A Framework for Management and Control of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Interface Parameters
RFC 8432
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (October 2018) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jonas Ahlberg , Min Ye , Xi Li , Luis M. Contreras , Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-19 | ||
| Replaces | draft-mwdt-ccamp-fmwk | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-05)
Ready with Issues
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-05)
Has Nits
OPSDIR Last Call review
(of
-05)
Has Issues
RTGDIR Last Call review
(of
-04)
Has Issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Daniele Ceccarelli | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-12-11 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8432 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 8432
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Ahlberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8432 Ericsson AB
Category: Informational M. Ye, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies
X. Li
NEC Laboratories Europe
LM. Contreras
Telefonica I+D
CJ. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
October 2018
A Framework for Management and Control of
Microwave and Millimeter Wave Interface Parameters
Abstract
The unification of control and management of microwave radio link
interfaces is a precondition for seamless multi-layer networking and
automated network provisioning and operation.
This document describes the required characteristics and use cases
for control and management of radio link interface parameters using a
YANG data model.
The purpose is to create a framework to identify the necessary
information elements and define a YANG data model for control and
management of the radio link interfaces in a microwave node. Some
parts of the resulting model may be generic and could also be used by
other technologies, e.g., Ethernet technology.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see 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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8432.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
2. Terminology and Definitions .....................................5
3. Approaches to Manage and Control Radio Link Interfaces ..........7
3.1. Network Management Solutions ...............................7
3.2. Software-Defined Networking ................................7
4. Use Cases .......................................................8
4.1. Configuration Management ...................................9
4.2. Inventory .................................................10
4.3. Status and Statistics .....................................10
4.4. Performance Management ....................................10
4.5. Fault Management ..........................................11
4.6. Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis ...................11
5. Requirements ...................................................11
6. Gap Analysis on Models .........................................12
6.1. Microwave Radio Link Functionality ........................13
6.2. Generic Functionality .....................................14
6.3. Summary ...................................................15
7. Security Considerations ........................................16
8. IANA Considerations ............................................16
9. References .....................................................16
9.1. Normative References ......................................16
9.2. Informative References ....................................17
Contributors ......................................................19
Authors' Addresses ................................................20
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
1. Introduction
Microwave radio is a technology that uses high-frequency radio waves
to provide high-speed wireless connections that can send and receive
voice, video, and data information. It is a general term used for
systems covering a very large range of traffic capacities, channel
separations, modulation formats, and applications over a wide range
of frequency bands from 1.4 GHz up to and above 100 GHz.
The main application for microwave is backhaul for mobile broadband.
Those networks will continue to be modernized using a combination of
microwave and fiber technologies. The choice of technology depends
on fiber presence and cost of ownership, not capacity limitations in
microwave.
Today, microwave is already able to fully support the capacity needs
of a backhaul in a radio access network and will evolve to support
multiple gigabits in traditional frequency bands and more than 10
gigabits in higher-frequency bands with more bandwidth. Layer 2 (L2)
Ethernet features are normally an integrated part of microwave nodes,
and more advanced L2 and Layer 3 (L3) features will be introduced
over time to support the evolution of the transport services that
will be provided by a backhaul/transport network. Note that wireless
access technologies such as 3/4/5G and Wi-Fi are not within the scope
of this document.
Open and standardized interfaces are a prerequisite for efficient
management of equipment from multiple vendors, integrated in a single
system/controller. This framework addresses management and control
of the radio link interface(s) and their relationship to other
interfaces (typically, Ethernet interfaces) in a microwave node. A
radio link provides the transport over the air, using one or several
carriers in aggregated or protected configurations. Managing and
controlling a transport service over a microwave node involves both
radio link and packet transport functionality.
Today, there are already numerous IETF data models, RFCs, and
Internet-Drafts with technology-specific extensions that cover a
large part of the L2 and L3 domains. Examples include IP Management
[RFC8344], Routing Management [RFC8349], and Provider Bridge
[IEEE802.1Qcp]. These are based on the IETF YANG data model for
Interface Management [RFC8343], which is an evolution of the SNMP
IF-MIB [RFC2863].
