|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8349
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)
Last modified on Tuesday, March 20th, 2018
 Permanent link to RFC 8349
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8349
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8349
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Lhotka
Request for Comments: 8349 CZ.NIC
Obsoletes: 8022 A. Lindem
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 Y. Qu
Huawei
March 2018
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)
 Abstract
This document specifies three YANG modules and one submodule.
Together, they form the core routing data model that serves as a
framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem. It is
expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG
modules defining data models for control-plane protocols, route
filters, and other functions. The core routing data model provides
common building blocks for such extensions -- routes, Routing
Information Bases (RIBs), and control-plane protocols.
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA). This document obsoletes RFC 8022.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8349.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 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.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries . . . 8
5. Basic Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Routing Information Base (RIB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Control-Plane Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.2. Defining New Control-Plane Protocols . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . 12
6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Module "ietf-ip" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 29
9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 37
9.1. IPv6 Router Advertisements Submodule . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appendix A. The Complete Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix B. Minimum Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Control-Plane Protocol . . . . 67
Appendix D. Data Tree Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix E. NETCONF Get Data Reply Example . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
1. Introduction
This document specifies the following YANG modules:
o The "ietf-routing" module provides generic components of a routing
data model.
o The "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" module augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv4 unicast.
o The "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module augments the "ietf-routing"
module with additional data specific to IPv6 unicast. Its
submodule, "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements", also augments the
"ietf-interfaces" [RFC 8343] and "ietf-ip" [RFC 8344] modules with
IPv6 router configuration variables required by [RFC 4861].
These modules together define the core routing data model, which is
intended as a basis for future data model development covering
more-sophisticated routing systems. While these three modules can be
directly used for simple IP devices with static routing (see
Appendix B), their main purpose is to provide essential building
blocks for more-complicated data models involving multiple
control-plane protocols, multicast routing, additional address
families, and advanced functions such as route filtering or policy
routing. To this end, it is expected that the core routing data
model will be augmented by numerous modules developed by various IETF
working groups.
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC 8342]. This document obsoletes
RFC 8022 [RFC 8022].
2. Terminology and Notation
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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The following terms are defined in [RFC 8342]:
o client
o server
o configuration
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o system state
o operational state
o intended configuration
The following terms are defined in [RFC 7950]:
o action
o augment
o container
o data model
o data node
o feature
o leaf
o list
o mandatory node
o module
o presence container
o schema tree
o RPC (Remote Procedure Call) operation
2.1. Glossary of New Terms
core routing data model: YANG data model comprising "ietf-routing",
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing", and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
modules.
direct route: A route to a directly connected network.
Routing Information Base (RIB): An object containing a list of
routes, together with other information. See Section 5.2 for
details.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
system-controlled entry: An entry in a list in the operational state
("config false") that is created by the system independently of
what has been explicitly configured. See Section 4.1 for details.
user-controlled entry: An entry in a list in the operational state
("config false") that is created and deleted as a direct
consequence of certain configuration changes. See Section 4.1 for
details.
2.2. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
[RFC 8340].
2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model
objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from
the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise,
names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
| if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC 8343] |
| ip | ietf-ip | [RFC 8344] |
| rt | ietf-routing | Section 7 |
| v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 8 |
| v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 9 |
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC 6991] |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC 6991] |
+--------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules
3. Objectives
The initial design of the core routing data model was driven by the
following objectives:
o The data model should be suitable for the common address families
-- in particular, IPv4 and IPv6 -- and for unicast and multicast
routing, as well as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS).
o A simple IP routing system, such as one that uses only static
routing, should be configurable in a simple way, ideally without
any need to develop additional YANG modules.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o On the other hand, the core routing framework must allow for
complicated implementations involving multiple RIBs and multiple
control-plane protocols, as well as controlled redistributions of
routing information.
o Because device vendors will want to map the data models built on
this generic framework to their proprietary data models and
configuration interfaces, the framework should be flexible enough
to facilitate such mapping and accommodate data models with
different logic.
4. The Design of the Core Routing Data Model
The core routing data model consists of three YANG modules and one
submodule. The first module, "ietf-routing", defines the generic
components of a routing system. The other two modules --
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" --
augment the "ietf-routing" module with additional data nodes that are
needed for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routing, respectively. The
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module has a submodule,
"ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements", that augments the
"ietf-interfaces" [RFC 8343] and "ietf-ip" [RFC 8344] modules with
configuration variables for IPv6 Router Advertisements as required by
[RFC 4861].
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Figure 1 shows abridged views of the hierarchies. See Appendix A for
the complete data trees.
+--rw routing
+--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
+--ro interfaces
| +--ro interface* if:interface-ref
+--rw control-plane-protocols
| +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
| +--rw type identityref
| +--rw name string
| +--rw description? string
| +--rw static-routes
| +--rw v4ur:ipv4
| | ...
| +--rw v6ur:ipv6
| ...
+--rw ribs
+--rw rib* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw address-family? identityref
+--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}?
+--ro routes
| +--ro route*
| ...
+---x active-route
| +---w input
| | +---w v4ur:destination-address? inet:ipv4-address
| | +---w v6ur:destination-address? inet:ipv6-address
| +--ro output
| ...
+--rw description? string
Figure 1: Data Hierarchy
As can be seen from Figure 1, the core routing data model introduces
several generic components of a routing framework: routes, RIBs
containing lists of routes, and control-plane protocols. Section 5
describes these components in more detail.
4.1. System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries
The core routing data model defines several lists in the schema tree,
such as "rib", that have to be populated with at least one entry in
any properly functioning device, and additional entries may be
configured by a client.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
In such a list, the server creates the required item as a
"system-controlled entry" in the operational state, i.e., inside
read-only lists in the "routing" container.
An example can be seen in Appendix D: the "/routing/ribs/rib" list
has two system-controlled entries -- "ipv4-master" and "ipv6-master".
Additional entries called "user-controlled entries" may be created in
the configuration by a client, e.g., via the Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF). If the server accepts a configured
user-controlled entry, then this entry also appears in the
operational state version of the list.
Corresponding entries in both versions of the list (in the intended
configuration and the operational state) [RFC 8342] have the same
value of the list key.
A client may also provide supplemental configuration of system-
controlled entries. To do so, the client creates a new entry in the
configuration with the desired contents. In order to bind this entry
to the corresponding entry in the operational state, the key of the
configuration entry has to be set to the same value as the key of the
operational state entry.
Deleting a user-controlled entry from the intended configuration
results in the removal of the corresponding entry in the operational
state list. In contrast, if a client deletes a system-controlled
entry from the intended configuration, only the extra configuration
specified in that entry is removed; the corresponding operational
state entry is not removed.
5. Basic Building Blocks
This section describes the essential components of the core routing
data model.
5.1. Routes
Routes are basic elements of information in a routing system. The
core routing data model defines only the following minimal set of
route attributes:
o "destination-prefix": address prefix specifying the set of
destination addresses for which the route may be used. This
attribute is mandatory.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o "route-preference": an integer value (also known as
"administrative distance") that is used for selecting a preferred
route among routes with the same destination prefix. A lower
value indicates a route that is more preferred.
o "next-hop": determines the outgoing interface and/or next-hop
address(es), or a special operation to be performed on a packet.
