Routing Information Base Info Model
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (i2rs WG)
Last updated 2013-10-18
Replaces draft-nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-model
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                    N. Bahadur, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                            R. Folkes, Ed.
Expires: April 21, 2014                           Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                 S. Kini
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               J. Medved
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        October 18, 2013

                  Routing Information Base Info Model
                   draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01

Abstract

   Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
   typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a
   routing information base (RIB).  Protocols and configuration push
   data into the RIB and the RIB manager install state into the
   hardware; for packet forwarding.  This draft specifies an information
   model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model.  Such
   a data model can be used to define an interface to the RIB from an
   entity that may even be external to the network device.  This
   interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the
   IETF I2RS WG.

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 http://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 April 21, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   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.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  RIB data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  RIB definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Routing instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  Route  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.4.  Nexthop  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.4.1.  Nexthop types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.4.2.  Nexthop list attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.4.3.  Nexthop content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.4.4.  Special nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.  Reading from the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Writing to the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Events and Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  RIB grammar  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Inter-domain extensions to the RIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.1.  Extension to Routing Instance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     7.2.  Extension to Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.3.  Inter-domain extensions to RIB grammar . . . . . . . . . . 19
   8.  Using the RIB grammar  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.1.  Using route preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     8.2.  Using different nexthops types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       8.2.1.  Tunnel nexthops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       8.2.2.  Replication lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       8.2.3.  Weighted lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       8.2.4.  Protection lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       8.2.5.  Nexthop chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       8.2.6.  Lists of lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.3.  Performing multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.4.  Solving optimized exit control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  RIB operations at scale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     9.1.  RIB reads  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     9.2.  RIB writes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     9.3.  RIB events and notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

1.  Introduction

   Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
   traditionally performed in network devices.  Traditionally routers
   run routing protocols and the routing protocols (along with static
   config) populates the Routing information base (RIB) of the router.
   The RIB is managed by the RIB manager and it provides a north-bound
   interface to its clients i.e. the routing protocols to insert routes
   into the RIB.  The RIB manager consults the RIB and decides how to
   program the forwarding information base (FIB) of the hardware by
   interfacing with the FIB-manager.  The relationship between these
   entities is shown in Figure 1.

         +-------------+        +-------------+
         |RIB-Client 1 | ...... |RIB-Client N |
         +-------------+        +-------------+
                ^                      ^
                |                      |
                +----------------------+
                           |
                           V
                +---------------------+
                |RIB-Manager          |
                |                     |
                |       +-----+       |
                |       | RIB |       |
                |       +-----+       |
                +---------------------+
                           ^
                           |
          +---------------------------------+
          |                                 |
          V                                 V
   +-------------+                   +-------------+
   |FIB-Manager 1|                   |FIB-Manager M|
   |   +-----+   |    ..........     |   +-----+   |
   |   | FIB |   |                   |   | FIB |   |
   |   +-----+   |                   |   +-----+   |
   +-------------+                   +-------------+

            Figure 1: RIB-Manager, RIB-Clients and FIB-Managers

   Routing protocols are inherently distributed in nature and each
   router makes an independent decision based on the routing data
   received from its peers.  With the advent of newer deployment
   paradigms and the need for specialized applications, there is an
   emerging need to guide the router's routing function
   [I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement].  Traditional network-device

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   protocol-based RIB population suffices for most use cases where
   distributed network control works.  However there are use cases in
   which the network admins today configure static routes, policies and
   RIB import/export rules on the routers.  There is also a growing list
   of use cases [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case],
   [I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc] in which a network admin might want
   to program the RIB based on data unrelated to just routing (within
   that network's domain).  It could be based on routing data in
   adjacent domain or it could be based on load on storage and compute
   in the given domain.  Or it could simply be a programmatic way of
   creating on-demand dynamic overlays between compute hosts (without
   requiring the hosts to run traditional routing protocols).  If there
   was a standardized programmatic interface to a RIB, it would fuel
   further networking applications targeted towards specific niches.

   A programmatic interface to the RIB involves 2 types of operations -
   reading what's in the RIB and adding/modifying/deleting contents of
   the RIB.  [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case] lists various use-cases which
   require read and/or write manipulation of the RIB.

   In order to understand what is in a router's RIB, methods like per-
   protocol SNMP MIBs and show output screen scraping are being used.
   These methods are not scalable, since they are client pull mechanisms
   and not proactive push (from the router) mechanisms.  Screen scraping
   is error prone (since the output format can change) and vendor
   dependent.  Building a RIB from per-protocol MIBs is error prone
   since the MIB data represents protocol data and not the exact
   information that went into the RIB.  Thus, just getting read-only RIB
   information from a router is a hard task.

   Adding content to the RIB from an external entity can be done today
   using static configuration support provided by router vendors.
   However the mix of what can be modified in the RIB varies from vendor
   to vendor and the way of configuring it is also vendor dependent.
   This makes it hard for an external entity to program a multi-vendor
   network in a consistent and vendor independent way.

   The purpose of this draft is to specify an information model for the
   RIB.  Using the information model, one can build a detailed data
   model for the RIB.  And that data model could then be used by an
   external entity to program a network device.

