draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-10.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-11.txt 
Network Working Group X. Liu Network Working Group X. Liu
Internet-Draft Jabil Internet-Draft Volta Networks
Intended status: Standards Track P. Sarda Intended status: Standards Track P. Sarda
Expires: August 8, 2018 Ericsson Expires: February 29, 2020 Ericsson
V. Choudhary V. Choudhary
Individual Individual
February 4, 2018 August 28, 2019
A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP) A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-10 draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-11
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a data model for the management of the This document describes a data model for the management of the
Routing Information Protocol (RIP). Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are Routing Information Protocol (RIP). Both RIP version 2 and RIPng are
covered. The data model includes definitions for configuration, covered. The data model includes definitions for configuration,
operational state, and Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs). operational state, and Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs).
The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA). Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
o augment o augment
o data model o data model
o data node o data node
1.2. Tree Diagrams 1.2. Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. defined in [RFC8340].
1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model
objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from
the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise,
names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
+-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ +-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference | | Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ +-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] |
| if | ietf-interfaces | [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis] | | if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC8343] |
| ip | ietf-ip | [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] | | ip | ietf-ip | [RFC8344] |
| rt | ietf-routing | [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis] | | rt | ietf-routing | [RFC8349] |
| bfd-types | ietf-bfd-types | [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] | | bfd-types | ietf-bfd-types | [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] |
| isis | ietf-isis | [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] | | isis | ietf-isis | [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] |
| key-chain | ietf-key-chain | [RFC8177] | | key-chain | ietf-key-chain | [RFC8177] |
| ospf | ietf-ospf | [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang] | | ospf | ietf-ospf | [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang] |
+-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+ +-----------+-----------------+-------------------------------+
Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules
2. Design of the Data Model 2. Design of the Data Model
skipping to change at page 4, line 14 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
o Manage the protocol operational behaviors. o Manage the protocol operational behaviors.
o Retrieve the protocol operational status. o Retrieve the protocol operational status.
The capabilities describe in [RFC1724] are covered. The capabilities describe in [RFC1724] are covered.
2.2. Relation with Core Routing Framework 2.2. Relation with Core Routing Framework
This model augments the core routing data model "ietf-routing" This model augments the core routing data model "ietf-routing"
specified in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis]. specified in [RFC8349].
+--rw routing +--rw routing
+--rw router-id? +--rw router-id?
+--rw control-plane-protocols +--rw control-plane-protocols
| +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name] | +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
| +--rw type | +--rw type
| +--rw name | +--rw name
| +--rw rip <= Augmented by this Model | +--rw rip <= Augmented by this Model
... ...
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
| | +--ro neighbor* [ipv6-address] | | +--ro neighbor* [ipv6-address]
| | +--ro <per neighbor IPv6 operational states> | | +--ro <per neighbor IPv6 operational states>
| +--ro routes | +--ro routes
| +--ro route* [ipv6-prefix] | +--ro route* [ipv6-prefix]
| +--ro ipv6-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix | +--ro ipv6-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix
| +--ro <IPv4 RIP route states> | +--ro <IPv4 RIP route states>
+--ro statistics {global-statistics}? +--ro statistics {global-statistics}?
+--ro <per instance statistics> +--ro <per instance statistics>
This model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture This model conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]. The operational state (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The operational state data is combined with the
data is combined with the associated configuration data in the same associated configuration data in the same hierarchy [RFC8407]. When
hierarchy [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis]. When protocol states are protocol states are retrieved from the NMDA operational state
retrieved from the NMDA operational state datastore, the returned datastore, the returned states cover all "config true" (rw) and
states cover all "config true" (rw) and "config false" (ro) nodes "config false" (ro) nodes defined in the schema.
defined in the schema.
The model allows to retrieve protocol states at the following levels: The model allows to retrieve protocol states at the following levels:
o Protocol instance (RIP version 2 or RIPng) o Protocol instance (RIP version 2 or RIPng)
o Interface o Interface
o Neighbor o Neighbor
o Route o Route
skipping to change at page 34, line 37 skipping to change at page 34, line 37
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC5246]. [RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC6536] provides the means to The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content. operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
skipping to change at page 35, line 47 skipping to change at page 35, line 47
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC1724] Malkin, G. and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension", [RFC1724] Malkin, G. and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension",
RFC 1724, DOI 10.17487/RFC1724, November 1994, RFC 1724, DOI 10.17487/RFC1724, November 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1724>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1724>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, [RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
editor.org/info/rfc2453>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080, [RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2080>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2080>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
editor.org/info/rfc3688>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J. [RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177, Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
editor.org/info/rfc8177>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis]
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03 (work in
progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis] [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-03 (work in progress), DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
January 2018. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis] [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
Routing Management (NMDA Version)", draft-ietf-netmod- (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
rfc8022bis-11 (work in progress), January 2018. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-yang] [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Rahman, R., Zheng, L., Jethanandani, M., Networks, J., and Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
Detection (BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-yang-09 (work in
progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] [RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, Z., and L. RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS protocol", draft-ietf- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
isis-yang-isis-cfg-19 (work in progress), November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-yang] [RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for
Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem, Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,
"Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-ietf-ospf- DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
yang-09 (work in progress), October 2017. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Architecture", draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-10
(work in progress), January 2018.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", [RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016, RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] [I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "Custom Subscription to Event Streams", A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Event Notifications",
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-08 (work in draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-26 (work in
progress), December 2017. progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen- Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Datastores",
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "YANG Datastore draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-25 (work in progress), May
Subscription", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-12 (work in 2019.
progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis] [I-D.ietf-bfd-yang]
Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Rahman, R., Zheng, L., Jethanandani, M., Networks, J., and
Data Model Documents", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16 G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding
(work in progress), January 2018. Detection (BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-yang-17 (work in
progress), August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", draft- Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, Z., and L.
ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05 (work in progress), Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS Protocol", draft-ietf-
January 2018. isis-yang-isis-cfg-35 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
"YANG Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-ietf-ospf-
yang-28 (work in progress), August 2019.
Appendix A. Data Tree Example Appendix A. Data Tree Example
This section contains an example of an instance data tree in the JSON This section contains an example of an instance data tree in the JSON
encoding [RFC7951], containing both configuration and state data. encoding [RFC7951], containing both configuration and state data.
+---------------------+ +---------------------+
| | | |
| Router 203.0.113.1 | | Router 203.0.113.1 |
| | | |
skipping to change at page 43, line 35 skipping to change at page 43, line 35
} }
} }
] ]
} }
} }
} }
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xufeng Liu Xufeng Liu
Jabil Volta Networks
8281 Greensboro Drive, Suite 200
McLean VA 22102
USA
EMail: Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com EMail: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Prateek Sarda Prateek Sarda
Ericsson Ericsson
Fern Icon, Survey No 28 and 36/5, Doddanakundi Village Fern Icon, Survey No 28 and 36/5, Doddanakundi Village
Bangalore Karnataka 560037 Bangalore Karnataka 560037
India India
EMail: prateek.sarda@ericsson.com EMail: prateek.sarda@ericsson.com
Vikram Choudhary Vikram Choudhary
Individual Individual
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
92 lines changed or deleted 82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/