Network Working Group Q. Wu, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Obsoletes: 8049 (if approved) S. Litkowski Intended status: Standards Track Orange Expires: March 19, 2018 L. Tomotaki Verizon K. Ogaki KDDI Corporation September 15, 2017 YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-05 Abstract This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for communication between customers and network operators and to deliver a Layer 3 provider-provisioned VPN service. This document is limited to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in RFCs 4026, 4110, and 4364. This model is intended to be instantiated at the management system to deliver the overall service. It is not a configuration model to be used directly on network elements. This model provides an abstracted view of the Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration components. It will be up to the management system to take this model as input and use specific configuration models to configure the different network elements to deliver the service. How the configuration of network elements is done is out of scope for this document. If approved, this document obsoletes RFC 8049. The changes are a series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to the text. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Summary of Changes from RFC 8049 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Layer 3 IP VPN Service Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Service Data Model Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Design of the Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Features and Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2. VPN Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2.1. VPN Service Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2.2. Cloud Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2.3. Multicast Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.2.4. Extranet VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.3. Site Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.3.1. Devices and Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.3.2. Site Network Accesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.4. Site Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.5.1. Site VPN Flavor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site . . . . . . . . . . . 44 6.6.1. Constraint: Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location . . . . . . . . . 45 6.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.6.5. Infeasible Access Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.6.6. Examples of Access Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6.6.7. Route Distinguisher and VRF Allocation . . . . . . . 78 6.7. Site Network Access Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 6.8. Traffic Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.9. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.9.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.9.2. Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.10. Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.11. Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6.11.1. Handling of Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6.11.2. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network . . . . . . . . 85 6.11.3. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network with Redundancy 85 6.11.4. Static Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.11.5. RIP Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.11.6. OSPF Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6.11.7. BGP Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6.12. Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.12.1. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.12.2. MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.12.3. QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.12.4. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.13. Enhanced VPN Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.13.1. Carriers' Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.14. External ID References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6.15. Defining NNIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6.15.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor . . . . . . 104 6.15.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor . . . . . . 107 6.15.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor . . . . . . 110 7. Service Model Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 8. Interaction with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 9. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Appendix B. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 1. Introduction This document defines a Layer 3 VPN service data model written in YANG. The model defines service configuration elements that can be used in communication protocols between customers and network operators. Those elements can also be used as input to automated control and configuration applications. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 If approved, this document obsoletes [RFC8049]. The changes are a series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to the text.The changes are listed in Section 1.4. 1.1. Terminology The following terms are defined in [RFC6241] and are not redefined here: o client o configuration data o server o state data The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined here: o augment o data model o data node The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in [RFC7950]. This document presents some configuration examples using XML representation. 1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1.3. Tree Diagrams A simplified graphical representation of the data model is presented in Section 6. The meanings of the symbols in these diagrams are as follows: o Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that make the corresponding node conditional. o Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration data (read-write), and "ro" means state data (read-only). o Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, and "*" denotes a "list" or "leaf-list". o Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also marked with a colon (":"). o Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not shown. 1.4. Summary of Changes from RFC 8049 This document revises and obsoletes L3VPN Service Model [RFC8049] , drawing on insights gained from L3VPN Service Model deployments and on feedback from the community. The major changes are: o Change type from 16-bit integer to string for the leaf id under "qos-classification-policy" container. o Stick to using ordered-by user and remove inefficiency to map service model sequence number to device model sequence number. o Remove mandating the use of deviations and add "if-feature target- sites" under the leaf-list target-sites in section 6.12.2. o RFC2119 language changes on operation of the management system in Section 6.6,3rd paragraph,Section 6.6.5 and section 7. o Fix incomplete description statements. o Add YANG statement to check that slaac parameters are used only for IPv6. o Fix strange wording in the section 6.11.7. o Change the use of the absolute paths to the use of relative paths in the "must" statement or "path" statement for vpn-policy-id leaf node, management container, location leaf node, devices container, location case, location-reference leaf, device case, device- reference leaf to make configuration is only applicable to the current sites. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o Change "must" statement to "when" statement for management container device container. o Fix optional parameter issues by adding a default or description for others or make some of them mandatory. o Define new grouping vpn-profile-cfg for all the identifiers provided by SP to the customer. The identifiers include cloud- identifier, std-qos-profile, OAM profile-name, and provider- profile for encryption. o Add in the XPATH string representation of identityrefs and remove unqualified name. Change from YANG 1.0 Support to YANG 1.1 Support. o Remove "when" statement from leaf nat44-customer-address. o Fixed broken example and Add mandatory element in the examples. o Remove redundant parameters in the cloud access. o Specify provider address and a list of start-end addresses from provider address for DHCP case. o Add a few text to clarify what the site is in section 6.3. o Add multi-filter and multi-VPN per entry support for VPN policy. o Modify description for svc-input-bandwidth leaf and svc-output- bandwidth leaf to make it consistent with the text in section 6.12.1. o Clarify the rational of the model in the section 5. o Add text to clarify the way to achieve Per-VPN QoS policy. 2. Acronyms AAA: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting. ACL: Access Control List. ADSL: Asymmetric DSL. AH: Authentication Header. AS: Autonomous System. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. ASM: Any-Source Multicast. BAS: Broadband Access Switch. BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. BGP: Border Gateway Protocol. BSR: Bootstrap Router. CE: Customer Edge. CLI: Command Line Interface. CsC: Carriers' Carriers. CSP: Cloud Service Provider. DHCP: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. DSLAM: Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer. ESP: Encapsulating Security Payload. GRE: Generic Routing Encapsulation. IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol. LAN: Local Area Network. MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery. MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit. NAT: Network Address Translation. NETCONF: Network Configuration Protocol. NNI: Network-to-Network Interface. OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. OSPF: Open Shortest Path First. OSS: Operations Support System. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 PE: Provider Edge. PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast. POP: Point of Presence. QoS: Quality of Service. RD: Route Distinguisher. RIP: Routing Information Protocol. RP: Rendezvous Point. RT: Route Target. SFTP: Secure FTP. SLA: Service Level Agreement. SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration. SP: Service Provider. SPT: Shortest Path Tree. SSM: Source-Specific Multicast. VM: Virtual Machine. VPN: Virtual Private Network. VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding. VRRP: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol. 3. Definitions Customer Edge (CE) Device: A CE is equipment dedicated to a particular customer; it is directly connected (at Layer 3) to one or more PE devices via attachment circuits. A CE is usually located at the customer premises and is usually dedicated to a single VPN, although it may support multiple VPNs if each one has separate attachment circuits. Provider Edge (PE) Device: A PE is equipment managed by the SP; it can support multiple VPNs for different customers and is directly connected (at Layer 3) to one or more CE devices via attachment Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 circuits. A PE is usually located at an SP point of presence (POP) and is managed by the SP. PE-Based VPNs: The PE devices know that certain traffic is VPN traffic. They forward the traffic (through tunnels) based on the destination IP address of the packet and, optionally, based on other information in the IP header of the packet. The PE devices are themselves the tunnel endpoints. The tunnels may make use of various encapsulations to send traffic over the SP network (such as, but not restricted to, GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS tunnels). 4. Layer 3 IP VPN Service Model A Layer 3 IP VPN service is a collection of sites that are authorized to exchange traffic between each other over a shared IP infrastructure. This Layer 3 VPN service model aims at providing a common understanding of how the corresponding IP VPN service is to be deployed over the shared infrastructure. This service model is limited to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in [RFC4026], [RFC4110], and [RFC4364]. 5. Service Data Model Usage Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 l3vpn-svc | Model | | +------------------+ +-----+ | Orchestration | < --- > | OSS | +------------------+ +-----+ | | +----------------+ | | Config manager | | +----------------+ | | | | NETCONF/CLI ... | | +------------------------------------------------+ Network +++++++ + AAA + +++++++ ++++++++ Bearer ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ + CE A + ----------- + PE A + + PE B + ---- + CE B + ++++++++ Connection ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ Site A Site B The idea of the L3 IP VPN service model is to propose an abstracted interface between customers and network operators to manage configuration of components of an L3VPN service. The model is intended to be used in a mode where the network operator's system is the server and the customer's system is the client. A typical scenario would be to use this model as an input for an orchestration layer that will be responsible for translating it to an orchestrated configuration of network elements that will be part of the service. The network elements can be routers but can also be servers (like AAA); the network's configuration is not limited to these examples. The configuration of network elements can be done via the CLI, NETCONF/RESTCONF [RFC6241] [RFC8040] coupled with YANG data models of a specific configuration (BGP, VRF, BFD, etc.), or some other technique, as preferred by the operator. The usage of this service model is not limited to this example; it can be used by any component of the management system but not directly by network elements. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6. Design of the Data Model The YANG module is divided into two main containers: "vpn-services" and "sites". The "vpn-service" list under the vpn-services container defines global parameters for the VPN service for a specific customer. A "site" is composed of at least one "site-network-access" and, in the case of multihoming, may have multiple site-network-access points. The site-network-access attachment is done through a "bearer" with an "ip-connection" on top. The bearer refers to properties of the attachment that are below Layer 3, while the connection refers to properties oriented to the Layer 3 protocol. The bearer may be allocated dynamically by the SP, and the customer may provide some constraints or parameters to drive the placement of the access. Authorization of traffic exchange is done through what we call a VPN policy or VPN service topology defining routing exchange rules between sites. The figure below describes the overall structure of the YANG module: module: ietf-l3vpn-svc +--rw l3vpn-svc +--rw vpn-profiles | +--rw valid-provider-identifiers | +--rw cloud-identifier* [id] {cloud-access}? | | +--rw id string | +--rw encryption-profile-identifier* [id] | | +--rw id string | +--rw qos-profile-identifier* [id] | | +--rw id string | +--rw bfd-profile-identifier* [id] | +--rw id string +--rw vpn-services | +--rw vpn-service* [vpn-id] | +--rw vpn-id svc-id | +--rw customer-name? string | +--rw vpn-service-topology? identityref | +--rw cloud-accesses {cloud-access}? | | +--rw cloud-access* [cloud-identifier] | | +--rw cloud-identifier -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/cloud-identifier/id | | +--rw (list-flavor)? | | | +--:(permit-any) | | | | +--rw permit-any? empty | | | +--:(deny-any-except) Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | | | | +--rw permit-site* -> /l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id | | | +--:(permit-any-except) | | | +--rw deny-site* -> /l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id | | +--rw address-translation | | +--rw nat44 | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw nat44-customer-address? inet:ipv4-address | +--rw multicast {multicast}? | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw customer-tree-flavors | | | +--rw tree-flavor* identityref | | +--rw rp | | +--rw rp-group-mappings | | | +--rw rp-group-mapping* [id] | | | +--rw id uint16 | | | +--rw provider-managed | | | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | | | +--rw rp-redundancy? boolean | | | | +--rw optimal-traffic-delivery? boolean | | | +--rw rp-address inet:ip-address | | | +--rw groups | | | +--rw group* [id] | | | +--rw id uint16 | | | +--rw (group-format) | | | +--:(singleaddress) | | | | +--rw group-address? inet:ip-address | | | +--:(startend) | | | +--rw group-start? inet:ip-address | | | +--rw group-end? inet:ip-address | | +--rw rp-discovery | | +--rw rp-discovery-type? identityref | | +--rw bsr-candidates | | +--rw bsr-candidate-address* inet:ip-address | +--rw carrierscarrier? boolean {carrierscarrier}? | +--rw extranet-vpns {extranet-vpn}? | +--rw extranet-vpn* [vpn-id] | +--rw vpn-id svc-id | +--rw local-sites-role? identityref +--rw sites +--rw site* [site-id] +--rw site-id svc-id +--rw requested-site-start? yang:date-and-time +--rw requested-site-stop? yang:date-and-time +--rw locations | +--rw location* [location-id] | +--rw location-id svc-id | +--rw address? string | +--rw postal-code? string Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | +--rw state? string | +--rw city? string | +--rw country-code? string +--rw devices | +--rw device* [device-id] | +--rw device-id svc-id | +--rw location -> ../../../locations/location/location-id | +--rw management | +--rw address-family? address-family | +--rw address? inet:ip-address +--rw site-diversity {site-diversity}? | +--rw groups | +--rw group* [group-id] | +--rw group-id string +--rw management | +--rw type identityref +--rw vpn-policies | +--rw vpn-policy* [vpn-policy-id] | +--rw vpn-policy-id svc-id | +--rw entries* [id] | +--rw id svc-id | +--rw filters | | +--rw filter* [type] | | +--rw type identityref | | +--rw lan-tag* string {lan-tag}? | | +--rw ipv4-lan-prefix* inet:ipv4-prefix {ipv4}? | | +--rw ipv6-lan-prefix* inet:ipv6-prefix {ipv6}? | +--rw vpn* [vpn-id] | +--rw vpn-id -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id | +--rw site-role? identityref +--rw site-vpn-flavor? identityref +--rw maximum-routes | +--rw address-family* [af] | +--rw af address-family | +--rw maximum-routes? uint32 +--rw security | +--rw authentication | +--rw encryption {encryption}? | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw layer? enumeration | +--rw encryption-profile | +--rw (profile)? | +--:(provider-profile) | | +--rw profile-name? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/encryption-profile-identifier/id | +--:(customer-profile) | +--rw algorithm? string | +--rw (key-type)? | +--:(psk) Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | +--rw preshared-key? string +--rw service | +--rw qos {qos}? | | +--rw qos-classification-policy | | | +--rw rule* [id] | | | +--rw id string | | | +--rw (match-type)? | | | | +--:(match-flow) | | | | | +--rw match-flow | | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp | | | | | +--rw dot1p? uint8 | | | | | +--rw ipv4-src-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv6-src-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv4-dst-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv6-dst-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix | | | | | +--rw l4-src-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw target-sites* svc-id {target-sites}? | | | | | +--rw l4-src-port-range | | | | | | +--rw lower-port? inet:port-number | | | | | | +--rw upper-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw l4-dst-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw l4-dst-port-range | | | | | | +--rw lower-port? inet:port-number | | | | | | +--rw upper-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw protocol-field? union | | | | +--:(match-application) | | | | +--rw match-application? identityref | | | +--rw target-class-id? string | | +--rw qos-profile | | +--rw (qos-profile)? | | +--:(standard) | | | +--rw profile? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/qos-profile-identifier/id | | +--:(custom) | | +--rw classes {qos-custom}? | | +--rw class* [class-id] | | +--rw class-id string | | +--rw direction? identityref | | +--rw rate-limit? uint8 | | +--rw latency | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency? empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw latency-boundary? uint16 | | +--rw jitter | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter? empty Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 14] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw latency-boundary? uint32 | | +--rw bandwidth | | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent uint8 | | +--rw end-to-end? empty | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}? | | +--rw signalling-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast {multicast}? | +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast-address-family | | +--rw ipv4? boolean {ipv4}? | | +--rw ipv6? boolean {ipv6}? | +--rw protocol-type? enumeration +--rw traffic-protection {fast-reroute}? | +--rw enabled? boolean +--rw routing-protocols | +--rw routing-protocol* [type] | +--rw type identityref | +--rw ospf {rtg-ospf}? | | +--rw address-family* address-family | | +--rw area-address yang:dotted-quad | | +--rw metric? uint16 | | +--rw sham-links {rtg-ospf-sham-link}? | | +--rw sham-link* [target-site] | | +--rw target-site svc-id | | +--rw metric? uint16 | +--rw bgp {rtg-bgp}? | | +--rw autonomous-system uint32 | | +--rw address-family* address-family | +--rw static | | +--rw cascaded-lan-prefixes | | +--rw ipv4-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv4}? | | | +--rw lan inet:ipv4-prefix | | | +--rw lan-tag? string | | | +--rw next-hop inet:ipv4-address | | +--rw ipv6-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv6}? | | +--rw lan inet:ipv6-prefix | | +--rw lan-tag? string | | +--rw next-hop inet:ipv6-address | +--rw rip {rtg-rip}? | | +--rw address-family* address-family | +--rw vrrp {rtg-vrrp}? | +--rw address-family* address-family +--ro actual-site-start? yang:date-and-time +--ro actual-site-stop? yang:date-and-time +--rw site-network-accesses +--rw site-network-access* [site-network-access-id] +--rw site-network-access-id svc-id Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 15] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 +--rw site-network-access-type? identityref +--rw (location-flavor) | +--:(location) | | +--rw location-reference? -> ../../../locations/location/location-id | +--:(device) | +--rw device-reference? -> ../../../devices/device/device-id +--rw access-diversity {site-diversity}? | +--rw groups | | +--rw group* [group-id] | | +--rw group-id string | +--rw constraints | +--rw constraint* [constraint-type] | +--rw constraint-type identityref | +--rw target | +--rw (target-flavor)? | +--:(id) | | +--rw group* [group-id] | | +--rw group-id string | +--:(all-accesses) | | +--rw all-other-accesses? empty | +--:(all-groups) | +--rw all-other-groups? empty +--rw bearer | +--rw requested-type {requested-type}? | | +--rw requested-type? string | | +--rw strict? boolean | +--rw always-on? boolean {always-on}? | +--rw bearer-reference? string {bearer-reference}? +--rw ip-connection | +--rw ipv4 {ipv4}? | | +--rw address-allocation-type? identityref | | +--rw provider-dhcp | | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv4-address | | | +--rw mask? uint8 | | | +--rw (address-assign)? | | | +--:(number) | | | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address? uint16 | | | +--:(explicit) | | | +--rw customer-addresses | | | +--rw address-group* [group-id] | | | +--rw group-id string | | | +--rw start-address? inet:ipv4-address | | | +--rw end-address? inet:ipv4-address | | +--rw dhcp-relay | | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv4-address | | | +--rw mask? uint8 | | | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers | | | +--rw server-ip-address* inet:ipv4-address Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 16] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | | +--rw addresses | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv4-address | | +--rw customer-address? inet:ipv4-address | | +--rw mask? uint8 | +--rw ipv6 {ipv6}? | | +--rw address-allocation-type? identityref | | +--rw provider-dhcp | | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv6-address | | | +--rw mask? uint8 | | | +--rw (address-assign)? | | | +--:(number) | | | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address? uint16 | | | +--:(explicit) | | | +--rw customer-addresses | | | +--rw address-group* [group-id] | | | +--rw group-id string | | | +--rw start-address? inet:ipv6-address | | | +--rw end-address? inet:ipv6-address | | +--rw dhcp-relay | | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv6-address | | | +--rw mask? uint8 | | | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers | | | +--rw server-ip-address* inet:ipv6-address | | +--rw addresses | | +--rw provider-address? inet:ipv6-address | | +--rw customer-address? inet:ipv6-address | | +--rw mask? uint8 | +--rw oam | +--rw bfd {bfd}? | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw (holdtime)? | +--:(fixed) | | +--rw fixed-value? uint32 | +--:(profile) | +--rw profile-name? