|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6244
An Architecture for Network Management Using NETCONF and YANG
Last modified on Thursday, June 30th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6244
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6244
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6244
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Shafer
Request for Comments: 6244 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational June 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
An Architecture for Network Management Using NETCONF and YANG
 Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) gives access to native
capabilities of the devices within a network, defining methods for
manipulating configuration databases, retrieving operational data,
and invoking specific operations. YANG provides the means to define
the content carried via NETCONF, both data and operations. Using
both technologies, standard modules can be defined to give
interoperability and commonality to devices, while still allowing
devices to express their unique capabilities.
This document describes how NETCONF and YANG help build network
management applications that meet the needs of network operators.
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 a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
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/RFC 6244.
Shafer Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Shafer Informational PAGE 2
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
Table of Contents
1. Origins of NETCONF and YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Elements of the Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. NETCONF Transport Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2. Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.3. Extensibility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. YANG Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1. YIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2. DSDL (RELAX NG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4. YANG Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. IETF Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Working with YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Building NETCONF- and YANG-Based Solutions . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Addressing Operator Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Roles in Building Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.1. Modeler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.2. Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.3. Device Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.4. Application Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Modeling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. Default Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2. Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Data Distinctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.3. Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4. Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Shafer Informational PAGE 3
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
1. Origins of NETCONF and YANG
Networks are increasing in complexity and capacity, as well as the
density of the services deployed upon them. Uptime, reliability, and
predictable latency requirements drive the need for automation. The
problems with network management are not simple. They are complex
and intricate. But these problems must be solved for networks to
meet the stability needs of existing services while incorporating new
services in a world where the growth of networks is exhausting the
supply of qualified networking engineers.
In June of 2002, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a
workshop on Network Management [RFC 3535]. The members of this
workshop made a number of observations and recommendations for the
IETF's consideration concerning the issues operators were facing in
their network management-related work as well as issues they were
having with the direction of the IETF activities in this area.
The output of this workshop was focused on current problems. The
observations were reasonable and straightforward, including the need
for transactions, rollback, low implementation costs, and the ability
to save and restore the device's configuration data. Many of the
observations give insight into the problems operators were having
with existing network management solutions, such as the lack of full
coverage of device capabilities and the ability to distinguish
between configuration data and other types of data.
Based on these directions, the NETCONF working group was formed and
the Network Configuration (NETCONF) protocol was created. This
protocol defines a simple mechanism where network management
applications, acting as clients, can invoke operations on the
devices, which act as servers. The NETCONF specification [RFC 4741]
defines a small set of operations, but goes out of its way to avoid
making any requirements on the data carried in those operations,
preferring to allow the protocol to carry any data. This "data model
agnostic" approach allows data models to be defined independently.
But lacking a means of defining data models, the NETCONF protocol was
not usable for standards-based work. Existing data modeling
languages such as the XML Schema Definition (XSD) [W3CXSD] and the
Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) [ISODSDL] were
considered, but were rejected because of the problem that domains
have little natural overlap. Defining a data model or protocol that
is encoded in XML is a distinct problem from defining an XML
document. The use of NETCONF operations places requirements on the
data content that are not shared with the static document problem
domain addressed by schema languages like XSD or RELAX NG.
Shafer Informational PAGE 4
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
In 2007 and 2008, the issue of a data modeling language for NETCONF
was discussed in the OPS and APP areas of IETF 70 and 71, and a
design team was tasked with creating a requirements document [RCDML].
After discussing the available options at the CANMOD BoF at IETF 71,
the community wrote a charter for the NETMOD working group. An
excellent description of this time period is available at
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51644.html>.
In 2008 and 2009, the NETMOD working group produced a specification
for YANG [RFC 6020] as a means for defining data models for NETCONF,
allowing both standard and proprietary data models to be published in
a form that is easily digestible by human readers and satisfies many
of the issues raised in the IAB NM workshop. This brings NETCONF to
a point where is can be used to develop standard data models within
the IETF.
YANG allows a modeler to create a data model, to define the
organization of the data in that model, and to define constraints on
that data. Once published, the YANG module acts as a contract
between the client and server, with both parties understanding how
their peer will expect them to behave. A client knows how to create
valid data for the server, and knows what data will be sent from the
server. A server knows the rules that govern the data and how it
should behave.
YANG also incorporates a level of extensibility and flexibility not
present in other model languages. New modules can augment the data
hierarchies defined in other modules, seamlessly adding data at
appropriate places in the existing data organization. YANG also
allows new statements to be defined, allowing the language itself to
be expanded in a consistent way.
This document presents an architecture for YANG, describing how YANG-
related technologies work and how solutions built on them can address
the network management problem domain.
2. Elements of the Architecture
2.1. NETCONF
NETCONF defines an XML-based remote procedure call (RPC) mechanism
that leverages the simplicity and availability of high-quality XML
parsers. XML gives a rich, flexible, hierarchical, standard
representation of data that matches the needs of networking devices.
