💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6241.txt captured on 2022-01-08 at 16:37:37.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Enns, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6241 Juniper Networks
Obsoletes: 4741 M. Bjorklund, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Tail-f Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Schoenwaelder, Ed.
Jacobs University
A. Bierman, Ed.
Brocade
June 2011
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this document
provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the
configuration of network devices. It uses an Extensible Markup
Language (XML)-based data encoding for the configuration data as well
as the protocol messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are
realized as remote procedure calls (RPCs). This document obsoletes
RFC 4741.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4. Separation of Configuration and State Data . . . . . . . 10
2. Transport Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1. Connection-Oriented Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Confidentiality . . . . . 12
2.3. Mandatory Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. XML Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Document Type Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. RPC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. <rpc> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. <rpc-reply> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. <rpc-error> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. <ok> Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Pipelining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Configuration Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Configuration Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Data Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Subtree Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Subtree Filter Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1. Namespace Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.2. Attribute Match Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.3. Containment Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.4. Selection Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.5. Content Match Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.3. Subtree Filter Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.4. Subtree Filtering Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4.1. No Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4.2. Empty Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4.3. Select the Entire <users> Subtree . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.4. Select All <name> Elements within the <users>
Subtree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.5. One Specific <user> Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.6. Specific Elements from a Specific <user> Entry . . . 31
6.4.7. Multiple Subtrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.4.8. Elements with Attribute Naming . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1. <get-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2. <edit-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3. <copy-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.4. <delete-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.5. <lock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
7.6. <unlock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.7. <get> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.8. <close-session> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.9. <kill-session> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8. Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.1. Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.2. Writable-Running Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.2.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.2.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.2.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.2.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 53
8.3. Candidate Configuration Capability . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.3.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.3.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.3.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.3.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8.3.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 56
8.4. Confirmed Commit Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.4.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.4.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.4.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.4.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.4.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 60
8.5. Rollback-on-Error Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8.5.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8.5.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.5.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.5.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.5.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 62
8.6. Validate Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.6.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.6.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.6.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.6.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.6.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 64
8.7. Distinct Startup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8.7.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8.7.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.7.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.7.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.7.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 65
8.8. URL Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.8.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.8.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.8.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.8.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.8.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 66
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
8.9. XPath Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.9.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.9.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.9.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.9.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.9.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 68
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.1. NETCONF XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.2. NETCONF XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10.3. NETCONF YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.4. NETCONF Capability URNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Appendix A. NETCONF Error List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Appendix B. XML Schema for NETCONF Messages Layer . . . . . . . 80
Appendix C. YANG Module for NETCONF Protocol Operations . . . . 85
Appendix D. Capability Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1. capability-name (template) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . 105
D.1.6. Interactions with Other Capabilities . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix E. Configuring Multiple Devices with NETCONF . . . . . 106
E.1. Operations on Individual Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
E.1.1. Acquiring the Configuration Lock . . . . . . . . . . 106
E.1.2. Checkpointing the Running Configuration . . . . . . . 107
E.1.3. Loading and Validating the Incoming Configuration . . 108
E.1.4. Changing the Running Configuration . . . . . . . . . 108
E.1.5. Testing the New Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
E.1.6. Making the Change Permanent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
E.1.7. Releasing the Configuration Lock . . . . . . . . . . 110
E.2. Operations on Multiple Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Appendix F. Changes from RFC 4741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
1. Introduction
The NETCONF protocol defines a simple mechanism through which a
network device can be managed, configuration data information can be
retrieved, and new configuration data can be uploaded and
manipulated. The protocol allows the device to expose a full, formal
application programming interface (API). Applications can use this
straightforward API to send and receive full and partial
configuration data sets.
The NETCONF protocol uses a remote procedure call (RPC) paradigm. A
client encodes an RPC in XML [W3C.REC-xml-20001006] and sends it to a
server using a secure, connection-oriented session. The server
responds with a reply encoded in XML. The contents of both the
request and the response are fully described in XML DTDs or XML
schemas, or both, allowing both parties to recognize the syntax
constraints imposed on the exchange.
A key aspect of NETCONF is that it allows the functionality of the
management protocol to closely mirror the native functionality of the
device. This reduces implementation costs and allows timely access
to new features. In addition, applications can access both the
syntactic and semantic content of the device's native user interface.
NETCONF allows a client to discover the set of protocol extensions
supported by a server. These "capabilities" permit the client to
adjust its behavior to take advantage of the features exposed by the
device. The capability definitions can be easily extended in a
noncentralized manner. Standard and non-standard capabilities can be
defined with semantic and syntactic rigor. Capabilities are
discussed in Section 8.
The NETCONF protocol is a building block in a system of automated
configuration. XML is the lingua franca of interchange, providing a
flexible but fully specified encoding mechanism for hierarchical
content. NETCONF can be used in concert with XML-based
transformation technologies, such as XSLT [W3C.REC-xslt-19991116], to
provide a system for automated generation of full and partial
configurations. The system can query one or more databases for data
about networking topologies, links, policies, customers, and
services. This data can be transformed using one or more XSLT
scripts from a task-oriented, vendor-independent data schema into a
form that is specific to the vendor, product, operating system, and
software release. The resulting data can be passed to the device
using the NETCONF protocol.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.1. Terminology
o candidate configuration datastore: A configuration datastore that
can be manipulated without impacting the device's current
configuration and that can be committed to the running
configuration datastore. Not all devices support a candidate
configuration datastore.
o capability: A functionality that supplements the base NETCONF
specification.
o client: Invokes protocol operations on a server. In addition, a
client can subscribe to receive notifications from a server.
o configuration data: The set of writable data that is required to
transform a system from its initial default state into its current
state.
o datastore: A conceptual place to store and access information. A
datastore might be implemented, for example, using files, a
database, flash memory locations, or combinations thereof.
o configuration datastore: The datastore holding the complete set of
configuration data that is required to get a device from its
initial default state into a desired operational state.
o message: A protocol element sent over a session. Messages are
well-formed XML documents.
o notification: A server-initiated message indicating that a certain
event has been recognized by the server.
o protocol operation: A specific remote procedure call, as used
within the NETCONF protocol.
o remote procedure call (RPC): Realized by exchanging <rpc> and
<rpc-reply> messages.
o running configuration datastore: A configuration datastore holding
the complete configuration currently active on the device. The
running configuration datastore always exists.
o server: Executes protocol operations invoked by a client. In
addition, a server can send notifications to a client.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
o session: Client and server exchange messages using a secure,
connection-oriented session.
o startup configuration datastore: The configuration datastore
holding the configuration loaded by the device when it boots.
Only present on devices that separate the startup configuration
datastore from the running configuration datastore.
o state data: The additional data on a system that is not
configuration data such as read-only status information and
collected statistics.
o user: The authenticated identity of the client. The authenticated
identity of a client is commonly referred to as the NETCONF
username.
1.2. Protocol Overview
NETCONF uses a simple RPC-based mechanism to facilitate communication
between a client and a server. The client can be a script or
application typically running as part of a network manager. The
server is typically a network device. The terms "device" and
"server" are used interchangeably in this document, as are "client"
and "application".
A NETCONF session is the logical connection between a network
administrator or network configuration application and a network
device. A device MUST support at least one NETCONF session and
SHOULD support multiple sessions. Global configuration attributes
can be changed during any authorized session, and the effects are
visible in all sessions. Session-specific attributes affect only the
session in which they are changed.
NETCONF can be conceptually partitioned into four layers as shown in
Figure 1.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Layer Example
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
(4) | Content | | Configuration | | Notification |
| | | data | | data |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ |
(3) | Operations | | <edit-config> | |
| | | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
(2) | Messages | | <rpc>, | | <notification> |
| | | <rpc-reply> | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------------------+
(1) | Secure | | SSH, TLS, BEEP/TLS, SOAP/HTTP/TLS, ... |
| Transport | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------------------+
Figure 1: NETCONF Protocol Layers
(1) The Secure Transport layer provides a communication path between
the client and server. NETCONF can be layered over any
transport protocol that provides a set of basic requirements.
Section 2 discusses these requirements.
(2) The Messages layer provides a simple, transport-independent
framing mechanism for encoding RPCs and notifications.
Section 4 documents the RPC messages, and [RFC5717] documents
notifications.
(3) The Operations layer defines a set of base protocol operations
invoked as RPC methods with XML-encoded parameters. Section 7
details the list of base protocol operations.
(4) The Content layer is outside the scope of this document. It is
expected that separate efforts to standardize NETCONF data
models will be undertaken.
The YANG data modeling language [RFC6020] has been developed for
specifying NETCONF data models and protocol operations, covering the
Operations and the Content layers of Figure 1.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
1.3. Capabilities
A NETCONF capability is a set of functionality that supplements the
base NETCONF specification. The capability is identified by a
uniform resource identifier (URI) [RFC3986].
Capabilities augment the base operations of the device, describing
both additional operations and the content allowed inside operations.
The client can discover the server's capabilities and use any
additional operations, parameters, and content defined by those
capabilities.
The capability definition might name one or more dependent
capabilities. To support a capability, the server MUST support any
capabilities upon which it depends.
Section 8 defines the capabilities exchange that allows the client to
discover the server's capabilities. Section 8 also lists the set of
capabilities defined in this document.
Additional capabilities can be defined at any time in external
documents, allowing the set of capabilities to expand over time.
Standards bodies can define standardized capabilities, and
implementations can define proprietary ones. A capability URI MUST
sufficiently distinguish the naming authority to avoid naming
collisions.
1.4. Separation of Configuration and State Data
The information that can be retrieved from a running system is
separated into two classes, configuration data and state data.
Configuration data is the set of writable data that is required to
transform a system from its initial default state into its current
state. State data is the additional data on a system that is not
configuration data such as read-only status information and collected
statistics. When a device is performing configuration operations, a
number of problems would arise if state data were included:
o Comparisons of configuration data sets would be dominated by
irrelevant entries such as different statistics.
o Incoming data could contain nonsensical requests, such as attempts
to write read-only data.
o The data sets would be large.
o Archived data could contain values for read-only data items,
complicating the processing required to restore archived data.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
To account for these issues, the NETCONF protocol recognizes the
difference between configuration data and state data and provides
operations for each. The <get-config> operation retrieves
configuration data only, while the <get> operation retrieves
configuration and state data.
Note that the NETCONF protocol is focused on the information required
to get the device into its desired running state. The inclusion of
other important, persistent data is implementation specific. For
example, user files and databases are not treated as configuration
data by the NETCONF protocol.
For example, if a local database of user authentication data is
stored on the device, it is an implementation-dependent matter
whether it is included in configuration data.
2. Transport Protocol Requirements
NETCONF uses an RPC-based communication paradigm. A client sends a
series of one or more RPC request messages, which cause the server to
respond with a corresponding series of RPC reply messages.
The NETCONF protocol can be layered on any transport protocol that
provides the required set of functionality. It is not bound to any
particular transport protocol, but allows a mapping to define how it
can be implemented over any specific protocol.
The transport protocol MUST provide a mechanism to indicate the
session type (client or server) to the NETCONF protocol layer.
This section details the characteristics that NETCONF requires from
the underlying transport protocol.
2.1. Connection-Oriented Operation
NETCONF is connection-oriented, requiring a persistent connection
between peers. This connection MUST provide reliable, sequenced data
delivery. NETCONF connections are long-lived, persisting between
protocol operations.
In addition, resources requested from the server for a particular
connection MUST be automatically released when the connection closes,
making failure recovery simpler and more robust. For example, when a
lock is acquired by a client, the lock persists until either it is
explicitly released or the server determines that the connection has
been terminated. If a connection is terminated while the client
holds a lock, the server can perform any appropriate recovery. The
<lock> operation is further discussed in Section 7.5.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
2.2. Authentication, Integrity, and Confidentiality
NETCONF connections MUST provide authentication, data integrity,
confidentiality, and replay protection. NETCONF depends on the
transport protocol for this capability. A NETCONF peer assumes that
appropriate levels of security and confidentiality are provided
independently of this document. For example, connections could be
encrypted using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] or Secure
Shell (SSH) [RFC4251], depending on the underlying protocol.
NETCONF connections MUST be authenticated. The transport protocol is
responsible for authentication of the server to the client and
authentication of the client to the server. A NETCONF peer assumes
that the connection's authentication information has been validated
by the underlying transport protocol using sufficiently trustworthy
mechanisms and that the peer's identity has been sufficiently proven.
One goal of NETCONF is to provide a programmatic interface to the
device that closely follows the functionality of the device's native
interface. Therefore, it is expected that the underlying protocol
uses existing authentication mechanisms available on the device. For
example, a NETCONF server on a device that supports RADIUS [RFC2865]
might allow the use of RADIUS to authenticate NETCONF sessions.
The authentication process MUST result in an authenticated client
identity whose permissions are known to the server. The
authenticated identity of a client is commonly referred to as the
NETCONF username. The username is a string of characters that match
the "Char" production from Section 2.2 of [W3C.REC-xml-20001006].
