NETMOD L. Lhotka
Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
Intended status: Standards Track February 23, 2013
Expires: August 27, 2013
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-09
Abstract
This document contains a specification of three YANG modules.
Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a
framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is
expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG
modules defining data models for individual routing protocols and
other related functions. The core routing data model provides common
building blocks for such extensions - router instances, routes,
routing tables, routing protocols and route filters.
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/.
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 August 27, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1. Configuration of IPv6 Router Interfaces . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Routing Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2. Defining New Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Route Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Interactions with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Module "ietf-interfaces" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Module "ietf-ip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Routing YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. IPv4 Unicast Routing YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. IPv6 Unicast Routing YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix A. The Complete Data Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix B. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol . . . . . . . 57
Appendix C. Example: NETCONF <get> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix D. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D.1. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D.2. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D.3. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D.4. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . . 65
D.5. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . . 66
D.6. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . . 67
D.7. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . . 67
D.8. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . . 68
D.9. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
1. Introduction
This document contains a specification of the following YANG modules:
o Module "ietf-routing" provides generic components of a routing
data model.
o Module "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv4 unicast.
o Module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv6 unicast, including
the router configuration variables required by [RFC4861].
These modules together define the so-called core routing data model,
which is proposed as a basis for the development of data models for
configuration and management of more sophisticated routing systems.
While these three modules can be directly used for simple IP devices
with static routing, their main purpose is to provide essential
building blocks for more complicated setups involving multiple
routing protocols, multicast routing, additional address families,
and advanced functions such as route filtering or policy routing. To
this end, it is expected that the core routing data model will be
augmented by numerous modules developed by other IETF working groups.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
2. Terminology and Notation
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].
The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]:
o client
o message
o protocol operation
o server
The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]:
o augment
o configuration data
o data model
o data node
o mandatory node
o module
o state data
o RPC operation
2.1. Glossary of New Terms
active route: a route that is actually used for sending packets. If
there are multiple candidate routes with a matching destination
prefix, then it is up to the routing algorithm to select the
active route (or several active routes in the case of multi-path
routing).
core routing data model: YANG data model resulting from the
combination of "ietf-routing", "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" modules.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
direct route: a route to a directly connected network.
2.2. Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the complete data tree is
presented in Appendix A, and similar diagrams of its various subtrees
appear in the main text. The meaning of the symbols in these
diagrams is as follows:
o Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.
o Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
(read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
o Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node and "*"
denotes a "leaf-list".
o Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
marked with a colon (":").
o Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
shown.
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, RPC methods and other data
model objects are used mostly without a prefix, as long as it is
clear from the context in which YANG module each name is defined.
Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated
with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
+--------+---------------------------+--------------+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------+--------------+
| ianaaf | iana-afn-safi | [IANA-IF-AF] |
| | | |
| if | ietf-interfaces | [YANG-IF] |
| | | |
| ip | ietf-ip | [YANG-IP] |
| | | |
| rt | ietf-routing | Section 6 |
| | | |
| v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 7 |
| | | |
| v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 8 |
| | | |
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6021bis] |
| | | |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6021bis] |
+--------+---------------------------+--------------+
Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
3. Objectives
The initial design of the core routing data model was driven by the
following objectives:
o The data model should be suitable for the common address families,
in particular IPv4 and IPv6, and for unicast and multicast
routing, as well as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS).
o Simple routing setups, such as static routing, should be
configurable in a simple way, ideally without any need to develop
additional YANG modules.
o On the other hand, the core routing framework must allow for
complicated setups involving multiple routing tables and multiple
routing protocols, as well as controlled redistributions of
routing information.
o Device vendors will want to map the data models built on this
generic framework to their proprietary data models and
configuration interfaces. Therefore, the framework should be
flexible enough to facilitate such a mapping and accommodate data
models with different logic.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model
The core routing data model consists of three YANG modules. The
first module, "ietf-routing", defines the generic components of a
routing system. The other two modules, "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"
and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing", augment the "ietf-routing" module
with additional data nodes that are needed for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast
routing, respectively. An abridged view of the data hierarchy is
shown in Figure 1. See Appendix A for the complete data tree.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
+--rw routing
+--rw router [name]
| +--rw name
| +--rw type?
| +--rw enabled?
| +--rw router-id?
| +--rw description?
| +--rw main-routing-tables
| | +--rw main-routing-table [address-family safi]
| | +--rw address-family
| | +--rw safi
| | +--rw name?
| +--rw interfaces
| | +--rw interface [name]
| | +--rw name
| | +--rw v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements
| | ...
| +--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol [name]
| +--rw name
| +--rw description?
| +--rw enabled?
| +--rw type
| +--rw connected-routing-tables
| | ...
| +--rw static-routes
| ...
+--rw routing-tables
| +--rw routing-table [name]
| +--rw name
| +--rw address-family
| +--rw safi
| +--rw description?
| +--ro routes
| | +--ro route
| | ...
| +--rw recipient-routing-tables
| +--rw recipient-routing-table [name]
| ...
+--rw route-filters
+--rw route-filter [name]
+--rw name
+--rw description?
+--rw type
Figure 1: Data hierarchy of the core routing data model.
As can be seen from Figure 1, the core routing data model introduces
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
several generic components of a routing framework: routers, routing
tables containing lists of routes, routing protocols and route
filters. The following subsections describe these components in more
detail.
By combining the components in various ways, and possibly augmenting
them with appropriate contents defined in other modules, various
routing setups can be realized.
+--------+
| direct | +---+ +--------------+ +---+ +--------------+
| routes |--->| F |--->| |<---| F |<---| |
+--------+ +---+ | main | +---+ | additional |
| routing | | routing |
+--------+ +---+ | table | +---+ | table |
| static |--->| F |--->| |--->| F |--->| |
| routes | +---+ +--------------+ +---+ +--------------+
+--------+ ^ | ^ |
| v | v
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| F | | F | | F | | F |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
^ | ^ |
| v | v
+----------+ +----------+
| routing | | routing |
| protocol | | protocol |
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 2: Example setup of a routing system
The example in Figure 2 shows a typical (though certainly not the
only possible) organization of a more complex routing subsystem for a
single address family. Several of its features are worth mentioning:
o Along with the main routing table, which must always be present,
an additional routing table is configured.
o Each routing protocol instance, including the "static" and
"direct" pseudo-protocols, is connected to one routing table with
which it can exchange routes (in both directions, except for the
"static" and "direct" pseudo-protocols).
o Routing tables may also be connected to each other and exchange
routes in either direction (or both).
o Route exchanges along all connections may be controlled by means
of route filters, denoted by "F" in Figure 2.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
4.1. Router
Each router instance in the core routing data model represents a
logical router. The exact semantics of this term is left to
implementations. For example, router instances may be completely
isolated virtual routers or, alternatively, they may internally share
certain information.
