💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc8431.txt captured on 2023-12-28 at 16:19:19.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Wang
Request for Comments: 8431 Individual
Category: Standards Track M. Chen
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei
A. Dass
Ericsson
H. Ananthakrishnan
Netflix
S. Kini
Individual
N. Bahadur
Uber
September 2018
A YANG Data Model for the Routing Information Base (RIB)
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for the Routing Information
Base (RIB) that aligns with the Interface to the Routing System
(I2RS) RIB information model.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8431.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Model Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. RIB Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Routing Instance and RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Nexthop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.6. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
1. Introduction
The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) [RFC7921] provides read
and write access to the information and state within the routing
process that exists inside the routing elements; this is achieved via
protocol message exchange between I2RS clients and I2RS agents
associated with the routing system. One of the functions of I2RS is
to read and write data of the Routing Information Base (RIB).
[I2RS-REQS] introduces a set of RIB use cases. The RIB information
model is defined in [RFC8430].
This document defines a YANG data model [RFC7950] [RFC6991] for the
RIB that satisfies the RIB use cases and aligns with the RIB
information model.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Definitions and Abbreviations
RIB: Routing Information Base
FIB: Forwarding Information Base
RPC: Remote Procedure Call
IM: Information Model. An abstract model of a conceptual domain,
which is independent of a specific implementation or data
representation.
1.3. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
[RFC8340].
2. Model Structure
The following figure shows an overview of the structure tree of the
ietf-i2rs-rib module. To give a whole view of the structure tree,
some details of the tree are omitted. The relevant details are
introduced in the subsequent subsections.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
module: ietf-i2rs-rib
+--rw routing-instance
+--rw name string
+--rw interface-list* [name]
| +--rw name if:interface-ref
+--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
+--rw lookup-limit? uint8
+--rw rib-list* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw address-family address-family-definition
+--rw ip-rpf-check? boolean
+--rw route-list* [route-index]
| +--rw route-index uint64
| +--rw match
| | +--rw (route-type)?
| | +--:(ipv4)
| | | ...
| | +--:(ipv6)
| | | ...
| | +--:(mpls-route)
| | | ...
| | +--:(mac-route)
| | | ...
| | +--:(interface-route)
| | ...
| +--rw nexthop
| | +--rw nexthop-id? uint32
| | +--rw sharing-flag? boolean
| | +--rw (nexthop-type)?
| | +--:(nexthop-base)
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| | ...
| +--rw route-status
| | ...
| +--rw route-attributes
| | ...
| +--rw route-vendor-attributes
+--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id]
+--rw nexthop-member-id uint32
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
rpcs:
+---x rib-add
| +---w input
| | +---w name string
| | +---w address-family address-family-definition
| | +---w ip-rpf-check? boolean
| +--ro output
| +--ro result boolean
| +--ro reason? string
+---x rib-delete
| +---w input
| | +---w name string
| +--ro output
| +--ro result boolean
| +--ro reason? string
+---x route-add
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w routes
| | +---w route-list* [route-index]
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
+---x route-delete
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w routes
| | +---w route-list* [route-index]
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
+---x route-update
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
| | +---w (match-options)?
| | +--:(match-route-prefix)
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-route-attributes)
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-route-vendor-attributes) {...}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-nexthop)
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
+---x nh-add
| +---w input
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w nexthop-id? uint32
| | +---w sharing-flag? boolean
| | +---w (nexthop-type)?
| | +--:(nexthop-base)
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro result boolean
| +--ro reason? string
| +--ro nexthop-id? uint32
+---x nh-delete
+---w input
| +---w rib-name string
| +---w nexthop-id? uint32
| +---w sharing-flag? boolean
| +---w (nexthop-type)?
| +--:(nexthop-base)
| | ...
| +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | ...
| +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | ...
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
| +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | ...
| +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| ...
+--ro output
+--ro result boolean
+--ro reason? string
notifications:
+---n nexthop-resolution-status-change
| +--ro nexthop
| | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32
| | +--ro sharing-flag? boolean
| | +--ro (nexthop-type)?
| | +--:(nexthop-base)
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| | ...
| +--ro nexthop-state nexthop-state-definition
+---n route-change
+--ro rib-name string
+--ro address-family address-family-definition
+--ro route-index uint64
+--ro match
| +--ro (route-type)?
| +--:(ipv4)
| | ...
| +--:(ipv6)
| | ...
| +--:(mpls-route)
| | ...
| +--:(mac-route)
| | ...
| +--:(interface-route)
| ...
+--ro route-installed-state route-installed-state-definition
+--ro route-state route-state-definition
+--ro route-change-reasons* [route-change-reason]
+--ro route-change-reason route-change-reason-definition
Figure 1: Overview of I2RS RIB Module Structure
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
2.1. RIB Capability
RIB capability negotiation is very important because not all of the
hardware will be able to support all kinds of nexthops, and there
might be a limitation on how many levels of lookup can be practically
performed. Therefore, a RIB data model needs to specify a way for an
external entity to learn about the functional capabilities of a
network device.
At the same time, nexthop chains can be used to specify multiple
headers over a packet before that particular packet is forwarded.
Not every network device will be able to support all kinds of nexthop
chains along with the arbitrary number of headers that are chained
together. The RIB data model needs a way to expose the nexthop
chaining capability supported by a given network device.
This module uses the feature and if-feature statements to achieve
above capability advertisement.
2.2. Routing Instance and RIB
A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a
collection of RIBs, interfaces, and routing protocol parameters. A
routing instance creates a logical slice of the router and can allow
multiple different logical slices, across a set of routers, to
communicate with each other. The routing protocol parameters control
the information available in the RIBs. More details about a routing
instance can be found in Section 2.2 of [RFC8430].
For a routing instance, there can be multiple RIBs. Therefore, this
model uses "list" to express the RIBs. The structure tree is shown
below:
+--rw routing-instance
+--rw name string
+--rw interface-list* [name]
| +--rw name if:interface-ref
+--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
+--rw lookup-limit? uint8
+--rw rib-list* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw address-family address-family-definition
+--rw ip-rpf-check? boolean
+--rw route-list* [route-index]
... // refer to Section 2.3
Figure 2: Routing Instance Structure
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
2.3. Route
A route is essentially a match condition and an action following that
match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (e.g., IPv4,
MPLS, Media Access Control (MAC), Interface, etc.) and the set of
fields to match on.
A route MUST contain the ROUTE_PREFERENCE attribute (see Section 2.3
of [RFC8430]).
In addition, a route MUST associate with the following status
attributes in responses to a RIB writing/reading operation:
o Active: Indicates whether a route has at least one fully resolved
nexthop and is therefore eligible for installation in the FIB.
o Installed: Indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB.
o Reason: Indicates the specific reason that caused the failure,
e.g., "Not authorized".
In addition, a route can be associated with one or more optional
route-attributes (e.g., route-vendor-attributes).
