Network Working Group A. Lindem Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Informational L. Berger, Ed. Expires: January 7, 2016 LabN D. Bogdanovic C. Hopps Deustche Telekom July 6, 2015 Network Device YANG Organizational Model draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 Abstract This document presents an approach for organizing YANG models in a comprehensive structure that defines how individual models may be composed to configure and operate network infrastructure and services. The structure is itself represented as a YANG model rooted at a device, with all of the related component models logically organized in a way that is operationally intuitive. This document is derived from work submitted to the IETF by members of the informal OpenConfig working group of network operators and is a product of the Routing Area YANG Architecture design team. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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. Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Status of Work and Open Issues 2. Model Overview 2.1. Interface Model Components 2.2. Logical Network Elements 2.2.1. System Management 2.2.2. Network Instances 2.2.2.1. OAM Protocols 2.2.2.2. Network Instance Policy 2.2.2.3. Control Plane Protocols 2.2.2.4. RIBs 2.2.2.5. MPLS 2.2.2.6. Networking Services 2.3. Device View vs Logical Network Element (LNE) View Management 3. Populating the structural model 3.1. Constructing the device model 3.2. "Pull" approach for model composition 3.3. "Push" approach for model composition 4. Security Considerations 5. IANA Considerations 6. YANG module 6.1. Model structure 7. References 7.1. Normative references 7.2. Informative references Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 1. Introduction "Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models" [OC-STRUCT], highlights the value of organizing individual, self-standing YANG [RFC6020] models into a more comprehensive device-level model. This document builds on that work and presents a derivative structure for use in representing the networking infrastructure aspects of physical and virtual devices. This document aims to provide an extensible structure that can be used to tie together other models. It allows for existing, emerging, and future models. The overall structure can be constructed using YANG augmentation and imports. Additional motivation for this work can be found in [OC-STRUCT]. The approach taken in this (and the original) document is to organize the models describing various aspects of network infrastructure, focusing on devices, their subsystems, and relevant protocols operating at the link and network layers. The proposal does not consider a common model for higher level network services, nor does it specify details of how hardware-related data should be organized. We focus on the set of models that are commonly used by network operators, and suggest a corresponding organization. A significant portion of the text and model contained in this document was taken from the -00 of that document. 1.1. Status of Work and Open Issues This version of the document and structure are a product of the Routing Area YANG Architecture design team and is very much a work in progress rather than a final proposal. Disagreement and open issues remain, even within the design team. Major open issues are as follows: 1. The structure related to L2VPNs, Ethernet services, and virtual switching instances has not yet received sufficient discussion and is likely to change. 2. Additional discussion and text is need to ensure that the interpretation of different policy containers is clear. 3. Configuration information related to network-instance interconnection (over a "core" network) is currently commingled with configuration related to operation within the instance. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 4. The representation of operational state is currently missing. The model will be updated once the "opstate" requirements are addressed. 2. Model Overview The model organization can itself be thought of as a "meta-model", in that it describes the relationships between individual models. We choose to represent it also as simple YANG model consisting of lists and containers to serve as anchor points for the corresponding individual models. As shown below, our model is rooted at a "device", which represents a network router, switch, or similar network element. The model is applicable to both physical, hardware-based devices, as well as software-based devices such as virtual network functions (VNFs). It does not follow the hierarchy of any particular implementation, and hence is vendor-neutral. Nevertheless, the structure should be familiar to network operators and also readily mapped to vendor implementations. +--rw device +--rw info | +--rw device-type? enumeration +--rw hardware +--rw interfaces | +--rw interface* [name] | ... +--rw qos +--rw logical-network-elements | ... The key subsystems are represented at the top level of the device, including, system-wide configuration, interfaces, and routing instances. The info section can be used for basic device information such as its type (e.g., physical or virtual), vendor, and model. For physical devices, the hardware container is intended to be a placeholder for platform-specific configuration and operational state data. For example, a common structure for the hardware model might include chassis, line cards, and ports, but we leave this unspecified. 