An implementation MAY support multiple types of logical routers
simultaneously. Instances of all router types are organized as
entries of the same flat "router" list. In order to discriminate
router instances belonging to different types, the "type" leaf is
defined as a child of the "router" node.
An implementation MAY pose restrictions on allowed router types and
on the number of supported instances for each type. For example, a
simple router implementation may support only one router instance of
the default type "standard-router".
Each network layer interface has to be assigned to one or more router
instances in order to be able to participate in packet forwarding,
routing protocols and other operations of those router instances.
The assignment is accomplished by creating a corresponding entry in
the list of router interfaces ("rt:interface"). The key of the list
entry is the name of a configured network layer interface, i.e., the
value of a node /if:interfaces/if:interface/if:name defined in the
"ietf-interfaces" module [YANG-IF].
In YANG terms, the list of router interfaces is modeled as the "list"
node rather than "leaf-list" in order to allow for adding, via
augmentation, other configuration or state data related to the
corresponding router interface.
Implementations MAY specify additional rules for the assignment of
interfaces to logical routers. For example, it may be required that
the sets of interfaces assigned to different logical routers be
disjoint.
4.1.1. Configuration of IPv6 Router Interfaces
The module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" augments the definition of the
data node "rt:interface" with definitions of the following
configuration variables as required by [RFC4861], sec. 6.2.1:
o send-advertisements,
o max-rtr-adv-interval,
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
o min-rtr-adv-interval,
o managed-flag,
o other-config-flag,
o link-mtu,
o reachable-time,
o retrans-timer,
o cur-hop-limit,
o default-lifetime,
o prefix-list: a list of prefixes to be advertised.
The following parameters are associated with each prefix in the
list:
* valid-lifetime,
* on-link-flag,
* preferred-lifetime,
* autonomous-flag.
The definitions and descriptions of the above parameters can be found
in the text of the module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" (Section 8).
NOTES:
1. The "IsRouter" flag, which is also required by [RFC4861], is
implemented in the "ietf-ip" module [YANG-IP] (leaf "ip:
forwarding").
2. The original specification [RFC4861] allows the implementations
to decide whether the "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime"
parameters remain the same in consecutive advertisements, or
decrement in real time. However, the latter behavior seems
problematic because the values might be reset again to the
(higher) configured values after a configuration is reloaded.
Moreover, no implementation is known to use the decrementing
behavior. The "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module therefore
assumes the former behavior with constant values.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
4.2. Routes
Routes are basic elements of information in a routing system. The
core routing data model defines only the following minimal set of
route attributes:
o "dest-prefix": IP prefix specifying the set of destination
addresses for which the route may be used. This attribute is
mandatory.
o "next-hop": IP address of an adjacent router or host to which
packets with destination addresses belonging to "dest-prefix"
should be sent.
o "outgoing-interface": network interface that should be used for
sending packets with destination addresses belonging to "dest-
prefix".
The above list of route attributes suffices for a simple static
routing configuration. It is expected that future modules defining
routing protocols will add other route attributes such as metrics or
preferences.
Routes and their attributes are used both in configuration data, for
example as manually configured static routes, and in state data, for
example as entries in routing tables.
4.3. Routing Tables
Routing tables are lists of routes complemented with administrative
data, namely:
o "source-protocol": name of the routing protocol from which the
route was originally obtained.
o "last-updated": the date and time when the route was last updated,
or inserted into the routing table.
Each routing table must contain only routes of the same address
family. Address family information consists of two parameters -
"address-family" and "safi" (Subsequent Address Family Identifier,
SAFI). The permitted values for these two parameters are defined by
IANA and represented using YANG enumeration types "ianaaf:address-
family" and "ianaaf:subsequent-address-family" [IANA-IF-AF].
In the core routing data model, the "routing-table" node represents
configuration while the descendant list of routes is defined as state
data. The contents of route lists are controlled and manipulated by
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
routing protocol operations which may result in route additions,
removals and modifications. This also includes manipulations via the
"static" and/or "direct" pseudo-protocols, see Section 4.4.1.
In order to activate an address family for use within a router
instance, a client configures an entry of the list /routing/router/
main-routing-tables/main-routing-table. This entry contains a
reference to a routing table which henceforth serves as the so-called
main routing table for the router instance and address family.
Section 4.4 explains the role of main routing tables.
Routing tables are global, which means that a configured routing
table may be used by any or all router instances.
Server implementations MAY pose restrictions regarding the number of
supported routing tables, and rules for configuration and use of
routing tables. For example:
o A server may support no more than one routing table per address
family.
o Router instances (of a certain type) may not be allowed to share
routing tables, i.e., each routing table is used by no more than
one router instance.
For servers supporting multiple routing tables per address family,
additional tables can be configured by creating new entries in the
"routing-table" list, either as a part of factory-default
configuration, or by a client's action.
The way how a routing system uses information from routing tables for
actual packet forwarding is outside the scope of this document.
Every routing table can serve as a source of routes for other routing
tables. To achieve this, one or more recipient routing tables may be
specified in the configuration of the source routing table.
Optionally, a route filter may be configured for any or all recipient
routing tables. Such a route filter then selects and/or manipulates
the routes that are passed between the source and recipient routing
table.
A routing table MUST NOT appear among its own recipient routing
tables. A recipient routing table also MUST be of the same address
family as its source routing table.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
4.4. Routing Protocols
The core routing data model provides an open-ended framework for
defining multiple routing protocol instances within each router
instance. Each routing protocol instance MUST be assigned a type,
which is an identity derived from the "rt:routing-protocol" base
identity. The core routing data model defines two identities for the
direct and static pseudo-protocols (Section 4.4.1).
Each routing protocol instance is connected to exactly one routing
table for each address family that the routing protocol instance
supports. Routes learned from the network by a routing protocol are
normally installed into the connected routing table(s) and,
conversely, routes from the connected routing table(s) are normally
injected into the routing protocol. However, routing protocol
implementations MAY specify rules that restrict this exchange of
routes in either direction (or both directions).
A routing table is connected to a routing protocol instance by
creating a corresponding entry in the "connected-routing-table" list.
If such an entry is not configured for an address family, then the
main routing table MUST be used as the connected routing table for
this address family.
In addition, two independent route filters (see Section 4.5) may be
configured for each connected routing table to apply client-defined
policies controlling the exchange of routes in both directions
between the routing protocol instance and the connected routing
table:
o import filter controls which routes are passed from the routing
protocol instance to the connected routing table,
o export filter controls which routes the routing protocol instance
receives from the connected routing table.