Routes are primarily system state and appear as entries in RIBs
(Section 5.2), but they may also be found in configuration data --
for example, as manually configured static routes. In the latter
case, configurable route attributes are generally a subset of
attributes defined for RIB routes.
5.2. Routing Information Base (RIB)
Every implementation of the core routing data model manages one or
more RIBs. A RIB is a list of routes complemented with
administrative data. Each RIB contains only routes of one address
family. An address family is represented by an identity derived from
the "rt:address-family" base identity.
In the core routing data model, RIBs are represented as entries in
the list "/routing/ribs/rib" in the operational state. The contents
of RIBs are controlled and manipulated by control-plane protocol
operations that may result in route additions, removals, and
modifications. This also includes manipulations via the "static"
and/or "direct" pseudo-protocols; see Section 5.3.1.
For every supported address family, exactly one RIB MUST be marked as
the "default RIB", in which control-plane protocols place their
routes by default.
Simple router implementations that do not advertise the
"multiple-ribs" feature will typically create one system-controlled
RIB per supported address family and mark it as the default RIB.
More-complex router implementations advertising the "multiple-ribs"
feature support multiple RIBs per address family that can be used for
policy routing and other purposes.
The following action (see Section 7.15 of [RFC 7950]) is defined for
the "rib" list:
o active-route -- return the active RIB route for the destination
address that is specified as the action's input parameter.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
5.3. Control-Plane Protocol
The core routing data model provides an open-ended framework for
defining multiple control-plane protocol instances, e.g., for Layer 3
routing protocols. Each control-plane protocol instance MUST be
assigned a type, which is an identity derived from the
"rt:control-plane-protocol" base identity. The core routing data
model defines two identities for the "direct" and "static"
pseudo-protocols (Section 5.3.1).
Multiple control-plane protocol instances of the same type MAY be
configured.
5.3.1. Routing Pseudo-Protocols
The core routing data model defines two special routing protocol
types -- "direct" and "static". Both are in fact pseudo-protocols,
which means that they are confined to the local device and do not
exchange any routing information with adjacent routers.
Every implementation of the core routing data model MUST provide
exactly one instance of the "direct" pseudo-protocol type. It is the
source of direct routes for all configured address families. Direct
routes are normally supplied by the operating system kernel, based on
the configuration of network interface addresses; see Section 6.2.
A pseudo-protocol of the type "static" allows for specifying routes
manually. It MAY be configured in zero or multiple instances,
although a typical configuration will have exactly one instance.
5.3.2. Defining New Control-Plane Protocols
It is expected that future YANG modules will create data models for
additional control-plane protocol types. Such new modules will have
to define the protocol-specific data nodes, and they will have to
integrate into the core routing framework in the following way:
o A new identity MUST be defined for the control-plane protocol, and
its base identity MUST be set to "rt:control-plane-protocol" or to
an identity derived from "rt:control-plane-protocol".
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o Additional route attributes MAY be defined, preferably in one
place by means of defining a YANG grouping. The new attributes
have to be inserted by augmenting the definitions of the node
/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route
and possibly other places in the schema tree.
o Data nodes for the new protocol can be defined by augmenting the
"control-plane-protocol" data node under "/routing".
By using a "when" statement, the augmented data nodes specific to the
new protocol SHOULD be made conditional and valid only if the value
of "rt:type" or "rt:source-protocol" is equal to (or derived from)
the new protocol's identity.
It is also RECOMMENDED that protocol-specific data nodes be
encapsulated in an appropriately named container with presence. Such
a container may contain mandatory data nodes that are otherwise
forbidden at the top level of an augment.
The above steps are implemented by the example YANG module for the
Routing Information Protocol (RIP); see Appendix C.
5.4. Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements
The YANG module "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements" (Section 9.1),
which is a submodule of the "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module,
augments the schema tree of IPv6 interfaces with definitions of the
following variables as required by Section 6.2.1 of [RFC 4861]:
o send-advertisements
o max-rtr-adv-interval
o min-rtr-adv-interval
o managed-flag
o other-config-flag
o link-mtu
o reachable-time
o retrans-timer
o cur-hop-limit
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o default-lifetime
o prefix-list: a list of prefixes to be advertised.
The following parameters are associated with each prefix in
the list:
* valid-lifetime
* on-link-flag
* preferred-lifetime
* autonomous-flag
NOTES:
1. The "IsRouter" flag, which is also required by [RFC 4861], is
implemented in the "ietf-ip" module [RFC 8344] (leaf
"ip:forwarding").
2. The Neighbor Discovery specification [RFC 4861] allows the
implementations to decide whether the "valid-lifetime" and
"preferred-lifetime" parameters remain the same in consecutive
advertisements or decrement in real time. However, the latter
behavior seems problematic because the values might be reset
again to the (higher) configured values after a configuration is
reloaded. Moreover, no implementation is known to use the
decrementing behavior. The "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements"
submodule therefore stipulates the former behavior with constant
values.
6. Interactions with Other YANG Modules
The semantics of the core routing data model also depends on several
configuration parameters that are defined in other YANG modules.
6.1. Module "ietf-interfaces"
The following boolean switch is defined in the "ietf-interfaces" YANG
module [RFC 8343]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network-layer interface,
then all routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on this
interface.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
6.2. Module "ietf-ip"
The following boolean switches are defined in the "ietf-ip" YANG
module [RFC 8344]:
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network-layer interface,
then all IPv4 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
this interface.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a network-layer interface,
then the forwarding of IPv4 datagrams through this interface MUST
be disabled. However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv4
routing functions, such as routing protocols.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:enabled
If this switch is set to "false" for a network-layer interface,
then all IPv6 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
this interface.
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:forwarding
If this switch is set to "false" for a network-layer interface,
then the forwarding of IPv6 datagrams through this interface MUST
be disabled. However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv6
routing functions, such as routing protocols.
In addition, the "ietf-ip" module allows for configuring IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses and network prefixes or masks on network-layer
interfaces. Configuration of these parameters on an enabled
interface MUST result in an immediate creation of the corresponding
direct route. The destination prefix of this route is set according
to the configured IP address and network prefix/mask, and the
interface is set as the outgoing interface for that route.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
7. Routing Management YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing@2018-03-13.yang"
module ietf-routing {
yang-version "1.1";
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing";
prefix "rt";
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix "yang";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
description
"An 'ietf-interfaces' module version that is compatible with
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>
Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module defines essential components for the management
of a routing subsystem. The model fully conforms to the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8349; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2018-03-13 {
description
"Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) revision.";
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
(NMDA Version)";
}
revision 2016-11-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Features */
feature multiple-ribs {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports
user-defined RIBs.
Servers that do not advertise this feature SHOULD provide
exactly one system-controlled RIB per supported address family
and also make it the default RIB. This RIB then appears as an
entry in the list '/routing/ribs/rib'.";
}
feature router-id {
description
"This feature indicates that the server supports an explicit
32-bit router ID that is used by some routing protocols.