The algorithm used to derive the username is transport protocol
specific and in addition specific to the authentication mechanism
used by the transport protocol. The transport protocol MUST provide
a username to be used by the other NETCONF layers.
The access permissions of a given client, identified by its NETCONF
username, are part of the configuration of the NETCONF server. These
permissions MUST be enforced during the remainder of the NETCONF
session. The details of how access control is configured is outside
the scope of this document.
2.3. Mandatory Transport Protocol
A NETCONF implementation MUST support the SSH transport protocol
mapping [RFC6242].
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
3. XML Considerations
XML serves as the encoding format for NETCONF, allowing complex
hierarchical data to be expressed in a text format that can be read,
saved, and manipulated with both traditional text tools and tools
specific to XML.
All NETCONF messages MUST be well-formed XML, encoded in UTF-8
[RFC3629]. If a peer receives an <rpc> message that is not well-
formed XML or not encoded in UTF-8, it SHOULD reply with a
"malformed-message" error. If a reply cannot be sent for any reason,
the server MUST terminate the session.
A NETCONF message MAY begin with an XML declaration (see Section 2.8
of [W3C.REC-xml-20001006]).
This section discusses a small number of XML-related considerations
pertaining to NETCONF.
3.1. Namespace
All NETCONF protocol elements are defined in the following namespace:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0
NETCONF capability names MUST be URIs [RFC3986]. NETCONF
capabilities are discussed in Section 8.
3.2. Document Type Declarations
Document type declarations (see Section 2.8 of
[W3C.REC-xml-20001006]) MUST NOT appear in NETCONF content.
4. RPC Model
The NETCONF protocol uses an RPC-based communication model. NETCONF
peers use <rpc> and <rpc-reply> elements to provide transport-
protocol-independent framing of NETCONF requests and responses.
The syntax and XML encoding of the Messages-layer RPCs are formally
defined in the XML schema in Appendix B.
4.1. <rpc> Element
The <rpc> element is used to enclose a NETCONF request sent from the
client to the server.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The <rpc> element has a mandatory attribute "message-id", which is a
string chosen by the sender of the RPC that will commonly encode a
monotonically increasing integer. The receiver of the RPC does not
decode or interpret this string but simply saves it to be used as a
"message-id" attribute in any resulting <rpc-reply> message. The
sender MUST ensure that the "message-id" value is normalized
according to the XML attribute value normalization rules defined in
[W3C.REC-xml-20001006] if the sender wants the string to be returned
unmodified. For example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<some-method>
<!-- method parameters here... -->
</some-method>
</rpc>
If additional attributes are present in an <rpc> element, a NETCONF
peer MUST return them unmodified in the <rpc-reply> element. This
includes any "xmlns" attributes.
The name and parameters of an RPC are encoded as the contents of the
<rpc> element. The name of the RPC is an element directly inside the
<rpc> element, and any parameters are encoded inside this element.
The following example invokes a method called <my-own-method>, which
has two parameters, <my-first-parameter>, with a value of "14", and
<another-parameter>, with a value of "fred":
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<my-own-method xmlns="http://example.net/me/my-own/1.0">
<my-first-parameter>14</my-first-parameter>
<another-parameter>fred</another-parameter>
</my-own-method>
</rpc>
The following example invokes a <rock-the-house> method with a
<zip-code> parameter of "27606-0100":
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<rock-the-house xmlns="http://example.net/rock/1.0">
<zip-code>27606-0100</zip-code>
</rock-the-house>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The following example invokes the NETCONF <get> method with no
parameters:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get/>
</rpc>
4.2. <rpc-reply> Element
The <rpc-reply> message is sent in response to an <rpc> message.
The <rpc-reply> element has a mandatory attribute "message-id", which
is equal to the "message-id" attribute of the <rpc> for which this is
a response.
A NETCONF server MUST also return any additional attributes included
in the <rpc> element unmodified in the <rpc-reply> element.
The response data is encoded as one or more child elements to the
<rpc-reply> element.
For example:
The following <rpc> element invokes the NETCONF <get> method and
includes an additional attribute called "user-id". Note that the
"user-id" attribute is not in the NETCONF namespace. The returned
<rpc-reply> element returns the "user-id" attribute, as well as the
requested content.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:ex="http://example.net/content/1.0"
ex:user-id="fred">
<get/>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:ex="http://example.net/content/1.0"
ex:user-id="fred">
<data>
<!-- contents here... -->
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
4.3. <rpc-error> Element
The <rpc-error> element is sent in <rpc-reply> messages if an error
occurs during the processing of an <rpc> request.
If a server encounters multiple errors during the processing of an
<rpc> request, the <rpc-reply> MAY contain multiple <rpc-error>
elements. However, a server is not required to detect or report more
than one <rpc-error> element, if a request contains multiple errors.
A server is not required to check for particular error conditions in
a specific sequence. A server MUST return an <rpc-error> element if
any error conditions occur during processing.
A server MUST NOT return application-level- or data-model-specific
error information in an <rpc-error> element for which the client does
not have sufficient access rights.
The <rpc-error> element includes the following information:
error-type: Defines the conceptual layer that the error occurred.
Enumeration. One of:
* transport (layer: Secure Transport)
* rpc (layer: Messages)
* protocol (layer: Operations)
* application (layer: Content)
error-tag: Contains a string identifying the error condition. See
Appendix A for allowed values.
error-severity: Contains a string identifying the error severity, as
determined by the device. One of:
* error
* warning
Note that there are no <error-tag> values defined in this document
that utilize the "warning" enumeration. This is reserved for
future use.
error-app-tag: Contains a string identifying the data-model-specific
or implementation-specific error condition, if one exists. This
element will not be present if no appropriate application error-
tag can be associated with a particular error condition. If a
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
data-model-specific and an implementation-specific error-app-tag
both exist, then the data-model-specific value MUST be used by the
server.
error-path: Contains the absolute XPath [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
expression identifying the element path to the node that is
associated with the error being reported in a particular
<rpc-error> element. This element will not be present if no
appropriate payload element or datastore node can be associated
with a particular error condition.
The XPath expression is interpreted in the following context:
* The set of namespace declarations are those in scope on the
<rpc-error> element.
* The set of variable bindings is empty.
* The function library is the core function library.
The context node depends on the node associated with the error
being reported:
* If a payload element can be associated with the error, the
context node is the rpc request's document node (i.e., the
<rpc> element).
* Otherwise, the context node is the root of all data models,
i.e., the node that has the top-level nodes from all data
models as children.
error-message: Contains a string suitable for human display that
describes the error condition. This element will not be present
if no appropriate message is provided for a particular error
condition. This element SHOULD include an "xml:lang" attribute as
defined in [W3C.REC-xml-20001006] and discussed in [RFC3470].
error-info: Contains protocol- or data-model-specific error content.
This element will not be present if no such error content is
provided for a particular error condition. The list in Appendix A
defines any mandatory error-info content for each error. After
any protocol-mandated content, a data model definition MAY mandate
that certain application-layer error information be included in
the error-info container. An implementation MAY include
additional elements to provide extended and/or implementation-
specific debugging information.
Appendix A enumerates the standard NETCONF errors.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Example: An error is returned if an <rpc> element is received
without a "message-id" attribute. Note that only in this case is
it acceptable for the NETCONF peer to omit the "message-id"
attribute in the <rpc-reply> element.
<rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<rpc-error>
<error-type>rpc</error-type>
<error-tag>missing-attribute</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-info>
<bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute>
<bad-element>rpc</bad-element>
</error-info>
</rpc-error>
</rpc-reply>
The following <rpc-reply> illustrates the case of returning multiple
<rpc-error> elements.
Note that the data models used in the examples in this section use
the <name> element to distinguish between multiple instances of the
<interface> element.
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:xc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<rpc-error>
<error-type>application</error-type>
<error-tag>invalid-value</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-path xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
/t:top/t:interface[t:name="Ethernet0/0"]/t:mtu
</error-path>
<error-message xml:lang="en">
MTU value 25000 is not within range 256..9192
</error-message>
</rpc-error>
<rpc-error>
<error-type>application</error-type>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<error-tag>invalid-value</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-path xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
/t:top/t:interface[t:name="Ethernet1/0"]/t:address/t:name
</error-path>
<error-message xml:lang="en">
Invalid IP address for interface Ethernet1/0
</error-message>
</rpc-error>
</rpc-reply>
4.4. <ok> Element
The <ok> element is sent in <rpc-reply> messages if no errors or
warnings occurred during the processing of an <rpc> request, and no
data was returned from the operation. For example:
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
4.5. Pipelining
NETCONF <rpc> requests MUST be processed serially by the managed
device. Additional <rpc> requests MAY be sent before previous ones
have been completed. The managed device MUST send responses only in
the order the requests were received.
5. Configuration Model
NETCONF provides an initial set of operations and a number of
capabilities that can be used to extend the base. NETCONF peers
exchange device capabilities when the session is initiated as
described in Section 8.1.
5.1. Configuration Datastores
NETCONF defines the existence of one or more configuration datastores
and allows configuration operations on them. A configuration
datastore is defined as the complete set of configuration data that
is required to get a device from its initial default state into a
desired operational state. The configuration datastore does not
include state data or executive commands.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The running configuration datastore holds the complete configuration
currently active on the network device. Only one configuration
datastore of this type exists on the device, and it is always
present. NETCONF protocol operations refer to this datastore using
the <running> element.
Only the <running> configuration datastore is present in the base
model. Additional configuration datastores MAY be defined by
capabilities. Such configuration datastores are available only on
devices that advertise the capabilities.
The capabilities in Sections 8.3 and 8.7 define the <candidate> and
<startup> configuration datastores, respectively.
5.2. Data Modeling
Data modeling and content issues are outside the scope of the NETCONF
protocol. An assumption is made that the device's data model is
well-known to the application and that both parties are aware of
issues such as the layout, containment, keying, lookup, replacement,
and management of the data, as well as any other constraints imposed
by the data model.
NETCONF carries configuration data inside the <config> element that
is specific to the device's data model. The protocol treats the
contents of that element as opaque data. The device uses
capabilities to announce the set of data models that the device
implements. The capability definition details the operation and
constraints imposed by data model.
Devices and managers can support multiple data models, including both
standard and proprietary data models.
6. Subtree Filtering
6.1. Overview
XML subtree filtering is a mechanism that allows an application to
select particular XML subtrees to include in the <rpc-reply> for a
<get> or <get-config> operation. A small set of filters for
inclusion, simple content exact-match, and selection is provided,
which allows some useful, but also very limited, selection
mechanisms. The server does not need to utilize any data-model-
specific semantics during processing, allowing for simple and
centralized implementation strategies.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Conceptually, a subtree filter is comprised of zero or more element
subtrees, which represent the filter selection criteria. At each
containment level within a subtree, the set of sibling nodes is
logically processed by the server to determine if its subtree and
path of elements to the root are included in the filter output.
Each node specified in a subtree filter represents an inclusive
filter. Only associated nodes in underlying data model(s) within the
specified datastore on the server are selected by the filter. A node
is selected if it matches the selection criteria and hierarchy of
elements given in the filter data, except that the filter absolute
path name is adjusted to start from the layer below <filter>.
Response messages contain only the subtrees selected by the filter.
Any selection criteria that were present in the request, within a
particular selected subtree, are also included in the response. Note
that some elements expressed in the filter as leaf nodes will be
expanded (i.e., subtrees included) in the filter output. Specific
data instances are not duplicated in the response in the event that
the request contains multiple filter subtree expressions that select
the same data.
6.2. Subtree Filter Components
A subtree filter is comprised of XML elements and their XML
attributes. There are five types of components that can be present
in a subtree filter:
o Namespace Selection
o Attribute Match Expressions
o Containment Nodes
o Selection Nodes
o Content Match Nodes
6.2.1. Namespace Selection
A namespace is considered to match (for filter purposes) if the XML
namespace associated with a particular node within the <filter>
element is the same as in the underlying data model. Note that
namespace selection cannot be used by itself. At least one element
MUST be specified in the filter if any elements are to be included in
the filter output.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
An XML namespace wildcard mechanism is defined for subtree filtering.
If an element within the <filter> element is not qualified by a
namespace (e.g., xmlns=""), then the server MUST evaluate all the XML
namespaces it supports, when processing that subtree filter node.
This wildcard mechanism is not applicable to XML attributes.
Note that prefix values for qualified namespaces are not relevant
when comparing filter elements to elements in the underlying data
model.
Example:
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"/>
</filter>
In this example, the <top> element is a selection node, and only this
node in the "http://example.com/schema/1.2/config" namespace and any
child nodes (from the underlying data model) will be included in the
filter output.
6.2.2. Attribute Match Expressions
An attribute that appears in a subtree filter is part of an
"attribute match expression". Any number of (unqualified or
qualified) XML attributes MAY be present in any type of filter node.
In addition to the selection criteria normally applicable to that
node, the selected data MUST have matching values for every attribute
specified in the node. If an element is not defined to include a
specified attribute, then it is not selected in the filter output.
