to define the contents of a conceptual data store
that allows networked devices to be managed using NETCONF [RFC6241].
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
and manage LSP-Ping [RFC8029].
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
The rest of this document is organized as follows. Section 2
presents the scope of this document. Section 3 provides the design
of the LSP-Ping configuration data model in details by containers.
Section 4 presents the complete data hierarchy of LSP-Ping YANG
model. Section 5 discusses the interaction between LSP-Ping data
model and other MPLS tools data models. Section 6 specifies the YANG
module and section 7 lists examples which conform to the YANG module
specified in this document. Finally, security considerations are
discussed in Section 8.
This version of the LSP Ping data model conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Support of Long Running Command with NETCONF
LSP Ping is one of the examples of what can be described as "long-
running operation". Unlike most of the configuration operations that
result in single response execution of an LSP Ping triggers multiple
responses from a node under control. The question of implementing
the long-running operation in NETCONF is still open and possible
solutions being discussed:
1. Consecutive Remote Processing Calls (RPC) to poll for results.
2. Model presented in [RFC4560].
3. The one outlined in [I-D.mahesh-netconf-persistent].
The problem of long-running operation as well can be considered as a
case of controlling and obtaining results from a Measurement Agent
(MA) as defined in [RFC7594].
2. Scope
The fundamental mechanism of LSP-Ping is defined in [RFC8029].
Extensions of LSP-Ping has been developed over the years. There are
extensions for performing LSP ping, for example, over P2MP MPLS LSPs
[RFC6425] or for Segment Routing IGP Prefix and Adjacency SIDs with
an MPLS data plane [RFC8287]. These extensions will be considered in
a later update of this document.
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
3. Design of the Data Model
This YANG data model is defined to be used to configure and manage
LSP-Ping and it provides the following features:
1. The configuration of control information of an LSP-Ping test.
2. The configuration of schedule parameters of an LSP-Ping test.
3. Display of result information of an LSP-Ping test.
The top-level container lsp-pings holds the configuration of the
control information, schedule parameters and result information for
multiple instances of LSP-Ping test.
3.1. The Configuration of Control Information
Container lsp-pings:lsp-ping:control-parameters defines the
configuration parameters which control an LSP-Ping test. Examples
are the target-fec-type/target-fec of the echo request packet and the
reply mode of the echo reply packet. Values of some parameters may
be auto-assigned by the system, but in several cases, there is a
requirement for configuration of these parameters. Examples of such
parameters are source address and outgoing interface.
The data hierarchy for control information configuration is presented
below:
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
module: ietf-lsp-ping
+--rw lsp-pings
+--rw lsp-ping* [lsp-ping-name]
+--rw lsp-ping-name string
+--rw control-parameters
| +--rw target-fec-type? target-fec-type
| +--rw (target-fec)?
| | +--:(ip-prefix)
| | | +--rw ip-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(bgp)
| | | +--rw bgp? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(rsvp)
| | | +--rw tunnel-interface? string
| | +--:(vpn)
| | | +--rw vrf-name? uint32
| | | +--rw vpn-ip-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(pw)
| | | +--rw vcid? uint32
| | +--:(vpls)
| | +--rw vsi-name? string
| +--rw traffic-class? uint8
| +--rw reply-mode? reply-mode
| +--rw timeout? uint32
| +--rw timeout-units? units
| +--rw interval? uint32
| +--rw interval-units? units
| +--rw probe-count? uint32
| +--rw data-size? uint32
| +--rw data-fill? string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw source-address? inet:ip-address
| +--rw ttl? uint8
| +--rw (outbound)?
| +--:(interface)
| | +--rw interface-name? string
| +--:(nexthop)
| +--rw nexthop? inet:ip-address
3.2. The Configuration of Schedule Parameters
Container lsp-pings:lsp-ping:scheduling-parameters defines the
schedule parameters of an LSP-Ping test, which describes when to
start and when to end the test. Four start modes and three end modes
are defined respectively. To be noted that, the configuration of
"interval" and "probe-count" parameter defined in container lsp-
pings:lsp-ping:control-parameters could also determine when the test
ends implicitly. All these three parameters are optional.If the user
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
does not configure either "interval" or "probe-count" parameter, then
the default values will be used by the system. If the user
configures "end-test", then the actual end time of the LSP-Ping test
is the smaller one between the configuration value of "end-test" and
the time implicitly determined by the configuration value of
"interval"/"probe-count".