Since microwave nodes will contain more and more L2 and L3 (packet)
functionality that is expected to be managed using those models,
there are advantages if radio link interfaces can be modeled and
managed using the same structure and the same approach. This is
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
especially true for use cases in which a microwave node is managed as
one common entity that includes both the radio link and the L2 and L3
functionality, e.g., basic configuration of the node and connections,
centralized troubleshooting, upgrade, and maintenance. All
interfaces in a node, irrespective of technology, would then be
accessed from the same core model, i.e., [RFC8343], and could be
extended with technology-specific parameters in models augmenting
that core model. The relationship/connectivity between interfaces
could be given by the physical equipment configuration. For example,
the slot where the Radio Link Terminal (modem) is plugged in could be
associated with a specific Ethernet port due to the wiring in the
backplane of the system, or it could be flexible and therefore
configured via a management system or controller.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Interface [RFC8343] |
| +---------------+ |
| | Ethernet Port | |
| +---------------+ |
| \ |
| +---------------------+ |
| | Radio Link Terminal | |
| +---------------------+ |
| / \ |
| +---------------------+ +---------------------+ |
| | Carrier Termination | | Carrier Termination | |
| +---------------------+ +---------------------+ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Relationship between Interfaces in a Node
There will always be certain implementations that differ among
products, so it is practically impossible to achieve industry
consensus on every design detail. It is therefore important to focus
on the parameters that are required to support the use cases
applicable for centralized, unified, multi-vendor management and to
allow other parameters to either be optional or be covered by
extensions to the standardized model. Furthermore, a standard that
allows for a certain degree of freedom encourages innovation and
competition, which benefits the entire industry. Thus, it is
important that a radio link management model covers all relevant
functions but also leaves room for product- and feature-specific
extensions.
Models are available for microwave radio link functionality:
"Microwave Information Model" by the ONF [ONF-MW] and "Microwave
Radio Link YANG Data Models" submitted to and discussed by the CCAMP
Working Group [CCAMP-MW]. The purpose of this document is to reach
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
consensus within the industry around one common approach with respect
to the use cases and requirements to be supported, the type and
structure of the model, and the resulting attributes to be included.
This document describes the use cases, requirements, and expected
characteristics of the model. It also includes an analysis of how
the models in the two ongoing initiatives fulfill these expectations
and recommendations for what can be reused and what gaps need to be
filled by a new and evolved model ("A YANG Data Model for Microwave
Radio Link" by the IETF [IETF-MW]).
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology and Definitions
Microwave radio: a term commonly used for technologies that operate
in both microwave and millimeter wavelengths and in frequency
bands from 1.4 GHz up to and beyond 100 GHz. In traditional
bands, it typically supports capacities of 1-3 Gbps; in the 70/80
GHz band, it supports up to 10 Gbps. Using multi-carrier systems
operating in frequency bands with wider channels, the technology
will be capable of providing capacities of up to 100 Gbps.
Microwave radio technology: widely used for point-to-point
telecommunications because its small wavelength allows
conveniently sized antennas to direct radio waves in narrow beams
and its comparatively higher frequencies allow broad bandwidth and
high data-transmission rates. It is used for a broad range of
fixed and mobile services, including high-speed, point-to-point
wireless local area networks (WLANs) and broadband access.
The ETSI EN 302 217 series defines the characteristics and
requirements of microwave equipment and antennas. In particular,
ETSI EN 302 217-2 [EN302217-2] specifies the essential parameters
for the systems operating from 1.4 GHz to 86 GHz.
Carrier Termination and Radio Link Terminal: two concepts defined to
support modeling of microwave radio link features and parameters
in a structured yet simple manner.
