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/rfc8776.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8776.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8776.txt | 4686 |
1 files changed, 4686 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8776.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8776.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..48b601d --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8776.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4686 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Saad +Request for Comments: 8776 Juniper Networks +Category: Standards Track R. Gandhi +ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc. + X. Liu + Volta Networks + V. Beeram + Juniper Networks + I. Bryskin + Futurewei Technologies, Inc. + June 2020 + + + Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering + +Abstract + + This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings + in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types and + groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic + Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities. + +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/rfc8776. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 1.1. Terminology + 1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names + 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations + 3. Overview + 3.1. TE Types Module Contents + 3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents + 4. TE Types YANG Module + 5. Packet TE Types YANG Module + 6. IANA Considerations + 7. Security Considerations + 8. References + 8.1. Normative References + 8.2. Informative References + Acknowledgments + Contributors + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] is a data modeling language used to model + configuration data, state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and + notifications for network management protocols such as the Network + Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241]. The YANG language + supports a small set of built-in data types and provides mechanisms + to derive other types from the built-in types. + + This document introduces a collection of common data types derived + from the built-in YANG data types. The derived types and groupings + are designed to be the common types applicable for modeling Traffic + Engineering (TE) features in model(s) defined outside of this + document. + +1.1. Terminology + + 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. + + The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in + [RFC7950]. + +1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names + + In this document, names of data nodes and other data model objects + are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the + corresponding YANG imported modules, as shown in Table 1. + + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + | Prefix | YANG Module | Reference | + +=================+======================+===============+ + | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + | rt-types | ietf-routing-types | [RFC8294] | + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + | te-types | ietf-te-types | This document | + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + | te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | This document | + +-----------------+----------------------+---------------+ + + Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules + +2. Acronyms and Abbreviations + + GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching + + LSP: Label Switched Path + + LSR: Label Switching Router + + LER: Label Edge Router + + MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching + + RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol + + TE: Traffic Engineering + + DS-TE: Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering + + SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group + + NBMA: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access + + APS: Automatic Protection Switching + + SD: Signal Degrade + + SF: Signal Fail + + WTR: Wait-to-Restore + + PM: Performance Metrics + +3. Overview + + This document defines two YANG modules for common TE types: + "ietf-te-types" for TE generic types and "ietf-te-packet-types" for + packet-specific types. Other technology-specific TE types are + outside the scope of this document. + +3.1. TE Types Module Contents + + The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that + are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control- + plane instance. + + The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable types + and groupings: + + te-bandwidth: + A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE bandwidth. The + modeling structure allows augmentation for each technology. For + unspecified technologies, the string-encoded "te-bandwidth" type + is used. + + te-label: + A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE label. The modeling + structure allows augmentation for each technology. For + unspecified technologies, "rt-types:generalized-label" is used. + + performance-metrics-attributes: + A YANG grouping that defines one-way and two-way measured + Performance Metrics (PM) and indications of anomalies on link(s) + or the path as defined in [RFC7471], [RFC8570], and [RFC7823]. + + performance-metrics-throttle-container: + A YANG grouping that defines configurable thresholds for + advertisement suppression and measurement intervals. + + te-ds-class: + A type representing the Differentiated Services (DS) Class-Type of + traffic as defined in [RFC4124]. + + te-label-direction: + An enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse direction + of a label. + + te-hop-type: + An enumerated type for specifying that a hop is loose or strict. + + te-global-id: + A type representing the identifier that uniquely identifies an + operator, which can be either a provider or a client. The + definition of this type is taken from [RFC6370] and [RFC5003]. + This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally unique + context for TE topologies. + + te-node-id: + A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. + The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad notation. + This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described + in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in + Section 3 of [RFC6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV + described in Section 4.3 of [RFC5305], or the TE Router ID TLV + described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6119]. The reachability of such + a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as that described in + Section 6.2 of [RFC6827]. + + te-topology-id: + A type representing the identifier for a topology. It is optional + to have one or more prefixes at the beginning, separated by + colons. The prefixes can be "network-types" as defined in the + "ietf-network" module in [RFC8345], to help the user better + understand the topology before further inquiry is made. + + te-tp-id: + A type representing the identifier of a TE interface Link + Termination Point (LTP) on a specific TE node where the TE link + connects. This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link + identifier [RFC3630] [RFC5305]. + + te-path-disjointness: + A type representing the different resource disjointness options + for a TE tunnel path as defined in [RFC4872]. + + admin-groups: + A union type for a TE link's classic or extended administrative + groups as defined in [RFC3630], [RFC5305], and [RFC7308]. + + srlg: + A type representing the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) as defined + in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. + + te-metric: + A type representing the TE metric as defined in [RFC3785]. + + te-recovery-status: + An enumerated type for the different statuses of a recovery action + as defined in [RFC4427] and [RFC6378]. + + path-attribute-flags: + A base YANG identity for supported LSP path flags as defined in + [RFC3209], [RFC4090], [RFC4736], [RFC5712], [RFC4920], [RFC5420], + [RFC7570], [RFC4875], [RFC5151], [RFC5150], [RFC6001], [RFC6790], + [RFC7260], [RFC8001], [RFC8149], and [RFC8169]. + + link-protection-type: + A base YANG identity for supported link protection types as + defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4427]. + + restoration-scheme-type: + A base YANG identity for supported LSP restoration schemes as + defined in [RFC4872]. + + protection-external-commands: + A base YANG identity for supported protection-related external + commands used for troubleshooting purposes, as defined in + [RFC4427]. + + association-type: + A base YANG identity for supported LSP association types as + defined in [RFC6780], [RFC4872], and [RFC4873]. + + objective-function-type: + A base YANG identity for supported path computation objective + functions as defined in [RFC5541]. + + te-tunnel-type: + A base YANG identity for supported TE tunnel types as defined in + [RFC3209] and [RFC4875]. + + lsp-encoding-types: + A base YANG identity for supported LSP encoding types as defined + in [RFC3471]. + + lsp-protection-type: + A base YANG identity for supported LSP protection types as defined + in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. + + switching-capabilities: + A base YANG identity for supported interface switching + capabilities as defined in [RFC3471]. + + resource-affinities-type: + A base YANG identity for supported attribute filters associated + with a tunnel that must be satisfied for a link to be acceptable + as defined in [RFC2702] and [RFC3209]. + + path-metric-type: + A base YANG identity for supported path metric types as defined in + [RFC3785] and [RFC7471]. + + explicit-route-hop: + A YANG grouping that defines supported explicit routes as defined + in [RFC3209] and [RFC3477]. + + te-link-access-type: + An enumerated type for the different TE link access types as + defined in [RFC3630]. + +3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents + + The "ietf-te-packet-types" module (Section 5) covers the common types + and groupings that are specific to packet technology. + + The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG + reusable types and groupings: + + backup-protection-type: + A base YANG identity for supported protection types that a backup + or bypass tunnel can provide as defined in [RFC4090]. + + te-class-type: + A type that represents the Diffserv-TE Class-Type as defined in + [RFC4124]. + + bc-type: + A type that represents Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints (BCs) as + defined in [RFC4124]. + + bc-model-type: + A base YANG identity for supported Diffserv-TE Bandwidth + Constraints Models as defined in [RFC4125], [RFC4126], and + [RFC4127]. + + te-bandwidth-requested-type: + An enumerated type for the different options to request bandwidth + for a specific tunnel. + + performance-metrics-attributes-packet: + A YANG grouping that contains the generic performance metrics and + additional packet-specific metrics. + +4. TE Types YANG Module + + The "ietf-te-types" module imports from the following modules: + + * "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in [RFC6991] + + * "ietf-routing-types" as defined in [RFC8294] + + In addition to [RFC6991] and [RFC8294], this module references the + following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: + [RFC3272], [RFC4090], [RFC4202], [RFC4328], [RFC4561], [RFC4657], + [RFC5817], [RFC6004], [RFC6511], [RFC7139], [RFC7308], [RFC7551], + [RFC7571], [RFC7579], and [G.709]. + + <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-types@2020-06-10.yang" + module ietf-te-types { + yang-version 1.1; + namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types"; + prefix te-types; + + import ietf-inet-types { + prefix inet; + reference + "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; + } + import ietf-yang-types { + prefix yang; + reference + "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; + } + import ietf-routing-types { + prefix rt-types; + reference + "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area"; + } + + organization + "IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) + Working Group"; + contact + "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/> + WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org> + + Editor: Tarek Saad + <mailto:tsaad@juniper.net> + + Editor: Rakesh Gandhi + <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com> + + Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram + <mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net> + + Editor: Xufeng Liu + <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> + + Editor: Igor Bryskin + <mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>"; + description + "This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful + YANG data type definitions specific to TE. The model fully + conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture + (NMDA). + + 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 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, + they appear in all capitals, as shown here. + + Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + authors of the code. All rights reserved. + + Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or + without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to + the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set + forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions + Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + + This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8776; see the + RFC itself for full legal notices."; + + revision 2020-06-10 { + description + "Latest revision of TE types."; + reference + "RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; + } + + /** + * Typedefs + */ + + typedef admin-group { + type yang:hex-string { + /* 01:02:03:04 */ + length "1..11"; + } + description + "Administrative group / resource class / color representation + in 'hex-string' type. + The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest + to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the + configured value may be omitted for brevity."