|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8776
Last modified on Thursday, June 11th, 2020
 Permanent link to RFC 8776
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8776
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8776
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Saad
Request for Comments: 8776 Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track R. Gandhi
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
X. Liu
Volta Networks
V. Beeram
Juniper Networks
I. Bryskin
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
June 2020
Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
 Abstract
This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types and
groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic
Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.
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 8776.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations
3. Overview
3.1. TE Types Module Contents
3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents
4. TE Types YANG Module
5. Packet TE Types YANG Module
6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
YANG [RFC 6020] [RFC 7950] is a data modeling language used to model
configuration data, state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and
notifications for network management protocols such as the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC 6241]. The YANG language
supports a small set of built-in data types and provides mechanisms
to derive other types from the built-in types.
This document introduces a collection of common data types derived
from the built-in YANG data types. The derived types and groupings
are designed to be the common types applicable for modeling Traffic
Engineering (TE) features in model(s) defined outside of this
document.
1.1. Terminology
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 terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
[RFC 7950].
1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes and other data model objects
are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
corresponding YANG imported modules, as shown in Table 1.
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
| Prefix | YANG Module | Reference |
+=================+======================+===============+
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC 6991] |
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC 6991] |
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
| rt-types | ietf-routing-types | [RFC 8294] |
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
| te-types | ietf-te-types | This document |
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
| te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | This document |
+-----------------+----------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations
GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
LER: Label Edge Router
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE: Traffic Engineering
DS-TE: Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering
SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group
NBMA: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access
APS: Automatic Protection Switching
SD: Signal Degrade
SF: Signal Fail
WTR: Wait-to-Restore
PM: Performance Metrics
3. Overview
This document defines two YANG modules for common TE types:
"ietf-te-types" for TE generic types and "ietf-te-packet-types" for
packet-specific types. Other technology-specific TE types are
outside the scope of this document.
3.1. TE Types Module Contents
The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that
are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-
plane instance.
The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable types
and groupings:
te-bandwidth:
A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE bandwidth. The
modeling structure allows augmentation for each technology. For
unspecified technologies, the string-encoded "te-bandwidth" type
is used.
te-label:
A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE label. The modeling
structure allows augmentation for each technology. For
unspecified technologies, "rt-types:generalized-label" is used.
performance-metrics-attributes:
A YANG grouping that defines one-way and two-way measured
Performance Metrics (PM) and indications of anomalies on link(s)
or the path as defined in [RFC 7471], [RFC 8570], and [RFC 7823].
performance-metrics-throttle-container:
A YANG grouping that defines configurable thresholds for
advertisement suppression and measurement intervals.
te-ds-class:
A type representing the Differentiated Services (DS) Class-Type of
traffic as defined in [RFC 4124].
te-label-direction:
An enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse direction
of a label.
te-hop-type:
An enumerated type for specifying that a hop is loose or strict.
te-global-id:
A type representing the identifier that uniquely identifies an
operator, which can be either a provider or a client. The
definition of this type is taken from [RFC 6370] and [RFC 5003].
This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally unique
context for TE topologies.
te-node-id:
A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad notation.
This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described
in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC 3630], the TE Router ID described in
Section 3 of [RFC 6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV
described in Section 4.3 of [RFC 5305], or the TE Router ID TLV
described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC 6119]. The reachability of such
a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as that described in
Section 6.2 of [RFC 6827].
te-topology-id:
A type representing the identifier for a topology. It is optional
to have one or more prefixes at the beginning, separated by
colons. The prefixes can be "network-types" as defined in the
"ietf-network" module in [RFC 8345], to help the user better
understand the topology before further inquiry is made.
te-tp-id:
A type representing the identifier of a TE interface Link
Termination Point (LTP) on a specific TE node where the TE link
connects. This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link
identifier [RFC 3630] [RFC 5305].
te-path-disjointness:
A type representing the different resource disjointness options
for a TE tunnel path as defined in [RFC 4872].
admin-groups:
A union type for a TE link's classic or extended administrative
groups as defined in [RFC 3630], [RFC 5305], and [RFC 7308].
srlg:
A type representing the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) as defined
in [RFC 4203] and [RFC 5307].
te-metric:
A type representing the TE metric as defined in [RFC 3785].
te-recovery-status:
An enumerated type for the different statuses of a recovery action
as defined in [RFC 4427] and [RFC 6378].
path-attribute-flags:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP path flags as defined in
[RFC 3209], [RFC 4090], [RFC 4736], [RFC 5712], [RFC 4920], [RFC 5420],
[RFC 7570], [RFC 4875], [RFC 5151], [RFC 5150], [RFC 6001], [RFC 6790],
[RFC 7260], [RFC 8001], [RFC 8149], and [RFC 8169].
link-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported link protection types as
defined in [RFC 4872] and [RFC 4427].
restoration-scheme-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP restoration schemes as
defined in [RFC 4872].
protection-external-commands:
A base YANG identity for supported protection-related external
commands used for troubleshooting purposes, as defined in
[RFC 4427].
association-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP association types as
defined in [RFC 6780], [RFC 4872], and [RFC 4873].
objective-function-type:
A base YANG identity for supported path computation objective
functions as defined in [RFC 5541].
te-tunnel-type:
A base YANG identity for supported TE tunnel types as defined in
[RFC 3209] and [RFC 4875].
lsp-encoding-types:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP encoding types as defined
in [RFC 3471].
lsp-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP protection types as defined
in [RFC 4872] and [RFC 4873].
switching-capabilities:
A base YANG identity for supported interface switching
capabilities as defined in [RFC 3471].
resource-affinities-type:
A base YANG identity for supported attribute filters associated
with a tunnel that must be satisfied for a link to be acceptable
as defined in [RFC 2702] and [RFC 3209].
path-metric-type:
A base YANG identity for supported path metric types as defined in
[RFC 3785] and [RFC 7471].
explicit-route-hop:
A YANG grouping that defines supported explicit routes as defined
in [RFC 3209] and [RFC 3477].
te-link-access-type:
An enumerated type for the different TE link access types as
defined in [RFC 3630].