   The rest of this document is organized as follows.  Section 2 goes
   into the details of what constitutes and can be programmed in a RIB.
   Guidelines for reading and writing the RIB are provided in Section 3
   and Section 4 respectively.  Section 5 provides a high-level view of
   the events and notifications going from a network device to an
   external entity, to update the external entity on asynchronous

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   events.  The RIB grammar is specified in Section 6.  Section 7
   extends the RIB for use in inter-domain cases.  Examples of using the
   RIB grammar are shown in Section 8.  Section 9 covers considerations
   for performing RIB operations at scale.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  RIB data

   This section describes the details of a RIB.  It makes forward
   references to objects in the RIB grammar (Section 6).  A high-level
   description of the RIB contents is as shown below.

                         routing-instance

                          |             |
                          |             |
                    0..N  |             | 1..N
                          |             |

                     interface(s)     RIB(s)

                                        |
                                        |
                                        | 0..N

                                      route(s)

                            Figure 2: RIB model

2.1.  RIB definition

   A RIB is an entity that contains routes.  A RIB is identified by its
   name and a RIB is contained within a routing instance (Section 2.2).
   The name MUST be unique within a routing instance.  All routes in a
   given RIB MUST be of the same type (e.g.  IPv4).  Each RIB MUST
   belong to some routing instance.

   A RIB can be tagged with a MULTI_TOPOLOGY_ID.  If a routing instance
   is divided into multiple logical topologies, then the multi-topology
   field is used to distinguish one topology from the other, so as to
   keep routes from one topology independent of routes from another
   topology.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   If a routing instance contains multiple RIBs of the same type (e.g.
   IPv4), then a MULTI_TOPOLOGY_ID MUST be associated with each such
   RIB.  Multiple RIBs are useful when describing multiple topology IGP
   (Interior Gateway Protocol) networks (see [RFC4915] and [RFC5120] ).
   In a given routing instance, MULTI_TOPOLOGY_ID MUST be unique across
   RIBs of the same type.

   Each RIB can be optionally associated with a ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK
   attribute that enables Reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP
   routes in that RIB.  Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used to
   prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic.  For IP packets, the IP
   source address is looked up and the rpf interface(s) associated with
   the route for that IP source address is found.  If the incoming IP
   packet's interface matches one of the rpf interface(s), then the IP
   packet is forwarded based on its IP destination address; otherwise,
   the IP packet is discarded.

2.2.  Routing instance

   A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a
   collection of RIBs, interfaces, and routing parameters.  A routing
   instance creates a logical slice of the router and allows different
   logical slices; across a set of routers; to communicate with other
   each.  Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN), Layer 2 VPNs (L2VPN)
   and Virtual Private Lan Service (VPLS) can be modeled as routing
   instances.  Note that modeling a Layer 2 VPN using a routing instance
   only models the Layer-3 (RIB) aspect and does not model any layer-2
   information (like ARP) that might be associated with the L2VPN.

   The set of interfaces indicates which interfaces are associated with
   this routing instance.  The RIBs specify how incoming traffic is to
   be forwarded.  And the routing parameters control the information in
   the RIBs.  The intersection set of interfaces of 2 routing instances
   SHOULD be the null set.  In other words, an interface MUST NOT be
   present in 2 routing instances.  Thus a routing instance describes
   the routing information and parameters across a set of interfaces.

   A routing instance MUST contain the following mandatory fields.
   o  INSTANCE_NAME: A routing instance is identified by its name,
      INSTANCE_NAME.  This MUST be unique across all routing instances
      in a given network device.
   o  rib-list: This is the list of RIBs associated with this routing
      instance.  Each routing instance can have multiple RIBs to
      represent routes of different types.  For example, one would put
      IPv4 routes in one RIB and MPLS routes in another RIB.

   A routing instance MAY contain the following optional fields.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   o  interface-list: This represents the list of interfaces associated
      with this routing instance.  The interface list helps constrain
      the boundaries of packet forwarding.  Packets coming on these
      interfaces are directly associated with the given routing
      instance.  The interface list contains a list of identifiers, with
      each identifier uniquely identifying an interface.
   o  ROUTER_ID: The router-id field identifies the network device in
      control plane interactions with other network devices.  This field
      is to be used if one wants to virtualize a physical router into
      multiple virtual routers.  Each virtual router MUST have a unique
      router-id.  ROUTER_ID MUST be unique across all network devices in
      a given domain.