NETCONF carries configuration data and operations as requests and
replies using RPCs encoded in XML over a connection-oriented
transport.
Shafer Informational PAGE 5
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
XML's hierarchical data representation allows complex networking data
to be rendered in a natural way. For example, the following
configuration places interfaces in OSPF areas. The <ospf> element
contains a list of <area> elements, each of which contain a list of
<interface> elements. The <name> element identifies the specific
area or interface. Additional configuration for each area or
interface appears directly inside the appropriate element.
<ospf xmlns="http://example.org/netconf/ospf">
<area>
<name>0.0.0.0</name>
<interface>
<name>ge-0/0/0.0</name>
<!-- The priority for this interface -->
<priority>30</priority>
<metric>100</metric>
<dead-interval>120</dead-interval>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>ge-0/0/1.0</name>
<metric>140</metric>
</interface>
</area>
<area>
<name>10.1.2.0</name>
<interface>
<name>ge-0/0/2.0</name>
<metric>100</metric>
</interface>
<interface>
<name>ge-0/0/3.0</name>
<metric>140</metric>
<dead-interval>120</dead-interval>
</interface>
</area>
</ospf>
NETCONF includes mechanisms for controlling configuration datastores.
Each datastore is a specific collection of configuration data that
can be used as source or target of the configuration-related
operations. The device can indicate whether it has a distinct
"startup" configuration datastore, whether the current or "running"
Shafer Informational PAGE 6
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
datastore is directly writable, or whether there is a "candidate"
configuration datastore where configuration changes can be made that
will not affect the device until a "commit-configuration" operation
is invoked.
NETCONF defines operations that are invoked as RPCs from the client
(the application) to the server (running on the device). The
following table lists some of these operations:
+---------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | Description |
+---------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| commit | Commit the "candidate" configuration to "running" |
| copy-config | Copy one configuration datastore to another |
| delete-config | Delete a configuration datastore |
| edit-config | Change the contents of a configuration datastore |
| get-config | Retrieve all or part of a configuration datastore |
| lock | Prevent changes to a datastore from another party |
| unlock | Release a lock on a datastore |
+---------------+---------------------------------------------------+
NETCONF's "capability" mechanism allows the device to announce the
set of capabilities that the device supports, including protocol
operations, datastores, data models, and other abilities. These are
announced during session establishment as part of the <hello>
message. A client can inspect the hello message to determine what
the device is capable of and how to interact with the device to
perform the desired tasks.
NETCONF also defines a means of sending asynchronous notifications
from the server to the client, described in [RFC 5277].
In addition, NETCONF can fetch state data, receive notifications, and
invoke additional RPC methods defined as part of a capability.
Complete information about NETCONF can be found in [RFC 4741].
2.1.1. NETCONF Transport Mappings
NETCONF can run over any transport protocol that meets the
requirements defined in RFC 4741, including
o connection-oriented operation
o authentication
o integrity
o confidentiality
Shafer Informational PAGE 7
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
[RFC 4742] defines a mapping for the Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC 4251]
protocol, which is the mandatory transport protocol. Others include
SOAP [RFC 4743], the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)
[RFC 4744], and Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC 5539].
2.2. YANG
YANG is a data modeling language for NETCONF. It allows the
description of hierarchies of data nodes ("nodes") and the
constraints that exist among them. YANG defines data models and how
to manipulate those models via NETCONF protocol operations.
Each YANG module defines a data model, uniquely identified by a
namespace URI. These data models are extensible in a manner that
allows tight integration of standard data models and proprietary data
models. Models are built from organizational containers, lists of
data nodes, and data-node-forming leafs of the data tree.
Shafer Informational PAGE 8
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
module example-ospf {
namespace "http://example.org/netconf/ospf";
prefix ospf;
import network-types { // Access another module's def'ns
prefix nett;
}
container ospf { // Declare the top-level tag
list area { // Declare a list of "area" nodes
key name; // The key "name" identifies list members
leaf name {
type nett:area-id;
}
list interface {
key name;
leaf name {
type nett:interface-name;
}
leaf priority {
description "Designated router priority";
type uint8; // The type is a constraint on
// valid values for "priority".
}
leaf metric {
type uint16 {
range 1..65535;
}
}
leaf dead-interval {
units seconds;
type uint16 {
range 1..65535;
}
}
}
}
}
}
A YANG module defines a data model in terms of the data, its
hierarchical organization, and the constraints on that data. YANG
defines how this data is represented in XML and how that data is used
in NETCONF operations.
