[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common)   00 01         Standards Track
          02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09                                       
opsawg                                                        S. Barguil
Internet-Draft                                  O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                              Telefonica
Expires: January 16, 2022                              M. Boucadair, Ed.
                                                                  Orange
                                                                   Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           July 15, 2021


                   A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model
                    draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-09

Abstract

   This document defines a common YANG module that is meant to be reused
   by various VPN-related modules such as Layer 3 VPN and Layer 2 VPN
   network models.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Please update these statements within the document with the RFC
   number to be assigned to this document:

   o  "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"

   o  "RFC XXXX: A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model";

   o  reference: RFC XXXX

   Also, please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.

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 January 16, 2022.



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Description of the VPN Common YANG Module . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Layer 2/3 VPN Common Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  58
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  60
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
   Appendix A.  Example of Common Data Nodes in Early L2NM/L3NM
                Designs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  68

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has specified YANG data modules for VPN services, e.g.,
   Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299] or Layer 2 VPN Service
   Model (L2SM) [RFC8466].  Other relevant YANG models are the Layer 3
   VPN Network Model (L3NM) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] and the Layer 2
   VPN Network Model (L2NM) [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm].  There are common
   data nodes and structures that are present in all of these models or
   at least a subset of them.

   This document defines a common YANG module that is meant to be reused
   by various VPN-related modules such as L3NM
   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm] and L2NM [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]: "ietf-
   vpn-common" (Section 4).





Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   The "ietf-vpn-common" module includes a set of identities, types, and
   groupings that are meant to be reused by other VPN-related YANG
   modules independently of their layer (e.g., Layer 2, Layer 3) and the
   type of the module (e.g., network model, service model) including
   possible future revisions of existing models (e.g., L3SM [RFC8299] or
   L2SM [RFC8466]).

2.  Terminology

   The terminology for describing YANG modules is defined in [RFC7950].

   The meaning of the symbols in tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].

   The reader may refer to [RFC4026] and [RFC4176] for VPN-related
   terms.

3.  Description of the VPN Common YANG Module

   The "ietf-vpn-common" module defines a set of common VPN-related
   features, including:

   Encapsulation features such as:

      *  Dot1q [IEEE802.1Q],

      *  QinQ [IEEE802.1ad],

      *  link aggregation [IEEE802.1AX], and

      *  Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348].

   Multicast [RFC6513].

   Routing features such as:

      *  BGP [RFC4271],

      *  OSPF [RFC4577][RFC6565],

      *  IS-IS [ISO10589],

      *  RIP [RFC2080][RFC2453],

      *  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880], and

      *  Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) [RFC5798].

   Also, the module defines a set of identities, including:



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   'service-type':  Used to identify the VPN service type.  Examples of
      supported service types are:

      *  L3VPN,

      *  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) using BGP [RFC4761],

      *  VPLS using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC4762],

      *  Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC8214],

      *  BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN [RFC7432],

      *  Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC8365], and

      *  Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN (PBB-
         EVPN) [RFC7623].

   'vpn-signaling-type':  Used to identify the signaling mode used for a
      given service type.  Examples of supported VPN signaling types
      are:

      *  L2VPNs using BGP [RFC6624].

      *  LDP [RFC5036], and

      *  Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [RFC3931].

   The module covers both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC8200] identities.
   It also includes multicast related identities such as Internet Group
   Management Protocol version 1 (IGMPv1) [RFC1112], IGMPv2 [RFC2236],
   IGMPv3 [RFC3376], Multicast Listener Discovery version 1 (MLDv1)
   [RFC2710], MLDv2 [RFC3810], and Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
   [RFC7761].

   The reader should refer to Section 4 for the full list of supported
   identities (identities related to address families, VPN topologies,
   network access types, operational and administrative status, site or
   node roles, VPN service constraints, routing protocols, routes
   imports and exports, bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS), etc.).

   The "ietf-vpn-common" module also contains a set of reusable VPN-
   related groupings.  The tree diagram of the "ietf-vpn-common" module
   that depicts the common groupings is provided in Figure 1.

        module: ietf-vpn-common

          grouping vpn-description



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


            +-- vpn-id?            vpn-id
            +-- vpn-name?          string
            +-- vpn-description?   string
            +-- customer-name?     string
          grouping vpn-profile-cfg
            +-- valid-provider-identifiers
               +-- external-connectivity-identifier* [id]
               |       {external-connectivity}?
               |  +-- id?   string
               +-- encryption-profile-identifier* [id]
               |  +-- id?   string
               +-- qos-profile-identifier* [id]
               |  +-- id?   string
               +-- bfd-profile-identifier* [id]
               |  +-- id?   string
               +-- forwarding-profile-identifier* [id]
               |  +-- id?   string
               +-- routing-profile-identifier* [id]
                  +-- id?   string
          grouping oper-status-timestamp
            +--ro status?         identityref
            +--ro last-change?   yang:date-and-time
          grouping service-status
            +-- status
               +-- admin-status
               |  +-- status?         identityref
               |  +-- last-change?    yang:date-and-time
               +-- oper-status
                  +--ro status?         identityref
                  +--ro last-change?    yang:date-and-time
          grouping underlay-transport
            +-- (type)?
               +--:(abstract)
               |  +-- transport-instance-id?   string
               +--:(protocol)
                  +-- protocol*               identityref
          grouping vpn-route-targets
            +-- vpn-target* [id]
            |  +-- id?                  int8
            |  +-- route-targets* [route-target]
            |  |  +-- route-target?   rt-types:route-target
            |  +-- route-target-type    rt-types:route-target-type
            +-- vpn-policies
               +-- import-policy?   string
               +-- export-policy?   string
          grouping route-distinguisher
            ...
          grouping vpn-components-group



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


            +-- groups
               +-- group* [group-id]
                  +-- group-id?   string
          grouping placement-constraints
            +-- constraint* [constraint-type]
               +-- constraint-type?   identityref
               +-- target
                  +-- (target-flavor)?
                     +--:(id)
                     |  +-- group* [group-id]
                     |     +-- group-id?   string
                     +--:(all-accesses)
                     |  +-- all-other-accesses?   empty
                     +--:(all-groups)
                        +-- all-other-groups?     empty
          grouping ports
            ...
          grouping qos-classification-policy
            ...

                         Figure 1: VPN Common Tree

   The description of the common groupings is provided below:

   'vpn-description':

         A YANG grouping that provides common administrative VPN
         information such as an identifier, a name, a textual
         description, and a customer name.

   'vpn-profile-cfg':

         A YANG grouping that defines a set of valid profiles
         (encryption, routing, forwarding, etc.) that can be bound to a
         Layer 2/3 VPN.  This document does not make any assumption
         about the structure of such profiles, but allows "gluing" a VPN
         service with other parameters that can be required locally to
         provide added value features to requesting customers.

         For example, a service provider may provide an external
         connectivity to a VPN customer (e.g., to a private or public
         cloud, Internet).  Such service may involve tweaking both
         filtering and NAT rules (e.g., bind a Virtual Routing and
         Forwarding (VRF) interface with a NAT instance as discussed in
         Section 2.10 of [RFC8512]).  These added value features may be
         bound to all or a subset of network accesses.  Some of these
         added value features may be implemented in nodes other than PEs




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


         (e.g., a P node or even a dedicated node that hosts the NAT
         function).

         It is out of the scope of this document to elaborate the
         structure of these profiles.

   'oper-status-timestamp':

         A YANG grouping that defines the operational status updates of
         a VPN service or component.

   'service-status':

         A YANG grouping that defines the administrative and operational
         status of a component.  The grouping can be applied to the
         whole service or an endpoint.

   'underlay-transport':

         A YANG grouping that defines the type of the underlay transport
         for a VPN service.

         The underlay transport can be expressed as an abstract
         transport instance (e.g., an identifier of a VPN+ instance
         [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn], a virtual network identifier
         [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang][RFC8453], or a network slice name
         [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-framework]) or as an ordered
         list of the actual protocols to be enabled in the network.