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/bfd-profile-identifier/id +--rw security | +--rw authentication | +--rw encryption {encryption}? | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw layer? enumeration | +--rw encryption-profile | +--rw (profile)? | +--:(provider-profile) | | +--rw profile-name? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/encryption-profile-identifier/id | +--:(customer-profile) | +--rw algorithm? string | +--rw (key-type)? | +--:(psk) Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 17] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | +--rw preshared-key? string +--rw service | +--rw svc-input-bandwidth uint64 | +--rw svc-output-bandwidth uint64 | +--rw svc-mtu uint16 | +--rw qos {qos}? | | +--rw qos-classification-policy | | | +--rw rule* [id] | | | +--rw id string | | | +--rw (match-type)? | | | | +--:(match-flow) | | | | | +--rw match-flow | | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp | | | | | +--rw dot1p? uint8 | | | | | +--rw ipv4-src-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv6-src-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv4-dst-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix | | | | | +--rw ipv6-dst-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix | | | | | +--rw l4-src-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw target-sites* svc-id {target-sites}? | | | | | +--rw l4-src-port-range | | | | | | +--rw lower-port? inet:port-number | | | | | | +--rw upper-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw l4-dst-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw l4-dst-port-range | | | | | | +--rw lower-port? inet:port-number | | | | | | +--rw upper-port? inet:port-number | | | | | +--rw protocol-field? union | | | | +--:(match-application) | | | | +--rw match-application? identityref | | | +--rw target-class-id? string | | +--rw qos-profile | | +--rw (qos-profile)? | | +--:(standard) | | | +--rw profile? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/qos-profile-identifier/id | | +--:(custom) | | +--rw classes {qos-custom}? | | +--rw class* [class-id] | | +--rw class-id string | | +--rw direction? identityref | | +--rw rate-limit? uint8 | | +--rw latency | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency? empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw latency-boundary? uint16 | | +--rw jitter Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 18] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter? empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw latency-boundary? uint32 | | +--rw bandwidth | | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent uint8 | | +--rw end-to-end? empty | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}? | | +--rw signalling-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast {multicast}? | +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast-address-family | | +--rw ipv4? boolean {ipv4}? | | +--rw ipv6? boolean {ipv6}? | +--rw protocol-type? enumeration +--rw routing-protocols | +--rw routing-protocol* [type] | +--rw type identityref | +--rw ospf {rtg-ospf}? | | +--rw address-family* address-family | | +--rw area-address yang:dotted-quad | | +--rw metric? uint16 | | +--rw sham-links {rtg-ospf-sham-link}? | | +--rw sham-link* [target-site] | | +--rw target-site svc-id | | +--rw metric? uint16 | +--rw bgp {rtg-bgp}? | | +--rw autonomous-system uint32 | | +--rw address-family* address-family | +--rw static | | +--rw cascaded-lan-prefixes | | +--rw ipv4-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv4}? | | | +--rw lan inet:ipv4-prefix | | | +--rw lan-tag? string | | | +--rw next-hop inet:ipv4-address | | +--rw ipv6-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv6}? | | +--rw lan inet:ipv6-prefix | | +--rw lan-tag? string | | +--rw next-hop inet:ipv6-address | +--rw rip {rtg-rip}? | | +--rw address-family* address-family | +--rw vrrp {rtg-vrrp}? | +--rw address-family* address-family +--rw availability | +--rw access-priority? uint32 +--rw vpn-attachment +--rw (attachment-flavor) Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 19] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 +--:(vpn-policy-id) | +--rw vpn-policy-id? -> ../../../../vpn-policies/vpn-policy/vpn-policy-id +--:(vpn-id) +--rw vpn-id? -> /l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id +--rw site-role? identityref 6.1. Features and Augmentation The model defined in this document implements many features that allow implementations to be modular. As an example, an implementation may support only IPv4 VPNs (IPv4 feature), IPv6 VPNs (IPv6 feature), or both (by advertising both features). The routing protocols proposed to the customer may also be enabled through features. This model also defines some features for options that are more advanced, such as support for extranet VPNs (Section 6.2.4), site diversity (Section 6.6), and QoS (Section 6.12.3). In addition, as for any YANG model, this service model can be augmented to implement new behaviors or specific features. For example, this model uses different options for IP address assignments; if those options do not fulfill all requirements, new options can be added through augmentation. 6.2. VPN Service Overview A vpn-service list item contains generic information about the VPN service. The "vpn-id" provided in the vpn-service list refers to an internal reference for this VPN service, while the customer name refers to a more-explicit reference to the customer. This identifier is purely internal to the organization responsible for the VPN service. 6.2.1. VPN Service Topology The type of VPN service topology is required for configuration. Our proposed model supports any-to-any, Hub and Spoke (where Hubs can exchange traffic), and "Hub and Spoke disjoint" (where Hubs cannot exchange traffic). New topologies could be added via augmentation. By default, the any-to-any VPN service topology is used. 6.2.1.1. Route Target Allocation A Layer 3 PE-based VPN is built using route targets (RTs) as described in [RFC4364]. The management system is expected to automatically allocate a set of RTs upon receiving a VPN service creation request. How the management system allocates RTs is out of Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 20] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 scope for this document, but multiple ways could be envisaged, as described below. Management system <-------------------------------------------------> Request RT +-----------------------+ Topo a2a +----------+ RESTCONF | | -----> | | User ------------- | Service Orchestration | | Network | l3vpn-svc | | <----- | OSS | Model +-----------------------+ Response +----------+ RT1, RT2 In the example above, a service orchestration, owning the instantiation of this service model, requests RTs to the network OSS. Based on the requested VPN service topology, the network OSS replies with one or multiple RTs. The interface between this service orchestration and the network OSS is out of scope for this document. +---------------------------+ RESTCONF | | User ------------- | Service Orchestration | l3vpn-svc | | Model | | | RT pool: 10:1->10:10000 | | RT pool: 20:50->20:5000 | +---------------------------+ In the example above, a service orchestration, owning the instantiation of this service model, owns one or more pools of RTs (specified by the SP) that can be allocated. Based on the requested VPN service topology, it will allocate one or multiple RTs from the pool. The mechanisms shown above are just examples and should not be considered an exhaustive list of solutions. 6.2.1.2. Any-to-Any Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 21] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 +------------------------------------------------------------+ | VPN1_Site1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ VPN1_Site2 | | | | VPN1_Site3 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ VPN1_Site4 | +------------------------------------------------------------+ Any-to-Any VPN Service Topology In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all VPN sites can communicate with each other without any restrictions. The management system that receives an any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the any-to-any case, a single RT is generally required, and every VRF imports and exports this RT. 6.2.1.3. Hub and Spoke +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 | | +----------------------------------+ | | | +----------------------------------+ | Hub_Site2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ Hub-and-Spoke VPN Service Topology In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology, all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites but not with each other, and Hubs can also communicate with each other. The management system that owns an any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the Hub-and-Spoke case, two RTs are generally required (one RT for Hub routes and one RT for Spoke routes). A Hub VRF that connects Hub sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes through the Spoke RT. It will also import the Hub RT to allow Hub-to-Hub communication. A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes through the Hub RT. The management system MUST take into account constraints on Hub-and- Spoke connections. For example, if a management system decides to mesh a Spoke site and a Hub site on the same PE, it needs to mesh connections in different VRFs, as shown in the figure below. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 22] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Hub_Site ------- (VRF_Hub) PE1 (VRF_Spoke) / | Spoke_Site1 -------------------+ | | Spoke_Site2 -----------------------+ 6.2.1.4. Hub and Spoke Disjoint +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 | +--------------------------+ +-------------------------------+ | | +--------------------------+ +-------------------------------+ | Hub_Site2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ Hub and Spoke Disjoint VPN Service Topology In the Hub and Spoke disjoint VPN service topology, all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites but not with each other, and Hubs cannot communicate with each other. The management system that owns an any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the Hub-and-Spoke case, two RTs are required (one RT for Hub routes and one RT for Spoke routes). A Hub VRF that connects Hub sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes through the Spoke RT. A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes through the Hub RT. The management system MUST take into account constraints on Hub-and- Spoke connections, as in the previous case. Hub and Spoke disjoint can also be seen as multiple Hub-and-Spoke VPNs (one per Hub) that share a common set of Spoke sites. 6.2.2. Cloud Access The proposed model provides cloud access configuration via the "cloud-accesses" container. The usage of cloud-access is targeted for the public cloud. An Internet access can also be considered a public cloud access service. The cloud-accesses container provides parameters for network address translation and authorization rules. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 23] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 A private cloud access may be addressed through NNIs, as described in Section 6.15. A cloud identifier is used to reference the target service. This identifier is local to each administration. The model allows for source address translation before accessing the cloud. IPv4-to-IPv4 address translation (NAT44) is the only supported option, but other options can be added through augmentation. If IP source address translation is required to access the cloud, the "enabled" leaf MUST be set to true in the "nat44" container. An IP address may be provided in the "customer-address" leaf if the customer is providing the IP address to be used for the cloud access. If the SP is providing this address, "customer- address" is not necessary, as it can be picked from a pool of SPs. By default, all sites in the IP VPN MUST be authorized to access the cloud. If restrictions are required, a user MAY configure the "permit-site" or "deny-site" leaf-list. The permit-site leaf-list defines the list of sites authorized for cloud access. The deny-site leaf-list defines the list of sites denied for cloud access. The model supports both "deny-any-except" and "permit-any-except" authorization. How the restrictions will be configured on network elements is out of scope for this document. IP VPN ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ + Site 3 + --- + Cloud 1 + + Site 1 + ++++++++++++ + + + Site 2 + --- ++++++++++++ + + + Internet + + Site 4 + ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | +++++++++++ + Cloud 2 + +++++++++++ In the example above, we configure the global VPN to access the Internet by creating a cloud-access pointing to the cloud identifier for the Internet service. No authorized sites will be configured, as all sites are required to access the Internet. The "address- translation/nat44/enabled" leaf will be set to true. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 24] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 123456487 INTERNET true If Site 1 and Site 2 require access to Cloud 1, a new cloud-access pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 1 will be created. The permit-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to Site 1 and Site 2. 123456487 Cloud1 site1 site2 If all sites except Site 1 require access to Cloud 2, a new cloud- access pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 2 will be created. The deny-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to Site 1. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 25] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 123456487 Cloud2 site1 A service with more than one cloud access is functionally identical to multiple services each with a single cloud access, where the sites that belong to each service in the latter case correspond with the authorized sites for each cloud access in the former case. However, defining a single service with multiple cloud accesses may be operationally simpler. 6.2.3. Multicast Service Multicast in IP VPNs is described in [RFC6513]. If multicast support is required for an IP VPN, some global multicast parameters are required as input for the service request. Users of this model will need to provide the flavors of trees that will be used by customers within the IP VPN (customer tree). The proposed model supports bidirectional, shared, and source-based trees (and can be augmented). Multiple flavors of trees can be supported simultaneously. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 26] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Operator network ______________ / \ | | (SSM tree) | Recv (IGMPv3) -- Site2 ------- PE2 | | PE1 --- Site1 --- Source1 | | \ | | -- Source2 | | (ASM tree) | Recv (IGMPv2) -- Site3 ------- PE3 | | | (SSM tree) | Recv (IGMPv3) -- Site4 ------- PE4 | | / | Recv (IGMPv2) -- Site5 -------- | (ASM tree) | | | \_______________/ When an ASM flavor is requested, this model requires that the "rp" and "rp-discovery" parameters be filled. Multiple RP-to-group mappings can be created using the "rp-group-mappings" container. For each mapping, the SP can manage the RP service by setting the "provider-managed/enabled" leaf to true. In the case of a provider- managed RP, the user can request RP redundancy and/or optimal traffic delivery. Those parameters will help the SP select the appropriate technology or architecture to fulfill the customer service requirement: for instance, in the case of a request for optimal traffic delivery, an SP may use Anycast-RP or RP-tree-to-SPT switchover architectures. In the case of a customer-managed RP, the RP address must be filled in the RP-to-group mappings using the "rp-address" leaf. This leaf is not needed for a provider-managed RP. Users can define a specific mechanism for RP discovery, such as the "auto-rp", "static-rp", or "bsr-rp" modes. By default, the model uses "static-rp" if ASM is requested. A single rp-discovery mechanism is allowed for the VPN. The "rp-discovery" container can be used for both provider-managed and customer-managed RPs. In the case of a provider-managed RP, if the user wants to use "bsr-rp" as a discovery protocol, an SP should consider the provider-managed "rp- group-mappings" for the "bsr-rp" configuration. The SP will then configure its selected RPs to be "bsr-rp-candidates". In the case of Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 27] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 a customer-managed RP and a "bsr-rp" discovery mechanism, the "rp- address" provided will be the bsr-rp candidate. 6.2.4. Extranet VPNs There are some cases where a particular VPN needs access to resources (servers, hosts, etc.) that are external. Those resources may be located in another VPN. +-----------+ +-----------+ / \ / \ Site A -- | VPN A | --- | VPN B | --- Site B \ / \ / (Shared +-----------+ +-----------+ resources) In the figure above, VPN B has some resources on Site B that need to be available to some customers/partners. VPN A must be able to access those VPN B resources. Such a VPN connection scenario can be achieved via a VPN policy as defined in Section 6.5.2.2. But there are some simple cases where a particular VPN (VPN A) needs access to all resources in another VPN (VPN B). The model provides an easy way to set up this connection using the "extranet-vpns" container. The extranet-vpns container defines a list of VPNs a particular VPN wants to access. The extranet-vpns container must be used on customer VPNs accessing extranet resources in another VPN. In the figure above, in order to provide VPN A with access to VPN B, the extranet-vpns container needs to be configured under VPN A with an entry corresponding to VPN B. There is no service configuration requirement on VPN B. Readers should note that even if there is no configuration requirement on VPN B, if VPN A lists VPN B as an extranet, all sites in VPN B will gain access to all sites in VPN A. The "site-role" leaf defines the role of the local VPN sites in the target extranet VPN service topology. Site roles are defined in Section 6.4. Based on this, the requirements described in Section 6.4 regarding the site-role leaf are also applicable here. In the example below, VPN A accesses VPN B resources through an extranet connection. A Spoke role is required for VPN A sites, as sites from VPN A must not be able to communicate with each other through the extranet VPN connection. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 28] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNB hub-spoke VPNA any-to-any VPNB spoke-role This model does not define how the extranet configuration will be achieved. Any VPN interconnection scenario that is more complex (e.g., only certain parts of sites on VPN A accessing only certain parts of sites on VPN B) needs to be achieved using a VPN attachment as defined in Section 6.5.2, and especially a VPN policy as defined in Section 6.5.2.2. 6.3. Site Overview A site represents a connection of a customer office to one or more VPN services. Each site is associated with one or more location. +-------------+ / \ +------------------+ +-----| VPN1 | | | | \ / | New York Office |------ (site) -----+ +-------------+ | | | +-------------+ +------------------+ | / \ +-----| VPN2 | \ / +-------------+ A site has several characteristics: Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 29] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o Unique identifier (site-id): uniquely identifies the site within the overall network infrastructure. The identifier is a string that allows any encoding for the local administration of the VPN service. o Locations (locations): site location information that allows easy retrieval of information from the nearest available resources. A site may be composed of multiple locations. Alternatively,two or more sites can be associated with the same location, by referencing the same location ID. o Devices (devices): allows the customer to request one or more customer premises equipment entities from the SP for a particular site. o Management (management): defines the type of management for the site -- for example, co-managed, customer-managed, or provider- managed. See Section 6.10. o Site network accesses (site-network-accesses): defines the list of network accesses associated with the sites, and their properties -- especially bearer, connection, and service parameters. A site-network-access represents an IP logical connection of a site. A site may have multiple site-network-accesses. +------------------+ Site | |----------------------------------- | |****** (site-network-access#1) ****** | New York Office | | |****** (site-network-access#2) ****** | |----------------------------------- +------------------+ Multiple site-network-accesses are used, for instance, in the case of multihoming. Some other meshing cases may also include multiple site-network-accesses. The site configuration is viewed as a global entity; we assume that it is mostly the management system's role to split the parameters between the different elements within the network. For example, in the case of the site-network-access configuration, the management system needs to split the overall parameters between the PE configuration and the CE configuration. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 30] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.3.1. Devices and Locations A site may be composed of multiple locations. All the locations will need to be configured as part of the "locations" container and list. A typical example of a multi-location site is a headquarters office in a city composed of multiple buildings. Those buildings may be located in different parts of the city and may be linked by intra- city fibers (customer metropolitan area network). In such a case, when connecting to a VPN service, the customer may ask for multihoming based on its distributed locations. New York Site +------------------+ Site | +--------------+ |----------------------------------- | | Manhattan | |****** (site-network-access#1) ****** | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | | Brooklyn | |****** (site-network-access#2) ****** | +--------------+ | | |----------------------------------- +------------------+ A customer may also request some premises equipment entities (CEs) from the SP via the "devices" container. Requesting a CE implies a provider-managed or co-managed model. A particular device must be ordered to a particular already-configured location. This would help the SP send the device to the appropriate postal address. In a multi-location site, a customer may, for example, request a CE for each location on the site where multihoming must be implemented. In the figure above, one device may be requested for the Manhattan location and one other for the Brooklyn location. By using devices and locations, the user can influence the multihoming scenario he wants to implement: single CE, dual CE, etc. 6.3.2. Site Network Accesses As mentioned earlier, a site may be multihomed. Each IP network access for a site is defined in the "site-network-accesses" container. The site-network-access parameter defines how the site is connected on the network and is split into three main classes of parameters: o bearer: defines requirements of the attachment (below Layer 3). o connection: defines Layer 3 protocol parameters of the attachment. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 31] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o availability: defines the site's availability policy. The availability parameters are defined in Section 6.7. The site-network-access has a specific type (site-network-access- type). This document defines two types: o point-to-point: describes a point-to-point connection between the SP and the customer. o multipoint: describes a multipoint connection between the SP and the customer. The type of site-network-access may have an impact on the parameters offered to the customer, e.g., an SP may not offer encryption for multipoint accesses. It is up to the provider to decide what parameter is supported for point-to-point and/or multipoint accesses; this topic is out of scope for this document. Some containers proposed in the model may require extensions in order to work properly for multipoint accesses. 6.3.2.1. Bearer The bearer container defines the requirements for the site attachment to the provider network that are below Layer 3. The bearer parameters will help determine the access media to be used. This is further described in Section 6.6.3. 6.3.2.2. Connection The "ip-connection" container defines the protocol parameters of the attachment (IPv4 and IPv6). Depending on the management mode, it refers to PE-CE addressing or CE-to-customer-LAN addressing. In any case, it describes the responsibility boundary between the provider and the customer. For a customer-managed site, it refers to the PE- CE connection. For a provider-managed site, it refers to the CE-to- LAN connection. 