3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module (Section 5) covers the common types
and groupings that are specific to packet technology.
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG
reusable types and groupings:
backup-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported protection types that a backup
or bypass tunnel can provide as defined in [RFC 4090].
te-class-type:
A type that represents the Diffserv-TE Class-Type as defined in
[RFC 4124].
bc-type:
A type that represents Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints (BCs) as
defined in [RFC 4124].
bc-model-type:
A base YANG identity for supported Diffserv-TE Bandwidth
Constraints Models as defined in [RFC 4125], [RFC 4126], and
[RFC 4127].
te-bandwidth-requested-type:
An enumerated type for the different options to request bandwidth
for a specific tunnel.
performance-metrics-attributes-packet:
A YANG grouping that contains the generic performance metrics and
additional packet-specific metrics.
4. TE Types YANG Module
The "ietf-te-types" module imports from the following modules:
* "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in [RFC 6991]
* "ietf-routing-types" as defined in [RFC 8294]
In addition to [RFC 6991] and [RFC 8294], this module references the
following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings:
[RFC 3272], [RFC 4090], [RFC 4202], [RFC 4328], [RFC 4561], [RFC 4657],
[RFC 5817], [RFC 6004], [RFC 6511], [RFC 7139], [RFC 7308], [RFC 7551],
[RFC 7571], [RFC 7579], and [G.709].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-types@2020-06-10.yang"
module ietf-te-types {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types";
prefix te-types;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-routing-types {
prefix rt-types;
reference
"RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area";
}
organization
"IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Editor: Tarek Saad
<mailto:tsaad@juniper.net>
Editor: Rakesh Gandhi
<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>
Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>
Editor: Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Editor: Igor Bryskin
<mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>";
description
"This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful
YANG data type definitions specific to TE. The model fully
conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).
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.
Copyright (c) 2020 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 8776; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-06-10 {
description
"Latest revision of TE types.";
reference
"RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
}
/**
* Typedefs
*/
typedef admin-group {
type yang:hex-string {
/* 01:02:03:04 */
length "1..11";
}
description
"Administrative group / resource class / color representation
in 'hex-string' type.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering
RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
typedef admin-groups {
type union {
type admin-group;
type extended-admin-group;
}
description
"Derived types for TE administrative groups.";
}
typedef extended-admin-group {
type yang:hex-string;
description
"Extended administrative group / resource class / color
representation in 'hex-string' type.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.";
reference
"RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
typedef path-attribute-flags {
type union {
type identityref {
base session-attributes-flags;
}
type identityref {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
}
}
description
"Path attributes flags type.";
}
typedef performance-metrics-normality {
type enumeration {
enum unknown {
value 0;
description
"Unknown.";
}
enum normal {
value 1;
description
"Normal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is not set.";
}
enum abnormal {
value 2;
description
"Abnormal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is set.";
}
}
description
"Indicates whether a performance metric is normal (anomalous
bit not set), abnormal (anomalous bit set), or unknown.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
typedef srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG type.";
reference
"RFC 4203: OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
RFC 5307: IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
typedef te-common-status {
type enumeration {
enum up {
description
"Enabled.";
}
enum down {
description
"Disabled.";
}
enum testing {
description
"In some test mode.";
}
enum preparing-maintenance {
description
"The resource is disabled in the control plane to prepare
for a graceful shutdown for maintenance purposes.";
reference
"RFC 5817: Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS
Traffic Engineering Networks";
}
enum maintenance {
description
"The resource is disabled in the data plane for maintenance
purposes.";
}
enum unknown {
description
"Status is unknown.";
}
}
description
"Defines a type representing the common states of a TE
resource.";
}
typedef te-bandwidth {
type string {
pattern '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
+ '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?'
+ '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
+ '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+'
+ '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
+ '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?'
+ '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
+ '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*';
}
description
"This is the generic bandwidth type. It is a string containing
a list of numbers separated by commas, where each of these
numbers can be non-negative decimal, hex integer, or
hex float:
(dec | hex | float)[*(','(dec | hex | float))]
For the packet-switching type, the string encoding follows
the type 'bandwidth-ieee-float32' as defined in RFC 8294
(e.g., 0x1p10), where the units are in bytes per second.
For the Optical Transport Network (OTN) switching type,
a list of integers can be used, such as '0,2,3,1', indicating
two ODU0s and one ODU3. ('ODU' stands for 'Optical Data
Unit'.) For Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM),
a list of pairs of slot numbers and widths can be used,
such as '0,2,3,3', indicating a frequency slot 0 with
slot width 2 and a frequency slot 3 with slot width 3.
Canonically, the string is represented as all lowercase and in
hex, where the prefix '0x' precedes the hex number.";
reference
"RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area
ITU-T Recommendation G.709: Interfaces for the
optical transport network";
}
typedef te-ds-class {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
"The Differentiated Services Class-Type of traffic.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering, Section 4.3.1";
}
typedef te-global-id {
type uint32;
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify an operator, which can be
either a provider or a client.