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2 + RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering + RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic + Engineering (MPLS-TE)"; + } + + typedef admin-groups { + type union { + type admin-group; + type extended-admin-group; + } + description + "Derived types for TE administrative groups."; + } + + typedef extended-admin-group { + type yang:hex-string; + description + "Extended administrative group / resource class / color + representation in 'hex-string' type. + The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest + to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the + configured value may be omitted for brevity."; + reference + "RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic + Engineering (MPLS-TE)"; + } + + typedef path-attribute-flags { + type union { + type identityref { + base session-attributes-flags; + } + type identityref { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + } + } + description + "Path attributes flags type."; + } + + typedef performance-metrics-normality { + type enumeration { + enum unknown { + value 0; + description + "Unknown."; + } + enum normal { + value 1; + description + "Normal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is not set."; + } + enum abnormal { + value 2; + description + "Abnormal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is set."; + } + } + description + "Indicates whether a performance metric is normal (anomalous + bit not set), abnormal (anomalous bit set), or unknown."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + } + + typedef srlg { + type uint32; + description + "SRLG type."; + reference + "RFC 4203: OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized + Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + RFC 5307: IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized + Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + typedef te-common-status { + type enumeration { + enum up { + description + "Enabled."; + } + enum down { + description + "Disabled."; + } + enum testing { + description + "In some test mode."; + } + enum preparing-maintenance { + description + "The resource is disabled in the control plane to prepare + for a graceful shutdown for maintenance purposes."; + reference + "RFC 5817: Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS + Traffic Engineering Networks"; + } + enum maintenance { + description + "The resource is disabled in the data plane for maintenance + purposes."; + } + enum unknown { + description + "Status is unknown."; + } + } + description + "Defines a type representing the common states of a TE + resource."; + } + + typedef te-bandwidth { + type string { + pattern '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|' + + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?' + + '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|' + + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+' + + '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|' + + '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?' + + '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|' + + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*'; + } + description + "This is the generic bandwidth type. It is a string containing + a list of numbers separated by commas, where each of these + numbers can be non-negative decimal, hex integer, or + hex float: + + (dec | hex | float)[*(','(dec | hex | float))] + + For the packet-switching type, the string encoding follows + the type 'bandwidth-ieee-float32' as defined in RFC 8294 + (e.g., 0x1p10), where the units are in bytes per second. + + For the Optical Transport Network (OTN) switching type, + a list of integers can be used, such as '0,2,3,1', indicating + two ODU0s and one ODU3. ('ODU' stands for 'Optical Data + Unit'.) For Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM), + a list of pairs of slot numbers and widths can be used, + such as '0,2,3,3', indicating a frequency slot 0 with + slot width 2 and a frequency slot 3 with slot width 3. + Canonically, the string is represented as all lowercase and in + hex, where the prefix '0x' precedes the hex number."; + reference + "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area + ITU-T Recommendation G.709: Interfaces for the + optical transport network"; + } + + typedef te-ds-class { + type uint8 { + range "0..7"; + } + description + "The Differentiated Services Class-Type of traffic."; + reference + "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware + MPLS Traffic Engineering, Section 4.3.1"; + } + + typedef te-global-id { + type uint32; + description + "An identifier to uniquely identify an operator, which can be + either a provider or a client. + The definition of this type is taken from RFCs 6370 and 5003. + This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally + unique context for TE topologies."; + reference + "RFC 5003: Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for + Aggregation + RFC 6370: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers"; + } + + typedef te-hop-type { + type enumeration { + enum loose { + description + "A loose hop in an explicit path."; + } + enum strict { + description + "A strict hop in an explicit path."; + } + } + description + "Enumerated type for specifying loose or strict paths."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.3.3"; + } + + typedef te-link-access-type { + type enumeration { + enum point-to-point { + description + "The link is point-to-point."; + } + enum multi-access { + description + "The link is multi-access, including broadcast and NBMA."; + } + } + description + "Defines a type representing the access type of a TE link."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2"; + } + + typedef te-label-direction { + type enumeration { + enum forward { + description + "Label allocated for the forward LSP direction."; + } + enum reverse { + description + "Label allocated for the reverse LSP direction."; + } + } + description + "Enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse + label."; + } + + typedef te-link-direction { + type enumeration { + enum incoming { + description + "The explicit route represents an incoming link on + a node."; + } + enum outgoing { + description + "The explicit route represents an outgoing link on + a node."; + } + } + description + "Enumerated type for specifying the direction of a link on + a node."; + } + + typedef te-metric { + type uint32; + description + "TE metric."; + reference + "RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a + second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric"; + } + + typedef te-node-id { + type yang:dotted-quad; + description + "A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE + topology. + The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad + notation. + This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV + described in Section 2.4.1 of RFC 3630, the TE Router ID + described in Section 3 of RFC 6827, the Traffic Engineering + Router ID TLV described in Section 4.3 of RFC 5305, or the + TE Router ID TLV described in Section 3.2.1 of RFC 6119. + The reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a + mechanism such as that described in Section 6.2 of RFC 6827."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2, Section 2.4.1 + RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering, + Section 4.3 + RFC 6119: IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS, Section 3.2.1 + RFC 6827: Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) + Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols, Section 3"; + } + + typedef te-oper-status { + type te-common-status; + description + "Defines a type representing the operational status of + a TE resource."; + } + + typedef te-admin-status { + type te-common-status; + description + "Defines a type representing the administrative status of + a TE resource."; + } + + typedef te-path-disjointness { + type bits { + bit node { + position 0; + description + "Node disjoint."; + } + bit link { + position 1; + description + "Link disjoint."; + } + bit srlg { + position 2; + description + "SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) disjoint."; + } + } + description + "Type of the resource disjointness for a TE tunnel path."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + typedef te-recovery-status { + type enumeration { + enum normal { + description + "Both the recovery span and the working span are fully + allocated and active, data traffic is being + transported over (or selected from) the working + span, and no trigger events are reported."; + } + enum recovery-started { + description + "The recovery action has been started but not completed."; + } + enum recovery-succeeded { + description + "The recovery action has succeeded. The working span has + reported a failure/degrade condition, and the user traffic + is being transported (or selected) on the recovery span."; + } + enum recovery-failed { + description + "The recovery action has failed."; + } + enum reversion-started { + description + "The reversion has started."; + } + enum reversion-succeeded { + description + "The reversion action has succeeded."; + } + enum reversion-failed { + description + "The reversion has failed."; + } + enum recovery-unavailable { + description + "The recovery is unavailable, as a result of either an + operator's lockout command or a failure condition + detected on the recovery span."; + } + enum recovery-admin { + description + "The operator has issued a command to switch the user + traffic to the recovery span."; + } + enum wait-to-restore { + description + "The recovery domain is recovering from a failure/degrade + condition on the working span that is being controlled by + the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer."; + } + } + description + "Defines the status of a recovery action."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection"; + } + + typedef te-template-name { + type string { + pattern '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*'; + } + description + "A type for the name of a TE node template or TE link + template."; + } + + typedef te-topology-event-type { + type enumeration { + enum add { + value 0; + description + "A TE node or TE link has been added."; + } + enum remove { + value 1; + description + "A TE node or TE link has been removed."; + } + enum update { + value 2; + description + "A TE node or TE link has been updated."; + } + } + description + "TE event type for notifications."; + } + + typedef te-topology-id { + type union { + type string { + length "0"; + // empty string + } + type string { + pattern '([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+:)*' + + '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*'; + } + } + description + "An identifier for a topology. + It is optional to have one or more prefixes at the beginning, + separated by colons. The prefixes can be 'network-types' as + defined in the 'ietf-network' module in RFC 8345, to help the + user better understand the topology before further inquiry + is made."; + reference + "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies"; + } + + typedef te-tp-id { + type union { + type uint32; + // Unnumbered + type inet:ip-address; + // IPv4 or IPv6 address + } + description + "An identifier for a TE link endpoint on a node. + This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link identifier + as defined in RFCs 3630 and 5305."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2 + RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"; + } + + /* TE features */ + + feature p2mp-te { + description + "Indicates support for Point-to-Multipoint TE (P2MP-TE)."; + reference + "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - + Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE + Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; + } + + feature frr-te { + description + "Indicates support for TE Fast Reroute (FRR)."; + reference + "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + feature extended-admin-groups { + description + "Indicates support for TE link extended administrative + groups."; + reference + "RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic + Engineering (MPLS-TE)"; + } + + feature named-path-affinities { + description + "Indicates support for named path affinities."; + } + + feature named-extended-admin-groups { + description + "Indicates support for named extended administrative groups."; + } + + feature named-srlg-groups { + description + "Indicates support for named SRLG groups."; + } + + feature named-path-constraints { + description + "Indicates support for named path constraints."; + } + + feature path-optimization-metric { + description + "Indicates support for path optimization metrics."; + } + + feature path-optimization-objective-function { + description + "Indicates support for path optimization objective functions."; + } + + /* + * Identities + */ + + identity session-attributes-flags { + description + "Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags."; + } + + identity local-protection-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Local protection is desired."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.7.1"; + } + + identity se-style-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Shared explicit style, to allow the LSP to be established + and share resources with the old LSP."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity local-recording-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Label recording is desired."