Shafer Informational PAGE 9
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
The following table briefly describes some common YANG statements:
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Statement | Description |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| augment | Extends existing data hierarchies |
| choice | Defines mutually exclusive alternatives |
| container | Defines a layer of the data hierarchy |
| extension | Allows new statements to be added to YANG |
| feature | Indicates parts of the model that are optional |
| grouping | Groups data definitions into reusable sets |
| key | Defines the key leafs for lists |
| leaf | Defines a leaf node in the data hierarchy |
| leaf-list | A leaf node that can appear multiple times |
| list | A hierarchy that can appear multiple times |
| notification | Defines notification |
| rpc | Defines input and output parameters for an RPC |
| | operation |
| typedef | Defines a new type |
| uses | Incorporates the contents of a "grouping" |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
2.2.1. Constraints
YANG allows the modeler to add constraints to the data model to
prevent impossible or illogical data. These constraints give clients
information about the data being sent from the device, and also allow
the client to know as much as possible about the data the device will
accept, so the client can send correct data. These constraints apply
to configuration data, but can also be used for rpc and notification
data.
The principal constraint is the "type" statement, which limits the
contents of a leaf node to that of the named type. The following
table briefly describes some other common YANG constraints:
Shafer Informational PAGE 10
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Statement | Description |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| length | Limits the length of a string |
| mandatory | Requires the node appear |
| max-elements | Limits the number of instances in a list |
| min-elements | Limits the number of instances in a list |
| must | XPath expression must be true |
| pattern | Regular expression must be satisfied |
| range | Value must appear in range |
| reference | Value must appear elsewhere in the data |
| unique | Value must be unique within the data |
| when | Node is only present when XPath expression is true |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
The "must" and "when" statements use XPath [W3CXPATH] expressions to
specify conditions that are semantically evaluated against the data
hierarchy, but neither the client nor the server are required to
implement the XPath specification. Instead they can use any means to
ensure these conditions are met.
2.2.2. Flexibility
YANG uses the "union" type and the "choice" and "feature" statements
to give modelers flexibility in defining their data models. The
"union" type allows a single leaf to accept multiple types, like an
integer or the word "unbounded":
type union {
type int32;
type enumeration {
enum "unbounded";
}
}
The "choice" statement lists a set of mutually exclusive nodes, so a
valid configuration can choose any one node (or case). The "feature"
statement allows the modeler to identify parts of the model that can
be optional, and allows the device to indicate whether it implements
these optional portions.
The "deviation" statement allows the device to indicate parts of a
YANG module that the device does not faithfully implement. While
devices are encouraged to fully abide according to the contract
presented in the YANG module, real-world situations may force the
device to break the contract. Deviations give a means of declaring
this limitation, rather than leaving it to be discovered via run-time
errors.
Shafer Informational PAGE 11
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
2.2.3. Extensibility Model
XML includes the concept of namespaces, allowing XML elements from
different sources to be combined in the same hierarchy without
risking collision. YANG modules define content for specific
namespaces, but one module may augment the definition of another
module, introducing elements from that module's namespace into the
first module's hierarchy.
Since one module can augment another module's definition, hierarchies
of definitions are allowed to grow, as definitions from multiple
sources are added to the base hierarchy. These augmentations are
qualified using the namespace of the source module, helping to avoid
issues with name conflicts as the modules change over time.
For example, if the above OSPF configuration were the standard, a
vendor module may augment this with vendor-specific extensions.
module vendorx-ospf {
namespace "http://vendorx.example.com/ospf";
prefix vendorx;
import example-ospf {
prefix ospf;
}
augment /ospf:ospf/ospf:area/ospf:interfaces {
leaf no-neighbor-down-notification {
type empty;
description "Don't inform other protocols about"
+ " neighbor down events";
}
}
}
The <no-neighbor-down-notification> element is then placed in the
vendorx namespace:
Shafer Informational PAGE 12
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
<ospf xmlns="http://example.org/netconf/ospf"
xmlns:vendorx="http://vendorx.example.com/ospf">
<area>
<name>0.0.0.0</name>
<interface>
<name>ge-0/0/0.0</name>
<priority>30</priority>
<vendorx:no-neighbor-down-notification/>
</interface>
</area>
</ospf>
Augmentations are seamlessly integrated with base modules, allowing
them to be fetched, archived, loaded, and deleted within their
natural hierarchy. If a client application asks for the
configuration for a specific OSPF area, it will receive the sub-
hierarchy for that area, complete with any augmented data.
2.3. YANG Translations
The YANG data modeling language is the central piece of a group of
related technologies. The YANG language itself, described in
[RFC 6020], defines the syntax of the language and its statements, the
meaning of those statements, and how to combine them to build the
hierarchy of nodes that describe a data model.
That document also defines the "on the wire" XML content for NETCONF
operations on data models defined in YANG modules. This includes the
basic mapping between YANG data tree nodes and XML elements, as well
as mechanisms used in <edit-config> content to manipulate that data,
such as arranging the order of nodes within a list.