* Carrier Termination: an interface for the capacity provided
over the air by a single carrier. It is typically defined by
its transmitting and receiving frequencies.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
* Radio Link Terminal: an interface providing Ethernet capacity
and/or Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) capacity to the
associated Ethernet and/or TDM interfaces in a node. It is
used for setting up a transport service over a microwave radio
link.
Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of the Carrier
Termination and Radio Link Terminal concepts.
/--------- Radio Link ---------\
Near End Far End
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Radio Link | | Radio Link |
| Terminal | | Terminal |
| | | |
| (Protected or Bonded) |
| | | |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| | | | Carrier A | | | |
| | Carrier | |<--------->| | Carrier | |
| |Termination| | | |Termination| |
ETH----| | | | | | | |----ETH
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
TDM----| | | |----TDM
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| | | | Carrier B | | | |
| | Carrier | |<--------->| | Carrier | |
| |Termination| | | |Termination| |
| | | | | | | |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
\--- Microwave Node ---/ \--- Microwave Node ---/
Figure 2: Radio Link Terminal and Carrier Termination
Software-Defined Networking (SDN): an architecture that decouples
the network control and forwarding functions, enabling the network
control to become directly programmable and the underlying
infrastructure to be abstracted for applications and network
services. SDN can be used for automation of traditional network
management functionality using an SDN approach of standardized
programmable interfaces for control and management [RFC7426].
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
3. Approaches to Manage and Control Radio Link Interfaces
This framework addresses the definition of an open and standardized
interface for radio link functionality in a microwave node. The
application of such an interface used for management and control of
nodes and networks typically varies from one operator to another in
terms of the systems used and how they interact. Possible approaches
include using a Network Management System (NMS), Software-Defined
Networking (SDN), or some combination of the two. As there are still
many networks where the NMS is implemented as one component/interface
and the SDN controller is scoped to control-plane functionality as a
separate component/interface, this document does not preclude either
model. The aim of this document is to provide a framework for
development of a common YANG data model for both management and
control of microwave interfaces.
3.1. Network Management Solutions
The classic network management solutions, with vendor-specific domain
management combined with cross-domain functionality for service
management and analytics, still dominate the market. These solutions
are expected to evolve and benefit from an increased focus on
standardization by simplifying multi-vendor management and removing
the need for vendor- or domain-specific management.
3.2. Software-Defined Networking
One of the main drivers for applying SDN from an operator perspective
is simplification and automation of network provisioning as well as
end-to-end network service management. The vision is to have a
global view of the network conditions spanning different vendors'
equipment and multiple technologies.
If nodes from different vendors are managed by the same SDN
controller via a node management interface without the extra effort
of introducing intermediate systems, all nodes must align their node
management interfaces. Hence, an open and standardized node
management interface is required in a multi-vendor environment. Such
a standardized interface enables unified management and configuration
of nodes from different vendors by a common set of applications.
In addition to SDN applications for configuring, managing, and
controlling the nodes and their associated transport interfaces
(including the L2 Ethernet, L3 IP, and radio interfaces), there are
also a large variety of more advanced SDN applications that can be
utilized and/or developed.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
A potentially flexible approach for operators is to use SDN in a
logically controlled way, managing the radio links by selecting a
predefined operation mode. The operation mode is a set of logical
metrics or parameters describing a complete radio link configuration,
such as capacity, availability, priority, and power consumption.
An example of an operation mode table is shown in Figure 3. Based on
its operation policy (e.g., power consumption or traffic priority),
the SDN controller selects one operation mode and translates that
into the required configuration of the individual parameters for the
Radio Link Terminals and the associated Carrier Terminations.
+----+---------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------+
| ID |Description | Capacity |Availability | Priority |Power |
+----+---------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------+
| 1 |High capacity | 400 Mbps | 99.9% | Low |High |
+----+---------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------+
| 2 |High avail- | 100 Mbps | 99.999% | High |Low |
| | ability | | | | |
+----+---------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------+
Figure 3: Example of an Operation Mode Table
An operation mode bundles together the values of a set of different
parameters. How each operation mode maps a certain set of attributes
is out of the scope of this document.
