diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt | 3979 |
1 files changed, 3979 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..544332d --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8431.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3979 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Wang +Request for Comments: 8431 Individual +Category: Standards Track M. Chen +ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei + A. Dass + Ericsson + H. Ananthakrishnan + Netflix + S. Kini + Individual + N. Bahadur + Uber + September 2018 + + + A YANG Data Model for the Routing Information Base (RIB) + +Abstract + + This document defines a YANG data model for the Routing Information + Base (RIB) that aligns with the Interface to the Routing System + (I2RS) RIB information model. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8431. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2018 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 + 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.2. Definitions and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.3. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Model Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2.1. RIB Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.2. Routing Instance and RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.3. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 2.4. Nexthop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 2.5. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 2.6. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 + 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 + 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 + 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 + 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 + Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +1. Introduction + + The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) [RFC7921] provides read + and write access to the information and state within the routing + process that exists inside the routing elements; this is achieved via + protocol message exchange between I2RS clients and I2RS agents + associated with the routing system. One of the functions of I2RS is + to read and write data of the Routing Information Base (RIB). + [I2RS-REQS] introduces a set of RIB use cases. The RIB information + model is defined in [RFC8430]. + + This document defines a YANG data model [RFC7950] [RFC6991] for the + RIB that satisfies the RIB use cases and aligns with the RIB + information model. + +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. Definitions and Abbreviations + + RIB: Routing Information Base + + FIB: Forwarding Information Base + + RPC: Remote Procedure Call + + IM: Information Model. An abstract model of a conceptual domain, + which is independent of a specific implementation or data + representation. + +1.3. Tree Diagrams + + Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in + [RFC8340]. + +2. Model Structure + + The following figure shows an overview of the structure tree of the + ietf-i2rs-rib module. To give a whole view of the structure tree, + some details of the tree are omitted. The relevant details are + introduced in the subsequent subsections. + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + module: ietf-i2rs-rib + +--rw routing-instance + +--rw name string + +--rw interface-list* [name] + | +--rw name if:interface-ref + +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad + +--rw lookup-limit? uint8 + +--rw rib-list* [name] + +--rw name string + +--rw address-family address-family-definition + +--rw ip-rpf-check? boolean + +--rw route-list* [route-index] + | +--rw route-index uint64 + | +--rw match + | | +--rw (route-type)? + | | +--:(ipv4) + | | | ... + | | +--:(ipv6) + | | | ... + | | +--:(mpls-route) + | | | ... + | | +--:(mac-route) + | | | ... + | | +--:(interface-route) + | | ... + | +--rw nexthop + | | +--rw nexthop-id? uint32 + | | +--rw sharing-flag? boolean + | | +--rw (nexthop-type)? + | | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | | ... + | +--rw route-status + | | ... + | +--rw route-attributes + | | ... + | +--rw route-vendor-attributes + +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id] + +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32 + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + rpcs: + +---x rib-add + | +---w input + | | +---w name string + | | +---w address-family address-family-definition + | | +---w ip-rpf-check? boolean + | +--ro output + | +--ro result boolean + | +--ro reason? string + +---x rib-delete + | +---w input + | | +---w name string + | +--ro output + | +--ro result boolean + | +--ro reason? string + +---x route-add + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w routes + | | +---w route-list* [route-index] + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + +---x route-delete + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w routes + | | +---w route-list* [route-index] + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + +---x route-update + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + | | +---w (match-options)? + | | +--:(match-route-prefix) + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-route-attributes) + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-route-vendor-attributes) {...}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-nexthop) + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + +---x nh-add + | +---w input + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 + | | +---w sharing-flag? boolean + | | +---w (nexthop-type)? + | | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro result boolean + | +--ro reason? string + | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32 + +---x nh-delete + +---w input + | +---w rib-name string + | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 + | +---w sharing-flag? boolean + | +---w (nexthop-type)? + | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | ... + | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | ... + | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | ... + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | ... + | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | ... + +--ro output + +--ro result boolean + +--ro reason? string + notifications: + +---n nexthop-resolution-status-change + | +--ro nexthop + | | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32 + | | +--ro sharing-flag? boolean + | | +--ro (nexthop-type)? + | | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | | ... + | +--ro nexthop-state nexthop-state-definition + +---n route-change + +--ro rib-name string + +--ro address-family address-family-definition + +--ro route-index uint64 + +--ro match + | +--ro (route-type)? + | +--:(ipv4) + | | ... + | +--:(ipv6) + | | ... + | +--:(mpls-route) + | | ... + | +--:(mac-route) + | | ... + | +--:(interface-route) + | ... + +--ro route-installed-state route-installed-state-definition + +--ro route-state route-state-definition + +--ro route-change-reasons* [route-change-reason] + +--ro route-change-reason route-change-reason-definition + + Figure 1: Overview of I2RS RIB Module Structure + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +2.1. RIB Capability + + RIB capability negotiation is very important because not all of the + hardware will be able to support all kinds of nexthops, and there + might be a limitation on how many levels of lookup can be practically + performed. Therefore, a RIB data model needs to specify a way for an + external entity to learn about the functional capabilities of a + network device. + + At the same time, nexthop chains can be used to specify multiple + headers over a packet before that particular packet is forwarded. + Not every network device will be able to support all kinds of nexthop + chains along with the arbitrary number of headers that are chained + together. The RIB data model needs a way to expose the nexthop + chaining capability supported by a given network device. + + This module uses the feature and if-feature statements to achieve + above capability advertisement. + +2.2. Routing Instance and RIB + + A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a + collection of RIBs, interfaces, and routing protocol parameters. A + routing instance creates a logical slice of the router and can allow + multiple different logical slices, across a set of routers, to + communicate with each other. The routing protocol parameters control + the information available in the RIBs. More details about a routing + instance can be found in Section 2.2 of [RFC8430]. + + For a routing instance, there can be multiple RIBs. Therefore, this + model uses "list" to express the RIBs. The structure tree is shown + below: + + +--rw routing-instance + +--rw name string + +--rw interface-list* [name] + | +--rw name if:interface-ref + +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad + +--rw lookup-limit? uint8 + +--rw rib-list* [name] + +--rw name string + +--rw address-family address-family-definition + +--rw ip-rpf-check? boolean + +--rw route-list* [route-index] + ... // refer to Section 2.3 + + Figure 2: Routing Instance Structure + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +2.3. Route + + A route is essentially a match condition and an action following that + match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (e.g., IPv4, + MPLS, Media Access Control (MAC), Interface, etc.) and the set of + fields to match on. + + A route MUST contain the ROUTE_PREFERENCE attribute (see Section 2.3 + of [RFC8430]). + + In addition, a route MUST associate with the following status + attributes in responses to a RIB writing/reading operation: + + o Active: Indicates whether a route has at least one fully resolved + nexthop and is therefore eligible for installation in the FIB. + + o Installed: Indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB. + + o Reason: Indicates the specific reason that caused the failure, + e.g., "Not authorized". + + In addition, a route can be associated with one or more optional + route-attributes (e.g., route-vendor-attributes). + + A RIB will have a number of routes, so the routes are expressed as a + list under a specific RIB. Each RIB has its own route list. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + +--rw route-list* [route-index] + +--rw route-index uint64 + +--rw match + | +--rw (route-type)? + | +--:(ipv4) + | | +--rw ipv4 + | | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)? + | | +--:(dest-ipv4-address) + | | | ... + | | +--:(src-ipv4-address) + | | | ... + | | +--:(dest-src-ipv4-address) + | | ... + | +--:(ipv6) + | | +--rw ipv6 + | | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)? + | | +--:(dest-ipv6-address) + | | | ... + | | +--:(src-ipv6-address) + | | | ... + | | +--:(dest-src-ipv6-address) + | | ... + | +--:(mpls-route) + | | +--rw mpls-label uint32 + | +--:(mac-route) + | | +--rw mac-address uint32 + | +--:(interface-route) + | +--rw interface-identifier if:interface-ref + +--rw nexthop + | ...(refer to Section 2.4) + + Figure 3: Routes Structure + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +2.4. Nexthop + + A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. As + illustrated in Figure 4 of [RFC8430], to support various use cases + (e.g., load-balancing, protection, multicast, or a combination of + them), the nexthop is modeled as a multilevel structure and supports + recursion. The first level of the nexthop includes the following + four types: + + o Base: The "base" nexthop is the foundation of all other nexthop + types. It includes the following basic nexthops: + + * nexthop-id + + * IPv4 address + + * IPv6 address + + * egress-interface + + * egress-interface with IPv4 address + + * egress-interface with IPv6 address + + * egress-interface with MAC address + + * logical-tunnel + + * tunnel-encapsulation + + * tunnel-decapsulation + + * rib-name + + o Chain: The "chain" nexthop provides a way to perform multiple + operations on a packet by logically combining them. + + o Load-Balance: The "load-balance" nexthop is designed for a load- + balance case where it normally will have multiple weighted + nexthops. + + o Protection: The "protection" nexthop is designed for a protection + scenario where it normally will have primary and standby nexthop. + + o Replicate: The "replicate" nexthop is designed for multiple + destinations forwarding. + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + The structure tree of nexthop is shown in the following figures. + + +--rw nexthop + | +--rw nexthop-id? uint32 + | +--rw sharing-flag? boolean + | +--rw (nexthop-type)? + | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | ...(refer to Figure 5) + | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | +--rw nexthop-chain + | | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id] + | | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32 + | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | +--rw nexthop-replicate + | | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id] + | | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32 + | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | +--rw nexthop-protection + | | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id] + | | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32 + | | +--rw nexthop-preference nexthop-preference-definition + | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | +--rw nexthop-lb + | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id] + | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32 + | +--rw nexthop-lb-weight nexthop-lb-weight-definition + + Figure 4: Nexthop Structure + + Figure 5 (as shown below) is a subtree of nexthop. It's under the + nexthop base node and shows the structure of the "base" nexthop. + ++--:(nexthop-base) +| +--rw nexthop-base +| +--rw (nexthop-base-type)? +| +--:(special-nexthop) +| | +--rw special? special-nexthop-definition +| +--:(egress-interface-nexthop) +| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref +| +--:(ipv4-address-nexthop) +| | +--rw ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| +--:(ipv6-address-nexthop) +| | +--rw ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| +--:(egress-interface-ipv4-nexthop) +| | +--rw egress-interface-ipv4-address +| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref +| | +--rw ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +| +--:(egress-interface-ipv6-nexthop) +| | +--rw egress-interface-ipv6-address +| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref +| | +--rw ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| +--:(egress-interface-mac-nexthop) +| | +--rw egress-interface-mac-address +| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref +| | +--rw ieee-mac-address yang:mac-address +| +--:(tunnel-encapsulation-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}? +| | +--rw tunnel-encapsulation +| | +--rw (tunnel-type)? +| | +--:(ipv4) {ipv4-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw ipv4-header +| | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | +--rw protocol uint8 +| | | +--rw ttl? uint8 +| | | +--rw dscp? uint8 +| | +--:(ipv6) {ipv6-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw ipv6-header +| | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | +--rw next-header uint8 +| | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8 +| | | +--rw flow-label? +| | | inet:ipv6-flow-label +| | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8 +| | +--:(mpls) {mpls-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw mpls-header +| | | +--rw label-operations* [label-oper-id] +| | | +--rw label-oper-id uint32 +| | | +--rw (label-actions)? +| | | +--:(label-push) +| | | | +--rw label-push +| | | | +--rw label uint32 +| | | | +--rw s-bit? boolean +| | | | +--rw tc-value? uint8 +| | | | +--rw ttl-value? uint8 +| | | +--:(label-swap) +| | | +--rw label-swap +| | | +--rw out-label uint32 +| | | +--rw ttl-action? +| | | ttl-action-definition +| | +--:(gre) {gre-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw gre-header +| | | +--rw (dest-address-type)? + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +| | | | +--:(ipv4) +| | | | | +--rw ipv4-dest inet:ipv4-address +| | | | +--:(ipv6) +| | | | +--rw ipv6-dest inet:ipv6-address +| | | +--rw protocol-type uint16 +| | | +--rw key? uint64 +| | +--:(nvgre) {nvgre-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw nvgre-header +| | | +--rw (nvgre-type)? +| | | | +--:(ipv4) +| | | | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | | | +--rw protocol uint8 +| | | | | +--rw ttl? uint8 +| | | | | +--rw dscp? uint8 +| | | | +--:(ipv6) +| | | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | | +--rw next-header uint8 +| | | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8 +| | | | +--rw flow-label? +| | | | inet:ipv6-flow-label +| | | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8 +| | | +--rw virtual-subnet-id uint32 +| | | +--rw flow-id? uint8 +| | +--:(vxlan) {vxlan-tunnel}? +| | +--rw vxlan-header +| | +--rw (vxlan-type)? +| | | +--:(ipv4) +| | | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address +| | | | +--rw protocol uint8 +| | | | +--rw ttl? uint8 +| | | | +--rw dscp? uint8 +| | | +--:(ipv6) +| | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address +| | | +--rw next-header uint8 +| | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8 +| | | +--rw flow-label? inet:ipv6-flow-label +| | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8 +| | +--rw vxlan-identifier uint32 +| +--:(tunnel-decapsulation-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}? +| | +--rw tunnel-decapsulation +| | +--rw (tunnel-type)? + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +| | +--:(ipv4) {ipv4-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw ipv4-decapsulation +| | | +--rw ipv4-decapsulation +| | | tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition +| | | +--rw ttl-action? ttl-action-definition +| | +--:(ipv6) {ipv6-tunnel}? +| | | +--rw ipv6-decapsulation +| | | +--rw ipv6-decapsulation +| | | tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition +| | | +--rw hop-limit-action? +| | | hop-limit-action-definition +| | +--:(mpls) {mpls-tunnel}? +| | +--rw label-pop +| | +--rw label-pop mpls-label-action-definition +| | +--rw ttl-action? ttl-action-definition +| +--:(logical-tunnel-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}? +| | +--rw logical-tunnel +| | +--rw tunnel-type tunnel-type-definition +| | +--rw tunnel-name string +| +--:(rib-name-nexthop) +| | +--rw rib-name? string +| +--:(nexthop-identifier) +| +--rw nexthop-ref nexthop-ref + + Figure 5: Nexthop Base Structure + +2.5. RPC Operations + + This module defines the following RPC operations: + + o rib-add: Add a RIB to a routing instance. The following are + passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the address + family of the RIB, and (optionally) whether the RPF check is + enabled. The output is the result of the add operation: + + * true - success + + * false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the + specific reason that caused the failure) + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + o rib-delete: Delete a RIB from a routing instance. When a RIB is + deleted, all routes installed in the RIB will be deleted. A rib- + name is passed as the input parameter. The output is the result + of the delete operation: + + * true - success + + * false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the + specific reason that caused the failure) + + o route-add: Add a route or a set of routes to a RIB. The following + are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the route + prefix(es), the route-attributes, the route-vendor-attributes, the + nexthop, and the "whether to return failure details" indication. + Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh- + add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier. However, + in situations when the nexthop already exists and the nexthop-id + is known, this action is not expected. The output is a + combination of the route operation states while querying the + appropriate node in the data tree, which includes: + + * success-count: the number of routes that were successfully + added; + + * failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be added; + and, + + * failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to + be added. + + o route-delete: Delete a route or a set of routes from a RIB. The + following are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, + the route prefix(es), and the "whether to return failure details" + indication. The output is a combination of route operation + states, which includes: + + * success-count: the number of routes that were successfully + deleted; + + * failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be + deleted; and, + + * failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to + be deleted. + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + o route-update: Update a route or a set of routes. The following + are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the route + prefix(es), the route-attributes, the route-vendor-attributes, or + the nexthop. The match conditions can be either route prefix(es), + route-attributes, route-vendor-attributes, or nexthops. The + update actions include the following: update the nexthops, update + the route-attributes, and update the route-vendor-attributes. The + output is a combination of the route operation states, which + includes: + + * success-count: the number of routes that were successfully + updated; + + * failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be + updated; and, + + * failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to + be updated. + + o nh-add: Add a nexthop to a RIB. The following are passed as the + input parameters: the name of the RIB and the nexthop. The + network node is required to allocate a nexthop identifier to the + nexthop. The outputs include the result of the nexthop add + operation. + + * true - success (when success, a nexthop identifier will be + returned to the I2RS client) + + * false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the + specific reason that caused the failure) + + o nh-delete: Delete a nexthop from a RIB. The following are passed + as the input parameters: the name of the RIB and a nexthop or + nexthop identifier. The output is the result of the delete + operation: + + * true - success + + * false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the + specific reason that caused the failure) + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + The structure tree of rpcs is shown in following figure. + + rpcs: + +---x rib-add + | +---w input + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w address-family address-family-definition + | | +---w ip-rpf-check? boolean + | +--ro output + | +--ro result uint32 + | +--ro reason? string + +---x rib-delete + | +---w input + | | +---w rib-name string + | +--ro output + | +--ro result uint32 + | +--ro reason? string + +---x route-add + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w routes + | | +---w route-list* [route-index] + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + +---x route-delete + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w routes + | | +---w route-list* [route-index] + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + +---x route-update + | +---w input + | | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w (match-options)? + | | +--:(match-route-prefix) + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-route-attributes) + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-route-vendor-attributes) {...}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(match-nexthop) + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro success-count uint32 + | +--ro failed-count uint32 + | +--ro failure-detail + | +--ro failed-routes* [route-index] + | +--ro route-index uint32 + | +--ro error-code? uint32 + +---x nh-add + | +---w input + | | +---w rib-name string + | | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 + | | +---w sharing-flag? boolean + | | +---w (nexthop-type)? + | | ... + | +--ro output + | +--ro result uint32 + | +--ro reason? string + | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32 + +---x nh-delete + +---w input + | +---w rib-name string + | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 + | +---w sharing-flag? boolean + | +---w (nexthop-type)? + | ... + +--ro output + +--ro result uint32 + +--ro reason? string + + Figure 6: RPCs Structure + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +2.6. Notifications + + Asynchronous notifications are sent by the RIB manager of a network + device to an external entity when some event triggers on the network + device. An implementation of this RIB data model MUST support + sending two kinds of asynchronous notifications. + + 1. Route change notification: + + o Installed (indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB) + + o Active (indicates whether a route has at least one fully resolved + nexthop and is therefore eligible for installation in the FIB) + + o Reason (e.g., "Not authorized") + + 2. Nexthop resolution status notification + + Nexthops can be fully resolved or unresolved. + + A resolved nexthop has an adequate level of information to send the + outgoing packet towards the destination by forwarding it on an + interface to a directly connected neighbor. + + An unresolved nexthop is something that requires the RIB manager to + determine the final resolved nexthop. In one example, a nexthop + could be an IP address. The RIB manager would resolve how to reach + that IP address, e.g., by checking if that particular IP address is + reachable by regular IP forwarding, by an MPLS tunnel, or by both. + If the RIB manager cannot resolve the nexthop, then the nexthop + remains in an unresolved state and is NOT a suitable candidate for + installation in the FIB. + + An implementation of this RIB data model MUST support sending route- + change notifications whenever a route transitions between the + following states: + + o from the active state to the inactive state + + o from the inactive state to the active state + + o from the installed state to the uninstalled state + + o from the uninstalled state to the installed state + + A single notification MAY be used when a route transitions from + inactive/uninstalled to active/installed or in the other direction. + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + The structure tree of notifications is shown in the following figure. + + notifications: + +---n nexthop-resolution-status-change + | +--ro nexthop + | | +--ro nexthop-id uint32 + | | +--ro sharing-flag boolean + | | +--ro (nexthop-type)? + | | +--:(nexthop-base) + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}? + | | | ... + | | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}? + | | ... + | +--ro nexthop-state nexthop-state-definition + +---n route-change + +--ro rib-name string + +--ro address-family address-family-definition + +--ro route-index uint64 + +--ro match + | +--ro (route-type)? + | +--:(ipv4) + | | ... + | +--:(ipv6) + | | ... + | +--:(mpls-route) + | | ... + | +--:(mac-route) + | | ... + | +--:(interface-route) + | ... + +--ro route-installed-state route-installed-state-definition + +--ro route-state route-state-definition + +--ro route-change-reason route-change-reason-definition + + Figure 7: Notifications Structure + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +3. YANG Module + + This YANG module references [RFC2784], [RFC7348], [RFC7637], and + [RFC8344]. + + <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-i2rs-rib@2018-09-13.yang" + + module ietf-i2rs-rib { + yang-version 1.1; + namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib"; + prefix iir; + + import ietf-inet-types { + prefix inet; + reference "RFC 6991"; + } + import ietf-interfaces { + prefix if; + reference "RFC 8344"; + } + import ietf-yang-types { + prefix yang; + reference "RFC 6991"; + } + + organization + "IETF I2RS (Interface to Routing System) Working Group"; + contact + "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2rs/> + WG List: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org> + + Editor: Lixing Wang + <mailto:wang_little_star@sina.com> + + Editor: Mach(Guoyi) Chen + <mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com> + + Editor: Amit Dass + <mailto:dass.amit@gmail.com> + + Editor: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan + <mailto:hari@netflix.com> + + Editor: Sriganesh Kini + <mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com> + + Editor: Nitin Bahadur + <mailto:nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com>"; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "This module defines a YANG data model for + Routing Information Base (RIB) that aligns + with the I2RS RIB information model. + + 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 + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + + This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8341; see + the RFC itself for full legal notices."; + + revision 2018-09-13 { + description + "initial revision"; + reference "RFC 8431"; + } + + //Features + + feature nexthop-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + tunnel nexthop capability."; + } + + feature nexthop-chain { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + chain nexthop capability."; + } + + feature nexthop-protection { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + protection nexthop capability."; + } + + feature nexthop-replicate { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + replicate nexthop capability."