A RIB will have a number of routes, so the routes are expressed as a
list under a specific RIB. Each RIB has its own route list.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
+--rw route-list* [route-index]
+--rw route-index uint64
+--rw match
| +--rw (route-type)?
| +--:(ipv4)
| | +--rw ipv4
| | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
| | +--:(dest-ipv4-address)
| | | ...
| | +--:(src-ipv4-address)
| | | ...
| | +--:(dest-src-ipv4-address)
| | ...
| +--:(ipv6)
| | +--rw ipv6
| | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
| | +--:(dest-ipv6-address)
| | | ...
| | +--:(src-ipv6-address)
| | | ...
| | +--:(dest-src-ipv6-address)
| | ...
| +--:(mpls-route)
| | +--rw mpls-label uint32
| +--:(mac-route)
| | +--rw mac-address uint32
| +--:(interface-route)
| +--rw interface-identifier if:interface-ref
+--rw nexthop
| ...(refer to Section 2.4)
Figure 3: Routes Structure
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
2.4. Nexthop
A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. As
illustrated in Figure 4 of [RFC8430], to support various use cases
(e.g., load-balancing, protection, multicast, or a combination of
them), the nexthop is modeled as a multilevel structure and supports
recursion. The first level of the nexthop includes the following
four types:
o Base: The "base" nexthop is the foundation of all other nexthop
types. It includes the following basic nexthops:
* nexthop-id
* IPv4 address
* IPv6 address
* egress-interface
* egress-interface with IPv4 address
* egress-interface with IPv6 address
* egress-interface with MAC address
* logical-tunnel
* tunnel-encapsulation
* tunnel-decapsulation
* rib-name
o Chain: The "chain" nexthop provides a way to perform multiple
operations on a packet by logically combining them.
o Load-Balance: The "load-balance" nexthop is designed for a load-
balance case where it normally will have multiple weighted
nexthops.
o Protection: The "protection" nexthop is designed for a protection
scenario where it normally will have primary and standby nexthop.
o Replicate: The "replicate" nexthop is designed for multiple
destinations forwarding.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
The structure tree of nexthop is shown in the following figures.
+--rw nexthop
| +--rw nexthop-id? uint32
| +--rw sharing-flag? boolean
| +--rw (nexthop-type)?
| +--:(nexthop-base)
| | ...(refer to Figure 5)
| +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | +--rw nexthop-chain
| | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id]
| | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32
| +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | +--rw nexthop-replicate
| | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id]
| | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32
| +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | +--rw nexthop-protection
| | +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id]
| | +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32
| | +--rw nexthop-preference nexthop-preference-definition
| +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| +--rw nexthop-lb
| +--rw nexthop-list* [nexthop-member-id]
| +--rw nexthop-member-id uint32
| +--rw nexthop-lb-weight nexthop-lb-weight-definition
Figure 4: Nexthop Structure
Figure 5 (as shown below) is a subtree of nexthop. It's under the
nexthop base node and shows the structure of the "base" nexthop.
+--:(nexthop-base)
| +--rw nexthop-base
| +--rw (nexthop-base-type)?
| +--:(special-nexthop)
| | +--rw special? special-nexthop-definition
| +--:(egress-interface-nexthop)
| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref
| +--:(ipv4-address-nexthop)
| | +--rw ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| +--:(ipv6-address-nexthop)
| | +--rw ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| +--:(egress-interface-ipv4-nexthop)
| | +--rw egress-interface-ipv4-address
| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref
| | +--rw ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
| +--:(egress-interface-ipv6-nexthop)
| | +--rw egress-interface-ipv6-address
| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref
| | +--rw ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| +--:(egress-interface-mac-nexthop)
| | +--rw egress-interface-mac-address
| | +--rw outgoing-interface if:interface-ref
| | +--rw ieee-mac-address yang:mac-address
| +--:(tunnel-encapsulation-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}?
| | +--rw tunnel-encapsulation
| | +--rw (tunnel-type)?
| | +--:(ipv4) {ipv4-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw ipv4-header
| | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--rw protocol uint8
| | | +--rw ttl? uint8
| | | +--rw dscp? uint8
| | +--:(ipv6) {ipv6-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw ipv6-header
| | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw next-header uint8
| | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8
| | | +--rw flow-label?
| | | inet:ipv6-flow-label
| | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8
| | +--:(mpls) {mpls-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw mpls-header
| | | +--rw label-operations* [label-oper-id]
| | | +--rw label-oper-id uint32
| | | +--rw (label-actions)?
| | | +--:(label-push)
| | | | +--rw label-push
| | | | +--rw label uint32
| | | | +--rw s-bit? boolean
| | | | +--rw tc-value? uint8
| | | | +--rw ttl-value? uint8
| | | +--:(label-swap)
| | | +--rw label-swap
| | | +--rw out-label uint32
| | | +--rw ttl-action?
| | | ttl-action-definition
| | +--:(gre) {gre-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw gre-header
| | | +--rw (dest-address-type)?
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
| | | | +--:(ipv4)
| | | | | +--rw ipv4-dest inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--:(ipv6)
| | | | +--rw ipv6-dest inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw protocol-type uint16
| | | +--rw key? uint64
| | +--:(nvgre) {nvgre-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw nvgre-header
| | | +--rw (nvgre-type)?
| | | | +--:(ipv4)
| | | | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | | | +--rw protocol uint8
| | | | | +--rw ttl? uint8
| | | | | +--rw dscp? uint8
| | | | +--:(ipv6)
| | | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | | +--rw next-header uint8
| | | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8
| | | | +--rw flow-label?
| | | | inet:ipv6-flow-label
| | | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8
| | | +--rw virtual-subnet-id uint32
| | | +--rw flow-id? uint8
| | +--:(vxlan) {vxlan-tunnel}?
| | +--rw vxlan-header
| | +--rw (vxlan-type)?
| | | +--:(ipv4)
| | | | +--rw src-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--rw dest-ipv4-address inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--rw protocol uint8
| | | | +--rw ttl? uint8
| | | | +--rw dscp? uint8
| | | +--:(ipv6)
| | | +--rw src-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw dest-ipv6-address inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--rw next-header uint8
| | | +--rw traffic-class? uint8
| | | +--rw flow-label? inet:ipv6-flow-label
| | | +--rw hop-limit? uint8
| | +--rw vxlan-identifier uint32
| +--:(tunnel-decapsulation-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}?
| | +--rw tunnel-decapsulation
| | +--rw (tunnel-type)?
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
| | +--:(ipv4) {ipv4-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw ipv4-decapsulation
| | | +--rw ipv4-decapsulation
| | | tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition
| | | +--rw ttl-action? ttl-action-definition
| | +--:(ipv6) {ipv6-tunnel}?
| | | +--rw ipv6-decapsulation
| | | +--rw ipv6-decapsulation
| | | tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition
| | | +--rw hop-limit-action?
| | | hop-limit-action-definition
| | +--:(mpls) {mpls-tunnel}?
| | +--rw label-pop
| | +--rw label-pop mpls-label-action-definition
| | +--rw ttl-action? ttl-action-definition
| +--:(logical-tunnel-nexthop) {nexthop-tunnel}?
| | +--rw logical-tunnel
| | +--rw tunnel-type tunnel-type-definition
| | +--rw tunnel-name string
| +--:(rib-name-nexthop)
| | +--rw rib-name? string
| +--:(nexthop-identifier)
| +--rw nexthop-ref nexthop-ref
Figure 5: Nexthop Base Structure
2.5. RPC Operations
This module defines the following RPC operations:
o rib-add: Add a RIB to a routing instance. The following are
passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the address
family of the RIB, and (optionally) whether the RPF check is
enabled. The output is the result of the add operation:
* true - success
* false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the
specific reason that caused the failure)
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
o rib-delete: Delete a RIB from a routing instance. When a RIB is
deleted, all routes installed in the RIB will be deleted. A rib-
name is passed as the input parameter. The output is the result
of the delete operation:
* true - success
* false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the
specific reason that caused the failure)
o route-add: Add a route or a set of routes to a RIB. The following
are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the route
prefix(es), the route-attributes, the route-vendor-attributes, the
nexthop, and the "whether to return failure details" indication.
Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh-
add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier. However,
in situations when the nexthop already exists and the nexthop-id
is known, this action is not expected. The output is a
combination of the route operation states while querying the
appropriate node in the data tree, which includes:
* success-count: the number of routes that were successfully
added;
* failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be added;
and,
* failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to
be added.
o route-delete: Delete a route or a set of routes from a RIB. The
following are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB,
the route prefix(es), and the "whether to return failure details"
indication. The output is a combination of route operation
states, which includes:
* success-count: the number of routes that were successfully
deleted;
* failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be
deleted; and,
* failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to
be deleted.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
o route-update: Update a route or a set of routes. The following
are passed as the input parameters: the name of the RIB, the route
prefix(es), the route-attributes, the route-vendor-attributes, or
the nexthop. The match conditions can be either route prefix(es),
route-attributes, route-vendor-attributes, or nexthops. The
update actions include the following: update the nexthops, update
the route-attributes, and update the route-vendor-attributes. The
output is a combination of the route operation states, which
includes:
* success-count: the number of routes that were successfully
updated;
* failed-count: the number of the routes that failed to be
updated; and,
* failure-detail: this shows the specific routes that failed to
be updated.
o nh-add: Add a nexthop to a RIB. The following are passed as the
input parameters: the name of the RIB and the nexthop. The
network node is required to allocate a nexthop identifier to the
nexthop. The outputs include the result of the nexthop add
operation.
* true - success (when success, a nexthop identifier will be
returned to the I2RS client)
* false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the
specific reason that caused the failure)
o nh-delete: Delete a nexthop from a RIB. The following are passed
as the input parameters: the name of the RIB and a nexthop or
nexthop identifier. The output is the result of the delete
operation:
* true - success
* false - failed (when failed, the I2RS agent may return the
specific reason that caused the failure)
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
The structure tree of rpcs is shown in following figure.
rpcs:
+---x rib-add
| +---w input
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w address-family address-family-definition
| | +---w ip-rpf-check? boolean
| +--ro output
| +--ro result uint32
| +--ro reason? string
+---x rib-delete
| +---w input
| | +---w rib-name string
| +--ro output
| +--ro result uint32
| +--ro reason? string
+---x route-add
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w routes
| | +---w route-list* [route-index]
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
+---x route-delete
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w routes
| | +---w route-list* [route-index]
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
+---x route-update
| +---w input
| | +---w return-failure-detail? boolean
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w (match-options)?
| | +--:(match-route-prefix)
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-route-attributes)
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-route-vendor-attributes) {...}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(match-nexthop)
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro success-count uint32
| +--ro failed-count uint32
| +--ro failure-detail
| +--ro failed-routes* [route-index]
| +--ro route-index uint32
| +--ro error-code? uint32
+---x nh-add
| +---w input
| | +---w rib-name string
| | +---w nexthop-id? uint32
| | +---w sharing-flag? boolean
| | +---w (nexthop-type)?
| | ...
| +--ro output
| +--ro result uint32
| +--ro reason? string
| +--ro nexthop-id? uint32
+---x nh-delete
+---w input
| +---w rib-name string
| +---w nexthop-id? uint32
| +---w sharing-flag? boolean
| +---w (nexthop-type)?
| ...
+--ro output
+--ro result uint32
+--ro reason? string
Figure 6: RPCs Structure
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
2.6. Notifications
Asynchronous notifications are sent by the RIB manager of a network
device to an external entity when some event triggers on the network
device. An implementation of this RIB data model MUST support
sending two kinds of asynchronous notifications.
1. Route change notification:
o Installed (indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB)
o Active (indicates whether a route has at least one fully resolved
nexthop and is therefore eligible for installation in the FIB)
o Reason (e.g., "Not authorized")
2. Nexthop resolution status notification
Nexthops can be fully resolved or unresolved.
A resolved nexthop has an adequate level of information to send the
outgoing packet towards the destination by forwarding it on an
interface to a directly connected neighbor.
An unresolved nexthop is something that requires the RIB manager to
determine the final resolved nexthop. In one example, a nexthop
could be an IP address. The RIB manager would resolve how to reach
that IP address, e.g., by checking if that particular IP address is
reachable by regular IP forwarding, by an MPLS tunnel, or by both.
If the RIB manager cannot resolve the nexthop, then the nexthop
remains in an unresolved state and is NOT a suitable candidate for
installation in the FIB.
An implementation of this RIB data model MUST support sending route-
change notifications whenever a route transitions between the
following states:
o from the active state to the inactive state
o from the inactive state to the active state
o from the installed state to the uninstalled state
o from the uninstalled state to the installed state
A single notification MAY be used when a route transitions from
inactive/uninstalled to active/installed or in the other direction.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
The structure tree of notifications is shown in the following figure.
notifications:
+---n nexthop-resolution-status-change
| +--ro nexthop
| | +--ro nexthop-id uint32
| | +--ro sharing-flag boolean
| | +--ro (nexthop-type)?
| | +--:(nexthop-base)
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-chain) {nexthop-chain}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-replicate) {nexthop-replicate}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-protection) {nexthop-protection}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(nexthop-load-balance) {nexthop-load-balance}?
| | ...
| +--ro nexthop-state nexthop-state-definition
+---n route-change
+--ro rib-name string
+--ro address-family address-family-definition
+--ro route-index uint64
+--ro match
| +--ro (route-type)?
| +--:(ipv4)
| | ...
| +--:(ipv6)
| | ...
| +--:(mpls-route)
| | ...
| +--:(mac-route)
| | ...
| +--:(interface-route)
| ...