4. Use Cases
The use cases described should be the basis for identifying and
defining the parameters to be supported by a YANG data model for
management of radio links that will be applicable to centralized,
unified, multi-vendor management. The use cases involve
configuration management, inventory, status and statistics,
performance management, fault management, and troubleshooting and
root cause analysis.
Other product-specific use cases, e.g., addressing installation or
on-site troubleshooting and fault resolution, are outside the scope
of this framework. If required, these use cases are expected to be
supported by product-specific extensions to the standardized model.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
4.1. Configuration Management
Configuration management involves configuring a Radio Link Terminal,
the constituent Carrier Terminations, and, when applicable, the
relationship to IP/Ethernet and TDM interfaces.
o Understand the capabilities and limitations
Exchange of information between a manager and a device about the
capabilities supported and specific limitations in the parameter
values and enumerations that can be used.
Examples of information that could be exchanged include the
maximum modulation supported and support (or lack of support) for
the Cross Polarization Interference Cancellation (XPIC) feature.
o Initial Configuration
Initial configuration of a Radio Link Terminal, enough to
establish Layer 1 (L1) connectivity to an associated Radio Link
Terminal on a device at the far end over the hop. It may also
include configuration of the relationship between a Radio Link
Terminal and an associated traffic interface, e.g., an Ethernet
interface, unless that is given by the equipment configuration.
Frequency, modulation, coding, and output power are examples of
parameters typically configured for a Carrier Termination and type
of aggregation/bonding or protection configurations expected for a
Radio Link Terminal.
o Radio link reconfiguration and optimization
Reconfiguration, update, or optimization of an existing Radio Link
Terminal. Output power and modulation for a Carrier Termination
as well as protection schemas and activation/deactivation of
carriers in a Radio Link Terminal are examples on parameters that
can be reconfigured and used for optimization of the performance
of a network.
o Radio link logical configuration
Radio Link Terminals configured to include a group of carriers are
widely used in microwave technology. There are several kinds of
groups: aggregation/bonding, 1+1 protection/redundancy, etc. To
avoid configuration on each Carrier Termination directly, a
logical control provides flexible management by mapping a logical
configuration to a set of physical attributes. This could also be
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
applied in a hierarchical SDN environment where some domain
controllers are located between the SDN controller and the Radio
Link Terminal.
4.2. Inventory
o Retrieve logical inventory and configuration from device
Request from manager and response by device with information about
radio interfaces, e.g., their constitution and configuration.
o Retrieve physical/equipment inventory from device
Request from manager about physical and/or equipment inventory
associated with the Radio Link Terminals and Carrier Terminations.
4.3. Status and Statistics
o Actual status and performance of a radio link interface
Manager requests and device responds with information about actual
status and statistics of configured radio link interfaces and
their constituent parts. It's important to report the effective
bandwidth of a radio link since it can be configured to
dynamically adjust the modulation based on the current signal
conditions.
4.4. Performance Management
o Configuration of historical performance measurements
Configuration of historical performance measurements for a radio
link interface and/or its constituent parts. See Section 4.1.
o Collection of historical performance data
Collection of historical performance data in bulk by the manager
is a general use case for a device and not specific to a radio
link interface.
Collection of an individual counter for a specific interval is in
some cases required as a complement to the retrieval in bulk as
described above.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
4.5. Fault Management
o Configuration of alarm reporting
Configuration of alarm reporting associated specifically with
radio interfaces, e.g., configuration of alarm severity, is a
subset of the configuration use case to be supported. See
Section 4.1.
o Alarm management
Alarm synchronization, visualization, handling, notifications, and
events are generic use cases for a device and should be supported
on a radio link interface. There are, however, radio-specific
alarms that are important to report. Signal degradation of the
radio link is one example.
4.6. Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis
Provide information and suggest actions required by a manager/
operator to investigate and understand the underlying issue to a
problem in the performance and/or functionality of a Radio Link
Terminal and the associated Carrier Terminations.
