NETCONF Private Candidates
draft-jgc-netconf-privcand-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | James Cumming , Robert Wills | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-21 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-netconf-privcand | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-jgc-netconf-privcand-00
Internet Engineering Task Force JG. Cumming
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track R. Wills
Expires: 24 April 2023 Cisco Systems
21 October 2022
NETCONF Private Candidates
draft-jgc-netconf-privcand-00
Abstract
This document provides a mechanism to extend the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) to support multiple clients making
configuration changes simultaneously and ensuring that they commit
only those changes that they defined.
This document addresses two specific aspects: The interaction with a
private candidate over the NETCONF protocol and the methods to
identify and resolve conflicts between clients.
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 24 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Session specific datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Shared candidate configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Private candidate configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Limitations using the shared candidate configuration for
multiple clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Unintended deployment of alternate users configuration
changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Current mitigation strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Locking the shared candidate configuration
datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Always use the running configuration datastore . . . 5
3.2.3. Fine-grained locking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Key choices influencing the solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. When is a private candidate created . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Interaction between running and private-candidate . . . . 6
4.2.1. Independent private candidate branch (Static branch
mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Continually updating private candidate (Continuous
rebase mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Defining and detecting conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Reporting unresolved conflicts to the user . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Resolving conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Proposed solutions for using private candidates configurations
with NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Client capability declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Private candidate datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. New and existing NETCONF operation interactions . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. NETCONF operations impacted . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. <get> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2. <get-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.3. <get-data> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. <copy-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.5. <delete-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
NETCONF [RFC6241] provides a mechanism for one or more clients to
make configuration changes to a device running as a NETCONF server.
Each NETCONF client has the ability to make one or more configuration
change to the servers shared candidate configuration.
As the name shared candidate suggests, all clients have access to the
same candidate configuration. This means that multiple clients may
make changes to the shared candidate prior to the configuration being
committed. This behaviour may be undesirable as one client may
unwittingly commit the configuration changes made by another client.
NETCONF provides a way to mitigate this behaviour by allowing clients
to place a lock on the shared candidate. The placing of this lock
means that no other client may make any changes until that lock is
released. This behaviour is, in many situations, also undesirable.
Many network devices already support private candidates
configurations, where a user (machine or otherwise) is able to edit a
personal copy of a devices configuration without blocking other users
from doing so.
This document details the extensions to the NETCONF protocol in order
to support the use of private candidates.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Definitions and terminology
2.1. Session specific datastore
A session specific datastore is a configuration datastore that,
unlike the candidate and running configuration datastores which have
only one per system, is bound to the specific NETCONF session.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
2.2. Shared candidate configuration
The candidate configuration datastore defined in [RFC6241] is
referenced as the shared candidate configuration in this document.
2.3. Private candidate configuration
A private candidate configuration is a session specific candidate
configuration datastore.
The specific NETCONF session (and user) that created the private
candidate configuration is the only session (user) that has access to
it over NETCONF. Devices may expose this to other users through
other interfaces but this is out of scope for this document.
The private candidate configuration contains a copy of the running
configuration when it is created (in the same way as a branch does in
a source control management system). Any changes made to it, for
example, through the use of the <edit-config> operation, are made in
this private candidate configuration. Obtaining this private
candidate over NETCONF will display the entire configuration,
including all changes made to it. Performing a <commit> operation
will merge the changes from the private candidate into the running
configuration (the same as a merge in source code management
systems). The issue of <discard-changes> operation will revert the
private candidate to the branch's initial state.
All changes made to this private candidate configuration are held
separately from any other candidate configuration changes, whether
made by other users to the shared candidate or any other private
candidate, and are not visible to or accessible by anyone else.
3. Limitations using the shared candidate configuration for multiple
clients
The following sections describe some limitations and mitigation
factors in more detail for the use of the shared candidate
configuration during multi-client configuration over NETCONF.