2.3.  Route

   A route is essentially a match condition and an action following the
   match.  The match condition specifies the kind of route (IPv4, MPLS,
   etc.) and the set of fields to match on.  Figure 3 represents the
   overall contents of a route.
   artwork
                                 route

                                 | | |
                       +---------+ | +----------+
                       |           |            |
                  0..N |           |            | 1..N

         route-attributes        match         nexthop-list

                                   |
                                   |
                   +-------+-------+-------+--------+
                   |       |       |       |        |
                   |       |       |       |        |

                  IPv4    IPv6    MPLS    MAC    Interface

               (Unicast/Multicast)

                           Figure 3: Route model

   This document specifies the following match types:
   o  IPv4: Match on destination IP in IPv4 header
   o  IPv6: Match on destination IP in IPv6 header
   o  MPLS: Match on a MPLS tag

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   o  MAC: Match on ethernet destination addresses
   o  Interface: Match on incoming interface of packet
   o  IP multicast: Match on (S, G) or (*, G), where S and G are IP
      prefixes

   Each route can have associated with it one or more optional route
   attributes.
   o  ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that allows for
      comparing routes from different protocols (where static
      configuration is also considered a protocol for the purpose of
      this field).  It is also known as administrative-distance.  The
      lower the value, the higher the preference.  For example there can
      be an OSPF route for 192.0.2.1/32 with a preference of 5.  If a
      controller programs a route for 192.0.2.1/32 with a preference of
      2, then the controller entered route will be preferred by the RIB
      manager.  Preference should be used to dictate behavior.  For more
      examples of preference, see Section 8.1.
   o  LOCAL_ONLY: This is a boolean value.  If this is present, then it
      means that this route should not be exported into other RIBs or
      other RIBs.
   o  rpf-check-interface: Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used
      to prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic.  For IP packets,
      the IP source address is looked up and the rpf-check-interface
      associated with the route for that IP source address is found.  If
      the incoming IP packet's interface matches one of the rpf-check-
      interfaces, then the IP packet is forwarded based on its IP
      destination address; otherwise, the IP packet is discarded.  For
      MPLS routes, there is no source address to be looked up, so the
      usage is slightly different.  For an MPLS route, a packet with the
      specified MPLS label will only be forwarded if it is received on
      one of the interfaces specified by the rpf-check-interface.  If no
      rpf-check-interface is specified, then matching packets are no
      subject to this check.  This field overrides the
      ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK flag on the RIB and interfaces provided in
      this list are used for doing the RPF check.
   o  route-vendor-attributes: Vendors can specify vendor-specific
      attributes using this.  The details of this field is outside the
      scope of this document.

2.4.  Nexthop

   A nexthop represents an object or action resulting from a route
   lookup.  For example, if a route lookup results in sending the packet
   out a given interface, then the nexthop represents that interface.

   Nexthops can be fully resolved nexthops or unresolved nexthop.  A
   resolved nexthop is something that is ready for installation in the
   FIB.  For example, a nexthop that points to an interface.  An

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   unresolved nexthop is something that requires the RIB manager to
   figure out the final resolved nexthop.  For example, a nexthop could
   point to an IP address.  The RIB manager has to resolve how to reach
   that IP address - is the IP address reachable by regular IP
   forwarding or by a MPLS tunnel or by both.  If the RIB manager cannot
   resolve the nexthop, then the nexthop stays in unresolved state and
   is NOT a candidate for installation in the FIB.  Future RIB events
   can cause a nexthop to get resolved (like that IP address being
   advertised by an IGP neighbor).

   The RIB information model allows an external entity to program
   nexthops that may be unresolved initially.  Whenever a unresolved
   nexthop gets resolved, the RIB manager will send a notification of
   the same (see Section 5 ).

   The overall structure and usage of a nexthop is as shown in the
   figure below.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

                                 route

                                   |
                                   | 0..N

                              nexthop-list

                                   |
                +------------------+------------------+
          1..N  |                                     |
                |                                     |

         nexthop-list-member                    special-nexthop

                |
                |

           nexthop-chain

                |
          1..N  |

             nexthop

                |
                |
       +--------+------+------------------+------------------+
       |               |                  |                  |
       |               |                  |                  |

    nexthop-id   egress-interface    logical-tunnel     tunnel-encap

                          Figure 4: Nexthop model

   Nexthops can be identified by an identifier to create a level of
   indirection.  The identifier is set by the RIB manager and returned
   to the external entity on request.  The RIB data-model SHOULD support
   a way to optionally receive a nexthop identifier for a given nexthop.
   For example, one can create a nexthop that points to a BGP peer.  The
   returned nexthop identifier can then be used for programming routes
   to point to the same nexthop.  Given that the RIB manager has created
   an indirection for that BGP peer using the nexthop identifier, if the
   transport path to the BGP peer changes, that change in path will be
   seamless to the external entity and all routes that point to that BGP
   peer will automatically start going over the new transport path.
   Nexthop indirection using identifier could be applied to not just
   unicast nexthops, but even to nexthops that contain chains and nested
   nexthops (Section 2.4.1).

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

2.4.1.  Nexthop types

   This document specifies a very generic, extensible and recursive
   grammar for nexthops.  Nexthops can be
   o  Unicast nexthops - pointing to an interface
   o  Tunnel nexthops - pointing to a tunnel
   o  Replication lists - list of nexthops to which to replicate a
      packet to
   o  Weighted lists - for load-balancing
   o  Protection lists - for primary/backup paths
   o  Nexthop chains - for chaining headers, e.g.  MPLS label over a GRE
      header
   o  Lists of lists - recursive application of the above
   o  Indirect nexthops - pointing to a nexthop identifier
   o  Special nexthops - for performing specific well-defined functions
   It is expected that all network devices will have a limit on how many
   levels of lookup can be performed and not all hardware will be able
   to support all kinds of nexthops.  RIB capability negotiation becomes
   very important for this reason and a RIB data-model MUST specify a
   way for an external entity to learn about the network device's
   capabilities.  Examples of when and how to use various kinds of
   nexthops are shown in Section 8.2.