Note that the terms import and export are used from the viewpoint of
a routing table.
4.4.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols
The core routing data model defines two special routing protocol
types - "direct" and "static". Both are in fact pseudo-protocols,
which means that they are confined to the local device and do not
exchange any routing information with neighboring routers. Routes
from both "direct" and "static" protocol instances are passed to the
connected routing table (subject to route filters, if any), but an
exchange in the opposite direction is not allowed.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Every router instance MUST implement exactly one instance of the
"direct" pseudo-protocol type. The name of this instance MUST also
be "direct". It is the source of direct routes for all configured
address families. Direct routes are normally supplied by the
operating system kernel, based on the configuration of network
interface addresses, see Section 5.2. The "direct" pseudo-protocol
MUST always be connected to the main routing tables of all supported
address families. Unlike other routing protocol types, this
connection cannot be changed in the configuration. Direct routes MAY
be filtered before they appear in the main routing table.
A pseudo-protocol of the type "static" allows for specifying routes
manually. It MAY be configured in zero or multiple instances,
although a typical configuration will have exactly one instance per
logical router.
Static routes are configured within the "static-routes" container,
see Figure 3.
+--rw static-routes
+--rw v4ur:ipv4
| +--rw v4ur:route [id]
| +--rw v4ur:id
| +--rw v4ur:description?
| +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface?
| +--rw v4ur:dest-prefix
| +--rw v4ur:next-hop?
+--rw v6ur:ipv6
+--rw v6ur:route [id]
+--rw v6ur:id
+--rw v6ur:description?
+--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface?
+--rw v6ur:dest-prefix
+--rw v6ur:next-hop?
Figure 3: Structure of "static-routes" subtree.
4.4.2. Defining New Routing Protocols
It is expected that future YANG modules will create data models for
additional routing protocol types. Such a new module has to define
the protocol-specific configuration and state data, and it has to fit
it into the core routing framework in the following way:
o A new identity MUST be defined for the routing protocol and its
base identity MUST be set to "rt:routing-protocol", or to an
identity derived from "rt:routing-protocol".
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
o Additional route attributes MAY be defined, preferably in one
place by means of defining a YANG grouping. The new attributes
have to be inserted as state data by augmenting the definitions of
the nodes
/rt:routing-tables/rt:routing-table/rt:route
and
/rt:active-route/rt:output/rt:route,
and possibly other places in the configuration, state data and RPC
input or output.
o Configuration parameters and state data for the new protocol can
be defined by augmenting the "routing-protocol" data node.
o Per-interface configuration, including activation of the routing
protocol on individual interfaces, can use references to entries
in the list of router interfaces (rt:interface).
By using the "when" statement, the augmented configuration parameters
and state data specific to the new protocol SHOULD be made
conditional and valid only if the value of "rt:type" is equal to the
new protocol's identity. It is also RECOMMENDED that the protocol-
specific data be encapsulated in appropriately named containers.
The above steps are implemented by the example YANG module for the
RIP routing protocol in Appendix B.
4.5. Route Filters
The core routing data model provides a skeleton for defining route
filters that can be used to restrict the set of routes being
exchanged between a routing protocol instance and a connected routing
table, or between a source and a recipient routing table. Route
filters may also manipulate routes, i.e., add, delete, or modify
their attributes.
Route filters are global, which means that a configured route filter
may be used by any or all router instances.
By itself, the route filtering framework defined in this document
allows for applying only two extreme routing policies which are
represented by the following pre-defined route filter types:
o "deny-all-route-filter": all routes are blocked,
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
o "allow-all-route-filter": all routes are permitted.
Note that the latter type is equivalent to no route filter.
It is expected that more comprehensive route filtering frameworks
will be developed separately.
Each route filter is identified by a name which MUST be unique within
the entire configuration. Its type MUST be specified by the "type"
identity reference - this opens the space for multiple route
filtering framework implementations.
4.6. RPC Operations
The "ietf-routing" module defines two RPC operations:
o active-route: query the routing system for the active route(s)
that are currently used for sending datagrams to a destination
host whose address is passed as an input parameter.
o route-count: retrieve the total number of entries in a routing
table.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
5. Interactions with Other YANG Modules
The semantics of the core routing data model also depend on several
configuration parameters that are defined in other YANG modules.
5.1. Module "ietf-interfaces"
The following boolean switch is defined in the "ietf-interfaces" YANG
module [YANG-IF]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a given network layer
interface, the device MUST behave exactly as if that interface was
not assigned to any logical router at all.
5.2. Module "ietf-ip"
The following boolean switches are defined in the "ietf-ip" YANG
module [YANG-IP]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a given interface, then all
IPv4 routing functions related to that interface MUST be disabled.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a given interface, then the
forwarding of IPv4 datagrams to and from this interface MUST be
disabled. However, the interface may participate in other routing
functions, such as routing protocols.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a given interface, then all
IPv6 routing functions related to that interface MUST be disabled.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a given interface, then the
forwarding of IPv6 datagrams to and from this interface MUST be
disabled. However, the interface may participate in other routing
functions, such as routing protocols.
In addition, the "ietf-ip" module allows for configuring IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses and network prefixes or masks on network layer
interfaces. Configuration of these parameters on an enabled
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
interface MUST result in an immediate creation of the corresponding
direct route. The destination prefix of this route is set according
to the configured IP address and network prefix/mask, and the
interface is set as the outgoing interface for that route.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
6. Routing YANG Module
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with
the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing@2013-02-23.yang"
module ietf-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing";
prefix "rt";
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix "yang";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
import iana-afn-safi {
prefix "ianaaf";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: David Kessens
<mailto:david.kessens@nsn.com>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
";
description
"This YANG module defines essential components that may be used
for configuring a routing subsystem.
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
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
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.
";
revision 2013-02-23 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Identities */
identity router-type {
description
"Base identity from which router type identities are derived.
It is primarily intended for discriminating among different
types of logical routers or router virtualization.
