Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over LAN
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-05

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 9296.
Authors Daiying Liu , Joel M. Halpern , Congjie Zhang
Last updated 2022-02-06 (Latest revision 2022-01-11)
RFC stream Independent Submission
Formats
txt html xml htmlized pdf bibtex bibxml
IETF conflict review conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan, conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan
Stream ISE state Response to Review Needed
Revised I-D Needed
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd Eliot Lear
IESG IESG state Became RFC 9296 (Informational)
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Search email archive
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-05 
Network Working Group                                             D. Liu
Internet-Draft                                                J. Halpern
Intended status: Informational                                  C. Zhang
Expires: 15 July 2022                                           Ericsson
                                                         11 January 2022

 Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point to Point (P2P)
                           Interface over LAN
                      draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-05

Abstract

   [RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type is one of the mainly used
   circuit types in the link state routing protocol, and highlights it
   is important to identify the correct circuit type when forming
   adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the
   link state.

   The P2P interface over LAN ifType value is assigned by IANA experts
   review.  This document provides advice to the ifStack for the P2P
   interface over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control,
   maintenance and statistics.

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 15 July 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Liu, et al.               Expires 15 July 2022                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface     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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type  . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The assignment of a value (303, available at
   https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-
   numbers-5) to p2pOverLan ifType was made by expert review.  To
   simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to
   represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P
   interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack.  This
   enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the
   correct operating mode from interface stack without further
   configuration (No need to explicitly configure the P2P interface in
   routing protocols).

   It is helpful to map the P2P interface over LAN type in the interface
   management stack table.  And if no entry specify the P2P interface
   lower layer, the management suffers loses the ability to get to the
   lower layer specific management properties via many tools.

   The purpose of this document is to suggest how to use
   ifStackTable for the P2P interface over LAN type, and provide
   examples.

2.  Requirements Language

   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] [RFC8174].

Liu, et al.               Expires 15 July 2022                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface     January 2022

3.  Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type

   If the device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the
   "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the
   operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry is required in
   [RFC8343], therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also
   fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-
   layer-if" and "lower-layer-if").

   The P2P interface higher layer should be network layer "ipForward"
   (defined in IANA) to run routing protocol, the P2P interface lower
   layer is link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" (defined in IANA).

   The P2P interface type ifStackTable can be defined along the lines of
   following example which complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991] [RFC8340]:

                    <interface>
                      <name>isis_int</name>
                      <type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
                    </interface>

                    <interface>
                      <name>eth1</name>
                      <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
                    </interface>

                    <interface>
                      <name>p2p</name>
                      <type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
                      <higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
                      <lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
                      <enabled>false</enabled>
                      <admin-status>down</admin-status>
                      <oper-status>down</oper-status>
                      <statistics>
                        <discontinuity-time>
                          2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
                        </discontinuity-time>
                        <!-- counters now shown here -->
                      </statistics>
                    </interface>

                                  Figure 1

Liu, et al.               Expires 15 July 2022                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface     January 2022

4.  Security Considerations

   The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only.
   Read operation to this table without complete protection should not
   have a negative effect on network operations.

5.  IANA Considerations

   In the Interface Types registry, IANA has previously assigned a value
   of 303 for p2pOverLan with a reference of [RFC5309], as shown in
   following table (available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-
   numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5).  IANA is requested to amend
   the reference to point to this document and to make a similar
   amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module [RFC7224] which currently
   points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to
   be used.

        +=========+==============+================================+
        | Decimal |    Name      |          references            |
        +=========+==============+================================+
        |  303    |  p2pOverLan  | [this document when published] |
        +---------+--------------+--------------------------------+

                                  Figure 2

6.  References

6.1.  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>.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

   [RFC5309]  Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation
              over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5309>.

   [RFC7224]  Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
              RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.

Liu, et al.               Expires 15 July 2022                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface     January 2022

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8561]  Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M.
              Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link",
              RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8561>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
              RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Daiying Liu
   Ericsson
   No.5 Lize East street
   Beijing
   100102
   China

   Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com

   Joel Halpern
   Ericsson

   Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com

   Congjie Zhang
   Ericsson

   Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com

Liu, et al.               Expires 15 July 2022                  [Page 5]