2.1. Interface Model Components Interfaces are a crucial part of any network device's configuration and operational state. They generally include a combination of raw physical interfaces, link-layer interfaces, addressing configuration, and logical interfaces that may not be tied to any physical Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 interface. Several system services, and layer 2 and layer 3 protocols may also associate configuration or operational state data with different types of interfaces (these relationships are not shown for simplicity). The interface model is taken from [RFC7223] and includes possible technology-specific augmentations using example technologies defined in [RFC7277]. Also included are examples of envisioned models in order to provide future guidance. The interfaces container includes a number of commonly used components as examples: +--rw interfaces | +--rw interface* [name] | +--rw name string | +--rw bind-network-element-id? uint8 | +--rw ethernet | | +--rw bind-networking-instance-name? string | | +--rw aggregates | | +--rw rstp | | +--rw lldp | | +--rw ptp | +--rw vlans | +--rw tunnels | +--rw ipv4 | | +--rw bind-networking-instance-name? string | | +--rw arp | | +--rw icmp | | +--rw vrrp | | +--rw dhcp-client | +--rw ipv6 | +--rw bind-networking-instance-name? string | +--rw vrrp | +--rw icmpv6 | +--rw nd | +--rw dhcpv6-client The bind-networking-instance-name leaf is an explicit and notable addition. The [RFC7223] defined interface model is structured to include all interfaces in a flat list, without regard to logical or virtual instances (e.g., VRFs) supported on the device. The bind-networking-instance-name leaf provides the association between an interface and the networking instance (e.g., VRF or virtual switch instance) that is configured to use it. 2.2. Logical Network Elements Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 Logical network elements represent the capability on some devices to partition resources into independent logical routers and/or switches. Device support for multiple logical network elements is implementation specific. Systems without such capabilities will have just a single container. In physical devices, some hardware features are shared across partitions, but control plane (e.g., routing) protocol instances, tables, and configuration are managed separately. For example, in virtual routers or VNFs, this may correspond to establishing multiple logical instances using a single software installation. The model supports configuration of multiple instances on a single device by creating a list of logical network elements, each with their own configuration and operational state related to routing and switching protocols, as shown below: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw logical-network-element* [network-element-id] +--rw network-element-id uint8 +--rw network-element-name? string +--rw default-networking-instance-name? string +--rw system-management | ... +--rw ietf-acl +--rw ietf-key-chain +--rw networking-instances | ... Network-element-id and network-element-name identify the logical network element. Default-networking-instance-name identifies the networking instance to use for system management connectivity. Other instances may access system management function through appropriate inter-instance configuration. 2.2.1. System Management The model supports the potentially independent system management functions and configuration per logical network element. This permits, for example, different users to manage either the whole device or just the associated logical network element. System management is supported by the system-management container which is expected to reuse and augment [RFC7317] and is shown below: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw system-management | +--rw device-view? boolean Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 | +--rw syslog | +--rw dns | +--rw ntp | +--rw statistics-collection | +--rw ssh | +--rw tacacs | +--rw snmp | +--rw netconf The device-view leaf is used to indicate if the system management functions associated with the logical network element are restricted to the logical network element or can manage the whole device. The leaf may have a fixed value. For example, some implementations may only support management on a device-wide basis. Additional information on the implications of this leaf can be found in Section 2.3. 2.2.2. Network Instances The network instance container is used to represent virtual routing and forwarding instances (VRFs) and virtual switching instances (VSIs), [RFC4026]. VRFs and VSIs are commonly used to isolate routing and switching domains, for example to create virtual private networks, each with their own active protocols and routing/switching policies. The model represents both core/provider and virtual instances. Network instances reuse and build on [RTG-CFG] and are shown below: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw networking-instance-name string +--rw type? identityref +--rw enabled? boolean +--rw router-id? uint32 +--rw description? string +--rw oam-protocols | ... +--rw networking-instance-policy | ... +--rw control-plane-protocols | ... +--rw ribs | ... +--rw mpls | ... +--rw networking-services Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 ... [Editor's note: L2/MAC forwarding table is TBD] 2.2.2.1. OAM Protocols OAM protocols that may run within the context of a network instance are grouped. Examples shown below include Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD), Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM), and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP): +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw oam-protocols | +--rw bfd | +--rw cfm | +--rw twamp 