💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc8466.txt captured on 2023-12-28 at 16:18:01.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Wen
Request for Comments: 8466 Comcast
Category: Standards Track G. Fioccola, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Telecom Italia
C. Xie
China Telecom
L. Jalil
Verizon
October 2018
A YANG Data Model for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure
a Layer 2 provider-provisioned VPN service. It is up to a management
system to take this as an input and generate specific configuration
models to configure the different network elements to deliver the
service. How this configuration of network elements is done is out
of scope for this document.
The YANG data model defined in this document includes support for
point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWSs) and multipoint
Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLSs) that use Pseudowires signaled
using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) as described in RFCs 4761 and 6624.
The YANG data model defined in this document conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture defined in RFC 8342.
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/rfc8466.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The Layer 2 VPN Service Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Layer 2 VPN Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Layer 2 VPN Physical Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Service Data Model Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Design of the Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Features and Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. VPN Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1. VPN Service Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.2. VPN Service Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2.1. Route Target Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2.2. Any-to-Any . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2.3. Hub-and-Spoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2.4. Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.3. Cloud Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2.4. Extranet VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.5. Frame Delivery Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3. Site Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1. Devices and Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.2. Site Network Accesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3.2.1. Bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3.2.2. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4. Site Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5.1. Site VPN Flavors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single . . 39
5.5.1.2. Multi-VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi . . . 39
5.5.1.3. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5.1.4. E2E: site-vpn-flavor-e2e . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5.2.2. VPN Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.6.1. Constraint: Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location . . . . . . . . . 50
5.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.7. Route Distinguisher and Network Instance Allocation . . . 53
5.8. Site-Network-Access Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.9. SVC MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.10. Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.10.1. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.10.2. QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.10.2.1. QoS Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.10.2.2. QoS Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.10.3. Support for BUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.11. Site Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.12. MAC Loop Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.13. MAC Address Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.14. Enhanced VPN Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.14.1. Carriers' Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.15. External ID References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.16. Defining NNIs and Inter-AS Support . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.16.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor . . . . . . 66
5.16.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor . . . . . . 70
5.16.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor . . . . . . 73
5.17. Applicability of L2SM in Inter-provider and Inter-domain
Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6. Interaction with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7. Service Model Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
8. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
1. Introduction
This document defines a YANG data model for the Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN)
service. This model defines service configuration elements that can
be used in communication protocols between customers and network
operators. Those elements can also be used as input to automated
control and configuration applications and can generate specific
configuration models to configure the different network elements to
deliver the service. How this configuration of network elements is
done is out of scope for this document.
Further discussion of the way that services are modeled in YANG and
the relationship between "customer service models" like the one
described in this document and configuration models can be found in
[RFC8309] and [RFC8199]. Sections 4 and 6 also provide more
information on how this service model could be used and how it fits
into the overall modeling architecture.
The YANG data model defined in this document includes support for
point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWSs) and multipoint
Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLSs) that use Pseudowires signaled
using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) as described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6624]. It also
conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
[RFC8342].
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are defined in [RFC6241] and are not redefined
here:
o client
o configuration data
o server
o state data
The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined
here:
o augment
o data model
o data node
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
[RFC7950].
1.1.1. 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. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
[RFC8340].
2. Definitions
This document uses the following terms:
Service Provider (SP): The organization (usually a commercial
undertaking) responsible for operating the network that offers VPN
services to clients and customers.
Customer Edge (CE) Device: Equipment that is dedicated to a
particular customer and is directly connected to one or more PE
devices via Attachment Circuits (ACs). A CE is usually located at
the customer premises and is usually dedicated to a single VPN,
although it may support multiple VPNs if each one has separate
ACs. The CE devices can be routers, bridges, switches, or hosts.
Provider Edge (PE) Device: Equipment managed by the SP that can
support multiple VPNs for different customers and is directly
connected to one or more CE devices via ACs. A PE is usually
located at an SP Point of Presence (POP) and is managed by the SP.
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS): A VPLS is a provider service
that emulates the full functionality of a traditional LAN. A VPLS
makes it possible to interconnect several LAN segments over a
packet switched network (PSN) and makes the remote LAN segments
behave as one single LAN.
Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS): A VPWS is a point-to-point
circuit (i.e., link) connecting two CE devices. The link is
established as a logical Layer 2 circuit through a PSN. The CE in
the customer network is connected to a PE in the provider network
via an AC: the AC is either a physical or logical circuit. A VPWS
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
differs from a VPLS in that the VPLS is point-to-multipoint while
the VPWS is point-to-point. In some implementations, a set of
VPWSs is used to create a multi-site L2VPN network.
Pseudowire (PW): A Pseudowire is an emulation of a native service
over a PSN. The native service may be ATM, Frame Relay, Ethernet,
low-rate Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM), or Synchronous Optical
Network / Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), while the PSN
may be MPLS, IP (either IPv4 or IPv6), or Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3).
MAC-VRF: A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access
Control (MAC) addresses on a PE. It is sometimes also referred to
as a Virtual Switching Instance (VSI).
UNI: User-to-Network Interface. The physical demarcation point
between the customer's area of responsibility and the provider's
area of responsibility.
NNI: Network-to-Network Interface. A reference point representing
the boundary between two networks that are operated as separate
administrative domains. The two networks may belong to the same
provider or to two different providers.
This document uses the following abbreviations:
BSS: Business Support System
BUM: Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast
CoS: Class of Service
LAG: Link Aggregation Group
LLDP: Link Layer Discovery Protocol
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OSS: Operations Support System
PDU: Protocol Data Unit
QoS: Quality of Service
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
3. The Layer 2 VPN Service Model
A Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) service is a collection of sites that are
authorized to exchange traffic between each other over a shared
infrastructure of a common technology. The L2VPN Service Model
(L2SM) described in this document provides a common understanding of
how the corresponding L2VPN service is to be deployed over the shared
infrastructure.
This document presents the L2SM using the YANG data modeling language
[RFC7950] as a formal language that is both human readable and
parsable by software for use with protocols such as the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040].
This service model is limited to VPWS-based VPNs and VPLS-based VPNs
as described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] and to Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs)
as described in [RFC7432].
3.1. Layer 2 VPN Service Types
From a technology perspective, a set of basic L2VPN service types
include:
o Point-to-point VPWSs that use LDP-signaled Pseudowires or
L2TP-signaled Pseudowires [RFC6074].
o Multipoint VPLSs that use LDP-signaled Pseudowires or
L2TP-signaled Pseudowires [RFC6074].
o Multipoint VPLSs that use a BGP control plane as described in
[RFC4761] and [RFC6624].
o IP-only LAN Services (IPLSs) that are a functional subset of VPLS
services [RFC7436].
o BGP MPLS-based EVPN services as described in [RFC7432] and
[RFC7209].
o EVPN VPWSs as specified in [RFC8214].
3.2. Layer 2 VPN Physical Network Topology
Figure 1 below depicts a typical SP's physical network topology.
Most SPs have deployed an IP, MPLS, or Segment Routing (SR)
multi-service core infrastructure. Ingress Layer 2 service frames
will be mapped to either an Ethernet Pseudowire (e.g., Pseudowire
Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3)) or a Virtual Extensible Local Area
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Network (VXLAN) PE-to-PE tunnel. The details of these tunneling
mechanisms are left to the provider's discretion and are not part of
the L2SM.
An L2VPN provides end-to-end Layer 2 connectivity over this
multi-service core infrastructure between two or more customer
locations or a collection of sites. ACs are placed between CE
devices and PE devices that backhaul Layer 2 service frames from the
customer over the access network to the provider network or remote
site. The demarcation point (i.e., UNI) between the customer and the
SP can be placed between either (1) customer nodes and the CE device
or (2) the CE device and the PE device. The actual bearer connection
between the CE and the PE will be described in the L2SM.
The SP may also choose a "seamless MPLS" approach to expand the PWE3
or VXLAN tunnel between sites.
The SP may leverage Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) to autodiscover and
signal the PWE3 or VXLAN tunnel endpoints.
Site A | |Site B
--- ---- | VXLAN/PW | ---
| | | | |<------------------------>| | |
| C +---+ CE | | | | C |
| | | | | --------- | | |
--- ----\ | ( ) | /---
\ -|-- ( ) -|-- ---- /
\| | ( ) | | | |/
| PE +---+ IP/MPLS/SR +---+ PE +---+ CE |
/| | ( Network ) | | | |\
/ ---- ( ) ---- ---- \
--- ----/ ( ) \---
| | | | ----+---- | |
| C +---+ CE | | | C |
| | | | --+-- | |
--- ---- | PE | ---
--+--
| Site C
--+--
| CE |
--+--
|
--+--
| C |
-----
Figure 1: Reference Network for the Use of the L2SM
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
From the customer's perspective, however, all the CE devices are
connected over a simulated LAN environment as shown in Figure 2.
Broadcast and multicast packets are sent to all participants in the
same bridge domain.
CE---+----+-----+---CE
| | |
| | |
| | |
CE---+ CE +---CE
Figure 2: Customer's View of the L2VPN
4. Service Data Model Usage
The L2SM provides an abstracted interface to request, configure, and
manage the components of an L2VPN service. The model is used by a
customer who purchases connectivity and other services from an SP to
communicate with that SP.
A typical usage for this model is as an input to an orchestration
layer that is responsible for translating it into configuration
commands for the network elements that deliver/enable the service.
The network elements may be routers, but also servers (like
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)) that are
necessary within the network.
The configuration of network elements may be done using the Command
Line Interface (CLI) or any other configuration (or "southbound")
interface such as NETCONF [RFC6241] in combination with device-
specific and protocol-specific YANG data models.
This way of using the service model is illustrated in Figure 3 and is
described in more detail in [RFC8309] and [RFC8199]. The split of
the orchestration function between a "service orchestrator" and a
"network orchestrator" is clarified in [RFC8309]. The usage of this
service model is not limited to this example: it can be used by any
component of the management system but not directly by network
elements.
The usage and structure of this model should be compared to the
Layer 3 VPN service model defined in [RFC8299].
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
----------------------------
| Customer Service Requester |
----------------------------
|
|
L2SM |
|
|
-----------------------
| Service Orchestration |
-----------------------
|
| Service +-------------+
| Delivery +------>| Application |
| Model | | BSS/OSS |
| V +-------------+
-----------------------
| Network Orchestration |
-----------------------
| |
+----------------+ |
| Config manager | |
+----------------+ | Device
| | Models
| |
--------------------------------------------
Network
+++++++
+ AAA +
+++++++
++++++++ Bearer ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
+ CE A + ----------- + PE A + + PE B + ---- + CE B +
++++++++ Connection ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
Site A Site B
Figure 3: Reference Architecture for the Use of the L2SM
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) [MEF-6] has also developed an
architecture for network management and operations, but the work of
the MEF embraces all aspects of lifecycle service orchestration,
including billing, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), order management,
and lifecycle management. The IETF's work on service models is
typically smaller and offers a simple, self-contained service YANG
module. See [RFC8309] for more details.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5. Design of the Data Model
The L2SM is structured in a way that allows the provider to list
multiple circuits of various service types for the same customer. A
circuit represents an end-to-end connection between two or more
customer locations.
The YANG module is divided into two main containers: "vpn-services"
and "sites". The "vpn-svc" container under vpn-services defines
global parameters for the VPN service for a specific customer.
A site contains at least one network access (i.e., site network
accesses providing access to the sites, as defined in Section 5.3.2),
and there may be multiple network accesses in the case of
multihoming. Site-to-network-access attachment is done through a
bearer with a Layer 2 connection on top. The bearer refers to
properties of the attachment that are below Layer 2, while the
connection refers to Layer 2 protocol-oriented properties. The
bearer may be allocated dynamically by the SP, and the customer may
provide some constraints or parameters to drive the placement.
Authorization of traffic exchanges is done through what we call a VPN
policy or VPN topology that defines routing exchange rules between
sites.
End-to-end multi-segment connectivity can be realized by using a
combination of per-site connectivity and per-segment connectivity at
different segments.
Figure 4 shows the overall structure of the YANG module:
module: ietf-l2vpn-svc
+--rw l2vpn-svc
+--rw vpn-profiles
| +--rw valid-provider-identifiers
| +--rw cloud-identifier* string{cloud-access}?
| +--rw qos-profile-identifier* string
| +--rw bfd-profile-identifier* string
| +--rw remote-carrier-identifier* string
+--rw vpn-services
| +--rw vpn-service* [vpn-id]
| +--rw vpn-id svc-id
| +--rw vpn-svc-type? identityref
| +--rw customer-name? string
| +--rw svc-topo? identityref
| +--rw cloud-accesses {cloud-access}?
| | +--rw cloud-access* [cloud-identifier]
| | +--rw cloud-identifier
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/
| | | valid-provider-identifiers/cloud-identifier
| | +--rw (list-flavor)?
| | +--:(permit-any)
| | | +--rw permit-any? empty
| | +--:(deny-any-except)
| | | +--rw permit-site*
| | | : -> /l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id
| | +--:(permit-any-except)
| | +--rw deny-site*
| | -> /l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id
| +--rw frame-delivery {frame-delivery}?
| | +--rw customer-tree-flavors
| | | +--rw tree-flavor* identityref
| | +--rw bum-frame-delivery
| | | +--rw bum-frame-delivery* [frame-type]
| | | +--rw frame-type identityref
| | | +--rw delivery-mode? identityref
| | +--rw multicast-gp-port-mapping identityref
| +--rw extranet-vpns {extranet-vpn}?
| | +--rw extranet-vpn* [vpn-id]
| | +--rw vpn-id svc-id
| | +--rw local-sites-role? identityref
| +--rw ce-vlan-preservation boolean
| +--rw ce-vlan-cos-preservation boolean
| +--rw carrierscarrier? boolean {carrierscarrier}?
+--rw sites
+--rw site* [site-id]
+--rw site-id string
+--rw site-vpn-flavor? identityref
+--rw devices
| +--rw device* [device-id]
| +--rw device-id string
| +--rw location
| | -> ../../../locations/location/location-id
| +--rw management
| +--rw transport? identityref
| +--rw address? inet:ip-address
+--rw management
| +--rw type identityref
+--rw locations
| +--rw location* [location-id]
| +--rw location-id string
| +--rw address? string
| +--rw postal-code? string
| +--rw state? string
| +--rw city? string
| +--rw country-code? string
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
+--rw site-diversity {site-diversity}?
| +--rw groups
| +--rw group* [group-id]
| +--rw group-id string
+--rw vpn-policies
| +--rw vpn-policy* [vpn-policy-id]
| +--rw vpn-policy-id string
| +--rw entries* [id]
| +--rw id string
| +--rw filters
| | +--rw filter* [type]
| | +--rw type identityref
| | +--rw lan-tag* uint32 {lan-tag}?
| +--rw vpn* [vpn-id]
| +--rw vpn-id
| | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/
| | vpn-service/vpn-id
| +--rw site-role? identityref
+--rw service
| +--rw qos {qos}?
| | +--rw qos-classification-policy
| | | +--rw rule* [id]
| | | +--rw id string
| | | +--rw (match-type)?
| | | | +--:(match-flow)
| | | | | +--rw match-flow
| | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp
| | | | | +--rw dot1q? uint16
| | | | | +--rw pcp? uint8
| | | | | +--rw src-mac? yang:mac-address
| | | | | +--rw dst-mac? yang:mac-address
| | | | | +--rw color-type? identityref
| | | | | +--rw target-sites*
| | | | | | svc-id {target-sites}?
| | | | | +--rw any? empty
| | | | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id
| | | | +--:(match-application)
| | | | +--rw match-application? identityref
| | | +--rw target-class-id? string
| | +--rw qos-profile
| | +--rw (qos-profile)?
| | +--:(standard)
| | | +--rw profile?
| | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/
| | | valid-provider-identifiers/
| | | qos-profile-identifier
| | +--:(custom)
| | +--rw classes {qos-custom}?
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| | +--rw class* [class-id]
| | +--rw class-id string
| | +--rw direction? identityref
| | +--rw policing? identityref
| | +--rw byte-offset? uint16
| | +--rw frame-delay
| | | +--rw (flavor)?
| | | +--:(lowest)
| | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency? empty
| | | +--:(boundary)
| | | +--rw delay-bound? uint16
| | +--rw frame-jitter
| | | +--rw (flavor)?
| | | +--:(lowest)
| | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter? empty
| | | +--:(boundary)
| | | +--rw delay-bound? uint32
| | +--rw frame-loss
| | | +--rw rate? decimal64
| | +--rw bandwidth
| | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent decimal64
| | +--rw end-to-end? empty
| +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}?
| +--rw signaling-type? identityref
+--rw broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast {bum}?
| +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration
| +--rw multicast-gp-address-mapping* [id]
| | +--rw id uint16
| | +--rw vlan-id uint16
| | +--rw mac-gp-address yang:mac-address
| | +--rw port-lag-number? uint32
| +--rw bum-overall-rate? uint32
| +--rw bum-rate-per-type* [type]
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw rate? uint32
+--rw mac-loop-prevention {mac-loop-prevention}?
| +--rw protection-type? identityref
| +--rw frequency? uint32
| +--rw retry-timer? uint32
+--rw access-control-list
| +--rw mac* [mac-address]
| +--rw mac-address yang:mac-address
+--ro actual-site-start? yang:date-and-time
+--ro actual-site-stop? yang:date-and-time
+--rw bundling-type? identityref
+--rw default-ce-vlan-id uint32
+--rw site-network-accesses
+--rw site-network-access* [network-access-id]
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
+--rw network-access-id string
+--rw remote-carrier-name? string
+--rw type? identityref
+--rw (location-flavor)
| +--:(location)
| | +--rw location-reference?
| | -> ../../../locations/location/
| | location-id
| +--:(device)
| +--rw device-reference?
| -> ../../../devices/device/device-id
+--rw access-diversity {site-diversity}?
| +--rw groups
| | +--rw group* [group-id]
| | +--rw group-id string
| +--rw constraints
| +--rw constraint* [constraint-type]
| +--rw constraint-type identityref
| +--rw target
| +--rw (target-flavor)?
| +--:(id)
| | +--rw group* [group-id]
| | +--rw group-id string
| +--:(all-accesses)
| | +--rw all-other-accesses? empty
| +--:(all-groups)
| +--rw all-other-groups? empty
+--rw bearer
| +--rw requested-type {requested-type}?
| | +--rw type? string
| | +--rw strict? boolean
| +--rw always-on? boolean {always-on}?
| +--rw bearer-reference? string {bearer-reference}?
+--rw connection
| +--rw encapsulation-type? identityref
| +--rw eth-inf-type? identityref
| +--rw tagged-interface
| | +--rw type? identityref
| | +--rw dot1q-vlan-tagged {dot1q}?
| | | +--rw tg-type? identityref
| | | +--rw cvlan-id uint16
| | +--rw priority-tagged
| | | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | +--rw qinq {qinq}?
| | | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | | +--rw svlan-id uint16
| | | +--rw cvlan-id uint16
| | +--rw qinany {qinany}?
