Yang model for requesting Path Computation
draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2016-10-28
|
|
Replaced by |
|
draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
| 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)
|
TEAS Working Group Italo Busi
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational Sergio Belotti
Expires: April 2017 Nokia
Victor Lopez
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Anurag Sharma
Infinera
Yan Shi
China Unicom
Ricard Vilalta
CTTC
Karthik Sethuraman
NEC
October 28, 2016
Yang model for requesting Path Computation
draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00.txt
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
Busi, Belotti, al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftYang model for requesting Path Computation October 2016
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
There are scenarios, typically in a hierarchical SDN context, in
which an orchestrator may not have detailed information to be able
to perform an end-to-end path computation and would need to request
lower layer/domain controllers to calculate some (partial) feasible
paths.
Multiple protocol solutions can be used for communication between
different controller hierarchical levels. This document assumes that
the controllers are communicating using YANG-based protocols (e.g.,
NETCONF or RESTCONF).
This document describes some use cases for a YANG model to request
path computation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Use Cases......................................................4
2.1. IP-Optical integration....................................4
2.1.1. Inter-layer path computation.........................6
2.1.2. Route Diverse IP Services............................8
2.2. Multi-domain TE Networks..................................8
Busi, Belotti, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftYang model for requesting Path Computation October 2016
2.3. Data center interconnections..............................9
3. Interactions with TE Topology.................................11
3.1. TE Topology Aggregation using the "virtual link model"...11
3.2. TE Topology Abstraction..................................14
3.3. Complementary use of TE topology and path computation....15
4. Motivation for a YANG Model...................................17
4.1. Benefits of common data models...........................17
4.2. Benefits of a single interface...........................18
4.3. Extensibility............................................19
5. Path Optimization Request.....................................19
Show full document text