The definition of this type is taken from RFCs 6370 and 5003.
This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally
unique context for TE topologies.";
reference
"RFC 5003: Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation
RFC 6370: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers";
}
typedef te-hop-type {
type enumeration {
enum loose {
description
"A loose hop in an explicit path.";
}
enum strict {
description
"A strict hop in an explicit path.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying loose or strict paths.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3.3";
}
typedef te-link-access-type {
type enumeration {
enum point-to-point {
description
"The link is point-to-point.";
}
enum multi-access {
description
"The link is multi-access, including broadcast and NBMA.";
}
}
description
"Defines a type representing the access type of a TE link.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
typedef te-label-direction {
type enumeration {
enum forward {
description
"Label allocated for the forward LSP direction.";
}
enum reverse {
description
"Label allocated for the reverse LSP direction.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse
label.";
}
typedef te-link-direction {
type enumeration {
enum incoming {
description
"The explicit route represents an incoming link on
a node.";
}
enum outgoing {
description
"The explicit route represents an outgoing link on
a node.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying the direction of a link on
a node.";
}
typedef te-metric {
type uint32;
description
"TE metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
typedef te-node-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE
topology.
The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad
notation.
This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV
described in Section 2.4.1 of RFC 3630, the TE Router ID
described in Section 3 of RFC 6827, the Traffic Engineering
Router ID TLV described in Section 4.3 of RFC 5305, or the
TE Router ID TLV described in Section 3.2.1 of RFC 6119.
The reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a
mechanism such as that described in Section 6.2 of RFC 6827.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2, Section 2.4.1
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering,
Section 4.3
RFC 6119: IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS, Section 3.2.1
RFC 6827: Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols, Section 3";
}
typedef te-oper-status {
type te-common-status;
description
"Defines a type representing the operational status of
a TE resource.";
}
typedef te-admin-status {
type te-common-status;
description
"Defines a type representing the administrative status of
a TE resource.";
}
typedef te-path-disjointness {
type bits {
bit node {
position 0;
description
"Node disjoint.";
}
bit link {
position 1;
description
"Link disjoint.";
}
bit srlg {
position 2;
description
"SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) disjoint.";
}
}
description
"Type of the resource disjointness for a TE tunnel path.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
typedef te-recovery-status {
type enumeration {
enum normal {
description
"Both the recovery span and the working span are fully
allocated and active, data traffic is being
transported over (or selected from) the working
span, and no trigger events are reported.";
}
enum recovery-started {
description
"The recovery action has been started but not completed.";
}
enum recovery-succeeded {
description
"The recovery action has succeeded. The working span has
reported a failure/degrade condition, and the user traffic
is being transported (or selected) on the recovery span.";
}
enum recovery-failed {
description
"The recovery action has failed.";
}
enum reversion-started {
description
"The reversion has started.";
}
enum reversion-succeeded {
description
"The reversion action has succeeded.";
}
enum reversion-failed {
description
"The reversion has failed.";
}
enum recovery-unavailable {
description
"The recovery is unavailable, as a result of either an
operator's lockout command or a failure condition
detected on the recovery span.";
}
enum recovery-admin {
description
"The operator has issued a command to switch the user
traffic to the recovery span.";
}
enum wait-to-restore {
description
"The recovery domain is recovering from a failure/degrade
condition on the working span that is being controlled by
the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer.";
}
}
description
"Defines the status of a recovery action.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection";
}
typedef te-template-name {
type string {
pattern '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*';
}
description
"A type for the name of a TE node template or TE link
template.";
}
typedef te-topology-event-type {
type enumeration {
enum add {
value 0;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been added.";
}
enum remove {
value 1;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been removed.";
}
enum update {
value 2;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been updated.";
}
}
description
"TE event type for notifications.";
}
typedef te-topology-id {
type union {
type string {
length "0";
// empty string
}
type string {
pattern '([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+:)*'
+ '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*';
}
}
description
"An identifier for a topology.
It is optional to have one or more prefixes at the beginning,
separated by colons. The prefixes can be 'network-types' as
defined in the 'ietf-network' module in RFC 8345, to help the
user better understand the topology before further inquiry
is made.";
reference
"RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
}
typedef te-tp-id {
type union {
type uint32;
// Unnumbered
type inet:ip-address;
// IPv4 or IPv6 address
}
description
"An identifier for a TE link endpoint on a node.