";
}
identity standard-router {
base router-type;
description
"This identity represents a standard router.";
}
identity routing-protocol {
description
"Base identity from which routing protocol identities are
derived.";
}
identity direct {
base routing-protocol;
description
"Routing pseudo-protocol which provides routes to directly
connected networks.";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
identity static {
base routing-protocol;
description
"Static routing pseudo-protocol.";
}
identity route-filter {
description
"Base identity from which all route filters are derived.";
}
identity deny-all-route-filter {
base route-filter;
description
"Route filter that blocks all routes.";
}
identity allow-all-route-filter {
base route-filter;
description
"Route filter that permits all routes.";
}
/* Type Definitions */
typedef router-ref {
type leafref {
path "/rt:routing/rt:router/rt:name";
}
description
"This type is used for leafs that reference a router
instance.";
}
typedef routing-table-ref {
type leafref {
path "/rt:routing/rt:routing-tables/rt:routing-table/rt:name";
}
description
"This type is used for leafs that reference a routing table.";
}
typedef route-filter-ref {
type leafref {
path "/rt:routing/rt:route-filters/rt:route-filter/rt:name";
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
description
"This type is used for leafs that reference a route filter.";
}
/* Groupings */
grouping afn-safi {
description
"This grouping provides two parameters specifying address
family and subsequent address family.";
leaf address-family {
type ianaaf:address-family;
mandatory "true";
description
"Address family.";
}
leaf safi {
type ianaaf:subsequent-address-family;
mandatory "true";
description
"Subsequent address family.";
}
}
grouping route-content {
description
"Generic parameters of routes.";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Outgoing interface.";
}
}
/* RPC Methods */
rpc active-route {
description
"Return the active route (or multiple routes, in the case of
multi-path routing) to a destination address.
Parameters
1. 'router-name',
2. 'destination-address'.
If the router instance with 'router-name' doesn't exist, then
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
this operation SHALL fail with error-tag 'data-missing' and
error-app-tag 'router-not-found'.
If no active route for 'destination-address' exists, no output
is returned - the server SHALL send an <rpc-reply> containing
a single element <ok>.
";
input {
leaf router-name {
type router-ref;
mandatory "true";
description
"Name of the router instance whose forwarding information
base is being queried.";
}
container destination-address {
description
"Network layer destination address.
Address family specific modules MUST augment this
container with a leaf named 'address'.
";
uses afn-safi;
}
}
output {
list route {
description
"List of active routes.
Route contents specific for each address family is
expected be defined through augmenting.
";
uses afn-safi;
uses route-content;
}
}
}
rpc route-count {
description
"Return the current number of routes in a routing table.
Parameters:
1. 'routing-table-name'.
If the routing table with the name specified in
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
'routing-table-name' doesn't exist, then this operation SHALL
fail with error-tag 'data-missing' and error-app-tag
'routing-table-not-found'.
";
input {
leaf routing-table {
type routing-table-ref;
mandatory "true";
description
"Name of the routing table.";
}
}
output {
leaf number-of-routes {
type uint32;
mandatory "true";
description
"Number of routes in the routing table.";
}
}
}
/* Data Nodes */
container routing {
description
"Routing parameters.";
list router {
key "name";
description
"Each list entry is a container for configuration and state
data of a single (logical) router instance.
";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the router instance.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base router-type;
}
default "rt:standard-router";
description
"This leaf specifies the router type.
It is primarily intended as a means for discriminating
among different types of logical routers, route
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
virtualization, master-slave arrangements etc., while
keeping all such router instances in the same flat list.
";
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"Enable/disable the router instance.
If this parameter is false, the parent router instance is
disabled, despite any other configuration that might be
present.
";
}
leaf router-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"Global router ID - 32-bit number in the form of a dotted
quad.
An implementation MAY select a value if this parameter is
not configured.
Routing protocols MAY override this global parameter
inside their configuration.
";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the router.";
}
container main-routing-tables {
description
"Main routing tables used by the router instance.";
list main-routing-table {
must "address-family=/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/name]/"
+ "address-family and safi=/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/name]/safi" {
error-message "Address family mismatch.";
description
"The entry's address family MUST match that of the
referenced routing table.";
}
key "address-family safi";
description
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
"Each list entry specifies the main routing table for one
address family.
The main routing table is operationally connected to all
routing protocols for which a connected routing table
has not been explicitly configured.
The 'direct' pseudo-protocol is always connected to the
main routing table.
Address families that don't have their entry in this
list MUST NOT be used in the rest of the router instance
configuration.
";
uses afn-safi;
leaf name {
type routing-table-ref;
description
"Name of an existing routing table to be used as the
main routing table for the given router instance and
address family.";
}
}
}
container interfaces {
description
"Router interface parameters.";
list interface {
key "name";
description
"List of network layer interfaces assigned to the router
instance.";
leaf name {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"A reference to the name of a configured network layer
interface.";
}
}
}
container routing-protocols {
description
"Container for the list of configured routing protocol
instances.";
list routing-protocol {
key "name";
description
"An instance of a routing protocol.";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the routing protocol instance.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the routing protocol
instance.";
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"Enable/disable the routing protocol instance.
If this parameter is false, the parent routing
protocol instance is disabled, despite any other
configuration that might be present.
";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base routing-protocol;
}
mandatory "true";
description
"Type of the routing protocol - an identity derived
from the 'routing-protocol' base identity.";
}
container connected-routing-tables {
description
"Container for connected routing tables.
";
list connected-routing-table {
must "not(/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/"
+ "preceding-sibling::connected-routing-table/"
+ "name and address-family=/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/name]/"
+ "address-family and safi=/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/name]/safi])" {
error-message "Duplicate address family for "
+ "connected routing tables.";
description
"For each AFN/SAFI pair there MUST NOT be more than
one connected routing table.";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
key "name";
description
"List of routing tables to which the routing protocol
instance is connected (at most one routing table per
address family).
If no connected routing table is configured for an
address family, the routing protocol MUST be
operationally connected to the main routing table
for that address family.
";
leaf name {
type routing-table-ref;
must "../../../type != 'rt:direct' or "
+ "../../../../../main-routing-tables/ "
+ "main-routing-table/name=." {
error-message "The 'direct' protocol can be "
+ "connected only to a main routing "
+ "table.";
description
"For the 'direct' pseudo-protocol, the connected
routing table must always be a main routing
table.";
}
description
"Name of an existing routing table.";
}
leaf import-filter {
type route-filter-ref;
description
"Reference to a route filter that is used for
filtering routes passed from this routing protocol
instance to the routing table specified by the
'name' sibling node.
If this leaf is not present, the behavior is
protocol-specific, but typically it means that all
routes are accepted.
";
}
leaf export-filter {
type route-filter-ref;
description
"Reference to a route filter that is used for
filtering routes passed from the routing table
specified by the 'name' sibling node to this
routing protocol instance.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
If this leaf is not present, the behavior is
protocol-specific - typically it means that all
routes are accepted.
The 'direct' and 'static' pseudo-protocols accept
no routes from any routing table.