Servers that do not advertise this feature set a router ID
algorithmically, usually to one of the configured IPv4
addresses. However, this algorithm is implementation
specific.";
}
/* Identities */
identity address-family {
description
"Base identity from which identities describing address
families are derived.";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
identity ipv4 {
base address-family;
description
"This identity represents an IPv4 address family.";
}
identity ipv6 {
base address-family;
description
"This identity represents an IPv6 address family.";
}
identity control-plane-protocol {
description
"Base identity from which control-plane protocol identities are
derived.";
}
identity routing-protocol {
base control-plane-protocol;
description
"Identity from which Layer 3 routing protocol identities are
derived.";
}
identity direct {
base routing-protocol;
description
"Routing pseudo-protocol that provides routes to directly
connected networks.";
}
identity static {
base routing-protocol;
description
"'Static' routing pseudo-protocol.";
}
/* Type Definitions */
typedef route-preference {
type uint32;
description
"This type is used for route preferences.";
}
/* Groupings */
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
grouping address-family {
description
"This grouping provides a leaf identifying an address
family.";
leaf address-family {
type identityref {
base address-family;
}
mandatory true;
description
"Address family.";
}
}
grouping router-id {
description
"This grouping provides a router ID.";
leaf router-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"A 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad that is used by
some routing protocols identifying a router.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
}
grouping special-next-hop {
description
"This grouping provides a leaf with an enumeration of special
next hops.";
leaf special-next-hop {
type enumeration {
enum blackhole {
description
"Silently discard the packet.";
}
enum unreachable {
description
"Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
message indicating that the destination host is
unreachable.";
}
enum prohibit {
description
"Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
message indicating that the communication is
administratively prohibited.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
enum receive {
description
"The packet will be received by the local system.";
}
}
description
"Options for special next hops.";
}
}
grouping next-hop-content {
description
"Generic parameters of next hops in static routes.";
choice next-hop-options {
mandatory true;
description
"Options for next hops in static routes.
It is expected that further cases will be added through
augments from other modules.";
case simple-next-hop {
description
"This case represents a simple next hop consisting of the
next-hop address and/or outgoing interface.
Modules for address families MUST augment this case with a
leaf containing a next-hop address of that address
family.";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
}
case special-next-hop {
uses special-next-hop;
}
case next-hop-list {
container next-hop-list {
description
"Container for multiple next hops.";
list next-hop {
key "index";
description
"An entry in a next-hop list.
Modules for address families MUST augment this list
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
with a leaf containing a next-hop address of that
address family.";
leaf index {
type string;
description
"A user-specified identifier utilized to uniquely
reference the next-hop entry in the next-hop list.
The value of this index has no semantic meaning
other than for referencing the entry.";
}
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping next-hop-state-content {
description
"Generic state parameters of next hops.";
choice next-hop-options {
mandatory true;
description
"Options for next hops.
It is expected that further cases will be added through
augments from other modules, e.g., for recursive
next hops.";
case simple-next-hop {
description
"This case represents a simple next hop consisting of the
next-hop address and/or outgoing interface.
Modules for address families MUST augment this case with a
leaf containing a next-hop address of that address
family.";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
}
case special-next-hop {
uses special-next-hop;
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
case next-hop-list {
container next-hop-list {
description
"Container for multiple next hops.";
list next-hop {
description
"An entry in a next-hop list.
Modules for address families MUST augment this list
with a leaf containing a next-hop address of that
address family.";
leaf outgoing-interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Name of the outgoing interface.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping route-metadata {
description
"Common route metadata.";
leaf source-protocol {
type identityref {
base routing-protocol;
}
mandatory true;
description
"Type of the routing protocol from which the route
originated.";
}
leaf active {
type empty;
description
"The presence of this leaf indicates that the route is
preferred among all routes in the same RIB that have the
same destination prefix.";
}
leaf last-updated {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Timestamp of the last modification of the route. If the
route was never modified, it is the time when the route was
inserted into the RIB.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
}
/* Data nodes */
container routing {
description
"Configuration parameters for the routing subsystem.";
uses router-id {
if-feature "router-id";
description
"Support for the global router ID. Routing protocols
that use a router ID can use this parameter or override it
with another value.";
}
container interfaces {
config false;
description
"Network-layer interfaces used for routing.";
leaf-list interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Each entry is a reference to the name of a configured
network-layer interface.";
}
}
container control-plane-protocols {
description
"Support for control-plane protocol instances.";
list control-plane-protocol {
key "type name";
description
"Each entry contains a control-plane protocol instance.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base control-plane-protocol;
}
description
"Type of the control-plane protocol -- an identity
derived from the 'control-plane-protocol'
base identity.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the control-plane protocol
instance.";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the control-plane protocol
instance.";
}
container static-routes {
when "derived-from-or-self(../type, 'rt:static')" {
description
"This container is only valid for the 'static' routing
protocol.";
}
description
"Support for the 'static' pseudo-protocol.
Address-family-specific modules augment this node with
their lists of routes.";
}
}
}
container ribs {
description
"Support for RIBs.";
list rib {
key "name";
description
"Each entry contains a configuration for a RIB identified
by the 'name' key.
Entries having the same key as a system-controlled entry
in the list '/routing/ribs/rib' are used for
configuring parameters of that entry. Other entries
define additional user-controlled RIBs.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the RIB.
For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf
must be the same as the name of the corresponding entry
in the operational state.
For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be
used.";
}
uses address-family {
description
"The address family of the system-controlled RIB.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
leaf default-rib {
if-feature "multiple-ribs";
type boolean;
default "true";
config false;
description
"This flag has the value of 'true' if and only if the RIB
is the default RIB for the given address family.
By default, control-plane protocols place their routes
in the default RIBs.";
}
container routes {
config false;
description
"Current contents of the RIB.";
list route {
description
"A RIB route entry. This data node MUST be augmented
with information specific to routes of each address
family.";
leaf route-preference {
type route-preference;
description
"This route attribute, also known as 'administrative
distance', allows for selecting the preferred route
among routes with the same destination prefix. A
smaller value indicates a route that is
more preferred.";
}
container next-hop {
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content;
}
uses route-metadata;
}
}
action active-route {
description
"Return the active RIB route that is used for the
destination address.
Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";
output {
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
container route {
description
"The active RIB route for the specified destination.
If no route exists in the RIB for the destination
address, no output is returned.
Address-family-specific modules MUST augment this
container with appropriate route contents.";
container next-hop {
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content;
}
uses route-metadata;
}
}
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the RIB.";
}
}
}
}
/*
* The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted
* by the Network Management Datastore Architecture
* as described in RFC 8342.
*/
container routing-state {
config false;
status obsolete;
description
"State data of the routing subsystem.";
uses router-id {
status obsolete;
description
"Global router ID.
It may be either configured or assigned algorithmically by
the implementation.";
}
container interfaces {
status obsolete;
description
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
"Network-layer interfaces used for routing.";
leaf-list interface {
type if:interface-state-ref;
status obsolete;
description
"Each entry is a reference to the name of a configured
network-layer interface.";
}
}
container control-plane-protocols {
status obsolete;
description
"Container for the list of routing protocol instances.";
list control-plane-protocol {
key "type name";
status obsolete;
description
"State data of a control-plane protocol instance.