+--ro route-installed-state route-installed-state-definition
+--ro route-state route-state-definition
+--ro route-change-reason route-change-reason-definition
Figure 7: Notifications Structure
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
3. YANG Module
This YANG module references [RFC2784], [RFC7348], [RFC7637], and
[RFC8344].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-i2rs-rib@2018-09-13.yang"
module ietf-i2rs-rib {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib";
prefix iir;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference "RFC 6991";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix if;
reference "RFC 8344";
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference "RFC 6991";
}
organization
"IETF I2RS (Interface to Routing System) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2rs/>
WG List: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
Editor: Lixing Wang
<mailto:wang_little_star@sina.com>
Editor: Mach(Guoyi) Chen
<mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>
Editor: Amit Dass
<mailto:dass.amit@gmail.com>
Editor: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
<mailto:hari@netflix.com>
Editor: Sriganesh Kini
<mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com>
Editor: Nitin Bahadur
<mailto:nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com>";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"This module defines a YANG data model for
Routing Information Base (RIB) that aligns
with the I2RS RIB information model.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8341; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2018-09-13 {
description
"initial revision";
reference "RFC 8431";
}
//Features
feature nexthop-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
tunnel nexthop capability.";
}
feature nexthop-chain {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
chain nexthop capability.";
}
feature nexthop-protection {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
protection nexthop capability.";
}
feature nexthop-replicate {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
replicate nexthop capability.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
feature nexthop-load-balance {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
load-balance nexthop capability.";
}
feature ipv4-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
IPv4 tunnel encapsulation capability.";
}
feature ipv6-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
IPv6 tunnel encapsulation capability.";
}
feature mpls-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
MPLS tunnel encapsulation capability.";
}
feature vxlan-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network
(VXLAN) tunnel encapsulation capability.";
reference "RFC 7348";
}
feature gre-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
GRE tunnel encapsulation capability.";
reference "RFC 2784";
}
feature nvgre-tunnel {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
Network Virtualization Using GRE (NVGRE)
tunnel encapsulation capability.";
reference "RFC 7637";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
feature route-vendor-attributes {
description
"This feature means that a node supports
route vendor attributes.";
}
//Identities and Type Definitions
identity mpls-label-action {
description
"Base identity from which all MPLS label
operations are derived.
The MPLS label stack operations include:
push - to add a new label to a label stack
pop - to pop the top label from a label stack
swap - to exchange the top label of a label
stack with a new label";
}
identity label-push {
base mpls-label-action;
description
"MPLS label stack operation: push.";
}
identity label-pop {
base mpls-label-action;
description
"MPLS label stack operation: pop.";
}
identity label-swap {
base mpls-label-action;
description
"MPLS label stack operation: swap.";
}
typedef mpls-label-action-definition {
type identityref {
base mpls-label-action;
}
description
"MPLS label action definition.";
}
identity tunnel-decapsulation-action {
description
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
"Base identity from which all tunnel decapsulation
actions are derived.
Tunnel decapsulation actions include
ipv4-decapsulation (to decapsulate an IPv4 tunnel)
ipv6-decapsulation (to decapsulate an IPv6 tunnel)";
}
identity ipv4-decapsulation {
base tunnel-decapsulation-action;
description
"IPv4 tunnel decapsulation.";
}
identity ipv6-decapsulation {
base tunnel-decapsulation-action;
description
"IPv6 tunnel decapsulation.";
}
typedef tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition {
type identityref {
base tunnel-decapsulation-action;
}
description
"Tunnel decapsulation definition.";
}
identity ttl-action {
description
"Base identity from which all TTL
actions are derived.";
}
identity no-action {
base ttl-action;
description
"Do nothing regarding the TTL.";
}
identity copy-to-inner {
base ttl-action;
description
"Copy the TTL of the outer header
to the inner header.";
}
identity decrease-and-copy-to-inner {
base ttl-action;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"Decrease TTL by one and copy the TTL
to the inner header.";
}
identity decrease-and-copy-to-next {
base ttl-action;
description
"Decrease TTL by one and copy the TTL
to the next header; for example, when
MPLS label swapping, decrease the TTL
of the in_label and copy it to the
out_label.";
}
typedef ttl-action-definition {
type identityref {
base ttl-action;
}
description
"TTL action definition.";
}
identity hop-limit-action {
description
"Base identity from which all hop limit
actions are derived.";
}
identity hop-limit-no-action {
base hop-limit-action;
description
"Do nothing regarding the hop limit.";
}
identity hop-limit-copy-to-inner {
base hop-limit-action;
description
"Copy the hop limit of the outer header
to the inner header.";
}
typedef hop-limit-action-definition {
type identityref {
base hop-limit-action;
}
description
"IPv6 hop limit action definition.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
identity special-nexthop {
description
"Base identity from which all special
nexthops are derived.";
}
identity discard {
base special-nexthop;
description
"This indicates that the network
device should drop the packet and
increment a drop counter.";
}
identity discard-with-error {
base special-nexthop;
description
"This indicates that the network
device should drop the packet,
increment a drop counter, and send
back an appropriate error message
(like ICMP error).";
}
identity receive {
base special-nexthop;
description
"This indicates that the traffic is
destined for the network device, e.g.,
protocol packets or Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packets.
All locally destined traffic SHOULD be
throttled to avoid a denial-of-service
attack on the router's control plane. An
optional rate-limiter can be specified
to indicate how to throttle traffic
destined for the control plane.";
}
identity cos-value {
base special-nexthop;
description
"Cos-value special nexthop.";
}
typedef special-nexthop-definition {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
type identityref {
base special-nexthop;
}
description
"Special nexthop definition.";
}
identity ip-route-match-type {
description
"Base identity from which all route
match types are derived.
The route match type could be:
match source, or
match destination, or
match source and destination.";
}
identity match-ip-src {
base ip-route-match-type;
description
"Source route match type.";
}
identity match-ip-dest {
base ip-route-match-type;
description
"Destination route match type";
}
identity match-ip-src-dest {
base ip-route-match-type;
description
"Source and Destination route match type";
}
typedef ip-route-match-type-definition {
type identityref {
base ip-route-match-type;
}
description
"IP route match type definition.";
}
identity address-family {
description
"Base identity from which all RIB
address families are derived.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
identity ipv4-address-family {
base address-family;
description
"IPv4 RIB address family.";
}
identity ipv6-address-family {
base address-family;
description
"IPv6 RIB address family.";
}
identity mpls-address-family {
base address-family;
description
"MPLS RIB address family.";
}
identity ieee-mac-address-family {
base address-family;
description
"MAC RIB address family.";
}
typedef address-family-definition {
type identityref {
base address-family;
}
description
"RIB address family definition.";
}
identity route-type {
description
"Base identity from which all route types
are derived.";
}
identity ipv4-route {
base route-type;
description
"IPv4 route type.";
}
identity ipv6-route {
base route-type;
description
"IPv6 route type.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
identity mpls-route {
base route-type;
description
"MPLS route type.";
}
identity ieee-mac {
base route-type;
description
"MAC route type.";
}
identity interface {
base route-type;
description
"Interface route type.";
}
typedef route-type-definition {
type identityref {
base route-type;
}
description
"Route type definition.";
}
identity tunnel-type {
description
"Base identity from which all tunnel
types are derived.";
}
identity ipv4-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
description
"IPv4 tunnel type";
}
identity ipv6-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
description
"IPv6 tunnel type";
}
identity mpls-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"MPLS tunnel type";
}
identity gre-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
description
"GRE tunnel type";
}
identity vxlan-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
description
"VXLAN tunnel type";
}
identity nvgre-tunnel {
base tunnel-type;
description
"NVGRE tunnel type";
}
typedef tunnel-type-definition {
type identityref {
base tunnel-type;
}
description
"Tunnel type definition.";
}
identity route-state {
description
"Base identity from which all route
states are derived.";
}
identity active {
base route-state;
description
"Active state.";
}
identity inactive {
base route-state;
description
"Inactive state.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
typedef route-state-definition {
type identityref {
base route-state;
}
description
"Route state definition.";
}
identity nexthop-state {
description
"Base identity from which all nexthop
states are derived.";
}
identity resolved {
base nexthop-state;
description
"Resolved nexthop state.";
}
identity unresolved {
base nexthop-state;
description
"Unresolved nexthop state.";
}
typedef nexthop-state-definition {
type identityref {
base nexthop-state;
}
description
"Nexthop state definition.";
}
identity route-installed-state {
description
"Base identity from which all route
installed states are derived.";
}
identity uninstalled {
base route-installed-state;
description
"Uninstalled state.";
}
identity installed {
base route-installed-state;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"Installed state.";
}
typedef route-installed-state-definition {
type identityref {
base route-installed-state;
}
description
"Route installed state definition.";
}
//Route Change Reason Identities
identity route-change-reason {
description
"Base identity from which all route change
reasons are derived.";
}
identity lower-route-preference {
base route-change-reason;
description
"This route was installed in the FIB because it had
a lower route preference value (and thus was more
preferred) than the route it replaced.";
}
identity higher-route-preference {
base route-change-reason;
description
"This route was uninstalled from the FIB because it had
a higher route preference value (and thus was less
preferred) than the route that replaced it.";
}
identity resolved-nexthop {
base route-change-reason;
description
"This route was made active because at least
one of its nexthops was resolved.";
}
identity unresolved-nexthop {
base route-change-reason;
description
"This route was made inactive because all of
its nexthops are unresolved.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
typedef route-change-reason-definition {
type identityref {
base route-change-reason;
}
description
"Route change reason definition.";
}
typedef nexthop-preference-definition {
type uint8 {
range "1..99";
}
description
"Nexthop-preference is used for protection schemes.