2.2.2.2. Network Instance Policy Network instance policies are used to control provider instances, VRF routing policies, and VRF/VSI identifiers. Examples include BGP route targets (RTs) and route distinguishers (RDs), if the instances is a core/provider instance, virtual network identifiers(VN-IDs), VPLS neighbors, etc. The structure is: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw networking-instance-policy (TBD) 2.2.2.3. Control Plane Protocols Control plane protocols that may run within the context of a network instance are grouped. Each protocol is expected to have its own model. Note that protocol specific policy is included with the protocol rather than being combined in a separate generic policy grouping. The rationale behind this is that this ensures that only protocol relevant policies may be configured. A reusable or common approach may still be leveraged in creating these policy groupings, perhaps based on [RTG-POLICY]. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw control-plane-protocols | +--rw bgp | | +--rw policy | +--rw is-is | | +--rw policy | +--rw ospf | | +--rw policy | +--rw rsvp | +--rw segment-routing | +--rw ldp | +--rw pim | +--rw igmp | +--rw mld | +--rw static-routes 2.2.2.4. RIBs Every routing instance manages one or more routing information bases (RIB). A RIB is a list of routes complemented with administrative data. RIBs reuse and build on [RTG-CFG] and are shown below: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw ribs | +--rw rib* [name] | +--rw name string | +--rw description? string | +--rw policy 2.2.2.5. MPLS MPLS data plane related information is grouped together. MPLS control plane protocols are included above. MPLS may reuse and build on [OC-MPLS] or other emerging models and is shown below: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw mpls | +--rw global | +--rw label-switched-paths Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 | +--rw constrained-path | +--rw igp-congruent | +--rw static 2.2.2.6. Networking Services A device may provide services to other devices within the scope of a networking instance. Examples shown below include a device-based Network Time Protocol (NTP) server, a Domain Name System (DNS) server, and a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server: +--rw device +--rw logical-network-elements +--rw networking-instances +--rw networking-instance* [networking-instance-name] +--rw networking-services +--rw ntp-server +--rw dns-server +--rw dhcp-server 2.3. Device View vs Logical Network Element (LNE) View Management On some devices it is possible to limit control and management to a scoped set of system resources. As stated above in Section 2.2., the documented approach supports this capability using logical network elements and the system management device-view leaf. When the device-view leaf is set to true, information accessible via a logical network element's system management functions represents the complete device. This applies to all system management functions, not just those represented in the YANG model. When viewing information represented in a YANG model, the device model will cover the full device and allow management across all logical network elements. The case when a logical network element's system management functions do not have a device wide view is more complex. In this case, there are two perspectives: one from functions that are operating within a context of a logical network element that has a device wide view (or more simply have a "device view"); and the other from functions that are operating within a context of a logical network element that has only a logical network element view (or more simply have an "LNE view"). From a management function operating with a device view, the limited logical network element's system management device-view leaf is simply set to false. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 Management functions operating with an LNE view can only see information (e.g., resources, interfaces, configuration, operational state, etc.) associated with in the logical network element. When viewing information represented in a YANG model, a full device model (as defined in this document) is available from within the view, but it includes only those elements associated with the LNE. For information contained with the logical-network-element container entry, this is the same information as available in a device wide view. Information outside the logical-network-elements container is made available within an LNE view as is appropriated based on device wide configuration. For example, interfaces assigned to the logical network element can be managed from within the LNE view. Note: some information that can be modified from a device view may be read-only from within the LNE view. Multiple implementation approaches are possible to provide LNE views, and these are outside the scope of this document. 3. Populating the structural model The structural model in this document describes how individual YANG models may be used together to represent the configuration and operational state for all parts of a physical or virtual device. It does not, however, document the actual model in its entirety. In this section, we outline an option for creating the full model and also describe how it may be used. 3.1. Constructing the device model One of the challenges in assembling existing YANG models is that they are generally written with the assumption that each model is at the root of the configuration or state tree. Combining models then results in a multi-rooted tree that does not follow any logical construction and makes it difficult to work with operationally. In some cases, models explicitly reference other models (e.g., via augmentation) to define a relationship, but this is the case for only a few existing models. Some examples include the interfaces [RFC7223] and IP management [RFC7277] models, and proposed IS-IS [RTG-ISIS], OSPF [RTG-OSPF] and routing configuration [RTG-CFG] models. 