Requirements for Peer Mounting of YANG subtrees from Remote Datastores
draft-voit-netmod-peer-mount-requirements-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2014-09-25
Replaced by draft-voit-netmod-yang-mount-requirements
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
NETCONF Data Modeling Language Working Group (netmod)            E. Voit
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Bansal
Expires: March 29, 2015                                      A. Tripathy
                                                               P. Yellai
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 25, 2014

 Requirements for Peer Mounting of YANG subtrees from Remote Datastores
              draft-voit-netmod-peer-mount-requirements-00

Abstract

   Network integrated applications want simple ways to access YANG
   objects and subtrees which might be distributed across network.
   Performance requirements may dictate that it is unaffordable for a
   subset of these applications to go through existing centralized
   management brokers.  For such applications, development complexity
   must be minimized.  Specific aspects of complexity developers want to
   ignore include:

   o  whether authoritative information is actually sourced from remote
      datastores (as well as how to get to those datastores),

   o  whether such information has been locally cached or not,

   o  whether there are zero, one, or more controllers asserting
      ownership of information, and

   o  whether there are interactions with other applications
      concurrently running elsewhere

   The solution requirements described in this document detail what is
   needed to support application access to authoritative network YANG
   objects from controllers (star) or peering network devices (mesh) in
   such a way to meet these goals.

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/.

Voit, et al.             Expires March 29, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Peer Mount Requirements          September 2014

   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 March 29, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Business Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Solution Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Peer Mount  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Eventual Consistency and YANG 1.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Example Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Cloud Policer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  DDoS Thresholding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Service Chain Classification, Load Balancing and Capacity
           Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Application Simplification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Caching Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.1.  Caching Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.2.2.  Pub/Sub of Object Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Lifecycle of the Mount Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.3.1.  Discovery and Creation of Mount Topology  . . . . . .  16
       5.3.2.  Restrictions on the Mount Topology  . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.4.  Mount Filter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.5.  Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.7.  High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
Show full document text