An implementation MUST provide exactly one
system-controlled instance of the 'direct'
pseudo-protocol. Instances of other control-plane
protocols MAY be created by configuration.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base control-plane-protocol;
}
status obsolete;
description
"Type of the control-plane protocol.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
status obsolete;
description
"The name of the control-plane protocol instance.
For system-controlled instances, this name is
persistent, i.e., it SHOULD NOT change across
reboots.";
}
}
}
container ribs {
status obsolete;
description
"Container for RIBs.";
list rib {
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
key "name";
min-elements 1;
status obsolete;
description
"Each entry represents a RIB identified by the 'name'
key. All routes in a RIB MUST belong to the same address
family.
An implementation SHOULD provide one system-controlled
default RIB for each supported address family.";
leaf name {
type string;
status obsolete;
description
"The name of the RIB.";
}
uses address-family {
status obsolete;
description
"The address family of the RIB.";
}
leaf default-rib {
if-feature "multiple-ribs";
type boolean;
default "true";
status obsolete;
description
"This flag has the value of 'true' if and only if the
RIB is the default RIB for the given address family.
By default, control-plane protocols place their routes
in the default RIBs.";
}
container routes {
status obsolete;
description
"Current contents of the RIB.";
list route {
status obsolete;
description
"A RIB route entry. This data node MUST be augmented
with information specific to routes of each address
family.";
leaf route-preference {
type route-preference;
status obsolete;
description
"This route attribute, also known as 'administrative
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
distance', allows for selecting the preferred route
among routes with the same destination prefix. A
smaller value indicates a route that is
more preferred.";
}
container next-hop {
status obsolete;
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content {
status obsolete;
description
"Route's next-hop attribute operational state.";
}
}
uses route-metadata {
status obsolete;
description
"Route metadata.";
}
}
}
action active-route {
status obsolete;
description
"Return the active RIB route that is used for the
destination address.
Address-family-specific modules MUST augment input
parameters with a leaf named 'destination-address'.";
output {
container route {
status obsolete;
description
"The active RIB route for the specified
destination.
If no route exists in the RIB for the destination
address, no output is returned.
Address-family-specific modules MUST augment this
container with appropriate route contents.";
container next-hop {
status obsolete;
description
"Route's next-hop attribute.";
uses next-hop-state-content {
status obsolete;
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
description
"Active route state data.";
}
}
uses route-metadata {
status obsolete;
description
"Active route metadata.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8. IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2018-03-13.yang"
module ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing {
yang-version "1.1";
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing";
prefix "v4ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
description
"An 'ietf-routing' module version that is compatible with
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>
Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
parameters for IPv4 unicast routing. The model fully conforms
to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8349; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2018-03-13 {
description
"Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) revision.";
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
(NMDA Version)";
}
revision 2016-11-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
/* Identities */
identity ipv4-unicast {
base rt:ipv4;
description
"This identity represents the IPv4 unicast address family.";
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 30
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments an IPv4 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv4 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments the 'next-hop-list' case of IPv4 unicast
routes.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 31
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
"/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/rt:input" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast RIBs.";
}
description
"This augment adds the input parameter of the 'active-route'
action.";
leaf destination-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"This augment adds the destination prefix to the reply of the
'active-route' action.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 32
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the 'static' pseudo-protocol
with data specific to IPv4 unicast.";
container ipv4 {
description
"Support for a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "destination-prefix";
description
"A list of static routes.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
container next-hop {
description
"Support for next-hop.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 33
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
uses rt:next-hop-content {
augment "next-hop-options/simple-next-hop" {
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv4 static
routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "next-hop-options/next-hop-list/next-hop-list/"
+ "next-hop" {
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in IPv4 static
routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
/*
* The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted
* by the Network Management Datastore Architecture
* as described in RFC 8342.
*/
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This leaf augments an IPv4 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 34
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(
../../../rt:address-family, 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv4 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family,
'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This leaf augments the 'next-hop-list' case of IPv4 unicast
routes.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:input" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../rt:address-family,
'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast RIBs.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This augment adds the input parameter of the 'active-route'
action.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 35
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
leaf destination-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family,
'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This augment adds the destination prefix to the reply of the
'active-route' action.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv4-prefix;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family,
'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family,
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 36
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
'v4ur:ipv4-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv4-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv4 address of the next hop.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9. IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2018-03-13.yang"
module ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {
yang-version "1.1";
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing";
prefix "v6ur";
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
description
"An 'ietf-routing' module version that is compatible with
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
description
"An 'ietf-interfaces' module version that is compatible with
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
include ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements {
revision-date 2018-03-13;
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 37
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
organization
"IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>
Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
parameters for IPv6 unicast routing. The model fully conforms
to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8349; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2018-03-13 {
description
"Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) revision.";
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
(NMDA Version)";
}
/* Identities */
revision 2016-11-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 38
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
identity ipv6-unicast {
base rt:ipv6;
description
"This identity represents the IPv6 unicast address family.";
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments an IPv6 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv6 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This leaf augments the 'next-hop-list' case of IPv6 unicast
routes.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 39
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
leaf address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment
"/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/rt:input" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast RIBs.";
}
description
"This augment adds the input parameter of the 'active-route'
action.";
leaf destination-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"This augment adds the destination prefix to the reply of the
'active-route' action.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 40
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
/* Data node augmentations */
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
description
"This augment defines the 'static' pseudo-protocol
with data specific to IPv6 unicast.";
container ipv6 {
description
"Support for a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
consists of a list of routes.";
list route {
key "destination-prefix";
description
"A list of static routes.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 41
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Textual description of the route.";
}
container next-hop {
description
"Next hop for the route.";
uses rt:next-hop-content {
augment "next-hop-options/simple-next-hop" {
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv6 static
routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "next-hop-options/next-hop-list/next-hop-list/"
+ "next-hop" {
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in IPv6 static
routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
/*
* The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted
* by the Network Management Datastore Architecture
* as described in RFC 8342.
