A Network YANG Model for Service Attachment Points
draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9408.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Samier Barguil , Qin Wu , Mohamed Boucadair , Victor Lopez | ||
| Last updated | 2022-01-25 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9408 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-00
OPSAWG O. Gonzalez de Dios
Internet-Draft S. Barguil
Intended status: Standards Track Telefonica
Expires: July 29, 2022 Q. Wu
Huawei
M. Boucadair
Orange
V. Lopez
Nokia
January 25, 2022
A Network YANG Model for Service Attachment Points
draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-00
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract
view of the provider network topology containing the points from
which its services can be attached (e.g., basic connectivity, VPN,
network slices). The data model augments the 'ietf-network' data
model by adding the concept of service attachment points (SAPs). The
service attachment points are the points to which network services
(such as L3VPN or L2VPN) can be attached. The customer endpoint of
an attachment circuits are not covered in the SAP network topology.
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 July 29, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SAP Network Model Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. SAP Module Tree Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Relation with other Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. SAP YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
The service attachment point (SAP) is an important architectural
concept in many implementations and deployments of services such as
VPNs, SDWAN, or managed VoIP services. It has already been used to
decide where to attach and, thus, deliver the service in the L3SM
[RFC8299] and the L2SM [RFC8466].
This document defines a YANG network model for representing,
managing, and controlling the service attachment points (SAPs). The
data model augments the 'ietf-network' module [RFC8345] by adding the
concept of service attachment points. The service attachment points
are abstraction of the points where network services such as L3VPNs
or L2VPNs can be attached.
This document does not make any assumption about the service provided
by the network to the users. VPN services are used for illustration
purposes. This concept can also be used to decide network slice SAPs
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
In the context of Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
[RFC7149][RFC7426], the defined YANG data model in this document can
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
be used to exchange information between control elements, so as to
support VPN service provision and resource management discussed in
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm][I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]. Through this data
model, the service orchestration layer can learn the available
endpoints (i.e., SAPs) of interconnection resource of the underlying
network.
The service orchestration layer can determine which endpoint of
interconnection to add to L2VPN or L3VPN service. With the help of
other data models (e.g., L3SM [RFC8299] or L2SM [RFC8466]),
hierarchical control elements could determine the feasibility of an
end-to-end IP connectivity or L2VPN connectivity and therefore derive
the sequence of domains and the points of interconnection to use.
This document explains the scope and purpose of a SAP network model
and its relation with the service models and describes how it can be
used by a network operator. The document also shows how the topology
and service models fit together.
The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].
2. Terminology
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.
This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the contents
of [RFC6241], [RFC7950], and [RFC8309]. The document uses terms from
those documents.
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
[RFC8340].
This document uses the term "network model" defined in Section 2.1 of
[RFC8969].
This document uses the following terms:
Service Provider (SP): The organization responsible for operating
the network that offers a service (e.g., a VPN) to customers.
Customer Edge (CE): An equipment that is dedicated to a particular
customer and is directly connected to one or more Provider Edges
(PEs) via attachment circuits (ACs). A CE is usually located at
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
the customer premises. A CE may be dedicated to a single service
(e.g., L3VPN), although it may support multiple VPNs if each one
has separate attachment circuits. A CE can be a router, bridge,
switch, etc.
Provider Edge (PE): An equipment owned and managed by the SP that
can support multiple services (e.g., VPNs) for different
customers. A PE is directly connected to one or more CEs via
attachment circuits. A PE is usually located at an SP point of
presence (PoP).
Attachment point (AP): Describes a service's end point
characteristics and its reference to a Termination Point (TP) of
the PE; used as service access point for service.
3. SAP Network Model Usage
Management operations of a service provider network can be automated
using a variety of means such as interfaces based on YANG modules
[RFC8969]. From that standpoint, and considering the architecture
depicted in Figure 1, the goal of this document is to provide a
mechanism to show via a YANG-based interface an abstracted network
view from the network controller to the service orchestration layer
with a focus on where a service can be delivered to customers.