The data hierarchy for schedule information configuration is
presented below:
module: ietf-lsp-ping
+--rw lsp-pings
+--rw lsp-ping* [lsp-ping-name]
+--rw lsp-ping-name string
+--rw control-parameters
...
+--rw scheduling-parameters
| +--rw (start-test)?
| | +--:(now)
| | | +--rw start-test-now? empty
| | +--:(at)
| | | +--rw start-test-at? yang:date-and-time
| | +--:(delay)
| | | +--rw start-test-delay? uint32
| | | +--rw start-test-delay-units? units
| | +--:(daily)
| | +--rw start-test-daily? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw (end-test)?
| +--:(at)
| | +--rw end-test-at? yang:date-and-time
| +--:(delay)
| | +--rw end-test-delay? uint32
| | +--rw end-test-delay-units? units
| +--:(lifetime)
| +--rw end-test-lifetime? uint32
| +--rw lifetime-units? units
3.3. Display of Result Information
Container lsp-pings:lsp-ping:result-info shows the result of the
current LSP-Ping test. Both the statistical result e.g. min-rtt,
max-rtt, and per test probe result e.g. return code, return subcode,
are shown.
The data hierarchy for display of result information is presented
below:
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
module: ietf-lsp-ping
+--rw lsp-pings
+--rw lsp-ping* [lsp-ping-name]
+--rw lsp-ping-name string
+--rw control-parameters
...
+--rw scheduling-parameters
...
+--ro result-info
+--ro operational-status? operational-status
+--ro source-address? inet:ip-address
+--ro target-fec-type? target-fec-type
+--ro (target-fec)?
| +--:(ip-prefix)
| | +--ro ip-address? inet:ip-address
| +--:(bgp)
| | +--ro bgp? inet:ip-address
| +--:(rsvp)
| | +--ro tunnel-interface? string
| +--:(vpn)
| | +--ro vrf-name? uint32
| | +--ro vpn-ip-address? inet:ip-address
| +--:(pw)
| | +--ro vcid? uint32
| +--:(vpls)
| +--ro vsi-name? string
+--ro min-rtt? uint32
+--ro max-rtt? uint32
+--ro average-rtt? uint32
+--ro probe-responses? uint32
+--ro sent-probes? uint32
+--ro sum-of-squares? uint32
+--ro last-good-probe? yang:date-and-time
+--ro probe-results
+--ro probe-result* [probe-index]
+--ro probe-index uint32
+--ro return-code? uint8
+--ro return-sub-code? uint8
+--ro rtt? uint32
+--ro result-type? result-type
4. Data Hierarchy
The complete data hierarchy of LSP-Ping YANG model is presented
below.
module: ietf-lsp-ping
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
+--rw lsp-pings
+--rw lsp-ping* [lsp-ping-name]
+--rw lsp-ping-name string
+--rw control-parameters
| +--rw target-fec-type? target-fec-type
| +--rw (target-fec)?
| | +--:(ip-prefix)
| | | +--rw ip-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(bgp)
| | | +--rw bgp? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(rsvp)
| | | +--rw tunnel-interface? string
| | +--:(vpn)
| | | +--rw vrf-name? uint32
| | | +--rw vpn-ip-address? inet:ip-address
| | +--:(pw)
| | | +--rw vcid? uint32
| | +--:(vpls)
| | +--rw vsi-name? string
| +--rw traffic-class? uint8
| +--rw reply-mode? reply-mode
| +--rw timeout? uint32
| +--rw timeout-units? units
| +--rw interval? uint32
| +--rw interval-units? units
| +--rw probe-count? uint32
| +--rw data-size? uint32
| +--rw data-fill? string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw source-address? inet:ip-address
| +--rw ttl? uint8
| +--rw (outbound)?