         The module supports a rich set of protocol identifiers that can
         be used, e.g., to refer to an underlay transport.  Examples of
         supported protocols are:

         +  IP-in-IP [RFC2003][RFC2473],

         +  GRE [RFC1701][RFC1702][RFC7676],

         +  MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510],

         +  Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (GENEVE)
            [RFC8926],

         +  Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8660][RFC8663][RFC8754],

         +  Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) with traffic
            engineering extensions [RFC3209], and

         +  BGP with labeled prefixes [RFC8277].



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   'vpn-route-targets':

         A YANG grouping that defines Route Target (RT) import/export
         rules used in a BGP-enabled VPN (e.g., [RFC4364][RFC4664]).
         Note that this is modelled as a list to ease the reuse of this
         grouping in modules where a pointer is needed (e.g., associate
         an operator with RTs).

   'route-distinguisher':

         A YANG grouping that defines Route Distinguishers (RDs).

         As depicted in Figure 2, the module supports these RD
         assignment modes: direct assignment, automatic assignment from
         a given pool, automatic assignment, and no assignment.

         Also, the module accommodates deployments where only the
         Assigned Number subfield of RDs (Section 4.2 of [RFC4364]) is
         assigned from a pool while the Administrator subfield is set
         to, e.g., the router-id that is assigned to a VPN node.  The
         module supports these modes for managing the Assigned Number
         subfield: explicit assignment, auto-assignment from a pool, and
         full auto-assignment.




























Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      grouping route-distinguisher
        +-- (rd-choice)?
           +--:(directly-assigned)
           |  +-- rd?               rt-types:route-distinguisher
           +--:(directly-assigned-suffix)
           |  +-- rd-suffix?        uint16
           +--:(auto-assigned)
           |  +-- rd-auto
           |     +-- (auto-mode)?
           |     |  +--:(from-pool)
           |     |  |  +-- rd-pool-name?   string
           |     |  +--:(full-auto)
           |     |     +-- auto?           empty
           |     +--ro auto-assigned-rd?   rt-types:route-distinguisher
           +--:(auto-assigned-suffix)
           |  +-- rd-auto-suffix
           |     +-- (auto-mode)?
           |     |  +--:(from-pool)
           |     |  |  +-- rd-pool-name?        string
           |     |  +--:(full-auto)
           |     |     +-- auto?                empty
           |     +--ro auto-assigned-rd-suffix?   uint16
           +--:(no-rd)
              +-- no-rd?            empty

              Figure 2: Route Distinguisher Grouping Subtree

   'vpn-components-group':

         A YANG grouping that is used to group VPN nodes, VPN network
         accesses, or sites.  For example, diversity or redundancy
         constraints can be applied on a per-group basis.

   'placement-constraints':

         A YANG grouping that is used to define the placement
         constraints of a VPN node, VPN network access, or site.

   'ports':

         A YANG grouping that defines ranges of source and destination
         port numbers and operators.  The subtree of this grouping is
         depicted in Figure 3.








Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


             grouping ports
               +-- (source-port)?
               |  +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
               |     +-- source-port-range-or-operator
               |        +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
               |           +--:(range)
               |           |  +-- lower-port    inet:port-number
               |           |  +-- upper-port    inet:port-number
               |           +--:(operator)
               |              +-- operator?     operator
               |              +-- port          inet:port-number
               +-- (destination-port)?
                  +--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
                     +-- destination-port-range-or-operator
                        +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
                           +--:(range)
                           |  +-- lower-port    inet:port-number
                           |  +-- upper-port    inet:port-number
                           +--:(operator)
                              +-- operator?     operator
                              +-- port          inet:port-number

                  Figure 3: Port Numbers Grouping Subtree

   'qos-classification-policy':

         A YANG grouping that defines a set of QoS classification
         policies based on various match Layer 3/4 and application
         criteria.  The subtree of this grouping is depicted in
         Figure 4.

         Any layer 4 protocol can be indicated in the 'protocol' data
         node under 'l3', but only TCP and UDP specific match criteria
         are elaborated in this version as these protocols are widely
         used in the context of VPN services.  Augmentations can be
         considered in the future to add other Layer 4 specific data
         nodes (e.g., Stream Control Transmission Protocol [RFC4960]),
         if needed.

     grouping qos-classification-policy
       +-- rule* [id]
          +-- id?                        string
          +-- (match-type)?
          |  +--:(match-flow)
          |  |  +-- (l3)?
          |  |  |  +--:(ipv4)
          |  |  |  |  +-- ipv4
          |  |  |  |     +-- dscp?                             inet:dscp



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


          |  |  |  |     +-- ecn?                              uint8
          |  |  |  |     +-- length?                           uint16
          |  |  |  |     +-- ttl?                              uint8
          |  |  |  |     +-- protocol?                         uint8
          |  |  |  |     +-- ihl?                              uint8
          |  |  |  |     +-- flags?                            bits
          |  |  |  |     +-- offset?                           uint16
          |  |  |  |     +-- identification?                   uint16
          |  |  |  |     +-- (destination-network)?
          |  |  |  |     |  +--:(destination-ipv4-network)
          |  |  |  |     |     +-- destination-ipv4-network?
          |  |  |  |     |             inet:ipv4-prefix
          |  |  |  |     +-- (source-network)?
          |  |  |  |        +--:(source-ipv4-network)
          |  |  |  |           +-- source-ipv4-network?
          |  |  |  |                   inet:ipv4-prefix
          |  |  |  +--:(ipv6)
          |  |  |     +-- ipv6
          |  |  |        +-- dscp?                             inet:dscp
          |  |  |        +-- ecn?                              uint8
          |  |  |        +-- length?                           uint16
          |  |  |        +-- ttl?                              uint8
          |  |  |        +-- protocol?                         uint8
          |  |  |        +-- (destination-network)?
          |  |  |        |  +--:(destination-ipv6-network)
          |  |  |        |     +-- destination-ipv6-network?
          |  |  |        |             inet:ipv6-prefix
          |  |  |        +-- (source-network)?
          |  |  |        |  +--:(source-ipv6-network)
          |  |  |        |     +-- source-ipv6-network?
          |  |  |        |             inet:ipv6-prefix
          |  |  |        +-- flow-label?
          |  |  |                inet:ipv6-flow-label
          |  |  +-- (l4)?
          |  |     +--:(tcp)
          |  |     |  +-- tcp
          |  |     |     +-- sequence-number?                 uint32
          |  |     |     +-- acknowledgement-number?          uint32
          |  |     |     +-- data-offset?                     uint8
          |  |     |     +-- reserved?                        uint8
          |  |     |     +-- flags?                           bits
          |  |     |     +-- window-size?                     uint16
          |  |     |     +-- urgent-pointer?                  uint16
          |  |     |     +-- options?                         binary
          |  |     |     +-- (source-port)?
          |  |     |     |  +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
          |  |     |     |     +-- source-port-range-or-operator
          |  |     |     |        +-- (port-range-or-operator)?



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


          |  |     |     |           +--:(range)
          |  |     |     |           |  +-- lower-port
          |  |     |     |           |  |       inet:port-number
          |  |     |     |           |  +-- upper-port
          |  |     |     |           |          inet:port-number
          |  |     |     |           +--:(operator)
          |  |     |     |              +-- operator?     operator
          |  |     |     |              +-- port
          |  |     |     |                      inet:port-number
          |  |     |     +-- (destination-port)?
          |  |     |        +--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
          |  |     |           +-- destination-port-range-or-operator
          |  |     |              +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
          |  |     |                 +--:(range)
          |  |     |                 |  +-- lower-port
          |  |     |                 |  |       inet:port-number
          |  |     |                 |  +-- upper-port
          |  |     |                 |          inet:port-number
          |  |     |                 +--:(operator)
          |  |     |                    +-- operator?     operator
          |  |     |                    +-- port
          |  |     |                            inet:port-number
          |  |     +--:(udp)
          |  |        +-- udp
          |  |           +-- length?                        uint16
          |  |           +-- (source-port)?
          |  |           |  +--:(source-port-range-or-operator)
          |  |           |     +-- source-port-range-or-operator
          |  |           |        +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
          |  |           |           +--:(range)
          |  |           |           |  +-- lower-port
          |  |           |           |  |       inet:port-number
          |  |           |           |  +-- upper-port
          |  |           |           |          inet:port-number
          |  |           |           +--:(operator)
          |  |           |              +-- operator?     operator
          |  |           |              +-- port
          |  |           |                      inet:port-number
          |  |           +-- (destination-port)?
          |  |              +--:(destination-port-range-or-operator)
          |  |                 +-- destination-port-range-or-operator
          |  |                    +-- (port-range-or-operator)?
          |  |                       +--:(range)
          |  |                       |  +-- lower-port
          |  |                       |  |       inet:port-number
          |  |                       |  +-- upper-port
          |  |                       |          inet:port-number
          |  |                       +--:(operator)



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


          |  |                          +-- operator?     operator
          |  |                          +-- port
          |  |                                  inet:port-number
          |  +--:(match-application)
          |     +-- match-application?   identityref
          +-- target-class-id?           string {qos}?