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.7.1"; + } + + identity bandwidth-protection-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Requests FRR bandwidth protection on LSRs, if present."; + reference + "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity node-protection-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Requests FRR node protection on LSRs, if present."; + reference + "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity path-reevaluation-request { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "This flag indicates that a path re-evaluation (of the + current path in use) is requested. Note that this does + not trigger any LSP reroutes but instead just signals a + request to evaluate whether a preferable path exists."; + reference + "RFC 4736: Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching + (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched + Path (LSP)"; + } + + identity soft-preemption-desired { + base session-attributes-flags; + description + "Soft preemption of LSP resources is desired."; + reference + "RFC 5712: MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption"; + } + + identity lsp-attributes-flags { + description + "Base identity for LSP attributes flags."; + } + + identity end-to-end-rerouting-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates end-to-end rerouting behavior for an LSP + undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to + specify the behavior of end-to-end LSP recovery for + established LSPs."; + reference + "RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS + RSVP-TE + RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment + Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity boundary-rerouting-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates boundary rerouting behavior for an LSP undergoing + establishment. This MAY also be used to specify + segment-based LSP recovery through nested crankback for + established LSPs. The boundary Area Border Router (ABR) / + Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) can decide to forward + the PathErr message upstream to either an upstream boundary + ABR/ASBR or the ingress LSR. Alternatively, it can try to + select another egress boundary LSR."; + reference + "RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS + RSVP-TE + RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment + Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity segment-based-rerouting-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates segment-based rerouting behavior for an LSP + undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to specify + segment-based LSP recovery for established LSPs."; + reference + "RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS + RSVP-TE + RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment + Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity lsp-integrity-required { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that LSP integrity is required."; + reference + "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - + Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE + Label Switched Paths (LSPs) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity contiguous-lsp-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that a contiguous LSP is desired."; + reference + "RFC 5151: Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- + Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) + Extensions + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity lsp-stitching-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that LSP stitching is desired."; + reference + "RFC 5150: Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized + Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity pre-planned-lsp-flag { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that the LSP MUST be provisioned in the + control plane only."; + reference + "RFC 6001: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for + Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN) + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity non-php-behavior-flag { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that non-PHP (non-Penultimate Hop Popping) behavior + for the LSP is desired."; + reference + "RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band + Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity oob-mapping-flag { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates that signaling of the egress binding information is + out of band (e.g., via the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP))."; + reference + "RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band + Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity entropy-label-capability { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Indicates entropy label capability."; + reference + "RFC 6790: The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding + RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO)"; + } + + identity oam-mep-entity-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "OAM Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP) entities + desired."; + reference + "RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration"; + } + + identity oam-mip-entity-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "OAM Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIP) + entities desired."; + reference + "RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration"; + } + + identity srlg-collection-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "SRLG collection desired."; + reference + "RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit + Route Object (ERO) + RFC 8001: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk + Link Group (SRLG) Information"; + } + + identity loopback-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "This flag indicates that a particular node on the LSP is + required to enter loopback mode. This can also be + used to specify the loopback state of the node."; + reference + "RFC 7571: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and + Loopback"; + } + + identity p2mp-te-tree-eval-request { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "P2MP-TE tree re-evaluation request."; + reference + "RFC 8149: RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed + Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths + (LSPs)"; + } + + identity rtm-set-desired { + base lsp-attributes-flags; + description + "Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag requested."; + reference + "RFC 8169: Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks"; + } + + identity link-protection-type { + description + "Base identity for the link protection type."; + } + + identity link-protection-unprotected { + base link-protection-type; + description + "Unprotected link type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity link-protection-extra-traffic { + base link-protection-type; + description + "Extra-Traffic protected link type."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity link-protection-shared { + base link-protection-type; + description + "Shared protected link type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity link-protection-1-for-1 { + base link-protection-type; + description + "One-for-one (1:1) protected link type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity link-protection-1-plus-1 { + base link-protection-type; + description + "One-plus-one (1+1) protected link type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity link-protection-enhanced { + base link-protection-type; + description + "A compound link protection type derived from the underlay + TE tunnel protection configuration supporting the TE link."; + } + + identity association-type { + description + "Base identity for the tunnel association."; + } + + identity association-type-recovery { + base association-type; + description + "Association type for recovery, used to associate LSPs of the + same tunnel for recovery."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery + RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions"; + } + + identity association-type-resource-sharing { + base association-type; + description + "Association type for resource sharing, used to enable + resource sharing during make-before-break."; + reference + "RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery + RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions"; + } + + identity association-type-double-sided-bidir { + base association-type; + description + "Association type for double-sided bidirectional LSPs, + used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels that are + independently configured on either endpoint."; + reference + "RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional + Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; + } + + identity association-type-single-sided-bidir { + base association-type; + description + "Association type for single-sided bidirectional LSPs, + used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels, where one + tunnel is configured on one side/endpoint and the other + tunnel is dynamically created on the other endpoint."; + reference + "RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions + RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional + Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; + } + + identity objective-function-type { + description + "Base objective function type."; + } + + identity of-minimize-cost-path { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for minimizing path cost."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity of-minimize-load-path { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for minimizing the load on one or more + paths."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity of-maximize-residual-bandwidth { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for maximizing residual bandwidth."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth + consumption."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that + is carrying the highest load."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity of-minimize-cost-path-set { + base objective-function-type; + description + "Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity path-computation-method { + description + "Base identity for supported path computation mechanisms."; + } + + identity path-locally-computed { + base path-computation-method; + description + "Indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the + path is computed by the local LER."; + reference + "RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic + Engineering, Section 5.4"; + } + + identity path-externally-queried { + base path-computation-method; + description + "Constrained-path LSP in which the path is obtained by + querying an external source, such as a PCE server. + In the case that an LSP is defined to be externally queried, + it may also have associated explicit definitions (provided + to the external source to aid computation). The path that is + returned by the external source may require further local + computation on the device."; + reference + "RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic + Engineering + RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication + Protocol Generic Requirements"; + } + + identity path-explicitly-defined { + base path-computation-method; + description + "Constrained-path LSP in which the path is + explicitly specified as a collection of strict and/or loose + hops."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic + Engineering"; + } + + identity lsp-metric-type { + description + "Base identity for the LSP metric specification types."; + } + + identity lsp-metric-relative { + base lsp-metric-type; + description + "The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity + refers is specified as a value relative to the IGP metric + cost to the LSP's tail end."; + reference + "RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication + Protocol Generic Requirements"; + } + + identity lsp-metric-absolute { + base lsp-metric-type; + description + "The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity + refers is specified as an absolute value."; + reference + "RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication + Protocol Generic Requirements"; + } + + identity lsp-metric-inherited { + base lsp-metric-type; + description + "The metric for the LSPs to which this identity refers is + not specified explicitly; rather, it is directly inherited + from the IGP cost."; + reference + "RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication + Protocol Generic Requirements"; + } + + identity te-tunnel-type { + description + "Base identity from which specific tunnel types are derived."; + } + + identity te-tunnel-p2p { + base te-tunnel-type; + description + "TE Point-to-Point (P2P) tunnel type."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity te-tunnel-p2mp { + base te-tunnel-type; + description + "TE P2MP tunnel type."; + reference + "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - + Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE + Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; + } + + identity tunnel-action-type { + description + "Base identity from which specific tunnel action types + are derived."; + } + + identity tunnel-action-resetup { + base tunnel-action-type; + description + "TE tunnel action that tears down the tunnel's current LSP + (if any) and attempts to re-establish a new LSP."; + } + + identity tunnel-action-reoptimize { + base tunnel-action-type; + description + "TE tunnel action that reoptimizes the placement of the + tunnel LSP(s)."; + } + + identity tunnel-action-switchpath { + base tunnel-action-type; + description + "TE tunnel action that switches the tunnel's LSP to use the + specified path."; + } + + identity te-action-result { + description + "Base identity from which specific TE action results + are derived."; + } + + identity te-action-success { + base te-action-result; + description + "TE action was successful."; + } + + identity te-action-fail { + base te-action-result; + description + "TE action failed."; + } + + identity tunnel-action-inprogress { + base te-action-result; + description + "TE action is in progress."; + } + + identity tunnel-admin-state-type { + description + "Base identity for TE tunnel administrative states."; + } + + identity tunnel-admin-state-up { + base tunnel-admin-state-type; + description + "Tunnel's administrative state is up."; + } + + identity tunnel-admin-state-down { + base tunnel-admin-state-type; + description + "Tunnel's administrative state is down."; + } + + identity tunnel-state-type { + description + "Base identity for TE tunnel states."; + } + + identity tunnel-state-up { + base tunnel-state-type; + description + "Tunnel's state is up."; + } + + identity tunnel-state-down { + base tunnel-state-type; + description + "Tunnel's state is down."; + } + + identity lsp-state-type { + description + "Base identity for TE LSP states."; + } + + identity lsp-path-computing { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State path computation is in progress."; + } + + identity lsp-path-computation-ok { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State path computation was successful."; + } + + identity lsp-path-computation-failed { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State path computation failed."; + } + + identity lsp-state-setting-up { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State is being set up."; + } + + identity lsp-state-setup-ok { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State setup was successful."; + } + + identity lsp-state-setup-failed { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State setup failed."; + } + + identity lsp-state-up { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State is up."; + } + + identity lsp-state-tearing-down { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State is being torn down."; + } + + identity lsp-state-down { + base lsp-state-type; + description + "State is down."; + } + + identity path-invalidation-action-type { + description + "Base identity for TE path invalidation action types."; + } + + identity path-invalidation-action-drop { + base path-invalidation-action-type; + description + "Upon invalidation of the TE tunnel path, the tunnel remains + valid, but any packet mapped over the tunnel is dropped."