YANG uses a syntax that is regular and easily described, primarily
designed for human readability. YANG's syntax is friendly to email,
diff, patch, and the constraints of RFC formatting.
2.3.1. YIN
In some environments, incorporating a YANG parser may not be an
acceptable option. For those scenarios, an XML grammar for YANG is
defined as YIN (YANG Independent Notation). YIN allows the use of
XML parsers that are readily available in both open source and
commercial versions. Conversion between YANG and YIN is direct,
loss-less, and reversible. YANG statements are converted to XML
elements, preserving the structure and content of YANG, but enabling
Shafer Informational PAGE 13
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
the use of off-the-shelf XML parsers rather than requiring the
integration of a YANG parser. YIN maintains complete semantic
equivalence with YANG.
2.3.2. DSDL (RELAX NG)
Since NETCONF content is encoded in XML, it is natural to use XML
schema languages for their validation. To facilitate this, YANG
offers a standardized mapping of YANG modules into Document Schema
Definition Languages [RFC 6110], of which RELAX NG is a major
component.
DSDL is considered to be the best choice as a standard schema
language because it addresses not only grammar and datatypes of XML
documents but also semantic constraints and rules for modifying the
information set of the document.
In addition, DSDL offers formal means for coordinating multiple
independent schemas and specifying how to apply the schemas to the
various parts of the document. This is useful since YANG content is
typically composed of multiple vocabularies.
2.4. YANG Types
YANG supports a number of builtin types, and allows additional types
to be derived from those types in an extensible manner. New types
can add additional restrictions to allowable data values.
A standard type library for use by YANG is available [RFC 6021].
These YANG modules define commonly used data types for IETF-related
standards.
2.5. IETF Guidelines
A set of additional guidelines is defined that indicate desirable
usage for authors and reviewers of Standards-Track specifications
containing YANG data model modules [RFC 6087]. These guidelines
should be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model
documents.
3. Working with YANG
3.1. Building NETCONF- and YANG-Based Solutions
In the typical YANG-based solution, the client and server are driven
by the content of YANG modules. The server includes the definitions
of the modules as meta-data that is available to the NETCONF engine.
This engine processes incoming requests, uses the meta-data to parse
Shafer Informational PAGE 14
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
and verify the request, performs the requested operation, and returns
the results to the client.
+----------------------------+
|Server (device) |
| +--------------------+ |
| | configuration | |
+----+ | | ---------------| |
|YANG|+ | | m d state data | |
|mods||+ | | e a ---------------| |
+----+|| -----> | t t notifications | |
+----+| | | a a ---------------| |
+----+ | | operations | |
| +--------------------+ |
| ^ |
| | |
| v |
+------+ | +-------------+ |
| | -------------> | | |
|Client| <rpc> | | NETCONF | |
| (app)| | | engine | |
| | <------------ | | |
+------+ <rpc-reply> +-------------+ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| +--------+ +---------+ |
| | config | |system |+ |
| | data- | |software ||+ |
| | base | |component||| |
| +--------+ +---------+|| |
| +---------+| |
| +---------+ |
+----------------------------+
To use YANG, YANG modules must be defined to model the specific
problem domain. These modules are then loaded, compiled, or coded
into the server.
The sequence of events for the typical client/server interaction may
be as follows:
o A client application ([C]) opens a NETCONF session to the server
(device) ([S])
o [C] and [S] exchange <hello> messages containing the list of
capabilities supported by each side, allowing [C] to learn the
modules supported by [S]
Shafer Informational PAGE 15
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
o [C] builds and sends an operation defined in the YANG module,
encoded in XML, within NETCONF's <rpc> element
o [S] receives and parses the <rpc> element
o [S] verifies the contents of the request against the data model
defined in the YANG module
o [S] performs the requested operation, possibly changing the
configuration datastore
o [S] builds the response, containing the response, any requested
data, and any errors
o [S] sends the response, encoded in XML, within NETCONF's
<rpc-reply> element
o [C] receives and parses the <rpc-reply> element
o [C] inspects the response and processes it as needed
Note that there is no requirement for the client or server to process
the YANG modules in this way. The server may hard code the contents
of the data model, rather than handle the content via a generic
engine. Or the client may be targeted at the specific YANG model,
rather than being driven generically. Such a client might be a
simple shell script that stuffs arguments into an XML payload
template and sends it to the server.
3.2. Addressing Operator Requirements
NETCONF and YANG address many of the issues raised in the IAB NM
workshop.
o Ease of use: YANG is designed to be human friendly, simple, and
readable. Many tricky issues remain due to the complexity of the
problem domain, but YANG strives to make them more visible and
easier to deal with.
o Configuration and state data: YANG clearly divides configuration
data from other types of data.
o Transactions: NETCONF provides a simple transaction mechanism.
o Generation of deltas: A YANG module gives enough information to
generate the delta needed to change between two configuration data
sets.