                   Figure 4: QoS Classification Subtree

4.  Layer 2/3 VPN Common Module

   This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8294], and
   [RFC8519].  It also uses the extension defined in [RFC8341].

<CODE BEGINS>  file "ietf-vpn-common@2021-07-12.yang"
module ietf-vpn-common {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common";
  prefix vpn-common;

  import ietf-netconf-acm {
    prefix nacm;
    reference
      "RFC 8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model";
  }
  import ietf-routing-types {
    prefix rt-types;
    reference
      "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area";
  }
  import ietf-yang-types {
    prefix yang;
    reference
      "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3";
  }
  import ietf-packet-fields {
    prefix packet-fields;
    reference
      "RFC 8519: YANG Data Model for Network Access
                 Control Lists (ACLs)";
  }

  organization
    "IETF OPSAWG (Operations and Management Area Working Group)";
  contact
    "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/>
     WG List:  <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


     Editor:  Mohamed Boucadair
              <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
     Author:  Samier Barguil
              <mailto:samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com>
     Author:  Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
              <mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>
     Author:  Qin Wu
              <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>";
  description
    "This YANG module defines a common module that is meant
     to be reused by various VPN-related modules (e.g.,
     Layer 3 VPN Service Model (L3SM), Layer 2 VPN Service
     Model (L2SM), Layer 3 VPN Network Model (L3NM), Layer 2
     VPN Network Model (L2NM)).

     Copyright (c) 2021 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 2021-07-12 {
    description
      "Initial revision.";
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: A Layer 2/3 VPN Common YANG Model";
  }

  /******** Collection of VPN-related Features ********/
  /*
   * Features related to encapsulation schemes
   */

  feature dot1q {
    description
      "Indicates the support for the Dot1q encapsulation.";
    reference
      "IEEE Std 802.1Q: Bridges and Bridged Networks";
  }

  feature qinq {



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "Indicates the support for the QinQ encapsulation.";
    reference
      "IEEE Std 802.1ad: Provider Bridges";
  }

  feature vxlan {
    description
      "Indicates the support for the Virtual eXtensible
       Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation.";
    reference
      "RFC 7348: Virtual eXtensible Local Area  Network (VXLAN):
                 A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2
                 Networks over Layer 3 Networks";
  }

  feature qinany {
    description
      "Indicates the support for the QinAny encapsulation.
       The outer outer VLAN tag is set to a specific value but
       the inner VLAN tag is set to any.";
  }

  feature lag-interface {
    description
      "Indicates the support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
       between VPN network accesses.";
    reference
      "IEEE Std. 802.1AX: Link Aggregation";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to multicast
   */

  feature multicast {
    description
      "Indicates multicast capabilities support in a VPN.";
    reference
      "RFC 6513: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs";
  }

  feature igmp {
    description
      "Indicates support for Internet Group Management Protocol
       (IGMP).";
    reference
      "RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


       RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2
       RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
  }

  feature mld {
    description
      "Indicates support for Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD).";
    reference
      "RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
       RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
                 for IPv6";
  }

  feature pim {
    description
      "Indicates support for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM).";
    reference
      "RFC 7761: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
                (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to address family types
   */

  feature ipv4 {
    description
      "Indicates IPv4 support in a VPN. That is, IPv4 traffic
       can be carried in the VPN, IPv4 addresses/prefixes can
       be assigned to a VPN network access, IPv4 routes can be
       installed for the CE/PE link, etc.";
    reference
      "RFC 791: Internet Protocol";
  }

  feature ipv6 {
    description
      "Indicates IPv6 support in a VPN. That is, IPv6 traffic
       can be carried in the VPN, IPv6 addresses/prefixes can
       be assigned to a VPN network access, IPv6 routes can be
       installed for the CE/PE link, etc.";
    reference
      "RFC 8200: Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to routing protocols
   */



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  feature rtg-ospf {
    description
      "Indicates support for the OSPF as the Provider Edge (PE)/
       Customer Edge (CE) routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
                 for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
       RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
                 (PE-CE) Routing Protocol";
  }

  feature rtg-ospf-sham-link {
    description
      "Indicates support for OSPF sham links.";
    reference
      "RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
                 for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs),
                 Section 4.2.7
       RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
                 (PE-CE) Routing Protocol, Section 5";
  }

  feature rtg-bgp {
    description
      "Indicates support for BGP as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
  }

  feature rtg-rip {
    description
      "Indicates support for RIP as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 2453: RIP Version 2
       RFC 2080: RIPng for IPv6";
  }

  feature rtg-isis {
    description
      "Indicates support for IS-IS as the PE/CE routing protocol.";
    reference
      "ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
                 domain routeing information exchange protocol for
                 use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
                 the connectionless-mode network service
                 (ISO 8473)";
  }




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  feature rtg-vrrp {
    description
      "Indicates support for the Virtual Router Redundancy
       Protocol (VRRP) in CE/PE link.";
    reference
      "RFC 5798: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3
                 for IPv4 and IPv6";
  }

  feature bfd {
    description
      "Indicates support for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
       between the CE and the PE.";
    reference
      "RFC 5880: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to VPN service constraints
   */

  feature bearer-reference {
    description
      "Indicates support for the bearer reference access constraint.
       That is, the reuse of a network connection that was already
       ordered to the service provider apart from the IP VPN site.";
  }

  feature placement-diversity {
    description
      "Indicates support for placement diversity constraints in the
       customer premises. An example of these constraints may be to
       avoid connecting a site network access to the same Provider
       Edge as a target site network access.";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to bandwidth and Quality of Service (QoS)
   */

  feature qos {
    description
      "Indicates support for Classes of Service (CoSes) in the VPN.";
  }

  feature inbound-bw {
    description
      "Indicates support for the inbound bandwidth in a VPN. That is,



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


       support for specifying the download bandwidth from the service
       provider network to the VPN site. Note that the L3SM uses
       'input' to identify the same feature. That terminology should
       be deprecated in favor of the one defines in this module.";
  }

  feature outbound-bw {
    description
      "Indicates support for the outbound bandwidth in a VPN. That is,
       support for specifying the upload bandwidth from the VPN site
       to the service provider network. Note that the L3SM uses
       'output' to identify the same feature. That terminology should
       be deprecated in favor of the one defines in this module.";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to security and resilience
   */

  feature encryption {
    description
      "Indicates support for encryption in the VPN.";
  }

  feature fast-reroute {
    description
      "Indicates support for Fast Reroute (FRR) capabilities for
       a VPN site.";
  }

  /*
   * Features related to advanced VPN options
   */

  feature external-connectivity {
    description
      "Indicates support for the VPN to provide external
       connectivity (e.g., Internet, private or public cloud).";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
                 (VPNs), Section 11";
  }

  feature extranet-vpn {
    description
      "Indicates support for extranet VPNs. That is, the capability of
       a VPN to access a list of other VPNs.";
    reference



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
                 (VPNs), Section 1.1";
  }

  feature carriers-carrier {
    description
      "Indicates support for Carrier-of-Carrier VPNs.";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
                 (VPNs), Section 9";
  }

  /*
   * Address family related identities
   */

  identity address-family {
    description
      "Defines a type for the address family.";
  }

  identity ipv4 {
    base address-family;
    description
      "Identity for IPv4 address family.";
  }

  identity ipv6 {
    base address-family;
    description
      "Identity for IPv6 address family.";
  }

  identity dual-stack {
    base address-family;
    description
      "Identity for IPv4 and IPv6 address family.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to VPN topology
   */

  identity vpn-topology {
    description
      "Base identity of the VPN topology.";
  }