Example:
<filter type="subtree">
<t:top xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<t:interfaces>
<t:interface t:ifName="eth0"/>
</t:interfaces>
</t:top>
</filter>
In this example, the <top> and <interfaces> elements are containment
nodes, the <interface> element is a selection node, and "ifName" is
an attribute match expression. Only "interface" nodes in the
"http://example.com/schema/1.2/config" namespace that have an
"ifName" attribute with the value "eth0" and occur within
"interfaces" nodes within "top" nodes will be included in the filter
output.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.2.3. Containment Nodes
Nodes that contain child elements within a subtree filter are called
"containment nodes". Each child element can be any type of node,
including another containment node. For each containment node
specified in a subtree filter, all data model instances that exactly
match the specified namespaces, element hierarchy, and any attribute
match expressions are included in the filter output.
Example:
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users/>
</top>
</filter>
In this example, the <top> element is a containment node.
6.2.4. Selection Nodes
An empty leaf node within a filter is called a "selection node", and
it represents an "explicit selection" filter on the underlying data
model. Presence of any selection nodes within a set of sibling nodes
will cause the filter to select the specified subtree(s) and suppress
automatic selection of the entire set of sibling nodes in the
underlying data model. For filtering purposes, an empty leaf node
can be declared either with an empty tag (e.g., <foo/>) or with
explicit start and end tags (e.g., <foo> </foo>). Any whitespace
characters are ignored in this form.
Example:
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users/>
</top>
</filter>
In this example, the <top> element is a containment node, and the
<users> element is a selection node. Only "users" nodes in the
"http://example.com/schema/1.2/config" namespace that occur within a
<top> element that is the root of the configuration datastore will be
included in the filter output.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.2.5. Content Match Nodes
A leaf node that contains simple content is called a "content match
node". It is used to select some or all of its sibling nodes for
filter output, and it represents an exact-match filter on the leaf
node element content. The following constraints apply to content
match nodes:
o A content match node MUST NOT contain nested elements.
o Multiple content match nodes (i.e., sibling nodes) are logically
combined in an "AND" expression.
o Filtering of mixed content is not supported.
o Filtering of list content is not supported.
o Filtering of whitespace-only content is not supported.
o A content match node MUST contain non-whitespace characters. An
empty element (e.g., <foo></foo>) will be interpreted as a
selection node (e.g., <foo/>).
o Leading and trailing whitespace characters are ignored, but any
whitespace characters within a block of text characters are not
ignored or modified.
If all specified sibling content match nodes in a subtree filter
expression are "true", then the filter output nodes are selected in
the following manner:
o Each content match node in the sibling set is included in the
filter output.
o If any containment nodes are present in the sibling set, then they
are processed further and included if any nested filter criteria
are also met.
o If any selection nodes are present in the sibling set, then all of
them are included in the filter output.
o If any sibling nodes of the selection node are instance identifier
components for a conceptual data structure (e.g., list key leaf),
then they MAY also be included in the filter output.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
o Otherwise (i.e., there are no selection or containment nodes in
the filter sibling set), all the nodes defined at this level in
the underlying data model (and their subtrees, if any) are
returned in the filter output.
If any of the sibling content match node tests are "false", then no
further filter processing is performed on that sibling set, and none
of the sibling subtrees are selected by the filter, including the
content match node(s).
Example:
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</filter>
In this example, the <users> and <user> nodes are both containment
nodes, and <name> is a content match node. Since no sibling nodes of
<name> are specified (and therefore no containment or selection
nodes), all of the sibling nodes of <name> are returned in the filter
output. Only "user" nodes in the
"http://example.com/schema/1.2/config" namespace that match the
element hierarchy and for which the <name> element is equal to "fred"
will be included in the filter output.
6.3. Subtree Filter Processing
The filter output (the set of selected nodes) is initially empty.
Each subtree filter can contain one or more data model fragments,
which represent portions of the data model that will be selected
(with all child nodes) in the filter output.
Each subtree data fragment is compared by the server to the internal
data models supported by the server. If the entire subtree data-
fragment filter (starting from the root to the innermost element
specified in the filter) exactly matches a corresponding portion of
the supported data model, then that node and all its children are
included in the result data.
The server processes all nodes with the same parent node (sibling
set) together, starting from the root to the leaf nodes. The root
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
elements in the filter are considered in the same sibling set
(assuming they are in the same namespace), even though they do not
have a common parent.
For each sibling set, the server determines which nodes are included
(or potentially included) in the filter output, and which sibling
subtrees are excluded (pruned) from the filter output. The server
first determines which types of nodes are present in the sibling set
and processes the nodes according to the rules for their type. If
any nodes in the sibling set are selected, then the process is
recursively applied to the sibling sets of each selected node. The
algorithm continues until all sibling sets in all subtrees specified
in the filter have been processed.
6.4. Subtree Filtering Examples
6.4.1. No Filter
Leaving out the filter on the <get> operation returns the entire data
model.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get/>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<!-- ... entire set of data returned ... -->
</data>
</rpc-reply>
6.4.2. Empty Filter
An empty filter will select nothing because no content match or
selection nodes are present. This is not an error. The <filter>
element's "type" attribute used in these examples is discussed
further in Section 7.1.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get>
<filter type="subtree">
</filter>
</get>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
6.4.3. Select the Entire <users> Subtree
The filter in this example contains one selection node (<users>), so
just that subtree is selected by the filter. This example represents
the fully populated <users> data model in most of the filter examples
that follow. In a real data model, the <company-info> would not
likely be returned with the list of users for a particular host or
network.
NOTE: The filtering and configuration examples used in this document
appear in the namespace "http://example.com/schema/1.2/config". The
root element of this namespace is <top>. The <top> element and its
descendents represent an example configuration data model only.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users/>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
<type>superuser</type>
<full-name>Charlie Root</full-name>
<company-info>
<dept>1</dept>
<id>1</id>
</company-info>
</user>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<type>admin</type>
<full-name>Fred Flintstone</full-name>
<company-info>
<dept>2</dept>
<id>2</id>
</company-info>
</user>
<user>
<name>barney</name>
<type>admin</type>
<full-name>Barney Rubble</full-name>
<company-info>
<dept>2</dept>
<id>3</id>
</company-info>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
The following filter request would have produced the same result, but
only because the container <users> defines one child element
(<user>).
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user/>
</users>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.4.4. Select All <name> Elements within the <users> Subtree
This filter contains two containment nodes (<users>, <user>) and one
selection node (<name>). All instances of the <name> element in the
same sibling set are selected in the filter output. The client might
need to know that <name> is used as an instance identifier in this
particular data structure, but the server does not need to know that
meta-data in order to process the request.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name/>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
</user>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
</user>
<user>
<name>barney</name>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.4.5. One Specific <user> Entry
This filter contains two containment nodes (<users>, <user>) and one
content match node (<name>). All instances of the sibling set
containing <name> for which the value of <name> equals "fred" are
selected in the filter output.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<type>admin</type>
<full-name>Fred Flintstone</full-name>
<company-info>
<dept>2</dept>
<id>2</id>
</company-info>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.4.6. Specific Elements from a Specific <user> Entry
This filter contains two containment nodes (<users>, <user>), one
content match node (<name>), and two selection nodes (<type>,
<full-name>). All instances of the <type> and <full-name> elements
in the same sibling set containing <name> for which the value of
<name> equals "fred" are selected in the filter output. The
<company-info> element is not included because the sibling set
contains selection nodes.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<type/>
<full-name/>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<type>admin</type>
<full-name>Fred Flintstone</full-name>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
6.4.7. Multiple Subtrees
This filter contains three subtrees (name=root, fred, barney).
The "root" subtree filter contains two containment nodes (<users>,
<user>), one content match node (<name>), and one selection node
(<company-info>). The subtree selection criteria are met, and just
the company-info subtree for "root" is selected in the filter output.
The "fred" subtree filter contains three containment nodes (<users>,
<user>, <company-info>), one content match node (<name>), and one
selection node (<id>). The subtree selection criteria are met, and
just the <id> element within the company-info subtree for "fred" is
selected in the filter output.
The "barney" subtree filter contains three containment nodes
(<users>, <user>, <company-info>), two content match nodes (<name>,
<type>), and one selection node (<dept>). The subtree selection
criteria are not met because user "barney" is not a "superuser", and
the entire subtree for "barney" (including its parent <user> entry)
is excluded from the filter output.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
<company-info/>
</user>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<company-info>
<id/>
</company-info>
</user>
<user>
<name>barney</name>
<type>superuser</type>
<company-info>
<dept/>
</company-info>
</user>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
</users>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
<company-info>
<dept>1</dept>
<id>1</id>
</company-info>
</user>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<company-info>
<id>2</id>
</company-info>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
6.4.8. Elements with Attribute Naming
In this example, the filter contains one containment node
(<interfaces>), one attribute match expression ("ifName"), and one
selection node (<interface>). All instances of the <interface>
subtree that have an "ifName" attribute equal to "eth0" are selected
in the filter output. The filter data elements and attributes are
qualified because the "ifName" attribute will not be considered part
of the "schema/1.2" namespace if it is unqualified.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get>
<filter type="subtree">
<t:top xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/stats">
<t:interfaces>
<t:interface t:ifName="eth0"/>
</t:interfaces>
</t:top>
</filter>
</get>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<t:top xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/stats">
<t:interfaces>
<t:interface t:ifName="eth0">
<t:ifInOctets>45621</t:ifInOctets>
<t:ifOutOctets>774344</t:ifOutOctets>
</t:interface>
</t:interfaces>
</t:top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
If "ifName" were a child node instead of an attribute, then the
following request would produce similar results.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/stats">
<interfaces>
<interface>
<ifName>eth0</ifName>
</interface>
</interfaces>
</top>
</filter>
</get>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
7. Protocol Operations
The NETCONF protocol provides a small set of low-level operations to
manage device configurations and retrieve device state information.
The base protocol provides operations to retrieve, configure, copy,
and delete configuration datastores. Additional operations are
provided, based on the capabilities advertised by the device.
The base protocol includes the following protocol operations:
o get
o get-config
o edit-config
o copy-config
o delete-config
o lock
o unlock
o close-session
o kill-session
A protocol operation can fail for various reasons, including
"operation not supported". An initiator SHOULD NOT assume that any
operation will always succeed. The return values in any RPC reply
SHOULD be checked for error responses.
The syntax and XML encoding of the protocol operations are formally
defined in the YANG module in Appendix C. The following sections
describe the semantics of each protocol operation.
7.1. <get-config>
Description: Retrieve all or part of a specified configuration
datastore.
Parameters:
source: Name of the configuration datastore being queried, such
as <running/>.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
filter: This parameter identifies the portions of the device
configuration datastore to retrieve. If this parameter is not
present, the entire configuration is returned.
The <filter> element MAY optionally contain a "type" attribute.
This attribute indicates the type of filtering syntax used
within the <filter> element. The default filtering mechanism
in NETCONF is referred to as subtree filtering and is described
in Section 6. The value "subtree" explicitly identifies this
type of filtering.
If the NETCONF peer supports the :xpath capability
(Section 8.9), the value "xpath" MAY be used to indicate that
the "select" attribute on the <filter> element contains an
XPath expression.
Positive Response: If the device can satisfy the request, the server
sends an <rpc-reply> element containing a <data> element with the
results of the query.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example: To retrieve the entire <users> subtree:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users/>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
<type>superuser</type>
<full-name>Charlie Root</full-name>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<company-info>
<dept>1</dept>
<id>1</id>
</company-info>
</user>
<!-- additional <user> elements appear here... -->
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Section 6 contains additional examples of subtree filtering.
7.2. <edit-config>
Description:
The <edit-config> operation loads all or part of a specified
configuration to the specified target configuration datastore.
This operation allows the new configuration to be expressed in
several ways, such as using a local file, a remote file, or
inline. If the target configuration datastore does not exist, it
will be created.
If a NETCONF peer supports the :url capability (Section 8.8), the
<url> element can appear instead of the <config> parameter.
The device analyzes the source and target configurations and
performs the requested changes. The target configuration is not
necessarily replaced, as with the <copy-config> message. Instead,
the target configuration is changed in accordance with the
source's data and requested operations.
If the <edit-config> operation contains multiple sub-operations
that apply to the same conceptual node in the underlying data
model, then the result of the operation is undefined (i.e.,
outside the scope of the NETCONF protocol).
Attributes:
operation: Elements in the <config> subtree MAY contain an
"operation" attribute, which belongs to the NETCONF namespace
defined in Section 3.1. The attribute identifies the point in
the configuration to perform the operation and MAY appear on
multiple elements throughout the <config> subtree.