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| | | +--rw tag-type? identityref
| | | +--rw svlan-id uint16
| | +--rw vxlan {vxlan}?
| | +--rw vni-id uint32
| | +--rw peer-mode? identityref
| | +--rw peer-list* [peer-ip]
| | +--rw peer-ip inet:ip-address
| +--rw untagged-interface
| | +--rw speed? uint32
| | +--rw mode? neg-mode
| | +--rw phy-mtu? uint32
| | +--rw lldp? boolean
| | +--rw oam-802.3ah-link {oam-3ah}?
| | | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw uni-loop-prevention? boolean
| +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}?
| | +--rw lag-interface* [index]
| | +--rw index string
| | +--rw lacp {lacp}?
| | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw mode? neg-mode
| | +--rw speed? uint32
| | +--rw mini-link-num? uint32
| | +--rw system-priority? uint16
| | +--rw micro-bfd {micro-bfd}?
| | | +--rw enabled? enumeration
| | | +--rw interval? uint32
| | | +--rw hold-timer? uint32
| | +--rw bfd {bfd}?
| | | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | | +--rw (holdtime)?
| | | +--:(profile)
| | | | +--rw profile-name?
| | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/
| | | | vpn-profiles/
| | | | valid-provider-identifiers/
| | | | bfd-profile-identifier
| | | +--:(fixed)
| | | +--rw fixed-value? uint32
| | +--rw member-links
| | | +--rw member-link* [name]
| | | +--rw name string
| | | +--rw speed? uint32
| | | +--rw mode? neg-mode
| | | +--rw link-mtu? uint32
| | | +--rw oam-802.3ah-link {oam-3ah}?
| | | +--rw enabled? boolean
| | +--rw flow-control? boolean
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| | +--rw lldp? boolean
| +--rw cvlan-id-to-svc-map* [svc-id]
| | +--rw svc-id
| | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/
| | | vpn-id
| | +--rw cvlan-id* [vid]
| | +--rw vid uint16
| +--rw l2cp-control {l2cp-control}?
| | +--rw stp-rstp-mstp? control-mode
| | +--rw pause? control-mode
| | +--rw lacp-lamp? control-mode
| | +--rw link-oam? control-mode
| | +--rw esmc? control-mode
| | +--rw l2cp-802.1x? control-mode
| | +--rw e-lmi? control-mode
| | +--rw lldp? boolean
| | +--rw ptp-peer-delay? control-mode
| | +--rw garp-mrp? control-mode
| +--rw oam {oam}
| +--rw md-name string
| +--rw md-level uint16
| +--rw cfm-802.1-ag* [maid]
| | +--rw maid string
| | +--rw mep-id? uint32
| | +--rw mep-level? uint32
| | +--rw mep-up-down? enumeration
| | +--rw remote-mep-id? uint32
| | +--rw cos-for-cfm-pdus? uint32
| | +--rw ccm-interval? uint32
| | +--rw ccm-holdtime? uint32
| | +--rw alarm-priority-defect? identityref
| | +--rw ccm-p-bits-pri? ccm-priority-type
| +--rw y-1731* [maid]
| +--rw maid string
| +--rw mep-id? uint32
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw remote-mep-id? uint32
| +--rw message-period? uint32
| +--rw measurement-interval? uint32
| +--rw cos? uint32
| +--rw loss-measurement? boolean
| +--rw synthetic-loss-measurement? boolean
| +--rw delay-measurement
| | +--rw enable-dm? boolean
| | +--rw two-way? boolean
| +--rw frame-size? uint32
| +--rw session-type? enumeration
+--rw availability
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| +--rw access-priority? uint32
| +--rw (redundancy-mode)?
| +--:(single-active)
| | +--rw single-active? empty
| +--:(all-active)
| +--rw all-active? empty
+--rw vpn-attachment
| +--rw (attachment-flavor)
| +--:(vpn-id)
| | +--rw vpn-id?
| | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/
| | | vpn-service/vpn-id
| | +--rw site-role? identityref
| +--:(vpn-policy-id)
| +--rw vpn-policy-id?
| -> ../../../../vpn-policies/
| vpn-policy/vpn-policy-id
+--rw service
| +--rw svc-bandwidth {input-bw}?
| | +--rw bandwidth* [direction type]
| | +--rw direction identityref
| | +--rw type identityref
| | +--rw cos-id? uint8
| | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id
| | +--rw cir uint64
| | +--rw cbs uint64
| | +--rw eir? uint64
| | +--rw ebs? uint64
| | +--rw pir? uint64
| | +--rw pbs? uint64
| +--rw svc-mtu uint16
| +--rw qos {qos}?
| | +--rw qos-classification-policy
| | | +--rw rule* [id]
| | | +--rw id string
| | | +--rw (match-type)?
| | | | +--:(match-flow)
| | | | | +--rw match-flow
| | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp
| | | | | +--rw dot1q? uint16
| | | | | +--rw pcp? uint8
| | | | | +--rw src-mac? yang:mac-address
| | | | | +--rw dst-mac? yang:mac-address
| | | | | +--rw color-type? identityref
| | | | | +--rw target-sites*
| | | | | | svc-id {target-sites}?
| | | | | +--rw any? empty
| | | | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| | | | +--:(match-application)
| | | | +--rw match-application? identityref
| | | +--rw target-class-id? string
| | +--rw qos-profile
| | +--rw (qos-profile)?
| | +--:(standard)
| | | +--rw profile?
| | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/
| | | valid-provider-identifiers/
| | | qos-profile-identifier
| | +--:(custom)
| | +--rw classes {qos-custom}?
| | +--rw class* [class-id]
| | +--rw class-id string
| | +--rw direction? identityref
| | +--rw policing? identityref
| | +--rw byte-offset? uint16
| | +--rw frame-delay
| | | +--rw (flavor)?
| | | +--:(lowest)
| | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency?
| | | | empty
| | | +--:(boundary)
| | | +--rw delay-bound? uint16
| | +--rw frame-jitter
| | | +--rw (flavor)?
| | | +--:(lowest)
| | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter?
| | | | empty
| | | +--:(boundary)
| | | +--rw delay-bound? uint32
| | +--rw frame-loss
| | | +--rw rate? decimal64
| | +--rw bandwidth
| | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent
| | | decimal64
| | +--rw end-to-end? empty
| +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}?
| +--rw signaling-type? identityref
+--rw broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast {bum}?
| +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration
| +--rw multicast-gp-address-mapping* [id]
| | +--rw id uint16
| | +--rw vlan-id uint16
| | +--rw mac-gp-address yang:mac-address
| | +--rw port-lag-number? uint32
| +--rw bum-overall-rate? uint32
| +--rw bum-rate-per-type* [type]
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw rate? uint32
+--rw mac-loop-prevention {mac-loop-prevention}?
| +--rw protection-type? identityref
| +--rw frequency? uint32
| +--rw retry-timer? uint32
+--rw access-control-list
| +--rw mac* [mac-address]
| +--rw mac-address yang:mac-address
+--rw mac-addr-limit
+--rw limit-number? uint16
+--rw time-interval? uint32
+--rw action? identityref
Figure 4: Overall Structure of the YANG Module
5.1. Features and Augmentation
The model defined in this document implements many features that
allow implementations to be modular. As an example, the Layer 2
protocol parameters (Section 5.3.2.2) proposed to the customer may
also be enabled through features. This model also defines some
features for options that are more advanced, such as support for
extranet VPNs (Section 5.2.4), site diversity (Section 5.3), and QoS
(Section 5.10.2).
In addition, as for any YANG data model, this service model can be
augmented to implement new behaviors or specific features. For
example, this model defines VXLAN [RFC7348] for Ethernet packet
encapsulation; if VXLAN encapsulation does not fulfill all
requirements for describing the service, new options can be added
through augmentation.
5.2. VPN Service Overview
The vpn-service list item contains generic information about the VPN
service. The vpn-id in the vpn-service list refers to an internal
reference for this VPN service. This identifier is purely internal
to the organization responsible for the VPN service.
The vpn-service list is composed of the following characteristics:
Customer information (customer-name): Used to identify the customer.
VPN service type (vpn-svc-type): Used to indicate the VPN service
type. The identifier is an identity allowing any encoding for the
local administration of the VPN service. Note that another
identity can be an extension of the base identity.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Cloud access (cloud-access): All sites in the L2VPN SHOULD be
permitted to access the cloud by default. The "cloud-access"
container provides parameters for authorization rules. A cloud
identifier is used to reference the target service. This
identifier is local to each administration.
Service topology (svc-topo): Used to identify the type of VPN
service topology that is required.
Frame delivery service (frame-delivery): Defines the frame delivery
support required for the L2VPN, e.g., multicast delivery, unicast
delivery, or broadcast delivery.
Extranet VPN (extranet-vpns): Indicates that a particular VPN needs
access to resources located in another VPN.
5.2.1. VPN Service Type
The "vpn-svc-type" parameter defines the service type for provider-
provisioned L2VPNs. The current version of the model supports six
flavors:
o Point-to-point VPWSs connecting two customer sites.
o Point-to-point or point-to-multipoint VPWSs connecting a set of
customer sites [RFC8214].
o Multipoint VPLSs connecting a set of customer sites.
o Multipoint VPLSs connecting one or more root sites and a set of
leaf sites but preventing inter-leaf-site communication.
o EVPN services [RFC7432] connecting a set of customer sites.
o EVPN VPWSs between two customer sites or a set of customer sites
as specified in [RFC8214].
Other L2VPN service types could be included by augmentation. Note
that an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service or an Ethernet Virtual
Private Line (EVPL) service is an Ethernet Line (E-Line) service
[MEF-6]or a point-to-point Ethernet Virtual Circuit (EVC) service,
while an Ethernet Private LAN (EP-LAN) service or an Ethernet Virtual
Private LAN (EVP-LAN) service is an Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) service
[MEF-6] or a multipoint-to-multipoint EVC service.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.2.2. VPN Service Topologies
The types of VPN service topologies discussed below can be used for
configuration if needed. The module described in this document
currently supports any-to-any, Hub-and-Spoke (where Hubs can exchange
traffic), and Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint (where Hubs cannot exchange
traffic). New topologies could be added by augmentation. By
default, the any-to-any VPN service topology is used.
5.2.2.1. Route Target Allocation
A Layer 2 PE-based VPN (such as a VPLS-based VPN or an EVPN that uses
BGP as its signaling protocol) can be built using Route Targets (RTs)
as described in [RFC4364] and [RFC7432]. The management system is
expected to automatically allocate a set of RTs upon receiving a VPN
service creation request. How the management system allocates RTs is
out of scope for this document, but multiple ways could be envisaged,
as described in Section 6.2.1.1 of [RFC8299].
5.2.2.2. Any-to-Any
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| VPN1_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ VPN1_Site 2 |
| |
| VPN1_Site 3 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ VPN1_Site 4 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Any-to-Any VPN Service Topology
In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all VPN sites can communicate
with each other without any restrictions. The management system that
receives an any-to-any L2VPN service request through this model is
expected to assign and then configure the MAC-VRF and RTs on the
appropriate PEs. In the any-to-any case, a single RT is generally
required, and every MAC-VRF imports and exports this RT.
5.2.2.3. Hub-and-Spoke
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Hub_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site 1 |
| +------------------------------------+
| |
| +------------------------------------+
| Hub_Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site 2 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Hub-and-Spoke VPN Service Topology
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology,
o all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites (i.e., Spoke
sites cannot communicate with each other).
o Hubs can communicate with each other.
The management system that receives a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN service
request through this model is expected to assign and then configure
the MAC-VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the Hub-and-Spoke
case, two RTs are generally required (one RT for Hub routes and one
RT for Spoke routes). A Hub MAC-VRF that connects Hub sites will
export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes
through the Spoke RT. It will also import the Hub RT to allow
Hub-to-Hub communication. A Spoke MAC-VRF that connects Spoke sites
will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes
through the Hub RT.
5.2.2.4. Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Hub_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site 1 |
+--------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| |
+--------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| Hub_Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site 2 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN Service Topology
In the Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN service topology,
o all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites (i.e., Spoke
sites cannot communicate with each other).
o Hubs cannot communicate with each other.
The management system that receives a Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint L2VPN
service request through this model is expected to assign and then
configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the
Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint case, at least two RTs are required for Hubs
and Spokes, respectively (at least one RT for Hub routes and at least
one RT for Spoke routes). A Hub VRF that connects Hub sites will
export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes
through the Spoke RT. A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites will
export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes
through the Hub RT.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The management system MUST take into account constraints on
Hub-and-Spoke connections, as in the previous case.
Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint can also be seen as multiple Hub-and-Spoke
VPNs (one per Hub) that share a common set of Spoke sites.
5.2.3. Cloud Access
This model provides cloud access configuration through the
cloud-access container. The usage of cloud-access is targeted for
public cloud access and Internet access. The cloud-access container
provides parameters for authorization rules. Note that this model
considers that public cloud and public Internet access share some
commonality; therefore, it does not distinguish Internet access from
cloud access. If needed, a different label for Internet access could
be added by augmentation.
Private cloud access may be addressed through the site container as
described in Section 5.3, with usage consistent with sites of
type "NNI".
A cloud identifier is used to reference the target service. This
identifier is local to each administration.
By default, all sites in the L2VPN SHOULD be permitted to access the
cloud or the Internet. If restrictions are required, a user MAY
configure some limitations for some sites or nodes by using policies,
i.e., the "permit-site" or "deny-site" leaf-list. The permit-site
leaf-list defines the list of sites authorized for cloud access. The
deny-site leaf-list defines the list of sites denied for cloud
access. The model supports both "deny-any-except" and
"permit-any-except" authorization.
How the restrictions will be configured on network elements is out of
scope for this document.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
L2VPN
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++
+ Site 3 + --- + Cloud 1 +
+ Site 1 + ++++++++++++
+ +
+ Site 2 + --- ++++++++++++
+ + + Internet +
+ Site 4 + ++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
+++++++++++
+ Cloud 2 +
+++++++++++
Figure 8: Example of Cloud Access Configuration
As shown in Figure 8, we configure the global VPN to access the
Internet by creating a cloud-access container pointing to the cloud
identifier for the Internet service. (This is illustrated in the XML
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126] below.) No authorized sites will be
configured, as all sites are required to be able to access the
Internet.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
<cloud-accesses>
<cloud-access>
<cloud-identifier>INTERNET</cloud-identifier>
</cloud-access>
</cloud-accesses>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
</l2vpn-svc>
If Site 1 and Site 2 require access to Cloud 1, a new cloud-access
container pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 1 will be
created. The permit-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference
to Site 1 and Site 2.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
<cloud-accesses>
<cloud-access>
<cloud-identifier>Cloud1</cloud-identifier>
<permit-site>site1</permit-site>
<permit-site>site2</permit-site>
</cloud-access>
</cloud-accesses>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
</l2vpn-svc>
If all sites except Site 1 require access to Cloud 2, a new
cloud-access container pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 2
will be created. The deny-site leaf-list will be filled with a
reference to Site 1.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
<cloud-accesses>
<cloud-access>
<cloud-identifier>Cloud2</cloud-identifier>
<deny-site>site1</deny-site>
</cloud-access>
</cloud-accesses>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
</l2vpn-svc>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.2.4. Extranet VPNs
There are some cases where a particular VPN needs access to resources
(servers, hosts, etc.) that are external. Those resources may be
located in another VPN.
+-----------+ +-----------+
/ \ / \
Site A -- | VPN A | --- | VPN B | --- Site B
\ / \ / (Shared
+-----------+ +-----------+ resources)
Figure 9: Example of Shared VPN Resources
As illustrated in Figure 9, VPN B has some resources on Site B that
need to be made available to some customers/partners. Specifically,
VPN A must be able to access those VPN B resources.
Such a VPN connection scenario can be achieved via a VPN policy as
defined in Section 5.5.2.2. But there are some simple cases where a
particular VPN (VPN A) needs access to all resources in another VPN
(VPN B). The model provides an easy way to set up this connection
using the "extranet-vpns" container.
The extranet-vpns container defines a list of VPNs a particular VPN
wants to access. The extranet-vpns container is used on customer
VPNs accessing extranet resources in another VPN. In Figure 9, in
order to provide VPN A with access to VPN B, the extranet-vpns
container needs to be configured under VPN A with an entry
corresponding to VPN B. There is no service configuration
requirement on VPN B.
Readers should note that even if there is no configuration
requirement on VPN B, if VPN A lists VPN B as an extranet, all sites
in VPN B will gain access to all sites in VPN A.
The "site-role" leaf defines the role of the local VPN sites in the
target extranet VPN service topology. Site roles are defined in
Section 5.4.
In the example below, VPN A accesses VPN B resources through an
extranet connection. A Spoke role is required for VPN A sites, as
sites from VPN A must not be able to communicate with each other
through the extranet VPN connection.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
<svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
<svc-topo>any-to-any</svc-topo>
<extranet-vpns>
<extranet-vpn>
<vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
<local-sites-role>spoke-role</local-sites-role>
</extranet-vpn>
</extranet-vpns>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
</l2vpn-svc>
This model does not define how the extranet configuration will be
achieved within the network.
Any VPN interconnection scenario that is more complex (e.g., only
certain parts of sites on VPN A accessing only certain parts of sites
on VPN B) needs to be achieved using a VPN attachment as defined in
Section 5.5.2 and, in particular, a VPN policy as defined in
Section 5.5.2.2.
5.2.5. Frame Delivery Service
If a BUM (Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast) frame delivery
service is supported for an L2VPN, some global frame delivery
parameters are required as input for the service request. When a CE
sends BUM packets, replication occurs at the ingress PE and three
frame types need to be supported.
Users of this model will need to provide the flavors of trees that
will be used by customers within the L2VPN (customer-tree-flavors).
The model defined in this document supports bidirectional, shared,
and source-based trees (and can be augmented to contain other tree
types). Multiple flavors of trees can be supported simultaneously.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Operator network
______________
/ \
| |
| |
Recv -- Site 2 ------- PE2 |
| PE1 --- Site 1 --- Source 1
| | \
| | -- Source 2
| |
| |
Recv -- Site 3 ------- PE3 |
| |
| |
Recv -- Site 4 ------- PE4 |
/ | |
Recv -- Site 5 ------- | |
| |
| |
\______________/
Figure 10: BUM Frame Delivery Service Example
Multicast-group-to-port mappings can be created using the
"rp-group-mappings" leaf. Two group-to-port mapping methods are
supported:
o Static configuration of multicast Ethernet addresses and
ports/interfaces.
o A multicast control protocol based on Layer 2 technology that
signals mappings of multicast addresses to ports/interfaces, such
as the Generic Attribute Registration Protocol (GARP) / GARP
Multicast Registration Protocol (GARP/GMRP) [IEEE-802-1D].
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.3. Site Overview
A site represents a connection of a customer office to one or more
VPN services. Each site is associated with one or more locations.
+-------------+
/ \
+-----| VPN1 |
+------------------+ | \ /
| | | +-------------+
| New York Office |------ (site) -----+
| | | +-------------+
+------------------+ | / \
+-----| VPN2 |
\ /
+-------------+
Figure 11: Example: Customer Office and Two VPN Services
The provider uses the site container to store information regarding
detailed implementation arrangements made with either the customer or
peer operators at each interconnect location.
We restrict the L2SM to exterior interfaces (i.e., UNIs and NNIs)
only, so all internal interfaces and the underlying topology are
outside the scope of the L2SM.
Typically, the following characteristics of a site interface handoff
need to be documented as part of the service design:
Unique identifier (site-id): An arbitrary string to uniquely
identify the site within the overall network infrastructure. The
format of "site-id" is determined by the local administrator of
the VPN service.
Device (device): The customer can request one or more customer
premises equipment entities from the SP for a particular site.
Management (management): Defines the model of management for the
site -- for example, type, management-transport, address. This
parameter determines the boundary between the SP and the customer,
i.e., who has ownership of the CE device.
Location (location): The site location information. Allows easy
retrieval of data about the nearest available resources.
Site diversity (site-diversity): Presents some parameters to support
site diversity.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Site network accesses (site-network-accesses): Defines the list of
ports to the site and their properties -- in particular, bearer,
connection, and service parameters.
A site-network-access represents an Ethernet logical connection to a
site. A site may have multiple site-network-accesses.
+------------------+ Site
| |-------------------------------------
| |****** (site-network-access#1) ******
| New York Office |
| |****** (site-network-access#2) ******
| |-------------------------------------
+------------------+
Figure 12: Two Site-Network-Accesses for a Site
Multiple site-network-accesses are used, for instance, in the case of
multihoming. Some other meshing cases may also include multiple
site-network-accesses.
The site configuration is viewed as a global entity; we assume that
it is mostly the management system's role to split the parameters
between the different elements within the network. For example, in
the case of the site-network-access configuration, the management
system needs to split the parameters between the PE configuration and
the CE configuration.
The site may support single-homed access or multihoming. In the case
of multihoming, the site can support multiple site-network-accesses.
Under each site-network-access, "vpn-attachment" is defined;
vpn-attachment will describe the association between a given
site-network-access and a given site, as well as the VPN to which
that site will connect.
5.3.1. Devices and Locations
The information in the "location" sub-container under a site
container and in the "devices" container allows easy retrieval of
data about the nearest available facilities and can be used for
access topology planning. It may also be used by other network
orchestration components to choose the targeted upstream PE and
downstream CE. Location is expressed in terms of postal information.
More detailed information or other location information can be added
by augmentation.
A site may be composed of multiple locations. All the locations will
need to be configured as part of the "locations" container and list.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
A typical example of a multi-location site is a headquarters office
in a city, where the office is composed of multiple buildings. Those
buildings may be located in different parts of the city and may be
linked by intra-city fibers (a customer metropolitan area network).
This model does not represent connectivity between multiple locations
of a site, because that connectivity is controlled by the customer.