5. Requirements
For managing a microwave node including both the radio link and the
packet transport functionality, a unified data model is desired to
unify the modeling of the radio link interfaces and the L2/L3
interfaces using the same structure and the same modeling approach.
If some part of the model is generic for other technology usage, it
should be clearly stated.
The purpose of the YANG data model is for management and control of
the radio link interface(s) and the relationship/connectivity to
other interfaces, typically to Ethernet interfaces, in a microwave
node.
The capability of configuring and managing microwave nodes includes
the following requirements for the model:
1. It MUST be possible to configure, manage, and control a Radio
Link Terminal and the constituent Carrier Terminations.
A. Configuration of frequency, channel bandwidth, modulation,
coding, and transmitter output power MUST be supported for a
Carrier Termination.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
B. A Radio Link Terminal MUST configure the associated Carrier
Terminations and the type of aggregation/bonding or
protection configurations expected for the Radio Link
Terminal.
C. The capability (e.g., the maximum modulation supported) and
the actual status/statistics (e.g., administrative status of
the carriers) SHOULD also be supported by the data model.
D. The definition of the features and parameters SHOULD be based
on established microwave equipment and radio standards, such
as ETSI EN 302 217 [EN302217-2], which specifies the
essential parameters for microwave systems operating from 1.4
GHz to 86 GHz.
2. It MUST be possible to map different traffic types (e.g., TDM and
Ethernet) to the transport capacity provided by a specific Radio
Link Terminal.
3. It MUST be possible to configure and collect historical
measurements (for the use case described in Section 4.4) to be
performed on a radio link interface (e.g., minimum, maximum,
average transmit power, and received level in dBm).
4. It MUST be possible to configure and retrieve alarms reporting
associated with the radio interfaces (e.g., configuration fault,
signal lost, modem fault, and radio fault).
6. Gap Analysis on Models
The purpose of the gap analysis is to identify and recommend what
models to use in a microwave device to support the use cases and
requirements specified in the previous sections. This document also
makes a recommendation for how the gaps not supported should be
filled, including the need for development of new models and
evolution of existing models and documents.
Models are available for microwave radio link functionality:
"Microwave Information Model" by the ONF [ONF-MW] and "Microwave
Radio Link YANG Data Models" submitted to and discussed by the CCAMP
Working Group [CCAMP-MW]. The analysis in this document takes these
initiatives into consideration and makes a recommendation on how to
use and complement them in order to fill the gaps identified.
For generic functionality, not functionality specific to radio link,
the ambition is to refer to existing or emerging models that could be
applicable for all functional areas in a microwave node.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
6.1. Microwave Radio Link Functionality
[ONF-CIM] defines a CoreModel of the ONF Common Information Model.
An information model describes the things in a domain in terms of
objects, their properties (represented as attributes), and their
relationships. The ONF information model is expressed in Unified
Modeling Language (UML). The ONF CoreModel is independent of
specific data-plane technology. The technology-specific content,
acquired in a runtime solution via "filled in" cases of
specification, augments the CoreModel by providing a forwarding
technology-specific representation.
IETF data models define implementations and protocol-specific
details. YANG is a data modeling language used to model the
configuration and state data. [RFC8343] defines a generic YANG data
model for interface management that doesn't include technology-
specific information. To describe the technology-specific
information, several YANG data models have been proposed in the IETF
to augment [RFC8343], e.g., the data model defined in [RFC8344]. The
YANG data model is a popular approach for modeling interfaces for
many packet transport technologies and is thereby well positioned to
become an industry standard. In light of this trend, [CCAMP-MW]
provides a YANG data model proposal for radio interfaces that is well
aligned with the structure of other technology-specific YANG data
models augmenting [RFC8343].
[RFC3444] explains the difference between Information Models (IMs)
and Data Models (DMs). An IM models managed objects at a conceptual
level for designers and operators, while a DM is defined at a lower
level and includes many details for implementers. In addition, the
protocol-specific details are usually included in a DM. Since
conceptual models can be implemented in different ways, multiple DMs
can be derived from a single IM.