";
}
}
}
container static-routes {
when "../type='rt:static'" {
description
"This container is only valid for the 'static'
routing protocol.";
}
description
"Configuration of 'static' pseudo-protocol.
Address family specific modules augment this node with
their lists of routes.
";
}
}
}
}
container routing-tables {
description
"Container for configured routing tables.";
list routing-table {
key "name";
description
"Each entry represents a routing table identified by the
'name' key. All routes in a routing table MUST belong to
the same address family.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the routing table.";
}
uses afn-safi;
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the routing table.";
}
container routes {
config "false";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
description
"Current contents of the routing table (state data).";
list route {
description
"A routing table entry. This data node MUST be
augmented with information specific for routes of each
address family.";
uses route-content;
leaf source-protocol {
type string;
mandatory "true";
description
'Routing protocol instance from which the route
originated.
It must be either "direct" or the name of a
configured routing protocol instance.
';
}
leaf last-updated {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Time stamp of the last modification of the route. If
the route was never modified, it is the time when
the route was inserted into the routing table.";
}
}
}
container recipient-routing-tables {
description
"Container for recipient routing tables.";
list recipient-routing-table {
must "name != ../../name" {
error-message "Source and recipient routing tables "
+ "are identical.";
description
"A routing table MUST NOT appear among its recipient
routing tables.";
}
must "/routing/routing-tables/"
+ "routing-table[name=current()/name]/"
+ "address-family=../../address-family and /routing/"
+ "routing-tables/routing-table[name=current()/name]/"
+ "safi=../../safi" {
error-message "Address family mismatch.";
description
"Address family of the recipient routing table MUST
match the source table.";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
key "name";
description
"List of routing tables that receive routes from this
routing table.";
leaf name {
type routing-table-ref;
description
"The name of the recipient routing table.";
}
leaf filter {
type route-filter-ref;
description
"A route filter which is applied to the routes passed
to the recipient routing table.";
}
}
}
}
}
container route-filters {
description
"Container for configured route filters.";
list route-filter {
key "name";
description
"Route filters are used for filtering and/or manipulating
routes that are passed between a routing protocol and a
routing table and vice versa, or between two routing
tables.
It is expected that other modules augment this list with
contents specific for a particular route filter type.
";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the route filter.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route filter.";
}
leaf type {
type identityref {
base route-filter;
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
mandatory "true";
description
"Type of the route-filter - an identity derived from the
'route-filter' base identity.";
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
7. IPv4 Unicast Routing YANG Module
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with
the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2013-02-23.yang"
module ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing";
prefix "v4ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: David Kessens
<mailto:david.kessens@nsn.com>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
configuration and state data for IPv4 unicast routing.
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.
";
revision 2013-02-23 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Groupings */
grouping route-content {
description
"Parameters of IPv4 unicast routes.";
leaf dest-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
leaf next-hop {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
/* RPC Methods */
augment "/rt:active-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
when "rt:address-family='ipv4' and rt:safi='nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"The 'address' leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address'
parameter of the 'rt:active-route' operation.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 destination address.";
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
augment "/rt:active-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
when "rt:address-family='ipv4' and rt:safi='nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Contents of the reply to 'rt:active-route' operation.";
uses route-content;
}
/* Data nodes */
augment "/rt:routing/rt:router/rt:routing-protocols/"
+ "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
pseudo-protocol with data specific for IPv4 unicast.";
container ipv4 {
description
"Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "id";
ordered-by "user";
description
"A user-ordered list of static routes.";
leaf id {
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
}
description
"Numeric identifier of the route.
It is not required that the routes be sorted by their
'id'.
";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
uses rt:route-content;
uses route-content {
refine "dest-prefix" {
mandatory "true";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
}
}
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-tables/rt:routing-table/rt:routes/"
+ "rt:route" {
when "../../rt:address-family = 'ipv4' and ../../rt:safi = "
+ "'nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This augment defines the content of IPv4 unicast routes.";
uses route-content;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
8. IPv6 Unicast Routing YANG Module
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below with
the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2013-02-23.yang"
module ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing";
prefix "v6ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
import ietf-ip {
prefix "ip";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: David Kessens
<mailto:david.kessens@nsn.com>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
";
description
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
configuration and state data for IPv6 unicast routing.
Copyright (c) 2012 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
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.
";
revision 2013-02-23 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Groupings */
grouping route-content {
description
"Specific parameters of IPv6 unicast routes.";
leaf dest-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
leaf next-hop {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
/* RPC Methods */
augment "/rt:active-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
when "rt:address-family='ipv6' and rt:safi='nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
description
"The 'address' leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address'
parameter of the 'rt:active-route' operation.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:active-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
when "rt:address-family='ipv6' and rt:safi='nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"Contents of the reply to 'rt:active-route' operation.";
uses route-content;
}
/* Data nodes */
augment "/rt:routing/rt:router/rt:interfaces/rt:interface" {
when "/if:interfaces/if:interface[if:name=current()/rt:name]/"
+ "ip:ipv6/ip:enabled='true'" {
description
"This augment is only valid for router interfaces with
enabled IPv6.";
}
description
"IPv6-specific parameters of router interfaces.";
container ipv6-router-advertisements {
description
"Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
leaf send-advertisements {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic
Router Advertisements and responds to Router
Solicitations.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvSendAdvertisements.";
}
leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "4..1800";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
units "seconds";
default "600";
description
"The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
MaxRtrAdvInterval.";
}
leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "3..1350";
}
units "seconds";
must ". <= 0.75 * ../max-rtr-adv-interval" {
description
"The value MUST NOT be greater than 75 % of
'max-rtr-adv-interval'.";
}
description
"The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.
The default value to be used operationally if this leaf is
not configured is determined as follows:
- if max-rtr-adv-interval >= 9 seconds, the default value
is 0.33 * max-rtr-adv-interval;
- otherwise it is 0.75 * max-rtr-adv-interval.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
MinRtrAdvInterval.";
}
leaf managed-flag {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The boolean value to be placed in the 'Managed address
configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvManagedFlag.";
}
leaf other-config-flag {
type boolean;
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
default "false";
description
"The boolean value to be placed in the 'Other
configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvOtherConfigFlag.";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in MTU options sent by the router.
A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are sent.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvLinkMTU.";
}
leaf reachable-time {
type uint32 {
range "0..3600000";
}
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Reachable Time field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. The
value zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvReachableTime.";
}
leaf retrans-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. The
value zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvRetransTimer.";
}
leaf cur-hop-limit {
type uint8;
default "64";
description
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
"The default value to be placed in the Cur Hop Limit field
in the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router.
The value should be set to the current diameter of the
Internet. The value zero means unspecified (by this
router).