In such a case, when connecting to a VPN service, the customer may
ask for multihoming based on its distributed locations.
New York Site
+------------------+ Site
| +--------------+ |-------------------------------------
| | Manhattan | |****** (site-network-access#1) ******
| +--------------+ |
| +--------------+ |
| | Brooklyn | |****** (site-network-access#2) ******
| +--------------+ |-------------------------------------
+------------------+
Figure 13: Two Site-Network-Accesses, Two Sites
A customer may also request the use of some premises equipment
entities (CEs) from the SP via the devices container. Requesting a
CE implies a provider-managed or co-managed model. A particular
device must be requested for a particular already-configured
location. This would help the SP send the device to the appropriate
postal address. In a multi-location site, a customer may, for
example, request a CE for each location on the site where multihoming
must be implemented. In Figure 13, one device may be requested for
the Manhattan location and one other for the Brooklyn location.
By using devices and locations, the user can influence the
multihoming scenario they want to implement: single CE, dual CE, etc.
5.3.2. Site Network Accesses
The L2SM includes a set of essential physical interface properties
and Ethernet-layer characteristics in the "site-network-accesses"
container. Some of these are critical implementation arrangements
that require consent from both the customer and the provider.
As mentioned earlier, a site may be multihomed. Each logical network
access for a site is defined in the site-network-accesses container.
The site-network-access parameter defines how the site is connected
on the network and is split into three main classes of parameters:
o bearer: defines requirements of the attachment (below Layer 2).
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
o connection: defines Layer 2 protocol parameters of the attachment.
o availability: defines the site's availability policy. The
availability parameters are defined in Section 5.8.
The site-network-access has a specific type
(site-network-access type). This document defines two types:
o point-to-point: describes a point-to-point connection between the
SP and the customer.
o multipoint: describes a multipoint connection between the SP and
the customer.
This site-network-access type may have an impact on the parameters
offered to the customer, e.g., an SP might not offer MAC loop
protection for multipoint accesses. It is up to the provider to
decide what parameters are supported for point-to-point and/or
multipoint accesses. Multipoint accesses are out of scope for this
document; some containers defined in the model may require extensions
in order to work properly for multipoint accesses.
5.3.2.1. Bearer
The "bearer" container defines the requirements for the site
attachment (below Layer 2) to the provider network.
The bearer parameters will help to determine the access media to
be used.
5.3.2.2. Connection
The "connection" container defines the Layer 2 protocol parameters of
the attachment (e.g., vlan-id or circuit-id) and provides
connectivity between customer Ethernet switches. Depending on the
management mode, it refers to PE-CE-LAN segment addressing or to
CE-to-customer-LAN segment addressing. In any case, it describes the
responsibility boundary between the provider and the customer. For a
customer-managed site, it refers to the PE-CE-LAN segment connection.
For a provider-managed site, it refers to the CE-to-customer-LAN
segment connection.
The "encapsulation-type" parameter allows the user to select between
Ethernet encapsulation (port-based) or Ethernet VLAN encapsulation
(VLAN-based). All of the allowed Ethernet interface types of service
frames can be listed under "ether-inf-type", e.g., untagged
interface, tagged interface, LAG interface.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Corresponding to "ether-inf-type", the connection container also
presents three sets of link attributes: untagged interface, tagged
interface, and optional LAG interface attributes. These parameters
are essential for the connection to be properly established between
the CE devices and the PE devices. The connection container also
defines a Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) attribute that allows
control-plane protocol interaction between the CE devices and the PE
device.
5.3.2.2.1. Untagged Interface
For each untagged interface (untagged-interface), there are basic
configuration parameters like interface index and speed, interface
MTU, auto-negotiation and flow-control settings, etc. In addition,
and based on mutual agreement, the customer and provider may decide
to enable advanced features, such as LLDP, IEEE 802.3ah
[IEEE-802-3ah], or MAC loop detection/prevention at a UNI. If loop
avoidance is required, the attribute "uni-loop-prevention" must be
set to "true".
5.3.2.2.2. Tagged Interface
If the tagged service is enabled on a logical unit on the connection
at the interface, "encapsulation-type" should be specified as the
Ethernet VLAN encapsulation (if VLAN-based) or VXLAN encapsulation,
and "eth-inf-type" should be set to indicate a tagged interface.
In addition, "tagged-interface-type" should be specified in the
"tagged-interface" container to determine how tagging needs to be
done. The current model defines five ways to perform VLAN tagging:
o priority-tagged: SPs encapsulate and tag packets between the CE
and the PE with the frame priority level.
o dot1q-vlan-tagged: SPs encapsulate packets between the CE and the
PE with one or a set of customer VLAN (CVLAN) IDs.
o qinq: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with
multiple CVLAN IDs and a single VLAN tag with a single SP VLAN
(SVLAN).
o qinany: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with
unknown CVLANs and a single VLAN tag with a single SVLAN.
o vxlan: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with a
VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) and a peer list.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The overall S-tag for the Ethernet circuit and (if applicable)
C-tag-to-SVC mapping (where "SVC" stands for "Switched Virtual
Circuit") have been placed in the "service" container. For the qinq
and qinany options, the S-tag under "qinq" and "qinany" should match
the S-tag in the service container in most cases; however, VLAN
translation is required for the S-tag in certain deployments at the
external-facing interface or upstream PEs to "normalize" the outer
VLAN tag to the service S-tag into the network and translate back to
the site's S-tag in the opposite direction. One example of this is
with a Layer 2 aggregation switch along the path: the S-tag for the
SVC has been previously assigned to another service and thus cannot
be used by this AC.
5.3.2.2.3. LAG Interface
Sometimes, the customer may require multiple physical links bundled
together to form a single, logical, point-to-point LAG connection to
the SP. Typically, the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) is
used to dynamically manage adding or deleting member links of the
aggregate group. In general, a LAG allows for increased service
bandwidth beyond the speed of a single physical link while providing
graceful degradation as failure occurs, thus increasing availability.
In the L2SM, there is a set of attributes under "lag-interface"
related to link aggregation functionality. The customer and provider
first need to decide on whether LACP PDUs will be exchanged between
the edge devices by specifying the "LACP-state" as "on" or "off". If
LACP is to be enabled, then both parties need to further specify
(1) whether LACP will be running in active or passive mode and
(2) the time interval and priority level of the LACP PDU. The
customer and provider can also determine the minimum aggregate
bandwidth for a LAG to be considered as a valid path by specifying
the optional "mini-link-num" attribute. To enable fast detection of
faulty links, micro-BFD [RFC7130] ("BFD" stands for "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection") runs independent UDP sessions to monitor the
status of each member link. The customer and provider should agree
on the BFD hello interval and hold time.
Each member link will be listed under the LAG interface with basic
physical link properties. Certain attributes, such as flow control,
encapsulation type, allowed ingress Ethertype, and LLDP settings, are
at the LAG level.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.3.2.2.4. CVLAN-ID-to-SVC Mapping
When more than one service is multiplexed onto the same interface,
ingress service frames are conditionally transmitted through one of
the L2VPN services based upon a pre-arranged customer-VLAN-to-SVC
mapping. Multiple CVLANs can be bundled across the same SVC. The
bundling type will determine how a group of CVLANs is bundled into
one VPN service (i.e., VLAN-bundling).
When applicable, "cvlan-id-to-svc-map" contains the list of CVLANs
that are mapped to the same service. In most cases, this will be the
VLAN access-list for the inner 802.1Q tag [IEEE-802-1Q] (the C-tag).
A VPN service can be set to preserve the CE-VLAN ID and CE-VLAN CoS
from the source site to the destination site. This is required when
the customer wants to use the VLAN header information between its two
sites. CE-VLAN ID preservation and CE-VLAN CoS preservation are
applied on each site-network-access within sites. "Preservation"
means that the value of the CE-VLAN ID and/or CE-VLAN CoS at the
source site must be equal to the value at a destination site
belonging to the same L2VPN service.
If all-to-one bundling is enabled (i.e., the bundling type is set to
"all-to-one bundling"), then preservation applies to all ingress
service frames. If all-to-one bundling is disabled, then
preservation applies to tagged ingress service frames having the
CE-VLAN ID.
5.3.2.2.5. L2CP Control Support
The customer and the SP should arrange in advance whether or not to
allow control-plane protocol interaction between the CE devices and
the PE device. To provide seamless operation with multicast data
transport, the transparent operation of Ethernet control protocols
(e.g., the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) [IEEE-802-1D]) can be
employed by customers.
To support efficient dynamic transport, Ethernet multicast control
frames (e.g., GARP/GMRP [IEEE-802-1D]) can be used between the CE and
the PE. However, solutions MUST NOT assume that all CEs are always
running such protocols (typically in the case where a CE is a router
and is not aware of Layer 2 details).
The destination MAC addresses of these L2CP PDUs fall within two
reserved blocks specified by the IEEE 802.1 Working Group. Packets
with destination MAC addresses in these multicast ranges have special
forwarding rules.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
o Bridge block of protocols: 01-80-C2-00-00-00 through
01-80-C2-00-00-0F
o MRP block of protocols: 01-80-C2-00-00-20 through
01-80-C2-00-00-2F
Layer 2 protocol tunneling allows SPs to pass subscriber Layer 2
control PDUs across the network without being interpreted and
processed by intermediate network devices. These L2CP PDUs are
transparently encapsulated across the MPLS-enabled core network in
QinQ fashion.
The "L2CP-control" container contains the list of commonly used L2CP
protocols and parameters. The SP can specify discard-mode,
peer-mode, or tunnel-mode actions for each individual protocol.
5.3.2.2.6. Ethernet Service OAM
The advent of Ethernet as a wide-area network technology brings the
additional requirements of end-to-end service monitoring and fault
management in the SP network, particularly in the area of service
availability and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR). Ethernet Service OAM in
the L2SM refers to the combined protocol suites of IEEE 802.1ag
[IEEE-802-1ag] and ITU-T Y.1731 [ITU-T-Y-1731].
Generally speaking, Ethernet Service OAM enables SPs to perform
service continuity checks, fault isolation, and packet delay/jitter
measurement at per-customer and per-site-network-access granularity.
The information collected from Ethernet Service OAM data sets is
complementary to other higher-layer IP/MPLS OSS tools to ensure that
the required SLAs can be met.
The 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) functional model is
structured with hierarchical Maintenance Domains (MDs), each assigned
with a unique maintenance level. Higher-level MDs can be nested over
lower-level MDs. However, the MDs cannot intersect. The scope of
each MD can be solely within a customer network or solely within the
SP network. An MD can interact between CEs and PEs (customer-to-
provider) or between PEs (provider-to-provider), or it can tunnel
over another SP network.
Depending on the use-case scenario, one or more Maintenance Entity
Group End Points (MEPs) can be placed on the external-facing
interface, sending CFM PDUs towards the core network ("Up MEP") or
downstream link ("Down MEP").
The "cfm-802.1-ag" sub-container under "site-network-access" presents
the CFM Maintenance Association (MA), i.e., Down MEP for the UNI MA.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
For each MA, the user can define the Maintenance Association
Identifier (MAID), MEP level, MEP direction, Remote MEP ID, CoS level
of the CFM PDUs, Continuity Check Message (CCM) interval and hold
time, alarm-priority defect (i.e., the lowest-priority defect that is
allowed to generate a fault alarm), CCM priority type, etc.
ITU-T Y.1731 Performance Monitoring (PM) provides essential network
telemetry information that includes the measurement of Ethernet
service frame delay, frame delay variation, frame loss, and frame
throughput. The delay/jitter measurement can be either one-way or
two-way. Typically, a Y.1731 PM probe sends a small amount of
synthetic frames along with service frames to measure the SLA
parameters.
The "y-1731" sub-container under "site-network-access" contains a set
of parameters to define the PM probe information, including MAID,
local and Remote MEP ID, PM PDU type, message period and measurement
interval, CoS level of the PM PDUs, loss measurement by synthetic or
service frame options, one-way or two-way delay measurement, PM frame
size, and session type.
5.4. Site Roles
A VPN has a particular service topology, as described in
Section 5.2.2. As a consequence, each site belonging to a VPN is
assigned a particular role in this topology. The site-role leaf
defines the role of the site in a particular VPN topology.
In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all sites MUST have the same
role, which will be "any-to-any-role".
In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub-and-Spoke-
Disjoint VPN service topology, sites MUST have a Hub role or a
Spoke role.
5.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs
5.5.1. Site VPN Flavors
A site may be part of one or more VPNs. The "site-vpn-flavor"
defines the way that the VPN multiplexing is done. There are four
possible types of external-facing connections associated with an EVPN
service and a site. Therefore, the model supports four flavors:
o site-vpn-flavor-single: The site belongs to only one VPN.
o site-vpn-flavor-multi: The site belongs to multiple VPNs, and all
the logical accesses of the sites belong to the same set of VPNs.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
o site-vpn-flavor-nni: The site represents an NNI where two
administrative domains belonging to the same or different
providers interconnect.
o site-vpn-flavor-e2e: The site represents an end-to-end
multi-segment connection.
5.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single
Figure 14 depicts a single VPN attachment. The site connects to only
one VPN.
+--------+
+------------------+ Site / \
| |-----------------------------| |
| |***(site-network-access#1)***| VPN1 |
| New York Office | | |
| |***(site-network-access#2)***| |
| |-----------------------------| |
+------------------+ \ /
+--------+
Figure 14: Single VPN Attachment
5.5.1.2. Multi-VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi
Figure 15 shows a site connected to multiple VPNs.
+---------+
+---/----+ \
+------------------+ Site / | \ |
| |--------------------------------- | |VPN B|
| |***(site-network-access#1)******* | | |
| New York Office | | | | |
| |***(site-network-access#2)******* \ | /
| |-----------------------------| VPN A+-----|---+
+------------------+ \ /
+--------+
Figure 15: Multi-VPN Attachment
In Figure 15, the New York office is multihomed. Both logical
accesses are using the same VPN attachment rules, and both are
connected to VPN A and to VPN B.
Reaching VPN A or VPN B from the New York office will be done via MAC
destination-based forwarding. Having the same destination reachable
from the two VPNs may cause routing problems. The customer
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
administration's role in this case would be to ensure the appropriate
mapping of its MAC addresses in each VPN. See Sections 5.5.2 and
5.10.2 for more details. See also Section 5.10.3 for details
regarding support for BUM.
5.5.1.3. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni
A Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) scenario may be modeled using
the sites container. It is helpful for the SP to indicate that the
requested VPN connection is not a regular site but rather is an NNI,
as specific default device configuration parameters may be applied in
the case of NNIs (e.g., Access Control Lists (ACLs), routing
policies).
SP A SP B
------------------- -------------------
/ \ / \
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + (MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + (MAC-VRF2)-(VPN2)-(MAC-VRF2)+ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + (MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + (MAC-VRF2)-(VPN2)-(MAC-VRF2)+ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
Figure 16: Option A NNI Scenario
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Figure 16 illustrates an option A NNI scenario that can be modeled
using the sites container. In order to connect its customer VPNs
(VPN1 and VPN2) in SP B, SP A may request the creation of some
site-network-accesses to SP B. The site-vpn-flavor-nni type will
be used to inform SP B that this is an NNI and not a regular
customer site.
5.5.1.4. E2E: site-vpn-flavor-e2e
An end-to-end (E2E) multi-segment VPN connection to be constructed
out of several connectivity segments may be modeled. It is helpful
for the SP to indicate that the requested VPN connection is not a
regular site but rather is an end-to-end VPN connection, as specific
default device configuration parameters may be applied in the case of
site-vpn-flavor-e2e (e.g., QoS configuration). In order to establish
a connection between Site 1 in SP A and Site 2 in SP B spanning
multiple domains, SP A may request the creation of end-to-end
connectivity to SP B. The site-vpn-flavor-e2e type will be used to
indicate that this is an end-to-end connectivity setup and not a
regular customer site.
5.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN
Due to the multiple site-vpn flavors, the attachment of a site to an
L2VPN is done at the site-network-access (logical access) level
through the "vpn-attachment" container. The vpn-attachment container
is mandatory. The model provides two ways to attach a site to a VPN:
o By referencing the target VPN directly.
o By referencing a VPN policy for attachments that are more complex.
These options allow the user to choose the flavor that provides the
best fit.
5.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN
Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular
logical access to a VPN. This is the best way in the case of a
single VPN attachment. When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role
setting must be added to express the role of the site in the target
VPN service topology.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
<sites>
<site>
<site-id>SITE1</site-id>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>L1</location-id>
</location>
</locations>
<management>
<type>customer-managed</type>
</management>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
<svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA2</network-access-id>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
<svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
</site>
</sites>
</l2vpn-svc>
The example above describes a multi-VPN case where a site (SITE 1)
has two logical accesses (LA1 and LA2), attached to both VPNA and
VPNB.
5.5.2.2. VPN Policy
The "vpn-policy" list helps express a multi-VPN scenario where a
logical access belongs to multiple VPNs.
As a site can belong to multiple VPNs, the vpn-policy list may be
composed of multiple entries. A filter can be applied to specify
that only some LANs at the site should be part of a particular VPN.
A site can be composed of multiple LAN segments, and each LAN segment
can be connected to a different VPN. Each time a site (or LAN) is
attached to a VPN, the user must precisely describe its role
(site-role) within the target VPN service topology.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Site 1 ------ PE7 |
+-------------------------+ [VPN2] |
| |
+-------------------------+ |
| Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Site 3 |
+-----------------------------------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| Site 4 ------ PE5 | PE6 ------ Site 5 | |
| | |
| [VPN3] | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| |
+----------------------------+
Figure 17: VPN Policy Example
In Figure 17, Site 5 is part of two VPNs: VPN3 and VPN2. It will
play a Hub role in VPN2 and an any-to-any role in VPN3. We can
express such a multi-VPN scenario as follows:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
<sites>
<site>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>L1</location-id>
</location>
</locations>
<management>
<type>customer-managed</type>
</management>
<site-id>Site5</site-id>
<vpn-policies>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<vpn-policy>
<vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
<entries>
<id>ENTRY1</id>
<vpn>
<vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
<site-role>hub-role</site-role>
</vpn>
</entries>
<entries>
<id>ENTRY2</id>
<vpn>
<vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
<site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
</vpn>
</entries>
</vpn-policy>
</vpn-policies>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id>
<site>
<site-id>SITE1</site-id>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>L1</location-id>
</location>
</locations>
<management>
<type>customer-managed</type>
</management>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA2</network-access-id>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
<svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
</site>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
</site>
</sites>
</l2vpn-svc>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Now, if a more granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be
used. For example, if LAN1 from Site 5 must be attached to VPN2 as a
Hub and LAN2 must be attached to VPN3, the following configuration
can be used:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
<sites>
<site>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>L1</location-id>
</location>
</locations>
<management>
<type>customer-managed</type>
</management>
<site-id>Site5</site-id>
<vpn-policies>
<vpn-policy>
<vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
<entries>
<id>ENTRY1</id>
<filters>
<filter>
<type>lan</type>
<lan-tag>LAN1</lan-tag>
</filter>
</filters>
<vpn>
<vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
<site-role>hub-role</site-role>
</vpn>
</entries>
<entries>
<id>ENTRY2</id>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<filters>
<filter>
<type>lan</type>
<lan-tag>LAN2</lan-tag>
</filter>
</filters>
<vpn>
<vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
<site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
</vpn>
</entries>
</vpn-policy>
</vpn-policies>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
<svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
</site>
</sites>
</l2vpn-svc>
5.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site
The management system will have to determine where to connect each
site-network-access of a particular site to the provider network
(e.g., PE or aggregation switch).
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
This model defines parameters and constraints that can influence the
meshing of the site-network-access.
The management system MUST honor all customer constraints, or, if a
constraint is too strict and cannot be fulfilled, the management
system MUST NOT provision the site and MUST provide the user with
information regarding any constraints that could not be fulfilled.
How this information is provided is out of scope for this document.
Whether or not to relax the constraint would then be left up to
the user.
Parameters such as site location (see Section 5.6.2) and access type
(see Section 5.6.3) affect the service placement that the management
system applies.
In addition to parameters and constraints, the management system's
decision MAY be based on any other internal constraints that are left
up to the SP, e.g., least load, distance.
5.6.1. Constraint: Device
In the case of provider management or co-management, one or more
devices have been ordered by the customer to a particular location
that has already been configured. The customer may force a
particular site-network-access to be connected on a particular device
that it ordered.