It is recommended to use the structure of the model described in
[CCAMP-MW] as the starting point, since it is a data model providing
the wanted alignment with [RFC8343]. To cover the identified gaps,
it is recommended to define new leafs/parameters and include those in
the new model [IETF-MW] while taking reference from [ONF-CIM]. It is
also recommended to add the required data nodes to describe the
interface layering for the capacity provided by a Radio Link Terminal
and the associated Ethernet and TDM interfaces in a microwave node.
The principles and data nodes for interface layering described in
[RFC8343] should be used as a basis.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
6.2. Generic Functionality
For generic functionality, not functionality specific to radio links,
the recommendation is to refer to existing RFCs or emerging Internet-
Drafts according to Figure 4. "[IETF-MW]" is used in Figure 4 for
the cases where the functionality is recommended to be included in
the new model [IETF-MW] as described in Section 6.1.
+------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Generic Functionality | Recommendation |
| | |
+------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
|1. Fault Management | |
| | |
| Alarm Configuration | [IETF-MW] |
| | |
| Alarm Notifications/ | [YANG-ALARM] |
| Synchronization | |
+------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
|2. Performance Management | |
| | |
| Performance Configuration/ | [IETF-MW] |
| Activation | |
| | |
| Performance Collection | [IETF-MW] and XML files |
+------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
|3. Physical/Equipment Inventory | [RFC8348] |
+------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Figure 4: Recommendation for How to Support Generic Functionality
Microwave-specific alarm configurations are recommended to be
included in the new model [IETF-MW] and could be based on what is
supported in the models described in [ONF-MW] and [CCAMP-MW]. Alarm
notifications and synchronization are general and are recommended to
be supported by a generic model, such as [YANG-ALARM].
Activation of interval counters and thresholds could be a generic
function, but it is recommended to be supported by the new model
[IETF-MW]. It can be based on the models described in [ONF-MW] and
[CCAMP-MW].
Collection of interval/historical counters is a generic function that
needs to be supported in a node. File-based collection via the SSH
File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) and collection via NETCONF/YANG
interfaces are two possible options; the recommendation is to include
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
support for the latter in the new model [IETF-MW]. The models
described in [ONF-MW] and [CCAMP-MW] can also be used as a basis in
this area.
Physical and/or equipment inventory associated with the Radio Link
Terminals and Carrier Terminations is recommended to be covered by a
generic model for the complete node, e.g., the model defined in
[RFC8348]. It is thereby outside the scope of the new model
[IETF-MW].
6.3. Summary
The conclusions and recommendations from the analysis can be
summarized as follows:
1. A new YANG data model for radio link [IETF-MW] should be defined
with enough scope to support the use cases and requirements in
Sections 4 and 5 of this document.
2. Use the structure of the model described in [CCAMP-MW] as the
starting point. It augments [RFC8343] and is thereby as required
aligned with the structure of the models for management of the L2
and L3 domains.
3. Use established microwave equipment and radio standards (such as
[EN302217-2], the model described in [CCAMP-MW], and the model
described in [ONF-MW]) as the basis for the definition of the
detailed leafs/ parameters to support the specified use cases and
requirements, proposing new ones to cover identified gaps.
4. Add the required data nodes to describe the interface layering
for the capacity provided by a Radio Link Terminal and the
associated Ethernet and TDM interfaces, using the principles and
data nodes for interface layering described in [RFC8343] as a
basis.
5. Include support for configuration of microwave-specific alarms in
the new YANG data model [IETF-MW] and rely on a generic model
such as [YANG-ALARM] for notifications and alarm synchronization.