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 2.5"; + } + + identity path-invalidation-action-teardown { + base path-invalidation-action-type; + description + "TE path invalidation action teardown."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 2.5"; + } + + identity lsp-restoration-type { + description + "Base identity from which LSP restoration types are derived."; + } + + identity lsp-restoration-restore-any { + base lsp-restoration-type; + description + "Any LSP affected by a failure is restored."; + } + + identity lsp-restoration-restore-all { + base lsp-restoration-type; + description + "Affected LSPs are restored after all LSPs of the tunnel are + broken."; + } + + identity restoration-scheme-type { + description + "Base identity for LSP restoration schemes."; + } + + identity restoration-scheme-preconfigured { + base restoration-scheme-type; + description + "Restoration LSP is preconfigured prior to the failure."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity restoration-scheme-precomputed { + base restoration-scheme-type; + description + "Restoration LSP is precomputed prior to the failure."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity restoration-scheme-presignaled { + base restoration-scheme-type; + description + "Restoration LSP is presignaled prior to the failure."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-type { + description + "Base identity from which LSP protection types are derived."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-unprotected { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'Unprotected' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-reroute-extra { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'(Full) Rerouting' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-reroute { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'Rerouting without Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-1-for-n { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-1-for-1 { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "LSP protection '1:1 Protection Type'."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-unidir-1-plus-1 { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'1+1 Unidirectional Protection' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-bidir-1-plus-1 { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "'1+1 Bidirectional Protection' LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-extra-traffic { + base lsp-protection-type; + description + "Extra-Traffic LSP protection type."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity lsp-protection-state { + description + "Base identity of protection states for reporting purposes."; + } + + identity normal { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "Normal state."; + } + + identity signal-fail-of-protection { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "The protection transport entity has a signal fail condition + that is of higher priority than the forced switchover + command."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity lockout-of-protection { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "A Loss of Protection (LoP) command is active."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity forced-switch { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "A forced switchover command is active."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity signal-fail { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "There is a signal fail condition on either the working path + or the protection path."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity signal-degrade { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "There is a signal degrade condition on either the working + path or the protection path."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity manual-switch { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "A manual switchover command is active."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity wait-to-restore { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "A WTR timer is running."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity do-not-revert { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "A Do Not Revert (DNR) condition is active because of + non-revertive behavior."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity failure-of-protocol { + base lsp-protection-state; + description + "LSP protection is not working because of a protocol failure + condition."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity protection-external-commands { + description + "Base identity from which protection-related external commands + used for troubleshooting purposes are derived."; + } + + identity action-freeze { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator + command that prevents any switchover action from being taken + and, as such, freezes the current state."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity clear-freeze { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "An action that clears the active freeze state."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity action-lockout-of-normal { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator + command to ensure that the normal traffic is not allowed + to use the protection transport entity."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity clear-lockout-of-normal { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "An action that clears the active lockout of the + normal state."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity action-lockout-of-protection { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator + command to ensure that the protection transport entity is + temporarily not available to transport a traffic signal + (either normal or Extra-Traffic)."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity action-forced-switch { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch + the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or the + null signal to the protection transport entity, unless a + switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity action-manual-switch { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch + the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or + the null signal to the protection transport entity, unless + a fault condition exists on other transport entities or a + switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity action-exercise { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "An action that starts testing whether or not APS communication + is operating correctly. It is of lower priority than any + other state or command."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity clear { + base protection-external-commands; + description + "An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a + protection, forced switchover, manual switchover, WTR state, + or exercise command."; + reference + "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology + for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + + identity switching-capabilities { + description + "Base identity for interface switching capabilities."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity switching-psc1 { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity switching-evpl { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)."; + reference + "RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet + Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching"; + } + + identity switching-l2sc { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity switching-tdm { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity switching-otn { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "OTN-TDM capable."; + reference + "RFC 7138: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS + Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks"; + } + + identity switching-dcsc { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)."; + reference + "RFC 6002: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel + Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions"; + } + + identity switching-lsc { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity switching-fsc { + base switching-capabilities; + description + "Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-types { + description + "Base identity for encoding types."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-packet { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Packet LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-ethernet { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Ethernet LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-pdh { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "ANSI/ETSI PDH LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-sdh { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI T1.105 LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-digital-wrapper { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Digital Wrapper LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-lambda { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Lambda (photonic) LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-fiber { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Fiber LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-fiber-channel { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "FiberChannel LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Functional Description"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-oduk { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks + Control"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-optical-channel { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "G.709 Optical Channel LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks + Control"; + } + + identity lsp-encoding-line { + base lsp-encoding-types; + description + "Line (e.g., 8B/10B) LSP encoding."; + reference + "RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro + Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching"; + } + + identity path-signaling-type { + description + "Base identity from which specific LSP path setup types + are derived."; + } + + identity path-setup-static { + base path-signaling-type; + description + "Static LSP provisioning path setup."; + } + + identity path-setup-rsvp { + base path-signaling-type; + description + "RSVP-TE signaling path setup."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity path-setup-sr { + base path-signaling-type; + description + "Segment-routing path setup."; + } + + identity path-scope-type { + description + "Base identity from which specific path scope types are + derived."; + } + + identity path-scope-segment { + base path-scope-type; + description + "Path scope segment."; + reference + "RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery"; + } + + identity path-scope-end-to-end { + base path-scope-type; + description + "Path scope end to end."; + reference + "RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery"; + } + + identity route-usage-type { + description + "Base identity for route usage."; + } + + identity route-include-object { + base route-usage-type; + description + "'Include route' object."; + } + + identity route-exclude-object { + base route-usage-type; + description + "'Exclude route' object."; + reference + "RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation + Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + + identity route-exclude-srlg { + base route-usage-type; + description + "Excludes SRLGs."; + reference + "RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation + Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + + identity path-metric-type { + description + "Base identity for the path metric type."; + } + + identity path-metric-te { + base path-metric-type; + description + "TE path metric."; + reference + "RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a + second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric"; + } + + identity path-metric-igp { + base path-metric-type; + description + "IGP path metric."; + reference + "RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a + second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric"; + } + + identity path-metric-hop { + base path-metric-type; + description + "Hop path metric."; + } + + identity path-metric-delay-average { + base path-metric-type; + description + "Average unidirectional link delay."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + } + + identity path-metric-delay-minimum { + base path-metric-type; + description + "Minimum unidirectional link delay."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + } + + identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth { + base path-metric-type; + description + "Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth, which is defined to be + Maximum Bandwidth (RFC 3630) minus the bandwidth currently + allocated to LSPs."