If the "operation" attribute is not specified, the
configuration is merged into the configuration datastore.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The "operation" attribute has one of the following values:
merge: The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is merged with the configuration
at the corresponding level in the configuration datastore
identified by the <target> parameter. This is the default
behavior.
replace: The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute replaces any related configuration
in the configuration datastore identified by the <target>
parameter. If no such configuration data exists in the
configuration datastore, it is created. Unlike a
<copy-config> operation, which replaces the entire target
configuration, only the configuration actually present in
the <config> parameter is affected.
create: The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is added to the configuration if
and only if the configuration data does not already exist in
the configuration datastore. If the configuration data
exists, an <rpc-error> element is returned with an
<error-tag> value of "data-exists".
delete: The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is deleted from the configuration
if and only if the configuration data currently exists in
the configuration datastore. If the configuration data does
not exist, an <rpc-error> element is returned with an
<error-tag> value of "data-missing".
remove: The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is deleted from the configuration
if the configuration data currently exists in the
configuration datastore. If the configuration data does not
exist, the "remove" operation is silently ignored by the
server.
Parameters:
target: Name of the configuration datastore being edited, such as
<running/> or <candidate/>.
default-operation: Selects the default operation (as described in
the "operation" attribute) for this <edit-config> request. The
default value for the <default-operation> parameter is "merge".
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The <default-operation> parameter is optional, but if provided,
it has one of the following values:
merge: The configuration data in the <config> parameter is
merged with the configuration at the corresponding level in
the target datastore. This is the default behavior.
replace: The configuration data in the <config> parameter
completely replaces the configuration in the target
datastore. This is useful for loading previously saved
configuration data.
none: The target datastore is unaffected by the configuration
in the <config> parameter, unless and until the incoming
configuration data uses the "operation" attribute to request
a different operation. If the configuration in the <config>
parameter contains data for which there is not a
corresponding level in the target datastore, an <rpc-error>
is returned with an <error-tag> value of data-missing.
Using "none" allows operations like "delete" to avoid
unintentionally creating the parent hierarchy of the element
to be deleted.
test-option: The <test-option> element MAY be specified only if
the device advertises the :validate:1.1 capability
(Section 8.6).
The <test-option> element has one of the following values:
test-then-set: Perform a validation test before attempting to
set. If validation errors occur, do not perform the
<edit-config> operation. This is the default test-option.
set: Perform a set without a validation test first.
test-only: Perform only the validation test, without
attempting to set.
error-option: The <error-option> element has one of the following
values:
stop-on-error: Abort the <edit-config> operation on first
error. This is the default error-option.
continue-on-error: Continue to process configuration data on
error; error is recorded, and negative response is generated
if any errors occur.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
rollback-on-error: If an error condition occurs such that an
error severity <rpc-error> element is generated, the server
will stop processing the <edit-config> operation and restore
the specified configuration to its complete state at the
start of this <edit-config> operation. This option requires
the server to support the :rollback-on-error capability
described in Section 8.5.
config: A hierarchy of configuration data as defined by one of
the device's data models. The contents MUST be placed in an
appropriate namespace, to allow the device to detect the
appropriate data model, and the contents MUST follow the
constraints of that data model, as defined by its capability
definition. Capabilities are discussed in Section 8.
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent containing an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> response is sent if the request
cannot be completed for any reason.
Example: The <edit-config> examples in this section utilize a simple
data model, in which multiple instances of the <interface> element
can be present, and an instance is distinguished by the <name>
element within each <interface> element.
Set the MTU to 1500 on an interface named "Ethernet0/0" in the
running configuration:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<interface>
<name>Ethernet0/0</name>
<mtu>1500</mtu>
</interface>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Add an interface named "Ethernet0/0" to the running configuration,
replacing any previous interface with that name:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config xmlns:xc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<interface xc:operation="replace">
<name>Ethernet0/0</name>
<mtu>1500</mtu>
<address>
<name>192.0.2.4</name>
<prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
</address>
</interface>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Delete the configuration for an interface named "Ethernet0/0" from
the running configuration:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<default-operation>none</default-operation>
<config xmlns:xc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<interface xc:operation="delete">
<name>Ethernet0/0</name>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
</interface>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Delete interface 192.0.2.4 from an OSPF area (other interfaces
configured in the same area are unaffected):
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<default-operation>none</default-operation>
<config xmlns:xc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<protocols>
<ospf>
<area>
<name>0.0.0.0</name>
<interfaces>
<interface xc:operation="delete">
<name>192.0.2.4</name>
</interface>
</interfaces>
</area>
</ospf>
</protocols>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
7.3. <copy-config>
Description: Create or replace an entire configuration datastore
with the contents of another complete configuration datastore. If
the target datastore exists, it is overwritten. Otherwise, a new
one is created, if allowed.
If a NETCONF peer supports the :url capability (Section 8.8), the
<url> element can appear as the <source> or <target> parameter.
Even if it advertises the :writable-running capability, a device
MAY choose not to support the <running/> configuration datastore
as the <target> parameter of a <copy-config> operation. A device
MAY choose not to support remote-to-remote copy operations, where
both the <source> and <target> parameters use the <url> element.
If the <source> and <target> parameters identify the same URL or
configuration datastore, an error MUST be returned with an error-
tag containing "invalid-value".
Parameters:
target: Name of the configuration datastore to use as the
destination of the <copy-config> operation.
source: Name of the configuration datastore to use as the source
of the <copy-config> operation, or the <config> element
containing the complete configuration to copy.
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that includes an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included within the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<copy-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<source>
<url>https://user:password@example.com/cfg/new.txt</url>
</source>
</copy-config>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.4. <delete-config>
Description: Delete a configuration datastore. The <running>
configuration datastore cannot be deleted.
If a NETCONF peer supports the :url capability (Section 8.8), the
<url> element can appear as the <target> parameter.
Parameters:
target: Name of the configuration datastore to delete.
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that includes an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included within the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<delete-config>
<target>
<startup/>
</target>
</delete-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.5. <lock>
Description: The <lock> operation allows the client to lock the
entire configuration datastore system of a device. Such locks are
intended to be short-lived and allow a client to make a change
without fear of interaction with other NETCONF clients, non-
NETCONF clients (e.g., SNMP and command line interface (CLI)
scripts), and human users.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
An attempt to lock the configuration datastore MUST fail if an
existing session or other entity holds a lock on any portion of
the lock target.
When the lock is acquired, the server MUST prevent any changes to
the locked resource other than those requested by this session.
SNMP and CLI requests to modify the resource MUST fail with an
appropriate error.
The duration of the lock is defined as beginning when the lock is
acquired and lasting until either the lock is released or the
NETCONF session closes. The session closure can be explicitly
performed by the client, or implicitly performed by the server
based on criteria such as failure of the underlying transport,
simple inactivity timeout, or detection of abusive behavior on the
part of the client. These criteria are dependent on the
implementation and the underlying transport.
The <lock> operation takes a mandatory parameter, <target>. The
<target> parameter names the configuration datastore that will be
locked. When a lock is active, using the <edit-config> operation
on the locked configuration datastore and using the locked
configuration as a target of the <copy-config> operation will be
disallowed by any other NETCONF session. Additionally, the system
will ensure that these locked configuration resources will not be
modified by other non-NETCONF management operations such as SNMP
and CLI. The <kill-session> operation can be used to force the
release of a lock owned by another NETCONF session. It is beyond
the scope of this document to define how to break locks held by
other entities.
A lock MUST NOT be granted if any of the following conditions is
true:
* A lock is already held by any NETCONF session or another
entity.
* The target configuration is <candidate>, it has already been
modified, and these changes have not been committed or rolled
back.
* The target configuration is <running>, and another NETCONF
session has an ongoing confirmed commit (Section 8.4).
The server MUST respond with either an <ok> element or an
<rpc-error>.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
A lock will be released by the system if the session holding the
lock is terminated for any reason.
Parameters:
target: Name of the configuration datastore to lock.
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that contains an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
If the lock is already held, the <error-tag> element will be
"lock-denied" and the <error-info> element will include the
<session-id> of the lock owner. If the lock is held by a non-
NETCONF entity, a <session-id> of 0 (zero) is included. Note that
any other entity performing a lock on even a partial piece of a
target will prevent a NETCONF lock (which is global) from being
obtained on that target.
Example: The following example shows a successful acquisition of a
lock.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<lock>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
</lock>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/> <!-- lock succeeded -->
</rpc-reply>
Example: The following example shows a failed attempt to acquire a
lock when the lock is already in use.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<lock>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
</lock>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<rpc-error> <!-- lock failed -->
<error-type>protocol</error-type>
<error-tag>lock-denied</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-message>
Lock failed, lock is already held
</error-message>
<error-info>
<session-id>454</session-id>
<!-- lock is held by NETCONF session 454 -->
</error-info>
</rpc-error>
</rpc-reply>
7.6. <unlock>
Description: The <unlock> operation is used to release a
configuration lock, previously obtained with the <lock> operation.
An <unlock> operation will not succeed if either of the following
conditions is true:
* The specified lock is not currently active.
* The session issuing the <unlock> operation is not the same
session that obtained the lock.
The server MUST respond with either an <ok> element or an
<rpc-error>.
Parameters:
target: Name of the configuration datastore to unlock.
A NETCONF client is not permitted to unlock a configuration
datastore that it did not lock.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that contains an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<unlock>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
</unlock>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.7. <get>
Description: Retrieve running configuration and device state
information.
Parameters:
filter: This parameter specifies the portion of the system
configuration and state data to retrieve. If this parameter is
not present, all the device configuration and state information
is returned.
The <filter> element MAY optionally contain a "type" attribute.
This attribute indicates the type of filtering syntax used
within the <filter> element. The default filtering mechanism
in NETCONF is referred to as subtree filtering and is described
in Section 6. The value "subtree" explicitly identifies this
type of filtering.
If the NETCONF peer supports the :xpath capability
(Section 8.9), the value "xpath" MAY be used to indicate that
the "select" attribute of the <filter> element contains an
XPath expression.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent. The <data> section contains the appropriate
subset.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/stats">
<interfaces>
<interface>
<ifName>eth0</ifName>
</interface>
</interfaces>
</top>
</filter>
</get>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/stats">
<interfaces>
<interface>
<ifName>eth0</ifName>
<ifInOctets>45621</ifInOctets>
<ifOutOctets>774344</ifOutOctets>
</interface>
</interfaces>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
7.8. <close-session>
Description: Request graceful termination of a NETCONF session.
When a NETCONF server receives a <close-session> request, it will
gracefully close the session. The server will release any locks
and resources associated with the session and gracefully close any
associated connections. Any NETCONF requests received after a
<close-session> request will be ignored.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that includes an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<close-session/>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
7.9. <kill-session>
Description: Force the termination of a NETCONF session.
When a NETCONF entity receives a <kill-session> request for an
open session, it will abort any operations currently in process,
release any locks and resources associated with the session, and
close any associated connections.
If a NETCONF server receives a <kill-session> request while
processing a confirmed commit (Section 8.4), it MUST restore the
configuration to its state before the confirmed commit was issued.
Otherwise, the <kill-session> operation does not roll back
configuration or other device state modifications made by the
entity holding the lock.
Parameters:
session-id: Session identifier of the NETCONF session to be
terminated. If this value is equal to the current session ID,
an "invalid-value" error is returned.
Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an
<rpc-reply> is sent that includes an <ok> element.
Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the
<rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<kill-session>
<session-id>4</session-id>
</kill-session>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
8. Capabilities
This section defines a set of capabilities that a client or a server
MAY implement. Each peer advertises its capabilities by sending them
during an initial capabilities exchange. Each peer needs to
understand only those capabilities that it might use and MUST ignore
any capability received from the other peer that it does not require
or does not understand.
Additional capabilities can be defined using the template in
Appendix D. Future capability definitions can be published as
standards by standards bodies or published as proprietary extensions.
A NETCONF capability is identified with a URI. The base capabilities
are defined using URNs following the method described in RFC 3553
[RFC3553]. Capabilities defined in this document have the following
format:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:{name}:1.x
where {name} is the name of the capability. Capabilities are often
referenced in discussions and email using the shorthand :{name}, or
:{name}:{version} if the capability exists in multiple versions. For
example, the foo capability would have the formal name
"urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:foo:1.0" and be called ":foo".
The shorthand form MUST NOT be used inside the protocol.
8.1. Capabilities Exchange
Capabilities are advertised in messages sent by each peer during
session establishment. When the NETCONF session is opened, each peer
(both client and server) MUST send a <hello> element containing a
list of that peer's capabilities. Each peer MUST send at least the
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
base NETCONF capability, "urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.1". A peer
MAY include capabilities for previous NETCONF versions, to indicate
that it supports multiple protocol versions.
Both NETCONF peers MUST verify that the other peer has advertised a
common protocol version. When comparing protocol version capability
URIs, only the base part is used, in the event any parameters are
encoded at the end of the URI string. If no protocol version
capability in common is found, the NETCONF peer MUST NOT continue the
session. If more than one protocol version URI in common is present,
then the highest numbered (most recent) protocol version MUST be used
by both peers.
A server sending the <hello> element MUST include a <session-id>
element containing the session ID for this NETCONF session. A client
sending the <hello> element MUST NOT include a <session-id> element.
A server receiving a <hello> message with a <session-id> element MUST
terminate the NETCONF session. Similarly, a client that does not
receive a <session-id> element in the server's <hello> message MUST
terminate the NETCONF session (without first sending a
<close-session>).