   Tunnel nexthops allow an external entity to program static tunnel
   headers.  There can be cases where the remote tunnel end-point does
   not support dynamic signaling (e.g. no LDP support on a host) and in
   those cases the external entity might want to program the tunnel
   header on both ends of the tunnel.  The tunnel nexthop is kept
   generic with specifications provided for some commonly used tunnels.
   It is expected that the data-model will model these tunnel types with
   complete accuracy.

   Nexthop chains can be used to specify multiple headers over a packet,
   before a packet is forwarded.  One simple example is that of MPLS
   over GRE, wherein the packet has a inner MPLS header followed by a
   GRE header followed by an IP header.  The outermost IP header is
   decided by the network device whereas the MPLS header and GRE header
   are specified by the controller.  Not every network device will be
   able to support all kinds of nexthop chains and an arbitrary number
   of header chained together.  The RIB data-model SHOULD provide a way
   to expose nexthop chaining capability supported by a given network
   device.

2.4.2.  Nexthop list attributes

   For nexthops that are of the form of a list(s), attributes can be
   associated with each member of the list to indicate the role of an
   individual member of the list.  Two kinds of attributes are

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   specified:
   o  PROTECTION_PREFERENCE: This provides a primary/backup like
      preference.  The preference is an integer value that should be set
      to 1 or 2.  Nexthop members with a preference of 1 are preferred
      over those with preference of 2.  The network device SHOULD create
      a list of nexthops with preference 1 (primary) and another list of
      nexthops with preference 2 (backup) and SHOULD pre-program the
      forwarding plane with both the lists.  In case if all the primary
      nexthops fail, then traffic MUST be switched over to members of
      the backup nexthop list.  All members in a list MUST either have a
      protection preference specified or all members in a list MUST NOT
      have a protection preference specified.
   o  LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT: This is used for load-balancing.  Each list
      member MUST be assigned a weight.  The weight is a percentage
      number from 1 to 99.  The weight determines how much traffic is
      sent over a given list member.  If one of the members nexthops in
      the list is not active, then the weight value of that nexthop
      SHOULD be distributed among the other active members.  How the
      distribution is done is up to the network device and not in the
      scope of the document.  In other words, traffic should always be
      load-balanced even if there is a failure.  After a failure, the
      external entity SHOULD re-program the nexthop list with updated
      weights so as to get a deterministic behavior among the remaining
      list members.  To perform equal load-balancing, one MAY specify a
      weight of "0" for all the member nexthops.  The value "0" is
      reserved for equal load-balancing and if applied, MUST be applied
      to all member nexthops.

   A nexthop list MAY contain elements that have both
   PROTECTION_PREFERENCE and LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT set.  When both are
   set, it means under normal operation the network device should load
   balance the traffic over all nexthops with a protection preference of
   1.  And when all nexthops with a protection preference of 1 are down
   (or unavailable), then traffic MUST be load balanced over elements
   with protection preference of 2.

2.4.3.  Nexthop content

   At the lowest level, a nexthop can point to a:
   o  identifier: This is an identifier returned by the network device
      representing another nexthop or another nexthop chain.
   o  EGRESS_INTERFACE: This represents a physical, logical or virtual
      interface on the network device.
   o  address: This can be an IP address or MAC address.
      *  An optional RIB name can also be specified to indicate the RIB
         in which the address is to be looked up further.  One can use
         the RIB name field to direct the packet from one domain into
         another domain.  For example, a MPLS packet coming in on an

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

         interface would be looked up in a MPLS RIB and the nexthop for
         that could indicate that we strip the MPLS label and do a
         subsequent IPv4 lookup in an IPv4 RIB.  By default the RIB will
         be the same in which the route lookup was performed.
      *  An optional egress interface can be specified to indicate which
         interface to send the packet out on.  The egress interface is
         useful when the network device contains Ethernet interfaces and
         one needs to perform an ARP lookup for the IP packet.
   o  tunnel encap: This can be an encap representing an IP tunnel or
      MPLS tunnel or others as defined in this document.  An optional
      egress interface can be specified to indicate which interface to
      send the packet out on.  The egress interface is useful when the
      network device contains Ethernet interfaces and one needs to
      perform an ARP lookup for the IP packet.
   o  logical tunnel: This can be a MPLS LSP or a GRE tunnel (or others
      as defined in this document), that is represented by a unique
      identifier (E.g. name).
   o  RIB_NAME: A nexthop pointing to a RIB indicates that the route
      lookup needs to continue in the specified RIB.  This is a way to
      perform chained lookups.