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2 + RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + } + + identity path-metric-optimize-includes { + base path-metric-type; + description + "A metric that optimizes the number of included resources + specified in a set."; + } + + identity path-metric-optimize-excludes { + base path-metric-type; + description + "A metric that optimizes to a maximum the number of excluded + resources specified in a set."; + } + + identity path-tiebreaker-type { + description + "Base identity for the path tiebreaker type."; + } + + identity path-tiebreaker-minfill { + base path-tiebreaker-type; + description + "Min-Fill LSP path placement."; + } + + identity path-tiebreaker-maxfill { + base path-tiebreaker-type; + description + "Max-Fill LSP path placement."; + } + + identity path-tiebreaker-random { + base path-tiebreaker-type; + description + "Random LSP path placement."; + } + + identity resource-affinities-type { + description + "Base identity for resource class affinities."; + reference + "RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS"; + } + + identity resource-aff-include-all { + base resource-affinities-type; + description + "The set of attribute filters associated with a + tunnel, all of which must be present for a link + to be acceptable."; + reference + "RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS + RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity resource-aff-include-any { + base resource-affinities-type; + description + "The set of attribute filters associated with a + tunnel, any of which must be present for a link + to be acceptable."; + reference + "RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS + RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity resource-aff-exclude-any { + base resource-affinities-type; + description + "The set of attribute filters associated with a + tunnel, any of which renders a link unacceptable."; + reference + "RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS + RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + + identity te-optimization-criterion { + description + "Base identity for the TE optimization criteria."; + reference + "RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic + Engineering"; + } + + identity not-optimized { + base te-optimization-criterion; + description + "Optimization is not applied."; + } + + identity cost { + base te-optimization-criterion; + description + "Optimized on cost."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity delay { + base te-optimization-criterion; + description + "Optimized on delay."; + reference + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; + } + + identity path-computation-srlg-type { + description + "Base identity for SRLG path computation."; + } + + identity srlg-ignore { + base path-computation-srlg-type; + description + "Ignores SRLGs in the path computation."; + } + + identity srlg-strict { + base path-computation-srlg-type; + description + "Includes a strict SRLG check in the path computation."; + } + + identity srlg-preferred { + base path-computation-srlg-type; + description + "Includes a preferred SRLG check in the path computation."; + } + + identity srlg-weighted { + base path-computation-srlg-type; + description + "Includes a weighted SRLG check in the path computation."; + } + + /** + * TE bandwidth groupings + **/ + + grouping te-bandwidth { + description + "This grouping defines the generic TE bandwidth. + For some known data-plane technologies, specific modeling + structures are specified. The string-encoded 'te-bandwidth' + type is used for unspecified technologies. + The modeling structure can be augmented later for other + technologies."; + container te-bandwidth { + description + "Container that specifies TE bandwidth. The choices + can be augmented for specific data-plane technologies."; + choice technology { + default "generic"; + description + "Data-plane technology type."; + case generic { + leaf generic { + type te-bandwidth; + description + "Bandwidth specified in a generic format."; + } + } + } + } + } + + /** + * TE label groupings + **/ + + grouping te-label { + description + "This grouping defines the generic TE label. + The modeling structure can be augmented for each technology. + For unspecified technologies, 'rt-types:generalized-label' + is used."; + container te-label { + description + "Container that specifies the TE label. The choices can + be augmented for specific data-plane technologies."; + choice technology { + default "generic"; + description + "Data-plane technology type."; + case generic { + leaf generic { + type rt-types:generalized-label; + description + "TE label specified in a generic format."; + } + } + } + leaf direction { + type te-label-direction; + default "forward"; + description + "Label direction."; + } + } + } + + grouping te-topology-identifier { + description + "Augmentation for a TE topology."; + container te-topology-identifier { + description + "TE topology identifier container."; + leaf provider-id { + type te-global-id; + default "0"; + description + "An identifier to uniquely identify a provider. + If omitted, it assumes that the topology provider ID + value = 0 (the default)."; + } + leaf client-id { + type te-global-id; + default "0"; + description + "An identifier to uniquely identify a client. + If omitted, it assumes that the topology client ID + value = 0 (the default)."; + } + leaf topology-id { + type te-topology-id; + default ""; + description + "When the datastore contains several topologies, + 'topology-id' distinguishes between them. If omitted, + the default (empty) string for this leaf is assumed."; + } + } + } + + /** + * TE performance metrics groupings + **/ + + grouping performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss { + description + "Performance Metrics (PM) information in real time that can + be applicable to links or connections. PM defined in this + grouping are applicable to generic TE PM as well as packet TE + PM."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + leaf one-way-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + description + "One-way delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + description + "One-way delay normality."; + } + } + + grouping performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss { + description + "PM information in real time that can be applicable to links or + connections. PM defined in this grouping are applicable to + generic TE PM as well as packet TE PM."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + leaf two-way-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + description + "Two-way delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + description + "Two-way delay normality."; + } + } + + grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth { + description + "PM information in real time that can be applicable to links. + PM defined in this grouping are applicable to generic TE PM + as well as packet TE PM."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from + Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and + provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2"; + } + leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Residual bandwidth normality."; + } + leaf one-way-available-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual + bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the + actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a + bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the + sum of the component link available bandwidths."; + } + leaf one-way-available-bandwidth-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Available bandwidth normality."; + } + leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual + utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router). + For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to + be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations."; + } + leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Bandwidth utilization normality."; + } + } + + grouping one-way-performance-metrics { + description + "One-way PM throttle grouping."; + leaf one-way-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "One-way delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from + Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and + provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes."; + reference + "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + Version 2"; + } + leaf one-way-available-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual + bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the + actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a + bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the + sum of the component link available bandwidths."; + } + leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth { + type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; + units "bytes per second"; + default "0x0p0"; + description + "Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual + utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router). + For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to + be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations."; + } + } + + grouping two-way-performance-metrics { + description + "Two-way PM throttle grouping."; + leaf two-way-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + } + + grouping performance-metrics-thresholds { + description + "Grouping for configurable thresholds for measured + attributes."; + uses one-way-performance-metrics; + uses two-way-performance-metrics; + } + + grouping performance-metrics-attributes { + description + "Contains PM attributes."; + container performance-metrics-one-way { + description + "One-way link performance information in real time."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + uses performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss; + uses performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth; + } + container performance-metrics-two-way { + description + "Two-way link performance information in real time."; + reference + "RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS + Networks"; + uses performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss; + } + } + + grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container { + description + "Controls PM throttling."; + container throttle { + must 'suppression-interval >= measure-interval' { + error-message "'suppression-interval' cannot be less than " + + "'measure-interval'."; + description + "Constraint on 'suppression-interval' and + 'measure-interval'."; + } + description + "Link performance information in real time."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions"; + leaf one-way-delay-offset { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Offset value to be added to the measured delay value."; + } + leaf measure-interval { + type uint32; + default "30"; + description + "Interval, in seconds, to measure the extended metric + values."; + } + leaf advertisement-interval { + type uint32; + default "0"; + description + "Interval, in seconds, to advertise the extended metric + values."; + } + leaf suppression-interval { + type uint32 { + range "1..max"; + } + default "120"; + description + "Interval, in seconds, to suppress advertisement of the + extended metric values."; + reference + "RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions, Section 6"; + } + container threshold-out { + uses performance-metrics-thresholds; + description + "If the measured parameter falls outside an upper bound + for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound + for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised + value is not already outside that bound, an 'anomalous' + announcement (anomalous bit set) will be triggered."; + } + container threshold-in { + uses performance-metrics-thresholds; + description + "If the measured parameter falls inside an upper bound + for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound + for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised + value is not already inside that bound, a 'normal' + announcement (anomalous bit cleared) will be triggered."; + } + container threshold-accelerated-advertisement { + description + "When the difference between the last advertised value and + the current measured value exceeds this threshold, an + 'anomalous' announcement (anomalous bit set) will be + triggered."; + uses performance-metrics-thresholds; + } + } + } + + /** + * TE tunnel generic groupings + **/ + + grouping explicit-route-hop { + description + "The explicit route entry grouping."; + choice type { + description + "The explicit route entry type."; + case numbered-node-hop { + container numbered-node-hop { + leaf node-id { + type te-node-id; + mandatory true; + description + "The identifier of a node in the TE topology."; + } + leaf hop-type { + type te-hop-type; + default "strict"; + description + "Strict or loose hop."; + } + description + "Numbered node route hop."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE + RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource + ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + } + case numbered-link-hop { + container numbered-link-hop { + leaf link-tp-id { + type te-tp-id; + mandatory true; + description + "TE Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier."; + } + leaf hop-type { + type te-hop-type; + default "strict"; + description + "Strict or loose hop."; + } + leaf direction { + type te-link-direction; + default "outgoing"; + description + "Link route object direction."; + } + description + "Numbered link explicit route hop."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE + RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource + ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + } + case unnumbered-link-hop { + container unnumbered-link-hop { + leaf link-tp-id { + type te-tp-id; + mandatory true; + description + "TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID + and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered + TE link."; + } + leaf node-id { + type te-node-id; + mandatory true; + description + "The identifier of a node in the TE topology."; + } + leaf hop-type { + type te-hop-type; + default "strict"; + description + "Strict or loose hop."; + } + leaf direction { + type te-link-direction; + default "outgoing"; + description + "Link route object direction."; + } + description + "Unnumbered link explicit route hop."