New York Site
+------------------+ Site
| +--------------+ |-------------------------------------
| | Manhattan | |
| | CE1********* (site-network-access#1) ******
| +--------------+ |
| +--------------+ |
| | Brooklyn | |
| | CE2********* (site-network-access#2) ******
| +--------------+ |
| |-------------------------------------
+------------------+
Figure 18: Example of a Constraint Applied to a Device
In Figure 18, site-network-access#1 is associated with CE1 in the
service request. The SP must ensure the provisioning of this
connection.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location
The location information provided in this model MAY be used by a
management system to determine the target PE to mesh the site (SP
side). A particular location must be associated with each site
network access when configuring it. The SP MUST honor the
termination of the access on the location associated with the site
network access (customer side). The "country-code" in the site
location should be expressed as an ISO 3166 code and is similar to
the "country" label defined in [RFC4119].
The site-network-access location is determined by the
"location-flavor". In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed
site, the user is expected to configure a "device-reference" (device
case) that will bind the site-network-access to a particular device
that the customer ordered. As each device is already associated with
a particular location, in such a case the location information is
retrieved from the device location. In the case of a
customer-managed site, the user is expected to configure a
"location-reference" (location case); this provides a reference to an
existing configured location and will help with placement.
POP#1 (New York)
+---------+
| PE1 |
Site 1 ---... | PE2 |
(Atlantic City) | PE3 |
+---------+
POP#2 (Washington)
+---------+
| PE4 |
| PE5 |
| PE6 |
+---------+
POP#3 (Philadelphia)
+---------+
| PE7 |
Site 2 CE#1---... | PE8 |
(Reston) | PE9 |
+---------+
Figure 19: Location Information for Sites
In Figure 19, Site 1 is a customer-managed site with a location "L1",
while Site 2 is a provider-managed site for which a CE (CE#1) was
ordered. Site 2 is configured with "L2" as its location. When
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
configuring a site-network-access for Site 1, the user will need to
reference location L1 so that the management system will know that
the access will need to terminate on this location. Then, for
distance reasons, this management system may mesh Site 1 on a PE in
the Philadelphia POP. It may also take into account resources
available on PEs to determine the exact target PE (e.g., least
loaded). For Site 2, the user is expected to configure the
site-network-access with a device-reference to CE#1 so that the
management system will know that the access must terminate on the
location of CE#1 and must be connected to CE#1. For placement of the
SP side of the access connection, in the case of the nearest PE used,
it may mesh Site 2 on the Washington POP.
5.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type
The management system needs to elect the access media to connect the
site to the customer (for example, xDSL, leased line, Ethernet
backhaul). The customer may provide some parameters/constraints that
will provide hints to the management system.
The bearer container information SHOULD be the first piece of
information considered when making this decision:
o The "requested-type" parameter provides information about the
media type that the customer would like to use. If the "strict"
leaf is equal to "true", this MUST be considered a strict
constraint so that the management system cannot connect the site
with another media type. If the "strict" leaf is equal to "false"
(default) and if the requested media type cannot be fulfilled, the
management system can select another media type. The supported
media types SHOULD be communicated by the SP to the customer via a
mechanism that is out of scope for this document.
o The "always-on" leaf defines a strict constraint: if set to
"true", the management system MUST elect a media type that is
"always-on" (e.g., this means no dial-in access type).
o The "bearer-reference" parameter is used in cases where the
customer has already ordered a network connection to the SP apart
from the L2VPN site and wants to reuse this connection. The
string used is an internal reference from the SP and describes the
already-available connection. This is also a strict requirement
that cannot be relaxed. How the reference is given to the
customer is out of scope for this document, but as an example,
when the customer ordered the bearer (through a process that is
out of scope for this model), the SP may have provided the bearer
reference that can be used for provisioning services on top.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Any other internal parameters from the SP can also be used. The
management system MAY use other parameters, such as the requested
"input svc-bandwidth" and "output svc-bandwidth", to help decide
which access type to use.
5.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity
Each site-network-access may have one or more constraints that would
drive the placement of the access. By default, the model assumes
that there are no constraints, but allocation of a unique bearer per
site-network-access is expected.
In order to help with the different placement scenarios, a
site-network-access may be tagged using one or multiple group
identifiers. The group identifier is a string, so it can accommodate
both explicit naming of a group of sites (e.g., "multihomed-set1")
and the use of a numbered identifier (e.g., 12345678). The meaning
of each group-id is local to each customer administrator, and the
management system MUST ensure that different customers can use the
same group-ids. One or more group-ids can also be defined at the
site level; as a consequence, all site-network-accesses under the
site MUST inherit the group-ids of the site to which they belong.
When, in addition to the site group-ids some group-ids are defined at
the site-network-access level, the management system MUST consider
the union of all groups (site level and site-network-access level)
for this particular site-network-access.
For an already-configured site-network-access, each constraint MUST
be expressed against a targeted set of site-network-accesses. This
site-network-access (i.e., the already-configured
site-network-access) MUST never be taken into account in the targeted
set of site-network-accesses -- for example, "My site-network-access
S must not be connected on the same POP as the site-network-accesses
that are part of Group 10." The set of site-network-accesses against
which the constraint is evaluated can be expressed as a list of
groups, "all-other-accesses", or "all-other-groups". The
all-other-accesses option means that the current site-network-access
constraint MUST be evaluated against all the other
site-network-accesses belonging to the current site. The
all-other-groups option means that the constraint MUST be evaluated
against all groups to which the current site-network-access does not
belong.
The current model defines multiple constraint-types:
o pe-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected
to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
o pop-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected
to the same POP as the targeted site-network-accesses.
o linecard-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be
connected to the same linecard as the targeted site-network-
accesses. Note that the customer can request linecard-diverse for
site-network-accesses, but the specific linecard identifier used
should not be exposed to the customer.
o bearer-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT use
common bearer components compared to bearers used by the targeted
site-network-accesses. "bearer-diverse" provides some level of
diversity at the access level. As an example, two bearer-diverse
site-network-accesses must not use the same Digital Subscriber
Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM), Broadband Access Switch (BAS), or
Layer 2 switch.
o same-pe: The current site-network-access MUST be connected to the
same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses.
o same-bearer: The current site-network-access MUST be connected
using the same bearer as the targeted site-network-accesses.
These constraint-types can be extended through augmentation. Each
constraint is expressed as "The site-network-access S must be
<constraint-type> (e.g., pe-diverse, pop-diverse) from these <target>
site-network-accesses."
The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may be the
same as the one used by the current site-network-access. This eases
the configuration of scenarios where a group of site-network-access
points has a constraint between the access points in the group.
5.7. Route Distinguisher and Network Instance Allocation
The Route Distinguisher (RD) is a critical parameter of BGP-based
L2VPNs as described in [RFC4364] that provides the ability to
distinguish common addressing plans in different VPNs. As for Route
Targets (RTs), a management system is expected to allocate a MAC-VRF
on the target PE and an RD for that MAC-VRF; that RD MUST be unique
across all MAC-VRFs on the target PE.
If a MAC-VRF already exists on the target PE and the MAC-VRF fulfills
the connectivity constraints for the site, there is no need to
recreate another MAC-VRF, and the site MAY be meshed within the
existing MAC-VRF. How the management system checks to see if an
existing MAC-VRF fulfills the connectivity constraints for a site is
out of scope for this document.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
If no such MAC-VRF exists on the target PE, the management system has
to initiate the creation of a new MAC-VRF on the target PE and has to
allocate a new RD for the new MAC-VRF.
The management system MAY apply a per-VPN or per-MAC-VRF allocation
policy for the RD, depending on the SP's policy. In a per-VPN
allocation policy, all MAC-VRFs (dispatched on multiple PEs) within a
VPN will share the same RD value. In a per-MAC-VRF model, all
MAC-VRFs should always have a unique RD value. Some other allocation
policies are also possible, and this document does not restrict the
allocation policies to be used.
The allocation of RDs MAY be done in the same way as RTs. The
information provided in Section 5.2.2.1 could also be used in this
scenario.
Note that an SP MAY configure a target PE for an automated allocation
of RDs. In this case, there will be no need for any backend system
to allocate an RD value.
5.8. Site-Network-Access Availability
A site may be multihomed, meaning that it has multiple
site-network-access points. The placement constraints defined in
Section 5.6 will help ensure physical diversity.
When the site-network-accesses are placed on the network, a customer
may want to use a particular routing policy on those accesses. The
"site-network-access/availability" container defines parameters for
site redundancy. The "access-priority" leaf defines a preference for
a particular access. This preference is used to model load-balancing
or primary/backup scenarios. The higher the access-priority value,
the higher the preference will be. The "redundancy-mode" attribute
is defined for a multihoming site and used to model single-active and
active/active scenarios. It allows for multiple active paths in
forwarding state and for load-balancing options.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Figure 20 illustrates how the access-priority attribute can be used.
Hub#1 LAN (Primary/backup) Hub#2 LAN (Load-sharing)
| |
| access-priority 1 access-priority 1 |
|--- CE1 ------- PE1 PE3 --------- CE3 --- |
| |
| |
|--- CE2 ------- PE2 PE4 --------- CE4 --- |
| access-priority 2 access-priority 1 |
PE5
|
|
|
CE5
|
Spoke#1 site (Single-homed)
Figure 20: Example: Configuring Access Priority
In Figure 20, Hub#2 requires load-sharing, so all the site-network-
accesses must use the same access-priority value. On the other hand,
as Hub#1 requires a primary site-network-access and a backup
site-network-access, a higher access-priority setting will be
configured on the primary site-network-access.
Scenarios that are more complex can also be modeled. Let's consider
a Hub site with five accesses to the network (A1, A2, A3, A4, and
A5). The customer wants to load-share its traffic on A1 and A2 in
the nominal situation. If A1 and A2 fail, the customer wants to
load-share its traffic on A3 and A4; finally, if A1, A2, A3, and A4
are all down, the customer wants to use A5. We can model this easily
by configuring the following access-priority values: A1=100, A2=100,
A3=50, A4=50, A5=10.
The access-priority scenario has some limitations. An
access-priority scenario like the previous one with five accesses but
with the constraint of having traffic load-shared between A3 and A4
in the case where only A1 or A2 (not both) is down is not achievable.
But the access-priority attribute defined will cover most of the
deployment use cases, and if necessary the model can be extended via
augmentation to support additional use cases.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.9. SVC MTU
The MTU of subscriber service frames can be derived from the physical
interface MTU by default, or it can be specified under the "svc-mtu"
leaf if it is different than the default number.
5.10. Service
The service container defines service parameters associated with
the site.
5.10.1. Bandwidth
The service bandwidth refers to the bandwidth requirement between the
CE and the PE and can be represented using the Committed Information
Rate (CIR), the Excess Information Rate (EIR), or the Peak
Information Rate (PIR). The requested bandwidth is expressed as
ingress bandwidth and egress bandwidth. The ingress or egress
direction uses the customer site as the point of reference:
"ingress-direction bandwidth" refers to download bandwidth for the
site, and "egress-direction bandwidth" refers to upload bandwidth for
the site.
The service bandwidth is only configurable at the site-network-access
level (i.e., for the site network access associated with the site).
Using a different ingress and egress bandwidth will allow an SP to
know if a customer allows for asymmetric bandwidth access like ADSL.
It can also be used to set the rate limit in a different way for
uploads and downloads on symmetric bandwidth access.
The svc-bandwidth parameter has a specific type. This document
defines four types:
o bw-per-access: bandwidth is per connection or site network access,
providing rate enforcement for all service frames at the interface
that are associated with a particular network access.
o bw-per-cos: bandwidth is per CoS, providing rate enforcement for
all service frames for a given CoS with a specific cos-id.
o bw-per-svc: bandwidth is per site, providing rate enforcement for
all service frames that are associated with a particular VPN
service.
o opaque bandwidth is the total bandwidth that is not associated
with any particular cos-id, VPN service identified with the
vpn-id, or site network access ID.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The svc-bandwidth parameter must include a "cos-id" parameter if the
"type" is set to "bw-per-cos". The cos-id can be assigned based on
either (1) the IEEE 802.1p value [IEEE-802-1D] in the C-tag or
(2) the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) in the Ethernet
frame header. Service frames are metered against the bandwidth
profile based on the cos-id.
The svc-bandwidth parameter must be associated with a specific
"site-network-access-id" parameter if the "type" is set to
"bw-per-access". Multiple bandwidths per cos-id can be associated
with the same site network access.
The svc-bandwidth parameter must include a specific "vpn-id"
parameter if the "type" is set to "bw-per-svc". Multiple bandwidths
per cos-id can be associated with the same EVPN service.
5.10.2. QoS
The model defines QoS parameters as an abstraction:
o qos-classification-policy: Defines a set of ordered rules to
classify customer traffic.
o qos-profile: Provides a QoS scheduling profile to be applied.
5.10.2.1. QoS Classification
QoS classification rules are handled by "qos-classification-policy".
qos-classification-policy is an ordered list of rules that match a
flow or application and set the appropriate target CoS
(target-class-id). The user can define the match using a
more specific flow definition (based on Layer 2 source and
destination MAC addresses, cos, dscp, cos-id, color-id, etc.). A
"color-id" will be assigned to a service frame to identify its QoS
profile conformance. A service frame is "green" if it is conformant
with the "committed" rate of the bandwidth profile. A service frame
is "yellow" if it exceeds the "committed" rate but is conformant with
the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Finally, a service frame
is "red" if it is conformant with neither the "committed" rate nor
the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile.
When a flow definition is used, the user can use a target-sites
leaf-list to identify the destination of a flow rather than using
destination addresses. In such a case, an association between the
site abstraction and the MAC addresses used by this site must be done
dynamically. How this association is done is out of scope for this
document. The association of a site to an L2VPN is done through the
vpn-attachment container. Therefore, the user can also employ the
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"target-sites" leaf-list and "vpn-attachment" to identify the
destination of a flow targeted to a specific VPN service. A rule
that does not have a "match" statement is considered a "match-all"
rule. An SP may implement a default terminal classification rule if
the customer does not provide it. It will be up to the SP to
determine its default target class. This model defines some
applications, but new application identities may be added through
augmentation. The exact meaning of each application identity is up
to the SP, so it will be necessary for the SP to advise the customer
on the usage of application-matching.
5.10.2.2. QoS Profile
A user can choose between the standard profile provided by the
operator or a custom profile. The QoS profile ("qos-profile")
defines the traffic-scheduling policy to be used by the SP.
A custom QoS profile is defined as a list of CoS entries and
associated properties. The properties are as follows:
o direction: Used to specify the direction to which the qos-profile
setting is applied. This model supports the site-to-WAN direction
("site-to-wan"), the WAN-to-site direction ("wan-to-site"), and
both directions ("bidirectional"). By default, "bidirectional" is
used. In the case of both directions, the provider should ensure
scheduling according to the requested policy in both traffic
directions (SP to customer and customer to SP). As an example, a
device-scheduling policy may be implemented on both the PE side
and the CE side of the WAN link. In the case of the WAN-to-site
direction, the provider should ensure scheduling from the SP
network to the customer site. As an example, a device-scheduling
policy may be implemented only on the PE side of the WAN link
towards the customer.
o policing: Optional. Indicates whether policing should apply to
one-rate, two-color or to two-rate, three-color.
o byte-offset: Optional. Indicates how many bytes in the service
frame header are excluded from rate enforcement.
o frame-delay: Used to define the latency constraint of the class.
The latency constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible
latency or as a latency boundary expressed in milliseconds. How
this latency constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP
implementation: a strict priority-queuing mechanism may be used on
the access and in the core network, or a low-latency routing path
may be created for this traffic class.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
o frame-jitter: Used to define the jitter constraint of the class.
The jitter constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible
jitter or as a jitter boundary expressed in microseconds. How
this jitter constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP
implementation: a strict priority-queuing mechanism may be used on
the access and in the core network, or a jitter-aware routing path
may be created for this traffic class.
o bandwidth: Used to define a guaranteed amount of bandwidth for
the CoS. It is expressed as a percentage. The
"guaranteed-bw-percent" parameter uses available bandwidth as a
reference. The available bandwidth should not fall below the CIR
value defined under the input svc-bandwidth or the output
svc-bandwidth. When the "qos-profile" container is implemented on
the CE side, the output svc-bandwidth is taken into account as a
reference. When it is implemented on the PE side, the input
svc-bandwidth is used. By default, the bandwidth reservation is
only guaranteed at the access level. The user can use the
"end-to-end" leaf to request an end-to-end bandwidth reservation,
including across the MPLS transport network. (In other words, the
SP will activate something in the MPLS core to ensure that the
bandwidth request from the customer will be fulfilled by the MPLS
core as well.) How this is done (e.g., RSVP-TE reservation,
controller reservation) is out of scope for this document.
In addition, due to network conditions, some constraints may not be
completely fulfilled by the SP; in this case, the SP should advise
the customer about the limitations. How this communication is done
is out of scope for this document.
5.10.3. Support for BUM
The "broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast" container defines the type
of site in the customer multicast service topology: source, receiver,
or both. These parameters will help the management system optimize
the multicast service.
Multiple multicast group-to-port mappings can be created using the
"multicast-gp-address-mapping" list. The
"multicast-gp-address-mapping" list defines the multicast group
address and port LAG number. Those parameters will help the SP
select the appropriate association between an interface and a
multicast group to fulfill the customer service requirement.
To ensure that a given frame is transparently transported, a whole
Layer 2 multicast frame (whether for data or control) should not be
altered from a CE to other CEs, except for the VLAN ID field. VLAN
IDs assigned by the SP can also be altered.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
For point-to-point services, the provider only needs to deliver a
single copy of each service frame to the remote PE, regardless of
whether the destination MAC address of the incoming frame is unicast,
multicast, or broadcast. Therefore, all service frames should be
delivered unconditionally.
BUM frame forwarding in multipoint-to-multipoint services, on the
other hand, involves both local flooding to other ACs on the same PE
and remote replication to all other PEs, thus consuming additional
resources and core bandwidth. Special BUM frame disposition rules
can be implemented at external-facing interfaces (UNIs or External
NNIs (E-NNIs)) to rate-limit the BUM frames, in terms of the number
of packets per second or bits per second.
The threshold can apply to all BUM traffic, or one threshold can be
applied for each category of traffic.
5.11. Site Management
The "management" sub-container is intended for site management
options, depending on device ownership and security access control.
Three common management models are as follows:
Provider-managed CE: The provider has sole ownership of the CE
device. Only the provider has access to the CE. The
responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is between
the CE and the customer network. This is the most common
use case.
Customer-managed CE: The customer has sole ownership of the CE
device. Only the customer has access to the CE. In this model,
the responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is
between the PE and the CE.
Co-managed CE: The provider has ownership of the CE device and is
responsible for managing the CE. However, the provider grants the
customer access to the CE for some configuration/monitoring
purposes. In this co-managed mode, the responsibility boundary is
the same as for the provider-managed model.
The selected management mode is specified under the "type" leaf. The
"address" leaf stores CE device management addressing information.
The "management-transport" leaf is used to identify the transport
protocol for management traffic: IPv4 or IPv6. Additional security
options may be derived based on the particular management model
selected.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.12. MAC Loop Protection
MAC address flapping between different physical ports typically
indicates a bridge loop condition in the customer network.
Misleading entries in the MAC cache table can cause service frames to
circulate around the network indefinitely and saturate the links
throughout the provider's network, affecting other services in the
same network. In the case of EVPNs, it also introduces massive BGP
updates and control-plane instability.
The SP may opt to implement a switching loop-prevention mechanism at
the external-facing interfaces for multipoint-to-multipoint services
by imposing a MAC address move threshold.
The MAC move rate and prevention-type options are listed in the
"mac-loop-prevention" container.
5.13. MAC Address Limit
The optional "mac-addr-limit" container contains the customer MAC
address limit and information that describes the action taken when
the limit is exceeded and the aging time for a MAC address.
When multiple services are provided on the same network element, the
MAC address table (and the Routing Information Base space for
MAC routes in the case of EVPNs) is a shared common resource. SPs
may impose a maximum number of MAC addresses learned from the
customer for a single service instance by using the "mac-addr-limit"
leaf and may use the "action" leaf to specify the action taken when
the upper limit is exceeded: drop the packet, flood the packet, or
simply send a warning log message.