The default SHOULD be set to the value specified in IANA
Assigned Numbers that was in effect at the time of
implementation.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvCurHopLimit.
IANA: IP Parameters,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters
";
}
leaf default-lifetime {
type uint16 {
range "0..9000";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The value to be placed in the Router Lifetime field of
Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
MUST be either zero or between max-rtr-adv-interval and
9000 seconds. A value of zero indicates that the router is
not to be used as a default router. These limits may be
overridden by specific documents that describe how IPv6
operates over different link layers.
If this parameter is not configured, a value of 3 *
max-rtr-adv-interval SHOULD be used.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvDefaultLifeTime.";
}
container prefix-list {
description
"A list of prefixes to be placed in Prefix Information
options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the
interface.
By default, all prefixes that the router advertises via
routing protocols as being on-link for the interface from
which the advertisement is sent.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Prefixes that do not have their entries in the child
'prefix' list are advertised with the default values of
all parameters.
The link-local prefix SHOULD NOT be included in the list
of advertised prefixes.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
AdvPrefixList.";
list prefix {
key "prefix-spec";
description
"Advertised prefix entry.";
leaf prefix-spec {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 address prefix.";
}
choice control-adv-prefixes {
default "advertise";
description
"The prefix either may be explicitly removed from the
set of advertised prefixes, or parameters with which
it is advertised may be specified (default case).";
leaf no-advertise {
type empty;
description
"The prefix will not be advertised.
This can be used for removing the prefix from the
default set of advertised prefixes.
";
}
case advertise {
leaf valid-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
default "2592000";
description
"The value to be placed in the Valid Lifetime in
the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The
designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
represents infinity.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvValidLifetime.";
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
}
leaf on-link-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the on-link flag
('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information
option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvOnLinkFlag.";
}
leaf preferred-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
must ". <= ../valid-lifetime" {
description
"This value MUST NOT be greater than
valid-lifetime.";
}
default "604800";
description
"The value to be placed in the Preferred Lifetime
in the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The
designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
represents infinity.
";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvPreferredLifetime.";
}
leaf autonomous-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the Autonomous Flag
field in the Prefix Information option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvAutonomousFlag.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
augment "/rt:routing/rt:router/rt:routing-protocols/"
+ "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
pseudo-protocol with data specific for IPv6 unicast.";
container ipv6 {
description
"Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "id";
ordered-by "user";
description
"A user-ordered list of static routes.";
leaf id {
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
}
description
"Numeric identifier of the route.
It is not required that the routes be sorted by their
'id'.
";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
uses rt:route-content;
uses route-content {
refine "dest-prefix" {
mandatory "true";
}
}
}
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-tables/rt:routing-table/rt:routes/"
+ "rt:route" {
when "../../rt:address-family = 'ipv6' and ../../rt:safi = "
+ "'nlri-unicast'" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
"This augment defines the content of IPv6 unicast routes.";
uses route-content;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
9. IANA Considerations
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number (and remove this note).
This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
registry [RFC3688]:
----------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
----------------------------------------------------------
This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC6020]:
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
prefix: rt
reference: RFC XXXX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
prefix: v4ur
reference: RFC XXXX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
prefix: v6ur
reference: RFC XXXX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
10. Security Considerations
Configuration and state data conforming to the core routing data
model (defined in this document) are designed to be accessed via the
NETCONF protocol [RFC6241]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure
transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is
SSH [RFC6242].
A number of data nodes defined in the YANG modules belonging to the
core routing data model are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e.,
"config true" in YANG terms, which is the default). These data nodes
may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network
environments. Write operations to these data nodes, such as "edit-
config", can have negative effects on the network if the protocol
operations are not properly protected.
The vulnerable "config true" subtrees and data nodes are the
following:
/routing/router/interfaces/interface This list assigns a network
layer interface to a router instance and may also specify
interface parameters related to routing.
/routing/router/routing-protocols/routing-protocol This list
specifies the routing protocols configured on a device.
/routing/route-filters/route-filter This list specifies the
configured route filters which represent administrative policies
for redistributing and modifying routing information.
/routing/routing-tables/routing-table This list specifies the
configured routing tables used by the device.
Unauthorized access to any of these lists can adversely affect the
routing subsystem of both the local device and the network. This may
lead to network malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate
destinations and other problems.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
11. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Martin Bjorklund, Joel Halpern,
Wes Hardaker, Andrew McGregor, Thomas Morin, Tom Petch,
Bruno Rijsman, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Phil Shafer, Dave Thaler and
Yi Yang for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[IANA-IF-AF]
Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type and Address Family
YANG Modules", draft-ietf-netmod-iana-if-type-04 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
September 2010.
[RFC6021bis]
Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00 (work in progress),
February 2013.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 6241,
June 2011.
[YANG-IF] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Configuration", draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-09 (work
in progress), February 2013.
[YANG-IP] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Configuration",
draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 (work in progress),
February 2013.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Appendix A. The Complete Data Tree
This appendix presents the complete data tree of the core routing
data model. See Section 2.2 for an explanation of symbols. Data
type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the
corresponding line.
+--rw routing
+--rw router [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw type? identityref
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw main-routing-tables
| | +--rw main-routing-table [address-family safi]
| | +--rw address-family ianaaf:address-family
| | +--rw safi ianaaf:subsequent-address-family
| | +--rw name? routing-table-ref
| +--rw interfaces
| | +--rw interface [name]
| | +--rw name if:interface-ref
| | +--rw v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements
| | +--rw v6ur:send-advertisements? boolean
| | +--rw v6ur:max-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
| | +--rw v6ur:min-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
| | +--rw v6ur:managed-flag? boolean
| | +--rw v6ur:other-config-flag? boolean
| | +--rw v6ur:link-mtu? uint32
| | +--rw v6ur:reachable-time? uint32
| | +--rw v6ur:retrans-timer? uint32
| | +--rw v6ur:cur-hop-limit? uint8
| | +--rw v6ur:default-lifetime? uint16
| | +--rw v6ur:prefix-list
| | +--rw v6ur:prefix [prefix-spec]
| | +--rw v6ur:prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
| | +--rw (control-adv-prefixes)?