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + + feature nexthop-load-balance { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + load-balance nexthop capability."; + } + + feature ipv4-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + IPv4 tunnel encapsulation capability."; + } + + feature ipv6-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + IPv6 tunnel encapsulation capability."; + } + + feature mpls-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + MPLS tunnel encapsulation capability."; + } + + feature vxlan-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network + (VXLAN) tunnel encapsulation capability."; + reference "RFC 7348"; + } + + feature gre-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + GRE tunnel encapsulation capability."; + reference "RFC 2784"; + } + + feature nvgre-tunnel { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + Network Virtualization Using GRE (NVGRE) + tunnel encapsulation capability."; + reference "RFC 7637"; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + feature route-vendor-attributes { + description + "This feature means that a node supports + route vendor attributes."; + } + + //Identities and Type Definitions + + identity mpls-label-action { + description + "Base identity from which all MPLS label + operations are derived. + + The MPLS label stack operations include: + push - to add a new label to a label stack + pop - to pop the top label from a label stack + swap - to exchange the top label of a label + stack with a new label"; + } + + identity label-push { + base mpls-label-action; + description + "MPLS label stack operation: push."; + } + + identity label-pop { + base mpls-label-action; + description + "MPLS label stack operation: pop."; + } + + identity label-swap { + base mpls-label-action; + description + "MPLS label stack operation: swap."; + } + + typedef mpls-label-action-definition { + type identityref { + base mpls-label-action; + } + description + "MPLS label action definition."; + } + + identity tunnel-decapsulation-action { + description + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + "Base identity from which all tunnel decapsulation + actions are derived. + Tunnel decapsulation actions include + ipv4-decapsulation (to decapsulate an IPv4 tunnel) + ipv6-decapsulation (to decapsulate an IPv6 tunnel)"; + } + + identity ipv4-decapsulation { + base tunnel-decapsulation-action; + description + "IPv4 tunnel decapsulation."; + } + + identity ipv6-decapsulation { + base tunnel-decapsulation-action; + description + "IPv6 tunnel decapsulation."; + } + + typedef tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition { + type identityref { + base tunnel-decapsulation-action; + } + description + "Tunnel decapsulation definition."; + } + + identity ttl-action { + description + "Base identity from which all TTL + actions are derived."; + } + + identity no-action { + base ttl-action; + description + "Do nothing regarding the TTL."; + } + + identity copy-to-inner { + base ttl-action; + description + "Copy the TTL of the outer header + to the inner header."; + } + + identity decrease-and-copy-to-inner { + base ttl-action; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "Decrease TTL by one and copy the TTL + to the inner header."; + } + + identity decrease-and-copy-to-next { + base ttl-action; + description + "Decrease TTL by one and copy the TTL + to the next header; for example, when + MPLS label swapping, decrease the TTL + of the in_label and copy it to the + out_label."; + } + + typedef ttl-action-definition { + type identityref { + base ttl-action; + } + description + "TTL action definition."; + } + + identity hop-limit-action { + description + "Base identity from which all hop limit + actions are derived."; + } + + identity hop-limit-no-action { + base hop-limit-action; + description + "Do nothing regarding the hop limit."; + } + + identity hop-limit-copy-to-inner { + base hop-limit-action; + description + "Copy the hop limit of the outer header + to the inner header."; + } + + typedef hop-limit-action-definition { + type identityref { + base hop-limit-action; + } + description + "IPv6 hop limit action definition."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + + identity special-nexthop { + description + "Base identity from which all special + nexthops are derived."; + } + + identity discard { + base special-nexthop; + description + "This indicates that the network + device should drop the packet and + increment a drop counter."; + } + + identity discard-with-error { + base special-nexthop; + description + "This indicates that the network + device should drop the packet, + increment a drop counter, and send + back an appropriate error message + (like ICMP error)."; + } + + identity receive { + base special-nexthop; + description + "This indicates that the traffic is + destined for the network device, e.g., + protocol packets or Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packets. + All locally destined traffic SHOULD be + throttled to avoid a denial-of-service + attack on the router's control plane. An + optional rate-limiter can be specified + to indicate how to throttle traffic + destined for the control plane."; + } + + identity cos-value { + base special-nexthop; + description + "Cos-value special nexthop."; + } + + typedef special-nexthop-definition { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + type identityref { + base special-nexthop; + } + description + "Special nexthop definition."; + } + + identity ip-route-match-type { + description + "Base identity from which all route + match types are derived. + The route match type could be: + match source, or + match destination, or + match source and destination."; + } + + identity match-ip-src { + base ip-route-match-type; + description + "Source route match type."; + } + + identity match-ip-dest { + base ip-route-match-type; + description + "Destination route match type"; + } + + identity match-ip-src-dest { + base ip-route-match-type; + description + "Source and Destination route match type"; + } + + typedef ip-route-match-type-definition { + type identityref { + base ip-route-match-type; + } + description + "IP route match type definition."; + } + + identity address-family { + description + "Base identity from which all RIB + address families are derived."; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + identity ipv4-address-family { + base address-family; + description + "IPv4 RIB address family."; + } + + identity ipv6-address-family { + base address-family; + description + "IPv6 RIB address family."; + } + + identity mpls-address-family { + base address-family; + description + "MPLS RIB address family."; + } + + identity ieee-mac-address-family { + base address-family; + description + "MAC RIB address family."; + } + + typedef address-family-definition { + type identityref { + base address-family; + } + description + "RIB address family definition."; + } + + identity route-type { + description + "Base identity from which all route types + are derived."; + } + + identity ipv4-route { + base route-type; + description + "IPv4 route type."; + } + + identity ipv6-route { + base route-type; + description + "IPv6 route type."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + + identity mpls-route { + base route-type; + description + "MPLS route type."; + } + + identity ieee-mac { + base route-type; + description + "MAC route type."; + } + + identity interface { + base route-type; + description + "Interface route type."; + } + + typedef route-type-definition { + type identityref { + base route-type; + } + description + "Route type definition."; + } + + identity tunnel-type { + description + "Base identity from which all tunnel + types are derived."; + } + + identity ipv4-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + description + "IPv4 tunnel type"; + } + + identity ipv6-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + description + "IPv6 tunnel type"; + } + + identity mpls-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "MPLS tunnel type"; + } + + identity gre-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + description + "GRE tunnel type"; + } + + identity vxlan-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + description + "VXLAN tunnel type"; + } + + identity nvgre-tunnel { + base tunnel-type; + description + "NVGRE tunnel type"; + } + + typedef tunnel-type-definition { + type identityref { + base tunnel-type; + } + description + "Tunnel type definition."; + } + + identity route-state { + description + "Base identity from which all route + states are derived."; + } + + identity active { + base route-state; + description + "Active state."; + } + + identity inactive { + base route-state; + description + "Inactive state."; + } + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + typedef route-state-definition { + type identityref { + base route-state; + } + description + "Route state definition."; + } + + identity nexthop-state { + description + "Base identity from which all nexthop + states are derived."; + } + + identity resolved { + base nexthop-state; + description + "Resolved nexthop state."; + } + + identity unresolved { + base nexthop-state; + description + "Unresolved nexthop state."; + } + + typedef nexthop-state-definition { + type identityref { + base nexthop-state; + } + description + "Nexthop state definition."; + } + + identity route-installed-state { + description + "Base identity from which all route + installed states are derived."; + } + + identity uninstalled { + base route-installed-state; + description + "Uninstalled state."; + } + + identity installed { + base route-installed-state; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "Installed state."; + } + + typedef route-installed-state-definition { + type identityref { + base route-installed-state; + } + description + "Route installed state definition."; + } + + //Route Change Reason Identities + + identity route-change-reason { + description + "Base identity from which all route change + reasons are derived."; + } + + identity lower-route-preference { + base route-change-reason; + description + "This route was installed in the FIB because it had + a lower route preference value (and thus was more + preferred) than the route it replaced."; + } + + identity higher-route-preference { + base route-change-reason; + description + "This route was uninstalled from the FIB because it had + a higher route preference value (and thus was less + preferred) than the route that replaced it."; + } + + identity resolved-nexthop { + base route-change-reason; + description + "This route was made active because at least + one of its nexthops was resolved."; + } + + identity unresolved-nexthop { + base route-change-reason; + description + "This route was made inactive because all of + its nexthops are unresolved."