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, + Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE + RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource + ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + } + case as-number { + container as-number-hop { + leaf as-number { + type inet:as-number; + mandatory true; + description + "The Autonomous System (AS) number."; + } + leaf hop-type { + type te-hop-type; + default "strict"; + description + "Strict or loose hop."; + } + description + "AS explicit route hop."; + } + } + case label { + container label-hop { + description + "Label hop type."; + uses te-label; + } + description + "The label explicit route hop type."; + } + } + } + + grouping record-route-state { + description + "The Record Route grouping."; + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Record Route hop index. The index is used to + identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + choice type { + description + "The Record Route entry type."; + case numbered-node-hop { + container numbered-node-hop { + description + "Numbered node route hop container."; + leaf node-id { + type te-node-id; + mandatory true; + description + "The identifier of a node in the TE topology."; + } + leaf-list flags { + type path-attribute-flags; + description + "Path attributes flags."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP + Tunnels + RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) + Node-Id Sub-Object"; + } + } + description + "Numbered node route hop."; + } + case numbered-link-hop { + container numbered-link-hop { + description + "Numbered link route hop container."; + leaf link-tp-id { + type te-tp-id; + mandatory true; + description + "Numbered TE LTP identifier."; + } + leaf-list flags { + type path-attribute-flags; + description + "Path attributes flags."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP + Tunnels + RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) + Node-Id Sub-Object"; + } + } + description + "Numbered link route hop."; + } + case unnumbered-link-hop { + container unnumbered-link-hop { + leaf link-tp-id { + type te-tp-id; + mandatory true; + description + "TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID + and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered + TE link."; + } + leaf node-id { + type te-node-id; + description + "The identifier of a node in the TE topology."; + } + leaf-list flags { + type path-attribute-flags; + description + "Path attributes flags."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP + Tunnels + RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) + Node-Id Sub-Object"; + } + description + "Unnumbered link Record Route hop."; + reference + "RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource + ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; + } + description + "Unnumbered link route hop."; + } + case label { + container label-hop { + description + "Label route hop type."; + uses te-label; + leaf-list flags { + type path-attribute-flags; + description + "Path attributes flags."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP + Tunnels + RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) + Node-Id Sub-Object"; + } + } + description + "The label Record Route entry types."; + } + } + } + + grouping label-restriction-info { + description + "Label set item information."; + leaf restriction { + type enumeration { + enum inclusive { + description + "The label or label range is inclusive."; + } + enum exclusive { + description + "The label or label range is exclusive."; + } + } + default "inclusive"; + description + "Indicates whether the list item is inclusive or exclusive."; + } + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "The index of the label restriction list entry."; + } + container label-start { + must "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and" + + " not(te-label/direction))" + + " or " + + "(../label-end/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)" + + " or " + + "(not(te-label/direction) and" + + " (../label-end/te-label/direction = 'forward'))" + + " or " + + "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and" + + " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" { + error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the " + + "same direction."; + } + description + "This is the starting label if a label range is specified. + This is the label value if a single label is specified, + in which case the 'label-end' attribute is not set."; + uses te-label; + } + container label-end { + must "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and" + + " not(te-label/direction))" + + " or " + + "(../label-start/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)" + + " or " + + "(not(te-label/direction) and" + + " (../label-start/te-label/direction = 'forward'))" + + " or " + + "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and" + + " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" { + error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the " + + "same direction."; + } + description + "This is the ending label if a label range is specified. + This attribute is not set if a single label is specified."; + uses te-label; + } + container label-step { + description + "The step increment between labels in the label range. + The label start/end values will have to be consistent + with the sign of label step. For example, + 'label-start' < 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' > 0 + 'label-start' > 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' < 0."; + choice technology { + default "generic"; + description + "Data-plane technology type."; + case generic { + leaf generic { + type int32; + default "1"; + description + "Label range step."; + } + } + } + } + leaf range-bitmap { + type yang:hex-string; + description + "When there are gaps between 'label-start' and 'label-end', + this attribute is used to specify the positions + of the used labels. This is represented in big endian as + 'hex-string'. + The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest + to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the + configured value may be omitted for brevity. + Each bit position in the 'range-bitmap' 'hex-string' maps + to a label in the range derived from 'label-start'. + + For example, assuming that 'label-start' = 16000 and + 'range-bitmap' = 0x01000001, then: + + - bit position (0) is set, and the corresponding mapped + label from the range is 16000 + (0 * 'label-step') or + 16000 for default 'label-step' = 1. + - bit position (24) is set, and the corresponding mapped + label from the range is 16000 + (24 * 'label-step') or + 16024 for default 'label-step' = 1."; + } + } + + grouping label-set-info { + description + "Grouping for the list of label restrictions specifying what + labels may or may not be used."; + container label-restrictions { + description + "The label restrictions container."; + list label-restriction { + key "index"; + description + "The absence of the label restrictions container implies + that all labels are acceptable; otherwise, only restricted + labels are available."; + reference + "RFC 7579: General Network Element Constraint Encoding + for GMPLS-Controlled Networks"; + uses label-restriction-info; + } + } + } + + grouping optimization-metric-entry { + description + "Optimization metrics configuration grouping."; + leaf metric-type { + type identityref { + base path-metric-type; + } + description + "Identifies the 'metric-type' that the path computation + process uses for optimization."; + } + leaf weight { + type uint8; + default "1"; + description + "TE path metric normalization weight."; + } + container explicit-route-exclude-objects { + when "../metric-type = " + + "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-excludes'"; + description + "Container for the 'exclude route' object list."; + uses path-route-exclude-objects; + } + container explicit-route-include-objects { + when "../metric-type = " + + "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-includes'"; + description + "Container for the 'include route' object list."; + uses path-route-include-objects; + } + } + + grouping common-constraints { + description + "Common constraints grouping that can be set on + a constraint set or directly on the tunnel."; + uses te-bandwidth { + description + "A requested bandwidth to use for path computation."; + } + leaf link-protection { + type identityref { + base link-protection-type; + } + default "te-types:link-protection-unprotected"; + description + "Link protection type required for the links included + in the computed path."; + reference + "RFC 4202: Routing Extensions in Support of + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; + } + leaf setup-priority { + type uint8 { + range "0..7"; + } + default "7"; + description + "TE LSP requested setup priority."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + leaf hold-priority { + type uint8 { + range "0..7"; + } + default "7"; + description + "TE LSP requested hold priority."; + reference + "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; + } + leaf signaling-type { + type identityref { + base path-signaling-type; + } + default "te-types:path-setup-rsvp"; + description + "TE tunnel path signaling type."; + } + } + + grouping tunnel-constraints { + description + "Tunnel constraints grouping that can be set on + a constraint set or directly on the tunnel."; + uses te-topology-identifier; + uses common-constraints; + } + + grouping path-constraints-route-objects { + description + "List of route entries to be included or excluded when + performing the path computation."; + container explicit-route-objects-always { + description + "Container for the 'exclude route' object list."; + list route-object-exclude-always { + key "index"; + ordered-by user; + description + "List of route objects to always exclude from the path + computation."; + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Explicit Route Object index. The index is used to + identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + uses explicit-route-hop; + } + list route-object-include-exclude { + key "index"; + ordered-by user; + description + "List of route objects to include or exclude in the path + computation."; + leaf explicit-route-usage { + type identityref { + base route-usage-type; + } + default "te-types:route-include-object"; + description + "Indicates whether to include or exclude the + route object. The default is to include it."; + } + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Route object include-exclude index. The index is used + to identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + uses explicit-route-hop { + augment "type" { + case srlg { + container srlg { + description + "SRLG container."; + leaf srlg { + type uint32; + description + "SRLG value."; + } + } + description + "An SRLG value to be included or excluded."; + } + description + "Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG + exclusion."; + } + } + } + } + } + + grouping path-route-include-objects { + description + "List of route objects to be included when performing + the path computation."; + list route-object-include-object { + key "index"; + ordered-by user; + description + "List of Explicit Route Objects to be included in the + path computation."; + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Route object entry index. The index is used to + identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + uses explicit-route-hop; + } + } + + grouping path-route-exclude-objects { + description + "List of route objects to be excluded when performing + the path computation."; + list route-object-exclude-object { + key "index"; + ordered-by user; + description + "List of Explicit Route Objects to be excluded in the + path computation."; + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Route object entry index. The index is used to + identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + uses explicit-route-hop { + augment "type" { + case srlg { + container srlg { + description + "SRLG container."; + leaf srlg { + type uint32; + description + "SRLG value."; + } + } + description + "An SRLG value to be included or excluded."; + } + description + "Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG + exclusion."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping generic-path-metric-bounds { + description + "TE path metric bounds grouping."; + container path-metric-bounds { + description + "TE path metric bounds container."; + list path-metric-bound { + key "metric-type"; + description + "List of TE path metric bounds."; + leaf metric-type { + type identityref { + base path-metric-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in the list of 'metric-type' items + bound for the TE path."; + } + leaf upper-bound { + type uint64; + default "0"; + description + "Upper bound on the end-to-end TE path metric. A zero + indicates an unbounded upper limit for the specific + 'metric-type'."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping generic-path-optimization { + description + "TE generic path optimization grouping."; + container optimizations { + description + "The objective function container that includes + attributes to impose when computing a TE path."; + choice algorithm { + description + "Optimizations algorithm."; + case metric { + if-feature "path-optimization-metric"; + /* Optimize by metric */ + list optimization-metric { + key "metric-type"; + description + "TE path metric type."; + uses optimization-metric-entry; + } + /* Tiebreakers */ + container tiebreakers { + description + "Container for the list of tiebreakers."; + list tiebreaker { + key "tiebreaker-type"; + description + "The list of tiebreaker criteria to apply on an + equally favored set of paths, in order to pick + the best."; + leaf tiebreaker-type { + type identityref { + base path-metric-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in the list of tiebreakers."; + } + } + } + } + case objective-function { + if-feature "path-optimization-objective-function"; + /* Objective functions */ + container objective-function { + description + "The objective function container that includes + attributes to impose when computing a TE path."; + leaf objective-function-type { + type identityref { + base objective-function-type; + } + default "te-types:of-minimize-cost-path"; + description + "Objective function entry."; + } + } + } + } + } + } + + grouping generic-path-affinities { + description + "Path affinities grouping."; + container path-affinities-values { + description + "Path affinities represented as values."; + list path-affinities-value { + key "usage"; + description + "List of named affinity constraints."; + leaf usage { + type identityref { + base resource-affinities-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in the list of value affinity + constraints."; + } + leaf value { + type admin-groups; + default ""; + description + "The affinity value. The default is empty."; + } + } + } + container path-affinity-names { + description + "Path affinities represented as names."; + list path-affinity-name { + key "usage"; + description + "List of named affinity constraints."; + leaf usage { + type identityref { + base resource-affinities-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in the list of named affinity + constraints."; + } + list affinity-name { + key "name"; + leaf name { + type string; + description + "Identifies a named affinity entry."; + } + description + "List of named affinities."