Shafer Informational PAGE 16
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
o Dump and restore: NETCONF gives the ability to save and restore
configuration data. This can also be performed for a specific
YANG module.
o Network-wide configuration: NETCONF supports robust network-wide
configuration transactions via the commit and confirmed-commit
capabilities. When a change is attempted that affects multiple
devices, these capabilities simplify the management of failure
scenarios, resulting in the ability to have transactions that will
dependably succeed or fail atomically.
o Text-friendly: YANG modules are very text friendly, as is the data
they define.
o Configuration handling: NETCONF addresses the ability to
distinguish between distributing configuration data and activating
it.
o Task-oriented: A YANG module can define specific tasks as RPC
operations. A client can choose to invoke the RPC operation or to
access any underlying data directly.
o Full coverage: YANG modules can be defined that give full coverage
to all the native abilities of the device. Giving this access
avoids the need to resort to the command line interface (CLI)
using tools such as Expect [SWEXPECT].
o Timeliness: YANG modules can be tied to CLI operations, so all
native operations and data are immediately available.
o Implementation difficulty: YANG's flexibility enables modules that
can be more easily implemented. Adding "features" and replacing
"third normal form" with a natural data hierarchy should reduce
complexity.
o Simple data modeling language: YANG has sufficient power to be
usable in other situations. In particular, on-box API and native
CLI can be integrated to achieve simplification of the
infrastructure.
o Internationalization: YANG uses UTF-8 [RFC 3629] encoded Unicode
characters.
o Event correlation: YANG integrates RPC operations, notification,
configuration, and state data, enabling internal references. For
example, a field in a notification can be tagged as pointing to a
BGP peer, and the client application can easily find that peer in
the configuration data.
Shafer Informational PAGE 17
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
o Implementation costs: Significant effort has been made to keep
implementation costs as low as possible.
o Human-friendly syntax: YANG's syntax is optimized for the reader,
specifically the reviewer on the basis that this is the most
common human interaction.
o Post-processing: Use of XML will maximize the opportunities for
post-processing of data, possibly using XML-based technologies
like XPath [W3CXPATH], XQuery [W3CXQUERY], and XSLT [W3CXSLT].
o Semantic mismatch: Richer, more descriptive data models will
reduce the possibility of semantic mismatch. With the ability to
define new primitives, YANG modules will be more specific in
content, allowing more enforcement of rules and constraints.
o Security: NETCONF runs over transport protocols secured by SSH or
TLS, allowing secure communications and authentication using well-
trusted technology. The secure transport can use existing key and
credential management infrastructure, reducing deployment costs.
o Reliable: NETCONF and YANG are solid and reliable technologies.
NETCONF is connection based, and includes automatic recovery
mechanisms when the connection is lost.
o Delta friendly: YANG-based models support operations that are
delta friendly. Add, change, insert, and delete operations are
all well defined.
o Method-oriented: YANG allows new RPC operations to be defined,
including an operation name, which is essentially a method. The
input and output parameters of the RPC operations are also defined
in the YANG module.
3.3. Roles in Building Solutions
Building NETCONF- and YANG-based solutions requires interacting with
many distinct groups. Modelers must understand how to build useful
models that give structure and meaning to data while maximizing the
flexibility of that data to "future proof" their work. Reviewers
need to quickly determine if that structure is accurate. Device
developers need to code that data model into their devices, and
application developers need to code their applications to take
advantage of that data model. There are a variety of strategies for
performing each piece of this work. This section discusses some of
those strategies.
Shafer Informational PAGE 18
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
3.3.1. Modeler
The modeler defines a data model based on their in-depth knowledge of
the problem domain being modeled. This model should be as simple as
possible, but should balance complexity with expressiveness. The
organization of the model not only should target the current model
but also should allow for extensibility from other modules and for
adaptability to future changes.
Additional modeling issues are discussed in Section 4.
3.3.2. Reviewer
The reviewer role is perhaps the most important and the time
reviewers are willing to give is precious. To help the reviewer,
YANG stresses readability, with a human-friendly syntax, natural data
hierarchy, and simple, concise statements.
3.3.3. Device Developer
The YANG model tells the device developer what data is being modeled.
The developer reads the YANG models and writes code that supports the
model. The model describes the data hierarchy and associated
constraints, and the description and reference material helps the
developer understand how to transform the model's view into the
device's native implementation.
3.3.3.1. Generic Content Support
The YANG model can be compiled into a YANG-based engine for either
the client or server side. Incoming data can be validated, as can
outgoing data. The complete configuration datastore may be validated
in accordance with the constraints described in the data model.
