YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery
RFC 8049

From: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-19           Proposed Standard
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      S. Litkowski
Request for Comments: 8049                      Orange Business Services
Category: Standards Track                                    L. Tomotaki
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  Verizon
                                                                K. Ogaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                           February 2017


               YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery

Abstract

   This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for
   communication between customers and network operators and to deliver
   a Layer 3 provider-provisioned VPN service.  This document is limited
   to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in RFCs 4026, 4110, and 4364.  This
   model is intended to be instantiated at the management system to
   deliver the overall service.  It is not a configuration model to be
   used directly on network elements.  This model provides an abstracted
   view of the Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration components.  It will
   be up to the management system to take this model as input and use
   specific configuration models to configure the different network
   elements to deliver the service.  How the configuration of network
   elements is done is out of scope for this document.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8049.












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 1]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
      1.1. Terminology ................................................4
      1.2. Requirements Language ......................................5
      1.3. Tree Diagrams ..............................................5
   2. Acronyms ........................................................5
   3. Definitions .....................................................7
   4. Layer 3 IP VPN Service Model ....................................8
   5. Service Data Model Usage ........................................9
   6. Design of the Data Model .......................................10
      6.1. Features and Augmentation .................................18
      6.2. VPN Service Overview ......................................18
           6.2.1. VPN Service Topology ...............................18
                  6.2.1.1. Route Target Allocation ...................19
                  6.2.1.2. Any-to-Any ................................20
                  6.2.1.3. Hub and Spoke .............................20
                  6.2.1.4. Hub and Spoke Disjoint ....................21
           6.2.2. Cloud Access .......................................22
           6.2.3. Multicast Service ..................................24
           6.2.4. Extranet VPNs ......................................26
      6.3. Site Overview .............................................27
           6.3.1. Devices and Locations ..............................29
           6.3.2. Site Network Accesses ..............................30
                  6.3.2.1. Bearer ....................................30
                  6.3.2.2. Connection ................................31
                  6.3.2.3. Inheritance of Parameters Defined at
                           Site Level and Site Network Access Level ..32
      6.4. Site Role .................................................32







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 2]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      6.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs ...........................33
           6.5.1. Site VPN Flavor ....................................33
                  6.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment:
                           site-vpn-flavor-single ....................33
                  6.5.1.2. MultiVPN Attachment:
                           site-vpn-flavor-multi .....................33
                  6.5.1.3. SubVPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-sub ....34
                  6.5.1.4. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni ..................36
           6.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN ..........................37
                  6.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN .........................37
                  6.5.2.2. VPN Policy ................................38
      6.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site ........................40
           6.6.1. Constraint: Device .................................41
           6.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location ................41
           6.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type ..................42
           6.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity .......................43
           6.6.5. Infeasible Access Placement ........................49
           6.6.6. Examples of Access Placement .......................50
                  6.6.6.1. Multihoming ...............................50
                  6.6.6.2. Site Offload ..............................53
                  6.6.6.3. Parallel Links ............................59
                  6.6.6.4. SubVPN with Multihoming ...................60
           6.6.7. Route Distinguisher and VRF Allocation .............64
      6.7. Site Network Access Availability ..........................64
      6.8. Traffic Protection ........................................66
      6.9. Security ..................................................66
           6.9.1. Authentication .....................................67
           6.9.2. Encryption .........................................67
      6.10. Management ...............................................68
      6.11. Routing Protocols ........................................68
           6.11.1. Handling of Dual Stack ............................69
           6.11.2. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network ..............70
           6.11.3. LAN Directly Connected to SP Network with
                   Redundancy ........................................70
           6.11.4. Static Routing ....................................70
           6.11.5. RIP Routing .......................................71
           6.11.6. OSPF Routing ......................................71
           6.11.7. BGP Routing .......................................73
      6.12. Service ..................................................75
           6.12.1. Bandwidth .........................................75
           6.12.2. QoS ...............................................75
                  6.12.2.1. QoS Classification .......................75
                  6.12.2.2. QoS Profile ..............................78
           6.12.3. Multicast .........................................81
      6.13. Enhanced VPN Features ....................................82
           6.13.1. Carriers' Carriers ................................82
      6.14. External ID References ...................................83




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 3]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      6.15. Defining NNIs ............................................83
           6.15.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor ..........85
           6.15.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor ..........88
           6.15.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor ..........91
   7. Service Model Usage Example ....................................92
   8. Interaction with Other YANG Modules ............................98
   9. YANG Module ...................................................102
   10. Security Considerations ......................................154
   11. IANA Considerations ..........................................155
   12. References ...................................................155
      12.1. Normative References ....................................155
      12.2. Informative References ..................................157
   Acknowledgements .................................................157
   Contributors .....................................................157
   Authors' Addresses ...............................................157

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a Layer 3 VPN service data model written in
   YANG.  The model defines service configuration elements that can be
   used in communication protocols between customers and network
   operators.  Those elements can also be used as input to automated
   control and configuration applications.

1.1.  Terminology

   The following terms are defined in [RFC6241] and are not redefined
   here:

   o  client

   o  configuration data

   o  server

   o  state data

   The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined
   here:

   o  augment

   o  data model

   o  data node






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 4]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
   [RFC7950].

   This document presents some configuration examples using XML
   representation.

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.3.  Tree Diagrams

   A simplified graphical representation of the data model is presented
   in Section 6.

   The meanings of the symbols in these diagrams are as follows:

   o  Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.

   o  Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that
      make the corresponding node conditional.

   o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
      data (read-write), and "ro" means state data (read-only).

   o  Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, and "*"
      denotes a "list" or "leaf-list".

   o  Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
      marked with a colon (":").

   o  Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
      shown.

2.  Acronyms

   AAA: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting.

   ACL: Access Control List.

   ADSL: Asymmetric DSL.

   AH: Authentication Header.

   AS: Autonomous System.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 5]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router.

   ASM: Any-Source Multicast.

   BAS: Broadband Access Switch.

   BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.

   BGP: Border Gateway Protocol.

   BSR: Bootstrap Router.

   CE: Customer Edge.

   CLI: Command Line Interface.

   CsC: Carriers' Carriers.

   CSP: Cloud Service Provider.

   DHCP: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.

   DSLAM: Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer.

   ESP: Encapsulating Security Payload.

   GRE: Generic Routing Encapsulation.

   IGMP: Internet Group Management Protocol.

   LAN: Local Area Network.

   MLD: Multicast Listener Discovery.

   MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit.

   NAT: Network Address Translation.

   NETCONF: Network Configuration Protocol.

   NNI: Network-to-Network Interface.

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.

   OSPF: Open Shortest Path First.

   OSS: Operations Support System.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 6]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   PE: Provider Edge.

   PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast.

   POP: Point of Presence.

   QoS: Quality of Service.

   RD: Route Distinguisher.

   RIP: Routing Information Protocol.

   RP: Rendezvous Point.

   RT: Route Target.

   SFTP: Secure FTP.

   SLA: Service Level Agreement.

   SLAAC: Stateless Address Autoconfiguration.

   SP: Service Provider.

   SPT: Shortest Path Tree.

   SSM: Source-Specific Multicast.

   VM: Virtual Machine.

   VPN: Virtual Private Network.

   VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding.

   VRRP: Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol.

3.  Definitions

   Customer Edge (CE) Device: A CE is equipment dedicated to a
   particular customer; it is directly connected (at Layer 3) to one or
   more PE devices via attachment circuits.  A CE is usually located at
   the customer premises and is usually dedicated to a single VPN,
   although it may support multiple VPNs if each one has separate
   attachment circuits.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 7]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   Provider Edge (PE) Device: A PE is equipment managed by the SP; it
   can support multiple VPNs for different customers and is directly
   connected (at Layer 3) to one or more CE devices via attachment
   circuits.  A PE is usually located at an SP point of presence (POP)
   and is managed by the SP.

   PE-Based VPNs: The PE devices know that certain traffic is VPN
   traffic.  They forward the traffic (through tunnels) based on the
   destination IP address of the packet and, optionally, based on other
   information in the IP header of the packet.  The PE devices are
   themselves the tunnel endpoints.  The tunnels may make use of various
   encapsulations to send traffic over the SP network (such as, but not
   restricted to, GRE, IP-in-IP, IPsec, or MPLS tunnels).

4.  Layer 3 IP VPN Service Model

   A Layer 3 IP VPN service is a collection of sites that are authorized
   to exchange traffic between each other over a shared IP
   infrastructure.  This Layer 3 VPN service model aims at providing a
   common understanding of how the corresponding IP VPN service is to be
   deployed over the shared infrastructure.  This service model is
   limited to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in [RFC4026], [RFC4110],
   and [RFC4364].




























Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 8]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


5.  Service Data Model Usage

                l3vpn-svc |
                  Model   |
                          |
                   +------------------+         +-----+
                   |   Orchestration  | < --- > | OSS |
                   +------------------+         +-----+
                      |            |
              +----------------+   |
              | Config manager |   |
              +----------------+   |
                      |            |
                      | NETCONF/CLI ...
                      |            |
        +------------------------------------------------+
                             Network

                           +++++++
                           + AAA +
                           +++++++

   ++++++++   Bearer    ++++++++           ++++++++      ++++++++
   + CE A + ----------- + PE A +           + PE B + ---- + CE B +
   ++++++++  Connection ++++++++           ++++++++      ++++++++

              Site A                               Site B

   The idea of the L3 IP VPN service model is to propose an abstracted
   interface between customers and network operators to manage
   configuration of components of an L3VPN service.  A typical scenario
   would be to use this model as an input for an orchestration layer
   that will be responsible for translating it to an orchestrated
   configuration of network elements that will be part of the service.
   The network elements can be routers but can also be servers (like
   AAA); the network's configuration is not limited to these examples.
   The configuration of network elements can be done via the CLI,
   NETCONF/RESTCONF [RFC6241] [RFC8040] coupled with YANG data models of
   a specific configuration (BGP, VRF, BFD, etc.), or some other
   technique, as preferred by the operator.

   The usage of this service model is not limited to this example; it
   can be used by any component of the management system but not
   directly by network elements.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                    [Page 9]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.  Design of the Data Model

   The YANG module is divided into two main containers: "vpn-services"
   and "sites".

   The "vpn-service" list under the vpn-services container defines
   global parameters for the VPN service for a specific customer.

   A "site" is composed of at least one "site-network-access" and, in
   the case of multihoming, may have multiple site-network-access
   points.  The site-network-access attachment is done through a
   "bearer" with an "ip-connection" on top.  The bearer refers to
   properties of the attachment that are below Layer 3, while the
   connection refers to properties oriented to the Layer 3 protocol.
   The bearer may be allocated dynamically by the SP, and the customer
   may provide some constraints or parameters to drive the placement of
   the access.

   Authorization of traffic exchange is done through what we call a VPN
   policy or VPN service topology defining routing exchange rules
   between sites.

   The figure below describes the overall structure of the YANG module:

   module: ietf-l3vpn-svc
     +--rw l3vpn-svc
      +--rw vpn-services
      | +--rw vpn-service* [vpn-id]
      |   +--rw vpn-id         svc-id
      |   +--rw customer-name?     string
      |   +--rw vpn-service-topology?  identityref
      |   +--rw cloud-accesses {cloud-access}?
      |   | +--rw cloud-access* [cloud-identifier]
      |   |   +--rw cloud-identifier    string
      |   |   +--rw (list-flavor)?
      |   |   | +--:(permit-any)
      |   |   | | +--rw permit-any?      empty
      |   |   | +--:(deny-any-except)
      |   |   | | +--rw permit-site*      leafref
      |   |   | +--:(permit-any-except)
      |   |   |   +--rw deny-site*       leafref
      |   |   +--rw authorized-sites
      |   |   | +--rw authorized-site* [site-id]
      |   |   |   +--rw site-id  leafref
      |   |   +--rw denied-sites
      |   |   | +--rw denied-site* [site-id]
      |   |   |   +--rw site-id  leafref
      |   |   +--rw address-translation



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 10]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      |   |    +--rw nat44
      |   |      +--rw enabled?         boolean
      |   |      +--rw nat44-customer-address?  inet:ipv4-address
      |   +--rw multicast {multicast}?
      |   | +--rw enabled?         boolean
      |   | +--rw customer-tree-flavors
      |   | | +--rw tree-flavor*  identityref
      |   | +--rw rp
      |   |   +--rw rp-group-mappings
      |   |   | +--rw rp-group-mapping* [id]
      |   |   |   +--rw id         uint16
      |   |   |   +--rw provider-managed
      |   |   |   | +--rw enabled?          boolean
      |   |   |   | +--rw rp-redundancy?       boolean
      |   |   |   | +--rw optimal-traffic-delivery?  boolean
      |   |   |   +--rw rp-address?     inet:ip-address
      |   |   |   +--rw groups
      |   |   |    +--rw group* [id]
      |   |   |      +--rw id        uint16
      |   |   |      +--rw (group-format)?
      |   |   |       +--:(startend)
      |   |   |       | +--rw group-start?   inet:ip-address
      |   |   |       | +--rw group-end?    inet:ip-address
      |   |   |       +--:(singleaddress)
      |   |   |         +--rw group-address?  inet:ip-address
      |   |   +--rw rp-discovery
      |   |    +--rw rp-discovery-type?  identityref
      |   |    +--rw bsr-candidates
      |   |      +--rw bsr-candidate-address*  inet:ip-address
      |   +--rw carrierscarrier?    boolean {carrierscarrier}?
      |   +--rw extranet-vpns {extranet-vpn}?
      |    +--rw extranet-vpn* [vpn-id]
      |      +--rw vpn-id       svc-id
      |      +--rw local-sites-role?  identityref
      +--rw sites
        +--rw site* [site-id]
         +--rw site-id         svc-id
         +--rw requested-site-start?  yang:date-and-time
         +--rw requested-site-stop?   yang:date-and-time
         +--rw locations
         | +--rw location* [location-id]
         |   +--rw location-id   svc-id
         |   +--rw address?    string
         |   +--rw postal-code?  string
         |   +--rw state?     string
         |   +--rw city?      string
         |   +--rw country-code?  string




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 11]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         +--rw devices
         | +--rw device* [device-id]
         |   +--rw device-id   svc-id
         |   +--rw location?   leafref
         |   +--rw management
         |    +--rw address-family?  address-family
         |    +--rw address?     inet:ip-address
         +--rw site-diversity {site-diversity}?
         | +--rw groups
         |   +--rw group* [group-id]
         |    +--rw group-id  string
         +--rw management
         | +--rw type?  identityref
         +--rw vpn-policies
         | +--rw vpn-policy* [vpn-policy-id]
         |   +--rw vpn-policy-id  svc-id
         |   +--rw entries* [id]
         |    +--rw id    svc-id
         |    +--rw filter
         |    | +--rw (lan)?
         |    |   +--:(prefixes)
         |    |   | +--rw ipv4-lan-prefix*  inet:ipv4-prefix {ipv4}?
         |    |   | +--rw ipv6-lan-prefix*  inet:ipv6-prefix {ipv6}?
         |    |   +--:(lan-tag)
         |    |    +--rw lan-tag*      string
         |    +--rw vpn
         |      +--rw vpn-id    leafref
         |      +--rw site-role?  identityref
         +--rw site-vpn-flavor?     identityref
         +--rw maximum-routes
         | +--rw address-family* [af]
         |   +--rw af        address-family
         |   +--rw maximum-routes?  uint32
         +--rw security
         | +--rw authentication
         | +--rw encryption {encryption}?
         |   +--rw enabled?       boolean
         |   +--rw layer         enumeration
         |   +--rw encryption-profile
         |    +--rw (profile)?
         |      +--:(provider-profile)
         |      | +--rw profile-name?  string
         |      +--:(customer-profile)
         |       +--rw algorithm?    string
         |       +--rw (key-type)?
         |         +--:(psk)
         |         | +--rw preshared-key?  string
         |         +--:(pki)



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 12]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         +--rw service
         | +--rw qos {qos}?
         | | +--rw qos-classification-policy
         | | | +--rw rule* [id]
         | | |   +--rw id          uint16
         | | |   +--rw (match-type)?
         | | |   | +--:(match-flow)
         | | |   | | +--rw match-flow
         | | |   | |   +--rw dscp?        inet:dscp
         | | |   | |   +--rw dot1p?        uint8
         | | |   | |   +--rw ipv4-src-prefix?   inet:ipv4-prefix
         | | |   | |   +--rw ipv6-src-prefix?   inet:ipv6-prefix
         | | |   | |   +--rw ipv4-dst-prefix?   inet:ipv4-prefix
         | | |   | |   +--rw ipv6-dst-prefix?   inet:ipv6-prefix
         | | |   | |   +--rw l4-src-port?     inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   +--rw target-sites*    svc-id
         | | |   | |   +--rw l4-src-port-range
         | | |   | |   | +--rw lower-port?  inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   | +--rw upper-port?  inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   +--rw l4-dst-port?     inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   +--rw l4-dst-port-range
         | | |   | |   | +--rw lower-port?  inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   | +--rw upper-port?  inet:port-number
         | | |   | |   +--rw protocol-field?   union
         | | |   | +--:(match-application)
         | | |   |   +--rw match-application?  identityref
         | | |   +--rw target-class-id?   string
         | | +--rw qos-profile
         | |   +--rw (qos-profile)?
         | |    +--:(standard)
         | |    | +--rw profile?  string
         | |    +--:(custom)
         | |      +--rw classes {qos-custom}?
         | |       +--rw class* [class-id]
         | |         +--rw class-id   string
         | |         +--rw rate-limit?  uint8
         | |         +--rw latency
         | |         | +--rw (flavor)?
         | |         |    ...
         | |         +--rw jitter
         | |         | +--rw (flavor)?
         | |         |    ...
         | |         +--rw bandwidth
         | |          +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent?  uint8
         | |          +--rw end-to-end?       empty
         | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}?
         | | +--rw signalling-type?  enumeration




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 13]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         | +--rw multicast {multicast}?
         |   +--rw multicast-site-type?    enumeration
         |   +--rw multicast-address-family
         |   | +--rw ipv4?  boolean {ipv4}?
         |   | +--rw ipv6?  boolean {ipv6}?
         |   +--rw protocol-type?       enumeration
         +--rw traffic-protection {fast-reroute}?
         | +--rw enabled?  boolean
         +--rw routing-protocols
         | +--rw routing-protocol* [type]
         |   +--rw type   identityref
         |   +--rw ospf {rtg-ospf}?
         |   | +--rw address-family*  address-family
         |   | +--rw area-address?   yang:dotted-quad
         |   | +--rw metric?      uint16
         |   | +--rw sham-links {rtg-ospf-sham-link}?
         |   |   +--rw sham-link* [target-site]
         |   |    +--rw target-site  svc-id
         |   |    +--rw metric?    uint16
         |   +--rw bgp {rtg-bgp}?
         |   | +--rw autonomous-system?  uint32
         |   | +--rw address-family*   address-family
         |   +--rw static
         |   | +--rw cascaded-lan-prefixes
         |   |   +--rw ipv4-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv4}?
         |   |   | +--rw lan     inet:ipv4-prefix
         |   |   | +--rw lan-tag?  string
         |   |   | +--rw next-hop  inet:ipv4-address
         |   |   +--rw ipv6-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv6}?
         |   |    +--rw lan     inet:ipv6-prefix
         |   |    +--rw lan-tag?  string
         |   |    +--rw next-hop  inet:ipv6-address
         |   +--rw rip {rtg-rip}?
         |   | +--rw address-family*  address-family
         |   +--rw vrrp {rtg-vrrp}?
         |    +--rw address-family*  address-family
         +--ro actual-site-start?    yang:date-and-time
         +--ro actual-site-stop?    yang:date-and-time
         +--rw site-network-accesses
           +--rw site-network-access* [site-network-access-id]
            +--rw site-network-access-id   svc-id
            +--rw site-network-access-type?  identityref
            +--rw (location-flavor)
            | +--:(location)
            | | +--rw location-reference?     leafref
            | +--:(device)
            |   +--rw device-reference?      leafref




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 14]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


            +--rw access-diversity {site-diversity}?
            | +--rw groups
            | | +--rw group* [group-id]
            | |   +--rw group-id  string
            | +--rw constraints
            |   +--rw constraint* [constraint-type]
            |    +--rw constraint-type  identityref
            |    +--rw target
            |      +--rw (target-flavor)?
            |       +--:(id)
            |       | +--rw group* [group-id]
            |       |    ...
            |       +--:(all-accesses)
            |       | +--rw all-other-accesses?  empty
            |       +--:(all-groups)
            |         +--rw all-other-groups?   empty
            +--rw bearer
            | +--rw requested-type {requested-type}?
            | | +--rw requested-type?  string
            | | +--rw strict?      boolean
            | +--rw always-on?     boolean {always-on}?
            | +--rw bearer-reference?  string {bearer-reference}?
            +--rw ip-connection
            | +--rw ipv4 {ipv4}?
            | | +--rw address-allocation-type?   identityref
            | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address?  uint8
            | | +--rw dhcp-relay
            | | | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers
            | | |   +--rw server-ip-address*  inet:ipv4-address
            | | +--rw addresses
            | |   +--rw provider-address?  inet:ipv4-address
            | |   +--rw customer-address?  inet:ipv4-address
            | |   +--rw mask?        uint8
            | +--rw ipv6 {ipv6}?
            | | +--rw address-allocation-type?   identityref
            | | +--rw number-of-dynamic-address?  uint8
            | | +--rw dhcp-relay
            | | | +--rw customer-dhcp-servers
            | | |   +--rw server-ip-address*  inet:ipv6-address
            | | +--rw addresses
            | |   +--rw provider-address?  inet:ipv6-address
            | |   +--rw customer-address?  inet:ipv6-address
            | |   +--rw mask?        uint8








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 15]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


            | +--rw oam
            |   +--rw bfd {bfd}?
            |    +--rw enabled?    boolean
            |    +--rw (holdtime)?
            |      +--:(profile)
            |      | +--rw profile-name?  string
            |      +--:(fixed)
            |       +--rw fixed-value?  uint32
            +--rw security
            | +--rw authentication
            | +--rw encryption {encryption}?
            |   +--rw enabled?       boolean
            |   +--rw layer         enumeration
            |   +--rw encryption-profile
            |    +--rw (profile)?
            |      +--:(provider-profile)
            |      | +--rw profile-name?  string
            |      +--:(customer-profile)
            |       +--rw algorithm?    string
            |       +--rw (key-type)?
            |         +--:(psk)
            |         |   ...
            |         +--:(pki)
            +--rw service
            | +--rw svc-input-bandwidth?  uint32
            | +--rw svc-output-bandwidth?  uint32
            | +--rw svc-mtu?        uint16
            | +--rw qos {qos}?
            | | +--rw qos-classification-policy
            | | | +--rw rule* [id]
            | | |   +--rw id          uint16
            | | |   +--rw (match-type)?
            | | |   | +--:(match-flow)
            | | |   | | +--rw match-flow
            | | |   | |    ...
            | | |   | +--:(match-application)
            | | |   |   +--rw match-application?  identityref
            | | |   +--rw target-class-id?   string
            | | +--rw qos-profile
            | |   +--rw (qos-profile)?
            | |    +--:(standard)
            | |    | +--rw profile?  string
            | |    +--:(custom)
            | |      +--rw classes {qos-custom}?
            | |       +--rw class* [class-id]
            | |          ...