3.1. Issues
3.1.1. Unintended deployment of alternate users configuration changes
Consider the following scenario:
1. Client 1 modifies item A in the shared candidate configuration
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
2. Client 2 then modifies item B in the shared candidate
configuration
3. Client 2 then issues a <commit> RPC
In this situation, both client 1 and client 2 configurations will be
committed by client 2. In a machine-to-machine environment client 2
may not have been aware of the change to item A and, if they had been
aware, may have decided not to proceed.
3.2. Current mitigation strategies
3.2.1. Locking the shared candidate configuration datastore
In order to resolve unintended deployment of alternate users
configuration changes as described above NETCONF provides the ability
to lock a datastore in order to restrict other users from editing and
committed changes.
This does resolve the specific issue above, however, it introduces
another issue. Whilst one of the clients holds a lock, no other
client may edit the configuration. This will result in the client
failing and having to retry. Whilst this may be a desirable
consequence when two clients are editing the same section of the
configuration, where they are editing different sections this
behaviour may hold up valid operational activity.
Additionally, a lock placed on the shared candidate configuration
must also lock the running configuration, otherwise changes committed
directly into the running datastore may conflict.
3.2.2. Always use the running configuration datastore
The use of the running configuration datastore as the target for all
configuration changes does not resolve any issues regarding blocking
of system access in the case a lock is taken, nor does it provide a
solution for multiple NETCONF clients as each configuration change is
applied immediately and the client has no knowledge of the current
configuration at the point in time that they commenced the editing
activity nor at the point they commit the activity.
3.2.3. Fine-grained locking
[RFC5717] describes a partial lock mechanism that can be used on
specific portions of the shared candidate datastore.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
Partial locking does not solve the issues of staging a set of
configuration changes such that only those changes get committed in a
commit operation, nor does it solve the issue of multiple clients
editing the same parts of the configuration at the same time.
Partial locking additionally requires that the client is aware of any
interdependencies within the servers YANG models in order to lock all
parts of the tree.
4. Key choices influencing the solution
This section captures the key aspects considered when defining the
private candidate solution.
4.1. When is a private candidate created
A private candidate datastore is created when the first RPC that
requires access to it is sent to the server. This could be, for
example, an <edit-config>.
When the private candidate is created is copy of the running
configuration is made and stored in it. This can be considered the
same as creating a branch in a source code repository.
4.2. Interaction between running and private-candidate
Multiple NETCONF operations may be performed on the private candidate
in order to stage changes ready for a commit.
A key consideration is how and when the private candidate is updated
by changes made to the running configuration whilst the private
candidate (a separate branch) exists.
The following options have been considered. It is worth noting that
both approaches may be supported, however, the server will need to
advertise which approach is being used in a capability.
4.2.1. Independent private candidate branch (Static branch mode)
The private candidate is treated as a separate branch and changes
made to the running configuration are not placed into the private
candidate datastore except in one of the following situations:
* The client requests that the private candidate be refreshed using
a new <update> operation
* <commit> is issued
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
* <discard-changes> operation is sent (TBD).
This approach is similar to the standard approach for source code
management systems.
In this model of operation it is possible for the private candidate
configuration to become significantly out of sync with the running
configuration should the private candidate be open for a long time
without an operation being sent that causes a resync (rebase in
source code control terminology).
A <compare> operation may be performed against the initial starting
point (head) of the private candidates branch or against the running
configuration.
Conflict detection and resolution is discussed later in this
document.
4.2.2. Continually updating private candidate (Continuous rebase mode)
The private candidate is treated as a separate branch, however,
changes made to the running configuration and reflected in the
private candidate configuration as they occur.
This is equivalent to the private candidate branch being routinely
rebased onto the running configuration every time a change is made in
the running configuration.
In this model of operation the following should be considered:
* Because the private candidate is automatically re-synchronized
(rebased) with the running configuration each time a change is
made in the running configuration, the NETCONF session is unaware
that their private candidate configuration has changed unless they
perform one of the get operations on the private candidate and
analyse it for changes.