This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link identifier
as defined in RFCs 3630 and 5305.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering";
}
/* TE features */
feature p2mp-te {
description
"Indicates support for Point-to-Multipoint TE (P2MP-TE).";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
feature frr-te {
description
"Indicates support for TE Fast Reroute (FRR).";
reference
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
feature extended-admin-groups {
description
"Indicates support for TE link extended administrative
groups.";
reference
"RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
feature named-path-affinities {
description
"Indicates support for named path affinities.";
}
feature named-extended-admin-groups {
description
"Indicates support for named extended administrative groups.";
}
feature named-srlg-groups {
description
"Indicates support for named SRLG groups.";
}
feature named-path-constraints {
description
"Indicates support for named path constraints.";
}
feature path-optimization-metric {
description
"Indicates support for path optimization metrics.";
}
feature path-optimization-objective-function {
description
"Indicates support for path optimization objective functions.";
}
/*
* Identities
*/
identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
}
identity local-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Local protection is desired.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.7.1";
}
identity se-style-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Shared explicit style, to allow the LSP to be established
and share resources with the old LSP.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity local-recording-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Label recording is desired.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.7.1";
}
identity bandwidth-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Requests FRR bandwidth protection on LSRs, if present.";
reference
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity node-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Requests FRR node protection on LSRs, if present.";
reference
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity path-reevaluation-request {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"This flag indicates that a path re-evaluation (of the
current path in use) is requested. Note that this does
not trigger any LSP reroutes but instead just signals a
request to evaluate whether a preferable path exists.";
reference
"RFC 4736: Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)";
}
identity soft-preemption-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Soft preemption of LSP resources is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5712: MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption";
}
identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for LSP attributes flags.";
}
identity end-to-end-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates end-to-end rerouting behavior for an LSP
undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to
specify the behavior of end-to-end LSP recovery for
established LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity boundary-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates boundary rerouting behavior for an LSP undergoing
establishment. This MAY also be used to specify
segment-based LSP recovery through nested crankback for
established LSPs. The boundary Area Border Router (ABR) /
Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) can decide to forward
the PathErr message upstream to either an upstream boundary
ABR/ASBR or the ingress LSR. Alternatively, it can try to
select another egress boundary LSR.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity segment-based-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates segment-based rerouting behavior for an LSP
undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to specify
segment-based LSP recovery for established LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity lsp-integrity-required {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that LSP integrity is required.";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity contiguous-lsp-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that a contiguous LSP is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5151: Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering --
Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity lsp-stitching-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that LSP stitching is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5150: Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity pre-planned-lsp-flag {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that the LSP MUST be provisioned in the
control plane only.";
reference
"RFC 6001: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity non-php-behavior-flag {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that non-PHP (non-Penultimate Hop Popping) behavior
for the LSP is desired.";
reference
"RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band
Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity oob-mapping-flag {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that signaling of the egress binding information is
out of band (e.g., via the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)).";
reference
"RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band
Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity entropy-label-capability {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates entropy label capability.";
reference
"RFC 6790: The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity oam-mep-entity-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"OAM Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP) entities
desired.";
reference
"RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration";
}
identity oam-mip-entity-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"OAM Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIP)
entities desired.";
reference
"RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration";
}
identity srlg-collection-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"SRLG collection desired.";
reference
"RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)
RFC 8001: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk
Link Group (SRLG) Information";
}
identity loopback-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"This flag indicates that a particular node on the LSP is
required to enter loopback mode. This can also be
used to specify the loopback state of the node.";
reference
"RFC 7571: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and
Loopback";
}
identity p2mp-te-tree-eval-request {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"P2MP-TE tree re-evaluation request.";
reference
"RFC 8149: RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)";
}
identity rtm-set-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag requested.";
reference
"RFC 8169: Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks";
}
identity link-protection-type {
description
"Base identity for the link protection type.";
}
identity link-protection-unprotected {
base link-protection-type;
description
"Unprotected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-extra-traffic {
base link-protection-type;
description
"Extra-Traffic protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity link-protection-shared {
base link-protection-type;
description
"Shared protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-1-for-1 {
base link-protection-type;
description
"One-for-one (1:1) protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-1-plus-1 {
base link-protection-type;
description
"One-plus-one (1+1) protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-enhanced {
base link-protection-type;
description
"A compound link protection type derived from the underlay
TE tunnel protection configuration supporting the TE link.";
}
identity association-type {
description
"Base identity for the tunnel association.";
}
identity association-type-recovery {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for recovery, used to associate LSPs of the
same tunnel for recovery.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery
RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions";
}
identity association-type-resource-sharing {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for resource sharing, used to enable
resource sharing during make-before-break.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery
RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions";
}
identity association-type-double-sided-bidir {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for double-sided bidirectional LSPs,
used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels that are
independently configured on either endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
identity association-type-single-sided-bidir {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for single-sided bidirectional LSPs,
used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels, where one
tunnel is configured on one side/endpoint and the other
tunnel is dynamically created on the other endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions
RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
identity objective-function-type {
description
"Base objective function type.";
}
identity of-minimize-cost-path {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing path cost.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-minimize-load-path {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the load on one or more
paths.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-maximize-residual-bandwidth {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for maximizing residual bandwidth.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth
consumption.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that
is carrying the highest load.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-minimize-cost-path-set {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity path-computation-method {
description
"Base identity for supported path computation mechanisms.";
}
identity path-locally-computed {
base path-computation-method;
description
"Indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the
path is computed by the local LER.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering, Section 5.4";
}
identity path-externally-queried {
base path-computation-method;
description
"Constrained-path LSP in which the path is obtained by
querying an external source, such as a PCE server.