In the following example, a server advertises the base NETCONF
capability, one NETCONF capability defined in the base NETCONF
document, and one implementation-specific capability.
<hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<capabilities>
<capability>
urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.1
</capability>
<capability>
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1.0
</capability>
<capability>
http://example.net/router/2.3/myfeature
</capability>
</capabilities>
<session-id>4</session-id>
</hello>
Each peer sends its <hello> element simultaneously as soon as the
connection is open. A peer MUST NOT wait to receive the capability
set from the other side before sending its own set.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
8.2. Writable-Running Capability
8.2.1. Description
The :writable-running capability indicates that the device supports
direct writes to the <running> configuration datastore. In other
words, the device supports <edit-config> and <copy-config> operations
where the <running> configuration is the target.
8.2.2. Dependencies
None.
8.2.3. Capability Identifier
The :writable-running capability is identified by the following
capability string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:writable-running:1.0
8.2.4. New Operations
None.
8.2.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.2.5.1. <edit-config>
The :writable-running capability modifies the <edit-config> operation
to accept the <running> element as a <target>.
8.2.5.2. <copy-config>
The :writable-running capability modifies the <copy-config> operation
to accept the <running> element as a <target>.
8.3. Candidate Configuration Capability
8.3.1. Description
The candidate configuration capability, :candidate, indicates that
the device supports a candidate configuration datastore, which is
used to hold configuration data that can be manipulated without
impacting the device's current configuration. The candidate
configuration is a full configuration data set that serves as a work
place for creating and manipulating configuration data. Additions,
deletions, and changes can be made to this data to construct the
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
desired configuration data. A <commit> operation MAY be performed at
any time that causes the device's running configuration to be set to
the value of the candidate configuration.
The <commit> operation effectively sets the running configuration to
the current contents of the candidate configuration. While it could
be modeled as a simple copy, it is done as a distinct operation for a
number of reasons. In keeping high-level concepts as first-class
operations, we allow developers to see more clearly both what the
client is requesting and what the server must perform. This keeps
the intentions more obvious, the special cases less complex, and the
interactions between operations more straightforward. For example,
the :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability (Section 8.4) would make no
sense as a "copy confirmed" operation.
The candidate configuration can be shared among multiple sessions.
Unless a client has specific information that the candidate
configuration is not shared, it MUST assume that other sessions are
able to modify the candidate configuration at the same time. It is
therefore prudent for a client to lock the candidate configuration
before modifying it.
The client can discard any uncommitted changes to the candidate
configuration by executing the <discard-changes> operation. This
operation reverts the contents of the candidate configuration to the
contents of the running configuration.
8.3.2. Dependencies
None.
8.3.3. Capability Identifier
The :candidate capability is identified by the following capability
string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:candidate:1.0
8.3.4. New Operations
8.3.4.1. <commit>
Description:
When the candidate configuration's content is complete, the
configuration data can be committed, publishing the data set to
the rest of the device and requesting the device to conform to
the behavior described in the new configuration.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
To commit the candidate configuration as the device's new
current configuration, use the <commit> operation.
The <commit> operation instructs the device to implement the
configuration data contained in the candidate configuration.
If the device is unable to commit all of the changes in the
candidate configuration datastore, then the running
configuration MUST remain unchanged. If the device does
succeed in committing, the running configuration MUST be
updated with the contents of the candidate configuration.
If the running or candidate configuration is currently locked
by a different session, the <commit> operation MUST fail with
an <error-tag> value of "in-use".
If the system does not have the :candidate capability, the
<commit> operation is not available.
Positive Response:
If the device was able to satisfy the request, an <rpc-reply>
is sent that contains an <ok> element.
Negative Response:
An <rpc-error> element is included in the <rpc-reply> if the
request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit/>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
8.3.4.2. <discard-changes>
If the client decides that the candidate configuration is not to be
committed, the <discard-changes> operation can be used to revert the
candidate configuration to the current running configuration.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<discard-changes/>
</rpc>
This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting the
candidate configuration with the content of the running
configuration.
8.3.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.3.5.1. <get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>, and <validate>
The candidate configuration can be used as a source or target of any
<get-config>, <edit-config>, <copy-config>, or <validate> operation
as a <source> or <target> parameter. The <candidate> element is used
to indicate the candidate configuration:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<candidate/>
</source>
</get-config>
</rpc>
8.3.5.2. <lock> and <unlock>
The candidate configuration can be locked using the <lock> operation
with the <candidate> element as the <target> parameter:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<lock>
<target>
<candidate/>
</target>
</lock>
</rpc>
Similarly, the candidate configuration is unlocked using the
<candidate> element as the <target> parameter:
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<unlock>
<target>
<candidate/>
</target>
</unlock>
</rpc>
When a client fails with outstanding changes to the candidate
configuration, recovery can be difficult. To facilitate easy
recovery, any outstanding changes are discarded when the lock is
released, whether explicitly with the <unlock> operation or
implicitly from session failure.
8.4. Confirmed Commit Capability
8.4.1. Description
The :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability indicates that the server will
support the <cancel-commit> operation and the <confirmed>,
<confirm-timeout>, <persist>, and <persist-id> parameters for the
<commit> operation. See Section 8.3 for further details on the
<commit> operation.
A confirmed <commit> operation MUST be reverted if a confirming
commit is not issued within the timeout period (by default 600
seconds = 10 minutes). The confirming commit is a <commit> operation
without the <confirmed> parameter. The timeout period can be
adjusted with the <confirm-timeout> parameter. If a follow-up
confirmed <commit> operation is issued before the timer expires, the
timer is reset to the new value (600 seconds by default). Both the
confirming commit and a follow-up confirmed <commit> operation MAY
introduce additional changes to the configuration.
If the <persist> element is not given in the confirmed commit
operation, any follow-up commit and the confirming commit MUST be
issued on the same session that issued the confirmed commit. If the
<persist> element is given in the confirmed <commit> operation, a
follow-up commit and the confirming commit can be given on any
session, and they MUST include a <persist-id> element with a value
equal to the given value of the <persist> element.
If the server also advertises the :startup capability, a
<copy-config> from running to startup is also necessary to save the
changes to startup.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
If the session issuing the confirmed commit is terminated for any
reason before the confirm timeout expires, the server MUST restore
the configuration to its state before the confirmed commit was
issued, unless the confirmed commit also included a <persist>
element.
If the device reboots for any reason before the confirm timeout
expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to its state
before the confirmed commit was issued.
If a confirming commit is not issued, the device will revert its
configuration to the state prior to the issuance of the confirmed
commit. To cancel a confirmed commit and revert changes without
waiting for the confirm timeout to expire, the client can explicitly
restore the configuration to its state before the confirmed commit
was issued, by using the <cancel-commit> operation.
For shared configurations, this feature can cause other configuration
changes (for example, via other NETCONF sessions) to be inadvertently
altered or removed, unless the configuration locking feature is used
(in other words, the lock is obtained before the <edit-config>
operation is started). Therefore, it is strongly suggested that in
order to use this feature with shared configuration datastores,
configuration locking SHOULD also be used.
Version 1.0 of this capability was defined in [RFC4741]. Version 1.1
is defined in this document, and extends version 1.0 by adding a new
operation, <cancel-commit>, and two new optional parameters,
<persist> and <persist-id>. For backwards compatibility with old
clients, servers conforming to this specification MAY advertise
version 1.0 in addition to version 1.1.
8.4.2. Dependencies
The :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability is only relevant if the
:candidate capability is also supported.
8.4.3. Capability Identifier
The :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability is identified by the following
capability string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:confirmed-commit:1.1
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
8.4.4. New Operations
8.4.4.1. <cancel-commit>
Description:
Cancels an ongoing confirmed commit. If the <persist-id>
parameter is not given, the <cancel-commit> operation MUST be
issued on the same session that issued the confirmed commit.
Parameters:
persist-id:
Cancels a persistent confirmed commit. The value MUST be
equal to the value given in the <persist> parameter to the
<commit> operation. If the value does not match, the
operation fails with an "invalid-value" error.
Positive Response:
If the device was able to satisfy the request, an <rpc-reply>
is sent that contains an <ok> element.
Negative Response:
An <rpc-error> element is included in the <rpc-reply> if the
request cannot be completed for any reason.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit>
<confirmed/>
</commit>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
<rpc message-id="102"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<cancel-commit/>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc-reply message-id="102"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
8.4.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.4.5.1. <commit>
The :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability allows 4 additional parameters
to the <commit> operation.
Parameters:
confirmed:
Perform a confirmed <commit> operation.
confirm-timeout:
Timeout period for confirmed commit, in seconds. If
unspecified, the confirm timeout defaults to 600 seconds.
persist:
Make the confirmed commit survive a session termination, and
set a token on the ongoing confirmed commit.
persist-id:
Used to issue a follow-up confirmed commit or a confirming
commit from any session, with the token from the previous
<commit> operation.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit>
<confirmed/>
<confirm-timeout>120</confirm-timeout>
</commit>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Example:
<!-- start a persistent confirmed-commit -->
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit>
<confirmed/>
<persist>IQ,d4668</persist>
</commit>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
<!-- confirm the persistent confirmed-commit,
possibly from another session -->
<rpc message-id="102"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit>
<persist-id>IQ,d4668</persist-id>
</commit>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="102"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
8.5. Rollback-on-Error Capability
8.5.1. Description
This capability indicates that the server will support the
"rollback-on-error" value in the <error-option> parameter to the
<edit-config> operation.
For shared configurations, this feature can cause other configuration
changes (for example, via other NETCONF sessions) to be inadvertently
altered or removed, unless the configuration locking feature is used
(in other words, the lock is obtained before the <edit-config>
operation is started). Therefore, it is strongly suggested that in
order to use this feature with shared configuration datastores,
configuration locking also be used.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
8.5.2. Dependencies
None.
8.5.3. Capability Identifier
The :rollback-on-error capability is identified by the following
capability string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:rollback-on-error:1.0
8.5.4. New Operations
None.
8.5.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.5.5.1. <edit-config>
The :rollback-on-error capability allows the "rollback-on-error"
value to the <error-option> parameter on the <edit-config> operation.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<error-option>rollback-on-error</error-option>
<config>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<interface>
<name>Ethernet0/0</name>
<mtu>100000</mtu>
</interface>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
8.6. Validate Capability
8.6.1. Description
Validation consists of checking a complete configuration for
syntactical and semantic errors before applying the configuration to
the device.
If this capability is advertised, the device supports the <validate>
protocol operation and checks at least for syntax errors. In
addition, this capability supports the <test-option> parameter to the
<edit-config> operation and, when it is provided, checks at least for
syntax errors.
Version 1.0 of this capability was defined in [RFC4741]. Version 1.1
is defined in this document, and extends version 1.0 by adding a new
value, "test-only", to the <test-option> parameter of the
<edit-config> operation. For backwards compatibility with old
clients, servers conforming to this specification MAY advertise
version 1.0 in addition to version 1.1.
8.6.2. Dependencies
None.
8.6.3. Capability Identifier
The :validate:1.1 capability is identified by the following
capability string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:validate:1.1
8.6.4. New Operations
8.6.4.1. <validate>
Description:
This protocol operation validates the contents of the specified
configuration.
Parameters:
source:
Name of the configuration datastore to validate, such as
<candidate>, or the <config> element containing the complete
configuration to validate.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Positive Response:
If the device was able to satisfy the request, an <rpc-reply>
is sent that contains an <ok> element.
Negative Response:
An <rpc-error> element is included in the <rpc-reply> if the
request cannot be completed for any reason.
A <validate> operation can fail for a number of reasons, such
as syntax errors, missing parameters, references to undefined
configuration data, or any other violations of rules
established by the underlying data model.
Example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<validate>
<source>
<candidate/>
</source>
</validate>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<ok/>
</rpc-reply>
8.6.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.6.5.1. <edit-config>
The :validate:1.1 capability modifies the <edit-config> operation to
accept the <test-option> parameter.
8.7. Distinct Startup Capability
8.7.1. Description
The device supports separate running and startup configuration
datastores. The startup configuration is loaded by the device when
it boots. Operations that affect the running configuration will not
be automatically copied to the startup configuration. An explicit
<copy-config> operation from the <running> to the <startup> is used
to update the startup configuration to the current contents of the
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
running configuration. NETCONF protocol operations refer to the
startup datastore using the <startup> element.
8.7.2. Dependencies
None.
8.7.3. Capability Identifier
The :startup capability is identified by the following capability
string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1.0
8.7.4. New Operations
None.