For point-to-point services, if MAC learning is disabled, then the
MAC address limit is not necessary.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.14. Enhanced VPN Features
5.14.1. Carriers' Carriers
In the case of Carriers' Carriers (CsC) [RFC8299], a customer may
want to build an MPLS service using an L2VPN to carry its traffic.
LAN customer1
|
|
CE1
|
| -------------
(vrf_cust1)
CE1_ISP1
| ISP1 POP
| MPLS link
| -------------
|
(vrf ISP1)
PE1
(...) Provider backbone
PE2
(vrf ISP1)
|
| ------------
|
| MPLS link
| ISP1 POP
CE2_ISP1
(vrf_cust1)
| ------------
|
CE2
|
LAN customer1
Figure 21: MPLS Service Using an L2VPN to Carry Traffic
In Figure 21, ISP1 resells an L2VPN service but has no core network
infrastructure between its POPs. ISP1 uses an L2VPN as the core
network infrastructure (belonging to another provider) between
its POPs.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
In order to support CsC, the VPN service must indicate MPLS support
by setting the "carrierscarrier" leaf to "true" in the vpn-service
list. The link between CE1_ISP1/PE1 and CE2_ISP1/PE2 must also run
an MPLS signaling protocol. This configuration is done at the site
level.
In this model, LDP or BGP can be used as the MPLS signaling protocol.
In the case of LDP, an IGP routing protocol MUST also be activated.
In the case of BGP signaling, BGP MUST also be configured as the
routing protocol.
If CsC is enabled, the requested "svc-mtu" leaf will refer to the
MPLS MTU and not to the link MTU.
5.15. External ID References
The service model sometimes refers to external information through
identifiers. As an example, to order cloud access to a particular
Cloud Service Provider (CSP), the model uses an identifier to refer
to the targeted CSP. If a customer is directly using this service
model as an API (through RESTCONF or NETCONF, for example) to order a
particular service, the SP should provide a list of authorized
identifiers. In the case of cloud access, the SP will provide the
associated identifiers for each available CSP. The same applies to
other identifiers, such as qos-profile.
As a usage example, the remote-carrier-name setting is used in the
NNI case because it should be known by the current L2VPN SP to which
it is connecting, while the cloud-identifier setting should be known
by both the current L2VPN SP and the customer because it is applied
to the public cloud or Internet access.
How an SP provides the meanings of those identifiers to the customer
is out of scope for this document.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.16. Defining NNIs and Inter-AS Support
An Autonomous System (AS) is a single network or group of networks
that are controlled by a common system administration group and that
use a single, clearly defined routing protocol. In some cases, VPNs
need to span different ASes in different geographical areas or span
different SPs. The connection between ASes is established by the SPs
and is seamless to the customer. Examples include:
o A partnership between SPs (e.g., carrier, cloud) to extend their
VPN services seamlessly.
o An internal administrative boundary within a single SP (e.g.,
backhaul versus core versus data center).
NNIs have to be defined to extend the VPNs across multiple ASes.
[RFC4761] defines multiple flavors of VPN NNI implementations (e.g.,
VPLSs). Each implementation has pros and cons; this topic is outside
the scope of this document. For example, in an inter-AS option A
(two ASes), AS Border Router (ASBR) peers are connected by multiple
interfaces with at least one of those interfaces spanning the two
ASes while being present in the same VPN. In order for these ASBRs
to signal label blocks, they associate each interface with a MAC-VRF
(VSI) (Section 2) and a BGP session. As a result, traffic between
devices in the back-to-back VPLS is Ethernet. In this scenario, the
VPNs are isolated from each other, and because the traffic is
Ethernet, QoS mechanisms that operate on Ethernet traffic can be
applied to achieve customer SLAs.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
-------- -------------- -----------
/ \ / \ / \
| Cloud | | | | |
| Provider |-----NNI-----| |----NNI---| Data Center |
| #1 | | | | |
\ / | | \ /
-------- | | -----------
| |
-------- | My network | -----------
/ \ | | / \
| Cloud | | | | |
| Provider |-----NNI-----| |---NNI---| L2VPN |
| #2 | | | | Partner |
\ / | | | |
-------- | | | |
\ / | |
-------------- \ /
| -----------
|
NNI
|
|
-------------------
/ \
| |
| |
| |
| L2VPN Partner |
| |
\ /
-------------------
Figure 22: SP Network with Several NNIs
Figure 22 illustrates an SP network called "My network" that has
several NNIs. This network uses NNIs to:
o increase its footprint by relying on L2VPN partners.
o connect its own data-center services to the customer L2VPN.
o enable the customer to access its private resources located in a
private cloud owned by some CSPs.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.16.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor
AS A AS B
------------------- -------------------
/ \ / \
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link +++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| +(MAC-VRF1)--(VPN1)--(MAC-VRF1)+ |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| +(MAC-VRF2)--(VPN2)--(MAC-VRF2)+ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ +++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link +++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| +(MAC-VRF1)--(VPN1)--(MAC-VRF1)+ |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| +(MAC-VRF2)--(VPN2)--(MAC-VRF2)+ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ +++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
Figure 23: NNI Defined with the Option A Flavor: Example 1
In option A, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical
links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple
physical connections between the ASes. A VPN connection -- physical
or logical (on top of physical) -- is created for each VPN that needs
to cross the AS boundary, thus providing a back-to-back VPLS model.
From a service model's perspective, this VPN connection can be seen
as a site. Let's say that AS B wants to extend some VPN connections
for VPN C on AS A. The administrator of AS B can use this service
model to order a site on AS A. All connection scenarios could be
realized using the features of the current model. As an example,
Figure 23 shows two physical connections that have logical
connections per VPN overlaid on them. This could be seen as a
multi-VPN scenario. Also, the administrator of AS B will be able to
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
choose the appropriate routing protocol (e.g., External BGP (EBGP))
to dynamically exchange routes between ASes.
This document assumes that the option A NNI flavor SHOULD reuse the
existing VPN site modeling.
Figure 24 illustrates an example where a customer wants its CSP A to
attach its virtual network N to an existing L2VPN (VPN1) that it has
from L2VPN SP B.
CSP A L2VPN SP B
----------------- -----------
/ \ / \
| | | | |
| VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++++ |--- VPN1
| | + +____________+ + | Site 1
| |-------+(MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ |
| | + + + + |
| | + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| | + +____________+ + |
| | ++++++++ ++++++++++ |
| VM --| | | |--- VPN1
| |Virtual | | | Site 2
| |Network | | |
| VM --| | | |--- VPN1
| | | | | Site 3
\ / \ /
----------------- -----------
|
|
VPN1
Site 4
VM = Virtual Machine
Figure 24: NNI Defined with the Option A Flavor: Example 2
To create the VPN connectivity, the CSP or the customer may use the
L2SM that SP B exposes. We could consider that, as the NNI is
shared, the physical connection (bearer) between CSP A and SP B
already exists. CSP A may request through a service model the
creation of a new site with a single site-network-access
(single-homing is used in Figure 24). As a placement constraint, CSP
A may use the existing bearer reference it has from SP A to force the
placement of the VPN NNI on the existing link. The XML below
illustrates a possible configuration request to SP B:
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-profiles>
<valid-provider-identifiers>
<qos-profile-identifier>
<id>GOLD</id>
</qos-profile-identifier>
<qos-profile-identifier>
<id>PLATINUM</id>
</qos-profile-identifier>
</valid-provider-identifiers>
</vpn-profiles>
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>VPN1</vpn-id>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
<sites>
<site>
<site-id>CSP_A_attachment</site-id>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>NY1</location-id>
<city>NY</city>
<country-code>US</country-code>
</location>
</locations>
<site-vpn-flavor>site-vpn-flavor-nni</site-vpn-flavor>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>CSP_A_VN1</network-access-id>
<connection>
<encapsulation-type>vlan</encapsulation-type>
<eth-inf-type>tagged</eth-inf-type>
<tagged-interface>
<tagged-inf-type>dot1q</tagged-inf-type>
<dot1q-vlan-tagged>
<cvlan-id>17</cvlan-id>
</dot1q-vlan-tagged>
</tagged-interface>
</connection>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
<management>
<type>customer-managed</type>
</management>
</site>
</sites>
</l2vpn-svc>
The case described above is different from a scenario using the
cloud-accesses container, as the cloud-access provides a public cloud
access while this example enables access to private resources located
in a CSP network.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.16.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor
AS A AS B
------------------- -------------------
/ \ / \
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
Figure 25: NNI Defined with the Option B Flavor: Example 1
In option B, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical
links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple
physical connections between the ASes. The VPN "connection" between
ASes is done by exchanging VPN routes through MP-BGP [RFC4761].
There are multiple flavors of implementations of such an NNI. For
example:
1. The NNI is internal to the provider and is situated between a
backbone and a data center. There is enough trust between the
domains to not filter the VPN routes. So, all the VPN routes are
exchanged. RT filtering may be implemented to save some
unnecessary route states.
2. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN
routes for specific RTs only. Each provider is authorized to use
the RT values from the other provider.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
3. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN
routes for specific RTs only. Each provider has its own RT
scheme. So, a customer spanning the two networks will have
different RTs in each network for a particular VPN.
Case 1 does not require any service modeling, as the protocol enables
the dynamic exchange of necessary VPN routes.
Case 2 requires that an RT-filtering policy on ASBRs be maintained.
From a service-modeling point of view, it is necessary to agree on
the list of RTs to authorize.
In Case 3, both ASes need to agree on the VPN RT to exchange, as well
as how to map a VPN RT from AS A to the corresponding RT in AS B (and
vice versa).
Those modelings are currently out of scope for this document.
CSP A L3VPN SP B
----------------- ------------------
/ \ / \
| | | | |
| VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++ |--- VPN1
| | + +__________+ + | Site 1
| |-------+ + + + |
| | + ASBR +<-MP-BGP->+ ASBR + |
| | + +__________+ + |
| | ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| VM --| | | |--- VPN1
| |Virtual | | | Site 2
| |Network | | |
| VM --| | | |--- VPN1
| | | | | Site 3
\ / | |
----------------- | |
\ /
------------------
|
|
VPN1
Site 4
VM = Virtual Machine
Figure 26: NNI Defined with the Option B Flavor: Example 2
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Figure 26 shows an NNI connection between CSP A and SP network B.
The SPs do not trust each other and use different RT allocation
policies. So, in terms of implementation, the customer VPN has a
different RT in each network (RT A in CSP A and RT B in SP
network B). In order to connect the customer's virtual network in
CSP A to the customer's L2VPN (VPN1) in SP network B, CSP A should
request that SP network B open the customer VPN on the NNI (accept
the appropriate RT). Who does the RT translation depends on the
agreement between the two SPs: SP B may permit CSP A to request VPN
(RT) translation.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
5.16.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor
AS A AS B
------------------- -------------------
/ \ / \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Multihop EBGP ++++++++ |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| + RGW +<----MP-BGP---->+ RGW + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ |
| + +_______________+ + |
| + + + + |
| + ASBR + + ASBR + |
| + + + + |
| + +_______________+ + |
| ++++++++ ++++++++ |
| | | |
| | | |
\ / \ /
------------------- -------------------
Figure 27: NNI Defined with the Option C Flavor
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
From a VPN service's perspective, the option C NNI is very similar to
option B, as an MP-BGP session is used to exchange VPN routes between
the ASes. The difference is that the forwarding plane and the
control plane are on different nodes, so the MP-BGP session is
multihop between routing gateway (RGW) nodes. From a VPN service's
point of view, modeling options B and C will be configured
identically.
5.17. Applicability of L2SM in Inter-provider and Inter-domain
Orchestration
In the case where the ASes belong to different providers, one might
imagine that providers would like to have fewer signaling sessions
crossing the AS boundary and that the entities that terminate the
sessions could be restricted to a smaller set of devices. Two
approaches can be taken:
a. Construct inter-provider control connections to run only between
the two border routers.
b. Allow end-to-end, multi-segment connectivity to be constructed
out of several connectivity segments, without maintaining an
end-to-end control connection.
Inter-provider control connections as described in approach (a) can
be realized using the techniques provided in Section 5.16 (e.g.,
defining NNIs). Multi-segment connectivity as described in
approach (b) can produce an inter-AS solution that more closely
resembles scheme (b) in Section 10 of [RFC4364]. It may be realized
using "stitching" of per-site connectivity and service segments at
different domains, e.g., end-to-end connectivity between Site 1 and
Site 3 spans multiple domains (e.g., metropolitan area networks) and
can be constructed by stitching network access connectivity within
Site 1 with SEG1, SEG3, and SEG4, and network access connectivity
within Site 3 (as shown in Figure 28). The assumption is that the
service orchestration component in Figure 3 should have visibility
into the complete abstract topology and resource availability. This
may rely on network planning.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
---------- ---------- ----------
| | | | | |
+--+ +---+ +---+ +--+
Site 1|PE|==SEG1==| |==SEG3==| |==SEG4==|PE|Site 3
+--+ +---+ | | +--+
| | | | | | ----------
| | | | | | | |
+--+ +---+ | | +---+ +--+
Site 2|PE|==SEG2==| |==SEG5==| |==SEG6==| |==SEG7==|PE|Site 4
+--+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +--+
| | | | | | | |
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Figure 28: Example: Inter-provider and Inter-domain Orchestration
Note that SEG1, SEG2, SEG3, SEG4, SEG5, and SEG6 can also be regarded
as network access connectivity within a site and can be created as a
normal site using the L2SM.
In Figure 28, we use BGP redistribution of L2VPN Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI) instances from AS to neighboring AS.
First, the PE routers use BGP to redistribute L2VPN NLRIs to either
an ASBR or a route reflector of which an ASBR is a client. The ASBR
then uses BGP to redistribute those L2VPN NLRIs to an ASBR in another
AS, which in turn distributes them to the PE routers in that AS, or
perhaps to another ASBR that in turn distributes them, and so on.
In this case, a PE can learn the address of an ASBR through which it
could reach another PE to which it wishes to establish connectivity.
That is, a local PE will receive a BGP advertisement containing an
L2VPN NLRI corresponding to an L2VPN instance in which the local PE
has some attached members. The BGP next hop for that L2VPN NLRI will
be an ASBR of the local AS. Then, rather than building a control
connection all the way to the remote PE, it builds one only to the
ASBR. A connectivity segment can now be established from the PE to
the ASBR. The ASBR in turn can establish connectivity to the ASBR of
the next AS and then stitch that connectivity to the connectivity
from the PE as described in [RFC6073]. Repeating the process at each
ASBR leads to a sequence of connectivity segments that, when stitched
together, connect the two PEs.
Note that in the approach just described, the local PE may never
learn the IP address of the remote PE. It learns the L2VPN NLRI
advertised by the remote PE, which need not contain the remote PE
address, and it learns the IP address of the ASBR that is the BGP
next hop for that NLRI.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
When this approach is used for VPLS or for full-mesh VPWS, it leads
to a full mesh of connectivity among the PEs, but it does not require
a full mesh of control connections (LDP or L2TPv3 sessions).
Instead, the control connections within a single AS run among all the
PEs of that AS and the ASBRs of the AS. A single control connection
between the ASBRs of adjacent ASes can be used to support as many
AS-to-AS connectivity segments as may be needed.
6. Interaction with Other YANG Modules
As explained in Section 4, this service model is not intended to
configure network elements; rather, it is instantiated in a
management system.
The management system might follow modular design and comprise two
different components:
a. The component instantiating the service model (let's call it the
service component).
b. The component responsible for network element configuration
(let's call it the configuration component).
In some cases, when a split is needed between the behavior and
functions that a customer requests and the technology that the
network operator has available to deliver the service [RFC8309], a
new component can be separated out of the service component (let's
call it the control component). This component is responsible for
network-centric operation and is aware of many features such as
topology, technology, and operator policy. As an optional component,
it can use the service model as input and is not required at all if
the control component delegates its control operations to the
configuration component.
In Section 7, we provide an example of translation of service
provisioning requests to router configuration lines as an
illustration. In the YANG-based ecosystem, it is expected that
NETCONF and YANG will be used between the configuration component and
network elements to configure the requested service on those
elements.
In this framework, it is expected that YANG data models will be used
to configure service components on network elements. There will be a
strong relationship between the abstracted view provided by this
service model and the detailed configuration view that will be
provided by specific configuration models for network elements such
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
as those defined in [MPLS-L2VPN-YANG] and [EVPN-YANG]. Service
components that would need configuration of network elements in
support of the service model defined in this document include:
o Network instance definitions that include defined VPN policies.
o Physical interfaces.
o Ethernet-layer parameters (e.g., VLAN IDs).
o QoS: classification, profiles, etc.
o Support for Ethernet Service OAM.
7. Service Model Usage Example
As explained in Section 4, this service model is intended to be
instantiated at a management layer and is not intended to be used
directly on network elements. The management system serves as a
central point of configuration of the overall service.
This section provides an example of how a management system can use
this model to configure an L2VPN service on network elements.
This example provides a VPN service for three sites using
point-to-point VPWS and a Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology as shown
in Figure 29. Load balancing is not considered in this case.
Site 1
............
: : P2P VPWS
:Spoke Site:-----PE1--------------------------+
: : | Site 3
:..........: | ............
| : :
PE3-----: Hub Site :
Site 2 | : :
............ | :..........:
: : P2P VPWS |
:Spoke Site:-----PE2--------------------------+
: :
:..........:
Figure 29: Reference Network for Simple Example
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The following XML describes the overall simplified service
configuration of this VPN.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
<vpn-svc-type>vpws</vpn-svc-type>
<svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>12456488</vpn-id>
<vpn-svc-type>vpws</vpn-svc-type>
<svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
</l2vpn-svc>
When receiving the request for provisioning the VPN service, the
management system will internally (or through communication with
another OSS component) allocate VPN RTs. In this specific case, two
RTs will be allocated (100:1 for Hubs and 100:2 for Spokes). The
output below describes the configuration of Spoke Site 1.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc">
<vpn-services>
<vpn-service>
<vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
<svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo>
<ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation>
<ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation>
</vpn-service>
</vpn-services>
<sites>
<site>
<site-id>Spoke_Site1</site-id>
<locations>
<location>
<location-id>NY1</location-id>
<city>NY</city>
<country-code>US</country-code>
</location>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
</locations>
<site-network-accesses>
<site-network-access>
<network-access-id>Spoke_UNI-Site1</network-access-id>
<access-diversity>
<groups>
<group>
<group-id>20</group-id>
</group>
</groups>
</access-diversity>
<connection>
<encapsulation-type>vlan</encapsulation-type>
<tagged-interface>
<dot1q-vlan-tagged>
<cvlan-id>17</cvlan-id>
</dot1q-vlan-tagged>
</tagged-interface>
<l2cp-control>
<stp-rstp-mstp>tunnel</stp-rstp-mstp>
<lldp>true</lldp>
</l2cp-control>
</connection>
<service>
<svc-bandwidth>
<bandwidth>
<direction>input-bw</direction>
<type>bw-per-cos</type>
<cir>450000000</cir>
<cbs>20000000</cbs>
<eir>1000000000</eir>
<ebs>200000000</ebs>
</bandwidth>
</svc-bandwidth>
<carrierscarrier>
<signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type>
</carrierscarrier>
</service>
<vpn-attachment>
<vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
<site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
</vpn-attachment>
</site-network-access>
</site-network-accesses>
<management>
<type>provider-managed</type>
</management>
</site>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
</sites>
</l2vpn-svc>
When receiving the request for provisioning Spoke Site 1, the
management system MUST allocate network resources for this site. It
MUST first determine the target network elements to provision the
access and, in particular, the PE router (or possibly an aggregation
switch). As described in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.6, the management
system SHOULD use the location information and MUST use the
access-diversity constraint to find the appropriate PE. In this
case, we consider that Spoke Site 1 requires PE diversity with Hubs
and that the management system will allocate PEs based on least
distance. Based on the location information, the management system
finds the available PEs in the area closest to the customer and picks
one that fits the access-diversity constraint.
When the PE is chosen, the management system needs to allocate
interface resources on the node. One interface is selected from the
PE's available pool of resources. The management system can start
provisioning the PE node using any means it wishes (e.g., NETCONF,
CLI). The management system will check to see if a VSI that fits its
needs is already present. If not, it will provision the VSI: the RD
will come from the internal allocation policy model, and the RTs will
come from the vpn-policy configuration of the site (i.e., the
management system will allocate some RTs for the VPN). As the site
is a Spoke site (site-role), the management system knows which RTs
must be imported and exported. As the site is provider managed, some
management RTs may also be added (100:5000). Standard provider VPN
policies MAY also be added in the configuration.