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity any-to-any {
    base vpn-topology;
    description
      "Identity for any-to-any VPN topology. All VPN sites
       can communicate with each other without any restrictions.";
  }

  identity hub-spoke {
    base vpn-topology;
    description
      "Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology. All Spokes can
       communicate only with Hubs but not with each other. Hubs
       can communicate with each other.";
  }

  identity hub-spoke-disjoint {
    base vpn-topology;
    description
      "Identity for Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology where Hubs cannot
       communicate with each other.";
  }

  identity custom {
    base vpn-topology;
    description
      "Identity for custom VPN topologies where the role of the nodes
       is not strictly Hub or Spoke. The VPN topology is controlled by
       the import/export policies. The custom topology reflects more
       complex VPN nodes such as VPN node that acts as Hub for certain
       nodes and Spoke to others.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to network access types
   */

  identity site-network-access-type {
    description
      "Base identity for site network access type.";
  }

  identity point-to-point {
    base site-network-access-type;
    description
      "Point-to-point access type.";
  }

  identity multipoint {



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    base site-network-access-type;
    description
      "Multipoint access type.";
  }

  identity irb {
    base site-network-access-type;
    description
      "Integrated Routing Bridge (IRB).
       Identity for pseudowire connections.";
  }

  identity loopback {
    base site-network-access-type;
    description
      "Loopback access type.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to operational and administrative status
   */

  identity operational-status {
    description
      "Base identity for the operational status.";
  }

  identity op-up {
    base operational-status;
    description
      "Operational status is Up/Enabled.";
  }

  identity op-down {
    base operational-status;
    description
      "Operational status is Down/Disabled.";
  }

  identity op-unknown {
    base operational-status;
    description
      "Operational status is Unknown.";
  }

  identity administrative-status {
    description
      "Base identity for administrative status.";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  }

  identity admin-up {
    base administrative-status;
    description
      "Administrative status is Up/Enabled.";
  }

  identity admin-down {
    base administrative-status;
    description
      "Administrative status is Down/Disabled.";
  }

  identity admin-testing {
    base administrative-status;
    description
      "Administrative status is up for testing purposes.";
  }

  identity admin-pre-deployment {
    base administrative-status;
    description
      "Administrative status is pre-deployment phase. That is,
       prior to the actual deployment of a service.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to site or node role
   */

  identity role {
    description
      "Base identity of a site or a node role.";
  }

  identity any-to-any-role {
    base role;
    description
      "Any-to-any role.";
  }

  identity spoke-role {
    base role;
    description
      "A node or a site is acting as a Spoke.";
  }




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity hub-role {
    base role;
    description
      "A node or a site is acting as a Hub.";
  }

  identity custom-role {
    base role;
    description
      "VPN node with custom or complex role in the VPN. For some
       sources/destinations it can behave as a Hub, but for others it
       can act as a Spoke depending on the configured policy.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to VPN service constraints
   */

  identity placement-diversity {
    description
      "Base identity for access placement constraints.";
  }

  identity bearer-diverse {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "Bearer diversity.

       The bearers should not use common elements.";
  }

  identity pe-diverse {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "PE diversity.";
  }

  identity pop-diverse {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "Point Of Presence (POP) diversity.";
  }

  identity linecard-diverse {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "Linecard diversity.";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity same-pe {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "Having sites connected on the same PE.";
  }

  identity same-bearer {
    base placement-diversity;
    description
      "Having sites connected using the same bearer.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to service types
   */

  identity service-type {
    description
      "Base identity for service type.";
  }

  identity l3vpn {
    base service-type;
    description
      "L3VPN service.";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)";
  }

  identity vpls {
    base service-type;
    description
      "VPLS service.";
    reference
      "RFC 4761: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for
                 Auto-Discovery and Signaling
       RFC 4762: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label
                 Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling";
  }

  identity vpws {
    base service-type;
    description
      "Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) service.";
    reference
      "RFC 4664: Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
                 (L2VPNs), Section 3.1.1";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity vpws-evpn {
    base service-type;
    description
      "EVPN used to support VPWS service.";
    reference
      "RFC 8214: Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN";
  }

  identity pbb-evpn {
    base service-type;
    description
      "Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) EVPNs service.";
    reference
      "RFC 7623: Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with Ethernet VPN
                (PBB-EVPN)";
  }

  identity mpls-evpn {
    base service-type;
    description
      "MPLS-based EVPN service.";
    reference
      "RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN";
  }

  identity vxlan-evpn {
    base service-type;
    description
      "VXLAN-based EVPN service.";
    reference
      "RFC 8365: A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using
                 Ethernet VPN (EVPN)";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to VPN signaling type
   */

  identity vpn-signaling-type {
    description
      "Base identity for VPN signaling types";
  }

  identity bgp-signaling {
    base vpn-signaling-type;
    description
      "Layer 2 VPNs using BGP signaling.";
    reference



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      "RFC 6624: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for
                 Auto-Discovery and Signaling
       RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN";
  }

  identity ldp-signaling {
    base vpn-signaling-type;
    description
      "Targeted Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) signaling.";
    reference
      "RFC 5036: LDP Specification";
  }

  identity l2tp-signaling {
    base vpn-signaling-type;
    description
      "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) signaling.";
    reference
      "RFC 3931: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to routing protocols
   */

  identity routing-protocol-type {
    description
      "Base identity for routing protocol type.";
  }

  identity static-routing {
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "Static routing protocol.";
  }

  identity bgp-routing {
    if-feature "rtg-bgp";
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "BGP routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
  }

  identity ospf-routing {
    if-feature "rtg-ospf";
    base routing-protocol-type;



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "OSPF routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol
                 for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks(VPNs)
       RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
                 (PE-CE) Routing Protocol";
  }

  identity rip-routing {
    if-feature "rtg-rip";
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "RIP routing protocol.";
    reference
      "RFC 2453: RIP Version 2
       RFC 2080: RIPng for IPv6";
  }

  identity isis-routing {
    if-feature "rtg-isis";
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "IS-IS routing protocol.";
    reference
      "ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
                 domain routeing information exchange protocol for
                 use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
                 the connectionless-mode network service
                 (ISO 8473)";
  }

  identity vrrp-routing {
    if-feature "rtg-vrrp";
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "VRRP protocol.

       This is to be used when LANs are directly connected to PEs.";
    reference
      "RFC 5798: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3
                 for IPv4 and IPv6";
  }

  identity direct-routing {
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "Direct routing.



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


       This is to be used when LANs are directly connected to PEs
       and must be advertised in the VPN.";
  }

  identity any-routing {
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "Any routing protocol.

       This can be, e.g., used to set policies that apply to any
       routing protocol in place.";
  }

  identity isis-level {
    if-feature "rtg-isis";
    description
      "Base identity for the IS-IS level.";
    reference
      "ISO10589: Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
                 domain routeing information exchange protocol for
                 use in conjunction with the protocol for providing
                 the connectionless-mode network service
                 (ISO 8473)";
  }

  identity level-1 {
    base isis-level;
    description
      "IS-IS level 1.";
  }

  identity level-2 {
    base isis-level;
    description
      "IS-IS level 2.";
  }

  identity level-1-2 {
    base isis-level;
    description
      "IS-IS levels 1 and 2.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to Routes Import and Export
   */

  identity ie-type {



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "Base identity for 'import/export' routing profiles.
       These profiles can be reused between VPN nodes.";
  }

  identity import {
    base ie-type;
    description
      "'Import' routing profile.";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
                 (VPNs), Section 4.3.1";
  }

  identity export {
    base ie-type;
    description
      "'Export' routing profile.";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
                 (VPNs), Section 4.3.1";
  }

  identity import-export {
    base ie-type;
    description
      "'Import/export' routing profile.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to bandwidth and QoS
   */

  identity bw-direction {
    description
      "Base identity for the bandwidth direction.";
  }

  identity inbound-bw {
    if-feature "inbound-bw";
    base bw-direction;
    description
      "Inbound bandwidth.";
  }

  identity outbound-bw {
    if-feature "outbound-bw";
    base bw-direction;