6.3.2.2.1. IP Addressing An IP subnet can be configured for either IPv4 or IPv6 Layer 3 protocols. For a dual-stack connection, two subnets will be provided, one for each address family. The "address-allocation-type" determines how the address allocation needs to be done. The current model defines five ways to perform IP address allocation: Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 32] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o provider-dhcp: The provider will provide DHCP service for customer equipment; this is applicable to either the "IPv4" container or the "IPv6" container. o provider-dhcp-relay: The provider will provide DHCP relay service for customer equipment; this is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing. The customer needs to populate the DHCP server list to be used. o static-address: Addresses will be assigned manually; this is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing. o slaac: This parameter enables stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862]. This is applicable to IPv6 only. o provider-dhcp-slaac: The provider will provide DHCP service for customer equipment, as well as stateless address autoconfiguration. This is applicable to IPv6 only. In the dynamic addressing mechanism, the SP is expected to provide at least the IP address, mask, and default gateway information.In the case of multiple site-network-access points belonging to the same VPN, address space allocated for one site-network-access should not conflict with one allocated for other site-network-accesses. 6.3.2.2.2. OAM A customer may require a specific IP connectivity fault detection mechanism on the IP connection. The model supports BFD as a fault detection mechanism. This can be extended with other mechanisms via augmentation. The provider can propose some profiles to the customer, depending on the service level the customer wants to achieve. Profile names must be communicated to the customer. This communication is out of scope for this document. Some fixed values for the holdtime period may also be imposed by the customer if the provider allows the customer this function. The "oam" container can easily be augmented by other mechanisms; in particular, work done by the LIME Working Group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lime/charter/) may be reused in applicable scenarios. 6.3.2.3. Inheritance of Parameters Defined at Site Level and Site Network Access Level Some parameters can be configured at both the site level and the site-network-access level, e.g., routing, services, security. Inheritance applies when parameters are defined at the site level. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 33] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 If a parameter is configured at both the site level and the access level, the access-level parameter MUST override the site-level parameter. Those parameters will be described later in this document. In terms of provisioning impact, it will be up to the implementation to decide on the appropriate behavior when modifying existing configurations. But the SP will need to communicate to the user about the impact of using inheritance. For example, if we consider that a site has already provisioned three site-network-accesses, what will happen if a customer changes a service parameter at the site level? An implementation of this model may update the service parameters of all already-provisioned site-network-accesses (with potential impact on live traffic), or it may take into account this new parameter only for the new sites. 6.4. Site Role A VPN has a particular service topology, as described in Section 6.2.1. As a consequence, each site belonging to a VPN is assigned with a particular role in this topology. The site-role leaf defines the role of the site in a particular VPN topology. In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all sites MUST have the same role, which will be "any-to-any-role". In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub and Spoke disjoint VPN service topology, sites MUST have a Hub role or a Spoke role. 6.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs 6.5.1. Site VPN Flavor A site may be part of one or multiple VPNs. The "site-vpn-flavor" defines the way the VPN multiplexing is done. The current version of the model supports four flavors: o site-vpn-flavor-single: The site belongs to only one VPN. o site-vpn-flavor-multi: The site belongs to multiple VPNs, and all the logical accesses of the sites belong to the same set of VPNs. o site-vpn-flavor-sub: The site belongs to multiple VPNs with multiple logical accesses. Each logical access may map to different VPNs (one or many). o site-vpn-flavor-nni: The site represents an option A NNI. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 34] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single The figure below describes a single VPN attachment. The site connects to only one VPN. +--------+ +------------------+ Site / \ | |-----------------------------| | | |***(site-network-access#1)***| VPN1 | | New York Office | | | | |***(site-network-access#2)***| | | |-----------------------------| | +------------------+ \ / +--------+ 6.5.1.2. MultiVPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi The figure below describes a site connected to multiple VPNs. +---------+ +---/----+ \ +------------------+ Site / | \ | | |--------------------------------- | |VPN B| | |***(site-network-access#1)******* | | | | New York Office | | | | | | |***(site-network-access#2)******* \ | / | |-----------------------------| VPN A+-----|---+ +------------------+ \ / +--------+ In the example above, the New York office is multihomed. Both logical accesses are using the same VPN attachment rules, and both are connected to VPN A and VPN B. Reaching VPN A or VPN B from the New York office will be done via destination-based routing. Having the same destination reachable from the two VPNs may cause routing troubles. The customer administration's role in this case would be to ensure the appropriate mapping of its prefixes in each VPN. 6.5.1.3. SubVPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-sub The figure below describes a subVPN attachment. The site connects to multiple VPNs, but each logical access is attached to a particular set of VPNs. A typical use case for a subVPN is a customer site used by multiple affiliates with private resources for each affiliate that Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 35] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 cannot be shared (communication between the affiliates is prevented). It is similar to have separate sites, but in the case of a SubVPN, the customer can share some physical components at a single location, while maintaining strong communication isolation between the affiliates. In this example, site-network-access#1 is attached to VPN B, while site-network-access#2 is attached to VPN A. +------------------+ Site +--------+ | |----------------------------------/ \ | |****(site-network-access#1)******| VPN B | | New York Office | \ / | | +--------+ | | +--------+ | | / \ | |****(site-network-access#2)******| VPN A | | | \ / | | +--------+ | |----------------------------------- +------------------+ A multiVPN can be implemented in addition to a subVPN; as a consequence, each site-network-access can access multiple VPNs. In the example below, site-network-access#1 is mapped to VPN B and VPN C, while site-network-access#2 is mapped to VPN A and VPN D. +-----------------+ Site +------+ | |--------------------------------/ +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#1)****| VPN B / \ | New York Office | \ | VPN C | | | +-----\ / | | +-----+ | | | | +-------+ | | / +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#2)****| VPN A / \ | | \ | VPN D | | | +------\ / | |--------------------------------- +-----+ +-----------------+ Multihoming is also possible with subVPNs; in this case, site- network-accesses are grouped, and a particular group will have access to the same set of VPNs. In the example below, site-network-access#1 and site-network-access#2 are part of the same group (multihomed together) and are mapped to VPN B and VPN C; in addition, site- Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 36] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 network-access#3 and site-network-access#4 are part of the same group (multihomed together) and are mapped to VPN A and VPN D. +-----------------+ Site +------+ | |---------------------------------/ +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#1)*****| VPN B / \ | New York Office |****(site-network-access#2)***** \ | VPN C | | | +-----\ / | | +-----+ | | | | +------+ | | / +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#3)*****| VPN A / \ | |****(site-network-access#4)***** \ | VPN D | | | +-----\ / | |---------------------------------- +-----+ +-----------------+ In terms of service configuration, a subVPN can be achieved by requesting that the site-network-access use the same bearer (see Section 6.6.4 for more details). 6.5.1.4. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni A Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) scenario may be modeled using the sites container (see Section 6.15.1). Using the sites container to model an NNI is only one possible option for NNIs (see Section 6.15). This option is called "option A" by reference to the option A NNI defined in [RFC4364]. It is helpful for the SP to indicate that the requested VPN connection is not a regular site but rather is an NNI, as specific default device configuration parameters may be applied in the case of NNIs (e.g., ACLs, routing policies). Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 37] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 SP A SP B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1) + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2) + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1) + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2) + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- The figure above describes an option A NNI scenario that can be modeled using the sites container. In order to connect its customer VPNs (VPN1 and VPN2) in SP B, SP A may request the creation of some site-network-accesses to SP B. The site-vpn-flavor-nni will be used to inform SP B that this is an NNI and not a regular customer site. The site-vpn-flavor-nni may be multihomed and multiVPN as well. 6.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN Due to the multiple site-vpn flavors, the attachment of a site to an IP VPN is done at the site-network-access (logical access) level through the "vpn-attachment" container. The vpn-attachment container is mandatory. The model provides two ways to attach a site to a VPN: o By referencing the target VPN directly. o By referencing a VPN policy for attachments that are more complex. A choice is implemented to allow the user to choose the flavor that provides the best fit. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 38] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular logical access to a VPN. This is the best way in the case of a single VPN attachment or subVPN with a single VPN attachment per logical access. When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role setting must be added to express the role of the site in the target VPN service topology. VPNA VPNB SITE1 L1 customer-managed layer3 LA1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 39] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 VPNA spoke-role LA2 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 VPNB spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 40] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 The example of a corresponding XML snippet above describes a subVPN case where a site (SITE1) has two logical accesses (LA1 and LA2), with LA1 attached to VPNA and LA2 attached to VPNB. 6.5.2.2. VPN Policy The "vpn-policy" list helps express a multiVPN scenario where a logical access belongs to multiple VPNs. Multiple VPN policies can be created to handle the subVPN case where each logical access is part of a different set of VPNs. As a site can belong to multiple VPNs, the vpn-policy list may be composed of multiple entries. A filter can be applied to specify that only some LANs of the site should be part of a particular VPN. Each time a site (or LAN) is attached to a VPN, the user must precisely describe its role (site-role) within the target VPN service topology. +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | Site1 ------ PE7 | +-------------------------+ (VPN2) | | | +-------------------------+ | | Site2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Site3 | +----------------------------------+ | | | +------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Site4 ------ PE5 | PE6 ------ Site5 | | | | | | (VPN3) | | +------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | +---------------------------+ In the example above, Site5 is part of two VPNs: VPN3 and VPN2. It will play a Hub role in VPN2 and an any-to-any role in VPN3. We can express such a multiVPN scenario with the following XML snippet: VPN2 VPN3 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 41] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Site5 D1 provider-managed layer3 POLICY1 ENTRY1 VPN2 hub-role ENTRY2 VPN3 any-to-any-role LA1 D1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 42] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 POLICY1 Now, if a more-granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be used. For example, if LAN1 from Site5 must be attached to VPN2 as a Hub and LAN2 must be attached to VPN3, the following configuration of corresponding XML snippet can be used: VPN2 VPN3 Site5 POLICY1 ENTRY1 lan LAN1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 43] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPN2 hub-role ENTRY2 lan LAN2 VPN3 any-to-any-role LA1 POLICY1 6.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site The management system will have to determine where to connect each site-network-access of a particular site to the provider network (e.g., PE, aggregation switch). The current model defines parameters and constraints that can influence the meshing of the site-network-access. The management system MUST honor all customer constraints, or if a constraint is too strict and cannot be fulfilled, the management system MUST NOT provision the site and MUST provide information to the user about which constraints that could not be fulfilled.How the Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 44] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 information is provided is out of scope for this document. Whether or not to relax the constraint would then be left up to the user. Parameters such as site location (see Section 6.6.2) and access type are just hints (see Section 6.6.3) for the management system for service placement. In addition to parameters and constraints, the management system's decision MAY be based on any other internal constraints that are left up to the SP: least load, distance, etc. 6.6.1. Constraint: Device In the case of provider management or co-management, one or more devices have been ordered by the customer to a particular already- configured location. The customer may force a particular site- network-access to be connected on a particular device that he ordered. New York Site +------------------+ Site | +--------------+ |----------------------------------- | | Manhattan | | | | CE1********* (site-network-access#1) ****** | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | | Brooklyn CE2********* (site-network-access#2) ****** | +--------------+ | | |----------------------------------- +------------------+ In the figure above, site-network-access#1 is associated with CE1 in the service request. The SP must ensure the provisioning of this connection. 6.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location The location information provided in this model MAY be used by a management system to determine the target PE to mesh the site (SP side). A particular location must be associated with each site network access when configuring it. The SP MUST honor the termination of the access on the location associated with the site network access (customer side). The "country-code" in the site location SHOULD be expressed as an ISO ALPHA-2 code. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 45] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 The site-network-access location is determined by the "location- flavor". In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed site, the user is expected to configure a "device-reference" (device case) that will bind the site-network-access to a particular device that the customer ordered. As each device is already associated with a particular location, in such a case the location information is retrieved from the device location. In the case of a customer- managed site, the user is expected to configure a "location- reference" (location case); this provides a reference to an existing configured location and will help with placement. POP#1 (New York) +---------+ | PE1 | Site #1 ---... | PE2 | (Atlantic City) | PE3 | +---------+ POP#2 (Washington) +---------+ | PE4 | | PE5 | | PE6 | +---------+ POP#3 (Philadelphia) +---------+ | PE7 | Site #2 CE#1---... | PE8 | (Reston) | PE9 | +---------+ In the example above, Site #1 is a customer-managed site with a location L1, while Site #2 is a provider-managed site for which a CE (CE#1) was ordered. Site #2 is configured with L2 as its location. When configuring a site-network-access for Site #1, the user will need to reference location L1 so that the management system will know that the access will need to terminate on this location. Then, for distance reasons, this management system may mesh Site #1 on a PE in the Philadelphia POP. It may also take into account resources available on PEs to determine the exact target PE (e.g., least loaded). For Site #2, the user is expected to configure the site- network-access with a device-reference to CE#1 so that the management system will know that the access must terminate on the location of CE#1 and must be connected to CE#1. For placement of the SP side of the access connection, in the case of the nearest PE used, it may mesh Site #2 on the Washington POP. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 46] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type The management system needs to elect the access media to connect the site to the customer (for example, xDSL, leased line, Ethernet backhaul). The customer may provide some parameters/constraints that will provide hints to the management system. The bearer container information SHOULD be the first piece of information considered when making this decision: o The "requested-type" parameter provides information about the media type that the customer would like to use. If the "strict" leaf is equal to "true", this MUST be considered a strict constraint so that the management system cannot connect the site with another media type. If the "strict" leaf is equal to "false" (default) and if the requested media type cannot be fulfilled, the management system can select another media type. The supported media types SHOULD be communicated by the SP to the customer via a mechanism that is out of scope for this document. o The "always-on" leaf defines a strict constraint: if set to true, the management system MUST elect a media type that is "always-on" (e.g., this means no dial access type). o The "bearer-reference" parameter is used in cases where the customer has already ordered a network connection to the SP apart from the IP VPN site and wants to reuse this connection. The string used is an internal reference from the SP and describes the already-available connection. This is also a strict requirement that cannot be relaxed. How the reference is given to the customer is out of scope for this document, but as a pure example, when the customer ordered the bearer (through a process that is out of scope for this model), the SP may have provided the bearer reference that can be used for provisioning services on top. Any other internal parameters from the SP can also be used. The management system MAY use other parameters, such as the requested "svc-input-bandwidth" and "svc-output-bandwidth", to help decide which access type to use. 6.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity Each site-network-access may have one or more constraints that would drive the placement of the access. By default, the model assumes that there are no constraints, but allocation of a unique bearer per site-network-access is expected. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 47] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 In order to help with the different placement scenarios, a site- network-access may be tagged using one or multiple group identifiers. The group identifier is a string, so it can accommodate both explicit naming of a group of sites (e.g., "multihomed-set1" or "subVPN") and the use of a numbered identifier (e.g., 12345678). The meaning of each group-id is local to each customer administrator, and the management system MUST ensure that different customers can use the same group-ids. One or more group-ids can also be defined at the site level; as a consequence, all site-network-accesses under the site MUST inherit the group-ids of the site they belong to. When, in addition to the site group-ids some group-ids are defined at the site-network-access level, the management system MUST consider the union of all groups (site level and site network access level) for this particular site-network-access. For an already-configured site-network-access, each constraint MUST be expressed against a targeted set of site-network-accesses. This site-network-access MUST never be taken into account in the targeted set -- for example, "My site-network-access S must not be connected on the same POP as the site-network-accesses that are part of Group 10." The set of site-network-accesses against which the constraint is evaluated can be expressed as a list of groups, "all-other- accesses", or "all-other-groups". The all-other-accesses option means that the current site-network-access constraint MUST be evaluated against all the other site-network-accesses belonging to the current site. The all-other-groups option means that the constraint MUST be evaluated against all groups that the current site-network-access does not belong to. The current model defines multiple constraint-types: o pe-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses. o pop-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same POP as the targeted site-network-accesses. o linecard-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same linecard as the targeted site-network- accesses. o bearer-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT use common bearer components compared to bearers used by the targeted site-network-accesses. "bearer-diverse" provides some level of diversity at the access level. As an example, two bearer-diverse site-network-accesses must not use the same DSLAM, BAS, or Layer 2 switch. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 48] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o same-pe: The current site-network-access MUST be connected to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses. o same-bearer: The current site-network-access MUST be connected using the same bearer as the targeted site-network-accesses. These constraint-types can be extended through augmentation. Each constraint is expressed as "The site-network-access S must be (e.g., pe-diverse, pop-diverse) from these site-network-accesses." The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may be the same as the one used by the current site-network-access. This eases the configuration of scenarios where a group of site-network-access points has a constraint between the access points in the group. As an example, if we want a set of sites (Site#1 to Site#5) to be connected on different PEs, we can tag them with the same group-id and express a pe-diverse constraint for this group-id with the following XML snippet: VPNA SITE1 L1 customer-managed 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 49] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 10 pe-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role SITE2 L1 customer-managed Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 50] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 10 pe-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 51] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 ... SITE5 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 10 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 52] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 pe-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may also be different than the one used by the current site-network-access. This can be used to express that a group of sites has some constraints against another group of sites, but there is no constraint within the group. For example, we consider a set of six sites and two groups; we want to ensure that a site in the first group must be pop-diverse from a site in the second group. The example of a corresponding XML snippet is described as follows: VPNA SITE1 1 10 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 53] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 pop-diverse 20 VPNA spoke-role SITE2 1 10 pop-diverse 20 VPNA spoke-role ... Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 54] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 SITE5 1 20 pop-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role SITE6 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 55] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 20 pop-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 56] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.6.5. Infeasible Access Placement Some infeasible access placement scenarios could be created via the proposed configuration framework. Such infeasible access placement scenarios could result from constraints that are too restrictive, leading to infeasible access placement in the network or conflicting constraints that would also lead to infeasible access placement. An example of conflicting rules would be to request that site-network- access#1 be pe-diverse from site-network-access#2 and to request at the same time that site-network-access#2 be on the same PE as site- network-access#1. When the management system cannot determine the placement of a site-network-access, it MUST return an error message indicating that placement was not possible. 6.6.6. Examples of Access Placement 6.6.6.1. Multihoming The customer wants to create a multihomed site. The site will be composed of two site-network-accesses; for resiliency purposes, the customer wants the two site-network-accesses to be meshed on different POPs. POP#1 +-------+ +---------+ | | | PE1 | | |---site-network-access#1----| PE2 | | | | PE3 | | | +---------+ | Site#1| | | POP#2 | | +---------+ | | | PE4 | | |---site-network-access#2----| PE5 | | | | PE6 | | | +---------+ +-------+ This scenario can be expressed with the following XML snippet: VPNA Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 57] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 SITE1 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 10 pop-diverse Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 58] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 20 VPNA spoke-role 2 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 20 pop-diverse 10 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 59] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA spoke-role But it can also be expressed with the following XML snippet: VPNA SITE1 1 pop-diverse VPNA spoke-role 2 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 60] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 pop-diverse VPNA spoke-role 6.6.6.2. Site Offload The customer has six branch offices in a particular region, and he wants to prevent having all branch offices connected on the same PE. He wants to express that three branch offices cannot be connected on the same linecard. Also, the other branch offices must be connected on a different POP. Those other branch offices cannot also be connected on the same linecard. POP#1 +---------+ | PE1 | Office#1 ---... | PE2 | Office#2 ---... | PE3 | Office#3 ---... | PE4 | +---------+ POP#2 +---------+ Office#4 ---... | PE5 | Office#5 ---... | PE6 | Office#6 ---... | PE7 | +---------+ This scenario can be expressed as follows: Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 61] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o We need to create two groups of sites: Group#10, which is composed of Office#1, Office#2, and Office#3; and Group#20, which is composed of Office#4, Office#5, and Office#6. o Sites within Group#10 must be pop-diverse from sites within Group#20, and vice versa. o Sites within Group#10 must be linecard-diverse from other sites in Group#10 (same for Group#20). VPNA Office1 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 62] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 layer3 L1 10 pop-diverse 20 linecard-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role Office2 L1 customer-managed Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 63] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 10 pop-diverse 20 linecard-diverse 10 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 64] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA spoke-role Office3 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 65] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 L1 10 pop-diverse 20 linecard-diverse 10 VPNA spoke-role Office4 L1 customer-managed layer3 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 66] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 20 pop-diverse 10 linecard-diverse 20 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 67] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA spoke-role Office5 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 20 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 68] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 pop-diverse 10 linecard-diverse 20 VPNA spoke-role Office6 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 69] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 20 pop-diverse 10 linecard-diverse 20 VPNA spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 70] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.6.6.3. Parallel Links To increase its site bandwidth at lower cost, a customer wants to order two parallel site-network-accesses that will be connected to the same PE. *******site-network-access#1********** Site 1 *******site-network-access#2********** PE1 This scenario can be expressed with the following XML snippet: VPNB SITE1 1 PE-linkgrp-1 same-pe PE-linkgrp-1 VPNB Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 71] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 spoke-role 2 PE-linkgrp-1 same-pe PE-linkgrp-1 VPNB spoke-role 6.6.6.4. SubVPN with Multihoming A customer has a site that is dual-homed. The dual-homing must be done on two different PEs. The customer also wants to implement two subVPNs on those multihomed accesses. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 72] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 +-----------------+ Site +------+ | |---------------------------------/ +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#1)*****| VPN B / \ | New York Office |****(site-network-access#2)************| VPN C | | | +-----\ / | | +-----+ | | | | +------+ | | / +-----+ | |****(site-network-access#3)*****| VPN B / \ | |****(site-network-access#4)************| VPN C | | | +-----\ / | |----------------------------------- +-----+ +-----------------+ This scenario can be expressed as follows: o The site will have four site network accesses (two subVPNs coupled via dual-homing). o Site-network-access#1 and site-network-access#3 will correspond to the multihoming of subVPN B. A PE-diverse constraint is required between them. o Site-network-access#2 and site-network-access#4 will correspond to the multihoming of subVPN C. A PE-diverse constraint is required between them. o To ensure proper usage of the same bearer for the subVPN, site- network-access#1 and site-network-access#2 must share the same bearer as site-network-access#3 and site-network-access#4. VPNB VPNC SITE1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 73] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 L1 customer-managed layer3 1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 dualhomed-1 pe-diverse dualhomed-2 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 74] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 same-bearer dualhomed-1 VPNB spoke-role 2 dualhomed-1 pe-diverse dualhomed-2 same-bearer dualhomed-1 VPNC spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 75] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 3 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 dualhomed-2 pe-diverse dualhomed-1 same-bearer dualhomed-2 VPNB spoke-role Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 76] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 4 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 dualhomed-2 pe-diverse dualhomed-1 same-bearer dualhomed-2 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 77] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNC spoke-role 6.6.7. Route Distinguisher and VRF Allocation The route distinguisher (RD) is a critical parameter of PE-based L3VPNs as described in [RFC4364] that provides the ability to distinguish common addressing plans in different VPNs. As for route targets (RTs), a management system is expected to allocate a VRF on the target PE and an RD for this VRF. If a VRF already exists on the target PE and the VRF fulfills the connectivity constraints for the site, there is no need to recreate another VRF, and the site MAY be meshed within this existing VRF. How the management system checks that an existing VRF fulfills the connectivity constraints for a site is out of scope for this document. If no such VRF exists on the target PE, the management system has to initiate the creation of a new VRF on the target PE and has to allocate a new RD for this new VRF. The management system MAY apply a per-VPN or per-VRF allocation policy for the RD, depending on the SP's policy. In a per-VPN allocation policy, all VRFs (dispatched on multiple PEs) within a VPN will share the same RD value. In a per-VRF model, all VRFs should always have a unique RD value. Some other allocation policies are also possible, and this document does not restrict the allocation policies to be used. The allocation of RDs MAY be done in the same way as RTs. The examples provided in Section 6.2.1.1 could be reused in this scenario. Note that an SP MAY configure a target PE for an automated allocation of RDs. In this case, there will be no need for any backend system to allocate an RD value. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 78] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.7. Site Network Access Availability A site may be multihomed, meaning that it has multiple site-network- access points. Placement constraints defined in previous sections will help ensure physical diversity. When the site-network-accesses are placed on the network, a customer may want to use a particular routing policy on those accesses. The "site-network-access/availability" container defines parameters for site redundancy. The "access-priority" leaf defines a preference for a particular access. This preference is used to model load- balancing or primary/backup scenarios. The higher the access- priority value, the higher the preference will be. The figure below describes how the access-priority attribute can be used. Hub#1 LAN (Primary/backup) Hub#2 LAN (Load-sharing) | | | access-priority 1 access-priority 1 | |--- CE1 ------- PE1 PE3 --------- CE3 --- | | | | | |--- CE2 ------- PE2 PE4 --------- CE4 --- | | access-priority 2 access-priority 1 | PE5 | | | CE5 | Spoke#1 site (Single-homed) In the figure above, Hub#2 requires load-sharing, so all the site- network-accesses must use the same access-priority value. On the other hand, as Hub#1 requires a primary site-network-access and a backup site-network-access, a higher access-priority setting will be configured on the primary site-network-access. Scenarios that are more complex can be modeled. Let's consider a Hub site with five accesses to the network (A1,A2,A3,A4,A5). The customer wants to load-share its traffic on A1,A2 in the nominal situation. If A1 and A2 fail, the customer wants to load-share its traffic on A3 and A4; finally, if A1 to A4 are down, he wants to use Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 79] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 A5. We can model this easily by configuring the following access- priority values: A1=100, A2=100, A3=50, A4=50, A5=10. The access-priority scenario has some limitations. An access- priority scenario like the previous one with five accesses but with the constraint of having traffic load-shared between A3 and A4 in the case where A1 OR A2 is down is not achievable. But the authors believe that using the access-priority attribute will cover most of the deployment use cases and that the model can still be extended via augmentation to support additional use cases. 6.8. Traffic Protection The service model supports the ability to protect the traffic for a site. Such protection provides a better level of availability in multihoming scenarios by, for example, using local-repair techniques in case of failures. The associated level of service guarantee would be based on an agreement between the customer and the SP and is out of scope for this document. Site#1 Site#2 CE1 ----- PE1 -- P1 P3 -- PE3 ---- CE3 | | | | | | CE2 ----- PE2 -- P2 P4 -- PE4 ---- CE4 / / CE5 ----+ Site#3 In the figure above, we consider an IP VPN service with three sites, including two dual-homed sites (Site#1 and Site#2). For dual-homed sites, we consider PE1-CE1 and PE3-CE3 as primary and PE2-CE2,PE4-CE4 as backup for the example (even if protection also applies to load- sharing scenarios). In order to protect Site#2 against a failure, a user may set the "traffic-protection/enabled" leaf to true for Site#2. How the traffic protection will be implemented is out of scope for this document. However, in such a case, we could consider traffic coming from a remote site (Site#1 or Site#3), where the primary path would use PE3 as the egress PE. PE3 may have preprogrammed a backup forwarding entry pointing to the backup path (through PE4-CE4) for all prefixes going through the PE3-CE3 link. How the backup path is computed is out of scope for this document. When the PE3-CE3 link fails, traffic is still received by PE3, but PE3 automatically switches traffic to the backup entry; the path will therefore be Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 80] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 PE1-P1-(...)-P3-PE3-PE4-CE4 until the remote PEs reconverge and use PE4 as the egress PE. 6.9. Security The "security" container defines customer-specific security parameters for the site. The security options supported in the model are limited but may be extended via augmentation. 6.9.1. Authentication The current model does not support any authentication parameters for the site connection, but such parameters may be added in the "authentication" container through augmentation. 6.9.2. Encryption Traffic encryption can be requested on the connection. It may be performed at Layer 2 or Layer 3 by selecting the appropriate enumeration in the "layer" leaf. For example, an SP may use IPsec when a customer requests Layer 3 encryption. The encryption profile can be SP defined or customer specific. When an SP profile is used and a key (e.g., a pre-shared key) is allocated by the provider to be used by a customer, the SP should provide a way to communicate the key in a secured way to the customer. When a customer profile is used, the model supports only a pre-shared key for authentication, with the pre-shared key provided through the NETCONF or RESTCONF request. A secure channel must be used to ensure that the pre-shared key cannot be intercepted. For security reasons, it may be necessary for the customer to change the pre-shared key on a regular basis. To perform a key change, the user can ask the SP to change the pre-shared key by submitting a new pre-shared key for the site configuration (as shown below with a corresponding XML snippet). This mechanism might not be hitless. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 81] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA SITE1 1 MY_NEW_KEY A hitless key-change mechanism may be added through augmentation. Other key-management methodologies (e.g., PKI) may be added through augmentation. 6.10. Management The model defines three types of common management options: o provider-managed: The CE router is managed only by the provider. In this model, the responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is between the CE and the customer network. o customer-managed: The CE router is managed only by the customer. In this model, the responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is between the PE and the CE. o co-managed: The CE router is primarily managed by the provider; in addition, the SP allows customers to access the CE for configuration/monitoring purposes. In the co-managed mode, the Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 82] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 responsibility boundary is the same as the responsibility boundary for the provider-managed model. Based on the management model, different security options MAY be derived. In the co-managed case, the model defines options for the management address family (IPv4 or IPv6) and the associated management address. 6.11. Routing Protocols "routing-protocol" defines which routing protocol must be activated between the provider and the customer router. The current model supports the following settings: bgp, rip, ospf, static, direct, and vrrp. The routing protocol defined applies at the provider-to-customer boundary. Depending on how the management model is administered, it may apply to the PE-CE boundary or the CE-to-customer boundary. In the case of a customer-managed site, the routing protocol defined will be activated between the PE and the CE router managed by the customer. In the case of a provider-managed site, the routing protocol defined will be activated between the CE managed by the SP and the router or LAN belonging to the customer. In this case, we expect the PE-CE routing to be configured based on the SP's rules, as both are managed by the same entity. Rtg protocol 192.0.2.0/24 ----- CE ----------------- PE1 Customer-managed site Rtg protocol Customer router ----- CE ----------------- PE1 Provider-managed site All the examples below will refer to a scenario for a customer- managed site. 6.11.1. Handling of Dual Stack All routing protocol types support dual stack by using the "address- family" leaf-list. Example of a corresponding XML snippet with dual stack using the same routing protocol: Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 83] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA SITE1 static 192.0.2.0/24 203.0.113.1 Example of a corresponding XML snippet with dual stack using two different routing protocols: Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 84] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA SITE1 rip ipv4 ospf ipv6 4.4.4.4 6.11.2. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network The routing protocol type "direct" SHOULD be used when a customer LAN is directly connected to the provider network and must be advertised in the IP VPN. LAN attached directly to provider network: 192.0.2.0/24 ----- PE1 In this case, the customer has a default route to the PE address. 6.11.3. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network with Redundancy The routing protocol type "vrrp" SHOULD be used and advertised in the IP VPN when Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 85] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o the customer LAN is directly connected to the provider network, and o LAN redundancy is expected. LAN attached directly to provider network with LAN redundancy: 192.0.2.0/24 ------ PE1 | +--- PE2 In this case, the customer has a default route to the SP network. 6.11.4. Static Routing The routing protocol type "static" MAY be used when a customer LAN is connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be advertised in the IP VPN. In this case, the static routes give next hops (nh) to the CE and to the PE. The customer has a default route to the SP network. Static rtg 192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE | | | Static route 192.0.2.0/24 nh CE Static route 0.0.0.0/0 nh PE 6.11.5. RIP Routing The routing protocol type "rip" MAY be used when a customer LAN is connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be advertised in the IP VPN. For IPv4, the model assumes that RIP version 2 is used. In the case of dual-stack routing requested through this model, the management system will be responsible for configuring RIP (including the correct version number) and associated address families on network elements. RIP rtg 192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 86] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.11.6. OSPF Routing The routing protocol type "ospf" MAY be used when a customer LAN is connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be advertised in the IP VPN. It can be used to extend an existing OSPF network and interconnect different areas. See [RFC4577] for more details. +---------------------+ | | OSPF | | OSPF area 1 | | area 2 (OSPF | | (OSPF area 1) --- CE ---------- PE PE ----- CE --- area 2) | | +---------------------+ The model also defines an option to create an OSPF sham link between two sites sharing the same area and having a backdoor link. The sham link is created by referencing the target site sharing the same OSPF area. The management system will be responsible for checking to see if there is already a sham link configured for this VPN and area between the same pair of PEs. If there is no existing sham link, the management system will provision one. This sham link MAY be reused by other sites. +------------------------+ | | | | | PE (--sham link--)PE | | | | | +----|----------------|--+ | OSPF area 1 | OSPF area 1 | | CE1 CE2 | | (OSPF area 1) (OSPF area 1) | | +----------------+ Regarding dual-stack support, the user MAY specify both IPv4 and IPv6 address families, if both protocols should be routed through OSPF. As OSPF uses separate protocol instances for IPv4 and IPv6, the management system will need to configure both OSPF version 2 and OSPF version 3 on the PE-CE link. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 87] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Other OSPF parameters, such as timers, are typically set by the SP and communicated to the customer outside the scope of this model. Example of a corresponding XML snippet with OSPF routing parameters in the service model: VPNA SITE1 ospf 0.0.0.1 ipv4 ipv6 Example of PE configuration done by the management system: router ospf 10 area 0.0.0.1 interface Ethernet0/0 ! router ospfv3 10 area 0.0.0.1 interface Ethernet0/0 ! 6.11.7. BGP Routing The routing protocol type "bgp" MAY be used when a customer LAN is connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be advertised in the IP VPN. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 88] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 BGP rtg 192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE The session addressing will be derived from connection parameters as well as the SP's knowledge of the addressing plan that is in use. In the case of dual-stack access, the user MAY request BGP routing for both IPv4 and IPv6 by specifying both address families. It will be up to the SP and management system to determine how to describe the configuration (two BGP sessions, single, multi-session, etc.). This, along with other BGP parameters such as timers, is communicated to the customer outside the scope of this model. The service configuration below activates BGP on the PE-CE link for both IPv4 and IPv6. BGP activation requires the SP to know the address of the customer peer. If the site-network-access connection addresses are used for BGP peering, the "static-address" allocation type for the IP connection MUST be used. Other peering mechanisms are outside the scope of this model. An example of a corresponding XML snippet is described as follows: VPNA SITE1 bgp 65000 ipv4 ipv6 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 89] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Depending on the SP flavor, a management system can divide this service configuration into different flavors, as shown by the following examples. Example of PE configuration done by the management system (single IPv4 transport session): router bgp 100 neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000 address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1 neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1 neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate neighbor 203.0.113.2 route-map SET-NH-IPV6 out Example of PE configuration done by the management system (two sessions): router bgp 100 neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000 neighbor 2001::2 remote-as 65000 address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1 neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1 neighbor 2001::2 activate Example of PE configuration done by the management system (multi- session): router bgp 100 neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000 neighbor 203.0.113.2 multisession per-af address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1 neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1 neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate neighbor 203.0.113.2 route-map SET-NH-IPV6 out 6.12. Service The service defines service parameters associated with the site. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 90] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.12.1. Bandwidth The service bandwidth refers to the bandwidth requirement between the PE and the CE (WAN link bandwidth). The requested bandwidth is expressed as svc-input-bandwidth and svc-output-bandwidth in bits per second. The input/output direction uses the customer site as a reference: "input bandwidth" means download bandwidth for the site, and "output bandwidth" means upload bandwidth for the site. The service bandwidth is only configurable at the site-network-access level. Using a different input and output bandwidth will allow the SP to determine if the customer allows for asymmetric bandwidth access, such as ADSL. It can also be used to set rate-limiting in a different way for uploading and downloading on a symmetric bandwidth access. The bandwidth is a service bandwidth expressed primarily as IP bandwidth, but if the customer enables MPLS for Carriers' Carriers (CsC), this becomes MPLS bandwidth. 6.12.2. MTU The service MTU refers to the maximum PDU size that the customer may use. If the customer sends packets which are longer than the requested service MTU, the network may discard it (or for IPv4, fragmented). 6.12.3. QoS The model defines QoS parameters in an abstracted way: o qos-classification-policy: policy that defines a set of ordered rules to classify customer traffic. o qos-profile: QoS scheduling profile to be applied. 6.12.3.1. QoS Classification QoS classification rules are handled by the "qos-classification- policy" container. The qos-classification-policy container is an ordered list of rules that match a flow or application and set the appropriate target class of service (target-class-id). The user can define the match using an application reference or a flow definition that is more specific (e.g., based on Layer 3 source and destination addresses, Layer 4 ports, and Layer 4 protocol). When a flow definition is used, the user can employ a "target-sites" leaf-list to Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 91] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 identify the destination of a flow rather than using destination IP addresses. In such a case, an association between the site abstraction and the IP addresses used by this site must be done dynamically. How this association is done is out of scope for this document. The association of a site to an IP VPN is done through the "vpn-attachment" container. Therefore the user can also employ "target-sites" leaf-list and "vpn-attachment" to identify the destination of a flow targeted to specific vpn service. A rule that does not have a match statement is considered a match-all rule. An SP may implement a default terminal classification rule if the customer does not provide it. It will be up to the SP to determine its default target class. The current model defines some applications, but new application identities may be added through augmentation. The exact meaning of each application identity is up to the SP, so it will be necessary for the SP to advise the customer on the usage of application matching. Where the classification is done depends on the SP's implementation of the service, but classification concerns the flow coming from the customer site and entering the network. Provider network +-----------------------+ 192.0.2.0/24 198.51.100.0/24 ---- CE --------- PE Traffic flow ----------> In the figure above, the management system should implement the classification rule: o in the ingress direction on the PE interface, if the CE is customer-managed. o in the ingress direction on the CE interface connected to the customer LAN, if the CE is provider-managed. The figure below describes a sample service description of QoS classification for a site: VPNA Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 92] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 SITE1 SvrA-http 192.0.2.0/24 203.0.113.1/32 80 tcp DATA2 SvrA-ftp 192.0.2.0/24 203.0.113.1/32 21 tcp DATA2 p2p p2p DATA3 any DATA1 In the example above: o HTTP traffic from the 192.0.2.0/24 LAN destined for 203.0.113.1/32 will be classified in DATA2. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 93] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o FTP traffic from the 192.0.2.0/24 LAN destined for 203.0.113.1/32 will be classified in DATA2. o Peer-to-peer traffic will be classified in DATA3. o All other traffic will be classified in DATA1. The order of rule list entries is defined by the user. The management system responsible for translating those rules in network element configuration MUST keep the same processing order in network element configuration. 6.12.3.2. QoS Profile The user can choose either a standard profile provided by the operator or a custom profile. The "qos-profile" container defines the traffic-scheduling policy to be used by the SP. Provider network +-----------------------+ 192.0.2.0/24 198.51.100.0/24 ---- CE --------- PE \ / qos-profile A custom QoS profile is defined as a list of classes of services and associated properties. The properties are: o direction: used to specify the direction to which the qos profile is applied. This model supports three direction settings: "Site- to-WAN", "WAN-to-Site", and "both". By default, the "both" direction value is used. In case of "both" direction, the provider should ensure scheduling according to the requested policy in both traffic directions (SP to customer and customer to SP). As an example, a device-scheduling policy may be implemented on both the PE side and the CE side of the WAN link. In case of "WAN-to-Site" direction, the provider should ensure scheduling from the SP network to the customer site. As an example, a device- scheduling policy may be implemented only on the PE side of the WAN link towards the customer. o rate-limit: used to rate-limit the class of service. The value is expressed as a percentage of the global service bandwidth. When the qos-profile container is implemented on the CE side, svc- output-bandwidth is taken into account as a reference. When it is implemented on the PE side, svc-input-bandwidth is used. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 94] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o latency: used to define the latency constraint of the class. The latency constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible latency or a latency boundary expressed in milliseconds. How this latency constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP's implementation of the service: a strict priority queuing may be used on the access and in the core network, and/or a low-latency routing configuration may be created for this traffic class. o jitter: used to define the jitter constraint of the class. The jitter constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible jitter or a jitter boundary expressed in microseconds. How this jitter constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP's implementation of the service: a strict priority queuing may be used on the access and in the core network, and/or a jitter-aware routing configuration may be created for this traffic class. o bandwidth: used to define a guaranteed amount of bandwidth for the class of service. It is expressed as a percentage. The "guaranteed-bw-percent" parameter uses available bandwidth as a reference. When the qos-profile container is implemented on the CE side, svc-output-bandwidth is taken into account as a reference. When it is implemented on the PE side, svc-input- bandwidth is used. By default, the bandwidth reservation is only guaranteed at the access level. The user can use the "end-to-end" leaf to request an end-to-end bandwidth reservation, including across the MPLS transport network. (In other words, the SP will activate something in the MPLS core to ensure that the bandwidth request from the customer will be fulfilled by the MPLS core as well.) How this is done (e.g., RSVP reservation, controller reservation) is out of scope for this document. In addition, due to network conditions, some constraints may not be completely fulfilled by the SP; in this case, the SP should advise the customer about the limitations. How this communication is done is out of scope for this document. Example of service configuration using a standard QoS profile with the following corresponding XML snippet: GOLD PLATINUM Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 95] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPNA SITE1 L1 1245HRTFGJGJ154654 VPNA spoke-role provider-dhcp provider-dhcp layer3 L1 100000000 100000000 1514 PLATINUM L1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 96] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 555555AAAA2344 VPNA spoke-role provider-dhcp provider-dhcp layer3 L1 2000000 2000000 1514 GOLD Example of service configuration using a custom QoS profile with the following corresponding XML snippet: GOLD Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 97] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 PLATINUM VPNA SITE1 L1 Site1 L1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 layer3 L1 VPNA spoke-role 100000000 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 98] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 100000000 REAL_TIME both 10 80 DATA1 70 80 DATA2 200 5 The custom QoS profile for Site1 defines a REAL_TIME class with a latency constraint expressed as the lowest possible latency. It also defines two data classes -- DATA1 and DATA2. The two classes express Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 99] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 a latency boundary constraint as well as a bandwidth reservation, as the REAL_TIME class is rate-limited to 10% of the service bandwidth (10% of 100 Mbps = 10 Mbps). In cases where congestion occurs, the REAL_TIME traffic can go up to 10 Mbps (let's assume that only 5 Mbps are consumed). DATA1 and DATA2 will share the remaining bandwidth (95 Mbps) according to their percentage. So, the DATA1 class will be served with at least 76 Mbps of bandwidth, while the DATA2 class will be served with at least 4.75 Mbps. The latency boundary information of the data class may help the SP define a specific buffer tuning or a specific routing within the network. The maximum percentage to be used is not limited by this model but MUST be limited by the management system according to the policies authorized by the SP. 6.12.4. Multicast The "multicast" container defines the type of site in the customer multicast service topology: source, receiver, or both. These parameters will help the management system optimize the multicast service. Users can also define the type of multicast relationship with the customer: router (requires a protocol such as PIM), host (IGMP or MLD), or both. An address family (IPv4, IPv6, or both) can also be defined. 6.13. Enhanced VPN Features 6.13.1. Carriers' Carriers In the case of CsC [RFC4364], a customer may want to build an MPLS service using an IP VPN to carry its traffic. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 100] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 LAN customer1 | | CE1 | | ------------- (vrf_cust1) CE1_ISP1 | ISP1 POP | MPLS link | ------------- | (vrf ISP1) PE1 (...) Provider backbone PE2 (vrf ISP1) | | ------------ | | MPLS link | ISP1 POP CE2_ISP1 (vrf_cust1) | ------------ | CE2 | LAN customer1 In the figure above, ISP1 resells an IP VPN service but has no core network infrastructure between its POPs. ISP1 uses an IP VPN as the core network infrastructure (belonging to another provider) between its POPs. In order to support CsC, the VPN service must indicate MPLS support by setting the "carrierscarrier" leaf to true in the vpn-service list. The link between CE1_ISP1/PE1 and CE2_ISP1/PE2 must also run an MPLS signalling protocol. This configuration is done at the site level. In the proposed model, LDP or BGP can be used as the MPLS signalling protocol. In the case of LDP, an IGP routing protocol MUST also be activated. In the case of BGP signalling, BGP MUST also be configured as the routing protocol. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 101] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 If CsC is enabled, the requested "svc-mtu" leaf will refer to the MPLS MTU and not to the IP MTU. 6.14. External ID References The service model sometimes refers to external information through identifiers. As an example, to order a cloud-access to a particular cloud service provider (CSP), the model uses an identifier to refer to the targeted CSP. If a customer is directly using this service model as an API (through REST or NETCONF, for example) to order a particular service, the SP should provide a list of authorized identifiers. In the case of cloud-access, the SP will provide the associated identifiers for each available CSP. The same applies to other identifiers, such as std-qos-profile, OAM profile-name, and provider-profile for encryption. How an SP provides the meanings of those identifiers to the customer is out of scope for this document. 6.15. Defining NNIs An autonomous system (AS) is a single network or group of networks that is controlled by a common system administration group and that uses a single, clearly defined routing protocol. In some cases, VPNs need to span different ASes in different geographic areas or span different SPs. The connection between ASes is established by the SPs and is seamless to the customer. Examples include o a partnership between SPs (e.g., carrier, cloud) to extend their VPN service seamlessly. o an internal administrative boundary within a single SP (e.g., backhaul versus core versus data center). NNIs (network-to-network interfaces) have to be defined to extend the VPNs across multiple ASes. [RFC4364] defines multiple flavors of VPN NNI implementations. Each implementation has pros and cons; this topic is outside the scope of this document. For example, in an Inter-AS option A, autonomous system border router (ASBR) peers are connected by multiple interfaces with at least one of those interfaces spanning the two ASes while being present in the same VPN. In order for these ASBRs to signal unlabeled IP prefixes, they associate each interface with a VPN routing and forwarding (VRF) instance and a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) session. As a result, traffic between the back-to- back VRFs is IP. In this scenario, the VPNs are isolated from each other, and because the traffic is IP, QoS mechanisms that operate on Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 102] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 IP traffic can be applied to achieve customer service level agreements (SLAs). -------- -------------- ----------- / \ / \ / \ | Cloud | | | | | | Provider |-----NNI-----| |----NNI---| Data Center | | #1 | | | | | \ / | | \ / -------- | | ----------- | | -------- | My network | ----------- / \ | | / \ | Cloud | | | | | | Provider |-----NNI-----| |---NNI---| L3VPN | | #2 | | | | Partner | \ / | | | | -------- | | | | \ / | | -------------- \ / | ----------- | NNI | | ------------------- / \ | | | | | | | L3VPN Partner | | | \ / ------------------- The figure above describes an SP network called "My network" that has several NNIs. This network uses NNIs to: o increase its footprint by relying on L3VPN partners. o connect its own data center services to the customer IP VPN. o enable the customer to access its private resources located in a private cloud owned by some CSPs. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 103] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 6.15.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1) + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2) + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1) + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2) + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- In option A, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple physical connections between the ASes. A VPN connection -- physical or logical (on top of physical) -- is created for each VPN that needs to cross the AS boundary, thus providing a back-to-back VRF model. From a service model's perspective, this VPN connection can be seen as a site. Let's say that AS B wants to extend some VPN connections for VPN C on AS A. The administrator of AS B can use this service model to order a site on AS A. All connection scenarios could be realized using the features of the current model. As an example, the figure above shows two physical connections that have logical connections per VPN overlaid on them. This could be seen as a dual- homed subVPN scenario. Also, the administrator of AS B will be able to choose the appropriate routing protocol (e.g., E-BGP) to dynamically exchange routes between ASes. This document assumes that the option A NNI flavor SHOULD reuse the existing VPN site modeling. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 104] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Example: a customer wants its CSP A to attach its virtual network N to an existing IP VPN (VPN1) that he has from L3VPN SP B. CSP A L3VPN SP B ----------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | | VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++ |--- VPN1 | | + +_________+ + | Site#1 | |--------(VRF1)---(VPN1)--(VRF1)+ | | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | | + +_________+ + | | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | |Virtual | | | Site#2 | |Network | | | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | | | | | Site#3 \ / \ / ----------------- ------------------- | | VPN1 Site#4 To create the VPN connectivity, the CSP or the customer may use the L3VPN service model that SP B exposes. We could consider that, as the NNI is shared, the physical connection (bearer) between CSP A and SP B already exists. CSP A may request through a service model the creation of a new site with a single site-network-access (single- homing is used in the figure). As a placement constraint, CSP A may use the existing bearer reference it has from SP A to force the placement of the VPN NNI on the existing link. The XML snippet below illustrates a possible configuration request to SP B: GOLD PLATINUM Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 105] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 VPN1 CSP_A_attachment layer3 L1 1 NY US site-vpn-flavor-nni bgp 500 ipv4 CSP_A_VN1 L1 provider-dhcp provider-dhcp Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 106] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 static-address 203.0.113.1 203.0.113.2 30 450000000 450000000 1514 layer3 VPN1 any-to-any-role customer-managed The case described above is different from a scenario using the cloud-accesses container, as the cloud-access provides a public cloud access while this example enables access to private resources located in a CSP network. 6.15.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 107] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- In option B, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple physical connections between the ASes. The VPN "connection" between ASes is done by exchanging VPN routes through MP-BGP [RFC4760]. There are multiple flavors of implementations of such an NNI. For example: 1. The NNI is internal to the provider and is situated between a backbone and a data center. There is enough trust between the domains to not filter the VPN routes. So, all the VPN routes are exchanged. RT filtering may be implemented to save some unnecessary route states. 2. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN routes for specific RTs only. Each provider is authorized to use the RT values from the other provider. 3. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN routes for specific RTs only. Each provider has its own RT Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 108] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 scheme. So, a customer spanning the two networks will have different RTs in each network for a particular VPN. Case 1 does not require any service modeling, as the protocol enables the dynamic exchange of necessary VPN routes. Case 2 requires that an RT-filtering policy on ASBRs be maintained. From a service modeling point of view, it is necessary to agree on the list of RTs to authorize. In Case 3, both ASes need to agree on the VPN RT to exchange, as well as how to map a VPN RT from AS A to the corresponding RT in AS B (and vice versa). Those modelings are currently out of scope for this document. CSP A L3VPN SP B ----------------- ------------------ / \ / \ | | | | | | VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++ |--- VPN1 | | + +__________+ + | Site#1 | |-------+ + + + | | | + ASBR +<-MP-BGP->+ ASBR + | | | + +__________+ + | | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | |Virtual | | | Site#2 | |Network | | | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | | | | | Site#3 \ / | | ----------------- | | \ / ------------------ | | VPN1 Site#4 The example above describes an NNI connection between CSP A and SP network B. Both SPs do not trust themselves and use a different RT allocation policy. So, in terms of implementation, the customer VPN has a different RT in each network (RT A in CSP A and RT B in SP network B). In order to connect the customer virtual network in CSP A to the customer IP VPN (VPN1) in SP network B, CSP A should request Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 109] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 that SP network B open the customer VPN on the NNI (accept the appropriate RT). Who does the RT translation depends on the agreement between the two SPs: SP B may permit CSP A to request VPN (RT) translation. 6.15.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Multihop E-BGP ++++++++ | | + + + + | | + + + + | | + RGW +<----MP-BGP---->+ RGW + | | + + + + | | + + + + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 110] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 From a VPN service's perspective, the option C NNI is very similar to option B, as an MP-BGP session is used to exchange VPN routes between the ASes. The difference is that the forwarding plane and the control plane are on different nodes, so the MP-BGP session is multihop between routing gateway (RGW) nodes. From a VPN service's point of view, modeling options B and C will be identical. 7. Service Model Usage Example As explained in Section 5, this service model is intended to be instantiated at a management layer and is not intended to be used directly on network elements. The management system serves as a central point of configuration of the overall service. This section provides an example of how a management system can use this model to configure an IP VPN service on network elements. In this example, we want to achieve the provisioning of a VPN service for three sites using a Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology. One of the sites will be dual-homed, and load-sharing is expected. +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 | | | +----------------------------------+ | | | | | +----------------------------------+ | Hub_Site ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ The following XML snippet describes the overall simplified service configuration of this VPN. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 111] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 GOLD PLATINUM 12456487 hub-spoke When receiving the request for provisioning the VPN service, the management system will internally (or through communication with another OSS component) allocate VPN RTs. In this specific case, two RTs will be allocated (100:1 for Hub and 100:2 for Spoke). The output of corresponding XML snippet below describes the configuration of Spoke_Site1. GOLD PLATINUM 12456487 hub-spoke Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 112] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Spoke_Site1 D1 1 NY US layer3 bgp 500 ipv4 ipv6 Spoke_Site1 D1 20 pe-diverse 10 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 113] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 static-address 203.0.113.254 203.0.113.2 24 static-address 2001:db8::1 2001:db8::2 64 450000000 450000000 1514 layer3 12456487 spoke-role provider-managed Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 114] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 When receiving the request for provisioning Spoke_Site1, the management system MUST allocate network resources for this site. It MUST first determine the target network elements to provision the access, particularly the PE router (and perhaps also an aggregation switch). As described in Section 6.6, the management system SHOULD use the location information and MUST use the access-diversity constraint to find the appropriate PE. In this case, we consider that Spoke_Site1 requires PE diversity with the Hub and that the management system allocates PEs based on the least distance. Based on the location information, the management system finds the available PEs in the area nearest the customer and picks one that fits the access-diversity constraint. When the PE is chosen, the management system needs to allocate interface resources on the node. One interface is selected from the pool of available PEs. The management system can start provisioning the chosen PE node via whatever means the management system prefers (e.g., NETCONF, CLI). The management system will check to see if a VRF that fits its needs is already present. If not, it will provision the VRF: the RD will be derived from the internal allocation policy model, and the RTs will be derived from the VPN policy configuration of the site (the management system allocated some RTs for the VPN). As the site is a Spoke site (site-role), the management system knows which RTs must be imported and exported. As the site is provider-managed, some management RTs may also be added (100:5000). Standard provider VPN policies MAY also be added in the configuration. Example of generated PE configuration: ip vrf Customer1 export-map STD-CUSTOMER-EXPORT <---- Standard SP configuration route-distinguisher 100:3123234324 route-target import 100:1 route-target import 100:5000 <---- Standard SP configuration route-target export 100:2 for provider-managed CE ! When the VRF has been provisioned, the management system can start configuring the access on the PE using the allocated interface information. IP addressing is chosen by the management system. One address will be picked from an allocated subnet for the PE, and another will be used for the CE configuration. Routing protocols will also be configured between the PE and CE; because this model is provider-managed, the choices are left to the SP. BGP was chosen for this example. This choice is independent of the routing protocol chosen by the customer. BGP will be used to configure the CE-to-LAN Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 115] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 connection as requested in the service model. Peering addresses will be derived from those of the connection. As the CE is provider- managed, the CE's AS number can be automatically allocated by the management system. Standard configuration templates provided by the SP may also be added. Example of generated PE configuration: interface Ethernet1/1/0.10 encapsulation dot1q 10 ip vrf forwarding Customer1 ip address 198.51.100.1 255.255.255.252 <---- Comes from automated allocation ipv6 address 2001:db8::10:1/64 ip access-group STD-PROTECT-IN <---- Standard SP config ! router bgp 100 address-family ipv4 vrf Customer1 neighbor 198.51.100.2 remote-as 65000 <---- Comes from automated allocation neighbor 198.51.100.2 route-map STD in <---- Standard SP config neighbor 198.51.100.2 filter-list 10 in <---- Standard SP config ! address-family ipv6 vrf Customer1 neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 remote-as 65000 <---- Comes from automated allocation neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 route-map STD in <---- Standard SP config neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 filter-list 10 in <---- Standard SP config ! ip route vrf Customer1 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.255 198.51.100.2 ! Static route for provider administration of CE ! As the CE router is not reachable at this stage, the management system can produce a complete CE configuration that can be manually uploaded to the node before sending the CE configuration to the customer premises. The CE configuration will be built in the same way as the PE would be configured. Based on the CE type (vendor/ model) allocated to the customer as well as the bearer information, the management system knows which interface must be configured on the CE. PE-CE link configuration is expected to be handled automatically using the SP OSS, as both resources are managed internally. CE-to- LAN-interface parameters such as IP addressing are derived from the ip-connection container, taking into account how the management system distributes addresses between the PE and CE within the subnet. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 116] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 This will allow a plug-and-play configuration for the CE to be created. Example of generated CE configuration: interface Loopback10 description "Administration" ip address 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.255 ! interface FastEthernet10 description "WAN" ip address 198.51.100.2 255.255.255.252 <---- Comes from automated allocation ipv6 address 2001:db8::0a10:2/64 ! interface FastEthernet11 description "LAN" ip address 203.0.113.254 255.255.255.0 <---- Comes from the ip-connection container ipv6 address 2001:db8::1/64 ! router bgp 65000 address-family ipv4 redistribute static route-map STATIC2BGP <---- Standard SP configuration neighbor 198.51.100.1 remote-as 100 <---- Comes from automated allocation neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 500 <---- Comes from the ip-connection container address-family ipv6 redistribute static route-map STATIC2BGP <---- Standard SP configuration neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:1 remote-as 100 <---- Comes from automated allocation neighbor 2001:db8::2 remote-as 500 <---- Comes from the ip-connection container ! route-map STATIC2BGP permit 10 match tag 10 ! 8. Interaction with Other YANG Modules As expressed in Section 5, this service model is intended to be instantiated in a management system and not directly on network elements. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 117] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 The management system's role will be to configure the network elements. The management system may be modular, so the component instantiating the service model (let's call it "service component") and the component responsible for network element configuration (let's call it "configuration component") may be different. l3vpn-svc | Model | | +---------------------+ | Service component | Service datastore +---------------------+ | | +---------------------+ +----| Config component |------+ / +---------------------+ \ Network / / \ \ Configuration / / \ \ models / / \ \ ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ + CE A + ------- + PE A + + PE B + ----- + CE B + Config ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ datastore Site A Site B In the previous sections, we provided some examples of the translation of service provisioning requests to router configuration lines. In the NETCONF/YANG ecosystem, we expect NETCONF/YANG to be used between the configuration component and network elements to configure the requested services on those elements. In this framework, specifications are expected to provide specific YANG modeling of service components on network elements. There will be a strong relationship between the abstracted view provided by this service model and the detailed configuration view that will be provided by specific configuration models for network elements. The authors of this document anticipate definitions of YANG models for the network elements listed below. Note that this list is not exhaustive: o VRF definition, including VPN policy expression. o Physical interface. o IP layer (IPv4, IPv6). Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 118] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 o QoS: classification, profiles, etc. o Routing protocols: support of configuration of all protocols listed in the document, as well as routing policies associated with those protocols. o Multicast VPN. o Network address translation. Example of a corresponding XML snippet with a VPN site request at the service level, using this model: GOLD PLATINUM VPN1 hub-spoke Site A layer3 L1 1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 119] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 static-address 203.0.113.254 203.0.113.2 24 provider-dhcp 1514 10000000 10000000 L1 VPNPOL1 static 198.51.100.0/30 203.0.113.2 customer-managed VPNPOL1 1 VPN1 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 120] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 any-to-any-role In the service example above, the service component is expected to request that the configuration component of the management system provide the configuration of the service elements. If we consider that the service component selected a PE (PE A) as the target PE for the site, the configuration component will need to push the configuration to PE A. The configuration component will use several YANG data models to define the configuration to be applied to PE A. The XML snippet configuration of PE A might look like this: eth0 ianaift:ethernetCsmacd Link to CE A. 203.0.113.254 24 true VRF_CustA l3vpn-network:vrf VRF for Customer A 100:1546542343 100:1 100:1 eth0 Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 121] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 rt:static st0 198.51.100.0/30 203.0.113.2 9. YANG Module file "ietf-l3vpn-svc@2017-09-14.yang" module ietf-l3vpn-svc { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc"; prefix l3vpn-svc; import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; } import ietf-netconf-acm { prefix nacm; } organization "IETF L3SM Working Group"; contact "WG List: Editor: L3SM WG Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 122] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Chairs: Adrian Farrel, Qin Wu "; description "This YANG module defines a generic service configuration model for Layer 3 VPNs. This model is common across all vendor implementations."; revision 2017-09-14 { description "First revision of RFC8049."; reference "RFC xxxx: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery"; } /* Features */ feature cloud-access { description "Allows the VPN to connect to a CSP."; } feature multicast { description "Enables multicast capabilities in a VPN."; } feature ipv4 { description "Enables IPv4 support in a VPN."; } feature ipv6 { description "Enables IPv6 support in a VPN."; } feature lan-tag { description "Enables LAN Tag support in a VPN Policy Filter."; } feature carrierscarrier { description "Enables support of CsC."; } feature extranet-vpn { description "Enables support of extranet VPNs."; } feature site-diversity { description "Enables support of site diversity constraints."; } feature encryption { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 123] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "Enables support of encryption."; } feature qos { description "Enables support of classes of services."; } feature qos-custom { description "Enables support of the custom QoS profile."; } feature rtg-bgp { description "Enables support of the BGP routing protocol."; } feature rtg-rip { description "Enables support of the RIP routing protocol."; } feature rtg-ospf { description "Enables support of the OSPF routing protocol."; } feature rtg-ospf-sham-link { description "Enables support of OSPF sham links."; } feature rtg-vrrp { description "Enables support of the VRRP routing protocol."; } feature fast-reroute { description "Enables support of Fast Reroute."; } feature bfd { description "Enables support of BFD."; } feature always-on { description "Enables support of the 'always-on' access constraint."; } feature requested-type { description "Enables support of the 'requested-type' access constraint."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 124] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 feature bearer-reference { description "Enables support of the 'bearer-reference' access constraint."; } feature target-sites { description "Enables support of the 'target-sites' match flow parameter."; } /* Typedefs */ typedef svc-id { type string; description "Defines a type of service component identifier."; } typedef template-id { type string; description "Defines a type of service template identifier."; } typedef address-family { type enumeration { enum ipv4 { description "IPv4 address family."; } enum ipv6 { description "IPv6 address family."; } } description "Defines a type for the address family."; } /* Identities */ identity site-network-access-type { description "Base identity for site-network-access type."; } identity point-to-point { base site-network-access-type; description "Identity for point-to-point connection."; } identity multipoint { base site-network-access-type; description "Identity for multipoint connection. Example: Ethernet broadcast segment."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 125] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } identity placement-diversity { description "Base identity for site placement constraints."; } identity bearer-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for bearer diversity. The bearers should not use common elements."; } identity pe-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for PE diversity."; } identity pop-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for POP diversity."; } identity linecard-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for linecard diversity."; } identity same-pe { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for having sites connected on the same PE."; } identity same-bearer { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for having sites connected using the same bearer."; } identity customer-application { description "Base identity for customer application."; } identity web { base customer-application; description "Identity for Web application (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS)."; } identity mail { base customer-application; description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 126] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Identity for mail application."; } identity file-transfer { base customer-application; description "Identity for file transfer application (e.g., FTP, SFTP)."; } identity database { base customer-application; description "Identity for database application."; } identity social { base customer-application; description "Identity for social-network application."; } identity games { base customer-application; description "Identity for gaming application."; } identity p2p { base customer-application; description "Identity for peer-to-peer application."; } identity network-management { base customer-application; description "Identity for management application (e.g., Telnet, syslog, SNMP)."; } identity voice { base customer-application; description "Identity for voice application."; } identity video { base customer-application; description "Identity for video conference application."; } identity site-vpn-flavor { description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 127] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 identity site-vpn-flavor-single { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used when the site belongs to only one VPN."; } identity site-vpn-flavor-multi { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used when a logical connection of a site belongs to multiple VPNs."; } identity site-vpn-flavor-sub { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used when a site has multiple logical connections. Each connection may belong to different multiple VPNs."; } identity site-vpn-flavor-nni { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used to describe an NNI option A connection."; } identity management { description "Base identity for site management scheme."; } identity co-managed { base management; description "Base identity for co-managed site."; } identity customer-managed { base management; description "Base identity for customer-managed site."; } identity provider-managed { base management; description "Base identity for provider-managed site."; } identity address-allocation-type { description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 128] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Base identity for address-allocation-type for PE-CE link."; } identity provider-dhcp { base address-allocation-type; description "Provider network provides DHCP service to customer."; } identity provider-dhcp-relay { base address-allocation-type; description "Provider network provides DHCP relay service to customer."; } identity provider-dhcp-slaac { base address-allocation-type; description "Provider network provides DHCP service to customer, as well as SLAAC."; } identity static-address { base address-allocation-type; description "Provider-to-customer addressing is static."; } identity slaac { base address-allocation-type; description "Use IPv6 SLAAC."; } identity site-role { description "Base identity for site type."; } identity any-to-any-role { base site-role; description "Site in an any-to-any IP VPN."; } identity spoke-role { base site-role; description "Spoke site in a Hub-and-Spoke IP VPN."; } identity hub-role { base site-role; description "Hub site in a Hub-and-Spoke IP VPN."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 129] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 identity vpn-topology { description "Base identity for VPN topology."; } identity any-to-any { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for any-to-any VPN topology."; } identity hub-spoke { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology."; } identity hub-spoke-disjoint { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology where Hubs cannot communicate with each other."; } identity multicast-tree-type { description "Base identity for multicast tree type."; } identity ssm-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for SSM tree type."; } identity asm-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for ASM tree type."; } identity bidir-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for bidirectional tree type."; } identity multicast-rp-discovery-type { description "Base identity for RP discovery type."; } identity auto-rp { base multicast-rp-discovery-type; description "Base identity for Auto-RP discovery type."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 130] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } identity static-rp { base multicast-rp-discovery-type; description "Base identity for static type."; } identity bsr-rp { base multicast-rp-discovery-type; description "Base identity for BSR discovery type."; } identity routing-protocol-type { description "Base identity for routing protocol type."; } identity ospf { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for OSPF protocol type."; } identity bgp { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for BGP protocol type."; } identity static { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for static routing protocol type."; } identity rip { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for RIP protocol type."; } identity vrrp { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for VRRP protocol type. This is to be used when LANs are directly connected to PE routers."; } identity direct { base routing-protocol-type; description "Identity for direct protocol type."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 131] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 identity protocol-type { description "Base identity for protocol field type."; } identity tcp { base protocol-type; description "TCP protocol type."; } identity udp { base protocol-type; description "UDP protocol type."; } identity icmp { base protocol-type; description "ICMP protocol type."; } identity icmp6 { base protocol-type; description "ICMPv6 protocol type."; } identity gre { base protocol-type; description "GRE protocol type."; } identity ipip { base protocol-type; description "IP-in-IP protocol type."; } identity hop-by-hop { base protocol-type; description "Hop-by-Hop IPv6 header type."; } identity routing { base protocol-type; description "Routing IPv6 header type."; } identity esp { base protocol-type; description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 132] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "ESP header type."; } identity ah { base protocol-type; description "AH header type."; } identity vpn-policy-filter-type { description "Base identity for VPN Policy filter type."; } identity ipv4 { base vpn-policy-filter-type; description "Identity for ipv4 prefix filter type."; } identity ipv6 { base vpn-policy-filter-type; description "Identity for ipv6 prefix filter type."; } identity lan { base vpn-policy-filter-type; description "Identity for lan tag filter type."; } identity qos-profile-direction { description "Base identity for qos profile direction."; } identity site-to-wan { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for Site to WAN direction."; } identity wan-to-site { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for WAN to Site direction."; } identity both { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for both WAN to Site direction and Site to WAN direction."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 133] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } /* Groupings */ grouping vpn-service-cloud-access { container cloud-accesses { if-feature cloud-access; list cloud-access { key cloud-identifier; leaf cloud-identifier { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/"+ "cloud-identifier/id"; } description "Identification of cloud service. Local administration meaning."; } choice list-flavor { case permit-any { leaf permit-any { type empty; description "Allows all sites."; } } case deny-any-except { leaf-list permit-site { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id"; } description "Site ID to be authorized."; } } case permit-any-except { leaf-list deny-site { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id"; } description "Site ID to be denied."; } } description "Choice for cloud access policy. By default, all sites in the IP VPN MUST be authorized to access the cloud."; } container address-translation { container nat44 { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 134] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 leaf enabled { type boolean; default false; description "Controls whether or not Network address translation from IPv4 to IPv4 (NAT44) [RFC3022]is required."; } leaf nat44-customer-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Address to be used for network address translation from IPv4 to IPv4. This is to be used if the customer is providing the IPv4 address. If customer address is not set, the model assumes that the provider will allocate the address."; } description "IPv4-to-IPv4 translation."; } description "Container for NAT."; } description "Cloud access configuration."; } description "Container for cloud access configurations."; } description "Grouping for VPN cloud definition."; } grouping multicast-rp-group-cfg { choice group-format { mandatory true; case singleaddress { leaf group-address { type inet:ip-address; description "A Single Multicast Group address."; } } case startend { leaf group-start { type inet:ip-address; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 135] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "The first Multicast group address in the multicast group address range."; } leaf group-end { type inet:ip-address; description "The last Multicast group address in the multicast group address range."; } } description "Choice for Multicast group format."; } description "This Grouping defines Multicast Group or Multicast Groups for RP-to-group mapping."; } grouping vpn-service-multicast { container multicast { if-feature multicast; leaf enabled { type boolean; default false; description "Enables multicast."; } container customer-tree-flavors { leaf-list tree-flavor { type identityref { base multicast-tree-type; } description "Type of tree to be used."; } description "Type of trees used by customer."; } container rp { container rp-group-mappings { list rp-group-mapping { key id; leaf id { type uint16; description "Unique identifier for the mapping."