Example of a generated PE configuration:
l2vpn vsi context one
vpn id 12456487
autodiscovery bgp signaling bgp
ve id 1001 <---- identify the PE routers within the VPLS domain
ve range 50 <---- VPLS Edge (VE) size
route-distinguisher 100:3123234324
route-target import 100:1
route-target import 100:5000 <---- Standard SP configuration
route-target export 100:2 for provider-managed CE
!
When the VSI has been provisioned, the management system can start
configuring the access on the PE using the allocated interface
information. The tag or VLAN (e.g., service instance tag) is chosen
by the management system. One tag will be picked from an allocated
subnet for the PE, and another will be used for the CE configuration.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
LACP protocols will also be configured between the PE and the CE; in
the case of the provider-managed model, the choice is left to the SP.
This choice is independent of the LACP protocol chosen by the
customer.
Example of a generated PE configuration:
!
bridge-domain 1
member Ethernet0/0 service-instance 100
member vsi one
!
l2 router-id 198.51.100.1
!
l2 router-id 2001:db8::10:1/64
!
interface Ethernet0/0
no ip address
service instance 100 ethernet
encapsulation dot1q 100
!
!
router bgp 1
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 198.51.100.4 remote-as 1
neighbor 198.51.100.4 update-source Loopback0
!
address-family l2vpn vpls
neighbor 198.51.100.4 activate
neighbor 198.51.100.4 send-community extended
neighbor 198.51.100.4 suppress-signaling-protocol ldp
neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:4 activate
neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:4 send-community extended
exit-address-family
!
interface vlan 100 <---- Associating the AC with
no ip address the MAC-VRF at the PE
xconnect vsi PE1-VPLS-A
!
vlan 100
state active
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
As the CE router is not reachable at this stage, the management
system can produce a complete CE configuration that can be manually
uploaded to the node (e.g., before sending the CE to the customer
premises at the appropriate postal address, as described in
Section 5.3.1). The CE configuration will be built in the same way
as the PE configuration is built. Based on (1) the CE type
(vendor/model) allocated to the customer and (2) bearer information,
the management system knows which interface must be configured on the
CE. PE-CE link configuration is expected to be handled automatically
using the SP's OSS, as both resources are managed internally.
CE-to-LAN interface parameters, such as dot1Q tags, are derived from
the Ethernet connection, taking into account how the management
system distributes dot1Q tags between the PE and the CE within the
subnet. This will allow a plug'n'play configuration to be produced
for the CE.
Example of a generated CE configuration:
interface Ethernet0/1
switchport trunk allowed vlan none
switchport mode trunk
service instance 100 ethernet
encapsulation default
l2protocol forward cdp
xconnect 203.0.113.1 100 encapsulation mpls
!
8. YANG Module
This YANG module imports typedefs from [RFC6991] and [RFC8341].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-l2vpn-svc@2018-10-09.yang"
module ietf-l2vpn-svc {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc";
prefix l2vpn-svc;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
}
import ietf-netconf-acm {
prefix nacm;
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
organization
"IETF L2SM Working Group.";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/l2sm/>
WG List: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
Editor: Giuseppe Fioccola
<mailto:giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it>";
description
"This YANG module defines a generic service configuration model
for Layer 2 VPN services common across all vendor
implementations.
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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8466;
see the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2018-10-09 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8466: A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private
Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery";
}
feature carrierscarrier {
description
"Enables the support of carriers' carriers (CsC).";
}
feature ethernet-oam {
description
"Enables the support of Ethernet Service OAM.";
}
feature extranet-vpn {
description
"Enables the support of extranet VPNs.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
feature l2cp-control {
description
"Enables the support of L2CP control.";
}
feature input-bw {
description
"Enables the support of input bandwidth in a VPN.";
}
feature output-bw {
description
"Enables the support of output bandwidth in a VPN.";
}
feature uni-list {
description
"Enables the support of a list of UNIs in a VPN.";
}
feature cloud-access {
description
"Allows the VPN to connect to a Cloud Service Provider (CSP)
or an ISP.";
}
feature oam-3ah {
description
"Enables the support of OAM 802.3ah.";
}
feature micro-bfd {
description
"Enables the support of micro-BFD.";
}
feature bfd {
description
"Enables the support of BFD.";
}
feature signaling-options {
description
"Enables the support of signaling options.";
}
feature site-diversity {
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Enables the support of site diversity constraints in a VPN.";
}
feature encryption {
description
"Enables the support of encryption.";
}
feature always-on {
description
"Enables support for the 'always-on' access constraint.";
}
feature requested-type {
description
"Enables support for the 'requested-type' access constraint.";
}
feature bearer-reference {
description
"Enables support for the 'bearer-reference' access
constraint.";
}
feature qos {
description
"Enables support for QoS.";
}
feature qos-custom {
description
"Enables the support of a custom QoS profile.";
}
feature lag-interface {
description
"Enables LAG interfaces.";
}
feature vlan {
description
"Enables the support of VLANs.";
}
feature dot1q {
description
"Enables the support of dot1Q.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
feature qinq {
description
"Enables the support of QinQ.";
}
feature qinany {
description
"Enables the support of QinAny.";
}
feature vxlan {
description
"Enables the support of VXLANs.";
}
feature lan-tag {
description
"Enables LAN tag support in a VPN.";
}
feature target-sites {
description
"Enables the support of the 'target-sites'
match-flow parameter.";
}
feature bum {
description
"Enables BUM capabilities in a VPN.";
}
feature mac-loop-prevention {
description
"Enables the MAC loop-prevention capability in a VPN.";
}
feature lacp {
description
"Enables the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
capability in a VPN.";
}
feature mac-addr-limit {
description
"Enables the MAC address limit capability in a VPN.";
}
feature acl {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Enables the ACL capability in a VPN.";
}
feature cfm {
description
"Enables the 802.1ag CFM capability in a VPN.";
}
feature y-1731 {
description
"Enables the Y.1731 capability in a VPN.";
}
typedef svc-id {
type string;
description
"Defines the type of service component identifier.";
}
typedef ccm-priority-type {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
"A 3-bit priority value to be used in the VLAN tag,
if present in the transmitted frame.";
}
typedef control-mode {
type enumeration {
enum peer {
description
"'peer' mode, i.e., participate in the protocol towards
the CE. Peering is common for LACP and the Ethernet
Local Management Interface (E-LMI) and, occasionally,
for LLDP. For VPLSs and VPWSs, the subscriber can also
request that the SP peer enable spanning tree.";
}
enum tunnel {
description
"'tunnel' mode, i.e., pass to the egress or destination
site. For EPLs, the expectation is that L2CP frames are
tunneled.";
}
enum discard {
description
"'discard' mode, i.e., discard the frame.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
}
description
"Defines the type of control mode on L2CP protocols.";
}
typedef neg-mode {
type enumeration {
enum full-duplex {
description
"Defines full-duplex mode.";
}
enum auto-neg {
description
"Defines auto-negotiation mode.";
}
}
description
"Defines the type of negotiation mode.";
}
identity site-network-access-type {
description
"Base identity for the site-network-access type.";
}
identity point-to-point {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Identity for a point-to-point connection.";
}
identity multipoint {
base site-network-access-type;
description
"Identity for a multipoint connection, e.g.,
an Ethernet broadcast segment.";
}
identity tag-type {
description
"Base identity from which all tag types are derived.";
}
identity c-vlan {
base tag-type;
description
"A CVLAN tag, normally using the 0x8100 Ethertype.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
identity s-vlan {
base tag-type;
description
"An SVLAN tag.";
}
identity c-s-vlan {
base tag-type;
description
"Using both a CVLAN tag and an SVLAN tag.";
}
identity multicast-tree-type {
description
"Base identity for the multicast tree type.";
}
identity ssm-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Identity for the Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) tree type.";
reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery";
}
identity asm-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Identity for the Any-Source Multicast (ASM) tree type.";
reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery";
}
identity bidir-tree-type {
base multicast-tree-type;
description
"Identity for the bidirectional tree type.";
reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery";
}
identity multicast-gp-address-mapping {
description
"Identity for mapping type.";
}
identity static-mapping {
base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity for static mapping, i.e., attach the interface
to the multicast group as a static member.";
}
identity dynamic-mapping {
base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
description
"Identity for dynamic mapping, i.e., an interface was added
to the multicast group as a result of snooping.";
}
identity tf-type {
description
"Identity for the traffic type.";
}
identity multicast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Identity for multicast traffic.";
}
identity broadcast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Identity for broadcast traffic.";
}
identity unknown-unicast-traffic {
base tf-type;
description
"Identity for unknown unicast traffic.";
}
identity encapsulation-type {
description
"Identity for the encapsulation type.";
}
identity ethernet {
base encapsulation-type;
description
"Identity for Ethernet type.";
}
identity vlan {
base encapsulation-type;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity for the VLAN type.";
}
identity carrierscarrier-type {
description
"Identity of the CsC type.";
}
identity ldp {
base carrierscarrier-type;
description
"Use LDP as the signaling protocol
between the PE and the CE.";
}
identity bgp {
base carrierscarrier-type;
description
"Use BGP (as per RFC 8277) as the signaling protocol
between the PE and the CE.
In this case, BGP must also be configured as
the routing protocol.";
}
identity eth-inf-type {
description
"Identity of the Ethernet interface type.";
}
identity tagged {
base eth-inf-type;
description
"Identity of the tagged interface type.";
}
identity untagged {
base eth-inf-type;
description
"Identity of the untagged interface type.";
}
identity lag {
base eth-inf-type;
description
"Identity of the LAG interface type.";
}
identity bw-type {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Identity of the bandwidth type.";
}
identity bw-per-cos {
base bw-type;
description
"Bandwidth is per CoS.";
}
identity bw-per-port {
base bw-type;
description
"Bandwidth is per site network access.";
}
identity bw-per-site {
base bw-type;
description
"Bandwidth is per site. It is applicable to
all the site network accesses within the site.";
}
identity bw-per-svc {
base bw-type;
description
"Bandwidth is per VPN service.";
}
identity site-vpn-flavor {
description
"Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.";
}
identity site-vpn-flavor-single {
base site-vpn-flavor;
description
"Identity for the site VPN service flavor.
Used when the site belongs to only one VPN.";
}
identity site-vpn-flavor-multi {
base site-vpn-flavor;
description
"Identity for the site VPN service flavor.
Used when a logical connection of a site
belongs to multiple VPNs.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
identity site-vpn-flavor-nni {
base site-vpn-flavor;
description
"Identity for the site VPN service flavor.
Used to describe an NNI option A connection.";
}
identity service-type {
description
"Base identity of the service type.";
}
identity vpws {
base service-type;
description
"Point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS)
service type.";
}
identity pwe3 {
base service-type;
description
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) service type.";
}
identity ldp-l2tp-vpls {
base service-type;
description
"LDP-based or L2TP-based multipoint Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS) service type. This VPLS uses LDP-signaled
Pseudowires or L2TP-signaled Pseudowires.";
}
identity bgp-vpls {
base service-type;
description
"BGP-based multipoint VPLS service type. This VPLS uses a
BGP control plane as described in RFCs 4761 and 6624.";
}
identity vpws-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"VPWS service type using Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs)
as specified in RFC 7432.";
}
identity pbb-evpn {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
base service-type;
description
"Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) service type using
EVPNs as specified in RFC 7432.";
}
identity bundling-type {
description
"The base identity for the bundling type. It supports
multiple CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service or
all CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service.";
}
identity multi-svc-bundling {
base bundling-type;
description
"Identity for multi-service bundling, i.e.,
multiple CE-VLAN IDs can be associated with an
L2VPN service at a site.";
}
identity one2one-bundling {
base bundling-type;
description
"Identity for one-to-one service bundling, i.e.,
each L2VPN can be associated with only one CE-VLAN ID
at a site.";
}
identity all2one-bundling {
base bundling-type;
description
"Identity for all-to-one bundling, i.e., all CE-VLAN IDs
are mapped to one L2VPN service.";
}
identity color-id {
description
"Base identity of the color ID.";
}
identity color-id-cvlan {
base color-id;
description
"Identity of the color ID based on a CVLAN.";
}
identity cos-id {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Identity of the CoS ID.";
}
identity cos-id-pcp {
base cos-id;
description
"Identity of the CoS ID based on the
Port Control Protocol (PCP).";
}
identity cos-id-dscp {
base cos-id;
description
"Identity of the CoS ID based on DSCP.";
}
identity color-type {
description
"Identity of color types.";
}
identity green {
base color-type;
description
"Identity of the 'green' color type.";
}
identity yellow {
base color-type;
description
"Identity of the 'yellow' color type.";
}
identity red {
base color-type;
description
"Identity of the 'red' color type.";
}
identity policing {
description
"Identity of the type of policing applied.";
}
identity one-rate-two-color {
base policing;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity of one-rate, two-color (1R2C).";
}
identity two-rate-three-color {
base policing;
description
"Identity of two-rate, three-color (2R3C).";
}
identity bum-type {
description
"Identity of the BUM type.";
}
identity broadcast {
base bum-type;
description
"Identity of broadcast.";
}
identity unicast {
base bum-type;
description
"Identity of unicast.";
}
identity multicast {
base bum-type;
description
"Identity of multicast.";
}
identity loop-prevention-type {
description
"Identity of loop prevention.";
}
identity shut {
base loop-prevention-type;
description
"Identity of shut protection.";
}
identity trap {
base loop-prevention-type;
description
"Identity of trap protection.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
identity lacp-state {
description
"Identity of the LACP state.";
}
identity lacp-on {
base lacp-state;
description
"Identity of LACP on.";
}
identity lacp-off {
base lacp-state;
description
"Identity of LACP off.";
}
identity lacp-mode {
description
"Identity of the LACP mode.";
}
identity lacp-passive {
base lacp-mode;
description
"Identity of LACP passive.";
}
identity lacp-active {
base lacp-mode;
description
"Identity of LACP active.";
}
identity lacp-speed {
description
"Identity of the LACP speed.";
}
identity lacp-fast {
base lacp-speed;
description
"Identity of LACP fast.";
}
identity lacp-slow {
base lacp-speed;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity of LACP slow.";
}
identity bw-direction {
description
"Identity for the bandwidth direction.";
}
identity input-bw {
base bw-direction;
description
"Identity for the input bandwidth.";
}
identity output-bw {
base bw-direction;
description
"Identity for the output bandwidth.";
}
identity management {
description
"Base identity for the site management scheme.";
}
identity co-managed {
base management;
description
"Identity for a co-managed site.";
}
identity customer-managed {
base management;
description
"Identity for a customer-managed site.";
}
identity provider-managed {
base management;
description
"Identity for a provider-managed site.";
}
identity address-family {
description
"Identity for an address family.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
identity ipv4 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for an IPv4 address family.";
}
identity ipv6 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for an IPv6 address family.";
}
identity vpn-topology {
description
"Base identity for the VPN topology.";
}
identity any-to-any {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for the any-to-any VPN topology.";
}
identity hub-spoke {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for the Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology.";
}
identity hub-spoke-disjoint {
base vpn-topology;
description
"Identity for the Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology,
where Hubs cannot communicate with each other.";
}
identity site-role {
description
"Base identity for a site type.";
}
identity any-to-any-role {
base site-role;
description
"Site in an any-to-any L2VPN.";
}
identity spoke-role {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
base site-role;
description
"Spoke site in a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN.";
}
identity hub-role {
base site-role;
description
"Hub site in a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN.";
}
identity pm-type {
description
"Performance-monitoring type.";
}
identity loss {
base pm-type;
description
"Loss measurement.";
}
identity delay {
base pm-type;
description
"Delay measurement.";
}
identity fault-alarm-defect-type {
description
"Indicates the alarm-priority defect (i.e., the
lowest-priority defect that is allowed to
generate a fault alarm).";
}
identity remote-rdi {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
description
"Indicates the aggregate health
of the Remote MEPs.";
}
identity remote-mac-error {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
description
"Indicates that one or more of the Remote MEPs are
reporting a failure in their Port Status TLVs or
Interface Status TLVs.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
identity remote-invalid-ccm {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
description
"Indicates that at least one of the Remote MEP
state machines is not receiving valid
Continuity Check Messages (CCMs) from its Remote MEP.";
}
identity invalid-ccm {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
description
"Indicates that one or more invalid CCMs have been
received and that a period of time 3.5 times the length
of those CCMs' transmission intervals has not yet expired.";
}
identity cross-connect-ccm {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
description
"Indicates that one or more cross-connect CCMs have been
received and that 3.5 times the period of at least one of
those CCMs' transmission intervals has not yet expired.";
}
identity frame-delivery-mode {
description
"Delivery types.";
}
identity discard {
base frame-delivery-mode;
description
"Service frames are discarded.";
}
identity unconditional {
base frame-delivery-mode;
description
"Service frames are unconditionally delivered to the
destination site.";
}
identity unknown-discard {
base frame-delivery-mode;
description
"Service frames are conditionally delivered to the
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
destination site. Packets with unknown destination addresses
will be discarded.";
}
identity placement-diversity {
description
"Base identity for site placement constraints.";
}
identity bearer-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for bearer diversity.
The bearers should not use common elements.";
}
identity pe-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for PE diversity.";
}
identity pop-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for POP diversity.";
}
identity linecard-diverse {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for linecard diversity.";
}
identity same-pe {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for having sites connected on the same PE.";
}
identity same-bearer {
base placement-diversity;
description
"Identity for having sites connected using the same bearer.";
}
identity tagged-inf-type {
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity for the tagged interface type.";
}
identity priority-tagged {
base tagged-inf-type;
description
"Identity for the priority-tagged interface.";
}
identity qinq {
base tagged-inf-type;
description
"Identity for the QinQ tagged interface.";
}
identity dot1q {
base tagged-inf-type;
description
"Identity for the dot1Q VLAN tagged interface.";
}
identity qinany {
base tagged-inf-type;
description
"Identity for the QinAny tagged interface.";
}
identity vxlan {
base tagged-inf-type;
description
"Identity for the VXLAN tagged interface.";
}
identity provision-model {
description
"Base identity for the provision model.";
}
identity single-side-provision {
description
"Identity for single-sided provisioning with discovery.";
}
identity doubled-side-provision {
description
"Identity for double-sided provisioning.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
identity mac-learning-mode {
description
"MAC learning mode.";
}
identity data-plane {
base mac-learning-mode;
description
"User MAC addresses are learned through ARP broadcast.";
}
identity control-plane {
base mac-learning-mode;
description
"User MAC addresses are advertised through EVPN-BGP.";
}
identity vpn-policy-filter-type {
description
"Base identity for the filter type.";
}
identity lan {
base vpn-policy-filter-type;
description
"Identity for a LAN tag filter type.";
}
identity mac-action {
description
"Base identity for a MAC action.";
}
identity drop {
base mac-action;
description
"Identity for dropping a packet.";
}
identity flood {
base mac-action;
description
"Identity for packet flooding.";
}
identity warning {
base mac-action;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identity for sending a warning log message.";
}
identity qos-profile-direction {
description
"Base identity for the QoS-profile direction.";
}
identity site-to-wan {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Identity for the site-to-WAN direction.";
}
identity wan-to-site {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Identity for the WAN-to-site direction.";
}
identity bidirectional {
base qos-profile-direction;
description
"Identity for both the WAN-to-site direction
and the site-to-WAN direction.";
}
identity vxlan-peer-mode {
description
"Base identity for the VXLAN peer mode.";
}
identity static-mode {
base vxlan-peer-mode;
description
"Identity for VXLAN access in the static mode.";
}
identity bgp-mode {
base vxlan-peer-mode;
description
"Identity for VXLAN access by BGP EVPN learning.";
}
identity customer-application {
description
"Base identity for a customer application.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
identity web {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a web application (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS).";
}
identity mail {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a mail application.";
}
identity file-transfer {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a file-transfer application
(e.g., FTP, SFTP).";
}
identity database {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a database application.";
}
identity social {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a social-network application.";
}
identity games {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a gaming application.";
}
identity p2p {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a peer-to-peer application.";
}
identity network-management {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a management application
(e.g., Telnet, syslog, SNMP).";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
identity voice {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a voice application.";
}
identity video {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for a videoconference application.";
}
identity embb {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for the enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB)
application. Note that the eMBB application
requires strict threshold values for a wide variety
of network performance parameters (e.g., data rate,
latency, loss rate, reliability).";
}
identity urllc {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for the Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency
Communications (URLLC) application. Note that the
URLLC application requires strict threshold values for
a wide variety of network performance parameters
(e.g., latency, reliability).";
}
identity mmtc {
base customer-application;
description
"Identity for the massive Machine Type
Communications (mMTC) application. Note that the
mMTC application requires strict threshold values for
a wide variety of network performance parameters
(e.g., data rate, latency, loss rate, reliability).";
}
grouping site-acl {
container access-control-list {
if-feature "acl";
list mac {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
key "mac-address";
leaf mac-address {
type yang:mac-address;
description
"MAC addresses.";
}
description
"List of MAC addresses.";
}
description
"Container for the ACL.";
}
description
"Grouping that defines the ACL.";
}
grouping site-bum {
container broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast {
if-feature "bum";
leaf multicast-site-type {
type enumeration {
enum receiver-only {
description
"The site only has receivers.";
}
enum source-only {
description
"The site only has sources.";
}
enum source-receiver {
description
"The site has both sources and receivers.";
}
}
default "source-receiver";
description
"Type of multicast site.";
}
list multicast-gp-address-mapping {
key "id";
leaf id {
type uint16;
description
"Unique identifier for the mapping.";
}
leaf vlan-id {
type uint16 {
range "0..1024";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
mandatory true;
description
"The VLAN ID of the multicast group.