2.4.4.  Special nexthops

   This document specifies certain special nexthops.  The purpose of
   each of them is explained below:
   o  DISCARD: This indicates that the network device should drop the
      packet and increment a drop counter.
   o  DISCARD_WITH_ERROR: This indicates that the network device should
      drop the packet, increment a drop counter and send back an
      appropriate error message (like ICMP error).
   o  RECEIVE: This indicates that that the traffic is destined for the
      network device.  For example, protocol packets or OAM packets.
      All locally destined traffic SHOULD be throttled to avoid a denial
      of service attack on the router's control plane.  An optional
      rate-limiter can be specified to indicate how to throttle traffic
      destined for the control plane.  The description of the rate-
      limiter is outside the scope of this document.

3.  Reading from the RIB

   A RIB data-model MUST allow an external entity to read entries, for
   RIBs created by that entity.  The network device administrator MAY
   allow reading of other RIBs by an external entity through access
   lists on the network device.  The details of access lists are outside
   the scope of this document.

   The data-model MUST support a full read of the RIB and subsequent

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   incremental reads of changes to the RIB.  An external agent SHOULD be
   able to request a full read at any time in the lifecycle of the
   connection.  When sending data to an external entity, the RIB manager
   SHOULD try to send all dependencies of an object prior to sending
   that object.

4.  Writing to the RIB

   A RIB data-model MUST allow an external entity to write entries, for
   RIBs created by that entity.  The network device administrator MAY
   allow writes to other RIBs by an external entity through access lists
   on the network device.  The details of access lists are outside the
   scope of this document.

   When writing an object to a RIB, the external entity SHOULD try to
   write all dependencies of the object prior to sending that object.
   The data-model MUST support requesting identifiers for nexthops and
   collecting the identifiers back in the response.

   Route programming in the RIB MUST result in a return code that
   contains the following attributes:
   o  Installed - Yes/No (Indicates whether the route got installed in
      the FIB)
   o  Active - Yes/No (Indicates whether a route is fully resolved and
      is a candidate for selection)
   o  Reason - E.g.  Not authorized
   The data-model MUST specify which objects are modify-able objects.  A
   modify-able object is one whose contents can be changed without
   having to change objects that depend on it and without affecting any
   data forwarding.  To change a non-modifiable object, one will need to
   create a new object and delete the old one.  For example, routes that
   use a nexthop that is identifier by a nexthop-identifier should be
   unaffected when the contents of that nexthop changes.

5.  Events and Notifications

   Asynchronous notifications are sent by the network device's RIB
   manager to an external entity when some event occurs on the network
   device.  A RIB data-model MUST support sending asynchronous
   notifications.  A brief list of suggested notifications is as below:
   o  Route change notification, with return code as specified in
      Section 4
   o  Nexthop resolution status (resolved/unresolved) notification

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

6.  RIB grammar

   This section specifies the RIB information model in Routing Backus-
   Naur Form [RFC5511].

   <routing-instance> ::= <INSTANCE_NAME>
                          [<interface-list>] <rib-list>
                          [<ROUTER_ID>]

   <interface-list> ::= (<INTERFACE_IDENTIFIER> ...)

   <rib-list> ::= (<rib> ...)
   <rib> ::= <RIB_NAME> <rib-family>
                       [<route> ... ] [<MULTI_TOPOLOGY_ID>]
                       [ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK]
   <rib-family> ::= <IPV4_RIB_FAMILY> | <IPV6_RIB_FAMILY> |
                    <MPLS_RIB_FAMILY> | <IEEE_MAC_RIB_FAMILY>

   <route> ::= <match> <nexthop-list>
               [<route-attributes>]
               [<route-vendor-attributes>]

   <match> ::= <ipv4-route> | <ipv6-route> | <mpls-route> |
               <mac-route> | <interface-route>

   <ipv4-route> ::= <destination-ipv4-address> | <source-ipv4-address> |
                    (<destination-ipv4-address> <source-ipv4-address>)
   <destination-ipv4-address> ::= <ipv4-prefix>
   <source-ipv4-address> ::= <ipv4-prefix>
   <ipv4-prefix> ::= <IPV4_ADDRESS> <IPV4_ADDRESS_LENGTH>

   <ipv6-route> ::= <destination-ipv6-address> | <source-ipv6-address> |
                    (<destination-ipv6-address> <source-ipv6-address>)
   <destination-ipv6-address> ::= <ipv6-prefix>
   <source-ipv6-address> ::= <ipv6-prefix>
   <ipv6-prefix> ::= <IPV6_ADDRESS> <IPV6_PREFIX_LENGTH>

   <mpls-route> ::= <MPLS> <MPLS_LABEL>
   <mac-route> ::= <IEEE_MAC> ( <MAC_ADDRESS> )
   <interface-route> ::= <INTERFACE> <INTERFACE_IDENTIFIER>

   <multicast-source-ipv4-address> ::= <IPV4_ADDRESS>
                                       <IPV4_PREFIX_LENGTH>
   <multicast-source-ipv6-address> ::= <IPV6_ADDRESS>
                                       <IPV6_PREFIX_LENGTH>

   <route-attributes> ::= [<ROUTE_PREFERENCE>] [<LOCAL_ONLY>]

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

                          [<address-family-route-attributes>]