8.7.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.7.5.1. General
The :startup capability adds the <startup/> configuration datastore
to arguments of several NETCONF operations. The server MUST support
the following additional values:
+--------------------+--------------------------+-------------------+
| Operation | Parameters | Notes |
+--------------------+--------------------------+-------------------+
| <get-config> | <source> | |
| | | |
| <copy-config> | <source> <target> | |
| | | |
| <lock> | <target> | |
| | | |
| <unlock> | <target> | |
| | | |
| <validate> | <source> | If :validate:1.1 |
| | | is advertised |
| | | |
| <delete-config> | <target> | Resets the device |
| | | to its factory |
| | | defaults |
+--------------------+--------------------------+-------------------+
To save the startup configuration, use the <copy-config> operation to
copy the <running> configuration datastore to the <startup>
configuration datastore.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<copy-config>
<target>
<startup/>
</target>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
</copy-config>
</rpc>
8.8. URL Capability
8.8.1. Description
The NETCONF peer has the ability to accept the <url> element in
<source> and <target> parameters. The capability is further
identified by URL arguments indicating the URL schemes supported.
8.8.2. Dependencies
None.
8.8.3. Capability Identifier
The :url capability is identified by the following capability string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:url:1.0?scheme={name,...}
The :url capability URI MUST contain a "scheme" argument assigned a
comma-separated list of scheme names indicating which schemes the
NETCONF peer supports. For example:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:url:1.0?scheme=http,ftp,file
8.8.4. New Operations
None.
8.8.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.8.5.1. <edit-config>
The :url capability modifies the <edit-config> operation to accept
the <url> element as an alternative to the <config> parameter.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
The file that the url refers to contains the configuration data
hierarchy to be modified, encoded in XML under the element <config>
in the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" namespace.
8.8.5.2. <copy-config>
The :url capability modifies the <copy-config> operation to accept
the <url> element as the value of the <source> and the <target>
parameters.
The file that the url refers to contains the complete datastore,
encoded in XML under the element <config> in the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" namespace.
8.8.5.3. <delete-config>
The :url capability modifies the <delete-config> operation to accept
the <url> element as the value of the <target> parameters.
8.8.5.4. <validate>
The :url capability modifies the <validate> operation to accept the
<url> element as the value of the <source> parameter.
8.9. XPath Capability
8.9.1. Description
The XPath capability indicates that the NETCONF peer supports the use
of XPath expressions in the <filter> element. XPath is described in
[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116].
The data model used in the XPath expression is the same as that used
in XPath 1.0 [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116], with the same extension for
root node children as used by XSLT 1.0 ([W3C.REC-xslt-19991116],
Section 3.1). Specifically, it means that the root node MAY have any
number of element nodes as its children.
The XPath expression is evaluated in the following context:
o The set of namespace declarations are those in scope on the
<filter> element.
o The set of variable bindings is defined by the data model. If no
such variable bindings are defined, the set is empty.
o The function library is the core function library, plus any
functions defined by the data model.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
o The context node is the root node.
The XPath expression MUST return a node set. If it does not return a
node set, the operation fails with an "invalid-value" error.
The response message contains the subtrees selected by the filter
expression. For each such subtree, the path from the data model root
node down to the subtree, including any elements or attributes
necessary to uniquely identify the subtree, are included in the
response message. Specific data instances are not duplicated in the
response.
8.9.2. Dependencies
None.
8.9.3. Capability Identifier
The :xpath capability is identified by the following capability
string:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:xpath:1.0
8.9.4. New Operations
None.
8.9.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
8.9.5.1. <get-config> and <get>
The :xpath capability modifies the <get> and <get-config> operations
to accept the value "xpath" in the "type" attribute of the <filter>
element. When the "type" attribute is set to "xpath", a "select"
attribute MUST be present on the <filter> element. The "select"
attribute will be treated as an XPath expression and used to filter
the returned data. The <filter> element itself MUST be empty in this
case.
The XPath result for the select expression MUST be a node-set. Each
node in the node-set MUST correspond to a node in the underlying data
model. In order to properly identify each node, the following
encoding rules are defined:
o All ancestor nodes of the result node MUST be encoded first, so
the <data> element returned in the reply contains only fully
specified subtrees, according to the underlying data model.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
o If any sibling or ancestor nodes of the result node are needed to
identify a particular instance within a conceptual data structure,
then these nodes MUST also be encoded in the response.
For example:
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<!-- get the user named fred -->
<filter xmlns:t="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config"
type="xpath"
select="/t:top/t:users/t:user[t:name='fred']"/>
</get-config>
</rpc>
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<data>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<company-info>
<id>2</id>
</company-info>
</user>
</users>
</top>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
9. Security Considerations
This section provides security considerations for the base NETCONF
message layer and the base operations of the NETCONF protocol.
Security considerations for the NETCONF transports are provided in
the transport documents, and security considerations for the content
manipulated by NETCONF can be found in the documents defining data
models.
This document does not specify an authorization scheme, as such a
scheme will likely be tied to a meta-data model or a data model.
Implementors SHOULD provide a comprehensive authorization scheme with
NETCONF.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Authorization of individual users via the NETCONF server may or may
not map 1:1 to other interfaces. First, the data models might be
incompatible. Second, it could be desirable to authorize based on
mechanisms available in the Secure Transport layer (e.g., SSH, Blocks
Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP), etc.).
In addition, operations on configurations could have unintended
consequences if those operations are also not guarded by the global
lock on the files or objects being operated upon. For instance, if
the running configuration is not locked, a partially complete access
list could be committed from the candidate configuration unbeknownst
to the owner of the lock of the candidate configuration, leading to
either an insecure or inaccessible device.
Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its
transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves
devices open to classic eavesdropping and false data injection
attacks. Configuration information often contains passwords, user
names, service descriptions, and topological information, all of
which are sensitive. Because of this, this protocol SHOULD be
implemented carefully with adequate attention to all manner of attack
one might expect to experience with other management interfaces.
The protocol, therefore, MUST minimally support options for both
confidentiality and authentication. It is anticipated that the
underlying protocol (SSH, BEEP, etc.) will provide for both
confidentiality and authentication, as is required. It is further
expected that the identity of each end of a NETCONF session will be
available to the other in order to determine authorization for any
given request. One could also easily envision additional
information, such as transport and encryption methods, being made
available for purposes of authorization. NETCONF itself provides no
means to re-authenticate, much less authenticate. All such actions
occur at lower layers.
Different environments may well allow different rights prior to and
then after authentication. Thus, an authorization model is not
specified in this document. When an operation is not properly
authorized, a simple "access denied" is sufficient. Note that
authorization information can be exchanged in the form of
configuration information, which is all the more reason to ensure the
security of the connection.
That having been said, it is important to recognize that some
operations are clearly more sensitive by nature than others. For
instance, <copy-config> to the startup or running configurations is
clearly not a normal provisioning operation, whereas <edit-config>
is. Such global operations MUST disallow the changing of information
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
that an individual does not have authorization to perform. For
example, if user A is not allowed to configure an IP address on an
interface but user B has configured an IP address on an interface in
the <candidate> configuration, user A MUST NOT be allowed to commit
the <candidate> configuration.
Similarly, just because someone says "go write a configuration
through the URL capability at a particular place", this does not mean
that an element will do it without proper authorization.
The <lock> operation will demonstrate that NETCONF is intended for
use by systems that have at least some trust of the administrator.
As specified in this document, it is possible to lock portions of a
configuration that a principal might not otherwise have access to.
After all, the entire configuration is locked. To mitigate this
problem, there are two approaches. It is possible to kill another
NETCONF session programmatically from within NETCONF if one knows the
session identifier of the offending session. The other possible way
to break a lock is to provide a function within the device's native
user interface. These two mechanisms suffer from a race condition
that could be ameliorated by removing the offending user from an
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server. However,
such a solution is not useful in all deployment scenarios, such as
those where SSH public/private key pairs are used.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. NETCONF XML Namespace
This document registers a URI for the NETCONF XML namespace in the
IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
IANA has updated the following URI to reference this document.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
10.2. NETCONF XML Schema
This document registers a URI for the NETCONF XML schema in the IETF
XML registry [RFC3688].
IANA has updated the following URI to reference this document.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:netconf
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: Appendix B of this document.
10.3. NETCONF YANG Module
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC6020].
name: ietf-netconf
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0
prefix: nc
reference: RFC 6241
10.4. NETCONF Capability URNs
IANA has created and now maintains a registry "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs" that allocates NETCONF capability
identifiers. Additions to the registry require IETF Standards
Action.
IANA has updated the allocations of the following capabilities to
reference this document.
Index
Capability Identifier
------------------------
:writable-running
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:writable-running:1.0
:candidate
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:candidate:1.0
:rollback-on-error
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:rollback-on-error:1.0
:startup
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1.0
:url
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:url:1.0
:xpath
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:xpath:1.0
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
IANA has added the following capabilities to the registry:
Index
Capability Identifier
------------------------
:base:1.1
urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.1
:confirmed-commit:1.1
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:confirmed-commit:1.1
:validate:1.1
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:validate:1.1
11. Contributors
In addition to the editors, this document was written by:
Ken Crozier, Cisco Systems
Ted Goddard, IceSoft
Eliot Lear, Cisco Systems
Phil Shafer, Juniper Networks
Steve Waldbusser
Margaret Wasserman, Painless Security, LLC
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the NETCONF
working group. In particular, we would like to thank Wes Hardaker
for his persistence and patience in assisting us with security
considerations. We would also like to thank Randy Presuhn, Sharon
Chisholm, Glenn Waters, David Perkins, Weijing Chen, Simon Leinen,
Keith Allen, Dave Harrington, Ladislav Lhotka, Tom Petch, and Kent
Watsen for all of their valuable advice.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC5717] Lengyel, B. and M. Bjorklund, "Partial Lock Remote
Procedure Call (RPC) for NETCONF", RFC 5717,
December 2009.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6021] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6021,
October 2010.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Configuration Protocol
over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.
[W3C.REC-xml-20001006]
Sperberg-McQueen, C., Bray, T., Paoli, J., and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)",
World Wide Web Consortium REC-xml-20001006, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>.
[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
DeRose, S. and J. Clark, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
13.2. Informative References
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC3470] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for
the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
within IETF Protocols", BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
December 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[W3C.REC-xslt-19991116]
Clark, J., "XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xslt-19991116,
November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116>.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Appendix A. NETCONF Error List
This section is normative.
For each error-tag, the valid error-type and error-severity values
are listed, together with any mandatory error-info, if any.
error-tag: in-use
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: The request requires a resource that already is in
use.
error-tag: invalid-value
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: The request specifies an unacceptable value for one
or more parameters.
error-tag: too-big
error-type: transport, rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: The request or response (that would be generated) is
too large for the implementation to handle.
error-tag: missing-attribute
error-type: rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-attribute> : name of the missing attribute
<bad-element> : name of the element that is supposed
to contain the missing attribute
Description: An expected attribute is missing.
error-tag: bad-attribute
error-type: rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-attribute> : name of the attribute w/ bad value
<bad-element> : name of the element that contains
the attribute with the bad value
Description: An attribute value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
out of range, pattern mismatch.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
error-tag: unknown-attribute
error-type: rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-attribute> : name of the unexpected attribute
<bad-element> : name of the element that contains
the unexpected attribute
Description: An unexpected attribute is present.
error-tag: missing-element
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-element> : name of the missing element
Description: An expected element is missing.
error-tag: bad-element
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-element> : name of the element w/ bad value
Description: An element value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
out of range, pattern mismatch.
error-tag: unknown-element
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-element> : name of the unexpected element
Description: An unexpected element is present.
error-tag: unknown-namespace
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: <bad-element> : name of the element that contains
the unexpected namespace
<bad-namespace> : name of the unexpected namespace
Description: An unexpected namespace is present.
error-tag: access-denied
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Access to the requested protocol operation or
data model is denied because authorization failed.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
error-tag: lock-denied
error-type: protocol
error-severity: error
error-info: <session-id> : session ID of session holding the
requested lock, or zero to indicate a non-NETCONF
entity holds the lock
Description: Access to the requested lock is denied because the
lock is currently held by another entity.
error-tag: resource-denied
error-type: transport, rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request could not be completed because of
insufficient resources.
error-tag: rollback-failed
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request to roll back some configuration change (via
rollback-on-error or <discard-changes> operations)
was not completed for some reason.
error-tag: data-exists
error-type: application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request could not be completed because the relevant
data model content already exists. For example,
a "create" operation was attempted on data that
already exists.
error-tag: data-missing
error-type: application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request could not be completed because the relevant
data model content does not exist. For example,
a "delete" operation was attempted on
data that does not exist.
error-tag: operation-not-supported
error-type: protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request could not be completed because the requested
operation is not supported by this implementation.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
error-tag: operation-failed
error-type: rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: Request could not be completed because the requested
operation failed for some reason not covered by
any other error condition.
error-tag: partial-operation
error-type: application
error-severity: error
error-info: <ok-element> : identifies an element in the data
model for which the requested operation has been
completed for that node and all its child nodes.
This element can appear zero or more times in the
<error-info> container.
<err-element> : identifies an element in the data
model for which the requested operation has failed
for that node and all its child nodes.
This element can appear zero or more times in the
<error-info> container.
<noop-element> : identifies an element in the data
model for which the requested operation was not
attempted for that node and all its child nodes.
This element can appear zero or more times in the
<error-info> container.