Serializers and de-serializers for generating and receiving NETCONF
content can be driven by the meta-data in the model. As data is
received, the meta-data is consulted to ensure the validity of
incoming XML elements.
3.3.3.2. XML Definitions
The YANG module dictates the XML encoding for data sent via NETCONF.
The rules that define the encoding are fixed, so the YANG module can
be used to ascertain whether a specific NETCONF payload is obeying
the rules.
Shafer Informational PAGE 19
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
3.3.4. Application Developer
The YANG module tells the application developer what data can be
modeled. Developers can inspect the modules and take one of three
distinct views. In this section, we will consider them and the
impact of YANG on their design. In the real world, most applications
are a mixture of these approaches.
3.3.4.1. Hard Coded
An application can be coded against the specific, well-known contents
of YANG modules, implementing their organization, rules, and logic
directly with explicit knowledge. For example, a script could be
written to change the domain name of a set of devices using a
standard YANG module that includes such a leaf node. This script
takes the new domain name as an argument and inserts it into a string
containing the rest of the XML encoding as required by the YANG
module. This content is then sent via NETCONF to each of the
devices.
This type of application is useful for small, fixed problems where
the cost and complexity of flexibility are overwhelmed by the ease of
hard coding direct knowledge into the application.
3.3.4.2. Bottom Up
An application may take a generic, bottom-up approach to
configuration, concentrating on the device's data directly and
treating that data without specific understanding.
YANG modules may be used to drive the operation of the YANG
equivalent of a "MIB browser". Such an application manipulates the
device's configuration data based on the data organization contained
in the YANG module. For example, a GUI may present a straightforward
visualization where elements of the YANG hierarchy are depicted in a
hierarchy of folders or GUI panels. Clicking on a line expands to
the contents of the matching XML hierarchy.
This type of GUI can easily be built by generating XSLT stylesheets
from the YANG data models. An XSLT engine can then be used to turn
configuration data into a set of web pages.
The YANG modules allow the application to enforce a set of
constraints without understanding the semantics of the YANG module.
Shafer Informational PAGE 20
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
3.3.4.3. Top Down
In contrast to the bottom-up approach, the top-down approach allows
the application to take a view of the configuration data that is
distinct from the standard and/or proprietary YANG modules. The
application is free to construct its own model for data organization
and to present this model to the user. When the application needs to
transmit data to a device, the application transforms its data from
the problem-oriented view of the world into the data needed for that
particular device. This transformation is under the control and
maintenance of the application, allowing the transformation to be
changed and updated without affecting the device.
For example, an application could be written that models VPNs in a
network-oriented view. The application would need to transform these
high-level VPN definitions into the configuration data that would be
handed to any particular device within a VPN.
Even in this approach, YANG is useful since it can be used to model
the VPN. For example, the following VPN straw-man models a list of
VPNs, each with a protocol, a topology, a list of member interfaces,
and a list of classifiers.
list example-bgpvpn {
key name;
leaf name { ... }
leaf protocol {
type enumeration {
enum bgpvpn;
enum l2vpn;
}
}
leaf topology {
type enumeration {
enum hub-n-spoke;
enum mesh;
}
}
list members {
key "device interface";
leaf device { ... }
leaf interface { ... }
}
list classifiers {
...
}
}
Shafer Informational PAGE 21
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
The application can use such a YANG module to drive its operation,
building VPN instances in a database and then pushing the
configuration for those VPNs to individual devices either using a
standard device model (e.g., example-bgpvpn.yang) or by transforming
that standard device content into some proprietary format for devices
that do not support that standard.
4. Modeling Considerations
This section discusses considerations the modeler should be aware of
while developing models in YANG.
4.1. Default Values
The concept of default values is simple, but their details,
representation, and interaction with configuration data can be
difficult issues. NETCONF leaves default values as a data model
issue, and YANG gives flexibility to the device implementation in
terms of how default values are handled. The requirement is that the
device "MUST operationally behave as if the leaf was present in the
data tree with the default value as its value". This gives the
device implementation choices in how default values are handled.
One choice is to view the configuration as a set of instructions for
how the device should be configured. If a data value that is given
as part of those instructions is the default value, then it should be
retained as part of the configuration, but if it is not explicitly
given, then the value is not considered to be part of the
configuration.
Another choice is to trim values that are identical to the default
values, implicitly removing them from the configuration datastore.
The act of setting a leaf to its default value effectively deletes
that leaf.
The device could also choose to report all default values, regardless
of whether they were explicitly set. This choice eases the work of a
client that needs default values, but may significantly increase the
size of the configuration data.
These choices reflect the default handling schemes of widely deployed
networking devices and supporting them allows YANG to reduce
implementation and deployment costs of YANG-based models.
Shafer Informational PAGE 22
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
When the client retrieves data from the device, it must be prepared
to handle the absence of leaf nodes with the default value, since the
server is not required to send such leaf elements. This permits the
device to implement either of the first two default handling schemes
given above.