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping generic-path-srlgs { + description + "Path SRLG grouping."; + container path-srlgs-lists { + description + "Path SRLG properties container."; + list path-srlgs-list { + key "usage"; + description + "List of SRLG values to be included or excluded."; + leaf usage { + type identityref { + base route-usage-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in a list of SRLGs to either + include or exclude."; + } + leaf-list values { + type srlg; + description + "List of SRLG values."; + } + } + } + container path-srlgs-names { + description + "Container for the list of named SRLGs."; + list path-srlgs-name { + key "usage"; + description + "List of named SRLGs to be included or excluded."; + leaf usage { + type identityref { + base route-usage-type; + } + description + "Identifies an entry in a list of named SRLGs to either + include or exclude."; + } + leaf-list names { + type string; + description + "List of named SRLGs."; + } + } + } + } + + grouping generic-path-disjointness { + description + "Path disjointness grouping."; + leaf disjointness { + type te-path-disjointness; + description + "The type of resource disjointness. + When configured for a primary path, the disjointness level + applies to all secondary LSPs. When configured for a + secondary path, the disjointness level overrides the level + configured for the primary path."; + } + } + + grouping common-path-constraints-attributes { + description + "Common path constraints configuration grouping."; + uses common-constraints; + uses generic-path-metric-bounds; + uses generic-path-affinities; + uses generic-path-srlgs; + } + + grouping generic-path-constraints { + description + "Global named path constraints configuration grouping."; + container path-constraints { + description + "TE named path constraints container."; + uses common-path-constraints-attributes; + uses generic-path-disjointness; + } + } + + grouping generic-path-properties { + description + "TE generic path properties grouping."; + container path-properties { + config false; + description + "The TE path properties."; + list path-metric { + key "metric-type"; + description + "TE path metric type."; + leaf metric-type { + type identityref { + base path-metric-type; + } + description + "TE path metric type."; + } + leaf accumulative-value { + type uint64; + description + "TE path metric accumulative value."; + } + } + uses generic-path-affinities; + uses generic-path-srlgs; + container path-route-objects { + description + "Container for the list of route objects either returned by + the computation engine or actually used by an LSP."; + list path-route-object { + key "index"; + ordered-by user; + description + "List of route objects either returned by the computation + engine or actually used by an LSP."; + leaf index { + type uint32; + description + "Route object entry index. The index is used to + identify an entry in the list. The order of entries + is defined by the user without relying on key + values."; + } + uses explicit-route-hop; + } + } + } + } + } + <CODE ENDS> + +5. Packet TE Types YANG Module + + The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types" + module defined in Section 4 of this document. + + <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-packet-types@2020-06-10.yang" + module ietf-te-packet-types { + yang-version 1.1; + namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types"; + prefix te-packet-types; + + /* Import TE generic types */ + + import ietf-te-types { + prefix te-types; + reference + "RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; + } + + organization + "IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) + Working Group"; + contact + "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/> + WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org> + + Editor: Tarek Saad + <mailto:tsaad@juniper.net> + + Editor: Rakesh Gandhi + <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com> + + Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram + <mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net> + + Editor: Xufeng Liu + <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> + + Editor: Igor Bryskin + <mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>"; + description + "This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful YANG + data type definitions specific to MPLS TE. The model fully + conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture + (NMDA). + + Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + authors of the code. All rights reserved. + + Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or + without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to + the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set + forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions + Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + + This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8776; see the + RFC itself for full legal notices."; + + revision 2020-06-10 { + description + "Latest revision of TE MPLS types."; + reference + "RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; + } + + /** + * Typedefs + */ + + typedef te-bandwidth-requested-type { + type enumeration { + enum specified { + description + "Bandwidth is explicitly specified."; + } + enum auto { + description + "Bandwidth is automatically computed."; + } + } + description + "Enumerated type for specifying whether bandwidth is + explicitly specified or automatically computed."; + } + + typedef te-class-type { + type uint8; + description + "Diffserv-TE Class-Type. Defines a set of Traffic Trunks + crossing a link that is governed by a specific set of + bandwidth constraints. Class-Type is used for the purposes + of link bandwidth allocation, constraint-based routing, and + admission control."; + reference + "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware + MPLS Traffic Engineering"; + } + + typedef bc-type { + type uint8 { + range "0..7"; + } + description + "Diffserv-TE bandwidth constraints as defined in RFC 4124."; + reference + "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware + MPLS Traffic Engineering"; + } + + typedef bandwidth-kbps { + type uint64; + units "Kbps"; + description + "Bandwidth values, expressed in kilobits per second."; + } + + typedef bandwidth-mbps { + type uint64; + units "Mbps"; + description + "Bandwidth values, expressed in megabits per second."; + } + + typedef bandwidth-gbps { + type uint64; + units "Gbps"; + description + "Bandwidth values, expressed in gigabits per second."; + } + + identity backup-protection-type { + description + "Base identity for the backup protection type."; + } + + identity backup-protection-link { + base backup-protection-type; + description + "Backup provides link protection only."; + } + + identity backup-protection-node-link { + base backup-protection-type; + description + "Backup offers node (preferred) or link protection."; + } + + identity bc-model-type { + description + "Base identity for the Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints + Model type."; + reference + "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware + MPLS Traffic Engineering"; + } + + identity bc-model-rdm { + base bc-model-type; + description + "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model type."; + reference + "RFC 4127: Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for + Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering"; + } + + identity bc-model-mam { + base bc-model-type; + description + "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model type."; + reference + "RFC 4125: Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for + Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering"; + } + + identity bc-model-mar { + base bc-model-type; + description + "Maximum Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints + Model type."; + reference + "RFC 4126: Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth + Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering + & Performance Comparisons"; + } + + grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet { + description + "Contains PM attributes."; + uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes { + augment "performance-metrics-one-way" { + leaf one-way-min-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + description + "One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-min-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "One-way minimum delay or latency normality."; + } + leaf one-way-max-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + description + "One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-max-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "One-way maximum delay or latency normality."; + } + leaf one-way-delay-variation { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + description + "One-way delay variation in microseconds."; + reference + "RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability + Statement, Section 4.2"; + } + leaf one-way-delay-variation-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "One-way delay variation normality."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + leaf one-way-packet-loss { + type decimal64 { + fraction-digits 6; + range "0..50.331642"; + } + description + "One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision + is 0.000003%, where the maximum is 50.331642%."; + reference + "RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions, Section 4.4"; + } + leaf one-way-packet-loss-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Packet loss normality."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + description + "PM one-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM + grouping."; + } + augment "performance-metrics-two-way" { + leaf two-way-min-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-min-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Two-way minimum delay or latency normality."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + leaf two-way-max-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-max-delay-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Two-way maximum delay or latency normality."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + leaf two-way-delay-variation { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way delay variation in microseconds."; + reference + "RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability + Statement, Section 4.2"; + } + leaf two-way-delay-variation-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Two-way delay variation normality."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + leaf two-way-packet-loss { + type decimal64 { + fraction-digits 6; + range "0..50.331642"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision + is 0.000003%."; + } + leaf two-way-packet-loss-normality { + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; + default "normal"; + description + "Two-way packet loss normality."; + } + description + "PM two-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM + grouping."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for + Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using + TE Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions"; + } + } + } + + grouping one-way-performance-metrics-packet { + description + "One-way packet PM throttle grouping."; + leaf one-way-min-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-max-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-delay-variation { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "One-way delay variation in microseconds."; + } + leaf one-way-packet-loss { + type decimal64 { + fraction-digits 6; + range "0..50.331642"; + } + default "0"; + description + "One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is + 0.000003%."; + } + } + + grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet { + description + "Two-way packet PM throttle grouping."; + leaf two-way-min-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-max-delay { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-delay-variation { + type uint32 { + range "0..16777215"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way delay variation in microseconds."; + } + leaf two-way-packet-loss { + type decimal64 { + fraction-digits 6; + range "0..50.331642"; + } + default "0"; + description + "Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is + 0.000003%."; + } + } + + grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container-packet { + description + "Packet PM threshold grouping."; + uses te-types:performance-metrics-throttle-container { + augment "throttle/threshold-out" { + uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet; + uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet; + description + "PM threshold-out packet augmentation for a + generic grouping."; + } + augment "throttle/threshold-in" { + uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet; + uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet; + description + "PM threshold-in packet augmentation for a + generic grouping."; + } + augment "throttle/threshold-accelerated-advertisement" { + uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet; + uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet; + description + "PM accelerated advertisement packet augmentation for a + generic grouping."; + } + } + } + } + <CODE ENDS> + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document registers the following URIs in the "ns" subregistry + within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. + + URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types + Registrant Contact: The IESG. + XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. + + URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types + Registrant Contact: The IESG. + XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. + + This document registers two YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" + registry [RFC6020]. + + Name: ietf-te-types + Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types + Prefix: te-types + Reference: RFC 8776 + + Name: ietf-te-packet-types + Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types + Prefix: te-packet-types + Reference: RFC 8776 + +7. 