The range of the 12-bit VLAN ID is 0 to 1024.";
}
leaf mac-gp-address {
type yang:mac-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The MAC address of the multicast group.";
}
leaf port-lag-number {
type uint32;
description
"The ports/LAGs belonging to the multicast group.";
}
description
"List of port-to-group mappings.";
}
leaf bum-overall-rate {
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Overall rate for BUM.";
}
list bum-rate-per-type {
key "type";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base bum-type;
}
description
"BUM type.";
}
leaf rate {
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Rate for BUM.";
}
description
"List of limit rates for the BUM type.";
}
description
"Container of BUM configurations.";
}
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Grouping for BUM.";
}
grouping site-mac-loop-prevention {
container mac-loop-prevention {
if-feature "mac-loop-prevention";
leaf protection-type {
type identityref {
base loop-prevention-type;
}
default "trap";
description
"Protection type. By default, the protection
type is 'trap'.";
}
leaf frequency {
type uint32;
default "5";
description
"The number of times to detect MAC duplication, where
a 'duplicate MAC address' situation has occurred and
the duplicate MAC address has been added to a list of
duplicate MAC addresses. By default, the number of
times is 5.";
}
leaf retry-timer {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
description
"The retry timer. When the retry timer expires,
the duplicate MAC address will be flushed from
the MAC-VRF.";
}
description
"Container of MAC loop-prevention parameters.";
}
description
"Grouping for MAC loop prevention.";
}
grouping site-service-qos-profile {
container qos {
if-feature "qos";
container qos-classification-policy {
list rule {
key "id";
ordered-by user;
leaf id {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
type string;
description
"A description identifying the QoS classification
policy rule.";
}
choice match-type {
default "match-flow";
case match-flow {
container match-flow {
leaf dscp {
type inet:dscp;
description
"DSCP value.";
}
leaf dot1q {
type uint16;
description
"802.1Q matching. It is a VLAN tag added into
a frame.";
}
leaf pcp {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
"PCP value.";
}
leaf src-mac {
type yang:mac-address;
description
"Source MAC.";
}
leaf dst-mac {
type yang:mac-address;
description
"Destination MAC.";
}
leaf color-type {
type identityref {
base color-type;
}
description
"Color types.";
}
leaf-list target-sites {
if-feature "target-sites";
type svc-id;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identifies a site as a traffic destination.";
}
leaf any {
type empty;
description
"Allow all.";
}
leaf vpn-id {
type svc-id;
description
"Reference to the target VPN.";
}
description
"Describes flow-matching criteria.";
}
}
case match-application {
leaf match-application {
type identityref {
base customer-application;
}
description
"Defines the application to match.";
}
}
description
"Choice for classification.";
}
leaf target-class-id {
type string;
description
"Identification of the CoS.
This identifier is internal to the
administration.";
}
description
"List of marking rules.";
}
description
"Configuration of the traffic classification policy.";
}
container qos-profile {
choice qos-profile {
description
"Choice for the QoS profile.
Can be a standard profile or a customized profile.";
case standard {
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Standard QoS profile.";
leaf profile {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/"
+ "valid-provider-identifiers/"
+ "qos-profile-identifier";
}
description
"QoS profile to be used.";
}
}
case custom {
description
"Customized QoS profile.";
container classes {
if-feature "qos-custom";
list class {
key "class-id";
leaf class-id {
type string;
description
"Identification of the CoS. This identifier is
internal to the administration.";
}
leaf direction {
type identityref {
base qos-profile-direction;
}
default "bidirectional";
description
"The direction in which the QoS profile is
applied. By default, the direction is
bidirectional.";
}
leaf policing {
type identityref {
base policing;
}
default "one-rate-two-color";
description
"The policing type can be either one-rate,
two-color (1R2C) or two-rate, three-color
(2R3C). By default, the policing type is
'one-rate-two-color'.";
}
leaf byte-offset {
type uint16;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Number of bytes in the service frame header
that are excluded from the QoS calculation
(e.g., extra VLAN tags).";
}
container frame-delay {
choice flavor {
case lowest {
leaf use-lowest-latency {
type empty;
description
"The traffic class should use the path
with the lowest delay.";
}
}
case boundary {
leaf delay-bound {
type uint16;
units "milliseconds";
description
"The traffic class should use a path
with a defined maximum delay.";
}
}
description
"Delay constraint on the traffic class.";
}
description
"Delay constraint on the traffic class.";
}
container frame-jitter {
choice flavor {
case lowest {
leaf use-lowest-jitter {
type empty;
description
"The traffic class should use the path
with the lowest jitter.";
}
}
case boundary {
leaf delay-bound {
type uint32;
units "microseconds";
description
"The traffic class should use a path
with a defined maximum jitter.";
}
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 114]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Jitter constraint on the traffic class.";
}
description
"Jitter constraint on the traffic class.";
}
container frame-loss {
leaf rate {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
range "0..100";
}
units "percent";
description
"Frame loss rate constraint on the traffic
class.";
}
description
"Container for frame loss rate.";
}
container bandwidth {
leaf guaranteed-bw-percent {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 5;
range "0..100";
}
units "percent";
mandatory true;
description
"Used to define the guaranteed bandwidth
as a percentage of the available service
bandwidth.";
}
leaf end-to-end {
type empty;
description
"Used if the bandwidth reservation
must be done on the MPLS network too.";
}
description
"Bandwidth constraint on the traffic class.";
}
description
"List of CoS entries.";
}
description
"Container for list of CoS entries.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 115]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
}
description
"Qos profile configuration.";
}
description
"QoS configuration.";
}
description
"Grouping that defines QoS parameters for a site.";
}
grouping site-service-mpls {
container carrierscarrier {
if-feature "carrierscarrier";
leaf signaling-type {
type identityref {
base carrierscarrier-type;
}
default "bgp";
description
"CsC. By default, the signaling type is 'bgp'.";
}
description
"Container for CsC.";
}
description
"Grouping for CsC.";
}
container l2vpn-svc {
container vpn-profiles {
container valid-provider-identifiers {
leaf-list cloud-identifier {
if-feature "cloud-access";
type string;
description
"Identification of the public cloud service or
Internet service. Local to each administration.";
}
leaf-list qos-profile-identifier {
type string;
description
"Identification of the QoS profile to be used.
Local to each administration.";
}
leaf-list bfd-profile-identifier {
type string;
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 116]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Identification of the SP BFD profile to be used.
Local to each administration.";
}
leaf-list remote-carrier-identifier {
type string;
description
"Identification of the remote carrier name to be used.
It can be an L2VPN partner, data-center SP, or
private CSP. Local to each administration.";
}
nacm:default-deny-write;
description
"Container for valid provider identifiers.";
}
description
"Container for VPN profiles.";
}
container vpn-services {
list vpn-service {
key "vpn-id";
leaf vpn-id {
type svc-id;
description
"Defines a service identifier.";
}
leaf vpn-svc-type {
type identityref {
base service-type;
}
default "vpws";
description
"Service type. By default, the service type is 'vpws'.";
}
leaf customer-name {
type string;
description
"Customer name.";
}
leaf svc-topo {
type identityref {
base vpn-topology;
}
default "any-to-any";
description
"Defines the service topology, e.g.,
'any-to-any', 'hub-spoke'.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 117]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
container cloud-accesses {
if-feature "cloud-access";
list cloud-access {
key "cloud-identifier";
leaf cloud-identifier {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/"
+ "valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/cloud-identifier";
}
description
"Identification of the cloud service.
Local to each administration.";
}
choice list-flavor {
case permit-any {
leaf permit-any {
type empty;
description
"Allow all sites.";
}
}
case deny-any-except {
leaf-list permit-site {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
}
description
"Site ID to be authorized.";
}
}
case permit-any-except {
leaf-list deny-site {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
}
description
"Site ID to be denied.";
}
}
description
"Choice for cloud access policy.
By default, all sites in the L2VPN
MUST be authorized to access the cloud.";
}
description
"Cloud access configuration.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 118]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Container for cloud access configurations.";
}
container frame-delivery {
if-feature "bum";
container customer-tree-flavors {
leaf-list tree-flavor {
type identityref {
base multicast-tree-type;
}
description
"Type of tree to be used.";
}
description
"Types of trees used by the customer.";
}
container bum-deliveries {
list bum-delivery {
key "frame-type";
leaf frame-type {
type identityref {
base tf-type;
}
description
"Type of frame delivery. It supports unicast
frame delivery, multicast frame delivery,
and broadcast frame delivery.";
}
leaf delivery-mode {
type identityref {
base frame-delivery-mode;
}
default "unconditional";
description
"Defines the frame delivery mode
('unconditional' (default), 'conditional',
or 'discard'). By default, service frames are
unconditionally delivered to the destination site.";
}
description
"List of frame delivery types and modes.";
}
description
"Defines the frame delivery types and modes.";
}
leaf multicast-gp-port-mapping {
type identityref {
base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 119]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
mandatory true;
description
"Describes the way in which each interface is
associated with the multicast group.";
}
description
"Multicast global parameters for the VPN service.";
}
container extranet-vpns {
if-feature "extranet-vpn";
list extranet-vpn {
key "vpn-id";
leaf vpn-id {
type svc-id;
description
"Identifies the target VPN that the local VPN wants to
access.";
}
leaf local-sites-role {
type identityref {
base site-role;
}
default "any-to-any-role";
description
"Describes the role of the local sites in the target
VPN topology. In the any-to-any VPN service topology,
the local sites must have the same role, which will be
'any-to-any-role'. In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service
topology or the Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN service
topology, the local sites must have a Hub role or a
Spoke role.";
}
description
"List of extranet VPNs to which the local VPN
is attached.";
}
description
"Container for extranet VPN configurations.";
}
leaf ce-vlan-preservation {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"Preserves the CE-VLAN ID from ingress to egress, i.e.,
the CE-VLAN tag of the egress frame is identical to
that of the ingress frame that yielded this
egress service frame. If all-to-one bundling within
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 120]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
a site is enabled, then preservation applies to all
ingress service frames. If all-to-one bundling is
disabled, then preservation applies to tagged
ingress service frames having CE-VLAN IDs 1 through 4094.";
}
leaf ce-vlan-cos-preservation {
type boolean;
mandatory true;
description
"CE VLAN CoS preservation. The PCP bits in the CE-VLAN tag
of the egress frame are identical to those of the
ingress frame that yielded this egress service frame.";
}
leaf carrierscarrier {
if-feature "carrierscarrier";
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The VPN is using CsC, and so MPLS is required.";
}
description
"List of VPN services.";
}
description
"Container for VPN services.";
}
container sites {
list site {
key "site-id";
leaf site-id {
type string;
description
"Identifier of the site.";
}
leaf site-vpn-flavor {
type identityref {
base site-vpn-flavor;
}
default "site-vpn-flavor-single";
description
"Defines the way that the VPN multiplexing is
done, e.g., whether the site belongs to
a single VPN site or a multi-VPN site. By
default, the site belongs to a single VPN.";
}
container devices {
when "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:provider-managed') or "
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 121]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
+ "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" {
description
"Applicable only for a provider-managed or
co-managed device.";
}
list device {
key "device-id";
leaf device-id {
type string;
description
"Identifier for the device.";
}
leaf location {
type leafref {
path "../../../locations/location/location-id";
}
mandatory true;
description
"Location of the device.";
}
container management {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" {
description
"Applicable only for a co-managed device.";
}
leaf transport {
type identityref {
base address-family;
}
description
"Transport protocol or address family
used for management.";
}
leaf address {
when '(../ transport)' {
description
"If the address family is specified, then the
address should also be specified. If the
transport is not specified, then the address
should not be specified.";
}
type inet:ip-address;
description
"Management address.";
}
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 122]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Management configuration. Applicable only for a
co-managed device.";
}
description
"List of devices requested by the customer.";
}
description
"Device configurations.";
}
container management {
leaf type {
type identityref {
base management;
}
mandatory true;
description
"Management type of the connection.";
}
description
"Management configuration.";
}
container locations {
list location {
key "location-id";
leaf location-id {
type string;
description
"Location ID.";
}
leaf address {
type string;
description
"Address (number and street) of the site.";
}
leaf postal-code {
type string;
description
"Postal code of the site. The format of 'postal-code'
is similar to the 'PC' (postal code) label format
defined in RFC 4119.";
}
leaf state {
type string;
description
"State (region) of the site. This leaf can also be used
to describe a region of a country that does not have
states.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 123]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
leaf city {
type string;
description
"City of the site.";
}
leaf country-code {
type string;
description
"Country of the site. The format of 'country-code' is
similar to the 'country' label defined in RFC 4119.";
}
description
"List of locations.";
}
description
"Location of the site.";
}
container site-diversity {
if-feature "site-diversity";
container groups {
list group {
key "group-id";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"The group-id to which the site belongs.";
}
description
"List of group-ids.";
}
description
"Groups to which the site belongs.
All site network accesses will inherit those group
values.";
}
description
"The type of diversity constraint.";
}
container vpn-policies {
list vpn-policy {
key "vpn-policy-id";
leaf vpn-policy-id {
type string;
description
"Unique identifier for the VPN policy.";
}
list entries {
key "id";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 124]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Unique identifier for the policy entry.";
}
container filters {
list filter {
key "type";
ordered-by user;
leaf type {
type identityref {
base vpn-policy-filter-type;
}
description
"Type of VPN policy filter.";
}
leaf-list lan-tag {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:lan')" {
description
"Only applies when the VPN policy filter is a
LAN tag filter.";
}
if-feature "lan-tag";
type uint32;
description
"List of Ethernet LAN tags to be matched. An
Ethernet LAN tag identifies a particular
broadcast domain in a VPN.";
}
description
"List of filters used on the site. This list can
be augmented.";
}
description
"If a more granular VPN attachment is necessary,
filtering can be used. If used, it permits the
splitting of site LANs among multiple VPNs. The
site LAN can be split based on either the LAN tag or
the LAN prefix. If no filter is used, all the LANs
will be part of the same VPNs with the same role.";
}
list vpn {
key "vpn-id";
leaf vpn-id {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 125]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Reference to an L2VPN.";
}
leaf site-role {
type identityref {
base site-role;
}
default "any-to-any-role";
description
"Role of the site in the L2VPN.";
}
description
"List of VPNs with which the LAN is associated.";
}
description
"List of entries for an export policy.";
}
description
"List of VPN policies.";
}
description
"VPN policy.";
}
container service {
uses site-service-qos-profile;
uses site-service-mpls;
description
"Service parameters on the attachment.";
}
uses site-bum;
uses site-mac-loop-prevention;
uses site-acl;
leaf actual-site-start {
type yang:date-and-time;
config false;
description
"This leaf is optional. It indicates the date and time
when the service at a particular site actually started.";
}
leaf actual-site-stop {
type yang:date-and-time;
config false;
description
"This leaf is optional. It indicates the date and time
when the service at a particular site actually stopped.";
}
leaf bundling-type {
type identityref {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 126]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
base bundling-type;
}
default "one2one-bundling";
description
"Bundling type. By default, each L2VPN
can be associated with only one
CE-VLAN, i.e., one-to-one bundling is used.";
}
leaf default-ce-vlan-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"Default CE VLAN ID set at the site level.";
}
container site-network-accesses {
list site-network-access {
key "network-access-id";
leaf network-access-id {
type string;
description
"Identifier of network access.";
}
leaf remote-carrier-name {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../site-vpn-flavor,"
+ "'l2vpn-svc:site-vpn-flavor-nni')" {
description
"Relevant when the site's VPN flavor is
'site-vpn-flavor-nni'.";
}
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/"
+ "valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/remote-carrier-identifier";
}
description
"Remote carrier name. The 'remote-carrier-name'
parameter must be configured only when
'site-vpn-flavor' is set to 'site-vpn-flavor-nni'.
If it is not set, it indicates that the customer
does not know the remote carrier's name
beforehand.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base site-network-access-type;
}
default "point-to-point";
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 127]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Describes the type of connection, e.g.,
point-to-point or multipoint.";
}
choice location-flavor {
case location {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:customer-managed')" {
description
"Applicable only for a customer-managed device.";
}
leaf location-reference {
type leafref {
path "../../../locations/location/location-id";
}
description
"Location of the site-network-access.";
}
}
case device {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:provider-managed') or "
+ "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" {
description
"Applicable only for a provider-managed
or co-managed device.";
}
leaf device-reference {
type leafref {
path "../../../devices/device/device-id";
}
description
"Identifier of the CE to use.";
}
}
mandatory true;
description
"Choice of how to describe the site's location.";
}
container access-diversity {
if-feature "site-diversity";
container groups {
list group {
key "group-id";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"Group-id to which the site belongs.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 128]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
description
"List of group-ids.";
}
description
"Groups to which the site or site-network-access
belongs.";
}
container constraints {
list constraint {
key "constraint-type";
leaf constraint-type {
type identityref {
base placement-diversity;
}
description
"The type of diversity constraint.";
}
container target {
choice target-flavor {
default "id";
case id {
list group {
key "group-id";
leaf group-id {
type string;
description
"The constraint will apply against this
particular group-id.";
}
description
"List of groups.";
}
}
case all-accesses {
leaf all-other-accesses {
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other
site network accesses of this site.";
}
}
case all-groups {
leaf all-other-groups {
type empty;
description
"The constraint will apply against all other
groups the customer is managing.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 129]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
}
description
"Choice for the group definition.";
}
description
"The constraint will apply against
this list of groups.";
}
description
"List of constraints.";
}
description
"Constraints for placing this site network access.";
}
description
"Diversity parameters.";
}
container bearer {
container requested-type {
if-feature "requested-type";
leaf type {
type string;
description
"Type of requested bearer: Ethernet, ATM, Frame
Relay, IP Layer 2 transport, Frame Relay Data
Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), SONET/SDH,
PPP.";
}
leaf strict {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Defines whether the requested type is a preference
or a strict requirement.";
}
description
"Container for requested types.";
}
leaf always-on {
if-feature "always-on";
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"Request for an 'always-on' access type.