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 16]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


            | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}?
            | | +--rw signalling-type?  enumeration
            | +--rw multicast {multicast}?
            |   +--rw multicast-site-type?    enumeration
            |   +--rw multicast-address-family
            |   | +--rw ipv4?  boolean {ipv4}?
            |   | +--rw ipv6?  boolean {ipv6}?
            |   +--rw protocol-type?       enumeration
            +--rw routing-protocols
            | +--rw routing-protocol* [type]
            |   +--rw type   identityref
            |   +--rw ospf {rtg-ospf}?
            |   | +--rw address-family*  address-family
            |   | +--rw area-address?   yang:dotted-quad
            |   | +--rw metric?      uint16
            |   | +--rw sham-links {rtg-ospf-sham-link}?
            |   |   +--rw sham-link* [target-site]
            |   |    +--rw target-site  svc-id
            |   |    +--rw metric?    uint16
            |   +--rw bgp {rtg-bgp}?
            |   | +--rw autonomous-system?  uint32
            |   | +--rw address-family*   address-family
            |   +--rw static
            |   | +--rw cascaded-lan-prefixes
            |   |   +--rw ipv4-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv4}?
            |   |   | +--rw lan     inet:ipv4-prefix
            |   |   | +--rw lan-tag?  string
            |   |   | +--rw next-hop  inet:ipv4-address
            |   |   +--rw ipv6-lan-prefixes* [lan next-hop] {ipv6}?
            |   |    +--rw lan     inet:ipv6-prefix
            |   |    +--rw lan-tag?  string
            |   |    +--rw next-hop  inet:ipv6-address
            |   +--rw rip {rtg-rip}?
            |   | +--rw address-family*  address-family
            |   +--rw vrrp {rtg-vrrp}?
            |    +--rw address-family*  address-family
            +--rw availability
            | +--rw access-priority?  uint32
            +--rw vpn-attachment
              +--rw (attachment-flavor)
               +--:(vpn-policy-id)
               | +--rw vpn-policy-id?  leafref
               +--:(vpn-id)
                 +--rw vpn-id?     leafref
                 +--rw site-role?    identityref






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 17]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.1.  Features and Augmentation

   The model defined in this document implements many features that
   allow implementations to be modular.  As an example, an
   implementation may support only IPv4 VPNs (IPv4 feature), IPv6 VPNs
   (IPv6 feature), or both (by advertising both features).  The routing
   protocols proposed to the customer may also be enabled through
   features.  This model also proposes some features for options that
   are more advanced, such as support for extranet VPNs (Section 6.2.4),
   site diversity (Section 6.6), and QoS (Section 6.12.2).

   In addition, as for any YANG model, this service model can be
   augmented to implement new behaviors or specific features.  For
   example, this model proposes different options for IP address
   assignments; if those options do not fulfill all requirements, new
   options can be added through augmentation.

6.2.  VPN Service Overview

   A vpn-service list item contains generic information about the VPN
   service.  The "vpn-id" provided in the vpn-service list refers to an
   internal reference for this VPN service, while the customer name
   refers to a more-explicit reference to the customer.  This identifier
   is purely internal to the organization responsible for the VPN
   service.

6.2.1.  VPN Service Topology

   The type of VPN service topology is required for configuration.  Our
   proposed model supports any-to-any, Hub and Spoke (where Hubs can
   exchange traffic), and "Hub and Spoke disjoint" (where Hubs cannot
   exchange traffic).  New topologies could be added via augmentation.
   By default, the any-to-any VPN service topology is used.


















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 18]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.2.1.1.  Route Target Allocation

   A Layer 3 PE-based VPN is built using route targets (RTs) as
   described in [RFC4364].  The management system is expected to
   automatically allocate a set of RTs upon receiving a VPN service
   creation request.  How the management system allocates RTs is out of
   scope for this document, but multiple ways could be envisaged, as
   described below.

                                    Management system
                     <------------------------------------------------->
                                                 Request RT
                      +-----------------------+  Topo a2a   +----------+
           RESTCONF   |                       |  ----->     |          |
   User ------------- | Service Orchestration |             | Network  |
           l3vpn-svc  |                       |  <-----     |   OSS    |
             Model    +-----------------------+   Response  +----------+
                                                  RT1, RT2

   In the example above, a service orchestration, owning the
   instantiation of this service model, requests RTs to the network OSS.
   Based on the requested VPN service topology, the network OSS replies
   with one or multiple RTs.  The interface between this service
   orchestration and the network OSS is out of scope for this document.

                              +---------------------------+
                   RESTCONF   |                           |
           User ------------- |   Service Orchestration   |
                   l3vpn-svc  |                           |
                     Model    |                           |
                              |  RT pool: 10:1->10:10000  |
                              |  RT pool: 20:50->20:5000  |
                              +---------------------------+

   In the example above, a service orchestration, owning the
   instantiation of this service model, owns one or more pools of RTs
   (specified by the SP) that can be allocated.  Based on the requested
   VPN service topology, it will allocate one or multiple RTs from the
   pool.

   The mechanisms shown above are just examples and should not be
   considered an exhaustive list of solutions.









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 19]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.2.1.2.  Any-to-Any

     +------------------------------------------------------------+
     |  VPN1_Site1 ------ PE1               PE2 ------ VPN1_Site2 |
     |                                                            |
     |  VPN1_Site3 ------ PE3               PE4 ------ VPN1_Site4 |
     +------------------------------------------------------------+

                     Any-to-Any VPN Service Topology

   In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all VPN sites can communicate
   with each other without any restrictions.  The management system that
   receives an any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is
   expected to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the
   appropriate PEs.  In the any-to-any case, a single RT is generally
   required, and every VRF imports and exports this RT.

6.2.1.3.  Hub and Spoke

     +-------------------------------------------------------------+
     |   Hub_Site1 ------ PE1               PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 |
     |                          +----------------------------------+
     |                          |
     |                          +----------------------------------+
     |   Hub_Site2 ------ PE3               PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 |
     +-------------------------------------------------------------+

                     Hub-and-Spoke VPN Service Topology

   In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology, all Spoke sites can
   communicate only with Hub sites but not with each other, and Hubs can
   also communicate with each other.  The management system that owns an
   any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is expected to
   assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs.  In
   the Hub-and-Spoke case, two RTs are generally required (one RT for
   Hub routes and one RT for Spoke routes).  A Hub VRF that connects Hub
   sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke
   routes through the Spoke RT.  It will also import the Hub RT to allow
   Hub-to-Hub communication.  A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites will
   export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes
   through the Hub RT.










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 20]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The management system MUST take into account constraints on Hub-and-
   Spoke connections.  For example, if a management system decides to
   mesh a Spoke site and a Hub site on the same PE, it needs to mesh
   connections in different VRFs, as shown in the figure below.

      Hub_Site ------- (VRF_Hub)  PE1
                                 (VRF_Spoke)
                                   /  |
   Spoke_Site1 -------------------+   |
                                      |
   Spoke_Site2 -----------------------+

6.2.1.4.  Hub and Spoke Disjoint

     +-------------------------------------------------------------+
     |   Hub_Site1 ------ PE1               PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 |
     +--------------------------+  +-------------------------------+
                                |  |
     +--------------------------+  +-------------------------------+
     |   Hub_Site2 ------ PE3               PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 |
     +-------------------------------------------------------------+

               Hub and Spoke Disjoint VPN Service Topology

   In the Hub and Spoke disjoint VPN service topology, all Spoke sites
   can communicate only with Hub sites but not with each other, and Hubs
   cannot communicate with each other.  The management system that owns
   an any-to-any IP VPN service request through this model is expected
   to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs.
   In the Hub-and-Spoke case, two RTs are required (one RT for Hub
   routes and one RT for Spoke routes).  A Hub VRF that connects Hub
   sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke
   routes through the Spoke RT.  A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites
   will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes
   through the Hub RT.

   The management system MUST take into account constraints on Hub-and-
   Spoke connections, as in the previous case.

   Hub and Spoke disjoint can also be seen as multiple Hub-and-Spoke
   VPNs (one per Hub) that share a common set of Spoke sites.










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 21]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.2.2.  Cloud Access

   The proposed model provides cloud access configuration via the
   "cloud-accesses" container.  The usage of cloud-access is targeted
   for the public cloud.  An Internet access can also be considered a
   public cloud access service.  The cloud-accesses container provides
   parameters for network address translation and authorization rules.

   A private cloud access may be addressed through NNIs, as described in
   Section 6.15.

   A cloud identifier is used to reference the target service.  This
   identifier is local to each administration.

   The model allows for source address translation before accessing the
   cloud.  IPv4-to-IPv4 address translation (NAT44) is the only
   supported option, but other options can be added through
   augmentation.  If IP source address translation is required to access
   the cloud, the "enabled" leaf MUST be set to true in the "nat44"
   container.  An IP address may be provided in the "customer-address"
   leaf if the customer is providing the IP address to be used for the
   cloud access.  If the SP is providing this address,
   "customer-address" is not necessary, as it can be picked from a pool
   of SPs.

   By default, all sites in the IP VPN MUST be authorized to access the
   cloud.  If restrictions are required, a user MAY configure the
   "permit-site" or "deny-site" leaf-list.  The permit-site leaf-list
   defines the list of sites authorized for cloud access.  The deny-site
   leaf-list defines the list of sites denied for cloud access.  The
   model supports both "deny-any-except" and "permit-any-except"
   authorization.

   How the restrictions will be configured on network elements is out of
   scope for this document.
















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 22]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


                     IP VPN
           ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++     ++++++++++++
           +             Site 3           + --- +  Cloud 1 +
           + Site 1                       +     ++++++++++++
           +                              +
           + Site 2                       + --- ++++++++++++
           +                              +     + Internet +
           +            Site 4            +     ++++++++++++
           ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                        |
                   +++++++++++
                   + Cloud 2 +
                   +++++++++++

   In the example above, we configure the global VPN to access the
   Internet by creating a cloud-access pointing to the cloud identifier
   for the Internet service.  No authorized sites will be configured, as
   all sites are required to access the Internet.  The
   "address-translation/nat44/enabled" leaf will be set to true.

   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
       <cloud-accesses>
        <cloud-access>
           <cloud-identifier>INTERNET</cloud-identifier>
           <address-translation>
             <nat44>
               <enabled>true</enabled>
             </nat44>
           </address-translation>
        </cloud-access>
       </cloud-accesses>
   </vpn-service>


















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 23]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   If Site 1 and Site 2 require access to Cloud 1, a new cloud-access
   pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 1 will be created.  The
   permit-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to Site 1 and
   Site 2.

   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
       <cloud-accesses>
        <cloud-access>
           <cloud-identifier>Cloud1</cloud-identifier>
           <permit-site>site1</permit-site>
           <permit-site>site2</permit-site>
        </cloud-access>
       </cloud-accesses>
   </vpn-service>

   If all sites except Site 1 require access to Cloud 2, a new
   cloud-access pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 2 will be
   created.  The deny-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to
   Site 1.

   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id>
       <cloud-accesses>
        <cloud-access>
           <cloud-identifier>Cloud2</cloud-identifier>
           <deny-site>site1</deny-site>
        </cloud-access>
       </cloud-accesses>
   </vpn-service>

6.2.3.  Multicast Service

   Multicast in IP VPNs is described in [RFC6513].

   If multicast support is required for an IP VPN, some global multicast
   parameters are required as input for the service request.

   Users of this model will need to provide the flavors of trees that
   will be used by customers within the IP VPN (customer tree).  The
   proposed model supports bidirectional, shared, and source-based trees
   (and can be augmented).  Multiple flavors of trees can be supported
   simultaneously.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 24]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


                                   Operator network
                                   ______________
                                  /               \
                                 |                 |
                          (SSM tree)               |
    Recv (IGMPv3) -- Site2 ------- PE2             |
                                 |             PE1 --- Site1 --- Source1
                                 |                 |        \
                                 |                 |         -- Source2
                                 |                 |
                           (ASM tree)              |
    Recv (IGMPv2) -- Site3 ------- PE3             |
                                 |                 |
                           (SSM tree)              |
    Recv (IGMPv3) -- Site4 ------- PE4             |
                                 | /               |
    Recv (IGMPv2) -- Site5 --------                |
                           (ASM tree)              |
                                 |                 |
                                  \_______________/

   When an ASM flavor is requested, this model requires that the "rp"
   and "rp-discovery" parameters be filled.  Multiple RP-to-group
   mappings can be created using the "rp-group-mappings" container.  For
   each mapping, the SP can manage the RP service by setting the
   "provider-managed/enabled" leaf to true.  In the case of a provider-
   managed RP, the user can request RP redundancy and/or optimal traffic
   delivery.  Those parameters will help the SP select the appropriate
   technology or architecture to fulfill the customer service
   requirement: for instance, in the case of a request for optimal
   traffic delivery, an SP may use Anycast-RP or RP-tree-to-SPT
   switchover architectures.

   In the case of a customer-managed RP, the RP address must be filled
   in the RP-to-group mappings using the "rp-address" leaf.  This leaf
   is not needed for a provider-managed RP.

   Users can define a specific mechanism for RP discovery, such as the
   "auto-rp", "static-rp", or "bsr-rp" modes.  By default, the model
   uses "static-rp" if ASM is requested.  A single rp-discovery
   mechanism is allowed for the VPN.  The "rp-discovery" container can
   be used for both provider-managed and customer-managed RPs.  In the
   case of a provider-managed RP, if the user wants to use "bsr-rp" as a
   discovery protocol, an SP should consider the provider-managed
   "rp-group-mappings" for the "bsr-rp" configuration.  The SP will then
   configure its selected RPs to be "bsr-rp-candidates".  In the case of
   a customer-managed RP and a "bsr-rp" discovery mechanism, the
   "rp-address" provided will be the bsr-rp candidate.



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 25]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.2.4.  Extranet VPNs

   There are some cases where a particular VPN needs access to resources
   (servers, hosts, etc.) that are external.  Those resources may be
   located in another VPN.

                 +-----------+           +-----------+
                /             \         /             \
     Site A -- |    VPN A      |  ---  |    VPN B      | --- Site B
                \             /         \             / (Shared
                 +-----------+           +-----------+   resources)

   In the figure above, VPN B has some resources on Site B that need to
   be available to some customers/partners.  VPN A must be able to
   access those VPN B resources.

   Such a VPN connection scenario can be achieved via a VPN policy as
   defined in Section 6.5.2.2.  But there are some simple cases where a
   particular VPN (VPN A) needs access to all resources in another VPN
   (VPN B).  The model provides an easy way to set up this connection
   using the "extranet-vpns" container.

   The extranet-vpns container defines a list of VPNs a particular VPN
   wants to access.  The extranet-vpns container must be used on
   customer VPNs accessing extranet resources in another VPN.  In the
   figure above, in order to provide VPN A with access to VPN B, the
   extranet-vpns container needs to be configured under VPN A with an
   entry corresponding to VPN B.  There is no service configuration
   requirement on VPN B.

   Readers should note that even if there is no configuration
   requirement on VPN B, if VPN A lists VPN B as an extranet, all sites
   in VPN B will gain access to all sites in VPN A.

   The "site-role" leaf defines the role of the local VPN sites in the
   target extranet VPN service topology.  Site roles are defined in
   Section 6.4.  Based on this, the requirements described in
   Section 6.4 regarding the site-role leaf are also applicable here.













Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 26]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   In the example below, VPN A accesses VPN B resources through an
   extranet connection.  A Spoke role is required for VPN A sites, as
   sites from VPN A must not be able to communicate with each other
   through the extranet VPN connection.

   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <vpn-service-topology>hub-spoke</vpn-service-topology>
   </vpn-service>
   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <vpn-service-topology>any-to-any</vpn-service-topology>
       <extranet-vpns>
           <extranet-vpn>
               <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
               <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
           </extranet-vpn>
       </extranet-vpns>
   </vpn-service>

   This model does not define how the extranet configuration will be
   achieved.

   Any VPN interconnection scenario that is more complex (e.g., only
   certain parts of sites on VPN A accessing only certain parts of sites
   on VPN B) needs to be achieved using a VPN attachment as defined in
   Section 6.5.2, and especially a VPN policy as defined in
   Section 6.5.2.2.

6.3.  Site Overview

   A site represents a connection of a customer office to one or more
   VPN services.

                                                    +-------------+
                                                   /               \
     +------------------+                   +-----|      VPN1       |
     |                  |                   |      \               /
     |  New York Office |------ (site) -----+       +-------------+
     |                  |                   |       +-------------+
     +------------------+                   |      /               \
                                            +-----|      VPN2       |
                                                   \               /
                                                    +-------------+







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 27]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   A site has several characteristics:

   o  Unique identifier (site-id): uniquely identifies the site within
      the overall network infrastructure.  The identifier is a string
      that allows any encoding for the local administration of the VPN
      service.

   o  Locations (locations): site location information that allows easy
      retrieval of information from the nearest available resources.  A
      site may be composed of multiple locations.

   o  Devices (devices): allows the customer to request one or more
      customer premises equipment entities from the SP for a particular
      site.

   o  Management (management): defines the type of management for the
      site -- for example, co-managed, customer-managed, or provider-
      managed.  See Section 6.10.

   o  Site network accesses (site-network-accesses): defines the list of
      network accesses associated with the sites, and their properties
      -- especially bearer, connection, and service parameters.

   A site-network-access represents an IP logical connection of a site.
   A site may have multiple site-network-accesses.

     +------------------+             Site
     |                  |-----------------------------------
     |                  |****** (site-network-access#1) ******
     |  New York Office |
     |                  |****** (site-network-access#2) ******
     |                  |-----------------------------------
     +------------------+

   Multiple site-network-accesses are used, for instance, in the case of
   multihoming.  Some other meshing cases may also include multiple
   site-network-accesses.

   The site configuration is viewed as a global entity; we assume that
   it is mostly the management system's role to split the parameters
   between the different elements within the network.  For example, in
   the case of the site-network-access configuration, the management
   system needs to split the overall parameters between the PE
   configuration and the CE configuration.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 28]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.3.1.  Devices and Locations

   A site may be composed of multiple locations.  All the locations will
   need to be configured as part of the "locations" container and list.
   A typical example of a multi-location site is a headquarters office
   in a city composed of multiple buildings.  Those buildings may be
   located in different parts of the city and may be linked by
   intra-city fibers (customer metropolitan area network).  In such a
   case, when connecting to a VPN service, the customer may ask for
   multihoming based on its distributed locations.