In the case that an LSP is defined to be externally queried,
it may also have associated explicit definitions (provided
to the external source to aid computation). The path that is
returned by the external source may require further local
computation on the device.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering
RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity path-explicitly-defined {
base path-computation-method;
description
"Constrained-path LSP in which the path is
explicitly specified as a collection of strict and/or loose
hops.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering";
}
identity lsp-metric-type {
description
"Base identity for the LSP metric specification types.";
}
identity lsp-metric-relative {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity
refers is specified as a value relative to the IGP metric
cost to the LSP's tail end.";
reference
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity lsp-metric-absolute {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity
refers is specified as an absolute value.";
reference
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity lsp-metric-inherited {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric for the LSPs to which this identity refers is
not specified explicitly; rather, it is directly inherited
from the IGP cost.";
reference
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity te-tunnel-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific tunnel types are derived.";
}
identity te-tunnel-p2p {
base te-tunnel-type;
description
"TE Point-to-Point (P2P) tunnel type.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity te-tunnel-p2mp {
base te-tunnel-type;
description
"TE P2MP tunnel type.";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
identity tunnel-action-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific tunnel action types
are derived.";
}
identity tunnel-action-resetup {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that tears down the tunnel's current LSP
(if any) and attempts to re-establish a new LSP.";
}
identity tunnel-action-reoptimize {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that reoptimizes the placement of the
tunnel LSP(s).";
}
identity tunnel-action-switchpath {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that switches the tunnel's LSP to use the
specified path.";
}
identity te-action-result {
description
"Base identity from which specific TE action results
are derived.";
}
identity te-action-success {
base te-action-result;
description
"TE action was successful.";
}
identity te-action-fail {
base te-action-result;
description
"TE action failed.";
}
identity tunnel-action-inprogress {
base te-action-result;
description
"TE action is in progress.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE tunnel administrative states.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-up {
base tunnel-admin-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's administrative state is up.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-down {
base tunnel-admin-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's administrative state is down.";
}
identity tunnel-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE tunnel states.";
}
identity tunnel-state-up {
base tunnel-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's state is up.";
}
identity tunnel-state-down {
base tunnel-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's state is down.";
}
identity lsp-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE LSP states.";
}
identity lsp-path-computing {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation is in progress.";
}
identity lsp-path-computation-ok {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation was successful.";
}
identity lsp-path-computation-failed {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation failed.";
}
identity lsp-state-setting-up {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is being set up.";
}
identity lsp-state-setup-ok {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State setup was successful.";
}
identity lsp-state-setup-failed {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State setup failed.";
}
identity lsp-state-up {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is up.";
}
identity lsp-state-tearing-down {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is being torn down.";
}
identity lsp-state-down {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is down.";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-type {
description
"Base identity for TE path invalidation action types.";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-drop {
base path-invalidation-action-type;
description
"Upon invalidation of the TE tunnel path, the tunnel remains
valid, but any packet mapped over the tunnel is dropped.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 2.5";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-teardown {
base path-invalidation-action-type;
description
"TE path invalidation action teardown.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 2.5";
}
identity lsp-restoration-type {
description
"Base identity from which LSP restoration types are derived.";
}
identity lsp-restoration-restore-any {
base lsp-restoration-type;
description
"Any LSP affected by a failure is restored.";
}
identity lsp-restoration-restore-all {
base lsp-restoration-type;
description
"Affected LSPs are restored after all LSPs of the tunnel are
broken.";
}
identity restoration-scheme-type {
description
"Base identity for LSP restoration schemes.";
}
identity restoration-scheme-preconfigured {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is preconfigured prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity restoration-scheme-precomputed {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is precomputed prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity restoration-scheme-presignaled {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is presignaled prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lsp-protection-type {
description
"Base identity from which LSP protection types are derived.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-unprotected {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'Unprotected' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-reroute-extra {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'(Full) Rerouting' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-reroute {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'Rerouting without Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-1-for-n {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-1-for-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"LSP protection '1:1 Protection Type'.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-unidir-1-plus-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1+1 Unidirectional Protection' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-bidir-1-plus-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1+1 Bidirectional Protection' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-extra-traffic {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"Extra-Traffic LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lsp-protection-state {
description
"Base identity of protection states for reporting purposes.";
}
identity normal {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"Normal state.";
}
identity signal-fail-of-protection {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"The protection transport entity has a signal fail condition
that is of higher priority than the forced switchover
command.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lockout-of-protection {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A Loss of Protection (LoP) command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity forced-switch {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A forced switchover command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity signal-fail {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"There is a signal fail condition on either the working path
or the protection path.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity signal-degrade {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"There is a signal degrade condition on either the working
path or the protection path.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity manual-switch {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A manual switchover command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity wait-to-restore {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A WTR timer is running.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity do-not-revert {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A Do Not Revert (DNR) condition is active because of
non-revertive behavior.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity failure-of-protocol {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"LSP protection is not working because of a protocol failure
condition.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity protection-external-commands {
description
"Base identity from which protection-related external commands
used for troubleshooting purposes are derived.";
}
identity action-freeze {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command that prevents any switchover action from being taken
and, as such, freezes the current state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity clear-freeze {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active freeze state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-lockout-of-normal {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command to ensure that the normal traffic is not allowed
to use the protection transport entity.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity clear-lockout-of-normal {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active lockout of the
normal state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-lockout-of-protection {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command to ensure that the protection transport entity is
temporarily not available to transport a traffic signal
(either normal or Extra-Traffic).";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-forced-switch {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch
the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or the
null signal to the protection transport entity, unless a
switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-manual-switch {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch
the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or
the null signal to the protection transport entity, unless
a fault condition exists on other transport entities or a
switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-exercise {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that starts testing whether or not APS communication