For example, this could mean no dial-in access
type.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 130]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
leaf bearer-reference {
if-feature "bearer-reference";
type string;
description
"An internal reference for the SP.";
}
description
"Bearer-specific parameters. To be augmented.";
}
container connection {
leaf encapsulation-type {
type identityref {
base encapsulation-type;
}
default "ethernet";
description
"Encapsulation type. By default, the
encapsulation type is set to 'ethernet'.";
}
leaf eth-inf-type {
type identityref {
base eth-inf-type;
}
default "untagged";
description
"Ethernet interface type. By default, the
Ethernet interface type is set to 'untagged'.";
}
container tagged-interface {
leaf type {
type identityref {
base tagged-inf-type;
}
default "priority-tagged";
description
"Tagged interface type. By default,
the type of the tagged interface is
'priority-tagged'.";
}
container dot1q-vlan-tagged {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:dot1q')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged
interface is 'dot1q'.";
}
if-feature "dot1q";
leaf tg-type {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 131]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
type identityref {
base tag-type;
}
default "c-vlan";
description
"Tag type. By default, the tag type is
'c-vlan'.";
}
leaf cvlan-id {
type uint16;
mandatory true;
description
"VLAN identifier.";
}
description
"Tagged interface.";
}
container priority-tagged {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:priority-tagged')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged
interface is 'priority-tagged'.";
}
leaf tag-type {
type identityref {
base tag-type;
}
default "c-vlan";
description
"Tag type. By default, the tag type is
'c-vlan'.";
}
description
"Priority tagged.";
}
container qinq {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:qinq')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged
interface is 'qinq'.";
}
if-feature "qinq";
leaf tag-type {
type identityref {
base tag-type;
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 132]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
default "c-s-vlan";
description
"Tag type. By default, the tag type is
'c-s-vlan'.";
}
leaf svlan-id {
type uint16;
mandatory true;
description
"SVLAN identifier.";
}
leaf cvlan-id {
type uint16;
mandatory true;
description
"CVLAN identifier.";
}
description
"QinQ.";
}
container qinany {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:qinany')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged
interface is 'qinany'.";
}
if-feature "qinany";
leaf tag-type {
type identityref {
base tag-type;
}
default "s-vlan";
description
"Tag type. By default, the tag type is
's-vlan'.";
}
leaf svlan-id {
type uint16;
mandatory true;
description
"SVLAN ID.";
}
description
"Container for QinAny.";
}
container vxlan {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 133]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
+ "'l2vpn-svc:vxlan')" {
description
"Only applies when the type of the tagged
interface is 'vxlan'.";
}
if-feature "vxlan";
leaf vni-id {
type uint32;
mandatory true;
description
"VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI).";
}
leaf peer-mode {
type identityref {
base vxlan-peer-mode;
}
default "static-mode";
description
"Specifies the VXLAN access mode. By default,
the peer mode is set to 'static-mode'.";
}
list peer-list {
key "peer-ip";
leaf peer-ip {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"Peer IP.";
}
description
"List of peer IP addresses.";
}
description
"QinQ.";
}
description
"Container for tagged interfaces.";
}
container untagged-interface {
leaf speed {
type uint32;
units "mbps";
default "10";
description
"Port speed.";
}
leaf mode {
type neg-mode;
default "auto-neg";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 134]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Negotiation mode.";
}
leaf phy-mtu {
type uint32;
units "bytes";
description
"PHY MTU.";
}
leaf lldp {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"LLDP. Indicates that LLDP is supported.";
}
container oam-802.3ah-link {
if-feature "oam-3ah";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether or not to support
OAM 802.3ah links.";
}
description
"Container for OAM 802.3ah links.";
}
leaf uni-loop-prevention {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"If this leaf is set to 'true', then the port
automatically goes down when a physical
loopback is detected.";
}
description
"Container of untagged interface attribute
configurations.";
}
container lag-interfaces {
if-feature "lag-interface";
list lag-interface {
key "index";
leaf index {
type string;
description
"LAG interface index.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 135]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
container lacp {
if-feature "lacp";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled.";
}
leaf mode {
type neg-mode;
description
"LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and
passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means
initiating the auto-speed negotiation and
trying to form an Ethernet channel with the
other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating
the negotiation but responding to LACP packets
initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex
or half duplex).";
}
leaf speed {
type uint32;
units "mbps";
default "10";
description
"LACP speed. By default, the LACP speed is 10
Mbps.";
}
leaf mini-link-num {
type uint32;
description
"Defines the minimum number of links that must
be active before the aggregating link is put
into service.";
}
leaf system-priority {
type uint16;
default "32768";
description
"Indicates the LACP priority for the system.
The range is from 0 to 65535.
The default is 32768.";
}
container micro-bfd {
if-feature "micro-bfd";
leaf enabled {
type enumeration {
enum on {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 136]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"Micro-bfd on.";
}
enum off {
description
"Micro-bfd off.";
}
}
default "off";
description
"Micro-BFD on/off. By default, micro-BFD
is set to 'off'.";
}
leaf interval {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
description
"BFD interval.";
}
leaf hold-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
description
"BFD hold timer.";
}
description
"Container of micro-BFD configurations.";
}
container bfd {
if-feature "bfd";
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"BFD activation. By default, BFD is not
activated.";
}
choice holdtime {
default "fixed";
case profile {
leaf profile-name {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/"
+ "valid-provider-identifiers"
+ "/bfd-profile-identifier";
}
description
"SP well-known profile.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 137]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
description
"SP well-known profile.";
}
case fixed {
leaf fixed-value {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
description
"Expected hold time expressed in
milliseconds.";
}
}
description
"Choice for the hold-time flavor.";
}
description
"Container for BFD.";
}
container member-links {
list member-link {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Member link name.";
}
leaf speed {
type uint32;
units "mbps";
default "10";
description
"Port speed.";
}
leaf mode {
type neg-mode;
default "auto-neg";
description
"Negotiation mode.";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
units "bytes";
description
"Link MTU size.";
}
container oam-802.3ah-link {
if-feature "oam-3ah";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 138]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether OAM 802.3ah links are
supported.";
}
description
"Container for OAM 802.3ah links.";
}
description
"Member link.";
}
description
"Container of the member link list.";
}
leaf flow-control {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Flow control. Indicates whether flow control
is supported.";
}
leaf lldp {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"LLDP. Indicates whether LLDP is supported.";
}
description
"LACP.";
}
description
"List of LAG interfaces.";
}
description
"Container of LAG interface attribute
configurations.";
}
list cvlan-id-to-svc-map {
key "svc-id";
leaf svc-id {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id";
}
description
"VPN service identifier.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 139]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
list cvlan-id {
key "vid";
leaf vid {
type uint16;
description
"CVLAN ID.";
}
description
"List of CVLAN-ID-to-SVC-map configurations.";
}
description
"List of CVLAN-ID-to-L2VPN-service-map
configurations.";
}
container l2cp-control {
if-feature "l2cp-control";
leaf stp-rstp-mstp {
type control-mode;
description
"STP / Rapid STP (RSTP) / Multiple STP (MSTP)
protocol type applicable to all sites.";
}
leaf pause {
type control-mode;
description
"Pause protocol type applicable to all sites.";
}
leaf lacp-lamp {
type control-mode;
description
"LACP / Link Aggregation Marker Protocol (LAMP).";
}
leaf link-oam {
type control-mode;
description
"Link OAM.";
}
leaf esmc {
type control-mode;
description
"Ethernet Synchronization Messaging Channel
(ESMC).";
}
leaf l2cp-802.1x {
type control-mode;
description
"IEEE 802.1x.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 140]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
leaf e-lmi {
type control-mode;
description
"E-LMI.";
}
leaf lldp {
type boolean;
description
"LLDP protocol type applicable to all sites.";
}
leaf ptp-peer-delay {
type control-mode;
description
"Precision Time Protocol (PTP) peer delay.";
}
leaf garp-mrp {
type control-mode;
description
"GARP/MRP.";
}
description
"Container of L2CP control configurations.";
}
container oam {
if-feature "ethernet-oam";
leaf md-name {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"Maintenance domain name.";
}
leaf md-level {
type uint16 {
range "0..255";
}
mandatory true;
description
"Maintenance domain level. The level may be
restricted in certain protocols (e.g.,
protocols in Layer 0 to Layer 7).";
}
list cfm-8021-ag {
if-feature "cfm";
key "maid";
leaf maid {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 141]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Identifies a Maintenance Association (MA).";
}
leaf mep-id {
type uint32;
description
"Local Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP)
ID. The non-existence of this leaf means
that no defects are to be reported.";
}
leaf mep-level {
type uint32;
description
"Defines the MEP level. The non-existence of this
leaf means that no defects are to be reported.";
}
leaf mep-up-down {
type enumeration {
enum up {
description
"MEP up.";
}
enum down {
description
"MEP down.";
}
}
default "up";
description
"MEP up/down. By default, MEP up is used.
The non-existence of this leaf means that
no defects are to be reported.";
}
leaf remote-mep-id {
type uint32;
description
"Remote MEP ID. The non-existence of this leaf
means that no defects are to be reported.";
}
leaf cos-for-cfm-pdus {
type uint32;
description
"CoS for CFM PDUs. The non-existence of this leaf
means that no defects are to be reported.";
}
leaf ccm-interval {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "10000";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 142]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
description
"CCM interval. By default, the CCM interval is
10,000 milliseconds (10 seconds).";
}
leaf ccm-holdtime {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "35000";
description
"CCM hold time. By default, the CCM hold time
is 3.5 times the CCM interval.";
}
leaf alarm-priority-defect {
type identityref {
base fault-alarm-defect-type;
}
default "remote-invalid-ccm";
description
"The lowest-priority defect that is
allowed to generate a fault alarm. By default,
'fault-alarm-defect-type' is set to
'remote-invalid-ccm'. The non-existence of
this leaf means that no defects are
to be reported.";
}
leaf ccm-p-bits-pri {
type ccm-priority-type;
description
"The priority parameter for CCMs transmitted by
the MEP. The non-existence of this leaf means
that no defects are to be reported.";
}
description
"List of 802.1ag CFM attributes.";
}
list y-1731 {
if-feature "y-1731";
key "maid";
leaf maid {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"Identifies an MA.";
}
leaf mep-id {
type uint32;
description
"Local MEP ID. The non-existence of this leaf
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 143]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
means that no measurements are to be reported.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base pm-type;
}
default "delay";
description
"Performance-monitoring types. By default, the
performance-monitoring type is set to 'delay'.
The non-existence of this leaf means that no
measurements are to be reported.";
}
leaf remote-mep-id {
type uint32;
description
"Remote MEP ID. The non-existence of this
leaf means that no measurements are to be
reported.";
}
leaf message-period {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "10000";
description
"Defines the interval between Y.1731
performance-monitoring messages. The message
period is expressed in milliseconds.";
}
leaf measurement-interval {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
description
"Specifies the measurement interval for
statistics. The measurement interval is
expressed in seconds.";
}
leaf cos {
type uint32;
description
"CoS. The non-existence of this leaf means that
no measurements are to be reported.";
}
leaf loss-measurement {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether or not to enable loss
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 144]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
measurement. By default, loss
measurement is not enabled.";
}
leaf synthetic-loss-measurement {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether or not to enable synthetic loss
measurement. By default, synthetic loss
measurement is not enabled.";
}
container delay-measurement {
leaf enable-dm {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether or not to enable delay
measurement. By default, delay measurement
is not enabled.";
}
leaf two-way {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Indicates whether delay measurement is two-way
('true') or one-way ('false'). By default,
one-way measurement is enabled.";
}
description
"Container for delay measurement.";
}
leaf frame-size {
type uint32;
units "bytes";
description
"Frame size. The non-existence of this leaf
means that no measurements are to be reported.";
}
leaf session-type {
type enumeration {
enum proactive {
description
"Proactive mode.";
}
enum on-demand {
description
"On-demand mode.";
}
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 145]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
default "on-demand";
description
"Session type. By default, the session type
is 'on-demand'. The non-existence of this
leaf means that no measurements are to be
reported.";
}
description
"List of configured Y-1731 instances.";
}
description
"Container for Ethernet Service OAM.";
}
description
"Container for connection requirements.";
}
container availability {
leaf access-priority {
type uint32;
default "100";
description
"Access priority. The higher the access-priority
value, the higher the preference will be for the
access in question.";
}
choice redundancy-mode {
case single-active {
leaf single-active {
type empty;
description
"Single-active mode.";
}
description
"In single-active mode, only one node forwards
traffic to and from the Ethernet segment.";
}
case all-active {
leaf all-active {
type empty;
description
"All-active mode.";
}
description
"In all-active mode, all nodes can forward
traffic.";
}
description
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 146]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
"Redundancy mode choice.";
}
description
"Container of available optional configurations.";
}
container vpn-attachment {
choice attachment-flavor {
case vpn-id {
leaf vpn-id {
type leafref {
path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id";
}
description
"Reference to an L2VPN. Referencing a vpn-id
provides an easy way to attach a particular
logical access to a VPN. In this case,
the vpn-id must be configured.";
}
leaf site-role {
type identityref {
base site-role;
}
default "any-to-any-role";
description
"Role of the site in the L2VPN. When referencing
a vpn-id, the site-role setting must be added to
express the role of the site in the target VPN
service topology.";
}
}
case vpn-policy-id {
leaf vpn-policy-id {
type leafref {
path "../../../../vpn-policies/vpn-policy/"
+ "vpn-policy-id";
}
description
"Reference to a VPN policy.";
}
}
mandatory true;
description
"Choice for the VPN attachment flavor.";
}
description
"Defines the VPN attachment of a site.";
}
container service {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 147]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
container svc-bandwidth {
if-feature "input-bw";
list bandwidth {
key "direction type";
leaf direction {
type identityref {
base bw-direction;
}
description
"Indicates the bandwidth direction. It can be
the bandwidth download direction from the SP to
the site or the bandwidth upload direction from
the site to the SP.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base bw-type;
}
description
"Bandwidth type. By default, the bandwidth type
is set to 'bw-per-cos'.";
}
leaf cos-id {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:bw-per-cos')" {
description
"Relevant when the bandwidth type is set to
'bw-per-cos'.";
}
type uint8;
description
"Identifier of the CoS, indicated by DSCP or a
CE-VLAN CoS (802.1p) value in the service frame.
If the bandwidth type is set to 'bw-per-cos',
the CoS ID MUST also be specified.";
}
leaf vpn-id {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "
+ "'l2vpn-svc:bw-per-svc')" {
description
"Relevant when the bandwidth type is
set as bandwidth per VPN service.";
}
type svc-id;
description
"Identifies the target VPN. If the bandwidth
type is set as bandwidth per VPN service, the
vpn-id MUST be specified.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 148]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
leaf cir {
type uint64;
units "bps";
mandatory true;
description
"Committed Information Rate. The maximum number
of bits that a port can receive or send over
an interface in one second.";
}
leaf cbs {
type uint64;
units "bps";
mandatory true;
description
"Committed Burst Size (CBS). Controls the bursty
nature of the traffic. Traffic that does not
use the configured Committed Information Rate
(CIR) accumulates credits until the credits
reach the configured CBS.";
}
leaf eir {
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Excess Information Rate (EIR), i.e., excess frame
delivery allowed that is not subject to an SLA.
The traffic rate can be limited by the EIR.";
}
leaf ebs {
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Excess Burst Size (EBS). The bandwidth available
for burst traffic from the EBS is subject to the
amount of bandwidth that is accumulated during
periods when traffic allocated by the EIR
policy is not used.";
}
leaf pir {
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Peak Information Rate, i.e., maximum frame
delivery allowed. It is equal to or less
than the sum of the CIR and the EIR.";
}
leaf pbs {
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 149]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
type uint64;
units "bps";
description
"Peak Burst Size. It is measured in bytes per
second.";
}
description
"List of bandwidth values (e.g., per CoS,
per vpn-id).";
}
description
"From the customer site's perspective, the service
input/output bandwidth of the connection or
download/upload bandwidth from the SP/site
to the site/SP.";
}
leaf svc-mtu {
type uint16;
units "bytes";
mandatory true;
description
"SVC MTU. It is also known as the maximum
transmission unit or maximum frame size. When
a frame is larger than the MTU, it is broken
down, or fragmented, into smaller pieces by
the network protocol to accommodate the MTU
of the network. If CsC is enabled,
the requested svc-mtu leaf will refer to the
MPLS MTU and not to the link MTU.";
}
uses site-service-qos-profile;
uses site-service-mpls;
description
"Container for services.";
}
uses site-bum;
uses site-mac-loop-prevention;
uses site-acl;
container mac-addr-limit {
if-feature "mac-addr-limit";
leaf limit-number {
type uint16;
default "2";
description
"Maximum number of MAC addresses learned from
the subscriber for a single service instance.
The default allowed maximum number of MAC
addresses is 2.";
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 150]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
}
leaf time-interval {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
default "300";
description
"The aging time of the MAC address. By default,
the aging time is set to 300 seconds.";
}
leaf action {
type identityref {
base mac-action;
}
default "warning";
description
"Specifies the action taken when the upper limit is
exceeded: drop the packet, flood the packet, or
simply send a warning log message. By default,
the action is set to 'warning'.";
}
description
"Container of MAC address limit configurations.";
}
description
"List of site network accesses.";
}
description
"Container of port configurations.";
}
description
"List of sites.";
}
description
"Container of site configurations.";
}
description
"Container for L2VPN services.";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 151]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
9. 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.
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 /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service
The entries in the list above include all of the VPN service
configurations to which the customer subscribes and will use to
indirectly create or modify the PE and CE device configurations.
Unexpected changes to these entries could lead to service
disruptions and/or network misbehavior.
o /l2vpn-svc/sites/site
The entries in the list above include the customer site
configurations. As noted in the previous paragraph, unexpected
changes to these entries could lead to service disruptions and/or
network misbehavior.
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
o /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service
o /l2vpn-svc/sites/site
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 152]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
The entries in the lists above include customer-proprietary or
confidential information, e.g., customer name, site location,
services to which the customer subscribes.
When an SP collaborates with multiple customers, it has to ensure
that a given customer can only view and modify its (the customer's)
own service information.
The data model defines some security parameters that can be extended
via augmentation as part of the customer service request; those
parameters are described in Sections 5.12 and 5.13.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace
IANA has assigned a new YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names"
registry [RFC6020].
name: ietf-l2vpn-svc
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc
prefix: l2vpn-svc
reference: RFC 8466
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 153]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073>.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[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>.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 154]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
[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>.
[RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.
[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>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[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>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
11.2. Informative References
[EVPN-YANG]
Brissette, P., Ed., Shah, H., Ed., Chen, I., Ed., Hussain,
I., Ed., Tiruveedhula, K., Ed., and J. Rabadan, Ed., "Yang
Data Model for EVPN", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-bess-
evpn-yang-05, February 2018.
[IEEE-802-1ag]
IEEE, "802.1ag - 2007 - IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks Amendment 5: Connectivity Fault Management",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2007.4431836.
[IEEE-802-1D]
IEEE, "802.1D-2004 - IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks: Media Access Control (MAC)
Bridges", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2004.94569.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 155]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
[IEEE-802-1Q]
IEEE, "802.1Q - 2014 - IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6991462.
[IEEE-802-3ah]
IEEE, "802.3ah - 2004 - IEEE Standard for Information
technology-- Local and metropolitan area networks-- Part
3: CSMA/CD Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications
Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical
Layers, and Management Parameters for Subscriber Access
Networks", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2004.94617.
[ITU-T-Y-1731]
International Telecommunication Union, "Operations,
administration and maintenance (OAM) functions and
mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1731/en>.
[MEF-6] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions -
Phase 2", April 2008, <https://mef.net/PDF_Documents/
technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf>.
[MPLS-L2VPN-YANG]
Shah, H., Ed., Brissette, P., Ed., Chen, I., Ed., Hussain,
I., Ed., Wen, B., Ed., and K. Tiruveedhula, Ed., "YANG
Data Model for MPLS-based L2VPN", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-08, February 2018.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, DOI 10.17487/RFC4119, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4119>.
[RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.
[RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Ed., Chen, M., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed.,
Binderberger, M., Ed., and J. Haas, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Interfaces", RFC 7130, DOI 10.17487/RFC7130, February
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7130>.
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 156]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
[RFC7209] Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Uttaro, J., Bitar, N.,
Henderickx, W., and A. Isaac, "Requirements for Ethernet
VPN (EVPN)", RFC 7209, DOI 10.17487/RFC7209, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7209>.
[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>.
[RFC7436] Shah, H., Rosen, E., Le Faucheur, F., and G. Heron,
"IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)", RFC 7436,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7436, January 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7436>.
[RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module
Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8199>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.
[RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8309>.
[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
Thanks to Qin Wu and Adrian Farrel for facilitating work on the
initial draft revisions of this document. Thanks to Zonghe Huang,
Wei Deng, and Xiaoling Song for their review of this document.
Special thanks to Jan Lindblad for his careful review of the YANG.
This document has drawn on the work of the L3SM Working Group as
provided in [RFC8299].
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 157]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018
Authors' Addresses
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: bin_wen@comcast.com
Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
Telecom Italia
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Email: xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 158]