       New York Site

     +------------------+             Site
     | +--------------+ |-----------------------------------
     | | Manhattan    | |****** (site-network-access#1) ******
     | +--------------+ |
     | +--------------+ |
     | | Brooklyn     | |****** (site-network-access#2) ******
     | +--------------+ |
     |                  |-----------------------------------
     +------------------+

   A customer may also request some premises equipment entities (CEs)
   from the SP via the "devices" container.  Requesting a CE implies a
   provider-managed or co-managed model.  A particular device must be
   ordered to a particular already-configured location.  This would help
   the SP send the device to the appropriate postal address.  In a
   multi-location site, a customer may, for example, request a CE for
   each location on the site where multihoming must be implemented.  In
   the figure above, one device may be requested for the Manhattan
   location and one other for the Brooklyn location.

   By using devices and locations, the user can influence the
   multihoming scenario he wants to implement: single CE, dual CE, etc.
















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 29]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.3.2.  Site Network Accesses

   As mentioned earlier, a site may be multihomed.  Each IP network
   access for a site is defined in the "site-network-accesses"
   container.  The site-network-access parameter defines how the site is
   connected on the network and is split into three main classes of
   parameters:

   o  bearer: defines requirements of the attachment (below Layer 3).

   o  connection: defines Layer 3 protocol parameters of the attachment.

   o  availability: defines the site's availability policy.  The
      availability parameters are defined in Section 6.7.

   The site-network-access has a specific type
   (site-network-access-type).  This document defines two types:

   o  point-to-point: describes a point-to-point connection between the
      SP and the customer.

   o  multipoint: describes a multipoint connection between the SP and
      the customer.

   The type of site-network-access may have an impact on the parameters
   offered to the customer, e.g., an SP may not offer encryption for
   multipoint accesses.  It is up to the provider to decide what
   parameter is supported for point-to-point and/or multipoint accesses;
   this topic is out of scope for this document.  Some containers
   proposed in the model may require extensions in order to work
   properly for multipoint accesses.

6.3.2.1.  Bearer

   The bearer container defines the requirements for the site attachment
   to the provider network that are below Layer 3.

   The bearer parameters will help determine the access media to be
   used.  This is further described in Section 6.6.3.












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 30]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.3.2.2.  Connection

   The "ip-connection" container defines the protocol parameters of the
   attachment (IPv4 and IPv6).  Depending on the management mode, it
   refers to PE-CE addressing or CE-to-customer-LAN addressing.  In any
   case, it describes the responsibility boundary between the provider
   and the customer.  For a customer-managed site, it refers to the
   PE-CE connection.  For a provider-managed site, it refers to the
   CE-to-LAN connection.

6.3.2.2.1.  IP Addressing

   An IP subnet can be configured for either IPv4 or IPv6 Layer 3
   protocols.  For a dual-stack connection, two subnets will be
   provided, one for each address family.

   The "address-allocation-type" determines how the address allocation
   needs to be done.  The current model proposes five ways to perform IP
   address allocation:

   o  provider-dhcp: The provider will provide DHCP service for customer
      equipment; this is applicable to either the "IPv4" container or
      the "IPv6" container.

   o  provider-dhcp-relay: The provider will provide DHCP relay service
      for customer equipment; this is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6
      addressing.  The customer needs to populate the DHCP server list
      to be used.

   o  static-address: Addresses will be assigned manually; this is
      applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 addressing.

   o  slaac: This parameter enables stateless address autoconfiguration
      [RFC4862].  This is applicable to IPv6 only.

   o  provider-dhcp-slaac: The provider will provide DHCP service for
      customer equipment, as well as stateless address
      autoconfiguration.  This is applicable to IPv6 only.

   In the dynamic addressing mechanism, the SP is expected to provide at
   least the IP address, mask, and default gateway information.

6.3.2.2.2.  OAM

   A customer may require a specific IP connectivity fault detection
   mechanism on the IP connection.  The model supports BFD as a fault
   detection mechanism.  This can be extended with other mechanisms via
   augmentation.  The provider can propose some profiles to the



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 31]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   customer, depending on the service level the customer wants to
   achieve.  Profile names must be communicated to the customer.  This
   communication is out of scope for this document.  Some fixed values
   for the holdtime period may also be imposed by the customer if the
   provider allows the customer this function.

   The "oam" container can easily be augmented by other mechanisms; in
   particular, work done by the LIME Working Group
   (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lime/charter/) may be reused in
   applicable scenarios.

6.3.2.3.  Inheritance of Parameters Defined at Site Level and Site
          Network Access Level

   Some parameters can be configured at both the site level and the
   site-network-access level, e.g., routing, services, security.
   Inheritance applies when parameters are defined at the site level.
   If a parameter is configured at both the site level and the access
   level, the access-level parameter MUST override the site-level
   parameter.  Those parameters will be described later in this
   document.

   In terms of provisioning impact, it will be up to the implementation
   to decide on the appropriate behavior when modifying existing
   configurations.  But the SP will need to communicate to the user
   about the impact of using inheritance.  For example, if we consider
   that a site has already provisioned three site-network-accesses, what
   will happen if a customer changes a service parameter at the site
   level?  An implementation of this model may update the service
   parameters of all already-provisioned site-network-accesses (with
   potential impact on live traffic), or it may take into account this
   new parameter only for the new sites.

6.4.  Site Role

   A VPN has a particular service topology, as described in
   Section 6.2.1.  As a consequence, each site belonging to a VPN is
   assigned with a particular role in this topology.  The site-role leaf
   defines the role of the site in a particular VPN topology.

   In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all sites MUST have the same
   role, which will be "any-to-any-role".

   In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub and Spoke
   disjoint VPN service topology, sites MUST have a Hub role or a
   Spoke role.





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 32]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.5.  Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs

6.5.1.  Site VPN Flavor

   A site may be part of one or multiple VPNs.  The "site-vpn-flavor"
   defines the way the VPN multiplexing is done.  The current version of
   the model supports four flavors:

   o  site-vpn-flavor-single: The site belongs to only one VPN.

   o  site-vpn-flavor-multi: The site belongs to multiple VPNs, and all
      the logical accesses of the sites belong to the same set of VPNs.

   o  site-vpn-flavor-sub: The site belongs to multiple VPNs with
      multiple logical accesses.  Each logical access may map to
      different VPNs (one or many).

   o  site-vpn-flavor-nni: The site represents an option A NNI.

6.5.1.1.  Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single

   The figure below describes a single VPN attachment.  The site
   connects to only one VPN.

                                                      +--------+
   +------------------+             Site             /          \
   |                  |-----------------------------|            |
   |                  |***(site-network-access#1)***|    VPN1    |
   |  New York Office |                             |            |
   |                  |***(site-network-access#2)***|            |
   |                  |-----------------------------|            |
   +------------------+                              \          /
                                                      +--------+

6.5.1.2.  MultiVPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi

   The figure below describes a site connected to multiple VPNs.

                                                           +---------+
                                                      +---/----+      \
   +------------------+             Site             /   |      \      |
   |                  |--------------------------------- |       |VPN B|
   |                  |***(site-network-access#1)******* |       |     |
   |  New York Office |                             |    |       |     |
   |                  |***(site-network-access#2)*******  \      |    /
   |                  |-----------------------------| VPN A+-----|---+
   +------------------+                              \          /
                                                      +--------+



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 33]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   In the example above, the New York office is multihomed.  Both
   logical accesses are using the same VPN attachment rules, and both
   are connected to VPN A and VPN B.

   Reaching VPN A or VPN B from the New York office will be done via
   destination-based routing.  Having the same destination reachable
   from the two VPNs may cause routing troubles.  The customer
   administration's role in this case would be to ensure the appropriate
   mapping of its prefixes in each VPN.

6.5.1.3.  SubVPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-sub

   The figure below describes a subVPN attachment.  The site connects to
   multiple VPNs, but each logical access is attached to a particular
   set of VPNs.  A typical use case for a subVPN is a customer site used
   by multiple affiliates with private resources for each affiliate that
   cannot be shared (communication between the affiliates is prevented).
   It is similar to having separate sites, but in this case the customer
   wants to share some physical components while maintaining strong
   communication isolation between the affiliates.  In this example,
   site-network-access#1 is attached to VPN B, while
   site-network-access#2 is attached to VPN A.

   +------------------+         Site                      +--------+
   |                  |----------------------------------/          \
   |                  |****(site-network-access#1)******|    VPN B   |
   |  New York Office |                                  \          /
   |                  |                                   +--------+
   |                  |                                   +--------+
   |                  |                                  /          \
   |                  |****(site-network-access#2)******|    VPN A   |
   |                  |                                  \          /
   |                  |                                   +--------+
   |                  |-----------------------------------
   +------------------+
















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 34]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   A multiVPN can be implemented in addition to a subVPN; as a
   consequence, each site-network-access can access multiple VPNs.  In
   the example below, site-network-access#1 is mapped to VPN B and
   VPN C, while site-network-access#2 is mapped to VPN A and VPN D.

   +-----------------+         Site                    +------+
   |                 |--------------------------------/       +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#1)****| VPN B /       \
   | New York Office |                                \     |  VPN C  |
   |                 |                                 +-----\       /
   |                 |                                        +-----+
   |                 |
   |                 |                                 +-------+
   |                 |                                /        +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#2)****| VPN A  /       \
   |                 |                                \      | VPN D   |
   |                 |                                 +------\       /
   |                 |---------------------------------        +-----+
   +-----------------+

   Multihoming is also possible with subVPNs; in this case,
   site-network-accesses are grouped, and a particular group will have
   access to the same set of VPNs.  In the example below,
   site-network-access#1 and site-network-access#2 are part of the same
   group (multihomed together) and are mapped to VPN B and VPN C; in
   addition, site-network-access#3 and site-network-access#4 are part of
   the same group (multihomed together) and are mapped to VPN A and
   VPN D.

   +-----------------+         Site                     +------+
   |                 |---------------------------------/       +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#1)*****| VPN B /       \
   | New York Office |****(site-network-access#2)***** \     |  VPN C  |
   |                 |                                  +-----\       /
   |                 |                                         +-----+
   |                 |
   |                 |                                  +------+
   |                 |                                 /       +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#3)*****| VPN A /       \
   |                 |****(site-network-access#4)***** \     | VPN D   |
   |                 |                                  +-----\       /
   |                 |----------------------------------       +-----+
   +-----------------+

   In terms of service configuration, a subVPN can be achieved by
   requesting that the site-network-access use the same bearer (see
   Sections 6.6.4 and 6.6.6.4 for more details).




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 35]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.5.1.4.  NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni

   A Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) scenario may be modeled using
   the sites container (see Section 6.15.1).  Using the sites container
   to model an NNI is only one possible option for NNIs (see
   Section 6.15).  This option is called "option A" by reference to the
   option A NNI defined in [RFC4364].  It is helpful for the SP to
   indicate that the requested VPN connection is not a regular site but
   rather is an NNI, as specific default device configuration parameters
   may be applied in the case of NNIs (e.g., ACLs, routing policies).

          SP A                                             SP B
     -------------------                         -------------------
    /                   \                       /                   \
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1)  +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2)  +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1)  +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2)  +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
    \                   /                       \                   /
     -------------------                         -------------------

   The figure above describes an option A NNI scenario that can be
   modeled using the sites container.  In order to connect its customer
   VPNs (VPN1 and VPN2) in SP B, SP A may request the creation of some
   site-network-accesses to SP B.  The site-vpn-flavor-nni will be used
   to inform SP B that this is an NNI and not a regular customer site.
   The site-vpn-flavor-nni may be multihomed and multiVPN as well.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 36]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.5.2.  Attaching a Site to a VPN

   Due to the multiple site-vpn flavors, the attachment of a site to an
   IP VPN is done at the site-network-access (logical access) level
   through the "vpn-attachment" container.  The vpn-attachment container
   is mandatory.  The model provides two ways to attach a site to a VPN:

   o  By referencing the target VPN directly.

   o  By referencing a VPN policy for attachments that are more complex.

   A choice is implemented to allow the user to choose the flavor that
   provides the best fit.

6.5.2.1.  Referencing a VPN

   Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular
   logical access to a VPN.  This is the best way in the case of a
   single VPN attachment or subVPN with a single VPN attachment per
   logical access.  When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role setting
   must be added to express the role of the site in the target VPN
   service topology.

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>LA1</site-network-access-id>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>LA2</site-network-access-id>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

   The example above describes a subVPN case where a site (SITE1) has
   two logical accesses (LA1 and LA2), with LA1 attached to VPNA and LA2
   attached to VPNB.





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 37]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.5.2.2.  VPN Policy

   The "vpn-policy" list helps express a multiVPN scenario where a
   logical access belongs to multiple VPNs.  Multiple VPN policies can
   be created to handle the subVPN case where each logical access is
   part of a different set of VPNs.

   As a site can belong to multiple VPNs, the vpn-policy list may be
   composed of multiple entries.  A filter can be applied to specify
   that only some LANs of the site should be part of a particular VPN.
   Each time a site (or LAN) is attached to a VPN, the user must
   precisely describe its role (site-role) within the target VPN service
   topology.

   +--------------------------------------------------------------+
   |       Site1 ------ PE7                                       |
   +-------------------------+                 [VPN2]             |
                             |                                    |
   +-------------------------+                                    |
   |       Site2 ------ PE3               PE4 ------ Site3        |
   +----------------------------------+                           |
                                      |                           |
   +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |       Site4 ------ PE5           |   PE6 ------ Site5      | |
   |                                                            | |
   |                      [VPN3]                                | |
   +------------------------------------------------------------+ |
                                      |                           |
                                      +---------------------------+

   In the example above, Site5 is part of two VPNs: VPN3 and VPN2.  It
   will play a Hub role in VPN2 and an any-to-any role in VPN3.  We can
   express such a multiVPN scenario as follows:

   <site>
    <site-id>Site5</site-id>
    <vpn-policies>
     <vpn-policy>
      <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
      <entries>
       <id>ENTRY1</id>
       <vpn>
        <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
        <site-role>hub-role</site-role>
       </vpn>
      </entries>





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 38]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      <entries>
       <id>ENTRY2</id>
       <vpn>
        <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
        <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
       </vpn>
      </entries>
     </vpn-policy>
    </vpn-policies>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>LA1</site-network-access-id>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

   Now, if a more-granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be
   used.  For example, if LAN1 from Site5 must be attached to VPN2 as a
   Hub and LAN2 must be attached to VPN3, the following configuration
   can be used:

   <site>
    <site-id>Site5</site-id>
    <vpn-policies>
     <vpn-policy>
      <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
      <entries>
       <id>ENTRY1</id>
       <filter>
        <lan-tag>LAN1</lan-tag>
       </filter>
       <vpn>
        <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id>
        <site-role>hub-role</site-role>
       </vpn>
      </entries>
      <entries>
       <id>ENTRY2</id>
       <filter>
        <lan-tag>LAN2</lan-tag>
       </filter>







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 39]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       <vpn>
        <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id>
        <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
       </vpn>
      </entries>
     </vpn-policy>
    </vpn-policies>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>LA1</site-network-access-id>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

6.6.  Deciding Where to Connect the Site

   The management system will have to determine where to connect each
   site-network-access of a particular site to the provider network
   (e.g., PE, aggregation switch).

   The current model proposes parameters and constraints that can
   influence the meshing of the site-network-access.

   The management system SHOULD honor any customer constraints.  If a
   constraint is too strict and cannot be fulfilled, the management
   system MUST NOT provision the site and SHOULD provide relevant
   information to the user.  How the information is provided is out of
   scope for this document.  Whether or not to relax the constraint
   would then be left up to the user.

   Parameters are just hints for the management system for service
   placement.

   In addition to parameters and constraints, the management system's
   decision MAY be based on any other internal constraints that are left
   up to the SP: least load, distance, etc.












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 40]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.6.1.  Constraint: Device

   In the case of provider management or co-management, one or more
   devices have been ordered by the customer.  The customer may force a
   particular site-network-access to be connected on a particular device
   that he ordered.

       New York Site

     +------------------+             Site
     | +--------------+ |-----------------------------------
     | | Manhattan    | |
     | |           CE1********* (site-network-access#1) ******
     | +--------------+ |
     | +--------------+ |
     | | Brooklyn  CE2********* (site-network-access#2) ******
     | +--------------+ |
     |                  |-----------------------------------
     +------------------+

   In the figure above, site-network-access#1 is associated with CE1 in
   the service request.  The SP must ensure the provisioning of this
   connection.

6.6.2.  Constraint/Parameter: Site Location

   The location information provided in this model MAY be used by a
   management system to determine the target PE to mesh the site
   (SP side).  A particular location must be associated with each site
   network access when configuring it.  The SP MUST honor the
   termination of the access on the location associated with the site
   network access (customer side).  The "country-code" in the
   site location SHOULD be expressed as an ISO ALPHA-2 code.

   The site-network-access location is determined by the
   "location-flavor".  In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed
   site, the user is expected to configure a "device-reference" (device
   case) that will bind the site-network-access to a particular device
   that the customer ordered.  As each device is already associated with
   a particular location, in such a case the location information is
   retrieved from the device location.  In the case of a customer-
   managed site, the user is expected to configure a
   "location-reference" (location case); this provides a reference to an
   existing configured location and will help with placement.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 41]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


                                         POP#1 (New York)
                                      +---------+
                                      |   PE1   |
                 Site #1 ---...       |   PE2   |
                (Atlantic City)       |   PE3   |
                                      +---------+

                                         POP#2 (Washington)
                                      +---------+
                                      |   PE4   |
                                      |   PE5   |
                                      |   PE6   |
                                      +---------+

                                         POP#3 (Philadelphia)
                                      +---------+
                                      |   PE7   |
                 Site #2 CE#1---...   |   PE8   |
                (Reston)              |   PE9   |
                                      +---------+

   In the example above, Site #1 is a customer-managed site with a
   location L1, while Site #2 is a provider-managed site for which a CE
   (CE#1) was ordered.  Site #2 is configured with L2 as its location.
   When configuring a site-network-access for Site #1, the user will
   need to reference location L1 so that the management system will know
   that the access will need to terminate on this location.  Then, for
   distance reasons, this management system may mesh Site #1 on a PE in
   the Philadelphia POP.  It may also take into account resources
   available on PEs to determine the exact target PE (e.g., least
   loaded).  For Site #2, the user is expected to configure the
   site-network-access with a device-reference to CE#1 so that the
   management system will know that the access must terminate on the
   location of CE#1 and must be connected to CE#1.  For placement of the
   SP side of the access connection, in the case of the nearest PE used,
   it may mesh Site #2 on the Washington POP.

6.6.3.  Constraint/Parameter: Access Type

   The management system needs to elect the access media to connect the
   site to the customer (for example, xDSL, leased line, Ethernet
   backhaul).  The customer may provide some parameters/constraints that
   will provide hints to the management system.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 42]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The bearer container information SHOULD be the first piece of
   information considered when making this decision:

   o  The "requested-type" parameter provides information about the
      media type that the customer would like to use.  If the "strict"
      leaf is equal to "true", this MUST be considered a strict
      constraint so that the management system cannot connect the site
      with another media type.  If the "strict" leaf is equal to "false"
      (default) and if the requested media type cannot be fulfilled, the
      management system can select another media type.  The supported
      media types SHOULD be communicated by the SP to the customer via a
      mechanism that is out of scope for this document.

   o  The "always-on" leaf defines a strict constraint: if set to true,
      the management system MUST elect a media type that is "always-on"
      (e.g., this means no dial access type).

   o  The "bearer-reference" parameter is used in cases where the
      customer has already ordered a network connection to the SP apart
      from the IP VPN site and wants to reuse this connection.  The
      string used is an internal reference from the SP and describes the
      already-available connection.  This is also a strict requirement
      that cannot be relaxed.  How the reference is given to the
      customer is out of scope for this document, but as a pure example,
      when the customer ordered the bearer (through a process that is
      out of scope for this model), the SP may have provided the bearer
      reference that can be used for provisioning services on top.

   Any other internal parameters from the SP can also be used.  The
   management system MAY use other parameters, such as the requested
   "svc-input-bandwidth" and "svc-output-bandwidth", to help decide
   which access type to use.

6.6.4.  Constraint: Access Diversity

   Each site-network-access may have one or more constraints that would
   drive the placement of the access.  By default, the model assumes
   that there are no constraints, but allocation of a unique bearer per
   site-network-access is expected.

   In order to help with the different placement scenarios, a
   site-network-access may be tagged using one or multiple group
   identifiers.  The group identifier is a string, so it can accommodate
   both explicit naming of a group of sites (e.g., "multihomed-set1" or
   "subVPN") and the use of a numbered identifier (e.g., 12345678).  The
   meaning of each group-id is local to each customer administrator, and
   the management system MUST ensure that different customers can use
   the same group-ids.  One or more group-ids can also be defined at the



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 43]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   site level; as a consequence, all site-network-accesses under the
   site MUST inherit the group-ids of the site they belong to.  When, in
   addition to the site group-ids some group-ids are defined at the
   site-network-access level, the management system MUST consider the
   union of all groups (site level and site network access level) for
   this particular site-network-access.