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "Outbound bandwidth.";
  }

  identity bw-type {
    description
      "Base identity for the bandwidth type.";
  }

  identity bw-per-cos {
    if-feature "qos";
    base bw-type;
    description
      "The bandwidth is per-CoS.";
  }

  identity bw-per-port {
    base bw-type;
    description
      "The bandwidth is per-site network access.";
  }

  identity bw-per-site {
    base bw-type;
    description
      "The bandwidth is per-site. It is applicable to all the site
       network accesses within a site.";
  }

  identity bw-per-service {
    base bw-type;
    description
      "The bandwidth is per-VPN service.";
  }

  identity qos-profile-direction {
    if-feature "qos";
    description
      "Base identity for the QoS profile direction.";
  }

  identity site-to-wan {
    base qos-profile-direction;
    description
      "Customer site to provider's network direction.
       This is typically the CE-to-PE direction.";
  }




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity wan-to-site {
    base qos-profile-direction;
    description
      "Provider's network to customer site direction.
       This is typically the PE-to-CE direction.";
  }

  identity both {
    base qos-profile-direction;
    description
      "Both WAN-to-Site and Site-to-WAN directions.";
  }

  /*
   *  Identities related to underlay transport instances
   */

  identity transport-instance-type {
    description
      "Base identity for underlay transport instance type.";
  }

  identity virtual-network {
    base transport-instance-type;
    description
      "Virtual network.";
    reference
      "RFC 8453: Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE
                 Networks (ACTN)";
  }

  identity enhanced-vpn {
    base transport-instance-type;
    description
      "Enhanced VPN (VPN+). VPN+ is an approach that is
       based on existing VPN and Traffic Engineering (TE)
       technologies but adds characteristics that specific
       services require over and above traditional VPNs.";
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn:
         A Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network
         (VPN+) Services";
  }

  identity ietf-network-slice {
    base transport-instance-type;
    description
      "IETF network slice. An IETF network slice



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


       is a logical network topology connecting a number of
       endpoints using a set of shared or dedicated network
       resources that are used to satisfy specific service
       objectives.";
    reference
      "I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-framework:
         Framework for IETF Network Slices";
  }

  /*
   *  Identities related to protocol types. These types are typically
   *  used to identify the underlay transport.
   */

  identity protocol-type {
    description
      "Base identity for Protocol Type.";
  }

  identity ip-in-ip {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on IP-in-IP.";
    reference
      "RFC 2003: IP Encapsulation within IP
       RFC 2473: Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification";
  }

  identity ip-in-ipv4 {
    base ip-in-ip;
    description
      "Transport is based on IP over IPv4.";
    reference
      "RFC 2003: IP Encapsulation within IP";
  }

  identity ip-in-ipv6 {
    base ip-in-ip;
    description
      "Transport is based on IP over IPv6.";
    reference
      "RFC 2473: Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification";
  }

  identity gre {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    reference
      "RFC 1701: Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
       RFC 1702: Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks
       RFC 7676: IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)";
  }

  identity gre-v4 {
    base gre;
    description
      "Transport is based on GRE over IPv4.";
    reference
      "RFC 1702: Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks";
  }

  identity gre-v6 {
    base gre;
    description
      "Transport is based on GRE over IPv6.";
    reference
      "RFC 7676: IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)";
  }

  identity vxlan-trans {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on VXLAN.";
    reference
      "RFC 7348: Virtual eXtensible Local Area  Network (VXLAN):
                 A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2
                 Networks over Layer 3 Networks";
  }

  identity geneve {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on Generic Network Virtualization
       Encapsulation (GENEVE).";
    reference
      "RFC 8926: Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation";
  }

  identity ldp {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on LDP.";
    reference
      "RFC 5036: LDP Specification";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity mpls-in-udp {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is MPLS in UDP.";
    reference
      "RFC 7510: Encapsulating MPLS in UDP";
  }

  identity sr {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on Segment Routing (SR).";
    reference
      "RFC 8660: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane
       RFC 8663: MPLS Segment Routing over IP
       RFC 8754: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)";
  }

  identity sr-mpls {
    base sr;
    description
      "Transport is based on SR with MPLS.";
    reference
      "RFC 8660: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane";
  }

  identity srv6 {
    base sr;
    description
      "Transport is based on SR over IPv6.";
    reference
      "RFC 8663: MPLS Segment Routing over IP
       RFC 8754: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)";
  }

  identity rsvp-te {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on RSVP-TE.";
    reference
      "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
  }

  identity bgp-lu {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Transport is based on BGP-LU.";
    reference



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      "RFC 8277: Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes";
  }

  identity unknown {
    base protocol-type;
    description
      "Not known protocol type.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to encapsulations
   */

  identity encapsulation-type {
    description
      "Base identity for the encapsulation type.";
  }

  identity priority-tagged {
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "Priority-tagged interface.";
  }

  identity dot1q {
    if-feature "dot1q";
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "Dot1q encapsulation.";
  }

  identity qinq {
    if-feature "qinq";
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "QinQ encapsulation.";
  }

  identity qinany {
    if-feature "qinany";
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "QinAny encapsulation.";
  }

  identity vxlan {
    if-feature "vxlan";
    base encapsulation-type;



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "VxLAN encapsulation.";
  }

  identity ethernet-type {
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "Ethernet encapsulation type.";
  }

  identity vlan-type {
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "VLAN encapsulation.";
  }

  identity untagged-int {
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "Untagged interface type.";
  }

  identity tagged-int {
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "Tagged interface type.";
  }

  identity lag-int {
    if-feature "lag-interface";
    base encapsulation-type;
    description
      "LAG interface type.";
    reference
      "IEEE Std. 802.1AX: Link Aggregation";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to VLAN Tag
   */

  identity tag-type {
    description
      "Base identity for the tag types.";
  }

  identity c-vlan {
    base tag-type;



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "Indicates Customer VLAN (C-VLAN) tag, normally using
       the 0x8100 Ethertype.";
  }

  identity s-vlan {
    base tag-type;
    description
      "Indicates Service VLAN (S-VLAN) tag.";
  }

  identity s-c-vlan {
    base tag-type;
    description
      "Uses both an S-VLAN tag and a C-VLAN tag.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to VXLAN
   */

  identity vxlan-peer-mode {
    if-feature "vxlan";
    description
      "Base identity for the VXLAN peer mode.";
  }

  identity static-mode {
    base vxlan-peer-mode;
    description
      "VXLAN access in the static mode.";
  }

  identity bgp-mode {
    base vxlan-peer-mode;
    description
      "VXLAN access by BGP EVPN learning.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to multicast
   */

  identity multicast-gp-address-mapping {
    if-feature "multicast";
    description
      "Base identity for multicast group mapping type.";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity static-mapping {
    base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
    description
      "Static mapping, i.e., attach the interface to the
       multicast group as a static member.";
  }

  identity dynamic-mapping {
    base multicast-gp-address-mapping;
    description
      "Dynamic mapping, i.e., an interface is added to the
       multicast group as a result of snooping.";
  }

  identity multicast-tree-type {
    if-feature "multicast";
    description
      "Base identity for multicast tree type.";
  }

  identity ssm-tree-type {
    base multicast-tree-type;
    description
      "Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) tree type.";
  }

  identity asm-tree-type {
    base multicast-tree-type;
    description
      "Any-Source Multicast (ASM) tree type.";
  }

  identity bidir-tree-type {
    base multicast-tree-type;
    description
      "Bidirectional tree type.";
  }

  identity multicast-rp-discovery-type {
    if-feature "multicast";
    description
      "Base identity for Rendezvous Point (RP) discovery type.";
  }

  identity auto-rp {
    base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
    description
      "Auto-RP discovery type.";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  }

  identity static-rp {
    base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
    description
      "Static type.";
  }

  identity bsr-rp {
    base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
    description
      "Bootstrap Router (BSR) discovery type.";
  }

  identity group-management-protocol {
    if-feature "multicast";
    description
      "Base identity for multicast group management protocol.";
  }