Description: This error-tag is obsolete, and SHOULD NOT be sent
by servers conforming to this document.
Some part of the requested operation failed or was
not attempted for some reason. Full cleanup has
not been performed (e.g., rollback not supported)
by the server. The error-info container is used
to identify which portions of the application
data model content for which the requested operation
has succeeded (<ok-element>), failed (<bad-element>),
or not been attempted (<noop-element>).
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
error-tag: malformed-message
error-type: rpc
error-severity: error
error-info: none
Description: A message could not be handled because it failed to
be parsed correctly. For example, the message is not
well-formed XML or it uses an invalid character set.
This error-tag is new in :base:1.1 and MUST NOT be
sent to old clients.
Appendix B. XML Schema for NETCONF Messages Layer
This section is normative.
<CODE BEGINS> file "netconf.xsd"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
xml:lang="en"
version="1.1">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
This schema defines the syntax for the NETCONF Messages layer
messages 'hello', 'rpc', and 'rpc-reply'.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<!--
import standard XML definitions
-->
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation>
This import accesses the xml: attribute groups for the
xml:lang as declared on the error-message element.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
</xs:import>
<!--
message-id attribute
-->
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<xs:simpleType name="messageIdType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:maxLength value="4095"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<!--
Types used for session-id
-->
<xs:simpleType name="SessionId">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt">
<xs:minInclusive value="1"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="SessionIdOrZero">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>
<!--
<rpc> element
-->
<xs:complexType name="rpcType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="rpcOperation"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="message-id" type="messageIdType"
use="required"/>
<!--
Arbitrary attributes can be supplied with <rpc> element.
-->
<xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="rpc" type="rpcType"/>
<!--
data types and elements used to construct rpc-errors
-->
<xs:simpleType name="ErrorType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="transport"/>
<xs:enumeration value="rpc"/>
<xs:enumeration value="protocol"/>
<xs:enumeration value="application"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="ErrorTag">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="in-use"/>
<xs:enumeration value="invalid-value"/>
<xs:enumeration value="too-big"/>
<xs:enumeration value="missing-attribute"/>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<xs:enumeration value="bad-attribute"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown-attribute"/>
<xs:enumeration value="missing-element"/>
<xs:enumeration value="bad-element"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown-element"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unknown-namespace"/>
<xs:enumeration value="access-denied"/>
<xs:enumeration value="lock-denied"/>
<xs:enumeration value="resource-denied"/>
<xs:enumeration value="rollback-failed"/>
<xs:enumeration value="data-exists"/>
<xs:enumeration value="data-missing"/>
<xs:enumeration value="operation-not-supported"/>
<xs:enumeration value="operation-failed"/>
<xs:enumeration value="partial-operation"/>
<xs:enumeration value="malformed-message"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="ErrorSeverity">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="error"/>
<xs:enumeration value="warning"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:complexType name="errorInfoType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="session-id" type="SessionIdOrZero"/>
<xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="bad-attribute" type="xs:QName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:element name="bad-element" type="xs:QName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:element name="ok-element" type="xs:QName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:element name="err-element" type="xs:QName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:element name="noop-element" type="xs:QName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:element name="bad-namespace" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:choice>
<!-- elements from any other namespace are also allowed
to follow the NETCONF elements -->
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="rpcErrorType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="error-type" type="ErrorType"/>
<xs:element name="error-tag" type="ErrorTag"/>
<xs:element name="error-severity" type="ErrorSeverity"/>
<xs:element name="error-app-tag" type="xs:string"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="error-path" type="xs:string" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="error-message" minOccurs="0">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="xs:string">
<xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="optional"/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="error-info" type="errorInfoType"
minOccurs="0"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<!--
operation attribute used in <edit-config>
-->
<xs:simpleType name="editOperationType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:enumeration value="merge"/>
<xs:enumeration value="replace"/>
<xs:enumeration value="create"/>
<xs:enumeration value="delete"/>
<xs:enumeration value="remove"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:attribute name="operation" type="editOperationType"/>
<!--
<rpc-reply> element
-->
<xs:complexType name="rpcReplyType">
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="ok"/>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="rpc-error"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:element ref="rpcResponse"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
</xs:sequence>
</xs:choice>
<xs:attribute name="message-id" type="messageIdType"
use="optional"/>
<!--
Any attributes supplied with <rpc> element must be returned
on <rpc-reply>.
-->
<xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="rpc-reply" type="rpcReplyType"/>
<!--
<rpc-error> element
-->
<xs:element name="rpc-error" type="rpcErrorType"/>
<!--
rpcOperationType: used as a base type for all
NETCONF operations
-->
<xs:complexType name="rpcOperationType"/>
<xs:element name="rpcOperation" type="rpcOperationType"
abstract="true"/>
<!--
rpcResponseType: used as a base type for all
NETCONF responses
-->
<xs:complexType name="rpcResponseType"/>
<xs:element name="rpcResponse" type="rpcResponseType"
abstract="true"/>
<!--
<hello> element
-->
<xs:element name="hello">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="capabilities">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="capability" type="xs:anyURI"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="session-id" type="SessionId"
minOccurs="0"/>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
<CODE ENDS>
Appendix C. YANG Module for NETCONF Protocol Operations
This section is normative.
The ietf-netconf YANG module imports typedefs from [RFC6021].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-netconf@2011-06-01.yang"
module ietf-netconf {
// the namespace for NETCONF XML definitions is unchanged
// from RFC 4741, which this document replaces
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0";
prefix nc;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <netconf@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Bert Wijnen
<bertietf@bwijnen.net>
WG Chair: Mehmet Ersue
<mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
Editor: Martin Bjorklund
<mbj@tail-f.com>
Editor: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Editor: Andy Bierman
<andy.bierman@brocade.com>";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
description
"NETCONF Protocol Data Types and Protocol Operations.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
the document authors. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 6241; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2011-06-01 {
description
"Initial revision";
reference
"RFC 6241: Network Configuration Protocol";
}
extension get-filter-element-attributes {
description
"If this extension is present within an 'anyxml'
statement named 'filter', which must be conceptually
defined within the RPC input section for the <get>
and <get-config> protocol operations, then the
following unqualified XML attribute is supported
within the <filter> element, within a <get> or
<get-config> protocol operation:
type : optional attribute with allowed
value strings 'subtree' and 'xpath'.
If missing, the default value is 'subtree'.
If the 'xpath' feature is supported, then the
following unqualified XML attribute is
also supported:
select: optional attribute containing a
string representing an XPath expression.
The 'type' attribute must be equal to 'xpath'
if this attribute is present.";
}
// NETCONF capabilities defined as features
feature writable-running {
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
description
"NETCONF :writable-running capability;
If the server advertises the :writable-running
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.2";
}
feature candidate {
description
"NETCONF :candidate capability;
If the server advertises the :candidate
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3";
}
feature confirmed-commit {
if-feature candidate;
description
"NETCONF :confirmed-commit:1.1 capability;
If the server advertises the :confirmed-commit:1.1
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.4";
}
feature rollback-on-error {
description
"NETCONF :rollback-on-error capability;
If the server advertises the :rollback-on-error
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.5";
}
feature validate {
description
"NETCONF :validate:1.1 capability;
If the server advertises the :validate:1.1
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.6";
}
feature startup {
description
"NETCONF :startup capability;
If the server advertises the :startup
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.7";
}
feature url {
description
"NETCONF :url capability;
If the server advertises the :url
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.8";
}
feature xpath {
description
"NETCONF :xpath capability;
If the server advertises the :xpath
capability for a session, then this feature must
also be enabled for that session. Otherwise,
this feature must not be enabled.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.9";
}
// NETCONF Simple Types
typedef session-id-type {
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
}
description
"NETCONF Session Id";
}
typedef session-id-or-zero-type {
type uint32;
description
"NETCONF Session Id or Zero to indicate none";
}
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
typedef error-tag-type {
type enumeration {
enum in-use {
description
"The request requires a resource that
already is in use.";
}
enum invalid-value {
description
"The request specifies an unacceptable value for one
or more parameters.";
}
enum too-big {
description
"The request or response (that would be generated) is
too large for the implementation to handle.";
}
enum missing-attribute {
description
"An expected attribute is missing.";
}
enum bad-attribute {
description
"An attribute value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
out of range, pattern mismatch.";
}
enum unknown-attribute {
description
"An unexpected attribute is present.";
}
enum missing-element {
description
"An expected element is missing.";
}
enum bad-element {
description
"An element value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
out of range, pattern mismatch.";
}
enum unknown-element {
description
"An unexpected element is present.";
}
enum unknown-namespace {
description
"An unexpected namespace is present.";
}
enum access-denied {
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
description
"Access to the requested protocol operation or
data model is denied because authorization failed.";
}
enum lock-denied {
description
"Access to the requested lock is denied because the
lock is currently held by another entity.";
}
enum resource-denied {
description
"Request could not be completed because of
insufficient resources.";
}
enum rollback-failed {
description
"Request to roll back some configuration change (via
rollback-on-error or <discard-changes> operations)
was not completed for some reason.";
}
enum data-exists {
description
"Request could not be completed because the relevant
data model content already exists. For example,
a 'create' operation was attempted on data that
already exists.";
}
enum data-missing {
description
"Request could not be completed because the relevant
data model content does not exist. For example,
a 'delete' operation was attempted on
data that does not exist.";
}
enum operation-not-supported {
description
"Request could not be completed because the requested
operation is not supported by this implementation.";
}
enum operation-failed {
description
"Request could not be completed because the requested
operation failed for some reason not covered by
any other error condition.";
}
enum partial-operation {
description
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
"This error-tag is obsolete, and SHOULD NOT be sent
by servers conforming to this document.";
}
enum malformed-message {
description
"A message could not be handled because it failed to
be parsed correctly. For example, the message is not
well-formed XML or it uses an invalid character set.";
}
}
description "NETCONF Error Tag";
reference "RFC 6241, Appendix A";
}
typedef error-severity-type {
type enumeration {
enum error {
description "Error severity";
}
enum warning {
description "Warning severity";
}
}
description "NETCONF Error Severity";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 4.3";
}
typedef edit-operation-type {
type enumeration {
enum merge {
description
"The configuration data identified by the
element containing this attribute is merged
with the configuration at the corresponding
level in the configuration datastore identified
by the target parameter.";
}
enum replace {
description
"The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute replaces any related
configuration in the configuration datastore
identified by the target parameter. If no such
configuration data exists in the configuration
datastore, it is created. Unlike a
<copy-config> operation, which replaces the
entire target configuration, only the configuration
actually present in the config parameter is affected.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
}
enum create {
description
"The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is added to the
configuration if and only if the configuration
data does not already exist in the configuration
datastore. If the configuration data exists, an
<rpc-error> element is returned with an
<error-tag> value of 'data-exists'.";
}
enum delete {
description
"The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is deleted from the
configuration if and only if the configuration
data currently exists in the configuration
datastore. If the configuration data does not
exist, an <rpc-error> element is returned with
an <error-tag> value of 'data-missing'.";
}
enum remove {
description
"The configuration data identified by the element
containing this attribute is deleted from the
configuration if the configuration
data currently exists in the configuration
datastore. If the configuration data does not
exist, the 'remove' operation is silently ignored
by the server.";
}
}
default "merge";
description "NETCONF 'operation' attribute values";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.2";
}
// NETCONF Standard Protocol Operations
rpc get-config {
description
"Retrieve all or part of a specified configuration.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.1";
input {
container source {
description
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
"Particular configuration to retrieve.";
choice config-source {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration to retrieve.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf running {
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config source.
This is optional-to-implement on the server because
not all servers will support filtering for this
datastore.";
}
}
}
anyxml filter {
description
"Subtree or XPath filter to use.";
nc:get-filter-element-attributes;
}
}
output {
anyxml data {
description
"Copy of the source datastore subset that matched
the filter criteria (if any). An empty data container
indicates that the request did not produce any results.";
}
}
}
rpc edit-config {
description
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
"The <edit-config> operation loads all or part of a specified
configuration to the specified target configuration.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.2";
input {
container target {
description
"Particular configuration to edit.";
choice config-target {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration target.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf running {
if-feature writable-running;
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config source.";
}
}
}
leaf default-operation {
type enumeration {
enum merge {
description
"The default operation is merge.";
}
enum replace {
description
"The default operation is replace.";
}
enum none {
description
"There is no default operation.";
}
}
default "merge";
description
"The default operation to use.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
}
leaf test-option {
if-feature validate;
type enumeration {
enum test-then-set {
description
"The server will test and then set if no errors.";
}
enum set {
description
"The server will set without a test first.";
}
enum test-only {
description
"The server will only test and not set, even
if there are no errors.";
}
}
default "test-then-set";
description
"The test option to use.";
}
leaf error-option {
type enumeration {
enum stop-on-error {
description
"The server will stop on errors.";
}
enum continue-on-error {
description
"The server may continue on errors.";
}
enum rollback-on-error {
description
"The server will roll back on errors.