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + + typedef route-change-reason-definition { + type identityref { + base route-change-reason; + } + description + "Route change reason definition."; + } + + typedef nexthop-preference-definition { + type uint8 { + range "1..99"; + } + description + "Nexthop-preference is used for protection schemes. + It is an integer value between 1 and 99. Lower + values are preferred. To download N + nexthops to the FIB, the N nexthops with the lowest + value are selected. If there are more than N + nexthops that have the same preference, an + implementation of the I2RS client should select N + nexthops and download them. As for how to select + the nexthops, this is left to the implementations."; + } + + typedef nexthop-lb-weight-definition { + type uint8 { + range "1..99"; + } + description + "Nexthop-lb-weight is used for load-balancing. + Each list member SHOULD be assigned a weight + between 1 and 99. The weight determines the + proportion of traffic to be sent over a nexthop + used for forwarding as a ratio of the weight of + this nexthop divided by the sum of the weights + of all the nexthops of this route that are used + for forwarding. To perform equal load-balancing, + one MAY specify a weight of 0 for all the member + nexthops. The value 0 is reserved for equal + load-balancing and, if applied, MUST be applied + to all member nexthops. + Note that the weight of 0 is special because of + historical reasons. It's typically used in + hardware devices to signify ECMP."; + } + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + typedef nexthop-ref { + type leafref { + path "/iir:routing-instance" + + "/iir:rib-list" + + "/iir:route-list" + + "/iir:nexthop" + + "/iir:nexthop-id"; + } + description + "A nexthop reference that provides + an indirection reference to a nexthop."; + } + + //Groupings + + grouping route-prefix { + description + "The common attributes used for all types of route prefixes."; + leaf route-index { + type uint64; + mandatory true; + description + "Route index."; + } + container match { + description + "The match condition specifies the + kind of route (IPv4, MPLS, etc.) + and the set of fields to match on."; + choice route-type { + description + "Route types: IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, MAC, etc."; + case ipv4 { + description + "IPv4 route case."; + container ipv4 { + description + "IPv4 route match."; + choice ip-route-match-type { + description + "IP route match type options: + match source, or + match destination, or + match source and destination."; + case dest-ipv4-address { + leaf dest-ipv4-prefix { + type inet:ipv4-prefix; + mandatory true; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "An IPv4 destination address as the match."; + } + } + case src-ipv4-address { + leaf src-ipv4-prefix { + type inet:ipv4-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "An IPv4 source address as the match."; + } + } + case dest-src-ipv4-address { + container dest-src-ipv4-address { + description + "A combination of an IPv4 source and + an IPv4 destination address as the match."; + leaf dest-ipv4-prefix { + type inet:ipv4-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "The IPv4 destination address of the match."; + } + leaf src-ipv4-prefix { + type inet:ipv4-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "The IPv4 source address of the match."; + } + } + } + } + } + } + case ipv6 { + description + "IPv6 route case."; + container ipv6 { + description + "IPv6 route match."; + choice ip-route-match-type { + description + "IP route match type options: + match source, + match destination, or + match source and destination."; + case dest-ipv6-address { + leaf dest-ipv6-prefix { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + type inet:ipv6-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "An IPv6 destination address as the match."; + } + } + case src-ipv6-address { + leaf src-ipv6-prefix { + type inet:ipv6-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "An IPv6 source address as the match."; + } + } + case dest-src-ipv6-address { + container dest-src-ipv6-address { + description + "A combination of an IPv6 source and + an IPv6 destination address as the match."; + leaf dest-ipv6-prefix { + type inet:ipv6-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "The IPv6 destination address of the match."; + } + leaf src-ipv6-prefix { + type inet:ipv6-prefix; + mandatory true; + description + "The IPv6 source address of the match."; + } + } + } + } + } + } + case mpls-route { + description + "MPLS route case."; + leaf mpls-label { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The label used for matching."; + } + } + case mac-route { + description + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + "MAC route case."; + leaf mac-address { + type yang:mac-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The MAC address used for matching."; + } + } + case interface-route { + description + "Interface route case."; + leaf interface-identifier { + type if:interface-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "The interface used for matching."; + } + } + } + } + } + + grouping route { + description + "The common attributes used for all types of routes."; + uses route-prefix; + container nexthop { + description + "The nexthop of the route."; + uses nexthop; + } + //In the information model, it is called route-statistic + container route-status { + description + "The status information of the route."; + leaf route-state { + type route-state-definition; + config false; + description + "Indicate a route's state: active or inactive."; + } + leaf route-installed-state { + type route-installed-state-definition; + config false; + description + "Indicate that a route's installed states: + installed or uninstalled."; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + leaf route-reason { + type route-change-reason-definition; + config false; + description + "Indicate the reason that caused the route change."; + } + } + container route-attributes { + description + "Route attributes."; + uses route-attributes; + } + container route-vendor-attributes { + description + "Route vendor attributes."; + uses route-vendor-attributes; + } + } + + grouping nexthop-list { + description + "A generic nexthop list."; + list nexthop-list { + key "nexthop-member-id"; + description + "A list of nexthops."; + leaf nexthop-member-id { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "A nexthop identifier that points + to a nexthop list member. + A nexthop list member is a nexthop."; + } + } + } + + grouping nexthop-list-p { + description + "A nexthop list with preference parameter."; + list nexthop-list { + key "nexthop-member-id"; + description + "A list of nexthop."; + leaf nexthop-member-id { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + "A nexthop identifier that points + to a nexthop list member. + A nexthop list member is a nexthop."; + } + leaf nexthop-preference { + type nexthop-preference-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "Nexthop-preference is used for protection schemes. + It is an integer value between 1 and 99. Lower + values are more preferred. To download a + primary/standby/tertiary group to the FIB, the + nexthops that are resolved and are most preferred + are selected."; + } + } + } + + grouping nexthop-list-w { + description + "A nexthop list with a weight parameter."; + list nexthop-list { + key "nexthop-member-id"; + description + "A list of nexthop."; + leaf nexthop-member-id { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "A nexthop identifier that points + to a nexthop list member. + A nexthop list member is a nexthop."; + } + leaf nexthop-lb-weight { + type nexthop-lb-weight-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "The weight of a nexthop of + the load-balance nexthops."; + } + } + } + + grouping nexthop { + description + "The nexthop structure."; + leaf nexthop-id { + type uint32; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "An identifier that refers to a nexthop."; + } + leaf sharing-flag { + type boolean; + description + "To indicate whether a nexthop is sharable + or non-sharable: + true - sharable (which means the nexthop can be + shared with other routes) + false - non-sharable (which means the nexthop can + not be shared with other routes)"; + } + choice nexthop-type { + description + "Nexthop type options."; + case nexthop-base { + container nexthop-base { + description + "The base nexthop."; + uses nexthop-base; + } + } + case nexthop-chain { + if-feature "nexthop-chain"; + container nexthop-chain { + description + "A chain nexthop."; + uses nexthop-list; + } + } + case nexthop-replicate { + if-feature "nexthop-replicate"; + container nexthop-replicate { + description + "A replicate nexthop."; + uses nexthop-list; + } + } + case nexthop-protection { + if-feature "nexthop-protection"; + container nexthop-protection { + description + "A protection nexthop."; + uses nexthop-list-p; + } + } + case nexthop-load-balance { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + if-feature "nexthop-load-balance"; + container nexthop-lb { + description + "A load-balance nexthop."; + uses nexthop-list-w; + } + } + } + } + + grouping nexthop-base { + description + "The base nexthop."; + choice nexthop-base-type { + description + "Nexthop base type options."; + case special-nexthop { + leaf special { + type special-nexthop-definition; + description + "A special nexthop."; + } + } + case egress-interface-nexthop { + leaf outgoing-interface { + type if:interface-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop is an outgoing interface."; + } + } + case ipv4-address-nexthop { + leaf ipv4-address { + type inet:ipv4-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop is an IPv4 address."; + } + } + case ipv6-address-nexthop { + leaf ipv6-address { + type inet:ipv6-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop is an IPv6 address."; + } + } + case egress-interface-ipv4-nexthop { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + container egress-interface-ipv4-address { + leaf outgoing-interface { + type if:interface-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "Name of the outgoing interface."; + } + leaf ipv4-address { + type inet:ipv4-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop points to an interface with + an IPv4 address."; + } + description + "The nexthop is an egress-interface and an IP + address. This can be used in cases where, e.g., + the IP address is a link-local address."; + } + } + case egress-interface-ipv6-nexthop { + container egress-interface-ipv6-address { + leaf outgoing-interface { + type if:interface-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "Name of the outgoing interface."; + } + leaf ipv6-address { + type inet:ipv6-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop points to an interface with + an IPv6 address."; + } + description + "The nexthop is an egress-interface and an IP + address. This can be used in cases where, e.g., + the IP address is a link-local address."; + } + } + case egress-interface-mac-nexthop { + container egress-interface-mac-address { + leaf outgoing-interface { + type if:interface-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "Name of the outgoing interface."