   For an already-configured site-network-access, each constraint MUST
   be expressed against a targeted set of site-network-accesses.  This
   site-network-access MUST never be taken into account in the targeted
   set -- for example, "My site-network-access S must not be connected
   on the same POP as the site-network-accesses that are part of
   Group 10."  The set of site-network-accesses against which the
   constraint is evaluated can be expressed as a list of groups,
   "all-other-accesses", or "all-other-groups".  The all-other-accesses
   option means that the current site-network-access constraint MUST be
   evaluated against all the other site-network-accesses belonging to
   the current site.  The all-other-groups option means that the
   constraint MUST be evaluated against all groups that the current
   site-network-access does not belong to.

   The current model proposes multiple constraint-types:

   o  pe-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected
      to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses.

   o  pop-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected
      to the same POP as the targeted site-network-accesses.

   o  linecard-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be
      connected to the same linecard as the targeted
      site-network-accesses.

   o  bearer-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT use
      common bearer components compared to bearers used by the targeted
      site-network-accesses.  "bearer-diverse" provides some level of
      diversity at the access level.  As an example, two bearer-diverse
      site-network-accesses must not use the same DSLAM, BAS, or Layer 2
      switch.

   o  same-pe: The current site-network-access MUST be connected to the
      same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses.

   o  same-bearer: The current site-network-access MUST be connected
      using the same bearer as the targeted site-network-accesses.

   These constraint-types can be extended through augmentation.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 44]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   Each constraint is expressed as "The site-network-access S must be
   <constraint-type> (e.g., pe-diverse, pop-diverse) from these <target>
   site-network-accesses."

   The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may be the
   same as the one used by the current site-network-access.  This eases
   the configuration of scenarios where a group of site-network-access
   points has a constraint between the access points in the group.  As
   an example, if we want a set of sites (Site#1 to Site#5) to be
   connected on different PEs, we can tag them with the same group-id
   and express a pe-diverse constraint for this group-id.

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 45]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   <site>
    <site-id>SITE2</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   ...
   <site>
    <site-id>SITE5</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 46]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

   The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may also be
   different than the one used by the current site-network-access.  This
   can be used to express that a group of sites has some constraints
   against another group of sites, but there is no constraint within the
   group.  For example, we consider a set of six sites and two groups;
   we want to ensure that a site in the first group must be pop-diverse
   from a site in the second group:

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 47]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>SITE2</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   ...
   <site>
    <site-id>SITE5</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 48]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>SITE6</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

6.6.5.  Infeasible Access Placement

   Some infeasible access placement scenarios could be created via the
   proposed configuration framework.  Such infeasible access placement
   scenarios could result from constraints that are too restrictive,
   leading to infeasible access placement in the network or conflicting



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 49]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   constraints that would also lead to infeasible access placement.  An
   example of conflicting rules would be to request that
   site-network-access#1 be pe-diverse from site-network-access#2 and to
   request at the same time that site-network-access#2 be on the same PE
   as site-network-access#1.  When the management system cannot
   determine the placement of a site-network-access, it SHOULD return an
   error message indicating that placement was not possible.

6.6.6.  Examples of Access Placement

6.6.6.1.  Multihoming

   The customer wants to create a multihomed site.  The site will be
   composed of two site-network-accesses; for resiliency purposes, the
   customer wants the two site-network-accesses to be meshed on
   different POPs.

                                           POP#1
       +-------+                            +---------+
       |       |                            |   PE1   |
       |       |---site-network-access#1----|   PE2   |
       |       |                            |   PE3   |
       |       |                            +---------+
       | Site#1|
       |       |                               POP#2
       |       |                            +---------+
       |       |                            |   PE4   |
       |       |---site-network-access#2----|   PE5   |
       |       |                            |   PE6   |
       |       |                            +---------+
       +-------+

   This scenario can be expressed as follows:

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 50]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>2</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 51]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   But it can also be expressed as follows:

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <all-other-accesses/>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>2</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <all-other-accesses/>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 52]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.6.6.2.  Site Offload

   The customer has six branch offices in a particular region, and he
   wants to prevent having all branch offices connected on the same PE.

   He wants to express that three branch offices cannot be connected on
   the same linecard.  Also, the other branch offices must be connected
   on a different POP.  Those other branch offices cannot also be
   connected on the same linecard.

                                        POP#1
                                     +---------+
                                     |   PE1   |
               Office#1 ---...       |   PE2   |
               Office#2 ---...       |   PE3   |
               Office#3 ---...       |   PE4   |
                                     +---------+

                                        POP#2
                                     +---------+
               Office#4 ---...       |   PE5   |
               Office#5 ---...       |   PE6   |
               Office#6 ---...       |   PE7   |
                                     +---------+

   This scenario can be expressed as follows:

   o  We need to create two groups of sites: Group#10, which is composed
      of Office#1, Office#2, and Office#3; and Group#20, which is
      composed of Office#4, Office#5, and Office#6.

   o  Sites within Group#10 must be pop-diverse from sites within
      Group#20, and vice versa.

   o  Sites within Group#10 must be linecard-diverse from other sites in
      Group#10 (same for Group#20).















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 53]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   <site>
    <site-id>Office1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>Office2</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 54]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>Office3</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>10</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 55]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>Office4</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 56]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>
   <site>
    <site-id>Office5</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 57]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   <site>
    <site-id>Office6</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>20</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pop-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>10</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>linecard-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>20</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>














Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 58]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.6.6.3.  Parallel Links

   To increase its site bandwidth at lower cost, a customer wants to
   order two parallel site-network-accesses that will be connected to
   the same PE.

          *******site-network-access#1**********
   Site 1 *******site-network-access#2********** PE1

   This scenario can be expressed as follows:

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>PE-linkgrp-1</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-pe</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>PE-linkgrp-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>2</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>PE-linkgrp-1</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 59]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-pe</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>PE-linkgrp-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>

6.6.6.4.  SubVPN with Multihoming

   A customer has a site that is dual-homed.  The dual-homing must be
   done on two different PEs.  The customer also wants to implement two
   subVPNs on those multihomed accesses.

   +-----------------+         Site                     +------+
   |                 |---------------------------------/       +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#1)*****| VPN B /       \
   | New York Office |****(site-network-access#2)************| VPN C   |
   |                 |                                  +-----\       /
   |                 |                                         +-----+
   |                 |
   |                 |                                  +------+
   |                 |                                 /       +-----+
   |                 |****(site-network-access#3)*****| VPN B /       \
   |                 |****(site-network-access#4)************| VPN C   |
   |                 |                                  +-----\       /
   |                 |-----------------------------------      +-----+
   +-----------------+

   This scenario can be expressed as follows:

   o  The site will have four site network accesses (two subVPNs coupled
      via dual-homing).

   o  Site-network-access#1 and site-network-access#3 will correspond to
      the multihoming of subVPN B.  A PE-diverse constraint is required
      between them.



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 60]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   o  Site-network-access#2 and site-network-access#4 will correspond to
      the multihoming of subVPN C.  A PE-diverse constraint is required
      between them.

   o  To ensure proper usage of the same bearer for the subVPN,
      site-network-access#1 and site-network-access#2 must share the
      same bearer as site-network-access#3 and site-network-access#4.

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-bearer</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>2</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 61]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-bearer</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNC</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>3</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-bearer</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 62]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


           <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>4</site-network-access-id>
      <access-diversity>
       <groups>
        <group>
         <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
        </group>
       </groups>
       <constraints>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-1</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
        <constraint>
         <constraint-type>same-bearer</constraint-type>
         <target>
          <group>
           <group-id>dualhomed-2</group-id>
          </group>
         </target>
        </constraint>
       </constraints>
      </access-diversity>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-id>VPNC</vpn-id>
       <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 63]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.6.7.  Route Distinguisher and VRF Allocation

   The route distinguisher (RD) is a critical parameter of PE-based
   L3VPNs as described in [RFC4364] that provides the ability to
   distinguish common addressing plans in different VPNs.  As for route
   targets (RTs), a management system is expected to allocate a VRF on
   the target PE and an RD for this VRF.

   If a VRF already exists on the target PE and the VRF fulfills the
   connectivity constraints for the site, there is no need to recreate
   another VRF, and the site MAY be meshed within this existing VRF.
   How the management system checks that an existing VRF fulfills the
   connectivity constraints for a site is out of scope for this
   document.

   If no such VRF exists on the target PE, the management system has to
   initiate the creation of a new VRF on the target PE and has to
   allocate a new RD for this new VRF.

   The management system MAY apply a per-VPN or per-VRF allocation
   policy for the RD, depending on the SP's policy.  In a per-VPN
   allocation policy, all VRFs (dispatched on multiple PEs) within a VPN
   will share the same RD value.  In a per-VRF model, all VRFs should
   always have a unique RD value.  Some other allocation policies are
   also possible, and this document does not restrict the allocation
   policies to be used.

   The allocation of RDs MAY be done in the same way as RTs.  The
   examples provided in Section 6.2.1.1 could be reused in this
   scenario.

   Note that an SP MAY configure a target PE for an automated allocation
   of RDs.  In this case, there will be no need for any backend system
   to allocate an RD value.

6.7.  Site Network Access Availability

   A site may be multihomed, meaning that it has multiple
   site-network-access points.  Placement constraints defined in
   previous sections will help ensure physical diversity.

   When the site-network-accesses are placed on the network, a customer
   may want to use a particular routing policy on those accesses.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 64]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The "site-network-access/availability" container defines parameters
   for site redundancy.  The "access-priority" leaf defines a preference
   for a particular access.  This preference is used to model
   load-balancing or primary/backup scenarios.  The higher the
   access-priority value, the higher the preference will be.

   The figure below describes how the access-priority attribute can be
   used.

   Hub#1 LAN (Primary/backup)          Hub#2 LAN (Load-sharing)
     |                                                     |
     |    access-priority 1          access-priority 1     |
     |--- CE1 ------- PE1            PE3 --------- CE3 --- |
     |                                                     |
     |                                                     |
     |--- CE2 ------- PE2            PE4 --------- CE4 --- |
     |    access-priority 2          access-priority 1     |

                             PE5
                              |
                              |
                              |
                             CE5
                              |
                         Spoke#1 site (Single-homed)

   In the figure above, Hub#2 requires load-sharing, so all the
   site-network-accesses must use the same access-priority value.  On
   the other hand, as Hub#1 requires a primary site-network-access and a
   backup site-network-access, a higher access-priority setting will be
   configured on the primary site-network-access.

   Scenarios that are more complex can be modeled.  Let's consider a Hub
   site with five accesses to the network (A1,A2,A3,A4,A5).  The
   customer wants to load-share its traffic on A1,A2 in the nominal
   situation.  If A1 and A2 fail, the customer wants to load-share its
   traffic on A3 and A4; finally, if A1 to A4 are down, he wants to
   use A5.  We can model this easily by configuring the following
   access-priority values: A1=100, A2=100, A3=50, A4=50, A5=10.

   The access-priority scenario has some limitations.  An
   access-priority scenario like the previous one with five accesses but
   with the constraint of having traffic load-shared between A3 and A4
   in the case where A1 OR A2 is down is not achievable.  But the
   authors believe that using the access-priority attribute will cover
   most of the deployment use cases and that the model can still be
   extended via augmentation to support additional use cases.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 65]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.8.  Traffic Protection

   The service model supports the ability to protect the traffic for a
   site.  Such protection provides a better level of availability in
   multihoming scenarios by, for example, using local-repair techniques
   in case of failures.  The associated level of service guarantee would
   be based on an agreement between the customer and the SP and is out
   of scope for this document.

                 Site#1                            Site#2
             CE1 ----- PE1 -- P1            P3 -- PE3 ---- CE3
              |                              |             |
              |                              |             |
             CE2 ----- PE2 -- P2            P4 -- PE4 ---- CE4
                       /
                      /
             CE5 ----+
                Site#3

   In the figure above, we consider an IP VPN service with three sites,
   including two dual-homed sites (Site#1 and Site#2).  For dual-homed
   sites, we consider PE1-CE1 and PE3-CE3 as primary and PE2-CE2,PE4-CE4
   as backup for the example (even if protection also applies to
   load-sharing scenarios).

   In order to protect Site#2 against a failure, a user may set the
   "traffic-protection/enabled" leaf to true for Site#2.  How the
   traffic protection will be implemented is out of scope for this
   document.  However, in such a case, we could consider traffic coming
   from a remote site (Site#1 or Site#3), where the primary path would
   use PE3 as the egress PE.  PE3 may have preprogrammed a backup
   forwarding entry pointing to the backup path (through PE4-CE4) for
   all prefixes going through the PE3-CE3 link.  How the backup path is
   computed is out of scope for this document.  When the PE3-CE3 link
   fails, traffic is still received by PE3, but PE3 automatically
   switches traffic to the backup entry; the path will therefore be
   PE1-P1-(...)-P3-PE3-PE4-CE4 until the remote PEs reconverge and use
   PE4 as the egress PE.

6.9.  Security

   The "security" container defines customer-specific security
   parameters for the site.  The security options supported in the model
   are limited but may be extended via augmentation.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 66]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.9.1.  Authentication

   The current model does not support any authentication parameters for
   the site connection, but such parameters may be added in the
   "authentication" container through augmentation.

6.9.2.  Encryption

   Traffic encryption can be requested on the connection.  It may be
   performed at Layer 2 or Layer 3 by selecting the appropriate
   enumeration in the "layer" leaf.  For example, an SP may use IPsec
   when a customer requests Layer 3 encryption.  The encryption profile
   can be SP defined or customer specific.

   When an SP profile is used and a key (e.g., a pre-shared key) is
   allocated by the provider to be used by a customer, the SP should
   provide a way to communicate the key in a secured way to the
   customer.

   When a customer profile is used, the model supports only a pre-shared
   key for authentication, with the pre-shared key provided through the
   NETCONF or RESTCONF request.  A secure channel must be used to ensure
   that the pre-shared key cannot be intercepted.

   For security reasons, it may be necessary for the customer to change
   the pre-shared key on a regular basis.  To perform a key change, the
   user can ask the SP to change the pre-shared key by submitting a new
   pre-shared key for the site configuration (as shown below).  This
   mechanism might not be hitless.

   <site>
    <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <site-network-access-id>1</site-network-access-id>
      <security>
       <encryption-profile>
        <preshared-key>MY_NEW_KEY</preshared-key>
       </encryption-profile>
      </security>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>
   </site>








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 67]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   A hitless key-change mechanism may be added through augmentation.

   Other key-management methodologies may be added through augmentation.
   A "pki" container, which is empty, has been created to help with
   support of PKI through augmentation.

6.10.  Management

   The model proposes three types of common management options:

   o  provider-managed: The CE router is managed only by the provider.
      In this model, the responsibility boundary between the SP and the
      customer is between the CE and the customer network.

   o  customer-managed: The CE router is managed only by the customer.
      In this model, the responsibility boundary between the SP and the
      customer is between the PE and the CE.

   o  co-managed: The CE router is primarily managed by the provider; in
      addition, the SP allows customers to access the CE for
      configuration/monitoring purposes.  In the co-managed mode, the
      responsibility boundary is the same as the responsibility boundary
      for the provider-managed model.

   Based on the management model, different security options MAY be
   derived.

   In the co-managed case, the model proposes some options to define the
   management address family (IPv4 or IPv6) and the associated
   management address.

6.11.  Routing Protocols

   "routing-protocol" defines which routing protocol must be activated
   between the provider and the customer router.  The current model
   supports the following settings: bgp, rip, ospf, static, direct,
   and vrrp.

   The routing protocol defined applies at the provider-to-customer
   boundary.  Depending on how the management model is administered, it
   may apply to the PE-CE boundary or the CE-to-customer boundary.  In
   the case of a customer-managed site, the routing protocol defined
   will be activated between the PE and the CE router managed by the
   customer.  In the case of a provider-managed site, the routing
   protocol defined will be activated between the CE managed by the SP
   and the router or LAN belonging to the customer.  In this case, we
   expect the PE-CE routing to be configured based on the SP's rules, as
   both are managed by the same entity.



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 68]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


                               Rtg protocol
       192.0.2.0/24 ----- CE ----------------- PE1

                    Customer-managed site

             Rtg protocol
       Customer router ----- CE ----------------- PE1

                    Provider-managed site

   All the examples below will refer to a scenario for a customer-
   managed site.

6.11.1.  Handling of Dual Stack

   All routing protocol types support dual stack by using the
   "address-family" leaf-list.

   Example of dual stack using the same routing protocol:

   <routing-protocols>
     <routing-protocol>
       <type>static</type>
       <static>
           <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
           <address-family>ipv6</address-family>
       </static>
     </routing-protocol>
   </routing-protocols>

   Example of dual stack using two different routing protocols:

   <routing-protocols>
     <routing-protocol>
       <type>rip</type>
       <rip>
           <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
       </rip>
     </routing-protocol>
     <routing-protocol>
       <type>ospf</type>
       <ospf>
           <address-family>ipv6</address-family>
       </ospf>
     </routing-protocol>
   </routing-protocols>





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 69]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.11.2.  LAN Directly Connected to SP Network

   The routing protocol type "direct" SHOULD be used when a customer LAN
   is directly connected to the provider network and must be advertised
   in the IP VPN.

            LAN attached directly to provider network:

            192.0.2.0/24 ----- PE1

   In this case, the customer has a default route to the PE address.

6.11.3.  LAN Directly Connected to SP Network with Redundancy

   The routing protocol type "vrrp" SHOULD be used and advertised in the
   IP VPN when

   o  the customer LAN is directly connected to the provider network,
      and

   o  LAN redundancy is expected.

         LAN attached directly to provider network with LAN redundancy:

           192.0.2.0/24 ------ PE1
                          |
                          +--- PE2

   In this case, the customer has a default route to the SP network.

6.11.4.  Static Routing

   The routing protocol type "static" MAY be used when a customer LAN is
   connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be
   advertised in the IP VPN.  In this case, the static routes give next
   hops (nh) to the CE and to the PE.  The customer has a default route
   to the SP network.

                                   Static rtg
          192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE
                               |                |
                               |      Static route 192.0.2.0/24 nh CE
               Static route 0.0.0.0/0 nh PE








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 70]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.11.5.  RIP Routing

   The routing protocol type "rip" MAY be used when a customer LAN is
   connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be
   advertised in the IP VPN.  For IPv4, the model assumes that RIP
   version 2 is used.

   In the case of dual-stack routing requested through this model, the
   management system will be responsible for configuring RIP (including
   the correct version number) and associated address families on
   network elements.

                                   RIP rtg
           192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE

6.11.6.  OSPF Routing

   The routing protocol type "ospf" MAY be used when a customer LAN is
   connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be
   advertised in the IP VPN.

   It can be used to extend an existing OSPF network and interconnect
   different areas.  See [RFC4577] for more details.

                             +---------------------+
                             |                     |
                     OSPF    |                     | OSPF
                     area 1  |                     | area 2
    (OSPF                    |                     |          (OSPF
    area 1) --- CE ---------- PE               PE ----- CE --- area 2)
                             |                     |
                             +---------------------+

   The model also proposes an option to create an OSPF sham link between
   two sites sharing the same area and having a backdoor link.  The
   sham link is created by referencing the target site sharing the same
   OSPF area.  The management system will be responsible for checking to
   see if there is already a sham link configured for this VPN and area
   between the same pair of PEs.  If there is no existing sham link, the
   management system will provision one.  This sham link MAY be reused
   by other sites.










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 71]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


                           +------------------------+
                           |                        |
                           |                        |
                           |  PE (--sham link--)PE  |
                           |    |                |  |
                           +----|----------------|--+
                                | OSPF area 1    | OSPF area 1
                                |                |
                                CE1             CE2
                                |                |
                          (OSPF area 1)     (OSPF area 1)
                                |                |
                                +----------------+

   Regarding dual-stack support, the user MAY specify both IPv4 and IPv6
   address families, if both protocols should be routed through OSPF.
   As OSPF uses separate protocol instances for IPv4 and IPv6, the
   management system will need to configure both OSPF version 2 and OSPF
   version 3 on the PE-CE link.

   Example of OSPF routing parameters in the service model:

   <routing-protocols>
     <routing-protocol>
       <type>ospf</type>
       <ospf>
           <area-address>0.0.0.1</area-address>
           <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
           <address-family>ipv6</address-family>
       </ospf>
     </routing-protocol>
   </routing-protocols>

   Example of PE configuration done by the management system:

   router ospf 10
    area 0.0.0.1
     interface Ethernet0/0
   !
   router ospfv3 10
    area 0.0.0.1
     interface Ethernet0/0
    !








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 72]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.11.7.  BGP Routing

   The routing protocol type "bgp" MAY be used when a customer LAN is
   connected to the provider network through a CE router and must be
   advertised in the IP VPN.

                                   BGP rtg
         192.0.2.0/24 ------ CE -------------- PE

   The session addressing will be derived from connection parameters as
   well as the SP's knowledge of the addressing plan that is in use.

   In the case of dual-stack access, the user MAY request BGP routing
   for both IPv4 and IPv6 by specifying both address families.  It will
   be up to the SP and management system to determine how to decline the
   configuration (two BGP sessions, single, multi-session, etc.).

   The service configuration below activates BGP on the PE-CE link for
   both IPv4 and IPv6.

   BGP activation requires the SP to know the address of the customer
   peer.  The "static-address" allocation type for the IP connection
   MUST be used.