3.2. "Pull" approach for model composition To enable model composition, one possible approach is to avoid using root-level containers in individual component models. Instead, the top level container (and all other data definitions) can be enclosed in a YANG 'grouping' statement so that when the model is imported by Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 another model, its location in the configuration tree can be controlled by the importing YANG module with the 'uses' statement. One advantage of this approach is that the importing module has the flexibility to readily use the data definitions where the author deems appropriate. One obvious drawback is that individual models no longer contain any of their own data definitions and must be used by a higher-level model for their data nodes to become active. Some judgment as to which models are more suited for inclusion in higher level models is also necessary to decide when the corresponding YANG module should contain only groupings. Another potential drawback is that this approach does not define a common structure for models to fit together, limiting interoperability due to implementations using different structures. To address this, a top-level standard model structure could be defined and updated to import new models into the hierarchy as they are defined. 3.3. "Push" approach for model composition An alternative approach is to develop a top level model which defines the overall structure of the models, similar to the structure described in Section 2. Individual models may augment the top level model with their data nodes in the appropriate locations. The drawback is the need for a pre-defined top level model structure. On the other hand, when this top level model is standardized, it can become the basis for a vendor-neutral way to manage devices, assuming that the component models are supported by a given implementation. One question in both approaches is what the root of the top-level model should be. In this document we selected to base the model at a device because this layer should be common across many use cases and implementations. Starting at a higher layer (e.g., services) makes defining and agreeing on a common organization more challenging as discussed in Section 1.1. Ideally, one could consider a hybrid construction mechanism that supports both styles of model composition. For example, a YANG compiler or preprocessing directive could be used to indicate whether an individual model should assume it is at the root, or whether it is meant for inclusion in other higher-level models. 4. Security Considerations The model structure described in this document does not define actual configuration and state data, hence it is not directly responsible for security risks. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 However, each of the component models that provide the corresponding configuration and state data should be considered sensitive from a security standpoint since they generally manipulate aspects of network configurations. Each component model should be carefully evaluated to determine its security risks, along with mitigations to reduce such risks. 5. IANA Considerations This YANG model currently uses a temporary ad-hoc namespace. If it is placed or redirected for the standards track, an appropriate namespace URI will be registered in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. The YANG structure modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. 6. YANG module The model structure is described by the YANG module below. 6.1. Model structure file "model-structure.yang" module model-structure { yang-version "1"; // namespace namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:model-structure"; prefix "struct"; // import some basic types // meta organization "OpenConfig working group/IETF RTG YANG Design Team"; contact "OpenConfig working group netopenconfig@googlegroups.com Routing Area YANG Architecture DT rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org"; description "This module describes a model structure for YANG configuration and operational state data models. Its intent is to describe how individual device protocol and feature models fit together and interact."; revision "2015-07-09" { Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 description "First Pass of IETF Routing YANG Design Team"; reference "draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00.txt"; } // extension statements // feature statements // identity statements // typedef statements // grouping statements grouping info { description "Base system information"; container info { description "This container is for base system information, including device type (e.g., physical or virtual), model, serial no., location, etc."; leaf device-type { //TODO: consider changing to an identity if finer grained // device type classification is envisioned type enumeration { enum PHYSICAL { description "physical or hardware device"; } enum VIRTUAL { description "virtual or software device"; } } description "Type of the device, e.g., physical or virtual. This node may be used to activate other containers in the model"; } } } grouping hardware { description "hardware / vendor -specific data relevant to the