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 136] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } container provider-managed { leaf enabled { type boolean; default false; description "Set to true if the Rendezvous Point (RP) must be a provider-managed node. Set to false if it is a customer-managed node."; } leaf rp-redundancy { type boolean; default false; description "If true, a redundancy mechanism for the RP is required."; } leaf optimal-traffic-delivery { type boolean; default false; description "If true, the SP must ensure that traffic uses an optimal path, an SP may use Anycast RP or RP tree to SPT switchover architectures."; } description "Parameters for a provider-managed RP."; } leaf rp-address { when "../provider-managed/enabled = 'false'" { description "Relevant when the RP is not provider-managed."; } type inet:ip-address; mandatory true; description "Defines the address of the RP. Used if the RP is customer-managed."; } container groups { list group { key id; leaf id { type uint16; description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 137] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Identifier for the group."; } uses multicast-rp-group-cfg; description "List of Multicast groups."; } description "Multicast groups associated with the RP."; } description "List of RP to group mappings."; } description "RP to group mappings parameters."; } container rp-discovery { leaf rp-discovery-type { type identityref { base multicast-rp-discovery-type; } default static-rp; description "Type of RP discovery used."; } container bsr-candidates { when "derived-from-or-self(../rp-discovery-type, 'l3vpn-svc:bsr-rp')" { description "Only applicable if discovery type is BSR-RP."; } leaf-list bsr-candidate-address { type inet:ip-address; description "Address of BSR candidate."; } description "Container for List of Customer BSR candidate's addresses."; } description "RP discovery parameters."; } description "RP parameters."; } description "Multicast global parameters for the VPN service."; } description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 138] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Grouping for multicast VPN definition."; } grouping vpn-service-mpls { leaf carrierscarrier { if-feature carrierscarrier; type boolean; default false; description "The VPN is using CsC, and so MPLS is required."; } description "Grouping for MPLS CsC definition."; } grouping customer-location-info { container locations { list location { key location-id; leaf location-id { type svc-id; description "Identifier for a particular location."; } leaf address { type string; description "Address (number and street) of the site."; } leaf postal-code { type string; description "Postal code of the site."; } leaf state { type string; description "State of the site. This leaf can also be used to describe a region for a country that does not have states."; } leaf city { type string; description "City of the site."; } leaf country-code { type string { pattern '[A-Z]{2}'; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 139] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } description "Country of the site. Expressed as ISO ALPHA-2 code."; } description "Location of the site."; } description "List of locations for the site."; } description "This grouping defines customer location parameters."; } grouping site-group { container groups { list group { key group-id; leaf group-id { type string; description "Group-id the site belongs to."; } description "List of group-ids."; } description "Groups the site or site-network-access belongs to."; } description "Grouping definition to assign group-ids to site or site-network-access."; } grouping site-diversity { container site-diversity { if-feature site-diversity; uses site-group; description "Diversity constraint type. All site-network-accesses will inherit the group values defined here."; } description "This grouping defines site diversity parameters."; } grouping access-diversity { container access-diversity { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 140] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 if-feature site-diversity; uses site-group; container constraints { list constraint { key constraint-type; leaf constraint-type { type identityref { base placement-diversity; } description "Diversity constraint type."; } container target { choice target-flavor { default id; case id { list group { key group-id; leaf group-id { type string; description "The constraint will be applied against this particular group-id for this site network access level."; } description "List of group-ids associated with one specific constraint for this site network access level."; } } case all-accesses { leaf all-other-accesses { type empty; description "The constraint will be applied against all other site network accesses of this site."; } } case all-groups { leaf all-other-groups { type empty; description "The constraint will be applied against all other groups managed by the customer."; } } description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 141] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Choice for the target flavor definition."; } description "The constraint will be applied against Specific target, and the target can be a list of group-ids,all other site network accesses of this site or all other groups managed by the customer."; } description "List of constraints."; } description "Placement constraints for this site network access."; } description "Diversity parameters."; } description "This grouping defines access diversity parameters."; } grouping operational-requirements { leaf requested-site-start { type yang:date-and-time; description "Optional leaf indicating requested date and time when the service at a particular site is expected to start."; } leaf requested-site-stop { type yang:date-and-time; description "Optional leaf indicating requested date and time when the service at a particular site is expected to stop."; } description "This grouping defines some operational parameters."; } grouping operational-requirements-ops { leaf actual-site-start { type yang:date-and-time; config false; description "Optional leaf indicating actual date and time when the service at a particular site actually started."; } leaf actual-site-stop { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 142] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type yang:date-and-time; config false; description "Optional leaf indicating actual date and time when the service at a particular site actually stopped."; } description "This grouping defines some operational parameters."; } grouping flow-definition { container match-flow { leaf dscp { type inet:dscp; description "DSCP value."; } leaf dot1p { type uint8 { range "0..7"; } description "802.1p matching."; } leaf ipv4-src-prefix { type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "Match on IPv4 src address."; } leaf ipv6-src-prefix { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "Match on IPv6 src address."; } leaf ipv4-dst-prefix { type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "Match on IPv4 dst address."; } leaf ipv6-dst-prefix { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "Match on IPv6 dst address."; } leaf l4-src-port { type inet:port-number; must ". <= ../l4-src-port-range/lower-port and .>= ../l4-src-port-range/upper-port" { description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 143] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 " If l4-src-port and l4-src-port-range/lower-port and upper-port are set at the same time, l4-src-port should not overlap with l4-src-port-range. "; } description "Match on Layer 4 src port."; } leaf-list target-sites { if-feature target-sites; type svc-id; description "Identify a site as traffic destination."; } container l4-src-port-range { leaf lower-port { type inet:port-number; description "Lower boundary for port."; } leaf upper-port { type inet:port-number; must ". >= ../lower-port" { description " Upper boundary for port. If it exists, upper boundary must be higher than lower boundary."; } description "Upper boundary for port."; } description "Match on Layer 4 src port range. When only lower-port is present, it represents a single port. When both lower-port and upper-port are specified, it implies a range inclusive of both values."; } leaf l4-dst-port { type inet:port-number; must ". <= ../l4-dst-port-range/lower-port and .>= ../l4-dst-port-range/upper-port" { description " If l4-dst-port and l4-dst-port-range/lower-port and upper-port are set at the same time, l4-dst-port should not overlap with l4-src-port-range. "; } description "Match on Layer 4 dst port."; } container l4-dst-port-range { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 144] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 leaf lower-port { type inet:port-number; description "Lower boundary for port."; } leaf upper-port { type inet:port-number; must ". >= ../lower-port" { description "Upper boundary must be higher than lower boundary."; } description "Upper boundary for port. If it exists, upper boundary must be higher than lower boundary."; } description "Match on Layer 4 dst port range. When only lower-port is present, it represents a single port. When both lower-port and upper-port are specified, it implies a range inclusive of both values."; } leaf protocol-field { type union { type uint8; type identityref { base protocol-type; } } description "Match on IPv4 protocol or IPv6 Next Header field."; } description "Describes flow-matching criteria."; } description "Flow definition based on criteria."; } grouping site-service-basic { leaf svc-input-bandwidth { type uint64; units bps; mandatory true; description "From the customer site's perspective, the service input bandwidth of the connection or download bandwidth from the SP to the site."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 145] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 leaf svc-output-bandwidth { type uint64; units bps; mandatory true; description "From the customer site's perspective, the service output bandwidth of the connection or upload bandwidth from the site to the SP."; } leaf svc-mtu { type uint16; units bytes; mandatory true; description "MTU at service level. If the service is IP, it refers to the IP MTU. If CsC is enabled, the requested 'svc-mtu' leaf will refer to the MPLS MTU and not to the IP MTU. "; } description "Defines basic service parameters for a site."; } grouping site-protection { container traffic-protection { if-feature fast-reroute; leaf enabled { type boolean; default false; description "Enables traffic protection of access link."; } description "Fast Reroute service parameters for the site."; } description "Defines protection service parameters for a site."; } grouping site-service-mpls { container carrierscarrier { if-feature carrierscarrier; leaf signalling-type { type enumeration { enum ldp { description "Use LDP as the signalling protocol between the PE and the CE. In this case, Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 146] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 an IGP routing protocol must also be activated. "; } enum bgp { description "Use BGP (as per RFC 3107) as the signalling protocol between the PE and the CE. In this case, BGP must also be configured as the routing protocol."; } } default bgp; description "MPLS signalling type."; } description "This container is used when the customer provides MPLS-based services. This is only used in the case of CsC(i.e., a customer builds an MPLS service using an IP VPN to carry its traffic."; } description "Defines MPLS service parameters for a site."; } grouping site-service-qos-profile { container qos { if-feature qos; container qos-classification-policy { list rule { key id; ordered-by user; leaf id { type string; description "A description identifying qos classification policy rule."; } choice match-type { default match-flow; case match-flow { uses flow-definition; } case match-application { leaf match-application { type identityref { base customer-application; } description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 147] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Defines the application to match."; } } description "Choice for classification."; } leaf target-class-id { type string; description "Identification of the class of service. This identifier is internal to the administration."; } description "List of marking rules."; } description "Configuration of the traffic classification policy."; } container qos-profile { choice qos-profile { description "Choice for QoS profile. Can be standard profile or customized profile."; case standard { description "Standard QoS profile."; leaf profile { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/qos-profile-identifier/id"; } description "QoS profile to be used."; } } case custom { description "Customized QoS profile."; container classes { if-feature qos-custom; list class { key class-id; leaf class-id { type string; description "Identification of the class of service. This identifier is internal to the administration."; } leaf direction { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 148] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type identityref { base qos-profile-direction; } default both; description "The direction which QoS profile is applied to"; } leaf rate-limit { type uint8 { range "0..100"; } units percent; description "To be used if the class must be rate-limited. Expressed as percentage of the service bandwidth."; } container latency { choice flavor { case lowest { leaf use-lowest-latency { type empty; description "The traffic class should use the path with the lowest latency."; } } case boundary { leaf latency-boundary { type uint16; units msec; default 400; description "The traffic class should use a path with a defined maximum latency."; } } description "Latency constraint on the traffic class."; } description "Latency constraint on the traffic class."; } container jitter { choice flavor { case lowest { leaf use-lowest-jitter { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 149] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type empty; description "The traffic class should use the path with the lowest jitter."; } } case boundary { leaf latency-boundary { type uint32; units usec; default 40000; description "The traffic class should use a path with a defined maximum jitter."; } } description "Jitter constraint on the traffic class."; } description "Jitter constraint on the traffic class."; } container bandwidth { leaf guaranteed-bw-percent { type uint8 { range "0..255"; } units percent; mandatory true; description "To be used to define the guaranteed bandwidth as a percentage of the available service bandwidth."; } leaf end-to-end { type empty; description "Used if the bandwidth reservation must be done on the MPLS network too."; } description "Bandwidth constraint on the traffic class."; } description "List of classes of services."; } description "Container for list of classes of services."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 150] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } } description "QoS profile configuration."; } description "QoS configuration."; } description "This grouping defines QoS parameters for a site."; } grouping site-security-authentication { container authentication { description "Authentication parameters."; } description "This grouping defines authentication parameters for a site."; } grouping site-security-encryption { container encryption { if-feature encryption; leaf enabled { type boolean; default false; description "If true, traffic encryption on the connection is required."; } leaf layer { when "../enabled = 'true'" { description " Require a value for layer when enabled is true."; } type enumeration { enum layer2 { description "Encryption will occur at Layer 2."; } enum layer3 { description "Encryption will occur at Layer 3. For example, IPsec may be used when a customer requests Layer 3 encryption."; } } description "Layer on which encryption is applied."; } container encryption-profile { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 151] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 choice profile { case provider-profile { leaf profile-name { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/encryption-profile-identifier/id"; } description "Name of the SP profile to be applied."; } } case customer-profile { leaf algorithm { type string; description "Encryption algorithm to be used."; } choice key-type { default psk; case psk { leaf preshared-key { type string; description " Pre-Shared Key(PSK) coming from customer."; } } description "Type of keys to be used."; } } description "Choice of encryption profile, the encryption profile can be provider profile or customer profile."; } description "Profile of encryption to be applied."; } description "Encryption parameters."; } description "This grouping defines encryption parameters for a site."; } grouping site-attachment-bearer { container bearer { container requested-type { if-feature requested-type; leaf requested-type { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 152] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type string; description "Type of requested bearer: Ethernet, DSL, Wireless, etc. Operator specific."; } leaf strict { type boolean; default false; description "Defines whether requested-type is a preference or a strict requirement."; } description "Container for requested-type."; } leaf always-on { if-feature always-on; type boolean; default true; description "Request for an always-on access type. For example, this could mean no dial access type."; } leaf bearer-reference { if-feature bearer-reference; type string; description "This is an internal reference for the SP."; } description "Bearer-specific parameters. To be augmented."; } description "Defines physical properties of a site attachment."; } grouping site-routing { container routing-protocols { list routing-protocol { key type; leaf type { type identityref { base routing-protocol-type; } description "Type of routing protocol."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 153] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } container ospf { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:ospf')" { description "Only applies when protocol is OSPF."; } if-feature rtg-ospf; leaf-list address-family { type address-family; min-elements "1"; description "If OSPF is used on this site, this node contains configured value. This node contains at least one address family to be activated."; } leaf area-address { type yang:dotted-quad; mandatory true; description "Area address."; } leaf metric { type uint16; default 1; description "Metric of the PE-CE link. It is used in the routing state calculation and path selection. The default value is set to 1 assigned to the PE-CE link."; } container sham-links { if-feature rtg-ospf-sham-link; list sham-link { key target-site; leaf target-site { type svc-id; description "Target site for the sham link connection. The site is referred to by its ID."; } leaf metric { type uint16; default 1; description "Metric of the sham link. It is used in Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 154] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 the routing state calculation and path selection. The default value is set to 1."; } description "Creates a sham link with another site."; } description "List of sham links."; } description "OSPF-specific configuration."; } container bgp { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:bgp')" { description "Only applies when protocol is BGP."; } if-feature rtg-bgp; leaf autonomous-system { type uint32; mandatory true; description "Customer AS number in case the customer requests BGP routing."; } leaf-list address-family { type address-family; min-elements "1"; description "If BGP is used on this site, this node contains configured value. This node contains at least one address family to be activated."; } description "BGP-specific configuration."; } container static { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:static')" { description "Only applies when protocol is static. BGP activation requires the SP to know the address of the customer peer. When BGP is enabled, the 'static-address' allocation type for the IP connection MUST be used."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 155] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } container cascaded-lan-prefixes { list ipv4-lan-prefixes { if-feature ipv4; key "lan next-hop"; leaf lan { type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "LAN prefixes."; } leaf lan-tag { type string; description "Internal tag to be used in VPN policies."; } leaf next-hop { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Next-hop address to use on the customer side."; } description "List of LAN prefixes for the site."; } list ipv6-lan-prefixes { if-feature ipv6; key "lan next-hop"; leaf lan { type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "LAN prefixes."; } leaf lan-tag { type string; description "Internal tag to be used in VPN policies."; } leaf next-hop { type inet:ipv6-address; description "Next-hop address to use on the customer side."; } description "List of LAN prefixes for the site."; } description "LAN prefixes from the customer."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 156] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } description "Configuration specific to static routing."; } container rip { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:rip')" { description "Only applies when protocol is RIP. For IPv4, the model assumes that RIP version 2 is used."; } if-feature rtg-rip; leaf-list address-family { type address-family; min-elements "1"; description "If RIP is used on this site, this node contains configured value.This node contains at least one address family to be activated."; } description "Configuration specific to RIP routing."; } container vrrp { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:vrrp')" { description "Only applies when protocol is VRRP."; } if-feature rtg-vrrp; leaf-list address-family { type address-family; min-elements "1"; description "If VRRP is used on this site, this node contains configured value. This node contains at least one address family to be activated. "; } description "Configuration specific to VRRP routing."; } description "List of routing protocols used on the site. This list can be augmented."; } description "Defines routing protocols."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 157] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } description "Grouping for routing protocols."; } grouping site-attachment-ip-connection { container ip-connection { container ipv4 { if-feature ipv4; leaf address-allocation-type { type identityref { base address-allocation-type; } must "derived-from-or-self(current(), 'l3vpn-svc:slaac') or "+ "derived-from-or-self(current(), 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp-slaac')" { error-message "SLAAC is only applicable to IPv6"; } description "Defines how addresses are allocated. If there is no value for address allocation type, then the ipv4 is not enabled."; } container provider-dhcp { when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp')" { description "Only applies when addresses are allocated by DHCP."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Address of provider side. If provider-address is not specified, then mask should not be specified as well,it also implies provider-dhcp allocation is not enabled. If provider address is specified, then mask may or may not be specified. "; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..31"; } must "(../provider-address)" { error-message "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; description "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. If not specified, or specified as zero, this means the customer leaves the actual mask value to the provider."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 158] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 choice address-assign { default number; case number { leaf number-of-dynamic-address { type uint16; default 1; description "Describes the number of IP addresses the customer requires."; } } case explicit { container customer-addresses { list address-group { key "group-id"; leaf group-id { type string; description "Group-id for the address range from start-address to end-address."; } leaf start-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "First address."; } leaf end-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Last address."; } description "Describes IP addresses allocated by DHCP. When only start-address or only end-address is present, it represents a single address. When both start-address and end-address are specified, it implies a range inclusive of both addresses. If no address is specified, it implies customer addresses group is not supported. "; } description "Container for customer addresses allocated by DHCP."; } } description "Choice for the way to assign addresses."; } description "DHCP allocated addresses related parameters."; } container dhcp-relay { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 159] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp-relay')" { description "Only applies when provider is required to implement DHCP relay function."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "Address of provider side. If provider-address is not specified, then mask should not be specified as well,it also implies provider-dhcp allocation is not enabled. If provider address is specified, then mask may or may not be specified."; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..31"; } must "(../provider-address)" { error-message "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; description "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. If not specified, or specified as zero, this means the customer leaves the actual mask value to the provider."; } container customer-dhcp-servers { leaf-list server-ip-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IP address of customer DHCP server."; } description "Container for list of customer DHCP servers."; } description "DHCP relay provided by operator."; } container addresses { when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:static-address')" { description "Only applies when protocol allocation type is static."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 160] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "IPv4 Address List of provider side. When protocol allocation type is static, provider address must be configured."; } leaf customer-address { type inet:ipv4-address; description "IPv4 Address of customer side."; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..31"; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. It is applied to both provider-address and customer-address."; } description "Describes IPv4 addresses used."; } description "IPv4-specific parameters."; } container ipv6 { if-feature ipv6; leaf address-allocation-type { type identityref { base address-allocation-type; } description "Defines how addresses are allocated. If there is no value for address allocation type, then the ipv6 is not enabled."; } container provider-dhcp { when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp') "+ "or derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp-slaac')" { description "Only applies when addresses are allocated by DHCP."