is operating correctly. It is of lower priority than any
other state or command.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity clear {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a
protection, forced switchover, manual switchover, WTR state,
or exercise command.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity switching-capabilities {
description
"Base identity for interface switching capabilities.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-psc1 {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-evpl {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL).";
reference
"RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet
Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching";
}
identity switching-l2sc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-tdm {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-otn {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"OTN-TDM capable.";
reference
"RFC 7138: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS
Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks";
}
identity switching-dcsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC).";
reference
"RFC 6002: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel
Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions";
}
identity switching-lsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-fsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-types {
description
"Base identity for encoding types.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-packet {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Packet LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-ethernet {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Ethernet LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-pdh {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"ANSI/ETSI PDH LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-sdh {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI T1.105 LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-digital-wrapper {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Digital Wrapper LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-lambda {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Lambda (photonic) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-fiber {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Fiber LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-fiber-channel {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"FiberChannel LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-oduk {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Control";
}
identity lsp-encoding-optical-channel {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"G.709 Optical Channel LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Control";
}
identity lsp-encoding-line {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Line (e.g., 8B/10B) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro
Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching";
}
identity path-signaling-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific LSP path setup types
are derived.";
}
identity path-setup-static {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"Static LSP provisioning path setup.";
}
identity path-setup-rsvp {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"RSVP-TE signaling path setup.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity path-setup-sr {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"Segment-routing path setup.";
}
identity path-scope-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific path scope types are
derived.";
}
identity path-scope-segment {
base path-scope-type;
description
"Path scope segment.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery";
}
identity path-scope-end-to-end {
base path-scope-type;
description
"Path scope end to end.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery";
}
identity route-usage-type {
description
"Base identity for route usage.";
}
identity route-include-object {
base route-usage-type;
description
"'Include route' object.";
}
identity route-exclude-object {
base route-usage-type;
description
"'Exclude route' object.";
reference
"RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
identity route-exclude-srlg {
base route-usage-type;
description
"Excludes SRLGs.";
reference
"RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
identity path-metric-type {
description
"Base identity for the path metric type.";
}
identity path-metric-te {
base path-metric-type;
description
"TE path metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
identity path-metric-igp {
base path-metric-type;
description
"IGP path metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
identity path-metric-hop {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Hop path metric.";
}
identity path-metric-delay-average {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Average unidirectional link delay.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-delay-minimum {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Minimum unidirectional link delay.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth, which is defined to be
Maximum Bandwidth (RFC 3630) minus the bandwidth currently
allocated to LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-optimize-includes {
base path-metric-type;
description
"A metric that optimizes the number of included resources
specified in a set.";
}
identity path-metric-optimize-excludes {
base path-metric-type;
description
"A metric that optimizes to a maximum the number of excluded
resources specified in a set.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-type {
description
"Base identity for the path tiebreaker type.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-minfill {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Min-Fill LSP path placement.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-maxfill {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Max-Fill LSP path placement.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-random {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Random LSP path placement.";
}
identity resource-affinities-type {
description
"Base identity for resource class affinities.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS";
}
identity resource-aff-include-all {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, all of which must be present for a link
to be acceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity resource-aff-include-any {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, any of which must be present for a link
to be acceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity resource-aff-exclude-any {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, any of which renders a link unacceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity te-optimization-criterion {
description
"Base identity for the TE optimization criteria.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering";
}
identity not-optimized {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimization is not applied.";
}
identity cost {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimized on cost.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity delay {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimized on delay.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity path-computation-srlg-type {
description
"Base identity for SRLG path computation.";
}
identity srlg-ignore {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Ignores SRLGs in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-strict {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a strict SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-preferred {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a preferred SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-weighted {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a weighted SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
/**
* TE bandwidth groupings
**/
grouping te-bandwidth {
description
"This grouping defines the generic TE bandwidth.
For some known data-plane technologies, specific modeling
structures are specified. The string-encoded 'te-bandwidth'
type is used for unspecified technologies.
The modeling structure can be augmented later for other
technologies.";
container te-bandwidth {
description
"Container that specifies TE bandwidth. The choices
can be augmented for specific data-plane technologies.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type te-bandwidth;
description
"Bandwidth specified in a generic format.";
}
}
}
}
}
/**
* TE label groupings
**/
grouping te-label {
description
"This grouping defines the generic TE label.
The modeling structure can be augmented for each technology.
For unspecified technologies, 'rt-types:generalized-label'
is used.";
container te-label {
description
"Container that specifies the TE label. The choices can
be augmented for specific data-plane technologies.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type rt-types:generalized-label;
description
"TE label specified in a generic format.";
}
}
}
leaf direction {
type te-label-direction;
default "forward";
description
"Label direction.";
}
}
}
grouping te-topology-identifier {
description
"Augmentation for a TE topology.";
container te-topology-identifier {
description
"TE topology identifier container.";
leaf provider-id {
type te-global-id;
default "0";
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify a provider.
If omitted, it assumes that the topology provider ID
value = 0 (the default).";
}
leaf client-id {
type te-global-id;
default "0";
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify a client.
If omitted, it assumes that the topology client ID
value = 0 (the default).";
}
leaf topology-id {
type te-topology-id;
default "";
description
"When the datastore contains several topologies,
'topology-id' distinguishes between them. If omitted,
the default (empty) string for this leaf is assumed.";
}
}
}
/**
* TE performance metrics groupings
**/
grouping performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss {
description
"Performance Metrics (PM) information in real time that can
be applicable to links or connections. PM defined in this
grouping are applicable to generic TE PM as well as packet TE
PM.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
description
"One-way delay normality.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss {
description
"PM information in real time that can be applicable to links or
connections. PM defined in this grouping are applicable to
generic TE PM as well as packet TE PM.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf two-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"Two-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
description
"Two-way delay normality.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth {
description
"PM information in real time that can be applicable to links.