platform"; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 container hardware { description "This container is an anchor point for platform-specific configuration and operational state data. It may be further organized into chassis, line cards, ports, etc. It is expected that vendor or platform-specific augmentations would be used to populate this part of the device model"; } } grouping interface-ip-common { description "interface-specific configuration for IP interfaces, IPv4 and IPv6"; } grouping interfaces { description "interface-related models"; container interfaces { description "Various interface models"; reference "RFC 7223 - A Yang Model for Interface Management"; list interface { key "name"; description "List of interfaces keyed by name"; leaf name { type string; description "Interface name"; } leaf bind-network-element-id { type uint8; description "Logical network element ID to which interface is bound"; } container ethernet { description "Ethernet interface config, e.g., 10, 40, 100GB Ethernet"; leaf bind-networking-instance-name { type string; description "Networking Instance to which the Ethernet instance is bound"; } container aggregates { description "LAGs, LACP, etc. for Ethernet interfaces"; reference "IEEE 802.1ad, 802.1AX"; } container rstp { description "Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol"; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 reference "IEEE 802.1D-2004"; } container lldp { description "link layer discovery protocol"; reference "IEEE 802.1AB"; } container ptp { description "Precision Time Protocol (PTP) for time synchronization services. PTP typically requires per-interface configuration"; reference "IEEE 1588-2008"; } } container vlans { description "VLANs, 802.1q, q-in-q, etc."; reference "IEEE 802.1Q"; } container tunnels { description "Logical tunnel interfaces incl. GRE, VxLAN, L2TP etc."; } container ipv4 { description "IPv4 interface"; reference "RFC 7277 - A Yang Model for IP Management"; leaf bind-networking-instance-name { type string; description "Networking Instance to which IPv4 interface is bound"; } container arp { description "Address resolution protocol"; reference "STD 37 - An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol"; } container icmp { description "Internet Control Message Protocol"; reference "RFC 792 - Internet Control Message Protocol"; } container vrrp { description "virtual router redundancy protocol"; reference "RFC 5798 - Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6"; } container dhcp-client { description "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol"; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 reference "RFC 2131 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol"; } } container ipv6 { description "IPv6 interface"; reference "RFC 7277 - A Yang Model for IP Management"; leaf bind-networking-instance-name { type string; description "Networking Instance to which IPv4 interface is bound"; } container vrrp { description "virtual router redundancy protocol"; reference "RFC 5798 - Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6"; } container icmpv6 { description "Internet Control Message Protocol"; reference "RFC 2463 - Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)"; } container nd { description "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery"; reference "RFC 4861 - Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"; } container dhcpv6-client { description "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version 6"; reference "RFC 3315 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)"; } } } } } identity networking-instance { description "Base identity from which identities describing networking instance types are derived."; } grouping router-id { description Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 "This grouping provides router ID."; leaf router-id { type uint32; // yang:dotted-quad description "A 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad that is used by some routing protocols identifying a router."; reference "RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2."; } } grouping oam-protocols { description "Definitions for OAM protocols within a networking-instance"; container oam-protocols { description "OAM protocols"; container bfd { description "Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) configuration"; } container cfm { description "Ethernet connectivity fault management. Also includes options that are associated with specific interfaces, such as maintenance endpoint domains."; reference "IEEE 802.1ag"; } container twamp { description "Two-way active measurement protocol for measuring round-trip IP layer performance."; reference "RFC 5357 A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)"; } } } grouping mpls { description "MPLS and TE configuration"; container mpls { description "MPLS and TE configuration"; container global { description "global MPLS configuration"; } container label-switched-paths { description "Models for different types of LSPs"; } Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 container constrained-path { description "traffic-engineered or constrained path LSPs"; } container igp-congruent { description "LSPs that follow the IGP-computed path"; } container static { description "Statically configured LSPs"; } } } grouping networking-instance-policy { description "Networking instance policies such as route distinguisher, route targets, VPLS ID and neighbor, Ethernet ID, etc. "; reference "RFC 4364 - BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) RFC 6074 - Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) RFC 7432 - BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN"; container networking-instance-policy { description "Networking Instance Policy -- details TBD"; } } grouping control-plane-protocols { description "control protocol models"; container control-plane-protocols { description "Control plane protocols and features"; container bgp { description "BGP-4 protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 4271 - Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)"; container policy { description "Policy specific to BGP"; } } container is-is { description "ISO IS-IS protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments"; container policy { description "Policy specific to IS-IS"; } } Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 container ospf { description "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 2328 - OSPFv2 Protocol RFC 5340 - OSPF for IPv6"; container policy { description "Policy specific to OSPF"; } } container rsvp { description "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 2205 - Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) RFC 3209 - RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"; } container segment-routing { description "Segment Routing configuration for networking instance"; reference "draft-likowski-spring-sr-yang"; } container ldp { description "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) configuration"; reference "RFC 5036 - LDP Specification"; } container pim { description "Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) configuration"; reference "RFC 4601 - Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol Specification"; } container igmp { description "Internet Group Management Protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 3376 - Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3"; } container mld { description "Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol configuration"; reference "RFC 3810 - Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2 for IPv6)"; } container static-routes { description "Static route configuration"; reference "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg"; } } Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 } grouping ribs { description "Routing Information Bases (RIBs) supported by a networking-instance"; container ribs { description "RIBs supported by a networking-instance"; list rib { key "name"; min-elements "1"; description "Each entry represents a RIB identified by the 'name' key. All routes in a RIB must belong to the same address family. For each routing instance, an implementation should provide one system-controlled default RIB for each supported address family."; leaf name { type string; description "The name of the RIB."; } reference "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg"; leaf description { type string; description "Description of the RIB"; } // Note that there is no list of interfaces within container policy { description "Policy specific to RIB"; } } } } grouping networking-services { description "Networking services provided by the device in the scope of the networking-instance"; container networking-services { description "Networking services"; container ntp-server { description "Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server"; reference "RFC 5905 - Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification"; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 } container dns-server { description "Domain Name System (DNS) Server"; reference "RFC 1035 - DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND SPECIFICATION"; } container dhcp-server { description "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Server"; reference "RFC 2131 - Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol"; } } } grouping system-management { description "System management for device or logical network element"; container system-management { description "System management - logical device management with reuse of RFC 7317"; leaf device-view { type boolean; default "true"; description "Flag indicating whether or not the logical network element is able to view and manage the entire device"; } container syslog { description "Syslog configuration"; } container dns { description "Domain Name Service (DNS) and resolver configuration"; } container ntp { description "network time protocol configuration"; } container statistics-collection { description "Mechanisms for data collection from devices, including packet and flow-level sampling"; } container ssh { description "SSH server configuration"; } container tacacs { description "TACACS+ configuration"; } container snmp { Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 description "System Network Management Protocol (SNMP) configuration"; } container netconf { description "Network Configuration Protocol(NETCONF)"; reference "RFC 6020 - YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)"; } } } grouping ietf-acl { description "Packet Access Control Lists (ACLs) as specified in draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model"; container ietf-acl { description "ACLs and packet forwarding rules"; } } grouping ietf-key-chain { description "Key chains as specified in draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-key-chain;"; container ietf-key-chain { description "Key chains"; } } grouping qos { description "QoS features"; container qos { description "QoS, including policing, shaping, etc."; } } // data definition statements container device { description "Top-level anchor point for models. Device is a generic L2/L3 network element"; uses info; uses hardware; uses interfaces; uses qos; container