   <address-family-route-attributes> ::= <ip-route-attributes> |
                                         <mpls-route-attributes> |
                                         <ethernet-route-attributes>
   <ip-route-attributes> ::= [<rpf-check-interface>]
   <rpf-check-interface> ::= <interface-list>

   <mpls-route-attributes> ::= [<rpf-check-interface>]
   <ethernet-route-attributes> ::= <>
   <route-vendor-attributes> ::= <>

   <nexthop-list> ::= <special-nexthop> |
                      ((<nexthop-list-member>) |
                       ([<nexthop-list-member> ... ] <nexthop-list> ))

   <nexthop-list-member> ::= (<nexthop-chain> |
                              <nexthop-chain-identifier> )
                             [<nexthop-list-member-attributes>]
   <nexthop-list-member-attributes> ::= [<PROTECTION_PREFERENCE>]
                                        [<LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>]

   <nexthop-chain> ::= (<nexthop> ...)
   <nexthop-chain-identifier> ::= <NEXTHOP_NAME> | <NEXTHOP_ID>
   <nexthop> ::= (<nexthop-identifier> | <EGRESS_INTERFACE> |
                  (<nexthop-address>
                     ([<RIB_NAME>] | [<EGRESS_INTERFACE>])) |
                  (<tunnel-encap> [<EGRESS_INTERFACE>]) |
                  <logical-tunnel> |
                  <RIB_NAME>)

   <nexthop-identifier> ::= <NEXTHOP_NAME> | <NEXTHOP_ID>
   <nexthop-address> ::= (<IPv4> <ipv4-address>) |
                         (<IPV6> <ipv6-address>) |
                         (<IEEE_MAC> <IEEE_MAC_ADDRESS>)
   <special-nexthop> ::= <DISCARD> | <DISCARD_WITH_ERROR> |
                         (<RECEIVE> [<COS_VALUE>] [<rate-limiter>])
   <rate-limiter> ::= <>

   <logical-tunnel> ::= <tunnel-type> <TUNNEL_NAME>
   <tunnel-type> ::= <IP> | <MPLS> | <GRE> | <VxLAN> | <NVGRE>

   <tunnel-encap> ::= (<IPV4> <ipv4-header>) |
                      (<IPV6> <ipv6-header>) |
                      (<MPLS> <mpls-header>) |
                      (<GRE> <gre-header>) |
                      (<VXLAN> <vxlan-header>) |
                      (<NVGRE> <nvgre-header>)

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   <ipv4-header> ::= <SOURCE_IPv4_ADDRESS> <DESTINATION_IPv4_ADDRESS>
                     <PROTOCOL> [<TTL>] [<DSCP>]

   <ipv6-header> ::= <SOURCE_IPV6_ADDRESS> <DESTINATION_IPV6_ADDRESS>
                     <NEXT_HEADER> [<TRAFFIC_CLASS>]
                     [<FLOW_LABEL>] [<HOP_LIMIT>]

   <mpls-header> ::= (<mpls-label-operation> ...)
   <mpls-label-operation> ::= (<MPLS_PUSH> <MPLS_LABEL> [<S_BIT>]
                              [<TOS_VALUE>] [<TTL_VALUE>]) |
                              (<MPLS_POP> [<TTL_ACTION>])

   <gre-header> ::= <GRE_IP_DESTINATION> <GRE_PROTOCOL_TYPE> [<GRE_KEY>]
   <vxlan-header> ::= (<ipv4-header> | <ipv6-header>)
                      [<VXLAN_IDENTIFIER>]
   <nvgre-header> ::= (<ipv4-header> | <ipv6-header>)
                      <VIRTUAL_SUBNET_ID>
                      [<FLOW_ID>]

                        Figure 5: RIB rBNF grammar

7.  Inter-domain extensions to the RIB

   This section describes inter-domain extensions to the Routing
   Information Base to allow an external entity to learn about and
   program inter-domain information associated with the RIB and it's
   routes.  In the absence of this extension, the network device MUST
   NOT return any routes that have inter-domain information associated
   (such as autonomous-system path information).

7.1.  Extension to Routing Instance

   A routing instance is augmented with an optional parameter called as-
   data.

   as-data is an identifier of the administrative domain to which the
   routing instance belongs.  The as-data fields is used when the routes
   in this instance are to be tagged with certain autonomous system (AS)
   characteristics.  The RIB manager can use AS length as one of the
   parameters for making route selection. as-data consists of a AS
   number and an optional Confederation AS number ([RFC5065]).

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

7.2.  Extension to Route

   Routes are augmented with an optional parameter called as-path.

   A route can have an as-path associated with it to indicate which set
   of autonomous systems has to be traversed to reach the final
   destination.  The as-path attribute can be used by the RIB manager in
   multiple ways.  The RIB manager can choose paths with lower as-path
   length.  Or the RIB manager can choose to not install paths going via
   a particular AS.  How exactly the RIB manager uses the as-path is
   outside the scope of this document.  For details of how the as-path
   is formed, see Section 5.1.2 of [RFC4271] and Section 3 of [RFC5065].