   <routing-protocols>
     <routing-protocol>
       <type>bgp</type>
       <bgp>
           <autonomous-system>65000</autonomous-system>
           <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
           <address-family>ipv6</address-family>
       </bgp>
     </routing-protocol>
   </routing-protocols>

















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 73]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   Depending on the SP flavor, a management system can divide this
   service configuration into different flavors, as shown by the
   following examples.

   Example of PE configuration done by the management system
   (single IPv4 transport session):

   router bgp 100
    neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000
    address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate
    address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 route-map SET-NH-IPV6 out

   Example of PE configuration done by the management system
   (two sessions):

   router bgp 100
    neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 2001::2 remote-as 65000
    address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate
    address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 2001::2 activate

   Example of PE configuration done by the management system
   (multi-session):

   router bgp 100
    neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 65000
    neighbor 203.0.113.2 multisession per-af
    address-family ipv4 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate
    address-family ipv6 vrf Cust1
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 activate
       neighbor 203.0.113.2 route-map SET-NH-IPV6 out














Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 74]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.12.  Service

   The service defines service parameters associated with the site.

6.12.1.  Bandwidth

   The service bandwidth refers to the bandwidth requirement between the
   PE and the CE (WAN link bandwidth).  The requested bandwidth is
   expressed as svc-input-bandwidth and svc-output-bandwidth in bits
   per second.  The input/output direction uses the customer site as a
   reference: "input bandwidth" means download bandwidth for the site,
   and "output bandwidth" means upload bandwidth for the site.

   The service bandwidth is only configurable at the site-network-access
   level.

   Using a different input and output bandwidth will allow the SP to
   determine if the customer allows for asymmetric bandwidth access,
   such as ADSL.  It can also be used to set rate-limiting in a
   different way for uploading and downloading on a symmetric bandwidth
   access.

   The bandwidth is a service bandwidth expressed primarily as IP
   bandwidth, but if the customer enables MPLS for Carriers' Carriers
   (CsC), this becomes MPLS bandwidth.

6.12.2.  QoS

   The model proposes to define QoS parameters in an abstracted way:

   o  qos-classification-policy: policy that defines a set of ordered
      rules to classify customer traffic.

   o  qos-profile: QoS scheduling profile to be applied.

6.12.2.1.  QoS Classification

   QoS classification rules are handled by the
   "qos-classification-policy" container.  The qos-classification-policy
   container is an ordered list of rules that match a flow or
   application and set the appropriate target class of service
   (target-class-id).  The user can define the match using an
   application reference or a flow definition that is more specific
   (e.g., based on Layer 3 source and destination addresses, Layer 4
   ports, and Layer 4 protocol).  When a flow definition is used, the
   user can employ a "target-sites" leaf-list to identify the
   destination of a flow rather than using destination IP addresses.  In
   such a case, an association between the site abstraction and the IP



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 75]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   addresses used by this site must be done dynamically.  How this
   association is done is out of scope for this document; an
   implementation might not support this criterion and should advertise
   a deviation in this case.  A rule that does not have a match
   statement is considered a match-all rule.  An SP may implement a
   default terminal classification rule if the customer does not provide
   it.  It will be up to the SP to determine its default target class.
   The current model defines some applications, but new application
   identities may be added through augmentation.  The exact meaning of
   each application identity is up to the SP, so it will be necessary
   for the SP to advise the customer on the usage of application
   matching.

   Where the classification is done depends on the SP's implementation
   of the service, but classification concerns the flow coming from the
   customer site and entering the network.

                                  Provider network
                             +-----------------------+
      192.0.2.0/24
   198.51.100.0/24 ---- CE --------- PE

     Traffic flow
    ---------->

   In the figure above, the management system should implement the
   classification rule:

   o  in the ingress direction on the PE interface, if the CE is
      customer-managed.

   o  in the ingress direction on the CE interface connected to the
      customer LAN, if the CE is provider-managed.


















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 76]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The figure below describes a sample service description of QoS
   classification for a site:

   <service>
     <qos>
       <qos-classification-policy>
         <rule>
           <id>1</id>
           <match-flow>
             <ipv4-src-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ipv4-src-prefix>
             <ipv4-dst-prefix>203.0.113.1/32</ipv4-dst-prefix>
             <l4-dst-port>80</l4-dst-port>
             <l4-protocol>tcp</l4-protocol>
           </match-flow>
           <target-class-id>DATA2</target-class-id>
         </rule>
         <rule>
           <id>2</id>
           <match-flow>
             <ipv4-src-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ipv4-src-prefix>
             <ipv4-dst-prefix>203.0.113.1/32</ipv4-dst-prefix>
             <l4-dst-port>21</l4-dst-port>
             <l4-protocol>tcp</l4-protocol>
           </match-flow>
           <target-class-id>DATA2</target-class-id>
         </rule>
         <rule>
           <id>3</id>
           <match-application>p2p</match-application>
           <target-class-id>DATA3</target-class-id>
         </rule>
         <rule>
           <id>4</id>
           <target-class-id>DATA1</target-class-id>
         </rule>
       </qos-classification-policy>
     </qos>
   </service>

   In the example above:

   o  HTTP traffic from the 192.0.2.0/24 LAN destined for 203.0.113.1/32
      will be classified in DATA2.

   o  FTP traffic from the 192.0.2.0/24 LAN destined for 203.0.113.1/32
      will be classified in DATA2.





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 77]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   o  Peer-to-peer traffic will be classified in DATA3.

   o  All other traffic will be classified in DATA1.

   The order of rules is very important.  The management system
   responsible for translating those rules in network element
   configuration MUST keep the same processing order in network element
   configuration.  The order of rules is defined by the "id" leaf.  The
   lowest id MUST be processed first.

6.12.2.2.  QoS Profile

   The user can choose either a standard profile provided by the
   operator or a custom profile.  The "qos-profile" container defines
   the traffic-scheduling policy to be used by the SP.

                                  Provider network
                             +-----------------------+
   192.0.2.0/24
   198.51.100.0/24 ---- CE --------- PE
                           \       /
                          qos-profile

   In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed connection, the
   provider should ensure scheduling according to the requested policy
   in both traffic directions (SP to customer and customer to SP).  As
   an example, a device-scheduling policy may be implemented on both the
   PE side and the CE side of the WAN link.  In the case of a customer-
   managed connection, the provider is only responsible for ensuring
   scheduling from the SP network to the customer site.  As an example,
   a device-scheduling policy may be implemented only on the PE side of
   the WAN link towards the customer.

   A custom QoS profile is defined as a list of classes of services and
   associated properties.  The properties are:

   o  rate-limit: used to rate-limit the class of service.  The value is
      expressed as a percentage of the global service bandwidth.  When
      the qos-profile container is implemented on the CE side,
      svc-output-bandwidth is taken into account as a reference.  When
      it is implemented on the PE side, svc-input-bandwidth is used.

   o  latency: used to define the latency constraint of the class.  The
      latency constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible latency
      or a latency boundary expressed in milliseconds.  How this latency
      constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP's implementation of





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 78]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      the service: a strict priority queuing may be used on the access
      and in the core network, and/or a low-latency routing
      configuration may be created for this traffic class.

   o  jitter: used to define the jitter constraint of the class.  The
      jitter constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible jitter
      or a jitter boundary expressed in microseconds.  How this jitter
      constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP's implementation of
      the service: a strict priority queuing may be used on the access
      and in the core network, and/or a jitter-aware routing
      configuration may be created for this traffic class.

   o  bandwidth: used to define a guaranteed amount of bandwidth for the
      class of service.  It is expressed as a percentage.  The
      "guaranteed-bw-percent" parameter uses available bandwidth as a
      reference.  When the qos-profile container is implemented on the
      CE side, svc-output-bandwidth is taken into account as a
      reference.  When it is implemented on the PE side,
      svc-input-bandwidth is used.  By default, the bandwidth
      reservation is only guaranteed at the access level.  The user can
      use the "end-to-end" leaf to request an end-to-end bandwidth
      reservation, including across the MPLS transport network.  (In
      other words, the SP will activate something in the MPLS core to
      ensure that the bandwidth request from the customer will be
      fulfilled by the MPLS core as well.)  How this is done (e.g., RSVP
      reservation, controller reservation) is out of scope for this
      document.

   Some constraints may not be offered by an SP; in this case, a
   deviation should be advertised.  In addition, due to network
   conditions, some constraints may not be completely fulfilled by the
   SP; in this case, the SP should advise the customer about the
   limitations.  How this communication is done is out of scope for this
   document.

   Example of service configuration using a standard QoS profile:

   <site-network-access>
    <site-network-access-id>1245HRTFGJGJ154654</site-network-access-id>
    <service>
     <svc-input-bandwidth>100000000</svc-input-bandwidth>
     <svc-output-bandwidth>100000000</svc-output-bandwidth>
     <qos>
      <qos-profile>
       <profile>PLATINUM</profile>
      </qos-profile>
     </qos>
    </service>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 79]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   </site-network-access>
   <site-network-access>
    <site-network-access-id>555555AAAA2344</site-network-access-id>
    <service>
     <svc-input-bandwidth>2000000</svc-input-bandwidth>
     <svc-output-bandwidth>2000000</svc-output-bandwidth>
     <qos>
      <qos-profile>
       <profile>GOLD</profile>
      </qos-profile>
     </qos>
    </service>
   </site-network-access>

   Example of service configuration using a custom QoS profile:

   <site-network-access>
    <site-network-access-id>Site1</site-network-access-id>
    <service>
     <svc-input-bandwidth>100000000</svc-input-bandwidth>
     <svc-output-bandwidth>100000000</svc-output-bandwidth>
     <qos>
      <qos-profile>
       <classes>
        <class>
         <class-id>REAL_TIME</class-id>
         <rate-limit>10</rate-limit>
         <latency>
          <use-lowest-latency/>
         </latency>
        </class>
        <class>
         <class-id>DATA1</class-id>
         <latency>
          <latency-boundary>70</latency-boundary>
         </latency>
         <bandwidth>
          <guaranteed-bw-percent>80</guaranteed-bw-percent>
         </bandwidth>
        </class>
        <class>
         <class-id>DATA2</class-id>
         <latency>
          <latency-boundary>200</latency-boundary>
         </latency>
         <bandwidth>
          <guaranteed-bw-percent>5</guaranteed-bw-percent>
          <end-to-end/>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 80]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         </bandwidth>
        </class>
       </classes>
      </qos-profile>
     </qos>
    </service>
   </site-network-access>

   The custom QoS profile for Site1 defines a REAL_TIME class with a
   latency constraint expressed as the lowest possible latency.  It also
   defines two data classes -- DATA1 and DATA2.  The two classes express
   a latency boundary constraint as well as a bandwidth reservation, as
   the REAL_TIME class is rate-limited to 10% of the service bandwidth
   (10% of 100 Mbps = 10 Mbps).  In cases where congestion occurs, the
   REAL_TIME traffic can go up to 10 Mbps (let's assume that only 5 Mbps
   are consumed).  DATA1 and DATA2 will share the remaining bandwidth
   (95 Mbps) according to their percentage.  So, the DATA1 class will be
   served with at least 76 Mbps of bandwidth, while the DATA2 class will
   be served with at least 4.75 Mbps.  The latency boundary information
   of the data class may help the SP define a specific buffer tuning or
   a specific routing within the network.  The maximum percentage to be
   used is not limited by this model but MUST be limited by the
   management system according to the policies authorized by the SP.

6.12.3.  Multicast

   The "multicast" container defines the type of site in the customer
   multicast service topology: source, receiver, or both.  These
   parameters will help the management system optimize the multicast
   service.  Users can also define the type of multicast relationship
   with the customer: router (requires a protocol such as PIM), host
   (IGMP or MLD), or both.  An address family (IPv4, IPv6, or both) can
   also be defined.


















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 81]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.13.  Enhanced VPN Features

6.13.1.  Carriers' Carriers

   In the case of CsC [RFC4364], a customer may want to build an MPLS
   service using an IP VPN to carry its traffic.

           LAN customer1
               |
               |
              CE1
               |
               | -------------
            (vrf_cust1)
             CE1_ISP1
               |                 ISP1 POP
               | MPLS link
               | -------------
               |
            (vrf ISP1)
              PE1

             (...)               Provider backbone

              PE2
             (vrf ISP1)
               |
               | ------------
               |
               | MPLS link
               |                 ISP1 POP
              CE2_ISP1
              (vrf_cust1)
               | ------------
               |
              CE2
               |
            LAN customer1

   In the figure above, ISP1 resells an IP VPN service but has no core
   network infrastructure between its POPs.  ISP1 uses an IP VPN as the
   core network infrastructure (belonging to another provider) between
   its POPs.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 82]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   In order to support CsC, the VPN service must indicate MPLS support
   by setting the "carrierscarrier" leaf to true in the vpn-service
   list.  The link between CE1_ISP1/PE1 and CE2_ISP1/PE2 must also run
   an MPLS signalling protocol.  This configuration is done at the site
   level.

   In the proposed model, LDP or BGP can be used as the MPLS signalling
   protocol.  In the case of LDP, an IGP routing protocol MUST also be
   activated.  In the case of BGP signalling, BGP MUST also be
   configured as the routing protocol.

   If CsC is enabled, the requested "svc-mtu" leaf will refer to the
   MPLS MTU and not to the IP MTU.

6.14.  External ID References

   The service model sometimes refers to external information through
   identifiers.  As an example, to order a cloud-access to a particular
   cloud service provider (CSP), the model uses an identifier to refer
   to the targeted CSP.  If a customer is directly using this service
   model as an API (through REST or NETCONF, for example) to order a
   particular service, the SP should provide a list of authorized
   identifiers.  In the case of cloud-access, the SP will provide the
   associated identifiers for each available CSP.  The same applies to
   other identifiers, such as std-qos-profile, OAM profile-name, and
   provider-profile for encryption.

   How an SP provides the meanings of those identifiers to the customer
   is out of scope for this document.

6.15.  Defining NNIs

   An autonomous system (AS) is a single network or group of networks
   that is controlled by a common system administration group and that
   uses a single, clearly defined routing protocol.  In some cases, VPNs
   need to span different ASes in different geographic areas or span
   different SPs.  The connection between ASes is established by the SPs
   and is seamless to the customer.  Examples include

   o  a partnership between SPs (e.g., carrier, cloud) to extend their
      VPN service seamlessly.

   o  an internal administrative boundary within a single SP (e.g.,
      backhaul versus core versus data center).

   NNIs (network-to-network interfaces) have to be defined to extend the
   VPNs across multiple ASes.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 83]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   [RFC4364] defines multiple flavors of VPN NNI implementations.  Each
   implementation has pros and cons; this topic is outside the scope of
   this document.  For example, in an Inter-AS option A, autonomous
   system border router (ASBR) peers are connected by multiple
   interfaces with at least one of those interfaces spanning the two
   ASes while being present in the same VPN.  In order for these ASBRs
   to signal unlabeled IP prefixes, they associate each interface with a
   VPN routing and forwarding (VRF) instance and a Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) session.  As a result, traffic between the
   back-to-back VRFs is IP.  In this scenario, the VPNs are isolated
   from each other, and because the traffic is IP, QoS mechanisms that
   operate on IP traffic can be applied to achieve customer service
   level agreements (SLAs).

     --------                 --------------              -----------
    /        \               /              \            /           \
   | Cloud    |             |                |          |             |
   | Provider |-----NNI-----|                |----NNI---| Data Center |
   |  #1      |             |                |          |             |
    \        /              |                |           \           /
     --------               |                |            -----------
                            |                |
     --------               |   My network   |           -----------
    /        \              |                |          /           \
   | Cloud    |             |                |         |             |
   | Provider |-----NNI-----|                |---NNI---|  L3VPN      |
   |  #2      |             |                |         |  Partner    |
    \        /              |                |         |             |
     --------               |                |         |             |
                             \              /          |             |
                              --------------            \           /
                                    |                    -----------
                                    |
                                   NNI
                                    |
                                    |
                            -------------------
                           /                   \
                          |                     |
                          |                     |
                          |                     |
                          |     L3VPN Partner   |
                          |                     |
                           \                   /
                            -------------------






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 84]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The figure above describes an SP network called "My network" that has
   several NNIs.  This network uses NNIs to:

   o  increase its footprint by relying on L3VPN partners.

   o  connect its own data center services to the customer IP VPN.

   o  enable the customer to access its private resources located in a
      private cloud owned by some CSPs.

6.15.1.  Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor

            AS A                                          AS B
     -------------------                         -------------------
    /                   \                       /                   \
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1)  +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2)  +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF1)---(VPN1)----(VRF1)  +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                 |
   |                 +  (VRF2)---(VPN2)----(VRF2)  +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
    \                   /                       \                   /
     -------------------                         -------------------

   In option A, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical
   links on ASBRs.  For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple
   physical connections between the ASes.  A VPN connection -- physical
   or logical (on top of physical) -- is created for each VPN that needs
   to cross the AS boundary, thus providing a back-to-back VRF model.

   From a service model's perspective, this VPN connection can be seen
   as a site.  Let's say that AS B wants to extend some VPN connections
   for VPN C on AS A.  The administrator of AS B can use this service
   model to order a site on AS A.  All connection scenarios could be



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 85]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   realized using the features of the current model.  As an example, the
   figure above shows two physical connections that have logical
   connections per VPN overlaid on them.  This could be seen as a
   dual-homed subVPN scenario.  Also, the administrator of AS B will be
   able to choose the appropriate routing protocol (e.g., E-BGP) to
   dynamically exchange routes between ASes.

   This document assumes that the option A NNI flavor SHOULD reuse the
   existing VPN site modeling.

   Example: a customer wants its CSP A to attach its virtual network N
   to an existing IP VPN (VPN1) that he has from L3VPN SP B.

           CSP A                              L3VPN SP B

     -----------------                    -------------------
    /                 \                  /                   \
   |       |           |                |                     |
   |  VM --|       ++++++++  NNI    ++++++++                  |--- VPN1
   |       |       +      +_________+      +                  |   Site#1
   |       |--------(VRF1)---(VPN1)--(VRF1)+                  |
   |       |       + ASBR +         + ASBR +                  |
   |       |       +      +_________+      +                  |
   |       |       ++++++++         ++++++++                  |
   |  VM --|           |                |                     |--- VPN1
   |       |Virtual    |                |                     |   Site#2
   |       |Network    |                |                     |
   |  VM --|           |                |                     |--- VPN1
   |       |           |                |                     |   Site#3
    \                 /                  \                   /
     -----------------                    -------------------
                                                  |
                                                  |
                                                VPN1
                                               Site#4

   To create the VPN connectivity, the CSP or the customer may use the
   L3VPN service model that SP B exposes.  We could consider that, as
   the NNI is shared, the physical connection (bearer) between CSP A and
   SP B already exists.  CSP A may request through a service model the
   creation of a new site with a single site-network-access
   (single-homing is used in the figure).  As a placement constraint,
   CSP A may use the existing bearer reference it has from SP A to force
   the placement of the VPN NNI on the existing link.  The XML below
   illustrates a possible configuration request to SP B:






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 86]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   <site>
       <site-id>CSP_A_attachment</site-id>
       <location>
           <city>NY</city>
           <country-code>US</country-code>
       </location>
       <site-vpn-flavor>site-vpn-flavor-nni</site-vpn-flavor>
       <routing-protocols>
         <routing-protocol>
           <type>bgp</type>
           <bgp>
               <autonomous-system>500</autonomous-system>
               <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
           </bgp>
         </routing-protocol>
       </routing-protocols>
       <site-network-accesses>
        <site-network-access>
         <site-network-access-id>CSP_A_VN1</site-network-access-id>
          <ip-connection>
           <ipv4>
            <address-allocation-type>
            static-address
            </address-allocation-type>
            <addresses>
             <provider-address>203.0.113.1</provider-address>
             <customer-address>203.0.113.2</customer-address>
             <mask>30</mask>
            </addresses>
           </ipv4>
          </ip-connection>
          <service>
           <svc-input-bandwidth>450000000</svc-input-bandwidth>
           <svc-output-bandwidth>450000000</svc-output-bandwidth>
          </service>
          <vpn-attachment>
           <vpn-id>VPN1</vpn-id>
           <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
          </vpn-attachment>
        </site-network-access>
       </site-network-accesses>
       <management>
           <type>customer-managed</type>
       </management>
   </site>






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 87]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The case described above is different from a scenario using the
   cloud-accesses container, as the cloud-access provides a public cloud
   access while this example enables access to private resources located
   in a CSP network.

6.15.2.  Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor

           AS A                                          AS B
     -------------------                         -------------------
    /                   \                       /                   \
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +      +               +      +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR +                 |
   |                 +      +               +      +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 +      +               +      +                 |
   |                 + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR +                 |
   |                 +      +               +      +                 |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |                     |                     |                     |
    \                   /                       \                   /
     -------------------                         -------------------

   In option B, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical
   links on ASBRs.  For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple
   physical connections between the ASes.  The VPN "connection" between
   ASes is done by exchanging VPN routes through MP-BGP [RFC4760].