logical-network-elements { description "Network devices may support multiple logical network instances"; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 list logical-network-element { key network-element-id; description "List of logical network elements"; leaf network-element-id { type uint8; // expect a small number of logical routers description "Device-wide unique identifier for the logical network element"; } leaf network-element-name { type string; description "Descriptive name for the logical network element"; } leaf default-networking-instance-name { type string; description "Specification of the networking instance to use for management connectivity"; } uses system-management; uses ietf-acl; uses ietf-key-chain; container networking-instances { description "Networking instances each of which have an independent IP/IPv6 addressing space and protocol instantiations. For layer 3, this consistent with the routing-instance definition in ietf-routing"; reference "draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg"; list networking-instance { key networking-instance-name; description "List of networking-instances"; leaf networking-instance-name { type string; description "logical network element scoped identifier for the networking instance"; } leaf type { type identityref { base networking-instance; } description "The networking instance type -- details TBD Likely types include core, L3-VRF, VPLS, L2-cross-connect, L2-VSI, etc."; } leaf enabled { type boolean; Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 default "true"; description "Flag indicating whether or not the networking instance is enabled."; } uses router-id { description "Router ID for networking instances"; } leaf description { type string; description "Description of the networking instance and its intended purpose"; } // Note that there is no list of interfaces within // the networking-instance uses oam-protocols; uses networking-instance-policy; uses control-plane-protocols; uses ribs; uses mpls; uses networking-services; } } } } } // augment statements // rpc statements // notification statements } Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 7. References 7.1. Normative references [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, October 2014. [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 7223, May 2014. [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", RFC 7277, June 2014. [RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for System Management", RFC 7317, August 2014. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January 2004. 7.2. Informative references [OC-MPLS] George, J., Fang, L., Osborne, E., Shakir, R., "MPLS TE Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00 (work in progress). [OC-STRUCT] Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., Fang, L., "Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models", draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (work in progress). [RFC4026] Andersson, L., Madsen, T., "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005. [RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", RFC 7277, June 2014. [RTG-CFG] Lhotka, L., "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management", draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-19 (work in progress), October 2014. [RTG-POLICY] Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase, "Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model-01 (work in progress), July 2015. Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 [RTG-OSPF] Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., and D. Bogdanovic, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-yeung-netmod-ospf-02 (work in progress), October 2014. [RTG-ISIS] Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, J., and L. Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for ISIS protocol", draft-ietf- isis-yang-isis-cfg-04 (work in progress), October 2014. Appendix A. Acknowledgments This document is derived from draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00. The Authors of that document who are not also authors of this document are listed as Contributors to this work. The original stated: The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document and the associated models from: Deepak Bansal, Paul Borman, Chris Chase, Josh George, Marcus Hines, and Jim Uttaro. The Routing Area Yang Architecture design team members included Acee Lindem, Anees Shaikh, Christian Hopps, Dean Bogdanovic, Lou Berger, Qin Wu, Rob Shakir, Stephane Litkowski, and Yan Gang. Contributors Anees Shaikh Google 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View, CA 94043 US Email: aashaikh@google.com Rob Shakir BT pp. C3L, BT Centre 81, Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ UK Email: rob.shakir@bt.com URI: http://www.bt.com/ Kevin D'Souza AT&T 200 S. Laurel Ave Middletown, NJ Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Network Device YANG Organizational Model July 2015 US Email: kd6913@att.com Luyuan Fang Microsoft 205 108th Ave. NE, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA US Email: lufang@microsoft.com Qin Wu Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Stephane Litkowski Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Yan Gang Email: yangang@huawei.com Authors' Addresses Acee Lindem Cisco Systems 301 Midenhall Way Cary, NC 27513 USA Email: acee@cisco.com Lou Berger (editor) LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net Dean Bogdanovic Email: ivandean@gmail.com Christian Hopps Deustche Telekom Email: chopps@chopps.org Lindem, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 28]