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 Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [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 in this document defines common TE type definitions + (e.g., typedef, identity, and grouping statements) in YANG data + modeling language to be imported and used by other TE modules. When + imported and used, the resultant schema will have data nodes that can + be writable or readable. Access to such 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. + + The security considerations spelled out in the YANG 1.1 specification + [RFC7950] apply for this document as well. + +8. References + +8.1. 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>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + + [RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger, + "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>. + + [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>. + + [RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N., + Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for + Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March + 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>. + + [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>. + +8.2. Informative References + + [G.709] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network", + ITU-T Recommendation G.709, June 2016, + <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709/>. + + [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. + McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", + RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>. + + [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., + and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP + Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. + + [RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X. + Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic + Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>. + + [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label + Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", + RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>. + + [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links + in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. + + [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering + (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. + + [RFC3785] Le Faucheur, F., Uppili, R., Vedrenne, A., Merckx, P., and + T. Telkamp, "Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric + as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric", BCP 87, + RFC 3785, DOI 10.17487/RFC3785, May 2004, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3785>. + + [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast + Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>. + + [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of + Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>. + + [RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth + Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic + Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4125>. + + [RFC4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth + Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic + Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4126, June 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4126>. + + [RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints + Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", + RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC4127, June 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4127>. + + [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions + in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>. + + [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in + Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. + + [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label + Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical + Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>. + + [RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery + (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized + Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>. + + [RFC4561] Vasseur, J.-P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, + "Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub- + Object", RFC 4561, DOI 10.17487/RFC4561, June 2006, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4561>. + + [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation + Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic + Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September + 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. + + [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, + "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) + Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched + Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC4736, November + 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4736>. + + [RFC4872] Lang, J.P., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, + Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>. + + [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, + "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, + May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>. + + [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. + Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation + Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- + Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>. + + [RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., + and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and + GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>. + + [RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, + "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for + Aggregation", RFC 5003, DOI 10.17487/RFC5003, September + 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5003>. + + [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, + "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized + Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS + TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>. + + [RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter- + Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource + Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) + Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February + 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>. + + [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic + Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October + 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. + + [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions + in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. + + [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. + Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP + Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic + Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420, + February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>. + + [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of + Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element + Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>. + + [RFC5712] Meyer, M., Ed. and JP. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Traffic + Engineering Soft Preemption", RFC 5712, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5712, January 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5712>. + + [RFC5817] Ali, Z., Vasseur, JP., Zamfir, A., and J. Newton, + "Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic + Engineering Networks", RFC 5817, DOI 10.17487/RFC5817, + April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5817>. + + [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, + D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol + Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ + MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>. + + [RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support + for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service + Switching", RFC 6004, DOI 10.17487/RFC6004, October 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004>. + + [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic + Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, + February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>. + + [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport + Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6370, September 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370>. + + [RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, + N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS- + TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378, + October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>. + + [RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate + Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE + Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511, + February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>. + + [RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP + ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6780, October 2012, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6780>. + + [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and + L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", + RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. + + [RFC6827] Malis, A., Ed., Lindem, A., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, + Ed., "Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) + Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols", RFC 6827, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6827, January 2013, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6827>. + + [RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., + and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control + of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>. + + [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE + Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance + (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June + 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>. + + [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS + Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>. + + [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. + Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. + + [RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE + Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched + Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>. + + [RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. + Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the + Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>. + + [RFC7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS + RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", + RFC 7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>. + + [RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and + J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for + GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>. + + [RFC7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi, + "Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed + Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions", + RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>. + + [RFC8001] Zhang, F., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Margaria, C., + Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for + Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information", + RFC 8001, DOI 10.17487/RFC8001, January 2017, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8001>. + + [RFC8149] Saad, T., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Ali, Z., Venator, R., and + Y. Kamite, "RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely + Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label + Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8149, DOI 10.17487/RFC8149, + April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8149>. + + [RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S., + and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS + Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>. + + [RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, + D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) + Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March + 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>. + +Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank the members of the multi-vendor YANG + design team who are involved in the definition of these data types. + + The authors would also like to thank Tom Petch, Jan Lindblad, Sergio + Belotti, Italo Busi, Carlo Perocchio, Francesco Lazzeri, and Aihua + Guo for their review comments and for providing valuable feedback on + this document. + +Contributors + + Himanshu Shah + Ciena + + Email: hshah@ciena.com + + + Young Lee + Samsung Electronics + + Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com + + +Authors' Addresses + + Tarek Saad + Juniper Networks + + Email: tsaad@juniper.net + + + Rakesh Gandhi + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: rgandhi@cisco.com + + + Xufeng Liu + Volta Networks + + Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com + + + Vishnu Pavan Beeram + Juniper Networks + + Email: vbeeram@juniper.net + + + Igor Bryskin + Futurewei Technologies, Inc. + + Email: i_bryskin@yahoo.com |