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + leaf ieee-mac-address { + type yang:mac-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The nexthop points to an interface with + a specific MAC address."; + } + description + "The egress-interface must be an Ethernet + interface. Address resolution is not required + for this nexthop."; + } + } + case tunnel-encapsulation-nexthop { + if-feature "nexthop-tunnel"; + container tunnel-encapsulation { + uses tunnel-encapsulation; + description + "This can be an encapsulation representing an IP + tunnel, MPLS tunnel, or others as defined in the info + model. An optional egress-interface can be chained + to the tunnel encapsulation to indicate which + interface to send the packet out on. The + egress-interface is useful when the network device + contains Ethernet interfaces and one needs to + perform address resolution for the IP packet."; + } + } + case tunnel-decapsulation-nexthop { + if-feature "nexthop-tunnel"; + container tunnel-decapsulation { + uses tunnel-decapsulation; + description + "This is to specify the decapsulation of a tunnel + header."; + } + } + case logical-tunnel-nexthop { + if-feature "nexthop-tunnel"; + container logical-tunnel { + uses logical-tunnel; + description + "This can be an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) + or a GRE tunnel (or others as defined in this + document) that is represented by a unique + identifier (e.g., name)."; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + case rib-name-nexthop { + leaf rib-name { + type string; + description + "A nexthop pointing to a RIB indicates that the + route lookup needs to continue in the specified + RIB. This is a way to perform chained lookups."; + } + } + case nexthop-identifier { + leaf nexthop-ref { + type nexthop-ref; + mandatory true; + description + "A nexthop reference that points to a nexthop."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping route-vendor-attributes { + description + "Route vendor attributes."; + } + + grouping logical-tunnel { + description + "A logical tunnel that is identified + by a type and a tunnel name."; + leaf tunnel-type { + type tunnel-type-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "A tunnel type."; + } + leaf tunnel-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A tunnel name that points to a logical tunnel."; + } + } + + grouping ipv4-header { + description + "The IPv4 header encapsulation information."; + leaf src-ipv4-address { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + type inet:ipv4-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The source IP address of the header."; + } + leaf dest-ipv4-address { + type inet:ipv4-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The destination IP address of the header."; + } + leaf protocol { + type uint8; + mandatory true; + description + "The protocol id of the header."; + } + leaf ttl { + type uint8; + description + "The TTL of the header."; + } + leaf dscp { + type uint8; + description + "The Differentiated Services Code Point + (DSCP) field of the header."; + } + } + + grouping ipv6-header { + description + "The IPv6 header encapsulation information."; + leaf src-ipv6-address { + type inet:ipv6-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The source IP address of the header."; + } + leaf dest-ipv6-address { + type inet:ipv6-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The destination IP address of the header."; + } + leaf next-header { + type uint8; + mandatory true; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "The next header of the IPv6 header."; + } + leaf traffic-class { + type uint8; + description + "The traffic class value of the header."; + } + leaf flow-label { + type inet:ipv6-flow-label; + description + "The flow label of the header."; + } + leaf hop-limit { + type uint8 { + range "1..255"; + } + description + "The hop limit of the header."; + } + } + + grouping nvgre-header { + description + "The NVGRE header encapsulation information."; + choice nvgre-type { + description + "NVGRE can use either an IPv4 + or an IPv6 header for encapsulation."; + case ipv4 { + uses ipv4-header; + } + case ipv6 { + uses ipv6-header; + } + } + leaf virtual-subnet-id { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The subnet identifier of the NVGRE header."; + } + leaf flow-id { + type uint8; + description + "The flow identifier of the NVGRE header."; + } + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + grouping vxlan-header { + description + "The VXLAN encapsulation header information."; + choice vxlan-type { + description + "NVGRE can use either an IPv4 + or an IPv6 header for encapsulation."; + case ipv4 { + uses ipv4-header; + } + case ipv6 { + uses ipv6-header; + } + } + leaf vxlan-identifier { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The VXLAN identifier of the VXLAN header."; + } + } + + grouping gre-header { + description + "The GRE encapsulation header information."; + choice dest-address-type { + description + "GRE options: IPv4 and IPv6"; + case ipv4 { + leaf ipv4-dest { + type inet:ipv4-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The destination IP address of the GRE header."; + } + } + case ipv6 { + leaf ipv6-dest { + type inet:ipv6-address; + mandatory true; + description + "The destination IP address of the GRE header."; + } + } + } + leaf protocol-type { + type uint16; + mandatory true; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "The protocol type of the GRE header."; + } + leaf key { + type uint64; + description + "The GRE key of the GRE header."; + } + } + + grouping mpls-header { + description + "The MPLS encapsulation header information."; + list label-operations { + key "label-oper-id"; + description + "Label operations."; + leaf label-oper-id { + type uint32; + description + "An optional identifier that points + to a label operation."; + } + choice label-actions { + description + "Label action options."; + case label-push { + container label-push { + description + "Label push operation."; + leaf label { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The label to be pushed."; + } + leaf s-bit { + type boolean; + description + "The s-bit ('Bottom of Stack' bit) of the label to be + pushed."; + } + leaf tc-value { + type uint8; + description + "The traffic class value of the label to be pushed."; + } + leaf ttl-value { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + type uint8; + description + "The TTL value of the label to be pushed."; + } + } + } + case label-swap { + container label-swap { + description + "Label swap operation."; + leaf in-label { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The label to be swapped."; + } + leaf out-label { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The out MPLS label."; + } + leaf ttl-action { + type ttl-action-definition; + description + "The label TTL actions: + - No-action + - Copy to inner label + - Decrease (the in-label) + by 1 and copy to the out-label"; + } + } + } + } + } + } + + grouping tunnel-encapsulation { + description + "Tunnel encapsulation information."; + choice tunnel-type { + description + "Tunnel options for nexthops."; + case ipv4 { + if-feature "ipv4-tunnel"; + container ipv4-header { + uses ipv4-header; + description + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + "IPv4 header."; + } + } + case ipv6 { + if-feature "ipv6-tunnel"; + container ipv6-header { + uses ipv6-header; + description + "IPv6 header."; + } + } + case mpls { + if-feature "mpls-tunnel"; + container mpls-header { + uses mpls-header; + description + "MPLS header."; + } + } + case gre { + if-feature "gre-tunnel"; + container gre-header { + uses gre-header; + description + "GRE header."; + } + } + case nvgre { + if-feature "nvgre-tunnel"; + container nvgre-header { + uses nvgre-header; + description + "NVGRE header."; + } + } + case vxlan { + if-feature "vxlan-tunnel"; + container vxlan-header { + uses vxlan-header; + description + "VXLAN header."