*/
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 42
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
status obsolete;
description
"This leaf augments an IPv6 unicast route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in IPv6 unicast routes.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route/"
+ "rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/rt:next-hop-list/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This leaf augments the 'next-hop-list' case of IPv6 unicast
routes.";
leaf address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 43
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
+ "rt:active-route/rt:input" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast RIBs.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This augment adds the input parameter of the 'active-route'
action.";
leaf destination-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 destination address.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"This augment adds the destination prefix to the reply of the
'active-route' action.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 destination prefix.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:simple-next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'simple-next-hop' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 44
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
type inet:ipv6-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
+ "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../../../../rt:address-family,
'v6ur:ipv6-unicast')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
}
status obsolete;
description
"Augments the 'next-hop-list' case in the reply to the
'active-route' action.";
leaf next-hop-address {
type inet:ipv6-address;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 address of the next hop.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
9.1. IPv6 Router Advertisements Submodule
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements@2018-03-13.yang"
submodule ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements {
yang-version "1.1";
belongs-to ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {
prefix "v6ur";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
description
"An 'ietf-interfaces' module version that is compatible with
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 45
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
import ietf-ip {
prefix "ip";
description
"An 'ietf-ip' module version that is compatible with
the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
is required.";
}
organization
"IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>
Acee Lindem
<mailto:acee@cisco.com>
Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>";
description
"This YANG module augments the 'ietf-ip' module with
parameters for IPv6 Router Advertisements. The model fully
conforms to the Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons
identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8349; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)";
revision 2018-03-13 {
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 46
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
description
"Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) revision.";
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
(NMDA Version)";
}
revision 2016-11-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
}
augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
description
"Augments interface configuration with parameters of IPv6
Router Advertisements.";
container ipv6-router-advertisements {
description
"Support for IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
leaf send-advertisements {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"A flag indicating whether or not the router sends
periodic Router Advertisements and responds to
Router Solicitations.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvSendAdvertisements";
}
leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "4..65535";
}
units "seconds";
default "600";
description
"The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- MaxRtrAdvInterval";
}
leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "3..1350";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 47
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
units "seconds";
must ". <= 0.75 * ../max-rtr-adv-interval" {
description
"The value MUST NOT be greater than 75% of
'max-rtr-adv-interval'.";
}
description
"The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.
The default value to be used operationally if this
leaf is not configured is determined as follows:
- if max-rtr-adv-interval >= 9 seconds, the default
value is 0.33 * max-rtr-adv-interval;
- otherwise, it is 0.75 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- MinRtrAdvInterval";
}
leaf managed-flag {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The value to be placed in the 'Managed address
configuration' flag field in the Router
Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvManagedFlag";
}
leaf other-config-flag {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"The value to be placed in the 'Other configuration'
flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvOtherConfigFlag";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in MTU options sent by the
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 48
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options
are sent.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvLinkMTU";
}
leaf reachable-time {
type uint32 {
range "0..3600000";
}
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Reachable Time field in
the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router.
A value of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvReachableTime";
}
leaf retrans-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
default "0";
description
"The value to be placed in the Retrans Timer field in
the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router.
A value of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvRetransTimer";
}
leaf cur-hop-limit {
type uint8;
description
"The value to be placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in
the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router.
A value of zero means unspecified (by this router).
If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD
use the IANA-specified value for the default IPv4
Time to Live (TTL) parameter that was in effect at the
time of implementation.";
reference
"RFC 3232: Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
an On-line Database
RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvCurHopLimit
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 49
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
IANA: IP Parameters
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters)";
}
leaf default-lifetime {
type uint16 {
range "0..65535";
}
units "seconds";
description
"The value to be placed in the Router Lifetime field of
Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in
seconds. It MUST be either zero or between
max-rtr-adv-interval and 9000 seconds. A value of zero
indicates that the router is not to be used as a
default router. These limits may be overridden by
specific documents that describe how IPv6 operates over
different link layers.
If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD
use a value of 3 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvDefaultLifetime";
}
container prefix-list {
description
"Support for prefixes to be placed in Prefix
Information options in Router Advertisement messages
sent from the interface.
Prefixes that are advertised by default but do not
have their entries in the child 'prefix' list are
advertised with the default values of all parameters.
The link-local prefix SHOULD NOT be included in the
list of advertised prefixes.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
- AdvPrefixList";
list prefix {
key "prefix-spec";
description
"Support for an advertised prefix entry.";
leaf prefix-spec {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
description
"IPv6 address prefix.";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 50
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
choice control-adv-prefixes {
default "advertise";
description
"Either (1) the prefix is explicitly removed from the
set of advertised prefixes or (2) the parameters with
which the prefix is advertised are specified (default
case).";
leaf no-advertise {
type empty;
description
"The prefix will not be advertised.
This can be used for removing the prefix from
the default set of advertised prefixes.";
}
case advertise {
leaf valid-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
default "2592000";
description
"The value to be placed in the Valid Lifetime
in the Prefix Information option. The
designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
represents infinity.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvValidLifetime";
}
leaf on-link-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the on-link flag
('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information
option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvOnLinkFlag";
}
leaf preferred-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
must ". <= ../valid-lifetime" {
description
"This value MUST NOT be greater than
valid-lifetime.";
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 51
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
default "604800";
description
"The value to be placed in the Preferred
Lifetime in the Prefix Information option.
The designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff)
represents infinity.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvPreferredLifetime";
}
leaf autonomous-flag {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"The value to be placed in the Autonomous Flag
field in the Prefix Information option.";
reference
"RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
(IPv6) - AdvAutonomousFlag";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
/*
* The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted
* by the Network Management Datastore Architecture
* as described in RFC 8342.
*/
augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
status obsolete;
description
"Augments interface state data with parameters of IPv6
Router Advertisements.";
container ipv6-router-advertisements {
status obsolete;
description
"Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
leaf send-advertisements {
type boolean;
status obsolete;
description
"A flag indicating whether or not the router sends
periodic Router Advertisements and responds to
Router Solicitations.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 52
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "4..1800";
}
units "seconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
}
leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
type uint16 {
range "3..1350";
}
units "seconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
}
leaf managed-flag {
type boolean;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the 'Managed address
configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
}
leaf other-config-flag {
type boolean;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the 'Other configuration' flag
field in the Router Advertisement.";
}
leaf link-mtu {
type uint32;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in MTU options sent by the
router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options
are sent.";
}
leaf reachable-time {
type uint32 {
range "0..3600000";
}
units "milliseconds";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 53
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Reachable Time field in
the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A
value of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf retrans-timer {
type uint32;
units "milliseconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf cur-hop-limit {
type uint8;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the
Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
}
leaf default-lifetime {
type uint16 {
range "0..9000";
}
units "seconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Router Lifetime field of
Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
A value of zero indicates that the router is not to be
used as a default router.";
}
container prefix-list {
status obsolete;
description
"A list of prefixes that are placed in Prefix Information
options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the
interface.
By default, these are all prefixes that the router
advertises via routing protocols as being on-link for the
interface from which the advertisement is sent.";
list prefix {
key "prefix-spec";
status obsolete;
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 54
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
description
"Advertised prefix entry and its parameters.";
leaf prefix-spec {
type inet:ipv6-prefix;
status obsolete;
description
"IPv6 address prefix.";
}
leaf valid-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Valid Lifetime in the
Prefix Information option. The designated value of
all 1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity.
An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
consecutive advertisements, except when it is
explicitly changed in configuration.";
}
leaf on-link-flag {
type boolean;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the on-link flag ('L-bit')
field in the Prefix Information option.";
}
leaf preferred-lifetime {
type uint32;
units "seconds";
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Preferred Lifetime in
the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The
designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
infinity.
An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
consecutive advertisements, except when it is
explicitly changed in configuration.";
}
leaf autonomous-flag {
type boolean;
status obsolete;
description
"The value that is placed in the Autonomous Flag field
in the Prefix Information option.";
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 55
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
10. IANA Considerations
[RFC 8022] registered the following namespace URIs in the "IETF XML
Registry" [RFC 3688]. IANA has updated the references to refer to
this document.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
[RFC 8022] registered the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module
Names" registry [RFC 6020]. IANA has updated (1) the modules per this
document and (2) the references to refer to this document.