| +--:(interface)
| | +--rw interface-name? string
| +--:(nexthop)
| +--rw nexthop? inet:ip-address
+--rw scheduling-parameters
| +--rw (start-test)?
| | +--:(now)
| | | +--rw start-test-now? empty
| | +--:(at)
| | | +--rw start-test-at? yang:date-and-time
| | +--:(delay)
| | | +--rw start-test-delay? uint32
| | | +--rw start-test-delay-units? units
| | +--:(daily)
| | +--rw start-test-daily? yang:date-and-time
| +--rw (end-test)?
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
| +--:(at)
| | +--rw end-test-at? yang:date-and-time
| +--:(delay)
| | +--rw end-test-delay? uint32
| | +--rw end-test-delay-units? units
| +--:(lifetime)
| +--rw end-test-lifetime? uint32
| +--rw lifetime-units? units
+--ro result-info
+--ro operational-status? operational-status
+--ro source-address? inet:ip-address
+--ro target-fec-type? target-fec-type
+--ro (target-fec)?
| +--:(ip-prefix)
| | +--ro ip-address? inet:ip-address
| +--:(bgp)
| | +--ro bgp? inet:ip-address
| +--:(rsvp)
| | +--ro tunnel-interface? string
| +--:(vpn)
| | +--ro vrf-name? uint32
| | +--ro vpn-ip-address? inet:ip-address
| +--:(pw)
| | +--ro vcid? uint32
| +--:(vpls)
| +--ro vsi-name? string
+--ro min-rtt? uint32
+--ro max-rtt? uint32
+--ro average-rtt? uint32
+--ro probe-responses? uint32
+--ro sent-probes? uint32
+--ro sum-of-squares? uint32
+--ro last-good-probe? yang:date-and-time
+--ro probe-results
+--ro probe-result* [probe-index]
+--ro probe-index uint32
+--ro return-code? uint8
+--ro return-sub-code? uint8
+--ro rtt? uint32
+--ro result-type? result-type
5. Interaction with other MPLS OAM Tools Models
TBA
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
6. LSP-Ping YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-lsp-ping@2018-11-29.yang"
module ietf-lsp-ping {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lsp-ping";
//namespace need to be assigned by IANA
prefix "lsp-ping";
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Types.";
}
import ietf-yang-types{
prefix yang;
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Types.";
}
organization "IETF Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mpls/
WG List: mpls@ietf.org
Editor: Greg Mirsky
gregimirsky@gmail.com
Editor: Lianshu Zheng
vero.zheng@huawei.com
Editor: Guangying Zheng
zhengguangying@huawei.com
Editor: Reshad Rahman
rrahman@cisco.com
Editor: Faisal Iqbal
faiqbal@cisco.com";
description
"This YANG module specifies a vendor-independent model
for the LSP Ping.
This YANG data model is defined to be used to configure and manage
LSP-Ping and it provides the following features:
1. The configuration of control information of an LSP-Ping test.
2. The configuration of schedule parameters of an LSP-Ping test.
3. Display of result information of an LSP-Ping test.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
the document authors. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD
License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
reference "draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg";
revision "2018-11-29" {
description
"10 version, refine the target fec type,
as per RFC8029 and update Security Considerations section.";
reference "draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg";
}
typedef target-fec-type {
type enumeration {
enum ip-prefix {
value "0";
description "IPv4/IPv6 prefix";
}
enum bgp {
value "1";
description "BGP IPv4/IPv6 prefix";
}
enum rsvp {
value "2";
description "Tunnel interface";
}
enum vpn {
value "3";
description "VPN IPv4/IPv6 prefix";
}
enum pw {
value "4";
description "FEC 128 pseudowire IPv4/IPv6";
}
enum vpls {
value "5";
description "FEC 129 pseudowire IPv4/IPv6";
}
}
description "Target FEC type, as defined in RFC 8029";
}
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
typedef reply-mode {
type enumeration {
enum do-not-reply {
value "1";
description "Do not reply";
}
enum reply-via-udp {
value "2";
description "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet";
}
enum reply-via-udp-router-alert {
value "3";
description
"Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert";
}
enum reply-via-control-channel {
value "4";
description
"Reply via application level control channel";
}
}
description "Reply mode";
}
typedef units {
type enumeration {
enum seconds {
description "Seconds";
}
enum milliseconds {
description "Milliseconds";
}
enum microseconds {
description "Microseconds";
}
enum nanoseconds {
description "Nanoseconds";
}
}
description "Time units";
}
typedef operational-status {
type enumeration {
enum enabled {
value "1";
description "The Test is active";
}
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
enum disabled {
value "2";
description "The test has stopped";
}
enum completed {
value "3";
description "The test is completed";
}
}
description "Operational state of an LSP Ping test";
}
typedef result-type {
type enumeration {
enum success {
value "1";
description "The test probe is successful";
}
enum fail {
value "2";
description "The test probe has failed";
}
enum timeout {
value "3";
description "The time of the test probe has expired";
}
}
description "Result of each LSP Ping test probe";
}
container lsp-pings {
description "Multi-instance of the LSP Ping test";
list lsp-ping {
key "lsp-ping-name";
description "LSP Ping test";
leaf lsp-ping-name {
type string {
length "1..31";
}
mandatory "true";
description "LSP Ping test name";
}
container control-parameters {
description "Control information of the LSP Ping test";
leaf target-fec-type {
type target-fec-type;
description "Specifies the address type of the Target FEC";
}
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
choice target-fec {
case ip-prefix {
leaf ip-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "IPv4/IPv6 Prefix";
}
}
case bgp {
leaf bgp {
type inet:ip-address;
description "BGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix";
}
}
case rsvp {
leaf tunnel-interface {
type string;
description "Tunnel interface";
}
}
case vpn {
leaf vrf-name {
type uint32;
description "Layer3 VPN Name";
}
leaf vpn-ip-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "Layer3 VPN IPv4 Prefix";
}
}
case pw {
leaf vcid {
type uint32;
description "VC ID";
}
}
case vpls {
leaf vsi-name {
type string;
description "VPLS VSI";
}
}
description "Specifies the type of the Target FEC";
}
leaf traffic-class {
type uint8;
description "Specifies the Traffic Class";
}
leaf reply-mode {
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
type reply-mode;
description "Specifies the Reply Mode";
}
leaf timeout {
type uint32;
description
"Specifies the time-out value for a LSP Ping operation.";
}
leaf timeout-units {
type units;
description "Time-out units";
}
leaf interval {
type uint32;
default 1;
description
"Specifies the interval between transmissions
of LSP Ping echo request packets (probes)
as part of the LSP Ping test.";
}
leaf interval-units {
type units;
default seconds;
description "Interval units";
}
leaf probe-count {
type uint32;
default 5;
description
"Specifies the number of probes sent in the LSP Ping test.";
}
leaf data-size {
type uint32;
description
"Specifies the size of the data portion to
be transmitted in an LSP Ping operation, in octets.";
}
leaf data-fill {
type string{
length "0..1564";
}
description
"Used together with the corresponding
data-size value to determine how to fill the data
portion of a probe packet.";
}
leaf description {
type string{
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
length "1..31";
}