7.3.  Inter-domain extensions to RIB grammar

   <routing-instance> ::= <INSTANCE_NAME>
                          [<interface-list>] <rib-list>
                          [<ROUTER_ID>] [<as-data>]

   <as-data> ::= <AS_NUMBER> [<CONFEDERATION_AS>]

   <ip-route-attributes> ::= [<rpf-check-interface>] [<as-path>]
   <as-path> ::= (<as-path-segment-type> <as-list>) [<as-path> ...]
   <as-path-segment-type> ::= <AS_SET> | <AS_SEQUENCE> |
                              <AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE> | <AS_CONFED_SET>
   <as-list> ::= (<AS_NUMBER> ...) [<as-path>]

           Figure 6: RIB rBNF grammar - Inter-domain extensions

8.  Using the RIB grammar

   The RIB grammar is very generic and covers a variety of features.
   This section provides examples on using objects in the RIB grammar
   and examples to program certain use cases.

8.1.  Using route preference

   Using route preference one can pre-install protection paths in the
   network.  For example, if OSPF has a route preference of 10, then one
   can install a route with route preference of 20 to the same
   destination.  The OSPF route will get precedence and will get
   installed in the FIB.  When the OSPF route goes away (for any
   reason), the protection path will get installed in the FIB.  If the
   hardware supports it, then the RIB manager can choose to pre-install
   both routes, with the OSPF nexthop getting preference.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   Route preference can also be used to prevent denial of service
   attacks by installing routes with the best preference, which either
   drops the offending traffic or routes it to some monitoring/analysis
   station.  Since the routes are installed with the best preference,
   they will supersede any route installed by any other protocol.

8.2.  Using different nexthops types

   The RIB grammar allows one to create a variety of nexthops.  This
   section describes uses for certain types of nexthops.

8.2.1.  Tunnel nexthops

   A tunnel nexthop points to a tunnel of some kind.  Traffic that goes
   over the tunnel gets encapsulated with the tunnel encap.  Tunnel
   nexthops are useful for abstracting out details of the network, by
   having the traffic seamlessly route between network edges.

8.2.2.  Replication lists

   One can create a replication list for replication traffic to multiple
   destinations.  The destinations, in turn, could be complex nexthops
   in themselves - at a level supported by the network device.  Point to
   multipoint and broadcast are examples that involve replication.

   A replication list (at the simplest level) can be represented as:

   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop> [ <nexthop> ... ]

   The above can be derived from the grammar as follows:

   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop-list-member> [<nexthop-list-member> ...]
   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop-chain> [<nexthop-chain> ...]
   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop> [ <nexthop> ... ]

8.2.3.  Weighted lists

   A weighted list is used to load-balance traffic among a set of
   nexthops.  From a modeling perspective, a weighted list is very
   similar to a replication list, with the difference that each member
   nexthop MUST have a LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT associated with it.

   A weighted list (at the simplest level) can be represented as:

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)
                      [(<nexthop> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)... ]

   The above can be derived from the grammar as follows:

   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop-list-member> [<nexthop-list-member> ...]
   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop-chain> <nexthop-list-member-attributes>)
                      [(<nexthop-chain>
                        <nexthop-list-member-attributes>) ...]
   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop-chain> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)
                      [(<nexthop-chain> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>) ... ]
   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)
                      [(<nexthop> <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)... ]

8.2.4.  Protection lists

   Protection lists are similar to weighted lists.  A protection list
   specifies a set of primary nexthops and a set of backup nexthops.
   The <PROTECTION_PREFERENCE> attribute indicates which nexthop is
   primary and which is backup.

   A protection list can be represented as:

   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop> <PROTECTION_PREFERENCE>)
                      [(<nexthop> <PROTECTION_PREFERENCE>)... ]

   A protection list can also be a weighted list.  In other words,
   traffic can be load-balanced among the primary nexthops of a
   protection list.  In such a case, the list will look like:

   <nexthop-list> ::= (<nexthop> <PROTECTION_PREFERENCE>
                                 <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)
                      [(<nexthop> <PROTECTION_PREFERENCE>
                                  <LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT>)... ]

8.2.5.  Nexthop chains

   A nexthop chain is a nexthop that puts one or more headers on an
   outgoing packet.  One example is a Pseudowire - which is MPLS over
   some transport (MPLS or GRE for instance).  Another example is VxLAN
   over IP.  A nexthop chain allows an external entity to break up the
   programming of the nexthop into independent pieces - one per
   encapsulation.

   A simple example of MPLS over GRE can be represented as:

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   <nexthop-list> ::= (<MPLS> <mpls-header>) (<GRE> <gre-header>)

   The above can be derived from the grammar as follows:

   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop-list-member> [<nexthop-list-member> ...]
   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop-chain>
   <nexthop-list> ::= <nexthop> [ <nexthop> ... ]
   <nexthop-list> ::= <tunnel-encap> (<nexthop> [ <nexthop> ...])
   <nexthop-list> ::= <tunnel-encap> (<tunnel-encap>)
   <nexthop-list> ::= (<MPLS> <mpls-header>) (<GRE> <gre-header>)

8.2.6.  Lists of lists

   Lists of lists is a complex construct.  One example of usage of such
   a construct is to replicate traffic to multiple destinations, with
   high availability.  In other words, for each destination you have a
   primary and backup nexthop (replication list) to ensure there is no
   traffic drop in case of a failure.  So the outer list is a protection
   list and the inner lists are replication lists of primary/backup
   nexthops.