  identity igmp-proto {
    base group-management-protocol;
    description
      "IGMP.";
    reference
      "RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting
       RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2
       RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
  }

  identity mld-proto {
    base group-management-protocol;
    description
      "MLD.";
    reference
      "RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6
       RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
                 for IPv6";
  }

  identity pim-proto {
    if-feature "pim";
    base routing-protocol-type;
    description
      "PIM.";
    reference
      "RFC 7761: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode
                (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  }

  identity igmp-version {
    if-feature "igmp";
    description
      "Base identity for IGMP version.";
  }

  identity igmpv1 {
    base igmp-version;
    description
      "IGMPv1.";
    reference
      "RFC 1112: Host Extensions for IP Multicasting";
  }

  identity igmpv2 {
    base igmp-version;
    description
      "IGMPv2.";
    reference
      "RFC 2236: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2";
  }

  identity igmpv3 {
    base igmp-version;
    description
      "IGMPv2.";
    reference
      "RFC 3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3";
  }

  identity mld-version {
    if-feature "mld";
    description
      "Base identity for MLD version.";
  }

  identity mldv1 {
    base mld-version;
    description
      "MLDv1.";
    reference
      "RFC 2710: Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6";
  }

  identity mldv2 {
    base mld-version;



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


    description
      "MLDv2.";
    reference
      "RFC 3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2)
                 for IPv6";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to traffic types
   */

  identity tf-type {
    description
      "Base identity for the traffic type.";
  }

  identity multicast-traffic {
    base tf-type;
    description
      "Multicast traffic.";
  }

  identity broadcast-traffic {
    base tf-type;
    description
      "Broadcast traffic.";
  }

  identity unknown-unicast-traffic {
    base tf-type;
    description
      "Unknown unicast traffic.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to customer applications
   */

  identity customer-application {
    description
      "Base identity for customer applications.";
  }

  identity web {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Web applications (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS).";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity mail {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Mail application.";
  }

  identity file-transfer {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "File transfer application (e.g., FTP, SFTP).";
  }

  identity database {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Database application.";
  }

  identity social {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Social-network application.";
  }

  identity games {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Gaming application.";
  }

  identity p2p {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Peer-to-peer application.";
  }

  identity network-management {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Management application (e.g., Telnet, syslog,
       SNMP).";
  }

  identity voice {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Voice application.";
  }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  identity video {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Video conference application.";
  }

  identity embb {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) application.
       Note that an eMBB application demands network performance with a
       wide variety of characteristics, such as data rate, latency,
       loss rate, reliability, and many other parameters.";
  }

  identity urllc {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications
       (URLLC) application.  Note that an URLLC application demands
       network performance with a wide variety of characteristics, such
       as latency, reliability, and many other parameters.";
  }

  identity mmtc {
    base customer-application;
    description
      "Massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) application.
       Note that an mMTC application demands network performance with
       a wide variety of characteristics, such as data rate, latency,
       loss rate, reliability, and many other parameters.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to service bundling
   */

  identity bundling-type {
    description
      "The base identity for the bundling type. It supports a subset or
       all CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service.";
  }

  identity multi-svc-bundling {
    base bundling-type;
    description
      "Multi-service bundling, i.e., multiple C-VLAN IDs
       can be associated with an L2VPN service at a site.";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  }

  identity one2one-bundling {
    base bundling-type;
    description
      "One-to-one service bundling, i.e., each L2VPN can
       be associated with only one C-VLAN ID at a site.";
  }

  identity all2one-bundling {
    base bundling-type;
    description
      "All-to-one bundling, i.e., all C-VLAN IDs are mapped
       to one L2VPN service.";
  }

  /*
   * Identities related to Ethernet Services
   */

  identity control-mode {
    description
      "Base Identity for the type of control mode on Layer 2
       Control Protocol (L2CP).";
  }

  identity peer {
    base control-mode;
    description
      "'peer' mode, i.e., participate in the protocol towards the CE.
       Peering is common for Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
       and the Ethernet Local Management Interface (E-LMI) and,
       occasionally, for Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP).
       For VPLSs and VPWSs, the subscriber can also request that the
       peer service provider enables spanning tree.";
  }

  identity tunnel {
    base control-mode;
    description
      "'tunnel' mode, i.e., pass to the egress or destination site. For
       Ethernet Private Lines (EPLs), the expectation is that L2CP
       frames are tunnelled.";
  }

  identity discard {
    base control-mode;
    description



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      "'Discard' mode, i.e., discard the frame.";
  }

  identity neg-mode {
    description
      "Base identity for the negotiation mode.";
  }

  identity full-duplex {
    base neg-mode;
    description
      "Full-duplex negotiation mode.";
  }

  identity auto-neg {
    base neg-mode;
    description
      "Auto-negotiation mode.";
  }

  /******** Collection of VPN-related Types ********/

  typedef vpn-id {
    type string;
    description
      "Defines an identifier that is used with a VPN module.
       This can be, for example, a service identifier, a node
       identifier, etc.";
  }

  /******* VPN-related reusable groupings *******/

  grouping vpn-description {
    description
      "Provides common VPN information.";
    leaf vpn-id {
      type vpn-common:vpn-id;
      description
        "A VPN identifier that uniquely identifies a VPN.
         This identifier has a local meaning, e.g., within
         a service provider network.";
    }
    leaf vpn-name {
      type string;
      description
        "A name used to refer to the VPN.";
    }
    leaf vpn-description {



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      type string;
      description
        "Textual description of a VPN.";
    }
    leaf customer-name {
      type string;
      description
        "Name of the customer that actually uses the VPN.";
    }
  }

  grouping vpn-profile-cfg {
    description
      "Grouping for VPN Profile configuration.";
    container valid-provider-identifiers {
      description
        "Container for valid provider profile identifiers.";
      list external-connectivity-identifier {
        if-feature "external-connectivity";
        key "id";
        description
          "List for profile identifiers that uniquely identify profiles
           governing how external connectivity is provided to a VPN.
           A profile indicates the type of external connectivity
           (Internet, cloud, etc.), the sites/nodes that are associated
           with a connectivity profile, etc. A profile can also indicate
           filtering rules and/or address translation rules. Such
           features may involve PE, P, or dedicated nodes as a function
           of the deployment.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of an external connectivity profile. The
             profile only has significance within the service provider's
             adminisitrative domain.";
        }
      }
      list encryption-profile-identifier {
        key "id";
        description
          "List for encryption profile identifiers.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of the encryption profile to be used. The
             profile only has significance within the service provider's
             adminisitrative domain.";
        }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      }
      list qos-profile-identifier {
        key "id";
        description
          "List for QoS Profile Identifiers.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of the QoS profile to be used. The
             profile only has significance within the service provider's
             adminisitrative domain.";
        }
      }
      list bfd-profile-identifier {
        key "id";
        description
          "List for BFD profile identifiers.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of the BFD profile to be used. The
             profile only has significance within the service provider's
             adminisitrative domain.";
        }
      }
      list forwarding-profile-identifier {
        key "id";
        description
          "List for forwarding profile identifiers.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of the Forwrding Profile Filter to be used.
             The profile only has significance within the service
             provider's adminisitrative domain.";
        }
      }
      list routing-profile-identifier {
        key "id";
        description
          "List for Routing Profile Identifiers.";
        leaf id {
          type string;
          description
            "Identification of the routing profile to be used by the
             routing protocols within sites, vpn-network-accesses, or
             vpn-nodes for refering VRF's import/export policies.