* A <compare> operation may be performed against the initial
starting point (head) of the private candidates branch or against
the running configuration but these will both report the same
results as the starting point is continually reset.
* The output of the <compare> operation may not match the set of
changes made to the session's private candidate but may include
different output due to the changes in the running configuration
made by other sessions.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
* A conflict may occur in the automatic update process pushing
changes from the running configuration into the private candidate.
Conflict detection and resolution is discussed later in this
document.
4.3. Defining and detecting conflicts
The most challenging aspect of private candidates is when two clients
are modifying the same part of the configuration tree.
A conflict occurs when a private candidate configuration is committed
to the running configuration datastore and the specific nodes in the
tree to be modified have been changed in the running configuration
after the private candidate was created.
If using the continual rebase mode, a conflict may also occur if a
specific node (or set of nodes) in the modified private candidate
configuration are updated by another client (or user) in the running
configuration.
Conflicts occur when the intent of the NETCONF client may have been
different had it had a different starting point. When a conflict
occurs it is useful that the client be given the opportunity to re-
evaluate its intent. Examples of conflicts include:
* An interface has been deleted in the running configuration that
existed when the private candidate was created. A change to a
child node of this specific interface is made in the private
candidate using the default merge operation would, instead of
changing the child node, both recreate the interface and then set
the child node.
* A leaf has been modified in the running configuration from the
value that it had when the private candidate was created. The
private candidate configuration changes that leaf to another
value.
4.4. Reporting unresolved conflicts to the user
When a conflict is detected the <commit> MUST fail with a specific
error message and the client SHOULD be informed which conflicts
caused the failure.
There are two ways conflicts could be reported:
* Using an attribute on the data node(s) that have conflicts.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
* As a list of flat paths (similar to how errors from a commit
operation are reported).
4.5. Resolving conflicts
There are different options for resolving conflicts:
* The user could be required to explicitly resolve all conflicts by
performing further operations to the private candidate.
* The private candidate could take precedence (equivalent to a
<force> option).
* The running config could take precedence (for example, by
cancelling changes in the private candidate if they conflict with
changes already made to the running config).
5. Proposed solutions for using private candidates configurations with
NETCONF
NETCONF sessions are able to utilize the concept of private
candidates in order to streamline network operations, particularly
for machine-to-machine communication.
Using this approach clients may improve their performance and reduce
the likelihood of blocking other clients from continuing with valid
operational activities.
One or more private candidates may exist at any one time, however, a
private candidate MUST:
* Be accessible by one client only
* Be visible by one client only
Additionally, the choice of using a shared candidate configuration
datastore or a private candidate configuration datastore SHOULD be
for the entire duration of the NETCONF session
The options provided below are not intended to be mutually exclusive
and multiple options may be supported by the server.
5.1. Client capability declaration
When a NETCONF client connects with a server it sends a list of
client capabilities.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
In order to enable private candidate mode for the duration of the
NETCONF client session the NETCONF client sends the following
capability:
urn:ietf:netconf:pc
The ability for the NETCONF server to support private candidates is
optional and SHOULD be signalled in the NETCONF servers capabilities
using the same capability string
When a server receives the client capability its mode of operation
will be set to private candidates for the duration of the NETCONF
session.
When a client makes a configuration change the <edit-config> RPC will
target the candidate datastore as it does in shared candidate
configuration mode.
All RPCs will operate in an identical manner to when operating in
shared candidate configuration mode but all data sent between the
client and the candidate datastore will use that sessions private
candidate configuration.
Using this method, the use of private candidates can be made
available to NMDA and non-NMDA capable servers.
No protocol extensions are required for the transitioning of
candidates between the shared mode and the private mode and no
extensions are required for the any other RPC (including <lock>)
5.2. Private candidate datastore
The private candidate configuration datastore could be exposed as its
own datastore similar to other NMDA [RFC8342] capable datastores.
This datastore is called private-candidate.