| | +--:(no-advertise)
| | | +--rw v6ur:no-advertise? empty
| | +--:(advertise)
| | +--rw v6ur:valid-lifetime? uint32
| | +--rw v6ur:on-link-flag? boolean
| | +--rw v6ur:preferred-lifetime? uint32
| | +--rw v6ur:autonomous-flag? boolean
| +--rw routing-protocols
| +--rw routing-protocol [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw description? string
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw connected-routing-tables
| | +--rw connected-routing-table [name]
| | +--rw name routing-table-ref
| | +--rw import-filter? route-filter-ref
| | +--rw export-filter? route-filter-ref
| +--rw static-routes
| +--rw v4ur:ipv4
| | +--rw v4ur:route [id]
| | +--rw v4ur:id uint32
| | +--rw v4ur:description? string
| | +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref
| | +--rw v4ur:dest-prefix inet:ipv4-prefix
| | +--rw v4ur:next-hop? inet:ipv4-address
| +--rw v6ur:ipv6
| +--rw v6ur:route [id]
| +--rw v6ur:id uint32
| +--rw v6ur:description? string
| +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref
| +--rw v6ur:dest-prefix inet:ipv6-prefix
| +--rw v6ur:next-hop? inet:ipv6-address
+--rw routing-tables
| +--rw routing-table [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw address-family ianaaf:address-family
| +--rw safi ianaaf:subsequent-address-family
| +--rw description? string
| +--ro routes
| | +--ro route
| | +--ro outgoing-interface? if:interface-ref
| | +--ro source-protocol string
| | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro v4ur:dest-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix
| | +--ro v4ur:next-hop? inet:ipv4-address
| | +--ro v6ur:dest-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix
| | +--ro v6ur:next-hop? inet:ipv6-address
| +--rw recipient-routing-tables
| +--rw recipient-routing-table [name]
| +--rw name routing-table-ref
| +--rw filter? route-filter-ref
+--rw route-filters
+--rw route-filter [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw description? string
+--rw type identityref
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Appendix B. Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol
This appendix demonstrates how the core routing data model can be
extended to support a new routing protocol. The YANG module
"example-rip" shown below is intended only as an illustration rather
than a real definition of a data model for the RIP routing protocol.
For the sake of brevity, we do not follow all the guidelines
specified in [RFC6087]. See also Section 4.4.2.
module example-rip {
namespace "http://example.com/rip";
prefix "rip";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
identity rip {
base rt:routing-protocol;
description
"Identity for the RIP routing protocol.";
}
typedef rip-metric {
type uint8 {
range "0..16";
}
}
grouping route-content {
description
"This grouping defines RIP-specific route attributes.";
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
}
leaf tag {
type uint16;
default "0";
description
"This leaf may be used to carry additional info, e.g. AS
number.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-tables/rt:routing-table/rt:routes/"
+ "rt:route" {
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
description
"RIP-specific route attributes.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:active-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
description
"RIP-specific route attributes in the output of 'active-route'
RPC.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:router/rt:routing-protocols/"
+ "rt:routing-protocol" {
when "rt:type = 'rip:rip'" {
description
'This augment is only valid for a routing protocol instance
of type "rip".';
}
container rip {
description
"RIP instance configuration.";
container interfaces {
description
"Per-interface RIP configuration.";
list interface {
key "name";
description
"RIP is enabled on interfaces that have an entry in this
list, unless 'enabled' is set to 'false' for that
entry.";
leaf name {
type leafref {
path "../../../../../../rt:interfaces/rt:interface/"
+ "rt:name";
}
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
}
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
default "1";
}
}
}
leaf update-interval {
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
type uint8 {
range "10..60";
}
units "seconds";
default "30";
description
"Time interval between periodic updates.";
}
}
}
}
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Appendix C. Example: NETCONF <get> Reply
This section contains a sample reply to the NETCONF <get> message,
which could be sent by a server supporting (i.e., advertising them in
the NETCONF <hello> message) the following YANG modules:
o ietf-interfaces [YANG-IF],
o ietf-ip [YANG-IP],
o ietf-routing (Section 6),
o ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing (Section 7),
o ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing (Section 8).
We assume a simple network setup as shown in Figure 4: router "A"
uses static default routes with the "ISP" router as the next hop.
IPv6 router advertisements are configured only on the "eth1"
interface and disabled on the upstream "eth0" interface.
+-----------------+
| |
| Router ISP |
| |
+--------+--------+
|2001:db8:0:1::2
|192.0.2.2
|
|
|2001:db8:0:1::1
eth0|192.0.2.1
+--------+--------+
| |
| Router A |
| |
+--------+--------+
eth1|198.51.100.1
|2001:db8:0:2::1
|
Figure 4: Example network configuration
A reply to the NETCONF <get> message sent by router "A" would then be
as follows:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rpc-reply
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"
xmlns:v6ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:ip="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip"
xmlns:rt="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing">
<data>
<if:interfaces>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth0</if:name>
<if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:location>eth0</if:location>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>192.0.2.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:1::1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
<ip:autoconf>
<ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
</ip:autoconf>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
<if:interface>
<if:name>eth1</if:name>
<if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
<if:location>eth1</if:location>
<ip:ipv4>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>198.51.100.1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
</ip:ipv4>
<ip:ipv6>
<ip:address>
<ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:2::1</ip:ip>
<ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
</ip:address>
<ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
<ip:autoconf>
<ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
</ip:autoconf>
</ip:ipv6>
</if:interface>
</if:interfaces>
<rt:routing>
<rt:router>
<rt:name>rtr0</rt:name>
<rt:router-id>192.0.2.1</rt:router-id>
<rt:description>Router A</rt:description>
<rt:main-routing-tables>
<rt:main-routing-table>
<rt:address-family>ipv4</rt:address-family>
<rt:safi>nlri-unicast</rt:safi>
<rt:name>ipv4-unicast</rt:name>
</rt:main-routing-table>
<rt:main-routing-table>
<rt:address-family>ipv6</rt:address-family>
<rt:safi>nlri-unicast</rt:safi>
<rt:name>ipv6-unicast</rt:name>
</rt:main-routing-table>
</rt:main-routing-tables>
<rt:interfaces>
<rt:interface>
<rt:name>eth0</rt:name>
</rt:interface>
<rt:interface>
<rt:name>eth1</rt:name>
<v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
<v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
<v6ur:prefix-list>
<v6ur:prefix>
<v6ur:prefix-spec>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:prefix-spec>
</v6ur:prefix>
</v6ur:prefix-list>
</v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
</rt:interface>
</rt:interfaces>
<rt:routing-protocols>
<rt:routing-protocol>
<rt:name>st0</rt:name>
<rt:description>
Static routing is used for the internal network.