PM defined in this grouping are applicable to generic TE PM
as well as packet TE PM.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from
Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and
provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Residual bandwidth normality.";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual
bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the
actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a
bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the
sum of the component link available bandwidths.";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Available bandwidth normality.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual
utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router).
For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to
be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Bandwidth utilization normality.";
}
}
grouping one-way-performance-metrics {
description
"One-way PM throttle grouping.";
leaf one-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from
Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and
provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual
bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the
actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a
bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the
sum of the component link available bandwidths.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual
utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router).
For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to
be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations.";
}
}
grouping two-way-performance-metrics {
description
"Two-way PM throttle grouping.";
leaf two-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-thresholds {
description
"Grouping for configurable thresholds for measured
attributes.";
uses one-way-performance-metrics;
uses two-way-performance-metrics;
}
grouping performance-metrics-attributes {
description
"Contains PM attributes.";
container performance-metrics-one-way {
description
"One-way link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
uses performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss;
uses performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth;
}
container performance-metrics-two-way {
description
"Two-way link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS
Networks";
uses performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss;
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container {
description
"Controls PM throttling.";
container throttle {
must 'suppression-interval >= measure-interval' {
error-message "'suppression-interval' cannot be less than "
+ "'measure-interval'.";
description
"Constraint on 'suppression-interval' and
'measure-interval'.";
}
description
"Link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-delay-offset {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Offset value to be added to the measured delay value.";
}
leaf measure-interval {
type uint32;
default "30";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to measure the extended metric
values.";
}
leaf advertisement-interval {
type uint32;
default "0";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to advertise the extended metric
values.";
}
leaf suppression-interval {
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
}
default "120";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to suppress advertisement of the
extended metric values.";
reference
"RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions, Section 6";
}
container threshold-out {
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
description
"If the measured parameter falls outside an upper bound
for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound
for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised
value is not already outside that bound, an 'anomalous'
announcement (anomalous bit set) will be triggered.";
}
container threshold-in {
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
description
"If the measured parameter falls inside an upper bound
for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound
for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised
value is not already inside that bound, a 'normal'
announcement (anomalous bit cleared) will be triggered.";
}
container threshold-accelerated-advertisement {
description
"When the difference between the last advertised value and
the current measured value exceeds this threshold, an
'anomalous' announcement (anomalous bit set) will be
triggered.";
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
}
}
}
/**
* TE tunnel generic groupings
**/
grouping explicit-route-hop {
description
"The explicit route entry grouping.";
choice type {
description
"The explicit route entry type.";
case numbered-node-hop {
container numbered-node-hop {
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
mandatory true;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
description
"Numbered node route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case numbered-link-hop {
container numbered-link-hop {
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"TE Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
leaf direction {
type te-link-direction;
default "outgoing";
description
"Link route object direction.";
}
description
"Numbered link explicit route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case unnumbered-link-hop {
container unnumbered-link-hop {
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID
and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered
TE link.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
mandatory true;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
leaf direction {
type te-link-direction;
default "outgoing";
description
"Link route object direction.";
}
description
"Unnumbered link explicit route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case as-number {
container as-number-hop {
leaf as-number {
type inet:as-number;
mandatory true;
description
"The Autonomous System (AS) number.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
description
"AS explicit route hop.";
}
}
case label {
container label-hop {
description
"Label hop type.";
uses te-label;
}
description
"The label explicit route hop type.";
}
}
}
grouping record-route-state {
description
"The Record Route grouping.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Record Route hop index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
choice type {
description
"The Record Route entry type.";
case numbered-node-hop {
container numbered-node-hop {
description
"Numbered node route hop container.";
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
mandatory true;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"Numbered node route hop.";
}
case numbered-link-hop {
container numbered-link-hop {
description
"Numbered link route hop container.";
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"Numbered TE LTP identifier.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"Numbered link route hop.";
}
case unnumbered-link-hop {
container unnumbered-link-hop {
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID
and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered
TE link.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
description
"Unnumbered link Record Route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
description
"Unnumbered link route hop.";
}
case label {
container label-hop {
description
"Label route hop type.";
uses te-label;
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"The label Record Route entry types.";
}
}
}
grouping label-restriction-info {
description
"Label set item information.";
leaf restriction {
type enumeration {
enum inclusive {
description
"The label or label range is inclusive.";
}
enum exclusive {
description
"The label or label range is exclusive.";
}
}
default "inclusive";
description
"Indicates whether the list item is inclusive or exclusive.";
}
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"The index of the label restriction list entry.";
}
container label-start {
must "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and"
+ " not(te-label/direction))"
+ " or "
+ "(../label-end/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)"
+ " or "
+ "(not(te-label/direction) and"
+ " (../label-end/te-label/direction = 'forward'))"
+ " or "
+ "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and"
+ " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" {
error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the "
+ "same direction.";
}
description
"This is the starting label if a label range is specified.
This is the label value if a single label is specified,
in which case the 'label-end' attribute is not set.";
uses te-label;
}
container label-end {
must "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and"
+ " not(te-label/direction))"
+ " or "
+ "(../label-start/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)"
+ " or "
+ "(not(te-label/direction) and"
+ " (../label-start/te-label/direction = 'forward'))"
+ " or "
+ "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and"
+ " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" {
error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the "
+ "same direction.";
}
description
"This is the ending label if a label range is specified.