All NMDA operations that support NMDA datastores SHOULD support the
private-candidate datastore.
Any non-NMDA aware NETCONF operations that take a source or target
(destination) may be extended to accept the new datastore.
The ability for the NETCONF server to support private candidates is
optional and SHOULD be signalled in NMDA supporting servers as a
datastore and in all NETCONF servers capabilities using the
capability string:
urn:ietf:netconf:pc
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
The first datastore referenced (either candidate or private-
candidate) in any NETCONF operation will define which mode that
NETCONF session will operate in for its duration. As an example,
performing a <get-data> operation on the private-candidate datastore
will switch the session into private candidate configuration mode and
subsequent <edit-config> operations that reference the candidate
configuration datastore will fail.
5.2.1. New and existing NETCONF operation interactions
This section mentions a small number of operations whose behaviour is
needs a special mention, other operations to be updated are detailed
in the appendix.
5.2.1.1. <update>
The new <update> operation is provided in order to trigger the
private-candidate configuration datastore to be updated (rebased in
source code management terminology) with the changes from the running
configuration.
5.2.1.2. <edit-config>
The <edit-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as
valid input to the <target> field.
The use of <edit-config> will create a private candidate
configuration if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.
Sending an <edit-config> request to private-candidate after one has
been sent to the shared candidate datastore in the same session will
fail (and visa-versa).
Multiple <edit-config> requests may be sent to the private-candidate
datastore in a single session.
5.2.1.3. <lock> and <unlock>
Performing a <lock> on the private-candidate datastore is a valid
operation and will also lock the running configuration.
Taking a lock on this datastore will stop other session from
committing any configuration changes, regardless of the datastore.
Other NETCONF sessions are still able to create a new private-
candidate configuration datastore.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
Performing an <unlock> on the private-candidate datastore is a valid
operation. This will also unlock the running configuration.
Unlocking the private-candidate datastore allows other sessions to
resume <commit> functions.
Changes in the private-candidate datastore are not lost when the lock
is released.
Attempting to perform a <lock> or <unlock> on any other datastore
while the private-candidate datastore is locked will fail.
Attempting to perform a <lock> or <unlock> on any other sessions
private-candidate datastore will also fail.
5.2.1.4. <compare>
Performing a <compare> [RFC9144] with the private-candidate datastore
as either the <source> or <target> is a valid operation.
If <compare> is performed prior to a private candidate configuration
being created, one will be created at that point.
The <compare> operation will be extended to allow the operation to
reference the start of the private candidate's branch (head).
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
This document should not affect the security of the Internet.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 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>.
[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>.
[RFC9144] Clemm, A., Qu, Y., Tantsura, J., and A. Bierman,
"Comparison of Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) Datastores", RFC 9144, DOI 10.17487/RFC9144,
December 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9144>.
[RFC5717] Lengyel, B. and M. Bjorklund, "Partial Lock Remote
Procedure Call (RPC) for NETCONF", RFC 5717,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5717, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5717>.
8.2. Informative References
Appendix A. NETCONF operations impacted
A.1. <get>
The <get> operation does not accept a datastore value and therefore
this document is not applicable to this operation. The use of the
get operation will not create a private candidate configuration.
A.2. <get-config>
The <get-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as
valid input to the <source> field.
The use of <get-config> will create a private candidate configuration
if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.
A.3. <get-data>
The <get-data> operation accepts the private-candidate as a valid
datastore.
The use of <get-data> will create a private candidate configuration
if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates October 2022
A.4. <copy-config>
The <copy-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as
a valid input to the <source> or <target> fields.
A.5. <delete-config>
The <delete-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate
as a valid input to the <target> field.
Contributors
The authors would like to thank Jan Lindblad, Jason Sterne and Rob
Wilton for their contributions and reviews.
Authors' Addresses
James Cumming
Nokia
Email: james.cumming@nokia.com
Robert Wills
Cisco Systems
Email: rowills@cisco.com
Cumming & Wills Expires 24 April 2023 [Page 14]