6. Use a generic model such as [RFC8348] for physical/equipment
inventory.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
7. Security Considerations
The configuration information may be considered sensitive or
vulnerable in network environments. Unauthorized access to
configuration data nodes can have a negative effect on network
operations, e.g., interrupting the ability to forward traffic or
increasing the interference level of the network. The status and
inventory reveal some network information that could be very helpful
to an attacker. A malicious attack to that information may result in
a loss of customer data. Security issues concerning the access
control to management interfaces can be generally addressed by
authentication techniques providing origin verification, integrity,
and confidentiality. In addition, management interfaces can be
physically or logically isolated by configuring them to be only
accessible out-of-band, through a system that is physically or
logically separated from the rest of the network infrastructure. In
cases where management interfaces are accessible in-band at the
client device or within the microwave transport network domain,
filtering or firewalling techniques can be used to restrict
unauthorized in-band traffic. Additionally, authentication
techniques may be used in all cases.
This framework describes the requirements and characteristics of a
YANG data model for control and management of the radio link
interfaces in a microwave node. It is supposed to be accessed via a
management protocol with a secure transport layer, such as NETCONF
[RFC6241].
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
9. References
9.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
9.2. Informative References
[CCAMP-MW] Ahlberg, J., Carlson, J-O., Lund, H-A., Olausson, T.,
Ye, M., and M. Vaupotic, "Microwave Radio Link YANG Data
Models", Work in Progress, draft-ahlberg-ccamp-microwave-
radio-link-01, May 2016.
[EN302217-2]
ETSI, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and
requirements for point-to-point equipment and antennas;
Part 2: Digital systems operating in frequency bands from
1 GHz to 86 GHz; Harmonised Standard covering the
essential requirements of article 3.2 of Directive
2014/53/EU", ETSI EN 302 217-2, V3.1.1, May 2017.
[IEEE802.1Qcp]
IEEE, "Bridges and Bridged Networks Ammendment: YANG Data
Model", Work in Progress, Draft 2.2, March 2018,
<https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/802-1qcp/>.
[IETF-MW] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and
M. Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link",
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10, October
2018.
[ONF-CIM] ONF, "Core Information Model (CoreModel)", ONF
TR-512, version 1.2, September 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/
TR-512_CIM_(CoreModel)_1.2.zip>.
[ONF-MW] ONF, "Microwave Information Model", ONF TR-532, version
1.0, December 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/
TR-532-Microwave-Information-Model-V1.pdf>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
[RFC8348] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Dong, J., and D. Romascanu, "A
YANG Data Model for Hardware Management", RFC 8348,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8348, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8348>.
[RFC8349] Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for
Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8349>.
[YANG-ALARM]
Vallin, S. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Alarm Module", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-04, October 2018.
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
Contributors
Marko Vaupotic
Aviat Networks
Motnica 9
Trzin-Ljubljana 1236
Slovenia
Email: Marko.Vaupotic@aviatnet.com
Jeff Tantsura
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Koji Kawada
NEC Corporation
1753, Shimonumabe Nakahara-ku
Kawasaki, Kanagawa 211-8666
Japan
Email: k-kawada@ah.jp.nec.com
Ippei Akiyoshi
NEC
1753, Shimonumabe Nakahara-ku
Kawasaki, Kanagawa 211-8666
Japan
Email: i-akiyoshi@ah.jp.nec.com
Daniela Spreafico
Nokia - IT
Via Energy Park, 14
Vimercate (MI) 20871
Italy
Email: daniela.spreafico@nokia.com
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 8432 Microwave Framework October 2018
Authors' Addresses
Jonas Ahlberg (editor)
Ericsson AB
Lindholmspiren 11
Goteborg 417 56
Sweden
Email: jonas.ahlberg@ericsson.com
Min Ye (editor)
Huawei Technologies
No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue
Chengdu 611731
China
Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com
Xi Li
NEC Laboratories Europe
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Email: Xi.Li@neclab.eu
Luis Contreras
Telefonica I+D
Ronda de la Comunicacion, S/N
Madrid 28050
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Madrid, Leganes 28911
Spain
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Ahlberg, et al. Informational [Page 20]