Name: ietf-routing
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
Prefix: rt
Reference: RFC 8349
Name: ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
Prefix: v4ur
Reference: RFC 8349
Name: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Prefix: v6ur
Reference: RFC 8349
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 56
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
This document registers the following YANG submodule in the "YANG
Module Names" registry [RFC 6020]:
Name: ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements
Module: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
Reference: RFC 8349
11. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC 6241] or RESTCONF [RFC 8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC 6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC 5246].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC 8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in these YANG modules that
are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol: This list
specifies the control-plane protocols configured on a device.
/routing/ribs/rib: This list specifies the RIBs configured for the
device.
Some of the readable data nodes in these YANG modules may be
considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config,
or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and
data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol: This list
specifies the control-plane protocols configured on a device.
Refer to the control-plane models for a list of sensitive
information.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 57
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
/routing/ribs/rib: This list specifies the RIBs and their contents
for the device. Access to this information may disclose the
network topology and/or other information.
Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control access to these operations. These are the
operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/routing/ribs/rib/active-route: The output from this RPC operation
returns the route that is being used for a specified destination.
Access to this information may disclose the network topology or
relationship (e.g., client/provider). Additionally, the routes
used by a network device may be used to mount a subsequent attack
on traffic traversing the network device.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3688>.
[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4861>.
[RFC 5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5246>.
[RFC 6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6020>.
[RFC 6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6241>.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 58
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
[RFC 6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6242>.
[RFC 6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6991>.
[RFC 7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7950>.
[RFC 8022] Lhotka, L. and A. Lindem, "A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management", RFC 8022, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8022,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8022>.
[RFC 8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8040>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8341>.
[RFC 8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8342>.
[RFC 8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8343>.
[RFC 8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8344>.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 59
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
(Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC 7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7224, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7224>.
[RFC 7895] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module
Library", RFC 7895, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7895, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7895>.
[RFC 7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7951>.
[RFC 8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8340>.
[YANG-Guidelines]
Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
Data Model Documents", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20, March 2018.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 60
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Appendix A. The Complete Schema Tree
This appendix presents the complete tree of the core routing data
model. See [RFC 8340] for an explanation of the symbols used. The
data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the
corresponding line.
module: ietf-routing
+--rw routing
| +--rw router-id? yang:dotted-quad
| +--ro interfaces
| | +--ro interface* if:interface-ref
| +--rw control-plane-protocols
| | +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
| | +--rw type identityref
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw description? string
| | +--rw static-routes
| | +--rw v4ur:ipv4
| | | +--rw v4ur:route* [destination-prefix]
| | | +--rw v4ur:destination-prefix
| | | | inet:ipv4-prefix
| | | +--rw v4ur:description? string
| | | +--rw v4ur:next-hop
| | | +--rw (v4ur:next-hop-options)
| | | +--:(v4ur:simple-next-hop)
| | | | +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface?
| | | | | if:interface-ref
| | | | +--rw v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--:(v4ur:special-next-hop)
| | | | +--rw v4ur:special-next-hop?
| | | | enumeration
| | | +--:(v4ur:next-hop-list)
| | | +--rw v4ur:next-hop-list
| | | +--rw v4ur:next-hop* [index]
| | | +--rw v4ur:index
| | | | string
| | | +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface?
| | | | if:interface-ref
| | | +--rw v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | +--rw v6ur:ipv6
| | +--rw v6ur:route* [destination-prefix]
| | +--rw v6ur:destination-prefix
| | | inet:ipv6-prefix
| | +--rw v6ur:description? string
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 61
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
| | +--rw v6ur:next-hop
| | +--rw (v6ur:next-hop-options)
| | +--:(v6ur:simple-next-hop)
| | | +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface?
| | | | if:interface-ref
| | | +--rw v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | | inet:ipv6-address
| | +--:(v6ur:special-next-hop)
| | | +--rw v6ur:special-next-hop?
| | | enumeration
| | +--:(v6ur:next-hop-list)
| | +--rw v6ur:next-hop-list
| | +--rw v6ur:next-hop* [index]
| | +--rw v6ur:index
| | | string
| | +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface?
| | | if:interface-ref
| | +--rw v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | inet:ipv6-address
| +--rw ribs
| +--rw rib* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw address-family identityref
| +--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}?
| +--ro routes
| | +--ro route*
| | +--ro route-preference? route-preference
| | +--ro next-hop
| | | +--ro (next-hop-options)
| | | +--:(simple-next-hop)
| | | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | | | if:interface-ref
| | | | +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--:(special-next-hop)
| | | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration
| | | +--:(next-hop-list)
| | | +--ro next-hop-list
| | | +--ro next-hop*
| | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | | if:interface-ref
| | | +--ro v4ur:address?
| | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--ro v6ur:address?
| | | inet:ipv6-address
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 62
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
| | +--ro source-protocol identityref
| | +--ro active? empty
| | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix
| | +--ro v6ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix
| +---x active-route
| | +---w input
| | | +---w v4ur:destination-address? inet:ipv4-address
| | | +---w v6ur:destination-address? inet:ipv6-address
| | +--ro output
| | +--ro route
| | +--ro next-hop
| | | +--ro (next-hop-options)
| | | +--:(simple-next-hop)
| | | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | | | if:interface-ref
| | | | +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | | +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | inet:ipv6-address
| | | +--:(special-next-hop)
| | | | +--ro special-next-hop?
| | | | enumeration
| | | +--:(next-hop-list)
| | | +--ro next-hop-list
| | | +--ro next-hop*
| | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | | if:interface-ref
| | | +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | | inet:ipv6-address
| | +--ro source-protocol identityref
| | +--ro active? empty
| | +--ro last-updated?
| | | yang:date-and-time
| | +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix?
| | | inet:ipv4-prefix
| | +--ro v6ur:destination-prefix?
| | inet:ipv6-prefix
| +--rw description? string
o--ro routing-state
o--ro router-id? yang:dotted-quad
o--ro interfaces
| o--ro interface* if:interface-state-ref
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 63
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o--ro control-plane-protocols
| o--ro control-plane-protocol* [type name]
| o--ro type identityref
| o--ro name string
o--ro ribs
o--ro rib* [name]
o--ro name string
o--ro address-family identityref
o--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}?
o--ro routes
| o--ro route*
| o--ro route-preference? route-preference
| o--ro next-hop
| | o--ro (next-hop-options)
| | o--:(simple-next-hop)
| | | o--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | | if:interface-ref
| | | o--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | | inet:ipv4-address
| | | o--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | | inet:ipv6-address
| | o--:(special-next-hop)
| | | o--ro special-next-hop? enumeration
| | o--:(next-hop-list)
| | o--ro next-hop-list
| | o--ro next-hop*
| | o--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | if:interface-ref
| | o--ro v4ur:address?