description "A descriptive name of the LSP Ping test";
}
leaf source-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "Specifies the source address";
}
leaf ttl {
type uint8;
default 255;
description "Time to live";
}
choice outbound {
case interface {
leaf interface-name{
type string{
length "1..255";
}
description "Specifies the outgoing interface";
}
}
case nexthop{
leaf nexthop {
type inet:ip-address;
description "Specifies the nexthop";
}
}
description "Specifies the out interface or nexthop";
}
}
container scheduling-parameters {
description "LSP Ping test schedule parameter";
choice start-test{
case now {
leaf start-test-now {
type empty;
description "Start test now";
}
}
case at {
leaf start-test-at {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "Start test at a specific time";
}
}
case delay {
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
leaf start-test-delay {
type uint32;
description "Start after a specific delay";
}
leaf start-test-delay-units {
type units;
default seconds;
description "Delay units";
}
}
case daily {
leaf start-test-daily {
type yang:date-and-time;
description "Start test daily";
}
}
description
"Specifies when the test begins to start,
include 4 schedule method: start now(1), start at(2),
start delay(3), start daily(4).";
}
choice end-test{
case at {
leaf end-test-at{
type yang:date-and-time;
description "End test at a specific time";
}
}
case delay {
leaf end-test-delay {
type uint32;
description "End after a specific delay";
}
leaf end-test-delay-units {
type units;
default seconds;
description "Delay units";
}
}
case lifetime {
leaf end-test-lifetime {
type uint32;
description "Set the test lifetime";
}
leaf lifetime-units {
type units;
default seconds;
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
description "Lifetime units";
}
}
description
"Specifies when the test ends, include 3
schedule method: end at(1), end delay(2),
end lifetime(3).";
}
}
container result-info {
config "false";
description "LSP Ping test result information";
leaf operational-status {
type operational-status;
description "Operational state of a LSP Ping test";
}
leaf source-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "The source address of the test";
}
leaf target-fec-type {
type target-fec-type;
description "The Target FEC address type";
}
choice target-fec {
case ip-prefix {
leaf ip-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "IPv4/IPv6 Prefix";
}
}
case bgp {
leaf bgp {
type inet:ip-address;
description "BGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix";
}
}
case rsvp {
leaf tunnel-interface {
type string;
description "Tunnel interface";
}
}
case vpn {
leaf vrf-name {
type uint32;
description "Layer3 VPN Name";
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
}
leaf vpn-ip-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description "Layer3 VPN IPv4 Prefix";
}
}
case pw {
leaf vcid {
type uint32;
description "VC ID";
}
}
case vpls {
leaf vsi-name {
type string;
description "VPLS VSI";
}
}
description "The Target FEC address";
}
leaf min-rtt {
type uint32;
description
"The minimum LSP Ping round-trip-time (RTT)
received measured in usec.";
}
leaf max-rtt {
type uint32;
description
"The maximum LSP Ping round-trip-time (RTT)
received measured in usec.";
}
leaf average-rtt {
type uint32;
description
"The current average LSP Ping round-trip-time
(RTT) measured in usec.";
}
leaf probe-responses {
type uint32;
description
"Number of responses received for the
corresponding LSP Ping test.";
}
leaf sent-probes {
type uint32;
description
"Number of probes sent for the
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
corresponding LSP Ping test.";
}
leaf sum-of-squares {
type uint32;
description
"The sum of the squares of RTT,
calculated as the sum of the squared
differences between each RTT and the overall
mean RTT, for all replies received.";
}
leaf last-good-probe {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Date and time when the last response
was received for a probe.";
}
container probe-results {
description "Result info of test probes";
list probe-result {
key "probe-index";
description "Result info of each test probe";
leaf probe-index {
type uint32;
config false;
description "Probe index";
}
leaf return-code {
type uint8;
config false;
description "The Return Code set in the echo reply";
}
leaf return-sub-code {
type uint8;
config false;
description
"The Return Sub-code set in the echo reply.";
}
leaf rtt {
type uint32;
config false;
description "The round-trip-time (RTT) received";
}
leaf result-type {
type result-type;
config false;
description "The probe result type";
}
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
7. Examples
The following examples show the netconf RPC communication between
client and server for one LSP-Ping test case.
7.1. Configuration of Control Information
Configure the control-parameters for sample-test-case.