   There are multiple flavors of implementations of such an NNI.  For
   example:

   1.  The NNI is internal to the provider and is situated between a
       backbone and a data center.  There is enough trust between the
       domains to not filter the VPN routes.  So, all the VPN routes are
       exchanged.  RT filtering may be implemented to save some
       unnecessary route states.





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 88]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   2.  The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN
       routes for specific RTs only.  Each provider is authorized to use
       the RT values from the other provider.

   3.  The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN
       routes for specific RTs only.  Each provider has its own RT
       scheme.  So, a customer spanning the two networks will have
       different RTs in each network for a particular VPN.

   Case 1 does not require any service modeling, as the protocol enables
   the dynamic exchange of necessary VPN routes.

   Case 2 requires that an RT-filtering policy on ASBRs be maintained.
   From a service modeling point of view, it is necessary to agree on
   the list of RTs to authorize.

   In Case 3, both ASes need to agree on the VPN RT to exchange, as well
   as how to map a VPN RT from AS A to the corresponding RT in AS B (and
   vice versa).

   Those modelings are currently out of scope for this document.

          CSP A                               L3VPN SP B

     -----------------                    ------------------
    /                 \                  /                  \
   |       |           |                |                    |
   |  VM --|       ++++++++   NNI    ++++++++                |--- VPN1
   |       |       +      +__________+      +                |   Site#1
   |       |-------+      +          +      +                |
   |       |       + ASBR +<-MP-BGP->+ ASBR +                |
   |       |       +      +__________+      +                |
   |       |       ++++++++          ++++++++                |
   |  VM --|           |                |                    |--- VPN1
   |       |Virtual    |                |                    |   Site#2
   |       |Network    |                |                    |
   |  VM --|           |                |                    |--- VPN1
   |       |           |                |                    |   Site#3
    \                 /                 |                    |
     -----------------                  |                    |
                                         \                  /
                                          ------------------
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                                  VPN1
                                                 Site#4





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 89]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The example above describes an NNI connection between CSP A and SP
   network B.  Both SPs do not trust themselves and use a different RT
   allocation policy.  So, in terms of implementation, the customer VPN
   has a different RT in each network (RT A in CSP A and RT B in SP
   network B).  In order to connect the customer virtual network in
   CSP A to the customer IP VPN (VPN1) in SP network B, CSP A should
   request that SP network B open the customer VPN on the NNI (accept
   the appropriate RT).  Who does the RT translation depends on the
   agreement between the two SPs: SP B may permit CSP A to request VPN
   (RT) translation.









































Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 90]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


6.15.3.  Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor

            AS A                                           AS B
     -------------------                          -------------------
    /                   \                        /                   \
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Multihop E-BGP ++++++++                 |
   |                 +      +                +      +                 |
   |                 +      +                +      +                 |
   |                 + RGW  +<----MP-BGP---->+ RGW  +                 |
   |                 +      +                +      +                 |
   |                 +      +                +      +                 |
   |                 ++++++++                ++++++++                 |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                  |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                  |
   |                 +      +               +      +                  |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                  |
   |                 +      +               +      +                  |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                  |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                  |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                 ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++                  |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                  |
   |                 +      +               +      +                  |
   |                 + ASBR +               + ASBR +                  |
   |                 +      +               +      +                  |
   |                 +      +_______________+      +                  |
   |                 ++++++++               ++++++++                  |
   |                     |                      |                     |
   |                     |                      |                     |
    \                   /                        \                   /
     -------------------                          -------------------

   From a VPN service's perspective, the option C NNI is very similar to
   option B, as an MP-BGP session is used to exchange VPN routes between
   the ASes.  The difference is that the forwarding plane and the
   control plane are on different nodes, so the MP-BGP session is
   multihop between routing gateway (RGW) nodes.




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 91]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   From a VPN service's point of view, modeling options B and C will be
   identical.

7.  Service Model Usage Example

   As explained in Section 5, this service model is intended to be
   instantiated at a management layer and is not intended to be used
   directly on network elements.  The management system serves as a
   central point of configuration of the overall service.

   This section provides an example of how a management system can use
   this model to configure an IP VPN service on network elements.

   In this example, we want to achieve the provisioning of a VPN service
   for three sites using a Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology.  One of
   the sites will be dual-homed, and load-sharing is expected.

   +-------------------------------------------------------------+
   |   Hub_Site  ------ PE1               PE2 ------ Spoke_Site1 |
   |      |                   +----------------------------------+
   |      |                   |
   |      |                   +----------------------------------+
   |   Hub_Site  ------ PE3               PE4 ------ Spoke_Site2 |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------+

   The following XML describes the overall simplified service
   configuration of this VPN.

   <vpn-service>
       <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
       <vpn-service-topology>hub-spoke</vpn-service-topology>
   </vpn-service>



















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 92]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   When receiving the request for provisioning the VPN service, the
   management system will internally (or through communication with
   another OSS component) allocate VPN RTs.  In this specific case, two
   RTs will be allocated (100:1 for Hub and 100:2 for Spoke).  The
   output below describes the configuration of Spoke_Site1.

   <site>
       <site-id>Spoke_Site1</site-id>
       <location>
           <city>NY</city>
           <country-code>US</country-code>
       </location>
       <routing-protocols>
         <routing-protocol>
           <type>bgp</type>
           <bgp>
               <autonomous-system>500</autonomous-system>
               <address-family>ipv4</address-family>
               <address-family>ipv6</address-family>
           </bgp>
         </routing-protocol>
       </routing-protocols>
       <site-network-accesses>
        <site-network-access>
         <site-network-access-id>Spoke_Site1</site-network-access-id>
         <access-diversity>
          <groups>
           <group>
            <group-id>20</group-id>
           </group>
          </groups>
          <constraints>
           <constraint>
            <constraint-type>pe-diverse</constraint-type>
            <target>
             <group>
              <group-id>10</group-id>
             </group>
            </target>
           </constraint>
          </constraints>
         </access-diversity>
         <ip-connection>
           <ipv4>
            <address-allocation-type>
            static-address
            </address-allocation-type>




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 93]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


            <addresses>
             <provider-address>203.0.113.254</provider-address>
             <customer-address>203.0.113.2</customer-address>
             <mask>24</mask>
            </addresses>
           </ipv4>
           <ipv6>
            <address-allocation-type>
            static-address
            </address-allocation-type>
             <addresses>
              <provider-address>2001:db8::1</provider-address>
              <customer-address>2001:db8::2</customer-address>
              <mask>64</mask>
             </addresses>
           </ipv6>
         </ip-connection>
         <service>
           <svc-input-bandwidth>450000000</svc-input-bandwidth>
           <svc-output-bandwidth>450000000</svc-output-bandwidth>
         </service>
         <vpn-attachment>
           <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id>
           <site-role>spoke-role</site-role>
         </vpn-attachment>
        </site-network-access>
       </site-network-accesses>
       <management>
           <type>provider-managed</type>
       </management>
   </site>

   When receiving the request for provisioning Spoke_Site1, the
   management system MUST allocate network resources for this site.  It
   MUST first determine the target network elements to provision the
   access, particularly the PE router (and perhaps also an aggregation
   switch).  As described in Section 6.6, the management system SHOULD
   use the location information and SHOULD use the access-diversity
   constraint to find the appropriate PE.  In this case, we consider
   that Spoke_Site1 requires PE diversity with the Hub and that the
   management system allocates PEs based on the least distance.  Based
   on the location information, the management system finds the
   available PEs in the area nearest the customer and picks one that
   fits the access-diversity constraint.







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 94]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   When the PE is chosen, the management system needs to allocate
   interface resources on the node.  One interface is selected from the
   pool of available PEs.  The management system can start provisioning
   the chosen PE node via whatever means the management system prefers
   (e.g., NETCONF, CLI).  The management system will check to see if a
   VRF that fits its needs is already present.  If not, it will
   provision the VRF: the RD will be derived from the internal
   allocation policy model, and the RTs will be derived from the VPN
   policy configuration of the site (the management system allocated
   some RTs for the VPN).  As the site is a Spoke site (site-role), the
   management system knows which RTs must be imported and exported.  As
   the site is provider-managed, some management RTs may also be added
   (100:5000).  Standard provider VPN policies MAY also be added in the
   configuration.

   Example of generated PE configuration:

   ip vrf Customer1
    export-map STD-CUSTOMER-EXPORT      <---- Standard SP configuration
    route-distinguisher 100:3123234324
    route-target import 100:1
    route-target import 100:5000        <---- Standard SP configuration
    route-target export 100:2                    for provider-managed CE
   !

   When the VRF has been provisioned, the management system can start
   configuring the access on the PE using the allocated interface
   information.  IP addressing is chosen by the management system.  One
   address will be picked from an allocated subnet for the PE, and
   another will be used for the CE configuration.  Routing protocols
   will also be configured between the PE and CE; because this model is
   provider-managed, the choices are left to the SP.  BGP was chosen for
   this example.  This choice is independent of the routing protocol
   chosen by the customer.  BGP will be used to configure the CE-to-LAN
   connection as requested in the service model.  Peering addresses will
   be derived from those of the connection.  As the CE is provider-
   managed, the CE's AS number can be automatically allocated by the
   management system.  Standard configuration templates provided by the
   SP may also be added.












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 95]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   Example of generated PE configuration:

   interface Ethernet1/1/0.10
    encapsulation dot1q 10
    ip vrf forwarding Customer1
    ip address 198.51.100.1 255.255.255.252 <---- Comes from
                                                   automated allocation
    ipv6 address 2001:db8::10:1/64
    ip access-group STD-PROTECT-IN     <---- Standard SP config
   !
   router bgp 100
    address-family ipv4 vrf Customer1
     neighbor 198.51.100.2 remote-as 65000   <---- Comes from
                                                    automated allocation
     neighbor 198.51.100.2 route-map STD in  <---- Standard SP config
     neighbor 198.51.100.2 filter-list 10 in <---- Standard SP config
   !
    address-family ipv6 vrf Customer1
     neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 remote-as 65000   <---- Comes from
                                                    automated allocation
     neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 route-map STD in  <---- Standard SP
                                                          config
     neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:2 filter-list 10 in <---- Standard SP
                                                          config
   !
   ip route vrf Customer1 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.255 198.51.100.2
   ! Static route for provider administration of CE
   !

   As the CE router is not reachable at this stage, the management
   system can produce a complete CE configuration that can be manually
   uploaded to the node before sending the CE configuration to the
   customer premises.  The CE configuration will be built in the same
   way as the PE would be configured.  Based on the CE type
   (vendor/model) allocated to the customer as well as the bearer
   information, the management system knows which interface must be
   configured on the CE.  PE-CE link configuration is expected to be
   handled automatically using the SP OSS, as both resources are managed
   internally.  CE-to-LAN-interface parameters such as IP addressing are
   derived from the ip-connection container, taking into account how the
   management system distributes addresses between the PE and CE within
   the subnet.  This will allow a plug-and-play configuration for the CE
   to be created.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 96]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   Example of generated CE configuration:

   interface Loopback10
    description "Administration"
    ip address 192.0.2.1 255.255.255.255
   !
   interface FastEthernet10
    description "WAN"
    ip address 198.51.100.2 255.255.255.252 <---- Comes from
                                                   automated allocation
    ipv6 address 2001:db8::0a10:2/64
   !
   interface FastEthernet11
    description "LAN"
    ip address 203.0.113.254 255.255.255.0 <---- Comes from the
                                               ip-connection container
    ipv6 address 2001:db8::1/64
   !
   router bgp 65000
    address-family ipv4
     redistribute static route-map STATIC2BGP <---- Standard SP
                                                       configuration
     neighbor 198.51.100.1 remote-as 100     <---- Comes from
                                                 automated allocation
     neighbor 203.0.113.2 remote-as 500     <---- Comes from the
                                                 ip-connection container
    address-family ipv6
     redistribute static route-map STATIC2BGP <---- Standard SP
                                                       configuration
     neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:1 remote-as 100     <---- Comes from
                                                 automated allocation
     neighbor 2001:db8::2 remote-as 500     <---- Comes from the
                                                 ip-connection container
   !
   route-map STATIC2BGP permit 10
    match tag 10
   !














Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 97]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


8.  Interaction with Other YANG Modules

   As expressed in Section 5, this service model is intended to be
   instantiated in a management system and not directly on network
   elements.

   The management system's role will be to configure the network
   elements.  The management system may be modular, so the component
   instantiating the service model (let's call it "service component")
   and the component responsible for network element configuration
   (let's call it "configuration component") may be different.

             l3vpn-svc         |
               Model           |
                               |
                    +---------------------+
                    |  Service component  | Service datastore
                    +---------------------+
                               |
                               |
                    +---------------------+
               +----|  Config component   |------+
              /     +---------------------+       \   Network
             /            /            \           \  Configuration
            /            /              \           \ models
           /            /                \           \
   ++++++++         ++++++++           ++++++++       ++++++++
   + CE A + ------- + PE A +           + PE B + ----- + CE B + Config
   ++++++++         ++++++++           ++++++++       ++++++++ datastore

            Site A                              Site B

   In the previous sections, we provided some examples of the
   translation of service provisioning requests to router configuration
   lines.  In the NETCONF/YANG ecosystem, we expect NETCONF/YANG to be
   used between the configuration component and network elements to
   configure the requested services on those elements.

   In this framework, specifications are expected to provide specific
   YANG modeling of service components on network elements.  There will
   be a strong relationship between the abstracted view provided by this
   service model and the detailed configuration view that will be
   provided by specific configuration models for network elements.








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 98]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The authors of this document anticipate definitions of YANG models
   for the network elements listed below.  Note that this list is not
   exhaustive:

   o  VRF definition, including VPN policy expression.

   o  Physical interface.

   o  IP layer (IPv4, IPv6).

   o  QoS: classification, profiles, etc.

   o  Routing protocols: support of configuration of all protocols
      listed in the document, as well as routing policies associated
      with those protocols.

   o  Multicast VPN.

   o  Network address translation.

   Example of a VPN site request at the service level, using this model:

   <site>
    <site-id>Site A</site-id>
    <site-network-accesses>
     <site-network-access>
      <ip-connection>
       <ipv4>
        <address-allocation-type>
        static-address
        </address-allocation-type>
        <addresses>
         <provider-address>203.0.113.254</provider-address>
         <customer-address>203.0.113.2</customer-address>
         <mask>24</mask>
        </addresses>
       </ipv4>
      </ip-connection>
      <vpn-attachment>
       <vpn-policy-id>VPNPOL1</vpn-policy-id>
      </vpn-attachment>
     </site-network-access>
    </site-network-accesses>








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                   [Page 99]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    <routing-protocols>
     <routing-protocol>
      <type>static</type>
      <static>
       <cascaded-lan-prefixes>
        <ipv4-lan-prefixes>
         <lan>198.51.100.0/30</lan>
         <next-hop>203.0.113.2</next-hop>
        </ipv4-lan-prefixes>
       </cascaded-lan-prefixes>
      </static>
     </routing-protocol>
    </routing-protocols>
    <management>
     <type>customer-managed</type>
    </management>
    <vpn-policies>
     <vpn-policy>
      <vpn-policy-id>VPNPOL1</vpn-policy-id>
      <entries>
       <id>1</id>
        <vpn>
         <vpn-id>VPN1</vpn-id>
         <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role>
        </vpn>
       </entries>
     </vpn-policy>
    </vpn-policies>
   </site>

   In the service example above, the service component is expected to
   request that the configuration component of the management system
   provide the configuration of the service elements.  If we consider
   that the service component selected a PE (PE A) as the target PE for
   the site, the configuration component will need to push the
   configuration to PE A.  The configuration component will use several
   YANG data models to define the configuration to be applied to PE A.
   The XML configuration of PE A might look like this:

   <if:interfaces>
        <if:interface>
         <if:name>eth0</if:name>
         <if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
         <if:description>
          Link to CE A.
         </if:description>
         <ip:ipv4>
          <ip:address>



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 100]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


           <ip:ip>203.0.113.254</ip:ip>
           <ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
          </ip:address>
          <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
         </ip:ipv4>
        </if:interface>
   </if:interfaces>
   <rt:routing>
       <rt:routing-instance>
         <rt:name>VRF_CustA</rt:name>
         <rt:type>l3vpn-network:vrf</rt:type>
         <rt:description>VRF for Customer A</rt:description>
         <l3vpn-network:route-distinguisher>
         100:1546542343
         </l3vpn-network:route-distinguisher>
         <l3vpn-network:import-rt>100:1</l3vpn-network:import-rt>
         <l3vpn-network:export-rt>100:1</l3vpn-network:export-rt>
         <rt:interfaces>
          <rt:interface>
           <rt:name>eth0</rt:name>
          </rt:interface>
         </rt:interfaces>
         <rt:routing-protocols>
          <rt:routing-protocol>
           <rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
           <rt:name>st0</rt:name>
           <rt:static-routes>
            <v4ur:ipv4>
             <v4ur:route>
              <v4ur:destination-prefix>
              198.51.100.0/30
              </v4ur:destination-prefix>
              <v4ur:next-hop>
               <v4ur:next-hop-address>
               203.0.113.2
               </v4ur:next-hop-address>
              </v4ur:next-hop>
             </v4ur:route>
            </v4ur:ipv4>
           </rt:static-routes>
          </rt:routing-protocol>
         </rt:routing-protocols>
        </rt:routing-instance>
   </rt:routing>







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 101]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


9.  YANG Module

   <CODE BEGINS>

   file "ietf-l3vpn-svc@2017-01-27.yang"

   module ietf-l3vpn-svc {
    namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc";

    prefix l3vpn-svc;

    import ietf-inet-types {
     prefix inet;
    }

    import ietf-yang-types {
     prefix yang;
    }

    organization
     "IETF L3SM Working Group";

    contact
     "WG List: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>

     Editor:
      L3SM WG

     Chairs:
      Adrian Farrel, Qin Wu
     ";

    description
     "This YANG module defines a generic service configuration
     model for Layer 3 VPNs.  This model is common across all
     vendor implementations.";

    revision 2017-01-27 {
     description
      "Initial document.";
     reference
       "RFC 8049.";
    }








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 102]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    /* Features */

    feature cloud-access {
     description
      "Allows the VPN to connect to a CSP.";
    }
    feature multicast {
     description
      "Enables multicast capabilities in a VPN.";
    }
    feature ipv4 {
     description
      "Enables IPv4 support in a VPN.";
    }
    feature ipv6 {
     description
      "Enables IPv6 support in a VPN.";
    }
    feature carrierscarrier {
     description
      "Enables support of CsC.";
    }
    feature extranet-vpn {
     description
      "Enables support of extranet VPNs.";
    }
    feature site-diversity {
     description
      "Enables support of site diversity constraints.";
    }
    feature encryption {
     description
      "Enables support of encryption.";
    }
    feature qos {
     description
      "Enables support of classes of services.";
    }
    feature qos-custom {
     description
      "Enables support of the custom QoS profile.";
    }
    feature rtg-bgp {
     description
      "Enables support of the BGP routing protocol.";
    }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 103]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    feature rtg-rip {
     description
      "Enables support of the RIP routing protocol.";
    }
    feature rtg-ospf {
     description
      "Enables support of the OSPF routing protocol.";
    }
    feature rtg-ospf-sham-link {
     description
      "Enables support of OSPF sham links.";
    }
    feature rtg-vrrp {
     description
      "Enables support of the VRRP routing protocol.";
    }
    feature fast-reroute {
     description
      "Enables support of Fast Reroute.";
    }
    feature bfd {
     description
      "Enables support of BFD.";
    }
    feature always-on {
     description
      "Enables support of the 'always-on' access constraint.";
    }
    feature requested-type {
     description
      "Enables support of the 'requested-type' access constraint.";
    }
    feature bearer-reference {
     description
      "Enables support of the 'bearer-reference' access constraint.";
    }

    /* Typedefs */

    typedef svc-id {
     type string;
     description
      "Defines a type of service component identifier.";
    }







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 104]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    typedef template-id {
     type string;
     description
      "Defines a type of service template identifier.";
    }

    typedef address-family {
     type enumeration {
      enum ipv4 {
       description
        "IPv4 address family.";
      }
      enum ipv6 {
       description
        "IPv6 address family.";
      }
     }
     description
      "Defines a type for the address family.";
    }

    /* Identities */

    identity site-network-access-type {
     description
      "Base identity for site-network-access type.";
    }
    identity point-to-point {
     base site-network-access-type;
     description
      "Identity for point-to-point connection.";
    }
    identity multipoint {
     base site-network-access-type;
     description
      "Identity for multipoint connection.
      Example: Ethernet broadcast segment.";
    }
    identity placement-diversity {
     description
      "Base identity for site placement constraints.";
    }
    identity bearer-diverse {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for bearer diversity.
      The bearers should not use common elements.";
    }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 105]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity pe-diverse {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for PE diversity.";
    }
    identity pop-diverse {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for POP diversity.";
    }
    identity linecard-diverse {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for linecard diversity.";
    }
    identity same-pe {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for having sites connected on the same PE.";
    }
    identity same-bearer {
     base placement-diversity;
     description
      "Identity for having sites connected using the same bearer.";
    }
    identity customer-application {
     description
      "Base identity for customer application.";
    }
    identity web {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for Web application (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS).";
    }
    identity mail {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for mail application.";
    }
    identity file-transfer {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for file transfer application (e.g., FTP, SFTP).";
    }