+-----------------+
| Customer |
+--------+--------+
Customer Service Models |
|
+--------+--------+
| Service |
| Orchestration |
+------+---+------+
Service Network Models | | SAP Network Model
| |
+------+---+------+
| Network |
| Controller |
+--------+--------+
|
+---------------------+---------------------+
| Network |
+-------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: SAP Network Model Usage
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
Let us consider the example of a typical service provider network
(Figure 2), with PE and P nodes.
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
\ /
+------+
| P |
+------+
/ \
+---------+ +---------+
| PE3 | | PE4 |
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 2: Sample Network Topology
The Service Orchestration layer does not need to know about the
internals of the underlying network (e.g., P nodes). Figure 3 shows
the abstract network view as seen by the Service Orchestrator.
However, this view is not enough to provide to the Service
Orchestration layer the information to create services in the
network. The service topology need is to be able to expose the set
of nodes and the attachment points associated with the nodes from
which network services can be grafted (delivered).
+---------+ +---------+
| PE1 | | PE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
+---------+ +---------+
| PE3 | | PE4 |
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 3: Abstract Network Topology
The Service Orchestration layer would see a set of PEs and a set of
client-facing interfaces (physical or logical) to which CEs can be
connected (or are actually connected). The Service Orchestration
layer can use them to setup the requested services or to commit the
delivery of a service. Figure 4 depicts the SAP network topology
that is maintained by the network controller and exposed to the
Service Orchestration.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
.---. .---. .---. .---. .---.
+-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+ +-|sap|-------|sap|-+
| '---' '---' '---' | | '---' '---' |
.---. | | |
|sap| PE1 | | PE2 |
'---' | | |
| | | |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| | | .---.
| PE3 | | PE4 |sap|
| | | '---'
| .---. .---. .---. | | .---. .---. .---. |
+-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+ +-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+
'---' '---' '---' '---' '---' '---'
Figure 4: SAP Network Topology
A single SAP network topology can be used for one of multiple service
types (e.g., L3VPN, EVPN). The network controller can then expose
the service type(s) and associated interfaces via the SAPs.
As shown in Figure 5, the Service Orchestration layer will have also
access to a set of Customer Service Model, e.g., an L3SM or L2SM data
model in the customer-facing interface and a set of network models,
e.g., L3NM and Network topology data models in the resource-facing
interface. In this use case, it is assumed that the network
controller is unaware of what happens beyond the PEs towards the CEs;
it is only responsible for the management and control of the network
between PEs.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
.---.
|CE2|
'-+-'
|
.---. .---. .---. .---. .-+-.
+-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+ +-|sap|-------|sap|-+
| '---' '---' '---' | | '---' '---' |
.---. .---. | | |
|CE1+--+sap| PE1 | | PE2 |
'---' '---' | | |
| | | |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| | | |
| | | .---. .---.
| PE3 | | PE4 |sap+--+CE5|
| | | '---' '---'
| .---. .---. .---. | | .---. .---. .---. |
+-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+ +-|sap|-|sap|-|sap|-+
'---' '---' '-+-' '---' '---' '---'
| |
.-+-. .-+-.
|CE3| |CE4|
'-+-' '-+-'
Figure 5: Network Topology with CEs and ACs
4. SAP Module Tree Structure
The SAP network model builds on the network data model defined in the
'ietf-network' module [RFC8345], augmenting the nodes with service
attachment points, which anchor the links and are contained in nodes.
The 'service-attachment-point' attribute defined in the SAP network
model is not a tunnel termination point (TTP) nor a link, but an
abstraction of the termination point defined in [RFC8345].
The structure of the 'ietf-sap-ntw' module is shown in Figure 6.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
module: ietf-sap-ntw
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types:
+--rw sap-network!