It is an integer value between 1 and 99. Lower
values are preferred. To download N
nexthops to the FIB, the N nexthops with the lowest
value are selected. If there are more than N
nexthops that have the same preference, an
implementation of the I2RS client should select N
nexthops and download them. As for how to select
the nexthops, this is left to the implementations.";
}
typedef nexthop-lb-weight-definition {
type uint8 {
range "1..99";
}
description
"Nexthop-lb-weight is used for load-balancing.
Each list member SHOULD be assigned a weight
between 1 and 99. The weight determines the
proportion of traffic to be sent over a nexthop
used for forwarding as a ratio of the weight of
this nexthop divided by the sum of the weights
of all the nexthops of this route that are used
for forwarding. To perform equal load-balancing,
one MAY specify a weight of 0 for all the member
nexthops. The value 0 is reserved for equal
load-balancing and, if applied, MUST be applied
to all member nexthops.
Note that the weight of 0 is special because of
historical reasons. It's typically used in
hardware devices to signify ECMP.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
typedef nexthop-ref {
type leafref {
path "/iir:routing-instance" +
"/iir:rib-list" +
"/iir:route-list" +
"/iir:nexthop" +
"/iir:nexthop-id";
}
description
"A nexthop reference that provides
an indirection reference to a nexthop.";
}
//Groupings
grouping route-prefix {
description
"The common attributes used for all types of route prefixes.";
leaf route-index {
type uint64;
mandatory true;
description
"Route index.";
}
container match {
description
"The match condition specifies the
kind of route (IPv4, MPLS, etc.)
and the set of fields to match on.";
choice route-type {
description
"Route types: IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, MAC, etc.";
case ipv4 {
description
"IPv4 route case.";
container ipv4 {
description
"IPv4 route match.";
choice ip-route-match-type {
description
"IP route match type options:
match source, or
match destination, or
match source and destination.";
case dest-ipv4-address {
leaf dest-ipv4-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory true;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"An IPv4 destination address as the match.";
}
}
case src-ipv4-address {
leaf src-ipv4-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"An IPv4 source address as the match.";
}
}
case dest-src-ipv4-address {
container dest-src-ipv4-address {
description
"A combination of an IPv4 source and
an IPv4 destination address as the match.";
leaf dest-ipv4-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The IPv4 destination address of the match.";
}
leaf src-ipv4-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The IPv4 source address of the match.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
case ipv6 {
description
"IPv6 route case.";
container ipv6 {
description
"IPv6 route match.";
choice ip-route-match-type {
description
"IP route match type options:
match source,
match destination, or
match source and destination.";
case dest-ipv6-address {
leaf dest-ipv6-prefix {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"An IPv6 destination address as the match.";
}
}
case src-ipv6-address {
leaf src-ipv6-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"An IPv6 source address as the match.";
}
}
case dest-src-ipv6-address {
container dest-src-ipv6-address {
description
"A combination of an IPv6 source and
an IPv6 destination address as the match.";
leaf dest-ipv6-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The IPv6 destination address of the match.";
}
leaf src-ipv6-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The IPv6 source address of the match.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
case mpls-route {
description
"MPLS route case.";
leaf mpls-label {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The label used for matching.";
}
}
case mac-route {
description
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
"MAC route case.";
leaf mac-address {
type yang:mac-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The MAC address used for matching.";
}
}
case interface-route {
description
"Interface route case.";
leaf interface-identifier {
type if:interface-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"The interface used for matching.";
}
}
}
}
}
grouping route {
description
"The common attributes used for all types of routes.";
uses route-prefix;
container nexthop {
description
"The nexthop of the route.";
uses nexthop;
}
//In the information model, it is called route-statistic
container route-status {
description
"The status information of the route.";
leaf route-state {
type route-state-definition;
config false;
description
"Indicate a route's state: active or inactive.";
}
leaf route-installed-state {
type route-installed-state-definition;
config false;
description
"Indicate that a route's installed states:
installed or uninstalled.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
leaf route-reason {
type route-change-reason-definition;
config false;
description
"Indicate the reason that caused the route change.";
}
}
container route-attributes {
description
"Route attributes.";
uses route-attributes;
}
container route-vendor-attributes {
description
"Route vendor attributes.";
uses route-vendor-attributes;
}
}
grouping nexthop-list {
description
"A generic nexthop list.";
list nexthop-list {
key "nexthop-member-id";
description
"A list of nexthops.";
leaf nexthop-member-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"A nexthop identifier that points
to a nexthop list member.
A nexthop list member is a nexthop.";
}
}
}
grouping nexthop-list-p {
description
"A nexthop list with preference parameter.";
list nexthop-list {
key "nexthop-member-id";
description
"A list of nexthop.";
leaf nexthop-member-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
"A nexthop identifier that points
to a nexthop list member.
A nexthop list member is a nexthop.";
}
leaf nexthop-preference {
type nexthop-preference-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"Nexthop-preference is used for protection schemes.
It is an integer value between 1 and 99. Lower
values are more preferred. To download a
primary/standby/tertiary group to the FIB, the
nexthops that are resolved and are most preferred
are selected.";
}
}
}
grouping nexthop-list-w {
description
"A nexthop list with a weight parameter.";
list nexthop-list {
key "nexthop-member-id";
description
"A list of nexthop.";
leaf nexthop-member-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"A nexthop identifier that points
to a nexthop list member.