Regardless of the implementation choice, the device can support the
"with-defaults" capability [RFC 6243] and give the client the ability
to select the desired handling of default values.
When evaluating the XPath expressions for constraints like "must" and
"when", the evaluation context for the expressions will include any
appropriate default values, so the modeler can depend on consistent
behavior from all devices.
4.2. Compliance
In developing good data models, there are many conflicting interests
the data modeler must keep in mind. Modelers need to be aware of
five issues with models and devices:
o usefulness
o compliance
o flexibility
o extensibility
o deviations
For a model to be interesting, it must be useful, solving a problem
in a more direct or more powerful way than can be accomplished
without the model. The model should maximize the usefulness of the
model within the problem domain.
Modelers should build models that maximize the number of devices that
can faithfully implement the model. If the model is drawn too
narrowly, or includes too many assumptions about the device, then the
difficulty and cost of accurately implementing the model will lead to
low-quality implementations and interoperability issues, and will
reduce the value of the model.
Modelers can use the "feature" statement in their models to give the
device some flexibility by partitioning their model and allowing the
device to indicate which portions of the model are implemented on the
Shafer Informational PAGE 23
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
device. For example, if the model includes some "logging" feature, a
device with no storage facilities for the log can tell the client
that it does not support this feature of the model.
Models can be extended via the "augment" statement, and the modeler
should consider how their model is likely to be extended. These
augmentations can be defined by vendors, applications, or standards
bodies.
Deviations are a means of allowing the devices to indicate where its
implementation is not in full compliance with the model. For
example, once a model is published, an implementer may decide to make
a particular node configurable, where the standard model describes it
as state data. The implementation reports the value normally and may
declare a deviation that this device behaves in a different manner
than the standard. Applications capable of discovering this
deviation can make allowances, but applications that do not discover
the deviation can continue treating the implementation as if it were
compliant.
Rarely, implementations may make decisions that prevent compliance
with the standard. Such occasions are regrettable, but they remain a
part of reality, and modelers and application writers ignore them at
their own risk. An implementation that emits an integer leaf as
"cow" would be difficult to manage, but applications should expect to
encounter such misbehaving devices in the field.
Despite this, both client and server should view the YANG module as a
contract, with both sides agreeing to abide by the terms. The
modeler should be explicit about the terms of such a contract, and
both client and server implementations should strive to faithfully
and accurately implement the data model described in the YANG module.
4.3. Data Distinctions
The distinction between configuration data, operational state data,
and statistics is important to understand for data model writers and
people who plan to extend the NETCONF protocol. This section first
discusses some background and then provides a definition and some
examples.
4.3.1. Background
During the IAB NM workshop, operators did formulate the following two
requirements, as listed in [RFC 3535]:
Shafer Informational PAGE 24
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
2. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between
configuration data, data that describes operational state,
and statistics. Some devices make it very hard to determine
which parameters were administratively configured and which
were obtained via other mechanisms such as routing
protocols.
3. It is required to be able to fetch separately configuration
data, operational state data, and statistics from devices,
and to be able to compare these between devices.
The NETCONF protocol defined in RFC 4741 distinguishes two types of
data -- namely, configuration data and state data:
Configuration data is the set of writable data that is
required to transform a system from its initial default state
into its current state.
State data is the additional data on a system that is not
configuration data such as read-only status information and
collected statistics.
NETCONF does not follow the distinction formulated by the operators
between configuration data, operational state data, and statistical
data, since it considers state data to include both statistics and
operational state data.
4.3.2. Definitions
Below is a definition for configuration data, operational state data,
and statistical data. The definition borrows from previous work.
o Configuration data is the set of writable data that is required to
transform a system from its initial default state into its current
state [RFC 4741].
o Operational state data is a set of data that has been obtained by
the system at runtime and influences the system's behavior similar
to configuration data. In contrast to configuration data,
operational state is transient and modified by interactions with
internal components or other systems via specialized protocols.
o Statistical data is the set of read-only data created by a system
itself. It describes the performance of the system and its
components.
The following examples help to clarify the difference between
configuration data, operational state data, and statistical data.
Shafer Informational PAGE 25
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
4.3.2.1. Example 1: IP Routing Table
IP routing tables can contain entries that are statically configured
(configuration data) as well as entries obtained from routing
protocols such as OSPF (operational state data). In addition, a
routing engine might collect statistics like how often a particular
routing table entry has been used.
4.3.2.2. Example 2: Interfaces
Network interfaces usually come with a large number of attributes
that are specific to the interface type and in some cases specific to
the cable plugged into an interface. Examples are the maximum
transmission unit of an interface or the speed detected by an
Ethernet interface.