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping tunnel-decapsulation { + description + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + "Tunnel decapsulation information."; + choice tunnel-type { + description + "Nexthop tunnel type options."; + case ipv4 { + if-feature "ipv4-tunnel"; + container ipv4-decapsulation { + description + "IPv4 decapsulation."; + leaf ipv4-decapsulation { + type tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "IPv4 decapsulation operations."; + } + leaf ttl-action { + type ttl-action-definition; + description + "The TTL actions: + no-action or copy to inner header."; + } + } + } + case ipv6 { + if-feature "ipv6-tunnel"; + container ipv6-decapsulation { + description + "IPv6 decapsulation."; + leaf ipv6-decapsulation { + type tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "IPv6 decapsulation operations."; + } + leaf hop-limit-action { + type hop-limit-action-definition; + description + "The hop limit actions: + no-action or copy to inner header."; + } + } + } + case mpls { + if-feature "mpls-tunnel"; + container label-pop { + description + "MPLS decapsulation."; + leaf label-pop { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + type mpls-label-action-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "Pop a label from the label stack."; + } + leaf ttl-action { + type ttl-action-definition; + description + "The label TTL action."; + } + } + } + } + } + + grouping route-attributes { + description + "Route attributes."; + leaf route-preference { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that + allows for comparing routes from different + protocols. Static configuration is also + considered a protocol for the purpose of this + field. It is also known as administrative-distance. + The lower the value, the higher the preference."; + } + leaf local-only { + type boolean; + mandatory true; + description + "Indicate whether the attribute is local only."; + } + container address-family-route-attributes { + description + "Address-family-related route attributes."; + choice route-type { + description + "Address-family-related route attributes. Future + documents should specify these attributes by augmenting + the cases in this choice."; + case ip-route-attributes { + } + case mpls-route-attributes { + } + case ethernet-route-attributes { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + } + } + } + + container routing-instance { + description + "A routing instance, in the context of + the RIB information model, is a collection + of RIBs, interfaces, and routing parameters."; + leaf name { + type string; + description + "The name of the routing instance. This MUST + be unique across all routing instances in + a given network device."; + } + list interface-list { + key "name"; + description + "This represents the list of interfaces associated + with this routing instance. The interface list helps + constrain the boundaries of packet forwarding. + Packets coming on these interfaces are directly + associated with the given routing instance. The + interface list contains a list of identifiers with + each identifier uniquely identifying an interface."; + leaf name { + type if:interface-ref; + description + "A reference to the name of a network-layer interface."; + } + } + leaf router-id { + type yang:dotted-quad; + description + "Router ID: The 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad."; + } + leaf lookup-limit { + type uint8; + description + "A limit on how many levels of a lookup can be performed."; + } + list rib-list { + key "name"; + description + "A list of RIBs that are associated with the routing + instance."; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + leaf name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of each RIB."; + } + leaf address-family { + type address-family-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "The address family of a RIB."; + } + leaf ip-rpf-check { + type boolean; + description + "Each RIB can be optionally associated with a + ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK attribute that enables Reverse + Path Forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP routes in that + RIB. An RPF check is used to + prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic."; + } + list route-list { + key "route-index"; + description + "A list of routes of a RIB."; + uses route; + } + // This is a list that maintains the nexthops added to the RIB. + uses nexthop-list; + } + } + + //RPC Operations + + rpc rib-add { + description + "To add a RIB to an instance"; + input { + leaf name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of the RIB + that is to be added."; + } + leaf address-family { + type address-family-definition; + mandatory true; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "The address family of the RIB."; + } + leaf ip-rpf-check { + type boolean; + description + "Each RIB can be optionally associated with an + ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK attribute that enables + RPF checks on all IP routes in that + RIB. An RPF check is used to + prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic."; + } + } + output { + leaf result { + type boolean; + mandatory true; + description + "Return the result of the rib-add operation. + true - success; + false - failed"; + } + leaf reason { + type string; + description + "The specific reason that caused the failure."; + } + } + } + + rpc rib-delete { + description + "To delete a RIB from a routing instance. + After deleting the RIB, all routes installed + in the RIB will be deleted as well."; + input { + leaf name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of the RIB + that is to be deleted."; + } + } + output { + leaf result { + type boolean; + mandatory true; + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "Return the result of the rib-delete operation. + true - success; + false - failed"; + } + leaf reason { + type string; + description + "The specific reason that caused failure."; + } + } + } + + grouping route-operation-state { + description + "Route operation state."; + leaf success-count { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The numbers of routes that are successfully + added/deleted/updated."; + } + leaf failed-count { + type uint32; + mandatory true; + description + "The numbers of the routes that fail + to be added/deleted/updated."; + } + container failure-detail { + description + "The failure detail reflects the reason why a route + operation fails. It is an array that includes the route + index and error code of the failed route."; + list failed-routes { + key "route-index"; + description + "The list of failed routes."; + leaf route-index { + type uint32; + description + "The route index of the failed route."; + } + leaf error-code { + type uint32; + description + "The error code that reflects the failure reason. + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + 0 - Reserved + 1 - Trying to add a repeat route + 2 - Trying to delete or update a route that does not + exist + 3 - Malformed route attributes"; + } + } + } + } + + rpc route-add { + description + "To add a route or a list of routes to a RIB"; + input { + leaf return-failure-detail { + type boolean; + default "false"; + description + "Whether to return the failure detail. + true - return the failure detail + false - do not return the failure detail + The default is false."; + } + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + container routes { + description + "The routes to be added to the RIB."; + list route-list { + key "route-index"; + description + "The list of routes to be added."; + uses route-prefix; + container route-attributes { + uses route-attributes; + description + "The route attributes."; + } + container route-vendor-attributes { + if-feature "route-vendor-attributes"; + uses route-vendor-attributes; + description + "The route vendor attributes."; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + container nexthop { + uses nexthop; + description + "The nexthop of the added route."; + } + } + } + } + output { + uses route-operation-state; + } + } + + rpc route-delete { + description + "To delete a route or a list of routes from a RIB"; + input { + leaf return-failure-detail { + type boolean; + default "false"; + description + "Whether to return the failure detail. + true - return the failure detail + false - do not return the failure detail + The default is false."; + } + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + container routes { + description + "The routes to be added to the RIB."; + list route-list { + key "route-index"; + description + "The list of routes to be deleted."; + uses route-prefix; + } + } + } + output { + uses route-operation-state; + } + } + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + grouping route-update-options { + description + "Update options: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + 3. update the route-vendor-attributes"; + choice update-options { + description + "Update options: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + 3. update the route-vendor-attributes"; + case update-nexthop { + container updated-nexthop { + uses nexthop; + description + "The nexthop used for updating."; + } + } + case update-route-attributes { + container updated-route-attr { + uses route-attributes; + description + "The route attributes used for updating."; + } + } + case update-route-vendor-attributes { + container updated-route-vendor-attr { + uses route-vendor-attributes; + description + "The vendor route attributes used for updating."; + } + } + } + } + + rpc route-update { + description + "To update a route or a list of routes of a RIB. + The inputs: + 1. The match conditions, which could be: + a. route prefix, + b. route attributes, or + c. nexthop. + 2. The update parameters to be used: + a. new nexthop, + b. new route attributes, or + c. nexthop. + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + Actions: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + The outputs: + success-count - the number of routes updated + failed-count - the number of routes fail to update + failure-detail - the detail failure info + "; + input { + leaf return-failure-detail { + type boolean; + default "false"; + description + "Whether to return the failure detail. + true - return the failure detail + false - do not return the failure detail + The default is false."; + } + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + choice match-options { + description + "Match options."; + case match-route-prefix { + description + "Update the routes that match the route + prefix(es) condition."; + container input-routes { + description + "The matched routes to be updated."; + list route-list { + key "route-index"; + description + "The list of routes to be updated."; + uses route-prefix; + uses route-update-options; + } + } + } + case match-route-attributes { + description + "Update the routes that match the + route attributes condition."; + container input-route-attributes { + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 62] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + description + "The route attributes are used for matching."; + uses route-attributes; + } + container update-parameters { + description + "Update options: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + 3. update the route-vendor-attributes"; + uses route-update-options; + } + } + case match-route-vendor-attributes { + if-feature "route-vendor-attributes"; + description + "Update the routes that match the + vendor attributes condition"; + container input-route-vendor-attributes { + description + "The vendor route attributes are used for matching."; + uses route-vendor-attributes; + } + container update-parameters-vendor { + description + "Update options: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + 3. update the route-vendor-attributes"; + uses route-update-options; + } + } + case match-nexthop { + description + "Update the routes that match the nexthop."; + container input-nexthop { + description + "The nexthop used for matching."; + uses nexthop; + } + container update-parameters-nexthop { + description + "Update options: + 1. update the nexthop + 2. update the route attributes + 3. update the route-vendor-attributes"; + uses route-update-options; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 63] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + } + } + output { + uses route-operation-state; + } + } + rpc nh-add { + description + "To add a nexthop to a RIB. + Inputs parameters: + 1. rib-name + 2. nexthop + Actions: + Add the nexthop to the RIB + Outputs: + 1. Operation result: + true - success + false - failed + 2. nexthop identifier"; + input { + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + uses nexthop; + } + output { + leaf result { + type boolean; + mandatory true; + description + "Return the result of the rib-add operation: + true - success + false - failed"; + } + leaf reason { + type string; + description + "The specific reason that caused the failure."; + } + leaf nexthop-id { + type uint32; + description + "A nexthop identifier that is allocated to the nexthop."; + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 64] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + } + + rpc nh-delete { + description + "To delete a nexthop from a RIB"; + input { + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + uses nexthop; + } + output { + leaf result { + type boolean; + mandatory true; + description + "Return the result of the rib-add operation: + true - success; + false - failed"; + } + leaf reason { + type string; + description + "The specific reason that caused the failure."; + } + } + } + + //Notifications + + notification nexthop-resolution-status-change { + description + "Nexthop resolution status (resolved/unresolved) + notification."; + container nexthop { + description + "The nexthop."; + uses nexthop; + } + leaf nexthop-state { + type nexthop-state-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "Nexthop resolution status (resolved/unresolved) + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 65] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + notification."; + } + } + + notification route-change { + description + "Route change notification."; + leaf rib-name { + type string; + mandatory true; + description + "A reference to the name of a RIB."; + } + leaf address-family { + type address-family-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "The address family of a RIB."; + } + uses route-prefix; + leaf route-installed-state { + type route-installed-state-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "Indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB."; + } + leaf route-state { + type route-state-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "Indicates whether a route is active or inactive."; + } + list route-change-reasons { + key "route-change-reason"; + description + "The reasons that cause the route change. A route + change may result from several reasons; for + example, a nexthop becoming resolved will make a + route A active, which is of better preference than + a currently active route B, which results in the + route A being installed"; + leaf route-change-reason { + type route-change-reason-definition; + mandatory true; + description + "The reason that caused the route change."; + } + } + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 66] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + } + } + + <CODE ENDS> + +4. IANA Considerations + + This document registers a URI in the "ns" registry within the "IETF + XML Registry" [RFC3688]: + + ------------------------------------------------------------------- + URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib + Registrant Contact: The IESG. + XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. + ------------------------------------------------------------------- + + This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" + registry [RFC7950]: + + ------------------------------------------------------------------- + name: ietf-i2rs-rib + namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib + prefix: iir + reference: RFC 8431 + ------------------------------------------------------------------- + +5. 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 + preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol + operations and content. + + The YANG module defines information that can be configurable in + certain instances, for example, a RIB, a route, a nexthop can be + created or deleted by client applications; the YANG module also + defines RPCs that can be used by client applications to add/delete + RIBs, routes, and nexthops. In such cases, a malicious client could + attempt to remove, add, or update a RIB, a route, or a nexthop by + creating or deleting corresponding elements in the RIB, route, and + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 67] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + nexthop lists, respectively. Removing a RIB or a route could lead to + disruption or impact in performance of a service; updating a route + may lead to suboptimal path and degradation of service levels as well + as possibly disruption of service. For those reasons, it is + important that the NETCONF access control model is vigorously applied + to prevent misconfiguration by unauthorized clients. + + 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 a negative + effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes + and their sensitivity/vulnerability: + + o RIB: A malicious client could attempt to remove a RIB from a + routing instance, for example, in order to sabotage the services + provided by the RIB or to add a RIB to a routing instance (hence, + to inject unauthorized traffic into the nexthop). + + o route: A malicious client could attempt to remove or add a route + from/to a RIB, for example, in order to sabotage the services + provided by the RIB. + + o nexthop: A malicious client could attempt to remove or add a + nexthop from/to RIB, which may lead to a suboptimal path, a + degradation of service levels, and a possible disruption of + service. + +6. References + +6.1. 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>. + + [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>. + + [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>. + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 68] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + [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>. + + [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", + RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + + [RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", + RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>. + + [RFC8430] Bahadur, N., Ed., Kini, S., Ed., and J. Medved, "RIB + Information Model", RFC 8430, DOI 10.17487/RFC8430, + September 2018, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8430>. + + [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>. + +6.2. Informative References + + [I2RS-REQS] + Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Summary of I2RS Use Case + Requirements", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-i2rs-usecase- + reqs-summary-03, November 2016. + + [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. + Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 69] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + + [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, + L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual + eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for + Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 + Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. + + [RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network + Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation", + RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>. + + [RFC7921] Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T. + Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing + System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7921>. + + [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", + BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>. + +Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to thank Chris Bowers, John Scudder, Tom + Petch, Mike McBride, and Ebben Aries for their review, suggestions, + and comments to this document. + +Contributors + + The following individuals also contributed to this document. + + o Zekun He, Tencent Holdings Ltd. + + o Sujian Lu, Tencent Holdings Ltd. + + o Jeffery Zhang, Juniper Networks + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 70] + +RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Lixing Wang + Individual + + Email: wang_little_star@sina.com + + + Mach(Guoyi) Chen + Huawei + + Email: mach.chen@huawei.com + + + Amit Dass + Ericsson + + Email: dass.amit@gmail.com + + + Hariharan Ananthakrishnan + Netflix + + Email: hari@netflix.com + + + Sriganesh Kini + Individual + + Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com + + + Nitin Bahadur + Uber + + Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 71] + |