+--rw sap-type* identityref
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:
+--rw service-attachment-point* [attachment-id]
+--rw attachment-id nt:tp-id
+--ro interface-type? identityref
+--rw admin-status? boolean
+--rw oper-status? boolean
+--rw encapsulation-type? identityref
+--rw sap-type* identityref
+--rw service-description? string
Figure 6: YANG Module Structure
A SAP network topology can be used for one single service type or
multiple types ("sap-type"). When a SAP topology is used for many
service types, the underlying nodes must support at least one of
these service types. Examples of supported service types are listed
below:
o L3VPN,
o Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) using BGP [RFC4761],
o VPLS using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC4762],
o Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC8214],
o BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN [RFC7432],
o Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC8365],
o Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)
[RFC7623],
o Virtual Networks [RFC8453],
o Enhanced VPN (VPN+) [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn], and
o Network slice [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
A service attachment point is identified by an interface name
("attachment-id"), an interface type ("type"), a status ("admin-
status", and "oper-status"), an encapsulation type ("encapsulation-
type"), one or a list of service types ("sap-type") such as L3VPN or
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
network slice, a description of the service(s) ("service-
description").
5. Relation with other Models
The SAP network model can be seen as an inventory data associated
with service attachment points. The model maintains an inventory of
nodes contained in a network based on [RFC8345].
+-------------------------+
| |
| Abstract Network Model |
| |
+------------+------------+
|
+---------+---------+
| |
+------V------+ +------V------+
| Abstract | | Inventory |
| Network | | Model(s) |
| Topology | | e.g.,SAP |
| Model | | Network |
| | | Model |
+-----+-------+ +-------------+
|
+-----------+-----------+
| | |
+----V----+ +----V----+ +----V----+
|TE Topo | |L3 Topo | |L2 Topo |
| Model | | Model | | Model | ...
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Figure 7: Relation of SAP Network Model to Other Models
Figure 7 depicts the relationship of the SAP network model to other
models. The SAP network model augments from the Network model
[RFC8345] and imports Network Topology model, while other technology-
specific topology models (e.g., TE Topologies model [RFC8795] or L3
Topology model [RFC8346]) augment from the Network Topology.
6. SAP YANG Module
This module imports types from [RFC8343], [RFC8345], and
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-vpn-common].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-sap-ntw@2021-10-16.yang"
module ietf-sap-ntw {
yang-version 1.1;
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw";
prefix sap;
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix if;
reference
"RFC 8343: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management";
}
import ietf-network-topology {
prefix nt;
reference
"RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network
Topologies, Section 6.2";
}
import ietf-network {
prefix nw;
reference
"RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network
Topologies, Section 6.1";
}
import ietf-vpn-common {
prefix vpn-common;
reference
"RFC UUUU: A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model";
}
organization
"IETF OPSA (Operations and Management Area) Working Group ";
contact
"Editor: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>
Editor: Samier Barguil
<mailto:samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com>
Editor: Qin Wu
<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
Editor: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines a model for representing, managing,
and controlling the Service Attachment Points (SAPs) in the
network topology.
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
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 XXXX
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.";
revision 2021-10-16 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A Network YANG Model for Service Attachment
Point (SAP)";
}
identity service-type {
description
"Base identity for the service type.";
}
identity l3vpn {
base service-type;
description
"L3VPN service.";
reference
"RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)";
}
identity enhanced-vpn {
base service-type;
description
"Enhanced VPN (VPN+). VPN+ is an approach that is
based on existing VPN and Traffic Engineering (TE)
technologies but adds characteristics that specific
services require over and above traditional VPNs.";
reference
"I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn:
A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network
(VPN+) Services";
}
identity network-slice {
base service-type;
description
"IETF network slice. An IETF network slice
is a logical network topology connecting a number of
endpoints using a set of shared or dedicated network
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
resources that are used to satisfy specific service
objectives.";
reference
"I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices:
Framework for IETF Network Slices";
}
identity vpls {
base service-type;
description
"VPLS service.";
reference
"RFC 4761: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for
Auto-Discovery and Signaling
RFC 4762: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling";
}
identity vpws {
base service-type;
description
"Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) service.";
reference
"RFC 4664: Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
(L2VPNs), Section 3.1.1";
}
identity vpws-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"EVPN used to support VPWS service.";
reference
"RFC 8214: Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN";
}
identity pbb-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) EVPNs service.";
reference
"RFC 7623: Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN
(PBB-EVPN)";
}
identity mpls-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"MPLS-based EVPN service.";
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
reference
"RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN";
}
identity vxlan-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"VXLAN-based EVPN service.";
reference
"RFC 8365: A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using
Ethernet VPN (EVPN)";
}
identity virtual-network {
base service-type;
description
"Virtual network.";
reference
"RFC 8453: Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN)";
}
/*
Other network service types may be added.