A nexthop list member is a nexthop.";
}
leaf nexthop-lb-weight {
type nexthop-lb-weight-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"The weight of a nexthop of
the load-balance nexthops.";
}
}
}
grouping nexthop {
description
"The nexthop structure.";
leaf nexthop-id {
type uint32;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"An identifier that refers to a nexthop.";
}
leaf sharing-flag {
type boolean;
description
"To indicate whether a nexthop is sharable
or non-sharable:
true - sharable (which means the nexthop can be
shared with other routes)
false - non-sharable (which means the nexthop can
not be shared with other routes)";
}
choice nexthop-type {
description
"Nexthop type options.";
case nexthop-base {
container nexthop-base {
description
"The base nexthop.";
uses nexthop-base;
}
}
case nexthop-chain {
if-feature "nexthop-chain";
container nexthop-chain {
description
"A chain nexthop.";
uses nexthop-list;
}
}
case nexthop-replicate {
if-feature "nexthop-replicate";
container nexthop-replicate {
description
"A replicate nexthop.";
uses nexthop-list;
}
}
case nexthop-protection {
if-feature "nexthop-protection";
container nexthop-protection {
description
"A protection nexthop.";
uses nexthop-list-p;
}
}
case nexthop-load-balance {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
if-feature "nexthop-load-balance";
container nexthop-lb {
description
"A load-balance nexthop.";
uses nexthop-list-w;
}
}
}
}
grouping nexthop-base {
description
"The base nexthop.";
choice nexthop-base-type {
description
"Nexthop base type options.";
case special-nexthop {
leaf special {
type special-nexthop-definition;
description
"A special nexthop.";
}
}
case egress-interface-nexthop {
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop is an outgoing interface.";
}
}
case ipv4-address-nexthop {
leaf ipv4-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop is an IPv4 address.";
}
}
case ipv6-address-nexthop {
leaf ipv6-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop is an IPv6 address.";
}
}
case egress-interface-ipv4-nexthop {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
container egress-interface-ipv4-address {
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
leaf ipv4-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop points to an interface with
an IPv4 address.";
}
description
"The nexthop is an egress-interface and an IP
address. This can be used in cases where, e.g.,
the IP address is a link-local address.";
}
}
case egress-interface-ipv6-nexthop {
container egress-interface-ipv6-address {
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
leaf ipv6-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop points to an interface with
an IPv6 address.";
}
description
"The nexthop is an egress-interface and an IP
address. This can be used in cases where, e.g.,
the IP address is a link-local address.";
}
}
case egress-interface-mac-nexthop {
container egress-interface-mac-address {
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
leaf ieee-mac-address {
type yang:mac-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The nexthop points to an interface with
a specific MAC address.";
}
description
"The egress-interface must be an Ethernet
interface. Address resolution is not required
for this nexthop.";
}
}
case tunnel-encapsulation-nexthop {
if-feature "nexthop-tunnel";
container tunnel-encapsulation {
uses tunnel-encapsulation;
description
"This can be an encapsulation representing an IP
tunnel, MPLS tunnel, or others as defined in the info
model. An optional egress-interface can be chained
to the tunnel encapsulation to indicate which
interface to send the packet out on. The
egress-interface is useful when the network device
contains Ethernet interfaces and one needs to
perform address resolution for the IP packet.";
}
}
case tunnel-decapsulation-nexthop {
if-feature "nexthop-tunnel";
container tunnel-decapsulation {
uses tunnel-decapsulation;
description
"This is to specify the decapsulation of a tunnel
header.";
}
}
case logical-tunnel-nexthop {
if-feature "nexthop-tunnel";
container logical-tunnel {
uses logical-tunnel;
description
"This can be an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP)
or a GRE tunnel (or others as defined in this
document) that is represented by a unique
identifier (e.g., name).";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
case rib-name-nexthop {
leaf rib-name {
type string;
description
"A nexthop pointing to a RIB indicates that the
route lookup needs to continue in the specified
RIB. This is a way to perform chained lookups.";
}
}
case nexthop-identifier {
leaf nexthop-ref {
type nexthop-ref;
mandatory true;
description
"A nexthop reference that points to a nexthop.";
}
}
}
}
grouping route-vendor-attributes {
description
"Route vendor attributes.";
}
grouping logical-tunnel {
description
"A logical tunnel that is identified
by a type and a tunnel name.";
leaf tunnel-type {
type tunnel-type-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"A tunnel type.";
}
leaf tunnel-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A tunnel name that points to a logical tunnel.";
}
}
grouping ipv4-header {
description
"The IPv4 header encapsulation information.";
leaf src-ipv4-address {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
type inet:ipv4-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The source IP address of the header.";
}
leaf dest-ipv4-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The destination IP address of the header.";
}
leaf protocol {
type uint8;
mandatory true;
description
"The protocol id of the header.";
}
leaf ttl {
type uint8;
description
"The TTL of the header.";
}
leaf dscp {
type uint8;
description
"The Differentiated Services Code Point
(DSCP) field of the header.";
}
}
grouping ipv6-header {
description
"The IPv6 header encapsulation information.";
leaf src-ipv6-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The source IP address of the header.";
}
leaf dest-ipv6-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The destination IP address of the header.";
}
leaf next-header {
type uint8;
mandatory true;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"The next header of the IPv6 header.";
}
leaf traffic-class {
type uint8;
description
"The traffic class value of the header.";
}
leaf flow-label {
type inet:ipv6-flow-label;
description
"The flow label of the header.";
}
leaf hop-limit {
type uint8 {
range "1..255";
}
description
"The hop limit of the header.";
}
}
grouping nvgre-header {
description
"The NVGRE header encapsulation information.";
choice nvgre-type {
description
"NVGRE can use either an IPv4
or an IPv6 header for encapsulation.";
case ipv4 {
uses ipv4-header;
}
case ipv6 {
uses ipv6-header;
}
}
leaf virtual-subnet-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The subnet identifier of the NVGRE header.";
}
leaf flow-id {
type uint8;
description
"The flow identifier of the NVGRE header.";
}
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
grouping vxlan-header {
description
"The VXLAN encapsulation header information.";
choice vxlan-type {
description
"NVGRE can use either an IPv4
or an IPv6 header for encapsulation.";
case ipv4 {
uses ipv4-header;
}
case ipv6 {
uses ipv6-header;
}
}
leaf vxlan-identifier {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The VXLAN identifier of the VXLAN header.";
}
}
grouping gre-header {
description
"The GRE encapsulation header information.";
choice dest-address-type {
description
"GRE options: IPv4 and IPv6";
case ipv4 {
leaf ipv4-dest {
type inet:ipv4-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The destination IP address of the GRE header.";
}
}
case ipv6 {
leaf ipv6-dest {
type inet:ipv6-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The destination IP address of the GRE header.";
}
}
}
leaf protocol-type {
type uint16;
mandatory true;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"The protocol type of the GRE header.";
}
leaf key {
type uint64;
description
"The GRE key of the GRE header.";
}
}
grouping mpls-header {
description
"The MPLS encapsulation header information.";
list label-operations {
key "label-oper-id";
description
"Label operations.";
leaf label-oper-id {
type uint32;
description
"An optional identifier that points
to a label operation.";
}
choice label-actions {
description
"Label action options.";
case label-push {
container label-push {
description
"Label push operation.";
leaf label {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The label to be pushed.";
}
leaf s-bit {
type boolean;
description
"The s-bit ('Bottom of Stack' bit) of the label to be
pushed.";
}
leaf tc-value {
type uint8;
description
"The traffic class value of the label to be pushed.";
}
leaf ttl-value {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
type uint8;
description
"The TTL value of the label to be pushed.";
}
}
}
case label-swap {
container label-swap {
description
"Label swap operation.";
leaf in-label {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The label to be swapped.";
}
leaf out-label {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The out MPLS label.";
}
leaf ttl-action {
type ttl-action-definition;
description
"The label TTL actions:
- No-action
- Copy to inner label
- Decrease (the in-label)
by 1 and copy to the out-label";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping tunnel-encapsulation {
description
"Tunnel encapsulation information.";
choice tunnel-type {
description
"Tunnel options for nexthops.";
case ipv4 {
if-feature "ipv4-tunnel";
container ipv4-header {
uses ipv4-header;
description