In many deployments, systems use the interface attributes detected
when an interface is initialized. As such, these attributes
constitute operational state. However, there are usually provisions
to overwrite the discovered attributes with static configuration
data, like for example configuring the interface MTU to use a
specific value or forcing an Ethernet interface to run at a given
speed.
The system will record statistics (counters) measuring the number of
packets, bytes, and errors received and transmitted on each
interface.
4.3.2.3. Example 3: Account Information
Systems usually maintain static configuration information about the
accounts on the system. In addition, systems can obtain information
about accounts from other sources (e.g., Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP), Network Information Service (NIS)) dynamically,
leading to operational state data. Information about account usage
is an example of statistical data.
Note that configuration data supplied to a system in order to create
a new account might be supplemented with additional configuration
information determined by the system when the account is being
created (such as a unique account id). Even though the system might
create such information, it usually becomes part of the static
configuration of the system since this data is not transient.
Shafer Informational PAGE 26
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
4.3.3. Implications
The primary focus of YANG is configuration data. There is no single
mechanism defined for the separation of operational state data and
statistics since NETCONF treats them both as state data. This
section describes several different options for addressing this
issue.
4.3.3.1. Data Models
The first option is to have data models that explicitly differentiate
between configuration data and operational state data. This leads to
duplication of data structures and might not scale well from a
modeling perspective.
For example, the configured duplex value and the operational duplex
value would be distinct leafs in the data model.
4.3.3.2. Additional Operations to Retrieve Operational State
The NETCONF protocol can be extended with new protocol operations
that specifically allow the retrieval of all operational state, e.g.,
by introducing a <get-ops> operation (and perhaps also a <get-stats>
operation).
4.3.3.3. Introduction of an Operational State Datastore
Another option could be to introduce a new "configuration" data store
that represents the operational state. A <get-config> operation on
the <operational> data store would then return the operational state
determining the behavior of the box instead of its static and
explicit configuration state.
4.4. Direction
At this time, the only viable solution is to distinctly model the
configuration and operational values. The configuration leaf would
indicate the desired value, as given by the user, and the operational
leaf would indicate the current value, as observed on the device.
In the duplex example, this would result in two distinct leafs being
defined, "duplex" and "op-duplex", one with "config true" and one
with "config false".
Shafer Informational PAGE 27
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
In some cases, distinct leafs would be used, but in others, distinct
lists might be used. Distinct lists allows the list to be organized
in different ways, with different constraints. Keys, sorting, and
constraint statements like must, unique, or when may differ between
configuration data and operational data.
For example, configured static routes might be a distinct list from
the operational routing table, since the use of keys and sorting
might differ.
5. Security Considerations
This document discusses an architecture for network management using
NETCONF and YANG. It has no security impact on the Internet.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[ISODSDL] International Organization for Standardization,
"Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) - Part 1:
Overview", ISO/IEC 19757-1, November 2004.
[RFC 3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
[RFC 3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC 4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC 4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
December 2006.
[RFC 4742] Wasserman, M. and T. Goddard, "Using the NETCONF
Configuration Protocol over Secure SHell (SSH)",
RFC 4742, December 2006.
[RFC 4743] Goddard, T., "Using NETCONF over the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP)", RFC 4743, December 2006.
[RFC 4744] Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol
over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 4744, December 2006.
[RFC 5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, July 2008.
Shafer Informational PAGE 28
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
[RFC 5539] Badra, M., "NETCONF over Transport Layer Security
(TLS)", RFC 5539, May 2009.
[RFC 6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC 6021] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6021,
October 2010.
[RFC 6087] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
YANG Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011.
[RFC 6110] Lhotka, L., "Mapping YANG to Document Schema Definition
Languages and Validating NETCONF Content", RFC 6110,
February 2011.
[RFC 6243] Bierman, A. and B. Lengyel, "With-defaults Capability
for NETCONF", RFC 6243, June 2011.
[SWEXPECT] "The Expect Home Page",
<http://expect.sourceforge.net/>.
[W3CXPATH] DeRose, S. and J. Clark, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
[W3CXQUERY] Boag, S., "XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language", W3C
WD WD-xquery-20050915, September 2005.
[W3CXSD] Walmsley, P. and D. Fallside, "XML Schema Part 0: Primer
Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xmlschema-0-20041028, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-0-20041028>.
[W3CXSLT] Clark, J., "XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0",
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xslt-
19991116, November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116>.
6.2. Informative References
[RCDML] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Requirements for a Configuration Data
Modeling Language", Work in Progress, February 2008.
Shafer Informational PAGE 29
RFC 6244 NETMODARCH June 2011
Author's Address
Phil Shafer
Juniper Networks
EMail: phil@juniper.net
Shafer Informational PAGE 30
An Architecture for Network Management Using NETCONF and YANG
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 63276 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, June 30th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
