Basic YANG Model for Steering Client Services To Server Tunnels
draft-bryskin-teas-service-tunnel-steering-model-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-11-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Yang Validation 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Additional URLs
- Yang catalog entry for ietf-tunnel-steering@2018-11-03.yang
- Yang impact analysis for draft-bryskin-teas-service-tunnel-steering-model
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         I. Bryskin
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                                 V. Beeram
Expires: May 9, 2019                                    Juniper Networks
                                                                 T. Saad
                                                       Cisco Systems Inc
                                                                  X. Liu
                                                          Volta Networks
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        November 5, 2018

    Basic YANG Model for Steering Client Services To Server Tunnels
          draft-bryskin-teas-service-tunnel-steering-model-01

Abstract

   This document describes a YANG data model for managing pools of
   transport tunnels and steering client services on them.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2019.

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

Bryskin, et al.            Expires May 9, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels   November 2018

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Explicit vs. Implicit Service2tunnel Mapping. Steering
       Services to Transport Tunnel Pools  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  The purpose of the model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Model Design  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Tree Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  YANG Modules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   Client layer services/signals are normally mapped onto carrying them
   across the network transport tunnels via client/server layer
   adaptation relationships.  Such relationships are usually modeled as
   multi-layer topologies, whereas tunnels set up in underlay (server)
   topologies support links in respective overlay (client) topologies.
   In this respect having a link in a client topology means that the
   client layer traffic could be forwarded between link termination
   points (LTPs) terminating the link on opposite sides by the
   supporting tunnel(s) configured in the server layer topology.

   This said there are numerous use cases in which describing the client
   service to server tunnel bindings via the topology formalism is
   impractical.  Below are some examples of such use cases:

   o  Mapping client services onto tunnels within the same network
      layer, for example, mapping L3 VPNs or MPLS-SR services onto IP
      MPLS tunnels;

   o  Mapping client services onto tunnels provisioned in the highest
      layer topology supported by the network.  For example, mapping
      L2VPNs or E(V)PL services onto IP MPLS tunnels provisioned in IP
Show full document text