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | o--ro v6ur:address?
| | inet:ipv6-address
| o--ro source-protocol identityref
| o--ro active? empty
| o--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
| o--ro v4ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix
| o--ro v6ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv6-prefix
o---x active-route
o---w input
| o---w v4ur:destination-address? inet:ipv4-address
| o---w v6ur:destination-address? inet:ipv6-address
o--ro output
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 64
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
o--ro route
o--ro next-hop
| o--ro (next-hop-options)
| o--:(simple-next-hop)
| | o--ro outgoing-interface?
| | | if:interface-ref
| | o--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | | inet:ipv4-address
| | o--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| | inet:ipv6-address
| o--:(special-next-hop)
| | o--ro special-next-hop?
| | enumeration
| o--:(next-hop-list)
| o--ro next-hop-list
| o--ro next-hop*
| o--ro outgoing-interface?
| | if:interface-ref
| o--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
| | inet:ipv4-address
| o--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
| inet:ipv6-address
o--ro source-protocol identityref
o--ro active? empty
o--ro last-updated?
| yang:date-and-time
o--ro v4ur:destination-prefix?
| inet:ipv4-prefix
o--ro v6ur:destination-prefix?
inet:ipv6-prefix
module: ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6:
+--rw ipv6-router-advertisements
+--rw send-advertisements? boolean
+--rw max-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
+--rw min-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
+--rw managed-flag? boolean
+--rw other-config-flag? boolean
+--rw link-mtu? uint32
+--rw reachable-time? uint32
+--rw retrans-timer? uint32
+--rw cur-hop-limit? uint8
+--rw default-lifetime? uint16
+--rw prefix-list
+--rw prefix* [prefix-spec]
+--rw prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 65
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
+--rw (control-adv-prefixes)?
+--:(no-advertise)
| +--rw no-advertise? empty
+--:(advertise)
+--rw valid-lifetime? uint32
+--rw on-link-flag? boolean
+--rw preferred-lifetime? uint32
+--rw autonomous-flag? boolean
augment /if:interfaces-state/if:interface/ip:ipv6:
o--ro ipv6-router-advertisements
o--ro send-advertisements? boolean
o--ro max-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
o--ro min-rtr-adv-interval? uint16
o--ro managed-flag? boolean
o--ro other-config-flag? boolean
o--ro link-mtu? uint32
o--ro reachable-time? uint32
o--ro retrans-timer? uint32
o--ro cur-hop-limit? uint8
o--ro default-lifetime? uint16
o--ro prefix-list
o--ro prefix* [prefix-spec]
o--ro prefix-spec inet:ipv6-prefix
o--ro valid-lifetime? uint32
o--ro on-link-flag? boolean
o--ro preferred-lifetime? uint32
o--ro autonomous-flag? boolean
Appendix B. Minimum Implementation
Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as
user-defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers. This
appendix gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare
minimum of available functions. Such an implementation may be used
for hosts or very simple routers.
A minimum implementation does not support the "multiple-ribs"
feature. This means that a single system-controlled RIB is available
for each supported address family -- IPv4, IPv6, or both. These RIBs
are also the default RIBs. No user-controlled RIBs are allowed.
In addition to the mandatory instance of the "direct"
pseudo-protocol, a minimum implementation should support configuring
instance(s) of the "static" pseudo-protocol.
For hosts that are never intended to act as routers, the ability to
turn on sending IPv6 Router Advertisements (Section 5.4) should be
removed.
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 66
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Platforms with severely constrained resources may use deviations for
restricting the data model, e.g., limiting the number of "static"
control-plane protocol instances.
Appendix C. Example: Adding a New Control-Plane Protocol
This appendix demonstrates how the core routing data model can be
extended to support a new control-plane protocol. The YANG module
"example-rip" shown below is intended as an illustration rather than
a real definition of a data model for the Routing Information
Protocol (RIP). For the sake of brevity, this module does not obey
all the guidelines specified in [YANG-Guidelines]. See also
Section 5.3.2.
module example-rip {
yang-version "1.1";
namespace "http://example.com/rip";
prefix "rip";
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix "if";
}
import ietf-routing {
prefix "rt";
}
identity rip {
base rt:routing-protocol;
description
"Identity for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP).";
}
typedef rip-metric {
type uint8 {
range "0..16";
}
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 67
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
grouping route-content {
description
"This grouping defines RIP-specific route attributes.";
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
}
leaf tag {
type uint16;
default "0";
description
"This leaf may be used to carry additional information,
e.g., an autonomous system (AS) number.";
}
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(rt:source-protocol, 'rip:rip')" {
description
"This augment is only valid for a route whose source
protocol is RIP.";
}
description
"RIP-specific route attributes.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/"
+ "rt:output/rt:route" {
description
"RIP-specific route attributes in the output of an
'active-route' RPC.";
uses route-content;
}
augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
+ "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type,'rip:rip')" {
description
"This augment is only valid for a routing protocol instance
of type 'rip'.";
}
container rip {
presence
"RIP configuration";
description
"RIP instance configuration.";
container interfaces {
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 68
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
description
"Per-interface RIP configuration.";
list interface {
key "name";
description
"RIP is enabled on interfaces that have an entry in this
list, unless 'enabled' is set to 'false' for that
entry.";
leaf name {
type if:interface-ref;
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
}
leaf metric {
type rip-metric;
default "1";
}
}
}
leaf update-interval {
type uint8 {
range "10..60";
}
units "seconds";
default "30";
description
"Time interval between periodic updates.";
}
}
}
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 69
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Appendix D. Data Tree Example
This section contains an example of an instance data tree from the
operational state, in JSON encoding [RFC 7951]. (This example
includes "iana-if-type", which is defined in [RFC 7224].)
The data conforms to a data model that is defined by the following
YANG library specification [RFC 7895]:
{
"ietf-yang-library:modules-state": {
"module-set-id": "c2e1f54169aa7f36e1a6e8d0865d441d3600f9c4",
"module": [
{
"name": "ietf-routing",
"revision": "2018-03-13",
"feature": [
"multiple-ribs",
"router-id"
],
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing",
"conformance-type": "implement"
},
{
"name": "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing",
"revision": "2018-03-13",
"namespace":
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing",
"conformance-type": "implement"
},
{
"name": "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing",
"revision": "2018-03-13",
"namespace":
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing",
"conformance-type": "implement",
"submodule": [
{
"name": "ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements",
"revision": "2018-03-13"
}
]
},
{
"name": "ietf-interfaces",
"revision": "2018-02-20",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces",
"conformance-type": "implement"
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 70
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
},
{
"name": "ietf-inet-types",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-inet-types",
"revision": "2013-07-15",
"conformance-type": "import"
},
{
"name": "ietf-yang-types",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-types",
"revision": "2013-07-15",
"conformance-type": "import"
},
{
"name": "iana-if-type",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type",
"revision": "2014-05-08",
"conformance-type": "implement"
},
{
"name": "ietf-ip",
"revision": "2018-02-22",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip",
"conformance-type": "implement"
}
]
}
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 71
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
A simple network setup as shown in Figure 2 is assumed: router "A"
uses static default routes with the "ISP" router as the next hop.
IPv6 Router Advertisements are configured only on the "eth1"
interface and disabled on the upstream "eth0" interface.