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 106]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity database {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for database application.";
    }
    identity social {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for social-network application.";
    }
    identity games {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for gaming application.";
    }
    identity p2p {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for peer-to-peer application.";
    }
    identity network-management {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for management application
      (e.g., Telnet, syslog, SNMP).";
    }
    identity voice {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for voice application.";
    }
    identity video {
     base customer-application;
     description
      "Identity for video conference application.";
    }
    identity site-vpn-flavor {
     description
      "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.";
    }
    identity site-vpn-flavor-single {
     base site-vpn-flavor;
     description
      "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.
      Used when the site belongs to only one VPN.";
    }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 107]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity site-vpn-flavor-multi {
     base site-vpn-flavor;
     description
      "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.
      Used when a logical connection of a site
      belongs to multiple VPNs.";
    }
    identity site-vpn-flavor-sub {
     base site-vpn-flavor;
     description
      "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.
      Used when a site has multiple logical connections.
      Each connection may belong to different multiple VPNs.";
    }
    identity site-vpn-flavor-nni {
     base site-vpn-flavor;
     description
      "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor.
      Used to describe an NNI option A connection.";
    }
    identity management {
     description
      "Base identity for site management scheme.";
    }
    identity co-managed {
     base management;
     description
      "Base identity for co-managed site.";
    }
    identity customer-managed {
     base management;
     description
      "Base identity for customer-managed site.";
    }
    identity provider-managed {
     base management;
     description
      "Base identity for provider-managed site.";
    }
    identity address-allocation-type {
     description
      "Base identity for address-allocation-type for PE-CE link.";
    }
    identity provider-dhcp {
     base address-allocation-type;
     description
      "Provider network provides DHCP service to customer.";
    }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 108]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity provider-dhcp-relay {
     base address-allocation-type;
     description
      "Provider network provides DHCP relay service to customer.";
    }
    identity provider-dhcp-slaac {
     base address-allocation-type;
     description
      "Provider network provides DHCP service to customer,
      as well as SLAAC.";
    }
    identity static-address {
     base address-allocation-type;
     description
      "Provider-to-customer addressing is static.";
    }
    identity slaac {
     base address-allocation-type;
     description
      "Use IPv6 SLAAC.";
    }

    identity site-role {
     description
      "Base identity for site type.";
    }
    identity any-to-any-role {
     base site-role;
     description
      "Site in an any-to-any IP VPN.";
    }
    identity spoke-role {
     base site-role;
     description
      "Spoke site in a Hub-and-Spoke IP VPN.";
    }
    identity hub-role {
     base site-role;
     description
      "Hub site in a Hub-and-Spoke IP VPN.";
    }










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 109]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


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

    identity multicast-tree-type {
     description
      "Base identity for multicast tree type.";
    }
    identity ssm-tree-type {
     base multicast-tree-type;
     description
      "Identity for SSM tree type.";
    }
    identity asm-tree-type {
     base multicast-tree-type;
     description
      "Identity for ASM tree type.";
    }
    identity bidir-tree-type {
     base multicast-tree-type;
     description
      "Identity for bidirectional tree type.";
    }

    identity multicast-rp-discovery-type {
     description
      "Base identity for RP discovery type.";
    }






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 110]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity auto-rp {
     base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
     description
      "Base identity for Auto-RP discovery type.";
    }
    identity static-rp {
     base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
     description
      "Base identity for static type.";
    }
    identity bsr-rp {
     base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
     description
      "Base identity for BSR discovery type.";
    }

    identity routing-protocol-type {
     description
      "Base identity for routing protocol type.";
    }
    identity ospf {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for OSPF protocol type.";
    }
    identity bgp {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for BGP protocol type.";
    }
    identity static {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for static routing protocol type.";
    }
    identity rip {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for RIP protocol type.";
    }
    identity vrrp {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for VRRP protocol type.
      This is to be used when LANs are directly connected
      to PE routers.";
    }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 111]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity direct {
     base routing-protocol-type;
     description
      "Identity for direct protocol type.";
    }

    identity protocol-type {
     description
      "Base identity for protocol field type.";
    }
    identity tcp {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "TCP protocol type.";
    }
    identity udp {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "UDP protocol type.";
    }
    identity icmp {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "ICMP protocol type.";
    }
    identity icmp6 {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "ICMPv6 protocol type.";
    }
    identity gre {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "GRE protocol type.";
    }
    identity ipip {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "IP-in-IP protocol type.";
    }
    identity hop-by-hop {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "Hop-by-Hop IPv6 header type.";
    }






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 112]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    identity routing {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "Routing IPv6 header type.";
    }
    identity esp {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "ESP header type.";
    }
    identity ah {
     base protocol-type;
     description
      "AH header type.";
    }

    /* Groupings */

    grouping vpn-service-cloud-access {
     container cloud-accesses {
     if-feature cloud-access;
     list cloud-access {

      key cloud-identifier;

      leaf cloud-identifier {
       type string;
       description
        "Identification of cloud service.
        Local administration meaning.";
      }
      choice list-flavor {
       case permit-any {
        leaf permit-any {
         type empty;
         description
          "Allows all sites.";
        }
       }
       case deny-any-except {
        leaf-list permit-site {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
         }
         description
          "Site ID to be authorized.";
        }
       }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 113]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       case permit-any-except {
        leaf-list deny-site {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
         }
         description
          "Site ID to be denied.";
        }
       }
       description
        "Choice for cloud access policy.";
      }
      container authorized-sites {
       list authorized-site {
        key site-id;

        leaf site-id {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
         }
         description
          "Site ID.";
        }
        description
         "List of authorized sites.";
       }
       description
        "Configuration of authorized sites.";
      }
      container denied-sites {
       list denied-site {
        key site-id;

        leaf site-id {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id";
         }
         description
          "Site ID.";
        }
        description
         "List of denied sites.";
       }
       description
        "Configuration of denied sites.";
      }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 114]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      container address-translation {
       container nat44 {
        leaf enabled {
         type boolean;
         default false;
         description
          "Controls whether or not address translation is required.";
        }
        leaf nat44-customer-address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         must "../enabled = 'true'" {
          description
           "Applicable only if address translation is enabled.";
         }
         description
          "Address to be used for translation.
          This is to be used if the customer is
          providing the address.";
        }
        description
         "IPv4-to-IPv4 translation.";
       }
       description
        "Container for NAT.";
      }
      description
       "Cloud access configuration.";
     }
      description
       "Container for cloud access configurations.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for VPN cloud definition.";
    }

















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 115]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping multicast-rp-group-cfg {
     choice group-format {
      case startend {
       leaf group-start {
        type inet:ip-address;
        description
         "First group address.";
       }
       leaf group-end {
        type inet:ip-address;
        description
         "Last group address.";
       }
      }
      case singleaddress {
       leaf group-address {
        type inet:ip-address;
        description
         "Group address.";
       }
      }
      description
       "Choice for group format.";
     }
     description
      "Definition of groups for RP-to-group mapping.";
    }

    grouping vpn-service-multicast {
     container multicast {
      if-feature multicast;
      leaf enabled {
       type boolean;
       default false;
       description
        "Enables multicast.";
      }
      container customer-tree-flavors {
       leaf-list tree-flavor {
         type identityref {
          base multicast-tree-type;
         }
         description
          "Type of tree to be used.";
       }
       description
        "Type of trees used by customer.";
      }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 116]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      container rp {
       container rp-group-mappings {
        list rp-group-mapping {
         key id;

         leaf id {
          type uint16;
          description
           "Unique identifier for the mapping.";
         }
         container provider-managed {
          leaf enabled {
           type boolean;
           default false;
           description
            "Set to true if the RP must be a provider-managed node.
            Set to false if it is a customer-managed node.";
          }
          leaf rp-redundancy {
           when "../enabled = 'true'" {
            description
             "Relevant when the RP is provider-managed.";
           }
           type boolean;
           default false;
           description
            "If true, a redundancy mechanism for the RP is required.";
          }
          leaf optimal-traffic-delivery {
           when "../enabled = 'true'" {
            description
             "Relevant when the RP is provider-managed.";
           }
           type boolean;
           default false;
           description
            "If true, the SP must ensure that
            traffic uses an optimal path.";
          }
          description
           "Parameters for a provider-managed RP.";
         }









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 117]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         leaf rp-address {
          when "../provider-managed/enabled = 'false'" {
           description
            "Relevant when the RP is provider-managed.";
          }
          type inet:ip-address;
          description
           "Defines the address of the RP.
           Used if the RP is customer-managed.";
         }

         container groups {
          list group {
           key id;

           leaf id {
            type uint16;
            description
             "Identifier for the group.";
           }
           uses multicast-rp-group-cfg;
           description
            "List of groups.";
          }

          description
           "Multicast groups associated with the RP.";
         }

         description
          "List of RP-to-group mappings.";
        }
        description
         "RP-to-group mappings.";
       }
       container rp-discovery {
        leaf rp-discovery-type {
         type identityref {
          base multicast-rp-discovery-type;
         }
         default static-rp;
         description
          "Type of RP discovery used.";
        }







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 118]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        container bsr-candidates {
         when "../rp-discovery-type = 'bsr-rp'" {
          description
           "Only applicable if discovery type is BSR-RP.";
         }
         leaf-list bsr-candidate-address {
          type inet:ip-address;
          description
           "Address of BSR candidate.";
         }
         description
          "Customer BSR candidate's address.";
        }
        description
         "RP discovery parameters.";
       }

       description
        "RP parameters.";
      }
      description
       "Multicast global parameters for the VPN service.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for multicast VPN definition.";
    }

    grouping vpn-service-mpls {
     leaf carrierscarrier {
      if-feature carrierscarrier;
      type boolean;
      default false;
      description
       "The VPN is using CsC, and so MPLS is required.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for MPLS CsC definition.";
    }













Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 119]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping customer-location-info {
     container locations {
      list location {
       key location-id;

       leaf location-id {
        type svc-id;
        description
         "Identifier for a particular location.";
       }
       leaf address {
        type string;
        description
         "Address (number and street) of the site.";
       }
       leaf postal-code {
        type string;
        description
         "Postal code of the site.";
       }
       leaf state {
        type string;
        description
         "State of the site.  This leaf can also be used to describe
         a region for a country that does not have states.";
       }
       leaf city {
        type string;
        description
         "City of the site.";
       }
       leaf country-code {
        type string {
         pattern '[A-Z]{2}';
        }
        description
         "Country of the site.
         Expressed as ISO ALPHA-2 code.";
       }
       description
        "Location of the site.";
       }
       description
        "List of locations for the site.";
     }
     description
      "This grouping defines customer location parameters.";
    }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 120]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping site-group {
     container groups {
      list group {
       key group-id;

       leaf group-id {
        type string;
        description
         "Group-id the site belongs to.";
       }
       description
        "List of group-ids.";
      }
      description
       "Groups the site or site-network-access belongs to.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping definition to assign
      group-ids to site or site-network-access.";
    }
    grouping site-diversity {
     container site-diversity {
       if-feature site-diversity;

       uses site-group;

       description
        "Diversity constraint type.
        All site-network-accesses will inherit the group values
        defined here.";
      }
     description
      "This grouping defines site diversity parameters.";
    }
    grouping access-diversity {
     container access-diversity {
       if-feature site-diversity;

       uses site-group;












Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 121]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       container constraints {
        list constraint {
         key constraint-type;

         leaf constraint-type {
          type identityref {
           base placement-diversity;
          }
          description
           "Diversity constraint type.";
         }
         container target {
          choice target-flavor {
           case id {
            list group {
             key group-id;

             leaf group-id {
              type string;
              description
               "The constraint will be applied against
               this particular group-id.";
             }
             description
              "List of groups.";
            }
           }
           case all-accesses {
            leaf all-other-accesses {
             type empty;
             description
              "The constraint will be applied against
              all other site network accesses of this site.";
            }
           }
           case all-groups {
            leaf all-other-groups {
             type empty;
             description
              "The constraint will be applied against
              all other groups managed by the customer.";
            }
           }
           description
            "Choice for the group definition.";
          }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 122]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


          description
           "The constraint will be applied against
           this list of groups.";
         }
         description
          "List of constraints.";
        }
        description
         "Placement constraints for this site network access.";
       }

       description
        "Diversity parameters.";
      }
     description
      "This grouping defines access diversity parameters.";
    }

    grouping operational-requirements {
       leaf requested-site-start {
         type yang:date-and-time;
         description
          "Optional leaf indicating requested date and time when the
          service at a particular site is expected to start.";
        }

        leaf requested-site-stop {
         type yang:date-and-time;
         description
          "Optional leaf indicating requested date and time when the
          service at a particular site is expected to stop.";
        }
     description
      "This grouping defines some operational parameters.";
    }
















Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 123]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping operational-requirements-ops {
        leaf actual-site-start {
         type yang:date-and-time;
         config false;
         description
          "Optional leaf indicating actual date and time when the
          service at a particular site actually started.";
        }
        leaf actual-site-stop {
         type yang:date-and-time;
         config false;
         description
          "Optional leaf indicating actual date and time when the
          service at a particular site actually stopped.";
        }
     description
      "This grouping defines some operational parameters.";
    }

    grouping flow-definition {
     container match-flow {
      leaf dscp {
       type inet:dscp;
       description
        "DSCP value.";
      }
      leaf dot1p {
       type uint8 {
        range "0..7";
       }
       description
        "802.1p matching.";
      }
      leaf ipv4-src-prefix {
       type inet:ipv4-prefix;
       description
        "Match on IPv4 src address.";
      }
      leaf ipv6-src-prefix {
       type inet:ipv6-prefix;
       description
        "Match on IPv6 src address.";
      }
      leaf ipv4-dst-prefix {
       type inet:ipv4-prefix;
       description
        "Match on IPv4 dst address.";
      }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 124]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      leaf ipv6-dst-prefix {
       type inet:ipv6-prefix;
       description
        "Match on IPv6 dst address.";
      }
      leaf l4-src-port {
       type inet:port-number;
       description
        "Match on Layer 4 src port.";
      }
      leaf-list target-sites {
       type svc-id;
       description
        "Identify a site as traffic destination.";
      }
      container l4-src-port-range {
       leaf lower-port {
        type inet:port-number;
        description
         "Lower boundary for port.";
       }
       leaf upper-port {
        type inet:port-number;
        must ". >= ../lower-port" {
         description
          "Upper boundary must be higher than lower boundary.";
        }
        description
         "Upper boundary for port.";
       }
       description
        "Match on Layer 4 src port range.";
      }
      leaf l4-dst-port {
       type inet:port-number;
       description
        "Match on Layer 4 dst port.";
      }
      container l4-dst-port-range {
       leaf lower-port {
        type inet:port-number;
        description
         "Lower boundary for port.";
       }







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 125]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       leaf upper-port {
        type inet:port-number;
        must ". >= ../lower-port" {
         description
          "Upper boundary must be higher than lower boundary.";
        }
        description
         "Upper boundary for port.";
       }
       description
        "Match on Layer 4 dst port range.";
      }
      leaf protocol-field {
       type union {
        type uint8;
        type identityref {
         base protocol-type;
        }
       }
       description
        "Match on IPv4 protocol or IPv6 Next Header field.";
      }

      description
       "Describes flow-matching criteria.";
     }
     description
      "Flow definition based on criteria.";
    }
    grouping site-service-basic {
     leaf svc-input-bandwidth {
         type uint32;
         units bps;
         description
          "From the PE's perspective, the service input
          bandwidth of the connection.";
     }
     leaf svc-output-bandwidth {
        type uint32;
        units bps;
        description
         "From the PE's perspective, the service output
         bandwidth of the connection.";
     }







Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 126]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


     leaf svc-mtu {
      type uint16;
      units bytes;
      description
       "MTU at service level.  If the service is IP,
       it refers to the IP MTU.";
     }
     description
      "Defines basic service parameters for a site.";
    }
    grouping site-protection {
     container traffic-protection {
      if-feature fast-reroute;
      leaf enabled {
       type boolean;
       default false;
       description
        "Enables traffic protection of access link.";
      }
      description
       "Fast Reroute service parameters for the site.";
     }
     description
      "Defines protection service parameters for a site.";
    }
    grouping site-service-mpls {
     container carrierscarrier {
      if-feature carrierscarrier;
      leaf signalling-type {
       type enumeration {
        enum "ldp" {
         description
          "Use LDP as the signalling protocol
          between the PE and the CE.";
        }
        enum "bgp" {
         description
          "Use BGP (as per RFC 3107) as the signalling protocol
          between the PE and the CE.
          In this case, BGP must also be configured as
          the routing protocol.";
        }
       }
       description
        "MPLS signalling type.";
      }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 127]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      description
       "This container is used when the customer provides
       MPLS-based services.  This is used in the case of CsC.";
     }
     description
      "Defines MPLS service parameters for a site.";
    }
    grouping site-service-qos-profile {
     container qos {
      if-feature qos;
      container qos-classification-policy {
       list rule {
        key id;
        ordered-by user;

        leaf id {
         type uint16;
         description
          "ID of the rule.";
        }

        choice match-type {
         case match-flow {
          uses flow-definition;
         }
         case match-application {
          leaf match-application {
           type identityref {
            base customer-application;
           }
           description
            "Defines the application to match.";
          }
         }
         description
          "Choice for classification.";
        }

        leaf target-class-id {
         type string;
         description
          "Identification of the class of service.
          This identifier is internal to the administration.";
        }

        description
         "List of marking rules.";
       }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 128]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       description
        "Configuration of the traffic classification policy.";
      }
      container qos-profile {

       choice qos-profile {
        description
         "Choice for QoS profile.
         Can be standard profile or custom.";
        case standard {
         leaf profile {
          type string;
          description
           "QoS profile to be used.";
         }
        }
        case custom {
         container classes {
          if-feature qos-custom;
          list class {
           key class-id;

           leaf class-id {
            type string;
            description
             "Identification of the class of service.
             This identifier is internal to the administration.";
           }
           leaf rate-limit {
            type uint8;
            units percent;
            description
             "To be used if the class must be rate-limited.
             Expressed as percentage of the service bandwidth.";
           }
           container latency {
            choice flavor {
             case lowest {
              leaf use-lowest-latency {
               type empty;
               description
                "The traffic class should use the path with the
                lowest latency.";
              }
             }






Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 129]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


             case boundary {
              leaf latency-boundary {
               type uint16;
               units msec;
               description
                "The traffic class should use a path with a
                defined maximum latency.";
              }
             }
             description
              "Latency constraint on the traffic class.";
            }
            description
             "Latency constraint on the traffic class.";
           }
           container jitter {
            choice flavor {
             case lowest {
              leaf use-lowest-jitter {
               type empty;
               description
                "The traffic class should use the path with the
                lowest jitter.";
              }
             }
             case boundary {
              leaf latency-boundary {
               type uint32;
               units usec;
               description
                "The traffic class should use a path with a
                defined maximum jitter.";
              }
             }
             description
              "Jitter constraint on the traffic class.";
            }
            description
             "Jitter constraint on the traffic class.";
           }
           container bandwidth {
            leaf guaranteed-bw-percent {
             type uint8;
             units percent;
             description
              "To be used to define the guaranteed bandwidth
              as a percentage of the available service bandwidth.";
            }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 130]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


            leaf end-to-end {
             type empty;
             description
              "Used if the bandwidth reservation
              must be done on the MPLS network too.";
            }
            description
             "Bandwidth constraint on the traffic class.";
           }
           description
            "List of classes of services.";
          }
          description
           "Container for list of classes of services.";
         }

        }

       }
       description
        "QoS profile configuration.";
      }
      description
       "QoS configuration.";
     }
     description
      "This grouping defines QoS parameters for a site.";
    }

    grouping site-security-authentication {
     container authentication {
      description
       "Authentication parameters.";
     }
     description
      "This grouping defines authentication parameters for a site.";

    }
    grouping site-security-encryption {
     container encryption {
      if-feature encryption;
      leaf enabled {
       type boolean;
       default false;
       description
        "If true, access encryption is required.";
      }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 131]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      leaf layer {
       type enumeration {
        enum layer2 {
         description
          "Encryption will occur at Layer 2.";
        }
        enum layer3 {
         description
          "Encryption will occur at Layer 3.
          For example, IPsec may be used.";
        }
       }
       mandatory true;
       description
        "Layer on which encryption is applied.";
      }
      container encryption-profile {
       choice profile {
        case provider-profile {
         leaf profile-name {
          type string;
          description
           "Name of the SP profile to be applied.";
         }
        }
        case customer-profile {
         leaf algorithm {
          type string;
          description
           "Encryption algorithm to be used.";
         }
         choice key-type {
          case psk {
           leaf preshared-key {
            type string;
            description
             "Key coming from customer.";
           }
          }
          case pki {