This value can only be used if the 'rollback-on-error'
feature is supported.";
}
}
default "stop-on-error";
description
"The error option to use.";
}
choice edit-content {
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
mandatory true;
description
"The content for the edit operation.";
anyxml config {
description
"Inline Config content.";
}
leaf url {
if-feature url;
type inet:uri;
description
"URL-based config content.";
}
}
}
}
rpc copy-config {
description
"Create or replace an entire configuration datastore with the
contents of another complete configuration datastore.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.3";
input {
container target {
description
"Particular configuration to copy to.";
choice config-target {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration target of the copy operation.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf running {
if-feature writable-running;
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config target.
This is optional-to-implement on the server.";
}
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf url {
if-feature url;
type inet:uri;
description
"The URL-based configuration is the config target.";
}
}
}
container source {
description
"Particular configuration to copy from.";
choice config-source {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration source for the copy operation.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf running {
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf url {
if-feature url;
type inet:uri;
description
"The URL-based configuration is the config source.";
}
anyxml config {
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
description
"Inline Config content: <config> element. Represents
an entire configuration datastore, not
a subset of the running datastore.";
}
}
}
}
}
rpc delete-config {
description
"Delete a configuration datastore.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.4";
input {
container target {
description
"Particular configuration to delete.";
choice config-target {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration target to delete.";
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf url {
if-feature url;
type inet:uri;
description
"The URL-based configuration is the config target.";
}
}
}
}
}
rpc lock {
description
"The lock operation allows the client to lock the configuration
system of a device.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.5";
input {
container target {
description
"Particular configuration to lock.";
choice config-target {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration target to lock.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf running {
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config target.";
}
}
}
}
}
rpc unlock {
description
"The unlock operation is used to release a configuration lock,
previously obtained with the 'lock' operation.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.6";
input {
container target {
description
"Particular configuration to unlock.";
choice config-target {
mandatory true;
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
description
"The configuration target to unlock.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf running {
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config target.";
}
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config target.";
}
}
}
}
}
rpc get {
description
"Retrieve running configuration and device state information.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.7";
input {
anyxml filter {
description
"This parameter specifies the portion of the system
configuration and state data to retrieve.";
nc:get-filter-element-attributes;
}
}
output {
anyxml data {
description
"Copy of the running datastore subset and/or state
data that matched the filter criteria (if any).
An empty data container indicates that the request did not
produce any results.";
}
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
}
}
rpc close-session {
description
"Request graceful termination of a NETCONF session.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.8";
}
rpc kill-session {
description
"Force the termination of a NETCONF session.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 7.9";
input {
leaf session-id {
type session-id-type;
mandatory true;
description
"Particular session to kill.";
}
}
}
rpc commit {
if-feature candidate;
description
"Commit the candidate configuration as the device's new
current configuration.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.1";
input {
leaf confirmed {
if-feature confirmed-commit;
type empty;
description
"Requests a confirmed commit.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.1";
}
leaf confirm-timeout {
if-feature confirmed-commit;
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
}
units "seconds";
default "600"; // 10 minutes
description
"The timeout interval for a confirmed commit.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.1";
}
leaf persist {
if-feature confirmed-commit;
type string;
description
"This parameter is used to make a confirmed commit
persistent. A persistent confirmed commit is not aborted
if the NETCONF session terminates. The only way to abort
a persistent confirmed commit is to let the timer expire,
or to use the <cancel-commit> operation.
The value of this parameter is a token that must be given
in the 'persist-id' parameter of <commit> or
<cancel-commit> operations in order to confirm or cancel
the persistent confirmed commit.
The token should be a random string.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.1";
}
leaf persist-id {
if-feature confirmed-commit;
type string;
description
"This parameter is given in order to commit a persistent
confirmed commit. The value must be equal to the value
given in the 'persist' parameter to the <commit> operation.
If it does not match, the operation fails with an
'invalid-value' error.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.1";
}
}
}
rpc discard-changes {
if-feature candidate;
description
"Revert the candidate configuration to the current
running configuration.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.3.4.2";
}
rpc cancel-commit {
if-feature confirmed-commit;
description
"This operation is used to cancel an ongoing confirmed commit.
If the confirmed commit is persistent, the parameter
'persist-id' must be given, and it must match the value of the
'persist' parameter.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.4.4.1";
input {
leaf persist-id {
type string;
description
"This parameter is given in order to cancel a persistent
confirmed commit. The value must be equal to the value
given in the 'persist' parameter to the <commit> operation.
If it does not match, the operation fails with an
'invalid-value' error.";
}
}
}
rpc validate {
if-feature validate;
description
"Validates the contents of the specified configuration.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 8.6.4.1";
input {
container source {
description
"Particular configuration to validate.";
choice config-source {
mandatory true;
description
"The configuration source to validate.";
leaf candidate {
if-feature candidate;
type empty;
description
"The candidate configuration is the config source.";
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
}
leaf running {
type empty;
description
"The running configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf startup {
if-feature startup;
type empty;
description
"The startup configuration is the config source.";
}
leaf url {
if-feature url;
type inet:uri;
description
"The URL-based configuration is the config source.";
}
anyxml config {
description
"Inline Config content: <config> element. Represents
an entire configuration datastore, not
a subset of the running datastore.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Appendix D. Capability Template
This non-normative section defines a template that can be used to
define protocol capabilities. Data models written in YANG usually do
not need to define protocol capabilities since the usage of YANG
automatically leads to a capability announcing the data model and any
optional portions of the data model, so called features in YANG
terminology. The capabilities template is intended to be used in
cases where the YANG mechanisms are not powerful enough (e.g., for
handling parameterized features) or a different data modeling
language is used.
D.1. capability-name (template)
D.1.1. Overview
D.1.2. Dependencies
D.1.3. Capability Identifier
The {name} capability is identified by the following capability
string:
{capability uri}
D.1.4. New Operations
D.1.4.1. <op-name>
D.1.5. Modifications to Existing Operations
D.1.5.1. <op-name>
If existing operations are not modified by this capability, this
section may be omitted.
D.1.6. Interactions with Other Capabilities
If this capability does not interact with other capabilities, this
section may be omitted.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Appendix E. Configuring Multiple Devices with NETCONF
This section is non-normative.
E.1. Operations on Individual Devices
Consider the work involved in performing a configuration update
against a single individual device. In making a change to the
configuration, the application needs to build trust that its change
has been made correctly and that it has not impacted the operation of
the device. The application (and the application user) should feel
confident that their change has not damaged the network.
Protecting each individual device consists of a number of steps:
o Acquiring the configuration lock.
o Checkpointing the running configuration.
o Loading and validating the incoming configuration.
o Changing the running configuration.
o Testing the new configuration.
o Making the change permanent (if desired).
o Releasing the configuration lock.
Let's look at the details of each step.
E.1.1. Acquiring the Configuration Lock
A lock should be acquired to prevent simultaneous updates from
multiple sources. If multiple sources are affecting the device, the
application is hampered in both testing of its change to the
configuration and in recovery if the update fails. Acquiring a
short-lived lock is a simple defense to prevent other parties from
introducing unrelated changes.
The lock can be acquired using the <lock> operation.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<lock>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
</lock>
</rpc>
If the :candidate capability is supported, the candidate
configuration should be locked.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<lock>
<target>
<candidate/>
</target>
</lock>
</rpc>
E.1.2. Checkpointing the Running Configuration
The running configuration can be saved into a local file as a
checkpoint before loading the new configuration. If the update
fails, the configuration can be restored by reloading the checkpoint
file.
The checkpoint file can be created using the <copy-config> operation.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<copy-config>
<target>
<url>file://checkpoint.conf</url>
</target>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
</copy-config>
</rpc>
To restore the checkpoint file, reverse the <source> and <target>
parameters.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
E.1.3. Loading and Validating the Incoming Configuration
If the :candidate capability is supported, the configuration can be
loaded onto the device without impacting the running system.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<candidate/>
</target>
<config>
<!-- place incoming configuration changes here -->
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
If the device supports the :validate:1.1 capability, it will by
default validate the incoming configuration when it is loaded into
the candidate. To avoid this validation, pass the <test-option>
parameter with the value "set". Full validation can be requested
with the <validate> operation.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<validate>
<source>
<candidate/>
</source>
</validate>
</rpc>
E.1.4. Changing the Running Configuration
When the incoming configuration has been safely loaded onto the
device and validated, it is ready to impact the running system.
If the device supports the :candidate capability, use the <commit>
operation to set the running configuration to the candidate
configuration. Use the <confirmed> parameter to allow automatic
reversion to the original configuration if connectivity to the device
fails.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit>
<confirmed/>
<confirm-timeout>120</confirm-timeout>
</commit>
</rpc>
If the candidate is not supported by the device, the incoming
configuration change is loaded directly into running.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config>
<!-- place incoming configuration changes here -->
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
E.1.5. Testing the New Configuration
Now that the incoming configuration has been integrated into the
running configuration, the application needs to gain trust that the
change has affected the device in the way intended without affecting
it negatively.
To gain this confidence, the application can run tests of the
operational state of the device. The nature of the test is dependent
on the nature of the change and is outside the scope of this
document. Such tests may include reachability from the system
running the application (using ping), changes in reachability to the
rest of the network (by comparing the device's routing table), or
inspection of the particular change (looking for operational evidence
of the BGP peer that was just added).
E.1.6. Making the Change Permanent
When the configuration change is in place and the application has
sufficient faith in the proper function of this change, the
application is expected to make the change permanent.
If the device supports the :startup capability, the current
configuration can be saved to the startup configuration by using the
startup configuration as the target of the <copy-config> operation.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<copy-config>
<target>
<startup/>
</target>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
</copy-config>
</rpc>
If the device supports the :candidate capability and a confirmed
commit was requested, the confirming commit must be sent before the
timeout expires.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<commit/>
</rpc>
E.1.7. Releasing the Configuration Lock
When the configuration update is complete, the lock must be released,
allowing other applications access to the configuration.
Use the <unlock> operation to release the configuration lock.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<unlock>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
</unlock>
</rpc>
If the :candidate capability is supported, the candidate
configuration should be unlocked.
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<unlock>
<target>
<candidate/>
</target>
</unlock>
</rpc>
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
E.2. Operations on Multiple Devices
When a configuration change requires updates across a number of
devices, care needs to be taken to provide the required transaction
semantics. The NETCONF protocol contains sufficient primitives upon
which transaction-oriented operations can be built. Providing
complete transactional semantics across multiple devices is
prohibitively expensive, but the size and number of windows for
failure scenarios can be reduced.
There are two classes of multi-device operations. The first class
allows the operation to fail on individual devices without requiring
all devices to revert to their original state. The operation can be
retried at a later time, or its failure simply reported to the user.
An example of this class might be adding an NTP server. For this
class of operations, failure avoidance and recovery are focused on
the individual device. This means recovery of the device, reporting
the failure, and perhaps scheduling another attempt.
The second class is more interesting, requiring that the operation
should complete on all devices or be fully reversed. The network
should either be transformed into a new state or be reset to its
original state. For example, a change to a VPN may require updates
to a number of devices. Another example of this might be adding a
class-of-service definition. Leaving the network in a state where
only a portion of the devices have been updated with the new
definition will lead to future failures when the definition is
referenced.
To give transactional semantics, the same steps used in single-device
operations listed above are used, but are performed in parallel
across all devices. Configuration locks should be acquired on all
target devices and kept until all devices are updated and the changes
made permanent. Configuration changes should be uploaded and
validation performed across all devices. Checkpoints should be made
on each device. Then the running configuration can be changed,
tested, and made permanent. If any of these steps fail, the previous
configurations can be restored on any devices upon which they were
changed. After the changes have been completely implemented or
completely discarded, the locks on each device can be released.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Appendix F. Changes from RFC 4741
This section lists major changes between this document and RFC 4741.
o Added the "malformed-message" error-tag.
o Added "remove" enumeration value to the "operation" attribute.
o Obsoleted the "partial-operation" error-tag enumeration value.
o Added <persist> and <persist-id> parameters to the <commit>
operation.
o Updated the base protocol URI and clarified the <hello> message
exchange to select and identify the base protocol version in use
for a particular session.
o Added a YANG module to model the operations and removed the
operation layer from the XSD.
o Clarified lock behavior for the candidate datastore.
o Clarified the error response server requirements for the "delete"
enumeration value of the "operation" attribute.
o Added a namespace wildcarding mechanism for subtree filtering.
o Added a "test-only" value for the <test-option> parameter to the
<edit-config> operation.
o Added a <cancel-commit> operation.
o Introduced a NETCONF username and a requirement for transport
protocols to explain how a username is derived.
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]
RFC 6241 NETCONF Protocol June 2011
Authors' Addresses
Rob Enns (editor)
Juniper Networks
EMail: rob.enns@gmail.com
Martin Bjorklund (editor)
Tail-f Systems
EMail: mbj@tail-f.com
Juergen Schoenwaelder (editor)
Jacobs University
EMail: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Andy Bierman (editor)
Brocade
EMail: andy.bierman@brocade.com
Enns, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]