+-----------------+
| |
| Router ISP |
| |
+--------+--------+
|2001:db8:0:1::2
|192.0.2.2
|
|
|2001:db8:0:1::1
eth0|192.0.2.1
+--------+--------+
| |
| Router A |
| |
+--------+--------+
eth1|198.51.100.1
|2001:db8:0:2::1
|
Figure 2: Example of Network Configuration
The instance data tree could then be as follows:
{
"ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {
"interface": [
{
"name": "eth0",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"description": "Uplink to ISP.",
"phys-address": "00:0C:42:E5:B1:E9",
"oper-status": "up",
"statistics": {
"discontinuity-time": "2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00"
},
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"forwarding": true,
"mtu": 1500,
"address": [
{
"ip": "192.0.2.1",
"prefix-length": 24
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 72
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
]
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"forwarding": true,
"mtu": 1500,
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:0db8:0:1::1",
"prefix-length": 64
}
],
"autoconf": {
"create-global-addresses": false
},
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6-router-advertisements": {
"send-advertisements": false
}
}
},
{
"name": "eth1",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"description": "Interface to the internal network.",
"phys-address": "00:0C:42:E5:B1:EA",
"oper-status": "up",
"statistics": {
"discontinuity-time": "2015-10-24T17:11:29+02:00"
},
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"forwarding": true,
"mtu": 1500,
"address": [
{
"ip": "198.51.100.1",
"prefix-length": 24
}
]
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"forwarding": true,
"mtu": 1500,
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:0db8:0:2::1",
"prefix-length": 64
}
],
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 73
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
"autoconf": {
"create-global-addresses": false
},
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6-router-advertisements": {
"send-advertisements": true,
"prefix-list": {
"prefix": [
{
"prefix-spec": "2001:db8:0:2::/64"
}
]
}
}
}
}
]
},
"ietf-routing:routing": {
"router-id": "192.0.2.1",
"control-plane-protocols": {
"control-plane-protocol": [
{
"type": "ietf-routing:static",
"name": "st0",
"description":
"Static routing is used for the internal network.",
"static-routes": {
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:ipv4": {
"route": [
{
"destination-prefix": "0.0.0.0/0",
"next-hop": {
"next-hop-address": "192.0.2.2"
}
}
]
},
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6": {
"route": [
{
"destination-prefix": "::/0",
"next-hop": {
"next-hop-address": "2001:db8:0:1::2"
}
}
]
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 74
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
}
}
]
},
"ribs": {
"rib": [
{
"name": "ipv4-master",
"address-family":
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:ipv4-unicast",
"default-rib": true,
"routes": {
"route": [
{
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"192.0.2.1/24",
"next-hop": {
"outgoing-interface": "eth0"
},
"route-preference": 0,
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:direct",
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00"
},
{
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"198.51.100.0/24",
"next-hop": {
"outgoing-interface": "eth1"
},
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:direct",
"route-preference": 0,
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00"
},
{
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"0.0.0.0/0",
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:static",
"route-preference": 5,
"next-hop": {
"ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:next-hop-address":
"192.0.2.2"
},
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00"
}
]
}
},
{
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 75
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
"name": "ipv6-master",
"address-family":
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6-unicast",
"default-rib": true,
"routes": {
"route": [
{
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"2001:db8:0:1::/64",
"next-hop": {
"outgoing-interface": "eth0"
},
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:direct",
"route-preference": 0,
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00"
},
{
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"2001:db8:0:2::/64",
"next-hop": {
"outgoing-interface": "eth1"
},
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:direct",
"route-preference": 0,
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00"
},
{
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix":
"::/0",
"next-hop": {
"ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:next-hop-address":
"2001:db8:0:1::2"
},
"source-protocol": "ietf-routing:static",
"route-preference": 5,
"last-updated": "2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00"
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
}
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 76
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Appendix E. NETCONF Get Data Reply Example
This section gives an example of an XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] reply
to the NETCONF <get-data> request for <operational> for a device that
implements the example data models above.
<rpc-reply
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
message-id="101">
<data>
<routing
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<router-id or:origin="or:intended">192.0.2.1</router-id>
<control-plane-protocols or:origin="or:intended">
<control-plane-protocol>
<type>ietf-routing:static</type>
<name>static-routing-protocol</name>
<static-routes>
<ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:ipv4>
<route>
<destination-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<next-hop-address>192.0.2.2</next-hop-address>
</next-hop>
</route>
</ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:ipv4>
<ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6>
<route>
<destination-prefix>::/0</destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<next-hop-address>2001:db8:0:1::2</next-hop-address>
</next-hop>
</route>
</ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6>
</static-routes>
</control-plane-protocol>
</control-plane-protocols>
<ribs>
<rib or:origin="or:intended">
<name>ipv4-master</name>
<address-family>
ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:ipv4-unicast
</address-family>
<default-rib>true</default-rib>
<routes>
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 77
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
<route>
<ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
192.0.2.1/24
</ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<outgoing-interface>eth0</outgoing-interface>
</next-hop>
<route-preference>0</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:direct</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
<route>
<ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
198.51.100.0/24
</ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<outgoing-interface>eth1</outgoing-interface>
</next-hop>
<route-preference>0</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:direct</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
<route>
<ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>0.0.0.0/0
</ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:next-hop-address>192.0.2.2
</ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing:next-hop-address>
</next-hop>
<route-preference>5</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:static</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
</routes>
</rib>
<rib or:origin="or:intended">
<name>ipv6-master</name>
<address-family>
ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:ipv6-unicast
</address-family>
<default-rib>true</default-rib>
<routes>
<route>
<ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
2001:db8:0:1::/64
</ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<outgoing-interface>eth0</outgoing-interface>
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 78
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
</next-hop>
<route-preference>0</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:direct</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
<route>
<ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
2001:db8:0:2::/64
</ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<outgoing-interface>eth1</outgoing-interface>
</next-hop>
<route-preference>0</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:direct</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
<route>
<ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>::/0
</ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:destination-prefix>
<next-hop>
<ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:next-hop-address>
2001:db8:0:1::2
</ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing:next-hop-address>
</next-hop>
<route-preference>5</route-preference>
<source-protocol>ietf-routing:static</source-protocol>
<last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</last-updated>
</route>
</routes>
</rib>
</ribs>
</routing>
</data>
</rpc-reply>
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 79
RFC 8349 YANG Routing Management March 2018
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Nitin Bahadur, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
Bogdanovic, Joe Clarke, Francis Dupont, Jeff Haas, Joel Halpern,
Wes Hardaker, Jia He, Sriganesh Kini, Suresh Krishnan,
David Lamparter, Xiang Li, Stephane Litkowski, Andrew McGregor,
Jan Medved, Thomas Morin, Tom Petch, Bruno Rijsman,
Juergen Schoenwaelder, Phil Shafer, Dave Thaler, Vladimir Vassilev,
Rob Wilton, Yi Yang, Derek Man-Kit Yeung, and Jeffrey Zhang for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Ladislav Lhotka
CZ.NIC
Email: lhotka@nic.cz
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
Email: acee@cisco.com
Yingzhen Qu
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: yingzhen.qu@huawei.com
Lhotka, et al. Standards Track PAGE 80
A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 147002 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, March 20th, 2018
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
