Network Working Group D. Liu
Internet-Draft J. Halpern
Intended status: Informational C. Zhang
Expires: December 18, 2021 Ericsson
June 16, 2021
Interface Stack Table Definition for Point to Point (P2P) Interface over
LAN
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-00
Abstract
The point-to-point circuit type is one of the mainly used circuit
types in link state routing protocol. It is important to identify
the correct circuit type when forming adjacencies, flooding link
state database packets, and monitor the link state. This document
defines point-to-point interface type and relevant stack tables to
provide benefit for operation, maintenance and statistics.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 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
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Relationship to the IF-MIB and Interfaces YANG Module . . . . 2
4. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Point-to-point is the predominant circuit type used by link state
routing protocols such as IS-IS [RFC1195] [1] and OSPF [RFC2328] [2]
[RFC5340] [3]. Compare with broadcast interface, point-to-point
interface is used differently when establish neighbor adjacencies,
flood link state information, representing the topology, etc.
To simplify configuration and operation, it is helpful To represent
the fact that an interface is to be considered a point-to-point
interface explicitly in the interface stack. This enables, for
example, routing protocols to automatically use the correct operating
mode without further configuration.
So it is necessary to abstract P2P as special sub-interface type and
define relevant interface stack table.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [4].
3. Relationship to the IF-MIB and Interfaces YANG Module
As defined in [RFC8343] [5], if the device implements the IF-MIB
[RFC2863], each entry in the "/interfaces/interface" list in the
operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry.
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
So P2P as sub-interface type should also fully map to one ifEntry,
meanwhile define the "higher-layer-if" and "lower-layer-if" in the
YANG corresponding to "ifStackTable" in IF-MIB to setup a complete
interface stack table, then the P2P interface type can borrow all
existing items in interfaces YANG and IF-MIB to take the full
advantages from operation, statistic, etc.
The "higher-layer-if" should be a network layer interface type, and
the lower-layer-if should be a data link layer interface type.
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| YANG data node in | IF-MIB object |
| /interfaces/interface | |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| name | ifName |
| type | ifType |
| description | ifAlias |
| admin-status | ifAdminStatus |
| oper-status | ifOperStatus |
| last-change | ifLastChange |
| if-index | ifIndex |
| link-up-down-trap-enable | ifLinkUpDownTrapEnable |
| phys-address | ifPhysAddress |
| higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if | ifStackTable |
| speed | ifSpeed and ifHighSpeed |
| discontinuity-time | ifCounterDiscontinuityTime |
| in-octets | ifHCInOctets |
| in-unicast-pkts | ifHCInUcastPkts |
| in-broadcast-pkts | ifHCInBroadcastPkts |
| in-multicast-pkts | ifHCInMulticastPkts |
| in-discards | ifInDiscards |
| in-errors | ifInErrors |
| in-unknown-protos | ifInUnknownProtos |
| out-octets | ifHCOutOctets |
| out-unicast-pkts | ifHCOutUcastPkts |
| out-broadcast-pkts | ifHCOutBroadcastPkts |
| out-multicast-pkts | ifHCOutMulticastPkts |
| out-discards | ifOutDiscards |
| out-errors | ifOutErrors |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
YANG Data Nodes and Related IF-MIB Objects
Figure 1
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
4. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type
P2P interface type is a kind of point-to-point circuit type. P2P
interface higher layer should be network layer "ipForward" (defined
in IANA [6]) to run routing protocol, P2P interface lower layer is
link data layer "ethernetCsmacd" (defined in IANA).
P2P interface type ifStackTable should be define as:
<interface>
<name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>eth1</name>
<type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<enabled>false</enabled>
<admin-status>down</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status>
<statistics>
<discontinuity-time>
2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
</discontinuity-time>
<!-- counters now shown here -->
</statistics>
</interface>
Figure 2
5. Security Considerations
The interface stack table specified in this document is read-only.
Read operation to this table without complete protection shouldn't
have a negative effect on network operations.
The interface stack table defines to be accessed via network
management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241], RESTCONF [RFC8040].
The NETCONF is over on layer secure transport, and the mandatory
secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is TLS [RFC5246].
6. IANA Considerations
IANA need to update the "Interface Types(ifType)" registry (available
at https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5) with the following status types:
+=========+==================+=======================================+
| Decimal | Name | Description |
+=========+==================+=======================================+
| 303 | p2pOverLan | Point to Point over LAN interface |
+---------+------------------+---------------------------------------+
Figure 3
IANA need to update the "IANAifType-MIB" registry (available at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib.xhtml)
with the following status types:
+=========+==================+=======================================+
| Value | Name | Description |
+=========+==================+=======================================+
| 303 | p2pOverLan | Point to Point over LAN interface |
+---------+------------------+---------------------------------------+
Figure 4
IANA need to update the "iana-if-type YANG Module" registry
(available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type/iana-if-
type.xhtml) with the following status types:
identity p2pOverLan {
base iana-interface-type;
description
"Point to Point over LAN interface.";
}
Figure 5
7. References
7.1. Normative references
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "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., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "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., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[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>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IfStackTable for P2P interface June 2021
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
7.3. URIs
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1195
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2328
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5340
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8343
[6] https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type/iana-if-type.xhtml
Authors' Addresses
Daiying Liu
Ericsson
No.5 Lize East street
Beijing 100102
China
Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com
Joel Halpern
Ericsson
Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Congjie Zhang
Ericsson
Email: congjie.zhang@ericsson.com
Liu, et al. Expires December 18, 2021 [Page 7]