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
"IPv4 header.";
}
}
case ipv6 {
if-feature "ipv6-tunnel";
container ipv6-header {
uses ipv6-header;
description
"IPv6 header.";
}
}
case mpls {
if-feature "mpls-tunnel";
container mpls-header {
uses mpls-header;
description
"MPLS header.";
}
}
case gre {
if-feature "gre-tunnel";
container gre-header {
uses gre-header;
description
"GRE header.";
}
}
case nvgre {
if-feature "nvgre-tunnel";
container nvgre-header {
uses nvgre-header;
description
"NVGRE header.";
}
}
case vxlan {
if-feature "vxlan-tunnel";
container vxlan-header {
uses vxlan-header;
description
"VXLAN header.";
}
}
}
}
grouping tunnel-decapsulation {
description
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
"Tunnel decapsulation information.";
choice tunnel-type {
description
"Nexthop tunnel type options.";
case ipv4 {
if-feature "ipv4-tunnel";
container ipv4-decapsulation {
description
"IPv4 decapsulation.";
leaf ipv4-decapsulation {
type tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"IPv4 decapsulation operations.";
}
leaf ttl-action {
type ttl-action-definition;
description
"The TTL actions:
no-action or copy to inner header.";
}
}
}
case ipv6 {
if-feature "ipv6-tunnel";
container ipv6-decapsulation {
description
"IPv6 decapsulation.";
leaf ipv6-decapsulation {
type tunnel-decapsulation-action-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"IPv6 decapsulation operations.";
}
leaf hop-limit-action {
type hop-limit-action-definition;
description
"The hop limit actions:
no-action or copy to inner header.";
}
}
}
case mpls {
if-feature "mpls-tunnel";
container label-pop {
description
"MPLS decapsulation.";
leaf label-pop {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
type mpls-label-action-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"Pop a label from the label stack.";
}
leaf ttl-action {
type ttl-action-definition;
description
"The label TTL action.";
}
}
}
}
}
grouping route-attributes {
description
"Route attributes.";
leaf route-preference {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that
allows for comparing routes from different
protocols. Static configuration is also
considered a protocol for the purpose of this
field. It is also known as administrative-distance.
The lower the value, the higher the preference.";
}
leaf local-only {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"Indicate whether the attribute is local only.";
}
container address-family-route-attributes {
description
"Address-family-related route attributes.";
choice route-type {
description
"Address-family-related route attributes. Future
documents should specify these attributes by augmenting
the cases in this choice.";
case ip-route-attributes {
}
case mpls-route-attributes {
}
case ethernet-route-attributes {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
}
}
}
container routing-instance {
description
"A routing instance, in the context of
the RIB information model, is a collection
of RIBs, interfaces, and routing parameters.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the routing instance. This MUST
be unique across all routing instances in
a given network device.";
}
list interface-list {
key "name";
description
"This represents the list of interfaces associated
with this routing instance. The interface list helps
constrain the boundaries of packet forwarding.
Packets coming on these interfaces are directly
associated with the given routing instance. The
interface list contains a list of identifiers with
each identifier uniquely identifying an interface.";
leaf name {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"A reference to the name of a network-layer interface.";
}
}
leaf router-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"Router ID: The 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad.";
}
leaf lookup-limit {
type uint8;
description
"A limit on how many levels of a lookup can be performed.";
}
list rib-list {
key "name";
description
"A list of RIBs that are associated with the routing
instance.";
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
leaf name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of each RIB.";
}
leaf address-family {
type address-family-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"The address family of a RIB.";
}
leaf ip-rpf-check {
type boolean;
description
"Each RIB can be optionally associated with a
ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK attribute that enables Reverse
Path Forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP routes in that
RIB. An RPF check is used to
prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic.";
}
list route-list {
key "route-index";
description
"A list of routes of a RIB.";
uses route;
}
// This is a list that maintains the nexthops added to the RIB.
uses nexthop-list;
}
}
//RPC Operations
rpc rib-add {
description
"To add a RIB to an instance";
input {
leaf name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of the RIB
that is to be added.";
}
leaf address-family {
type address-family-definition;
mandatory true;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"The address family of the RIB.";
}
leaf ip-rpf-check {
type boolean;
description
"Each RIB can be optionally associated with an
ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK attribute that enables
RPF checks on all IP routes in that
RIB. An RPF check is used to
prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic.";
}
}
output {
leaf result {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"Return the result of the rib-add operation.
true - success;
false - failed";
}
leaf reason {
type string;
description
"The specific reason that caused the failure.";
}
}
}
rpc rib-delete {
description
"To delete a RIB from a routing instance.
After deleting the RIB, all routes installed
in the RIB will be deleted as well.";
input {
leaf name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of the RIB
that is to be deleted.";
}
}
output {
leaf result {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"Return the result of the rib-delete operation.
true - success;
false - failed";
}
leaf reason {
type string;
description
"The specific reason that caused failure.";
}
}
}
grouping route-operation-state {
description
"Route operation state.";
leaf success-count {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The numbers of routes that are successfully
added/deleted/updated.";
}
leaf failed-count {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"The numbers of the routes that fail
to be added/deleted/updated.";
}
container failure-detail {
description
"The failure detail reflects the reason why a route
operation fails. It is an array that includes the route
index and error code of the failed route.";
list failed-routes {
key "route-index";
description
"The list of failed routes.";
leaf route-index {
type uint32;
description
"The route index of the failed route.";
}
leaf error-code {
type uint32;
description
"The error code that reflects the failure reason.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
0 - Reserved
1 - Trying to add a repeat route
2 - Trying to delete or update a route that does not
exist
3 - Malformed route attributes";
}
}
}
}
rpc route-add {
description
"To add a route or a list of routes to a RIB";
input {
leaf return-failure-detail {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Whether to return the failure detail.
true - return the failure detail
false - do not return the failure detail
The default is false.";
}
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
container routes {
description
"The routes to be added to the RIB.";
list route-list {
key "route-index";
description
"The list of routes to be added.";
uses route-prefix;
container route-attributes {
uses route-attributes;
description
"The route attributes.";
}
container route-vendor-attributes {
if-feature "route-vendor-attributes";
uses route-vendor-attributes;
description
"The route vendor attributes.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
container nexthop {
uses nexthop;
description
"The nexthop of the added route.";
}
}
}
}
output {
uses route-operation-state;
}
}
rpc route-delete {
description
"To delete a route or a list of routes from a RIB";
input {
leaf return-failure-detail {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Whether to return the failure detail.
true - return the failure detail
false - do not return the failure detail
The default is false.";
}
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
container routes {
description
"The routes to be added to the RIB.";
list route-list {
key "route-index";
description
"The list of routes to be deleted.";
uses route-prefix;
}
}
}
output {
uses route-operation-state;
}
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
grouping route-update-options {
description
"Update options:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
3. update the route-vendor-attributes";
choice update-options {
description
"Update options:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
3. update the route-vendor-attributes";
case update-nexthop {
container updated-nexthop {
uses nexthop;
description
"The nexthop used for updating.";
}
}
case update-route-attributes {
container updated-route-attr {
uses route-attributes;
description
"The route attributes used for updating.";
}
}
case update-route-vendor-attributes {
container updated-route-vendor-attr {
uses route-vendor-attributes;
description
"The vendor route attributes used for updating.";
}
}
}
}
rpc route-update {
description
"To update a route or a list of routes of a RIB.