</rt:description>
<rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
<rt:static-routes>
<v4ur:ipv4>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
<v4ur:route>
<v4ur:id>1</v4ur:id>
<v4ur:dest-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</v4ur:dest-prefix>
<v4ur:next-hop>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop>
</v4ur:route>
</v4ur:ipv4>
<v6ur:ipv6>
<v6ur:route>
<v6ur:id>1</v6ur:id>
<v6ur:dest-prefix>::/0</v6ur:dest-prefix>
<v6ur:next-hop>2001:db8:0:1::2</v6ur:next-hop>
</v6ur:route>
</v6ur:ipv6>
</rt:static-routes>
</rt:routing-protocol>
</rt:routing-protocols>
</rt:router>
<rt:routing-tables>
<rt:routing-table>
<rt:name>ipv4-unicast</rt:name>
<rt:address-family>ipv4</rt:address-family>
<rt:safi>nlri-unicast</rt:safi>
<rt:routes>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:dest-prefix>192.0.2.1/24</v4ur:dest-prefix>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
<rt:source-protocol>direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T17:11:27+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:dest-prefix>198.51.100.0/24</v4ur:dest-prefix>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
<rt:source-protocol>direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T17:11:27+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v4ur:dest-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</v4ur:dest-prefix>
<rt:source-protocol>st0</rt:source-protocol>
<v4ur:next-hop>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T18:02:45+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
</rt:routes>
</rt:routing-table>
<rt:routing-table>
<rt:name>ipv6-unicast</rt:name>
<rt:address-family>ipv6</rt:address-family>
<rt:safi>nlri-unicast</rt:safi>
<rt:routes>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
<rt:route>
<v6ur:dest-prefix>2001:db8:0:1::/64</v6ur:dest-prefix>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
<rt:source-protocol>direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T17:11:27+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v6ur:dest-prefix>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:dest-prefix>
<rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
<rt:source-protocol>direct</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T17:11:27+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
<rt:route>
<v6ur:dest-prefix>::/0</v6ur:dest-prefix>
<v6ur:next-hop>2001:db8:0:1::2</v6ur:next-hop>
<rt:source-protocol>st0</rt:source-protocol>
<rt:last-updated>2012-10-02T18:02:45+01:00</rt:last-updated>
</rt:route>
</rt:routes>
</rt:routing-table>
</rt:routing-tables>
</rt:routing>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Appendix D. Change Log
RFC Editor: remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
D.1. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09
o Fixed "must" expresion for "connected-routing-table".
o Simplified "must" expression for "main-routing-table".
o Moved per-interface configuration of a new routing protocol under
'routing-protocol'. This also affects the 'example-rip' module.
D.2. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08
o Changed reference from RFC6021 to RFC6021bis.
D.3. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07
o The contents of <get-reply> in Appendix C was updated: "eth[01]"
is used as the value of "location", and "forwarding" is on for
both interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6.
o The "must" expression for "main-routing-table" was modified to
avoid redundant error messages reporting address family mismatch
when "name" points to a non-existent routing table.
o The default behavior for IPv6 RA prefix advertisements was
clarified.
o Changed type of "rt:router-id" to "ip:dotted-quad".
o Type of "rt:router-id" changed to "yang:dotted-quad".
o Fixed missing prefixes in XPath expressions.
D.4. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06
o Document title changed: "Configuration" was replaced by
"Management".
o New typedefs "routing-table-ref" and "route-filter-ref".
o Double slashes "//" were removed from XPath expressions and
replaced with the single "/".
o Removed uniqueness requirement for "router-id".
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
o Complete data tree is now in Appendix A.
o Changed type of "source-protocol" from "leafref" to "string".
o Clarified the relationship between routing protocol instances and
connected routing tables.
o Added a must constraint saying that a routing table connected to
the direct pseudo-protocol must not be a main routing table.
D.5. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05
o Routing tables are now global, i.e., "routing-tables" is a child
of "routing" rather than "router".
o "must" statement for "static-routes" changed to "when".
o Added "main-routing-tables" containing references to main routing
tables for each address family.
o Removed the defaults for "address-family" and "safi" and made them
mandatory.
o Removed the default for route-filter/type and made this leaf
mandatory.
o If there is no active route for a given destination, the "active-
route" RPC returns no output.
o Added "enabled" switch under "routing-protocol".
o Added "router-type" identity and "type" leaf under "router".
o Route attribute "age" changed to "last-updated", its type is
"yang:date-and-time".
o The "direct" pseudo-protocol is always connected to main routing
tables.
o Entries in the list of connected routing tables renamed from
"routing-table" to "connected-routing-table".
o Added "must" constraint saying that a routing table must not be
its own recipient.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
D.6. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04
o Changed "error-tag" for both RPC methods from "missing element" to
"data-missing".
o Removed the decrementing behavior for advertised IPv6 prefix
parameters "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime".
o Changed the key of the static route lists from "seqno" to "id"
because the routes needn't be sorted.
o Added 'must' constraint saying that "preferred-lifetime" must not
be greater than "valid-lifetime".
D.7. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03
o Module "iana-afn-safi" moved to I-D "iana-if-type".
o Removed forwarding table.
o RPC "get-route" changed to "active-route". Its output is a list
of routes (for multi-path routing).
o New RPC "route-count".
o For both RPCs, specification of negative responses was added.
o Relaxed separation of router instances.
o Assignment of interfaces to router instances needn't be disjoint.
o Route filters are now global.
o Added "allow-all-route-filter" for symmetry.
o Added Section 5 about interactions with "ietf-interfaces" and
"ietf-ip".
o Added "router-id" leaf.
o Specified the names for IPv4/IPv6 unicast main routing tables.
o Route parameter "last-modified" changed to "age".
o Added container "recipient-routing-tables".
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
D.8. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02
o Added module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing".
o The example in Appendix C now uses IP addresses from blocks
reserved for documentation.
o Direct routes appear by default in the forwarding table.
o Network layer interfaces must be assigned to a router instance.
Additional interface configuration may be present.
o The "when" statement is only used with "augment", "must" is used
elsewhere.
o Additional "must" statements were added.
o The "route-content" grouping for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast now
includes the material from the "ietf-routing" version via "uses
rt:route-content".
o Explanation of symbols in the tree representation of data model
hierarchy.
D.9. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01
o AFN/SAFI-independent stuff was moved to the "ietf-routing" module.
o Typedefs for AFN and SAFI were placed in a separate "iana-afn-
safi" module.
o Names of some data nodes were changed, in particular "routing-
process" is now "router".
o The restriction of a single AFN/SAFI per router was lifted.
o RPC operation "delete-route" was removed.
o Illegal XPath references from "get-route" to the datastore were
fixed.
o Section "Security Considerations" was written.
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft YANG Routing Management February 2013
Author's Address
Ladislav Lhotka
CZ.NIC
Email: lhotka@nic.cz
Lhotka Expires August 27, 2013 [Page 69]