*/
grouping sap-information {
description
"Service Attachment Point (SAP) information.";
list service-attachment-point {
key "attachment-id";
description
"The service attachment points are abstraction of
the points where network services such as L3VPNs,
L2VPNs, or network slices can be attached.";
leaf attachment-id {
type nt:tp-id;
description
"Indicates the name of the interface.";
}
leaf interface-type {
type identityref {
base if:interface-type;
}
config false;
description
"The type of the interface.";
}
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
leaf admin-status {
type boolean;
description
"Indicates the administrative status of the SAP.";
}
leaf oper-status {
type boolean;
description
"Indicates the operational status.";
}
leaf encapsulation-type {
type identityref {
base vpn-common:encapsulation-type;
}
description
"Encapsulation type.";
}
leaf-list sap-type {
type identityref {
base service-type;
}
description
"SAP type.";
}
leaf service-description {
type string;
description
"A textual description of the service(s).";
}
}
}
augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types" {
description
"Introduces a new network type for SAP network.";
container sap-network {
presence "Indicates SAP Network Type.";
description
"The presence of the container node indicates the
SAP network type.";
leaf-list sap-type {
type identityref {
base service-type;
}
description
"Indicates a service type.";
}
}
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
}
augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node" {
description
"Parameters for the service attachment point level.";
uses sap-information;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
7. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following namespace URI in the "ns"
subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers the following YANG module in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry:
name: ietf-sap-ntw
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-sap-ntw
maintained by IANA: N
prefix: sap
reference: RFC XXXX
8. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines 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 Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [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
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
o /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/sap:service-attachment-point/
sap:attachment-id
This subtree specifies the configurations of the nodes in a SAP
network model. Unexpected changes to this subtree could lead to
service disruption 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 /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/sap:service-attachment-point
Unauthorized access to this subtree can disclose the operational
state information of the nodes in a SAP network model.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adrian Farrell and Daniel King for the suggestions on the
names used in a previous version.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-vpn-common]
Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "A
Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model", draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-
common-12 (work in progress), September 2021.
[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>.
[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>.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
[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>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
[RFC8346] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Liu, X.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and N. Bahadur, "A YANG Data Model
for Layer 3 Topologies", RFC 8346, DOI 10.17487/RFC8346,
March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8346>.
[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>.
[RFC8795] Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Gonzalez de Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic
Engineering (TE) Topologies", RFC 8795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8795, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8795>.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]
Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., and L. A.
Munoz, "A Layer 2 VPN Network YANG Model", draft-ietf-
opsawg-l2nm-12 (work in progress), November 2021.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm]
Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., Munoz, L. A.,
and A. Aguado, "A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model", draft-
ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-18 (work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+)
Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-09 (work in
progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Gray, E., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
Makhijani, K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura,
"Framework for IETF Network Slices", draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slices-05 (work in progress), October 2021.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
[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>.
[RFC7623] Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.
Authors' Addresses
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Madrid
Spain
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Samier Barguil
Telefonica
Madrid
Spain
Email: samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SAP Network YANG January 2022
Victor Lopez
Nokia
Spain
Email: victor.lopez@nokia.com
Gonzalez de Dios, et al. Expires July 29, 2022 [Page 21]