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


             The profile only has significance within the service
             provider's adminisitrative domain.";
        }
      }
      nacm:default-deny-write;
    }
  }

  grouping oper-status-timestamp {
    description
      "This grouping defines some operational parameters for the
       service.";
    leaf status {
      type identityref {
        base operational-status;
      }
      config false;
      description
        "Operations status.";
    }
    leaf last-change {
      type yang:date-and-time;
      config false;
      description
        "Indicates the actual date and time of the service status
         change.";
    }
  }

  grouping service-status {
    description
      "Service status grouping.";
    container status {
      description
        "Service status.";
      container admin-status {
        description
          "Administrative service status.";
        leaf status {
          type identityref {
            base administrative-status;
          }
          description
            "Administrative service status.";
        }
        leaf last-change {
          type yang:date-and-time;
          description



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


            "Indicates the actual date and time of the service status
             change.";
        }
      }
      container oper-status {
        description
          "Operational service status.";
        uses oper-status-timestamp;
      }
    }
  }

  grouping underlay-transport {
    description
      "This grouping defines the type of underlay transport for the
       VPN service. It can include an identifier to an abstract
       transport instance to which the VPN is grafted or indicate a
       technical implementation that is expressed as an ordered list
       of protocols.";
    choice type {
      description
        "A choice based on the type of underlay transport
         constraints.";
      case abstract {
        description
          "Indicates that the transport constraint is an abstract
           concept.";
        leaf transport-instance-id {
          type string;
          description
            "An optional identifier of the abstract transport instance.";
        }
        leaf instance-type {
          type identityref {
            base transport-instance-type;
          }
          description
            "Indicates a transport instance type. For example, it can
             be a VPN+, an IETF network slice, a virtual network, etc.";
        }
      }
      case protocol {
        description
          "Indicates a list of protocols.";
        leaf-list protocol {
          type identityref {
            base protocol-type;
          }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


          ordered-by user;
          description
            "A client ordered list of transport protocols.";
        }
      }
    }
  }

  grouping vpn-route-targets {
    description
      "A grouping that specifies Route Target (RT) import-export rules
       used in a BGP-enabled VPN.";
    reference
      "RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
       RFC 4664: Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
                 (L2VPNs)";
    list vpn-target {
      key "id";
      description
        "Route targets. AND/OR operations are available
         based on the RTs assigment.";
      leaf id {
        type int8;
        description
          "Identifies each VPN Target.";
      }
      list route-targets {
        key "route-target";
        description
          "List of RTs.";
        leaf route-target {
          type rt-types:route-target;
          description
            "Conveys an RT value.";
        }
      }
      leaf route-target-type {
        type rt-types:route-target-type;
        mandatory true;
        description
          "Import/export type of the RT.";
      }
    }
    container vpn-policies {
      description
        "VPN service policies. It contains references to the
         import and export policies to be associated with the
         VPN service.";



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      leaf import-policy {
        type string;
        description
          "Defines the 'import' policy.";
      }
      leaf export-policy {
        type string;
        description
          "Defines the 'export' policy.";
      }
    }
  }

  grouping route-distinguisher {
    description
      "Grouping for route distinguisher (RD).";
    choice rd-choice {
      description
        "Route distinguisher choice between several options
         on providing the route distinguisher value.";
      case directly-assigned {
        description
          "Explicitly assign an RD value.";
        leaf rd {
          type rt-types:route-distinguisher;
          description
            "Indicates an RD value that is explicitly
             assigned.";
        }
      }
      case directly-assigned-suffix {
        description
          "The value of the Assigned Number subfield of the RD.
           The Administrator subfield of the RD will be
           based on other configuration information such as
           router-id or ASN.";
        leaf rd-suffix {
          type uint16;
          description
            "Indicates the value of the Assigned Number
             subfield that is explicitly assigned.";
        }
      }
      case auto-assigned {
        description
          "The RD is auto-assigned.";
        container rd-auto {
          description



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


            "The RD is auto-assigned.";
          choice auto-mode {
            description
              "Indicates the auto-assignment mode. RD can be
               automatically assigned with or without
               indicating a pool from which the RD should be
               taken.

               For both cases, the server will auto-assign an RD
               value 'auto-assigned-rd' and use that value
               operationally.";
            case from-pool {
              leaf rd-pool-name {
                type string;
                description
                  "The auto-assignment will be made from the pool
                   identified by the rd-pool-name.";
              }
            }
            case full-auto {
              leaf auto {
                type empty;
                description
                  "Indicates an RD is fully auto-assigned.";
              }
            }
          }
          leaf auto-assigned-rd {
            type rt-types:route-distinguisher;
            config false;
            description
              "The value of the auto-assigned RD.";
          }
        }
      }
      case auto-assigned-suffix {
        description
          "The value of the Assigned Number subfield will
           be auto-assigned. The Administrator subfield
           will be based on other configuration information such as
           router-id or ASN.";
        container rd-auto-suffix {
          description
            "The Assigned Number subfield is auto-assigned.";
          choice auto-mode {
            description
              "Indicates the auto-assignment mode of the Assigned Number
               subfield. This number can be automatically assigned



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


               with or without indicating a pool from which the value
               should be taken.

               For both cases, the server will auto-assign
               'auto-assigned-rd-suffix' and use that value to build
               the RD that will be used operationally.";
            case from-pool {
              leaf rd-pool-name {
                type string;
                description
                  "The assignment will be made from the pool identified
                   by the rd-pool-name.";
              }
            }
            case full-auto {
              leaf auto {
                type empty;
                description
                  "Indicates that the Assigned Number is fully auto
                   assigned.";
              }
            }
          }
          leaf auto-assigned-rd-suffix {
            type uint16;
            config false;
            description
              "Includes the value of the Assigned Number subfield that
               is auto-assigned .";
          }
        }
      }
      case no-rd {
        description
          "Use the empty type to indicate RD has no value and is not to
           be auto-assigned.";
        leaf no-rd {
          type empty;
          description
            "No RD is assigned.";
        }
      }
    }
  }

  grouping vpn-components-group {
    description
      "Grouping definition to assign group-ids to associate VPN nodes,



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 54]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


       sites, or network accesses.";
    container groups {
      description
        "Lists the groups to which a VPN node,a site, or a network
         access belongs to.";
      list group {
        key "group-id";
        description
          "List of group-ids.";
        leaf group-id {
          type string;
          description
            "Is the group-id to which a VPN node, a site, or a network
             access belongs to.";
        }
      }
    }
  }

  grouping placement-constraints {
    description
      "Constraints for placing a network access.";
    list constraint {
      key "constraint-type";
      description
        "List of constraints.";
      leaf constraint-type {
        type identityref {
          base placement-diversity;
        }
        description
          "Diversity constraint type.";
      }
      container target {
        description
          "The constraint will apply against this list of groups.";
        choice target-flavor {
          description
            "Choice for the group definition.";
          case id {
            list group {
              key "group-id";
              description
                "List of groups.";
              leaf group-id {
                type string;
                description
                  "The constraint will apply against this particular



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 55]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


                   group-id.";
              }
            }
          }
          case all-accesses {
            leaf all-other-accesses {
              type empty;
              description
                "The constraint will apply against all other network
                 accesses of a site.";
            }
          }
          case all-groups {
            leaf all-other-groups {
              type empty;
              description
                "The constraint will apply against all other groups that
                 the customer is managing.";
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }

  grouping ports {
    description
      "Choice of specifying a source or destination port numbers.";
    choice source-port {
      description
        "Choice of specifying the source port or referring to a group
         of source port numbers.";
      container source-port-range-or-operator {
        description
          "Source port definition.";
        uses packet-fields:port-range-or-operator;
      }
    }
    choice destination-port {
      description
        "Choice of specifying a destination port or referring to a group
         of destination port numbers.";
      container destination-port-range-or-operator {
        description
          "Destination port definition.";
        uses packet-fields:port-range-or-operator;
      }
    }



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 56]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


  }

  grouping qos-classification-policy {
    description
      "Configuration of the traffic classification policy.";
    list rule {
      key "id";
      ordered-by user;
      description
        "List of marking rules.";
      leaf id {
        type string;
        description
          "An identifier of the QoS classification policy rule.";
      }
      choice match-type {
        default "match-flow";
        description
          "Choice for classification.";
        case match-flow {
          choice l3 {
            description
              "Either IPv4 or IPv6.";
            container ipv4 {
              description
                "Rule set that matches IPv4 header.";
              uses packet-fields:acl-ip-header-fields;
              uses packet-fields:acl-ipv4-header-fields;
            }
            container ipv6 {
              description
                "Rule set that matches IPv6 header.";
              uses packet-fields:acl-ip-header-fields;
              uses packet-fields:acl-ipv6-header-fields;
            }
          }
          choice l4 {
            description
              "Includes Layer 4 specific information.
               This version focuses on TCP and UDP.";
            container tcp {
              description
                "Rule set that matches TCP header.";
              uses packet-fields:acl-tcp-header-fields;
              uses ports;
            }
            container udp {
              description



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 57]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


                "Rule set that matches UDP header.";
              uses packet-fields:acl-udp-header-fields;
              uses ports;
            }
          }
        }
        case match-application {
          leaf match-application {
            type identityref {
              base customer-application;
            }
            description
              "Defines the application to match.";
          }
        }
      }
      leaf target-class-id {
        if-feature "qos";
        type string;
        description
          "Identification of the class of service. This identifier is
           internal to the administration.";
      }
    }
  }
}
<CODE ENDS>

5.  Security Considerations

   The YANG modules specified in this document define schemas for data
   that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
   as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  The lowest NETCONF layer
   is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
   transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242].  The lowest RESTCONF layer
   is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
   [RFC8446].