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
Request from netconf client:
<rpc
message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config>
<lsp-pings xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lsp-ping">
<lsp-ping>
<lsp-ping-name>sample-test-case</lsp-ping-name>
<control-parameters>
<target-fec-type>ip-prefix</target-fec-type>
<ip-prefix>2001:db8::1:100/64</ip-prefix>
<reply-mode>reply-via-udp</reply-mode>
<timeout>1</timeout>
<timeout-units>seconds</timeout-units>
<interval>1</interval>
<interval-units>seconds</interval-units>
<probe-count>6</probe-count>
<admin-status>enabled</admin-status>
<data-size>64</data-size>
<data-fill>this is a lsp ping test</data-fill>
<source-address>2001:db8::4</source-address>
<ttl>56</ttl>
</control-parameters>
</lsp-ping>
</lsp-pings>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
Reply from netconf server:
<rpc-reply
message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.2. The Configuration of Schedule Parameters
Set the scheduling-parameters for sample-test-case to start the test.
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
Request from netconf client:
<rpc
message-id="102" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config>
<lsp-pings xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lsp-ping">
<lsp-ping>
<lsp-ping-name>sample-test-case</lsp-ping-name>
<scheduling-parameters>
<start-test-now/>
</scheduling-parameters>
</lsp-ping>
</lsp-pings>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
Reply from netconf server:
<rpc-reply
message-id="102" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.3. Display of Result Information
Get the result-info of sample-test-case.
Request from netconf client:
<rpc
message-id="103" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get>
<filter type="subtree">
<lsp-pings xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lsp-ping">
<lsp-ping>
<lsp-ping-name>sample-test-case</lsp-ping-name>
<result-info/>
</lsp-ping>
</lsp-pings>
</filter>
</get>
</rpc>
Reply from netconf server:
<rpc-reply
message-id="103" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
<data>
<lsp-pings xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-lsp-ping">
<lsp-ping>
<lsp-ping-name>sample-test-case</lsp-ping-name>
<result-info>
<operational-status>completed</operational-status>
<source-address>2001:db8::4</source-address>
<target-fec-type>ip-prefix</target-fec-type>
<ip-prefix>2001:db8::1:100/64</ip-prefix>
<min-rtt>10</min-rtt>
<max-rtt>56</max-rtt>
<average-rtt>36</average-rtt>
<probe-responses>6</probe-responses>
<sent-probes>6</sent-probes>
<sum-of-squares>8882</sum-of-squares>
<last-good-probe>2015-07-01T10:36:56<last-good-probe>
<probe-results>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>0</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>10</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>1</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>56</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>2</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>35</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>3</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>38</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>4</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>36</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
<probe-result>
<probe-index>5</probe-index>
<return-code>0</return-code>
<return-sub-code>3</return-sub-code>
<rtt>41</rtt>
<result-type>success</result-type>
</probe-result>
</probe-results>
</result-info>
</lsp-ping>
</lsp-pings>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
8. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a pre-
configured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have an adverse
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
TBD
Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can adversely
affect the routing subsystem of both the local device and the
network. This may lead to corruption of the measurement that may
result in false corrective action, e.g., false negative or false
positive. That could be, for example, prolonged and undetected
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
deterioration of the quality of service or actions to improve the
quality unwarranted by the real network conditions.
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
TBD
Unauthorized access to any data node of these subtrees can disclose
the operational state information of VRRP on this device.
Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control access to these operations. These are the
operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
TBD
The LSP ping YANG module inherits all security consideration of
[RFC8029].
9. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to as assign a new namespace URI from the IETF
XML registry.
URI:TBA
Contributors
Yanfeng Zhang
Huawei Technologies
zhangyanfeng@huawei.com
Sam Aldrin
Google
aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
Acknowledgments
TBD
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>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[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>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.mahesh-netconf-persistent]
Jethanandani, M., "NETCONF and persistent responses",
draft-mahesh-netconf-persistent-00 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[RFC4560] Quittek, J., Ed. and K. White, Ed., "Definitions of
Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup
Operations", RFC 4560, DOI 10.17487/RFC4560, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4560>.
[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>.
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[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>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Authors' Addresses
Lianshu Zheng
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping YANG January 2019
Guangying Zheng
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
USA
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Reshad Rahman
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: rrahman@cisco.com
Faisal Iqbal
Cisco Systems
Email: faiqbal@cisco.com
Zheng, et al. Expires July 13, 2019 [Page 29]