The inputs:
1. The match conditions, which could be:
a. route prefix,
b. route attributes, or
c. nexthop.
2. The update parameters to be used:
a. new nexthop,
b. new route attributes, or
c. nexthop.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
Actions:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
The outputs:
success-count - the number of routes updated
failed-count - the number of routes fail to update
failure-detail - the detail failure info
";
input {
leaf return-failure-detail {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Whether to return the failure detail.
true - return the failure detail
false - do not return the failure detail
The default is false.";
}
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
choice match-options {
description
"Match options.";
case match-route-prefix {
description
"Update the routes that match the route
prefix(es) condition.";
container input-routes {
description
"The matched routes to be updated.";
list route-list {
key "route-index";
description
"The list of routes to be updated.";
uses route-prefix;
uses route-update-options;
}
}
}
case match-route-attributes {
description
"Update the routes that match the
route attributes condition.";
container input-route-attributes {
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
description
"The route attributes are used for matching.";
uses route-attributes;
}
container update-parameters {
description
"Update options:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
3. update the route-vendor-attributes";
uses route-update-options;
}
}
case match-route-vendor-attributes {
if-feature "route-vendor-attributes";
description
"Update the routes that match the
vendor attributes condition";
container input-route-vendor-attributes {
description
"The vendor route attributes are used for matching.";
uses route-vendor-attributes;
}
container update-parameters-vendor {
description
"Update options:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
3. update the route-vendor-attributes";
uses route-update-options;
}
}
case match-nexthop {
description
"Update the routes that match the nexthop.";
container input-nexthop {
description
"The nexthop used for matching.";
uses nexthop;
}
container update-parameters-nexthop {
description
"Update options:
1. update the nexthop
2. update the route attributes
3. update the route-vendor-attributes";
uses route-update-options;
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
}
}
output {
uses route-operation-state;
}
}
rpc nh-add {
description
"To add a nexthop to a RIB.
Inputs parameters:
1. rib-name
2. nexthop
Actions:
Add the nexthop to the RIB
Outputs:
1. Operation result:
true - success
false - failed
2. nexthop identifier";
input {
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
uses nexthop;
}
output {
leaf result {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"Return the result of the rib-add operation:
true - success
false - failed";
}
leaf reason {
type string;
description
"The specific reason that caused the failure.";
}
leaf nexthop-id {
type uint32;
description
"A nexthop identifier that is allocated to the nexthop.";
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
}
rpc nh-delete {
description
"To delete a nexthop from a RIB";
input {
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
uses nexthop;
}
output {
leaf result {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"Return the result of the rib-add operation:
true - success;
false - failed";
}
leaf reason {
type string;
description
"The specific reason that caused the failure.";
}
}
}
//Notifications
notification nexthop-resolution-status-change {
description
"Nexthop resolution status (resolved/unresolved)
notification.";
container nexthop {
description
"The nexthop.";
uses nexthop;
}
leaf nexthop-state {
type nexthop-state-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"Nexthop resolution status (resolved/unresolved)
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
notification.";
}
}
notification route-change {
description
"Route change notification.";
leaf rib-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"A reference to the name of a RIB.";
}
leaf address-family {
type address-family-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"The address family of a RIB.";
}
uses route-prefix;
leaf route-installed-state {
type route-installed-state-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"Indicates whether the route got installed in the FIB.";
}
leaf route-state {
type route-state-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"Indicates whether a route is active or inactive.";
}
list route-change-reasons {
key "route-change-reason";
description
"The reasons that cause the route change. A route
change may result from several reasons; for
example, a nexthop becoming resolved will make a
route A active, which is of better preference than
a currently active route B, which results in the
route A being installed";
leaf route-change-reason {
type route-change-reason-definition;
mandatory true;
description
"The reason that caused the route change.";
}
}
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
4. IANA Considerations
This document registers a URI in the "ns" registry within the "IETF
XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"
registry [RFC7950]:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-i2rs-rib
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2rs-rib
prefix: iir
reference: RFC 8431
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
The YANG module defines information that can be configurable in
certain instances, for example, a RIB, a route, a nexthop can be
created or deleted by client applications; the YANG module also
defines RPCs that can be used by client applications to add/delete
RIBs, routes, and nexthops. In such cases, a malicious client could
attempt to remove, add, or update a RIB, a route, or a nexthop by
creating or deleting corresponding elements in the RIB, route, and
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
nexthop lists, respectively. Removing a RIB or a route could lead to
disruption or impact in performance of a service; updating a route
may lead to suboptimal path and degradation of service levels as well
as possibly disruption of service. For those reasons, it is
important that the NETCONF access control model is vigorously applied
to prevent misconfiguration by unauthorized clients.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
o RIB: A malicious client could attempt to remove a RIB from a
routing instance, for example, in order to sabotage the services
provided by the RIB or to add a RIB to a routing instance (hence,
to inject unauthorized traffic into the nexthop).
o route: A malicious client could attempt to remove or add a route
from/to a RIB, for example, in order to sabotage the services
provided by the RIB.
o nexthop: A malicious client could attempt to remove or add a
nexthop from/to RIB, which may lead to a suboptimal path, a
degradation of service levels, and a possible disruption of
service.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
[RFC8430] Bahadur, N., Ed., Kini, S., Ed., and J. Medved, "RIB
Information Model", RFC 8430, DOI 10.17487/RFC8430,
September 2018, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8430>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
6.2. Informative References
[I2RS-REQS]
Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Summary of I2RS Use Case
Requirements", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-i2rs-usecase-
reqs-summary-03, November 2016.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.
[RFC7921] Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7921>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Chris Bowers, John Scudder, Tom
Petch, Mike McBride, and Ebben Aries for their review, suggestions,
and comments to this document.
Contributors
The following individuals also contributed to this document.
o Zekun He, Tencent Holdings Ltd.
o Sujian Lu, Tencent Holdings Ltd.
o Jeffery Zhang, Juniper Networks
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 8431 RIB Data Model September 2018
Authors' Addresses
Lixing Wang
Individual
Email: wang_little_star@sina.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Amit Dass
Ericsson
Email: dass.amit@gmail.com
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Netflix
Email: hari@netflix.com
Sriganesh Kini
Individual
Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Nitin Bahadur
Uber
Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com
Wang, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]