   The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
   provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
   RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
   RESTCONF protocol operations and content.

   The "ietf-vpn-common" module defines a set of identities, types, and
   groupings.  These nodes are intended to be reused by other YANG
   modules.  The module does not expose by itself any data nodes which
   are writable, contain read-only state, or RPCs.  As such, there are




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 58]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   no additional security issues to be considered relating to the "ietf-
   vpn-common" module.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "ns"
   subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:

         URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common
         Registrant Contact: The IESG.
         XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in
   the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
   Parameters" registry.

         name: ietf-vpn-common
         namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-vpn-common
         maintained by IANA: N
         prefix: vpn-common
         reference: RFC XXXX

7.  Acknowledgements

   During the discussions of this work, helpful comments and reviews
   were received from (listed alphabetically): Alejandro Aguado, Raul
   Arco, Miguel Cros Cecilia, Joe Clarke, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel,
   Roque Gagliano, Christian Jacquenet, Kireeti Kompella, Julian Lucek,
   Tom Petch, Erez Segev, and Paul Sherratt.  Many thanks to them.

   This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
   Horizon 2020 grant agreement number 101015857 Secured autonomic
   traffic management for a Tera of SDN flows (Teraflow).

   Many thanks to Radek Krejci for the yangdoctors review, Wesley Eddy
   for the tsvart review, and Ron Bonica for the Rtgdir review.

   Special thanks to Robert Wilton for the AD review.

8.  Contributors











Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 59]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


      Italo Busi
      Huawei Technologies
      Email: Italo.Busi@huawei.com

      Luis Angel Munoz
      Vodafone
      Email: luis-angel.munoz@vodafone.com

      Victor Lopez Alvarez
      Telefonica
      Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.

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

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.






Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 60]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.

   [RFC8294]  Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
              "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>.

   [RFC8341]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8519]  Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
              "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
              RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l2nm]
              Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., and L. A.
              Munoz, "A Layer 2 VPN Network YANG Model", draft-ietf-
              opsawg-l2nm-02 (work in progress), April 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm]
              Barguil, S., Dios, O. G. D., Boucadair, M., Munoz, L. A.,
              and A. Aguado, "A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model", draft-
              ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-08 (work in progress), April 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang]
              Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bryskin, I., and B. Y.
              Yoon, "A YANG Data Model for VN Operation", draft-ietf-
              teas-actn-vn-yang-11 (work in progress), February 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
              Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
              Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+)
              Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-07 (work in
              progress), February 2021.






Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 61]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-framework]
              Gray, E. and J. Drake, "Framework for IETF Network
              Slices", draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-framework-00
              (work in progress), March 2021.

   [IEEE802.1ad]
              "Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Amendment 4: Provider
              Bridges", IEEE Std 802.1ad-2005, 2006.

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              "Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020, 2020.

   [IEEE802.1Q]
              "Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2018, July
              2018.

   [ISO10589]
              ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
              domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in
              conjunction with the protocol for providing the
              connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", 2002,
              <International Standard 10589:2002, Second Edition>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC1112]  Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
              RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.

   [RFC1701]  Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
              Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1701, October 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.

   [RFC1702]  Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
              Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks", RFC 1702,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1702, October 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1702>.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.

   [RFC2080]  Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2080>.



Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 62]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC2236]  Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.

   [RFC2453]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.

   [RFC2710]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
              Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

   [RFC3810]  Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
              Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

   [RFC3931]  Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
              "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
              RFC 3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3931>.

   [RFC4026]  Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
              Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.

   [RFC4176]  El Mghazli, Y., Ed., Nadeau, T., Boucadair, M., Chan, K.,
              and A. Gonguet, "Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private
              Networks (L3VPN) Operations and Management", RFC 4176,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4176, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4176>.




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 63]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4577]  Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the
              Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
              Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487/RFC4577,
              June 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4577>.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
              2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.

   [RFC4761]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
              LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
              Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.

   [RFC4762]  Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
              LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
              Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5798]  Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
              Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5798>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.






Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 64]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC6565]  Pillay-Esnault, P., Moyer, P., Doyle, J., Ertekin, E., and
              M. Lundberg, "OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge
              (PE-CE) Routing Protocol", RFC 6565, DOI 10.17487/RFC6565,
              June 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6565>.

   [RFC6624]  Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2
              Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
              Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC7510]  Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
              "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.

   [RFC7623]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Salam, S., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and W.
              Henderickx, "Provider Backbone Bridging Combined with
              Ethernet VPN (PBB-EVPN)", RFC 7623, DOI 10.17487/RFC7623,
              September 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7623>.

   [RFC7676]  Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support
              for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 7676,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7676, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7676>.

   [RFC7761]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
              Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
              (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 65]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC8214]  Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
              Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
              VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.

   [RFC8277]  Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
              Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

   [RFC8299]  Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
              "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.

   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.

   [RFC8365]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
              Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
              Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.

   [RFC8453]  Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
              Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.

   [RFC8466]  Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
              Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
              Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.

   [RFC8512]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar, S., Jacquenet, C.,
              Vinapamula, S., and Q. Wu, "A YANG Module for Network
              Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation
              (NPT)", RFC 8512, DOI 10.17487/RFC8512, January 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8512>.

   [RFC8660]  Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.






Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 66]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   [RFC8663]  Xu, X., Bryant, S., Farrel, A., Hassan, S., Henderickx,
              W., and Z. Li, "MPLS Segment Routing over IP", RFC 8663,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8663, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8663>.

   [RFC8754]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
              (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.

   [RFC8926]  Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed.,
              "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation",
              RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.

Appendix A.  Example of Common Data Nodes in Early L2NM/L3NM Designs

   In order to avoid data nodes duplication and to ease passing data
   among layers (i.e., from the service layer to the network layer and
   vice versa), early versions of the L3NM reused many of the data nodes
   that are defined in the L3SM.  Nevertheless, that approach was
   abandoned because that design was interpreted as if the deployment of
   L3NM depends on L3SM, while this is not required.  For example, a
   service provider may decide to use the L3NM to build its L3VPN
   services without exposing the L3SM to customers.

   Likewise, early versions of the L2NM reused many of the data nodes
   that are defined in both L2SM and L3NM.  An example of L3NM groupings
   reused in L2NM is shown in Figure 5.  Such data nodes reuse was
   interpreted as if the deployment of the L2NM requires the support of
   the L3NM; which is not required.




















Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 67]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   module ietf-l2vpn-ntw {
    ...
     import ietf-l3vpn-ntw {
       prefix l3vpn-ntw;
       reference
         "RFC NNNN: A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model";
     }
     ...
     container l2vpn-ntw {
       ...
       container vpn-services {
         list vpn-service {
           ...
           uses l3vpn-ntw:service-status;
           uses l3vpn-ntw:svc-transport-encapsulation;
           ...
         }
       }
       ...
     }
   }

                Figure 5: Excerpt from the L2NM YANG Module

Authors' Addresses

   Samier Barguil
   Telefonica
   Madrid
   Spain

   Email: samier.barguilgiraldo.ext@telefonica.com


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
   Telefonica
   Madrid
   Spain

   Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com


   Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
   Orange
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com




Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 68]


Internet-Draft            VPN Common YANG Model                July 2021


   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com












































Barguil, et al.         Expires January 16, 2022               [Page 69]