8.3.  Performing multicast

   IP multicast involves matching a packet on (S, G) or (*, G), where
   both S (source) and G (group) are IP prefixes.  Following the match,
   the packet is replicated to one or more recipients.  How the
   recipients subscribe to the multicast group is outside the scope of
   this document.

   In PIM-based multicast, the packets are IP forwarded on an IP
   multicast tree.  The downstream nodes on each point in the multicast
   tree is one or more IP addresses.  These can be represented as a
   replication list ( Section 8.2.2 ).

   In MPLS-based multicast, the packets are forwarded on a point to
   multipoint (P2MP) label-switched path (LSP).  The nexthop for a P2MP
   LSP can be represented in the nexthop grammar as a <logical-tunnel>
   (P2MP LSP identifier) or a replication list ( Section 8.2.2) of
   <tunnel-encap>, with each tunnel encap representing a single mpls
   downstream nexthop.

8.4.  Solving optimized exit control

   In case of optimized exit control, a controller wants to control the
   edge device (and optionally control the outgoing interface on that
   edge device) that is used by a server to send traffic out.  This can
   be easily achieved by having the controller program the edge router
   (Eg. 192.0.2.10) and the server along the following lines:

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   Server:
   <route> ::= <rib-name> <match> (<edge-router>
                                             <edge-router-interface>)
   <route> ::= <rib-name> <198.51.100.1/16>
                     (<MPLS> <mpls-header>)
                     (<GRE> <gre-header>)

   <route> ::- <rib-name> <198.51.100.1/16>
                     (<MPLS_PUSH> <100>)
                     (<GRE> <192.0.2.10> <GRE_PROTOCOL_MPLS>)

   Edge Router:
   <route> ::= <mpls-rib> <mpls-route> <nexthop>
   <route> ::= <mpls-rib> (<MPLS> <100>) <interface-10>

   In the above case, the label 100 identifies the egress interface
   on the edge router.

9.  RIB operations at scale

   This section discusses the scale requirements for a RIB data-model.
   The RIB data-model should be able to handle large scale of
   operations, to enable deployment of RIB applications in large
   networks.

9.1.  RIB reads

   Bulking (grouping of multiple objects in a single message) MUST be
   supported when a network device sends RIB data to an external entity.
   Similarly the data model MUST enable a RIB client to request data in
   bulk from a network device.

9.2.  RIB writes

   Bulking (grouping of multiple write operations in a single message)
   MUST be supported when an external entity wants to write to the RIB.
   The response from the network device MUST include a return-code for
   each write operation in the bulk message.

9.3.  RIB events and notifications

   There can be cases where a single network event results in multiple
   events and/or notifications from the network device to an external
   entity.  On the other hand, due to timing of multiple things
   happening at the same time, a network device might have to send
   multiple events and/or notifications to an external entity.  The

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   network device originated event/notification message MUST support
   bulking of multiple events and notifications in a single message.

10.  Security Considerations

   All interactions between a RIB manager and an external entity MUST be
   authenticated and authorized.  The RIB manager MUST protect itself
   against a denial of service attack by a rogue external entity, by
   throttling request processing.  A RIB manager MUST enforce limits on
   how much data can be programmed by an external entity and return
   error when such a limit is reached.

   The RIB manager MUST expose a data-model that it implements.  An
   external agent MUST send requests to the RIB manager that comply with
   the supported data-model.  The data-model MUST specify the behavior
   of the RIB manager on handling of unsupported data requests.

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not generate any considerations for IANA.

12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the working group co-chairs and
   reviewers on their comments and suggestions on this draft.  The
   following people contributed to the design of the RIB model as part
   of the I2RS Interim meeting in April 2013 - Wes George, Chris
   Liljenstolpe, Jeff Tantsura, Sriganesh Kini, Susan Hares, Fabian
   Schneider and Nitin Bahadur.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement]
              Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
              Routing System Problem Statement",
              draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-02 (work in progress),
              August 2013.

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   [I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc]
              Hares, S., "Use Cases for Virtual Connections on Demand
              (VCoD) and Virtual Network on Demand using Interface to
              Routing System", draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc-00 (work
              in progress), February 2013.

   [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case]
              White, R., Hares, S., and A. Retana, "Protocol Independent
              Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System",
              draft-white-i2rs-use-case-01 (work in progress),
              August 2013.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, June 2007.

   [RFC5065]  Traina, P., McPherson, D., and J. Scudder, "Autonomous
              System Confederations for BGP", RFC 5065, August 2007.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

Authors' Addresses

   Nitin Bahadur (editor)

   Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com

   Ron Folkes (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Phone: +1 408 745 2000
   Email: ronf@juniper.net
   URI:   www.juniper.net

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft     Routing Information Base Info Model      October 2013

   Sriganesh Kini
   Ericsson

   Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com

   Jan Medved
   Cisco

   Email: jmedved@cisco.com

Bahadur, et al.          Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 26]