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "Address of provider side. If provider-address is not specified, then mask should not be specified as well,it also implies provider-dhcp allocation is not enabled. If provider address Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 161] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 is specified, then mask may or may not be specified."; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..127"; } must "(../provider-address)" { error-message "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; description "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. If not specified, or specified as zero, this means the customer leaves the actual mask value to the provider."; } choice address-assign { default number; case number { leaf number-of-dynamic-address { type uint16; default 1; description "Describes the number of IP addresses the customer requires."; } } case explicit { container customer-addresses { list address-group { key "group-id"; leaf group-id { type string; description "Group-id for the address range from start-address to end-address."; } leaf start-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "First address."; } leaf end-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "Last address."; } description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 162] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Describes IP addresses allocated by DHCP. When only start-address or only end-address is present, it represents a single address. When both start-address and end-address are specified, it implies a range inclusive of both addresses. If no address is specified, it implies customer addresses group is not supported."; } description "Container for customer addresses allocated by DHCP."; } } description "Choice for the way to assign addresses."; } description "DHCP allocated addresses related parameters."; } container dhcp-relay { when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-dhcp-relay')" { description "Only applies when provider is required to implement DHCP relay function."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "Address of provider side. If provider-address is not specified, then mask should not be specified as well,it also implies provider-dhcp allocation is not enabled. If provider address is specified, then mask may or may not be specified."; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..127"; } must "(../provider-address)" { error-message "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; description "if mask is specified, provider-address must also be specified."; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. If not specified, or specified as zero, this means the customer leaves the actual mask value to the provider."; } container customer-dhcp-servers { leaf-list server-ip-address { type inet:ipv6-address; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 163] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "This node contains IP address of customer DHCP server.If DHCP relay function is implemented by the provider, this node contains the configured value."; } description "Container for list of customer DHCP servers."; } description "DHCP relay provided by operator."; } container addresses { when "derived-from-or-self(../address-allocation-type, 'l3vpn-svc:static-address')" { description "Only applies when protocol allocation type is static."; } leaf provider-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 Address of provider side. When protocol allocation type is static, provider address must be configured."; } leaf customer-address { type inet:ipv6-address; description "IPv6 Address of customer side."; } leaf mask { type uint8 { range "0..127"; } description "Subnet mask expressed in bits. It is applied to both provider-address and customer-address."; } description "Describes IPv6 addresses used."; } description "IPv6-specific parameters."; } container oam { container bfd { if-feature bfd; leaf enabled { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 164] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type boolean; default false; description "If true, BFD activation is required."; } choice holdtime { default fixed; case fixed { leaf fixed-value { type uint32; units msec; description "Expected BFD holdtime expressed in msec. The customer may impose Some fixed values for the holdtime period if the provider allows the customer use this function.If the provider doesn't allow the customer use this function, the fixed-value will not be set."; } } case profile { leaf profile-name { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/valid-provider-identifiers/bfd-profile-identifier/id"; } description "Well-known SP profile Name. The provider can propose some profiles to the customer, depending on the service level the customer wants to achieve. Profile names must be communicated to the customer"; } description "Well-known SP profile."; } description "Choice for holdtime flavor."; } description "Container for BFD."; } description "Defines the OAM mechanisms used on the connection. BFD is set as a fault detection mechanism, but the 'oam' container can easily be augmented by other mechanisms"; } description "Defines connection parameters."; } description "This grouping defines IP connection parameters."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 165] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } grouping site-service-multicast { container multicast { if-feature multicast; leaf multicast-site-type { type enumeration { enum receiver-only { description "The site only has receivers."; } enum source-only { description "The site only has sources."; } enum source-receiver { description "The site has both sources and receivers."; } } default source-receiver; description "Type of multicast site."; } container multicast-address-family { leaf ipv4 { if-feature ipv4; type boolean; default false; description "Enables IPv4 multicast."; } leaf ipv6 { if-feature ipv6; type boolean; default false; description "Enables IPv6 multicast."; } description "Defines protocol to carry multicast."; } leaf protocol-type { type enumeration { enum host { description "Hosts are directly connected to the provider network. Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 166] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Host protocols such as IGMP or MLD are required."; } enum router { description "Hosts are behind a customer router. PIM will be implemented."; } enum both { description "Some hosts are behind a customer router, and some others are directly connected to the provider network. Both host and routing protocols must be used. Typically, IGMP and PIM will be implemented."; } } default "both"; description "Multicast protocol type to be used with the customer site."; } description "Multicast parameters for the site."; } description "Multicast parameters for the site."; } grouping site-management { container management { leaf type { type identityref { base management; } mandatory true; description "Management type of the connection."; } description "Management configuration."; } description "Management parameters for the site."; } grouping site-devices { container devices { when "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, 'l3vpn-svc:provider-managed') or "+ "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, 'l3vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for provider-managed or co-managed device."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 167] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } list device { key device-id; leaf device-id { type svc-id; description "Identifier for the device."; } leaf location { type leafref { path "../../../locations/"+ "location/location-id"; } mandatory true; description "Location of the device."; } container management { when "derived-from-or-self(../../../management/type,"+ "'l3vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for co-managed device."; } leaf address-family { type address-family; description "Address family used for management. If address-family is specified, the address may or may not be specified (by the customer)."; } leaf address { type inet:ip-address; must "(../address-family)" { error-message "if address is specified, address-family must also be specified."; description "if address is specified, address-family must also be specified."; } description "Management address."; } description "Management configuration. Applicable only for co-managed device."; } description Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 168] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 "Device configuration. "; } description "List of devices requested by customer."; } description "Grouping for device allocation."; } grouping site-vpn-flavor { leaf site-vpn-flavor { type identityref { base site-vpn-flavor; } default site-vpn-flavor-single; description "Defines the way the VPN multiplexing is done ,e.g.,whether the site belongs to a single VPN site or a multiVPN; In case of multiVPN, whether the logical accesses of the sites belong to the same set of VPNs or each logical accesses map to different VPNs. "; } description "Grouping for site VPN flavor."; } grouping site-vpn-policy { container vpn-policies { list vpn-policy { key vpn-policy-id; leaf vpn-policy-id { type svc-id; description "Unique identifier for the VPN policy."; } list entries { key id; leaf id { type svc-id; description "Unique identifier for the policy entry."; } container filters { list filter { key type; ordered-by user; leaf type { type identityref { base vpn-policy-filter-type; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 169] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "Type of VPN Policy filter."; } leaf-list lan-tag { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:lan')" { description "Only applies when VPN Policy filter is LAN Tag filter."; } if-feature lan-tag; type string; description "List of 'lan-tag' items to be matched. Lan-tag is Internal tag to be used in VPN policies "; } leaf-list ipv4-lan-prefix { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:ipv4')" { description "Only applies when VPN Policy filter is IPv4 Prefix filter."; } if-feature ipv4; type inet:ipv4-prefix; description "List of IPv4 prefixes as LAN Prefixes to be matched."; } leaf-list ipv6-lan-prefix { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'l3vpn-svc:ipv6')" { description "Only applies when VPN Policy filter is IPv6 Prefix filter."; } if-feature ipv6; type inet:ipv6-prefix; description "List of IPv6 prefixes as LAN prefixes to be matched."; } description "List of filters used on the site. This list can be augmented."; } description "If a more-granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be used. If used, it permits the splitting of site LANs among multiple VPNs.The Site LAN can be split based on either LAN-tag or LAN prefix. If no filter is used, all the LANs will be part of the same VPNs with the same role."; } list vpn { key vpn-id; leaf vpn-id { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 170] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/"+ "vpn-service/vpn-id"; } mandatory true; description "Reference to an IP VPN."; } leaf site-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default any-to-any-role; description "Role of the site in the IP VPN."; } description "List of VPNs the LAN is associated with."; } description "List of entries for export policy."; } description "List of VPN policies."; } description "VPN policy."; } description "VPN policy parameters for the site."; } grouping site-maximum-routes { container maximum-routes { list address-family { key af; leaf af { type address-family; description "Address family."; } leaf maximum-routes { type uint32; description "Maximum prefixes the VRF can accept for this address family."; } description "List of address families."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 171] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } description "Defines 'maximum-routes' for the VRF."; } description "Defines 'maximum-routes' for the site."; } grouping site-security { container security { uses site-security-authentication; uses site-security-encryption; description "Site-specific security parameters."; } description "Grouping for security parameters."; } grouping site-service { container service { uses site-service-qos-profile; uses site-service-mpls; uses site-service-multicast; description "Service parameters on the attachment."; } description "Grouping for service parameters."; } grouping site-network-access-service { container service { uses site-service-basic; uses site-service-qos-profile; uses site-service-mpls; uses site-service-multicast; description "Service parameters on the attachment."; } description "Grouping for service parameters."; } grouping vpn-extranet { container extranet-vpns { if-feature extranet-vpn; list extranet-vpn { key vpn-id; leaf vpn-id { type svc-id; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 172] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "Identifies the target VPN the local VPN want to access."; } leaf local-sites-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default any-to-any-role; description "This describes the role of the local sites in the target VPN topology. In the any-to-any VPN service topology, the local sites must have the same role, which will be 'any-to-any-role '.In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub and Spoke disjoint VPN service topology, the local sites must have a Hub role or a Spoke role."; } description "List of extranet VPNs or target VPNs the local VPN is attached to."; } description "Container for extranet VPN configuration."; } description "Grouping for extranet VPN configuration. This provides an easy way to interconnect all sites from two VPNs."; } grouping site-attachment-availability { container availability { leaf access-priority { type uint32; default 100; description "Defines the priority for the access. The higher the access-priority value, the higher the preference of the access will be."; } description "Availability parameters (used for multihoming)."; } description "Defines availability parameters for a site."; } grouping access-vpn-policy { container vpn-attachment { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 173] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 choice attachment-flavor { case vpn-policy-id { leaf vpn-policy-id { type leafref { path "../../../../"+ "vpn-policies/vpn-policy/"+ "vpn-policy-id"; } description "Reference to a VPN policy. When referencing VPN policy for attachment, the vpn-policy-id must be configured."; } } case vpn-id { leaf vpn-id { type leafref { path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-services"+ "/vpn-service/vpn-id"; } description "Reference to a IP VPN. Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular logical access to a VPN. In this case, vpn-id must be configured."; } leaf site-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default any-to-any-role; description "Role of the site in the IP VPN. When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role setting must be added to express the role of the site in the target VPN service topology."; } } mandatory true; description "Choice for VPN attachment flavor. A choice is implemented to allow the user to choose the flavor that provides the best fit."; } description "Defines VPN attachment of a site."; } description "Defines the VPN attachment rules for Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 174] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 a site's logical access."; } grouping vpn-profile-cfg { container valid-provider-identifiers { list cloud-identifier { if-feature cloud-access; key id; leaf id { type string; description "Identification of cloud service. Local administration meaning."; } description "List for Cloud Identifiers."; } list encryption-profile-identifier { key id; leaf id { type string; description "Identification of the SP encryption profile to be used. Local administration meaning."; } description "List for encryption profile identifiers."; } list qos-profile-identifier { key id; leaf id { type string; description "Identification of the QoS Profile to be used. Local administration meaning."; } description "List for QoS Profile Identifiers."; } list bfd-profile-identifier { key id; leaf id { type string; description "Identification of the SP BFD Profile to be used. Local administration meaning."; } Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 175] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 description "List for BFD profile Identifiers."; } nacm:default-deny-write; description "Container for Valid Provider Identifies."; } description "Grouping for VPN Profile configuration."; } grouping vpn-svc-cfg { leaf vpn-id { type svc-id; description "VPN identifier. Local administration meaning."; } leaf customer-name { type string; description "Name of the customer which actually uses vpn service. In the case that any intermediary (e.g. Tier-2 provider or partner) sells the vpn service to their enduser on behalf of the original service provider (e.g. Tier-1 provider), the original service provider may require the customer name to provide smooth activation/commitioning and operation for the service."; } leaf vpn-service-topology { type identityref { base vpn-topology; } default any-to-any; description "VPN service topology."; } uses vpn-service-cloud-access; uses vpn-service-multicast; uses vpn-service-mpls; uses vpn-extranet; description "Grouping for VPN service configuration."; } grouping site-top-level-cfg { uses operational-requirements; uses customer-location-info; uses site-devices; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 176] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 uses site-diversity; uses site-management; uses site-vpn-policy; uses site-vpn-flavor; uses site-maximum-routes; uses site-security; uses site-service; uses site-protection; uses site-routing; description "Grouping for site top-level configuration."; } grouping site-network-access-top-level-cfg { leaf site-network-access-type { type identityref { base site-network-access-type; } default point-to-point; description "Describes the type of connection, e.g., point-to-point or multipoint."; } choice location-flavor { case location { when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "+ "'l3vpn-svc:customer-managed')" { description "Applicable only for customer-managed device."; } leaf location-reference { type leafref { path "../../../locations/location/location-id"; } description "Location of the site-network-access."; } } case device { when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "+ "'l3vpn-svc:provider-managed') or "+ "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "+ "'l3vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for provider-managed or co-managed device."; } leaf device-reference { Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 177] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 type leafref { path "../../../devices/device/device-id"; } description "Identifier of CE to use."; } } mandatory true; description "Choice of how to describe the site's location."; } uses access-diversity; uses site-attachment-bearer; uses site-attachment-ip-connection; uses site-security; uses site-network-access-service; uses site-routing; uses site-attachment-availability; uses access-vpn-policy; description "Grouping for site network access top-level configuration."; } /* Main blocks */ container l3vpn-svc { container vpn-profiles { uses vpn-profile-cfg; description "Container for VPN Profiles."; } container vpn-services { list vpn-service { key vpn-id; uses vpn-svc-cfg; description "List of VPN services."; } description "Top-level container for the VPN services."; } container sites { list site { key site-id; leaf site-id { type svc-id; description "Identifier of the site."; Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 178] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 } uses site-top-level-cfg; uses operational-requirements-ops; container site-network-accesses { list site-network-access { key site-network-access-id; leaf site-network-access-id { type svc-id; description "Identifier for the access."; } uses site-network-access-top-level-cfg; description "List of accesses for a site."; } description "List of accesses for a site."; } description "List of sites."; } description "Container for sites."; } description "Main container for L3VPN service configuration."; } } 10. Security Considerations The YANG module defined in this document MAY be accessed via the RESTCONF protocol [RFC8040] or the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241]. The lowest RESTCONF or NETCONF layer requires that the transport-layer protocol provide both data integrity and confidentiality; see Section 2 in [RFC8040] and Section 2 in [RFC6241]. The client MUST carefully examine the certificate presented by the server to determine if it meets the client's expectations, and the server MUST authenticate client access to any protected resource. The client identity derived from the authentication mechanism used is subject to the NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536]. Other protocols that are used to access this YANG module are also required to support similar security mechanisms. The data nodes defined in the "ietf-l3vpn-svc" YANG module MUST be carefully created, read, updated, or deleted as appropriate. The Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 179] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 entries in the lists below include customer-proprietary or confidential information; therefore, access to confidential information MUST be limited to authorized clients, and other clients MUST NOT be permitted to access the information. o /l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service o /l3vpn-svc/sites/site The data model defines some security parameters than can be extended via augmentation as part of the customer service request; those parameters are described in Section 6.9. 11. IANA Considerations IANA has assigned a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc Registrant Contact: The IESG XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. IANA has recorded a YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950] as follows: Name: ietf-l3vpn-svc Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc Prefix: l3vpn-svc Reference: RFC 8049 IANA is requested to update this registry to reference this document on publication as an RFC. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 180] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006, . [RFC4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487/RFC4577, June 2006, . [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, . [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, . [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 2012, . [RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012, . [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, . [RFC8049] Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8049, DOI 10.17487/RFC8049, February 2017, . 12.2. Informative References [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, . Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 181] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 [RFC4110] Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer 3 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)", RFC 4110, DOI 10.17487/RFC4110, July 2005, . [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, . Appendix A. Acknowledgements Maxim Klyus, Luis Miguel Contreras, Gregory Mirsky, Zitao Wang, Jing Zhao, Kireeti Kompella, Eric Rosen, Aijun Wang,Michael Scharf, Xufeng Liu, David Ball, Lucy Yong, Jean-Philippe Landry, and Andrew Leu provided useful review to this document. Jan Lindblad reviewed the first release of RFC8049 and found some bugs and His thorough YANG Doctor review on the YANG Model is valuable input to revision of RFC8049. David ball also provided a second review on published RFC8049. Many thanks to these people. Appendix B. Contributors The authors would like to thank Rob Shakir for his major contributions to the initial modeling and use cases. Adrian Farrel prepared the editorial revisions for this bis. Authors' Addresses Qin Wu (editor) Huawei Technologies Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Stephane Litkowski Orange Business Services Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 182] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery September 2017 Luis Tomotaki Verizon Email: luis.tomotaki@verizon.com Kenichi Ogaki KDDI Corporation Email: ke-oogaki@kddi.com Wu, et al. Expires March 19, 2018 [Page 183]