ifStackTable for the Point-to-Point (P2P) Interface over a LAN Type: Definition and Examples
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| 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 | 2022-08-23 (Latest revision 2022-05-24) | ||
| RFC stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-liu-lsr-p2poverlan | ||
| Stream | ISE state | Published RFC | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | Eliot Lear | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2022-02-11 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9296 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK |
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12
Network Working Group D. Liu
Internet-Draft J. Halpern
Intended status: Informational C. Zhang
Expires: 25 November 2022 Ericsson
24 May 2022
Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P)
Interface over LAN
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12
Abstract
RFC 5309 defines the Point-to-Point (P2P) circuit type, one of the
two circuit types used in the link state routing protocols, and
highlights that it is important to identify the correct circuit type
when forming adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and
monitoring the link state.
This document provides advice about 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 25 November 2022.
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.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if . . . . 3
3.2. P2P Interface Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
[RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type and highlights that it is
important to identify the correct circuit type when forming
adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the
link state.
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 the 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. If no entry specifies the P2P interface
lower layer, management tools lose the ability to retrieve and
measure properties specific to lower layers.
The P2P interface over LAN type is intended to be used solely as a
means to signal in standard network management protocols that make
use of ifStackTables that the upper layer interface is P2P interface,
and thus the upper and lower layers of P2P over LAN type will be
expected to apply appropriate semantics: In general, P2P over LAN
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
type higher layer SHOULD always be "ipForward" (Value 142,
[Assignment]), and the P2P over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any
appropriate link data layer of "ipForward".
The assignment of 303, as the value for p2pOverLan ifType was made by
Expert Review [Assignment]. So the purpose of this document is to
request IANA to add this document as a reference to ifType 303, as
well as suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over
LAN type, and provide examples.
It should be noted that this document reflects the operating model
used on some routers. Other routers that use different models may
not represent a P2P as a separate interface.
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].
3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type
3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if
If a 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 as required in
[RFC8343]. Therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also be
fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-
layer-if" and "lower-layer-if", defined in [RFC8343]).
In ifStackTable the P2P interface over LAN type higher layer SHALL be
network layer "ipForward" to enable IP routing, and the P2P interface
over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any link data layer that can be
bound to "ipForward" including "ethernetCsmacd", "ieee8023adLag",
"l2vlan", and so on (defined in IANA).
The P2P interface over LAN type ifStackTable can be defined along the
lines of following example (In the example, "lower-layer-if" takes
"ethernetCsmacd" but in fact, "lower-layer-if" can be any other
available link data layer. See Appendix A for more examples) which
complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991]:
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
<CODE BEGINS>
<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>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 1
3.2. P2P Interface Statistics
Because multiple IP interfaces can be bound to one physical port, the
statistics on the physical port SHOULD be a complete set which
includes statistics of all upper layer interfaces. Therefore, each
p2p interface collects and displays traffic that has been sent to it
via higher layers or received from it via lower layers.
3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State
The P2P interface can be shutdown independently of the underlying
interface.
If the P2P interface is administratively up, then the "oper-status",
defined in [RFC8343], of that interface SHALL fully reflect state of
the underlying interface; if the P2P interface is administratively
down, then the "oper-status" of that interface SHALL be down.
Examples can be found in Appendix A.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
4. Security Considerations
The writeable attribute "admin-status" of p2povervlan ifType is
inherited from [RFC8343]. Other objects associated with the
p2povervlan ifType are read-only. With this in mind, the
considerations discussed Section 7 of [RFC8343] otherwise apply to
the p2povervlan ifType.
5. IANA Considerations
In the Interface Types registry, IANA has assigned a value of 303 for
p2pOverLan [Assignment] with a reference of [RFC5309]. IANA is
requested to amend the reference for that code point to be to this
document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type
module (originally specified in [RFC7224]) which currently points to
[RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to be used.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rob Wilton for his reviews and
valuable comments and suggestions.
7. References
7.1. 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>.
[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>.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[Assignment]
"Interface Types (ifType)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
Appendix A. Examples
In the case of underlying interface is VLAN sub-interface, the
ifStackTable should be defined as:
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>eth1_valn1</name>
<type>ianaift:l2vlan</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1_valn1</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>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 2
In the case of underlying interface is LAG, the ifStackTable should
be defined as:
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>eth1_lag1</name>
<type>ianaift:ieee8023adLag</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1_lag1</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>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 3
In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are both
administratively up, and the underlying interface operational status
is up:
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>up</oper-status>
</interface>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 4
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are
administratively up, but the underlying interface operational status
is down:
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 5
In the case of P2P interface is administratively down:
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>down</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 6
In the case of P2P interface is administratively up but underlying is
administratively down:
<CODE BEGINS>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface>
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 7
Liu, et al. Expires 25 November 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2poverLAN interface May 2022
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 25 November 2022 [Page 10]