          }
          description
           "Type of keys to be used.";
         }
        }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 132]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        description
         "Choice of profile.";
       }
       description
        "Profile of encryption to be applied.";
      }
      description
       "Encryption parameters.";
     }
     description
      "This grouping defines encryption parameters for a site.";
    }

    grouping site-attachment-bearer {
     container bearer {
      container requested-type {
       if-feature requested-type;
       leaf requested-type {
        type string;
        description
         "Type of requested bearer: Ethernet, DSL,
         Wireless, etc.  Operator specific.";
       }
       leaf strict {
        type boolean;
        default false;
        description
         "Defines whether requested-type is a preference
         or a strict requirement.";
       }
       description
        "Container for requested-type.";
      }
      leaf always-on {
       if-feature always-on;
       type boolean;
       default true;
       description
        "Request for an always-on access type.
        For example, this could mean no dial access type.";
      }
      leaf bearer-reference {
       if-feature bearer-reference;
       type string;
       description
        "This is an internal reference for the SP.";
      }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 133]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      description
       "Bearer-specific parameters.
       To be augmented.";
     }
     description
      "Defines physical properties of a site attachment.";
    }

    grouping site-routing {
     container routing-protocols {
      list routing-protocol {
       key type;

       leaf type {
        type identityref {
         base routing-protocol-type;
        }
        description
         "Type of routing protocol.";
       }

       container ospf {
        when "../type = 'ospf'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol is OSPF.";
        }
        if-feature rtg-ospf;
        leaf-list address-family {
         type address-family;

         description
          "Address family to be activated.";
        }
        leaf area-address {
         type yang:dotted-quad;
         description
          "Area address.";
        }
        leaf metric {
         type uint16;
         description
          "Metric of the PE-CE link.";
        }








Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 134]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        container sham-links {
         if-feature rtg-ospf-sham-link;
         list sham-link {
          key target-site;

          leaf target-site {
           type svc-id;
           description
            "Target site for the sham link connection.
            The site is referred to by its ID.";
          }
          leaf metric {
           type uint16;
           description
            "Metric of the sham link.";
          }
          description
           "Creates a sham link with another site.";
         }
         description
          "List of sham links.";
        }
        description
         "OSPF-specific configuration.";
       }

       container bgp {

        when "../type = 'bgp'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol is BGP.";
        }
        if-feature rtg-bgp;
        leaf autonomous-system {
         type uint32;
         description
          "AS number.";
        }
        leaf-list address-family {
         type address-family;

         description
          "Address family to be activated.";
        }
        description
         "BGP-specific configuration.";
       }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 135]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       container static {
        when "../type = 'static'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol is static.";
        }

        container cascaded-lan-prefixes {
         list ipv4-lan-prefixes {
          if-feature ipv4;
          key "lan next-hop";

          leaf lan {
           type inet:ipv4-prefix;
           description
            "LAN prefixes.";
          }
          leaf lan-tag {
           type string;
           description
            "Internal tag to be used in VPN policies.";
          }
          leaf next-hop {
           type inet:ipv4-address;
           description
            "Next-hop address to use on the customer side.";
          }
          description
           "List of LAN prefixes for the site.";
         }
         list ipv6-lan-prefixes {
          if-feature ipv6;
          key "lan next-hop";

          leaf lan {
           type inet:ipv6-prefix;
           description
            "LAN prefixes.";
          }
          leaf lan-tag {
           type string;
           description
            "Internal tag to be used in VPN policies.";
          }
          leaf next-hop {
           type inet:ipv6-address;
           description
            "Next-hop address to use on the customer side.";
          }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 136]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


          description
           "List of LAN prefixes for the site.";
         }
         description
          "LAN prefixes from the customer.";
        }
        description
         "Configuration specific to static routing.";
       }
       container rip {

        when "../type = 'rip'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol is RIP.";
        }
        if-feature rtg-rip;
        leaf-list address-family {
         type address-family;

         description
          "Address family to be activated.";
        }

        description
         "Configuration specific to RIP routing.";
       }

       container vrrp {

        when "../type = 'vrrp'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol is VRRP.";
        }
        if-feature rtg-vrrp;
        leaf-list address-family {
         type address-family;

         description
          "Address family to be activated.";
        }
        description
         "Configuration specific to VRRP routing.";
       }

       description
        "List of routing protocols used on
        the site.  This list can be augmented.";
      }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 137]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


      description
       "Defines routing protocols.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for routing protocols.";
    }

    grouping site-attachment-ip-connection {
     container ip-connection {
      container ipv4 {
       if-feature ipv4;
       leaf address-allocation-type {
        type identityref {
         base address-allocation-type;
        }
        default "static-address";
        description
         "Defines how addresses are allocated.";
       }

       leaf number-of-dynamic-address {
        when "../address-allocation-type = 'provider-dhcp'" {
         description
          "Only applies when addresses are allocated by DHCP.";
        }
        type uint8;
        default 1;
        description
         "Describes the number of IP addresses the customer requires.";
       }
       container dhcp-relay {
        when "../address-allocation-type = 'provider-dhcp-relay'" {
         description
          "Only applies when provider is required to implement
          DHCP relay function.";
        }
        container customer-dhcp-servers {
         leaf-list server-ip-address {
          type inet:ipv4-address;
          description
           "IP address of customer DHCP server.";
         }
         description
          "Container for list of customer DHCP servers.";
        }
        description
         "DHCP relay provided by operator.";
       }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 138]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       container addresses {
        when "../address-allocation-type = 'static-address'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol allocation type is static.";
        }
        leaf provider-address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         description
          "Address of provider side.";
        }
        leaf customer-address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         description
          "Address of customer side.";
        }
        leaf mask {
         type uint8 {
          range "0..31";
         }
         description
          "Subnet mask expressed in bits.";
        }
        description
         "Describes IP addresses used.";
       }

       description
        "IPv4-specific parameters.";

      }
      container ipv6 {
       if-feature ipv6;
       leaf address-allocation-type {
        type identityref {
         base address-allocation-type;
        }
        default "static-address";
        description
         "Defines how addresses are allocated.";
       }
       leaf number-of-dynamic-address {
        when
        "../address-allocation-type = 'provider-dhcp' "+
        "or ../address-allocation-type "+
        "= 'provider-dhcp-slaac'" {
         description
          "Only applies when addresses are allocated by DHCP.";
        }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 139]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        type uint8;
        default 1;
        description
         "Describes the number of IP addresses the customer requires.";
       }
       container dhcp-relay {
        when "../address-allocation-type = 'provider-dhcp-relay'" {
         description
          "Only applies when provider is required to implement
          DHCP relay function.";
        }
        container customer-dhcp-servers {
         leaf-list server-ip-address {
          type inet:ipv6-address;
          description
           "IP address of customer DHCP server.";
         }
         description
          "Container for list of customer DHCP servers.";
        }
        description
         "DHCP relay provided by operator.";
       }
       container addresses {
        when "../address-allocation-type = 'static-address'" {
         description
          "Only applies when protocol allocation type is static.";
        }
        leaf provider-address {
         type inet:ipv6-address;
         description
          "Address of provider side.";
        }
        leaf customer-address {
         type inet:ipv6-address;
         description
          "Address of customer side.";
        }
        leaf mask {
         type uint8 {
          range "0..127";
         }
         description
          "Subnet mask expressed in bits.";
        }
        description
         "Describes IP addresses used.";
       }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 140]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       description
        "IPv6-specific parameters.";

      }
      container oam {
       container bfd {
        if-feature bfd;
        leaf enabled {
         type boolean;
         default false;
         description
          "BFD activation.";
        }

        choice holdtime {
         case profile {
          leaf profile-name {
           type string;
           description
            "Well-known SP profile.";
          }
          description
           "Well-known SP profile.";
         }
         case fixed {
          leaf fixed-value {
           type uint32;
           units msec;
           description
            "Expected holdtime expressed in msec.";
          }
         }
         description
          "Choice for holdtime flavor.";
        }
        description
         "Container for BFD.";
       }
       description
        "Defines the OAM mechanisms used on the connection.";
      }
      description
       "Defines connection parameters.";
     }
     description
      "This grouping defines IP connection parameters.";
    }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 141]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping site-service-multicast {
     container multicast {
      if-feature multicast;
      leaf multicast-site-type {
       type enumeration {
        enum receiver-only {
         description
          "The site only has receivers.";
        }
        enum source-only {
         description
          "The site only has sources.";
        }
        enum source-receiver {
         description
          "The site has both sources and receivers.";
        }
       }
       default "source-receiver";
       description
        "Type of multicast site.";
      }
      container multicast-address-family {
       leaf ipv4 {
        if-feature ipv4;
        type boolean;
        default true;
        description
         "Enables IPv4 multicast.";
       }
       leaf ipv6 {
        if-feature ipv6;
        type boolean;
        default false;
        description
         "Enables IPv6 multicast.";
       }
       description
        "Defines protocol to carry multicast.";
      }
      leaf protocol-type {
       type enumeration {
        enum host {
         description
          "Hosts are directly connected to the provider network.
          Host protocols such as IGMP or MLD are required.";
        }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 142]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        enum router {
         description
          "Hosts are behind a customer router.
          PIM will be implemented.";
        }
        enum both {
         description
          "Some hosts are behind a customer router, and some others
          are directly connected to the provider network.
          Both host and routing protocols must be used.
          Typically, IGMP and PIM will be implemented.";
        }
       }
       default "both";
       description
        "Multicast protocol type to be used with the customer site.";
      }

      description
       "Multicast parameters for the site.";
     }
     description
      "Multicast parameters for the site.";
    }

    grouping site-management {
     container management {
      leaf type {
       type identityref {
        base management;
       }
       description
        "Management type of the connection.";
      }
      description
       "Management configuration.";
     }
     description
      "Management parameters for the site.";
    }











Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 143]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping site-devices {
     container devices {
      must "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
       "'provider-managed' or "+
       "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
       "'co-managed'" {
        description
         "Applicable only for provider-managed or co-managed device.";
       }
      list device {
       key device-id;

       leaf device-id {
        type svc-id;
        description
         "Identifier for the device.";
       }
       leaf location {
        type leafref {
         path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/locations/"+
          "location/location-id";
        }
        description
         "Location of the device.";
       }
       container management {
        must "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type"+
         "= 'co-managed'" {
          description
           "Applicable only for co-managed device.";
         }
        leaf address-family {
         type address-family;

         description
          "Address family used for management.";
        }
        leaf address {
         type inet:ip-address;
         description
          "Management address.";
        }
        description
         "Management configuration.  Applicable only for
         co-managed device.";
       }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 144]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       description
        "Device configuration.";
      }
      description
       "List of devices requested by customer.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for device allocation.";
    }
    grouping site-vpn-flavor {
     leaf site-vpn-flavor {
      type identityref {
       base site-vpn-flavor;
      }
      default site-vpn-flavor-single;
      description
       "Defines whether the site is, for example,
       a single VPN site or a multiVPN.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for site VPN flavor.";
    }

    grouping site-vpn-policy {
     container vpn-policies {
      list vpn-policy {
       key vpn-policy-id;

       leaf vpn-policy-id {
        type svc-id;
        description
         "Unique identifier for the VPN policy.";
       }

       list entries {
        key id;

        leaf id {
          type svc-id;
          description
           "Unique identifier for the policy entry.";
        }









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 145]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


        container filter {
         choice lan {
          case prefixes {
           leaf-list ipv4-lan-prefix {
            if-feature ipv4;
            type inet:ipv4-prefix;
            description
             "List of IPv4 prefixes to be matched.";
           }
           leaf-list ipv6-lan-prefix {
            if-feature ipv6;
            type inet:ipv6-prefix;
            description
             "List of IPv6 prefixes to be matched.";
           }
          }
          case lan-tag {
           leaf-list lan-tag {
            type string;
            description
             "List of 'lan-tag' items to be matched.";
           }
          }
          description
           "Choice of ways to do LAN matching.";
         }
         description
          "If used, it permits the splitting of
          site LANs among multiple VPNs.
          If no filter is used, all the LANs will be
          part of the same VPNs with the same role.";
        }
        container vpn {
         leaf vpn-id {
          type leafref {
           path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/"+
           "vpn-service/vpn-id";
          }
          mandatory true;
          description
           "Reference to an IP VPN.";
         }









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 146]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


         leaf site-role {
          type identityref {
           base site-role;
          }
          default any-to-any-role;
          description
           "Role of the site in the IP VPN.";
         }
         description
          "List of VPNs the LAN is associated with.";
        }
        description
         "List of entries for export policy.";
       }
       description
        "List of VPN policies.";
      }
      description
       "VPN policy.";
     }
     description
      "VPN policy parameters for the site.";
    }

    grouping site-maximum-routes {
     container maximum-routes {
      list address-family {
       key af;

       leaf af {
        type address-family;

        description
         "Address family.";
       }
       leaf maximum-routes {
        type uint32;
        description
         "Maximum prefixes the VRF can accept for this address family.";
       }
       description
        "List of address families.";
      }

      description
       "Defines 'maximum-routes' for the VRF.";
     }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 147]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


     description
      "Defines 'maximum-routes' for the site.";
    }

    grouping site-security {
     container security {
      uses site-security-authentication;
      uses site-security-encryption;

      description
       "Site-specific security parameters.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for security parameters.";
    }

    grouping site-service {
     container service {
      uses site-service-qos-profile;
      uses site-service-mpls;
      uses site-service-multicast;

      description
       "Service parameters on the attachment.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for service parameters.";
    }

    grouping site-network-access-service {
     container service {
      uses site-service-basic;
      uses site-service-qos-profile;
      uses site-service-mpls;
      uses site-service-multicast;

      description
       "Service parameters on the attachment.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for service parameters.";
    }









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 148]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping vpn-extranet {
     container extranet-vpns {
      if-feature extranet-vpn;
      list extranet-vpn {
       key vpn-id;

       leaf vpn-id {
        type svc-id;
        description
         "Identifies the target VPN.";
       }
       leaf local-sites-role {
        type identityref {
         base site-role;

        }
        default any-to-any-role;
        description
         "This describes the role of the
         local sites in the target VPN topology.";
       }
       description
        "List of extranet VPNs the local VPN is attached to.";
      }
      description
       "Container for extranet VPN configuration.";
     }
     description
      "Grouping for extranet VPN configuration.
      This provides an easy way to interconnect
      all sites from two VPNs.";
    }

    grouping site-attachment-availability {
     container availability {
      leaf access-priority {
       type uint32;
       default 1;
       description
        "Defines the priority for the access.
        The higher the access-priority value,
        the higher the preference of the access will be.";
      }
      description
       "Availability parameters (used for multihoming).";
     }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 149]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


     description
      "Defines availability parameters for a site.";
    }

    grouping access-vpn-policy {
     container vpn-attachment {

      choice attachment-flavor {
       case vpn-policy-id {
        leaf vpn-policy-id {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/"+
          "vpn-policies/vpn-policy/"+
          "vpn-policy-id";
         }
         description
          "Reference to a VPN policy.";
        }
       }
       case vpn-id {
        leaf vpn-id {
         type leafref {
          path "/l3vpn-svc/vpn-services"+
          "/vpn-service/vpn-id";
         }
         description
          "Reference to a VPN.";
        }
        leaf site-role {
         type identityref {
           base site-role;
          }
         default any-to-any-role;
         description
          "Role of the site in the IP VPN.";
        }
       }
       mandatory true;
       description
        "Choice for VPN attachment flavor.";
      }
      description
       "Defines VPN attachment of a site.";
     }
     description
      "Defines the VPN attachment rules for a site's logical access.";
    }




Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 150]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping vpn-svc-cfg {
     leaf vpn-id {
       type svc-id;
       description
        "VPN identifier.  Local administration meaning.";
      }
      leaf customer-name {
       type string;
       description
        "Name of the customer.";
      }
     leaf vpn-service-topology {
      type identityref {
       base vpn-topology;
      }
      default "any-to-any";
      description
       "VPN service topology.";
     }

     uses vpn-service-cloud-access;
     uses vpn-service-multicast;
     uses vpn-service-mpls;
     uses vpn-extranet;

     description
      "Grouping for VPN service configuration.";
    }

    grouping site-top-level-cfg {
     uses operational-requirements;
     uses customer-location-info;
     uses site-devices;
     uses site-diversity;
     uses site-management;
     uses site-vpn-policy;
     uses site-vpn-flavor;
     uses site-maximum-routes;
     uses site-security;
     uses site-service;
     uses site-protection;
     uses site-routing;

     description
      "Grouping for site top-level configuration.";
    }





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 151]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


    grouping site-network-access-top-level-cfg {
     leaf site-network-access-type {
      type identityref {
       base site-network-access-type;
      }
      default "point-to-point";
      description
       "Describes the type of connection, e.g.,
       point-to-point or multipoint.";
     }

     choice location-flavor {
      case location {
       when "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
         "'customer-managed'" {
          description
           "Applicable only for customer-managed device.";
        }
       leaf location-reference {
        type leafref {
         path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/locations/"+
            "location/location-id";
        }
        description
         "Location of the site-network-access.";
       }
      }
      case device {
       when "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
         "'provider-managed' or "+
         "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/management/type = "+
         "'co-managed'" {
          description
           "Applicable only for provider-managed or co-managed device.";
        }
       leaf device-reference {
        type leafref {
         path "/l3vpn-svc/sites/site/devices/"+
            "device/device-id";
        }
        description
         "Identifier of CE to use.";
       }
      }
      mandatory true;
      description
       "Choice of how to describe the site's location.";
     }



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 152]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


     uses access-diversity;
     uses site-attachment-bearer;
     uses site-attachment-ip-connection;
     uses site-security;
     uses site-network-access-service;
     uses site-routing;
     uses site-attachment-availability;
     uses access-vpn-policy;

     description
      "Grouping for site network access top-level configuration.";
    }

    /* Main blocks */

    container l3vpn-svc {
     container vpn-services {
      list vpn-service {
       key vpn-id;

       uses vpn-svc-cfg;

       description
        "List of VPN services.";
      }
      description
       "Top-level container for the VPN services.";
     }

     container sites {
      list site {
       key site-id;

       leaf site-id {
        type svc-id;
        description
         "Identifier of the site.";
       }

       uses site-top-level-cfg;
       uses operational-requirements-ops;










Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 153]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


       container site-network-accesses {
        list site-network-access {
         key site-network-access-id;

         leaf site-network-access-id {
          type svc-id;
          description
           "Identifier for the access.";
         }
         uses site-network-access-top-level-cfg;

         description
          "List of accesses for a site.";
        }
        description
         "List of accesses for a site.";
       }

       description
        "List of sites.";
      }
      description
       "Container for sites.";
     }

     description
      "Main container for L3VPN service configuration.";
    }

   }
   <CODE ENDS>

10.  Security Considerations

   The YANG module defined in this document MAY be accessed via the
   RESTCONF protocol [RFC8040] or the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241].  The
   lowest RESTCONF or NETCONF layer requires that the transport-layer
   protocol provide both data integrity and confidentiality; see
   Section 2 in [RFC8040] and Section 2 in [RFC6241].  The client MUST
   carefully examine the certificate presented by the server to
   determine if it meets the client's expectations, and the server MUST
   authenticate client access to any protected resource.  The client
   identity derived from the authentication mechanism used is subject to
   the NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536].  Other protocols
   that are used to access this YANG module are also required to support
   similar security mechanisms.





Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 154]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


   The data nodes defined in the "ietf-l3vpn-svc" YANG module MUST be
   carefully created, read, updated, or deleted as appropriate.  The
   entries in the lists below include customer-proprietary or
   confidential information; therefore, access to confidential
   information MUST be limited to authorized clients, and other clients
   MUST NOT be permitted to access the information.

   o  /l3vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service

   o  /l3vpn-svc/sites/site

   The data model proposes some security parameters than can be extended
   via augmentation as part of the customer service request; those
   parameters are described in Section 6.9.

11.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc
      Registrant Contact: The IESG
      XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document adds a new YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names"
   registry [RFC6020]:

      Name: ietf-l3vpn-svc
      Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc
      Prefix: l3vpn-svc
      Reference: RFC 8049

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

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

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



Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 155]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


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

   [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4577>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

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

   [RFC6536]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.

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

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











Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 156]


RFC 8049       YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery  February 2017


12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4110]  Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer 3
              Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
              RFC 4110, DOI 10.17487/RFC4110, July 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4110>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Qin Wu, Maxim Klyus, Luis Miguel Contreras, Gregory Mirsky,
   Zitao Wang, Jing Zhao, Kireeti Kompella, Eric Rosen, Aijun Wang,
   Michael Scharf, Xufeng Liu, David Ball, Lucy Yong, Jean-Philippe
   Landry, and Andrew Leu for their contributions to this document.

Contributors

   The authors would like to thank Rob Shakir for his major
   contributions to the initial modeling and use cases.

Authors' Addresses

   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange Business Services

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com


   Luis Tomotaki
   Verizon

   Email: luis.tomotaki@verizon.com


   Kenichi Ogaki
   KDDI Corporation

   Email: ke-oogaki@kddi.com









Litkowski, et al.            Standards Track                  [Page 157]