This attribute is not set if a single label is specified.";
uses te-label;
}
container label-step {
description
"The step increment between labels in the label range.
The label start/end values will have to be consistent
with the sign of label step. For example,
'label-start' < 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' > 0
'label-start' > 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' < 0.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type int32;
default "1";
description
"Label range step.";
}
}
}
}
leaf range-bitmap {
type yang:hex-string;
description
"When there are gaps between 'label-start' and 'label-end',
this attribute is used to specify the positions
of the used labels. This is represented in big endian as
'hex-string'.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.
Each bit position in the 'range-bitmap' 'hex-string' maps
to a label in the range derived from 'label-start'.
For example, assuming that 'label-start' = 16000 and
'range-bitmap' = 0x01000001, then:
- bit position (0) is set, and the corresponding mapped
label from the range is 16000 + (0 * 'label-step') or
16000 for default 'label-step' = 1.
- bit position (24) is set, and the corresponding mapped
label from the range is 16000 + (24 * 'label-step') or
16024 for default 'label-step' = 1.";
}
}
grouping label-set-info {
description
"Grouping for the list of label restrictions specifying what
labels may or may not be used.";
container label-restrictions {
description
"The label restrictions container.";
list label-restriction {
key "index";
description
"The absence of the label restrictions container implies
that all labels are acceptable; otherwise, only restricted
labels are available.";
reference
"RFC 7579: General Network Element Constraint Encoding
for GMPLS-Controlled Networks";
uses label-restriction-info;
}
}
}
grouping optimization-metric-entry {
description
"Optimization metrics configuration grouping.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies the 'metric-type' that the path computation
process uses for optimization.";
}
leaf weight {
type uint8;
default "1";
description
"TE path metric normalization weight.";
}
container explicit-route-exclude-objects {
when "../metric-type = "
+ "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-excludes'";
description
"Container for the 'exclude route' object list.";
uses path-route-exclude-objects;
}
container explicit-route-include-objects {
when "../metric-type = "
+ "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-includes'";
description
"Container for the 'include route' object list.";
uses path-route-include-objects;
}
}
grouping common-constraints {
description
"Common constraints grouping that can be set on
a constraint set or directly on the tunnel.";
uses te-bandwidth {
description
"A requested bandwidth to use for path computation.";
}
leaf link-protection {
type identityref {
base link-protection-type;
}
default "te-types:link-protection-unprotected";
description
"Link protection type required for the links included
in the computed path.";
reference
"RFC 4202: Routing Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
leaf setup-priority {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
default "7";
description
"TE LSP requested setup priority.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
leaf hold-priority {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
default "7";
description
"TE LSP requested hold priority.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
leaf signaling-type {
type identityref {
base path-signaling-type;
}
default "te-types:path-setup-rsvp";
description
"TE tunnel path signaling type.";
}
}
grouping tunnel-constraints {
description
"Tunnel constraints grouping that can be set on
a constraint set or directly on the tunnel.";
uses te-topology-identifier;
uses common-constraints;
}
grouping path-constraints-route-objects {
description
"List of route entries to be included or excluded when
performing the path computation.";
container explicit-route-objects-always {
description
"Container for the 'exclude route' object list.";
list route-object-exclude-always {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects to always exclude from the path
computation.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Explicit Route Object index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
list route-object-include-exclude {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects to include or exclude in the path
computation.";
leaf explicit-route-usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
default "te-types:route-include-object";
description
"Indicates whether to include or exclude the
route object. The default is to include it.";
}
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object include-exclude index. The index is used
to identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop {
augment "type" {
case srlg {
container srlg {
description
"SRLG container.";
leaf srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG value.";
}
}
description
"An SRLG value to be included or excluded.";
}
description
"Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG
exclusion.";
}
}
}
}
}
grouping path-route-include-objects {
description
"List of route objects to be included when performing
the path computation.";
list route-object-include-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of Explicit Route Objects to be included in the
path computation.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
}
grouping path-route-exclude-objects {
description
"List of route objects to be excluded when performing
the path computation.";
list route-object-exclude-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of Explicit Route Objects to be excluded in the
path computation.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop {
augment "type" {
case srlg {
container srlg {
description
"SRLG container.";
leaf srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG value.";
}
}
description
"An SRLG value to be included or excluded.";
}
description
"Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG
exclusion.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-metric-bounds {
description
"TE path metric bounds grouping.";
container path-metric-bounds {
description
"TE path metric bounds container.";
list path-metric-bound {
key "metric-type";
description
"List of TE path metric bounds.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of 'metric-type' items
bound for the TE path.";
}
leaf upper-bound {
type uint64;
default "0";
description
"Upper bound on the end-to-end TE path metric. A zero
indicates an unbounded upper limit for the specific
'metric-type'.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-optimization {
description
"TE generic path optimization grouping.";
container optimizations {
description
"The objective function container that includes
attributes to impose when computing a TE path.";
choice algorithm {
description
"Optimizations algorithm.";
case metric {
if-feature "path-optimization-metric";
/* Optimize by metric */
list optimization-metric {
key "metric-type";
description
"TE path metric type.";
uses optimization-metric-entry;
}
/* Tiebreakers */
container tiebreakers {
description
"Container for the list of tiebreakers.";
list tiebreaker {
key "tiebreaker-type";
description
"The list of tiebreaker criteria to apply on an
equally favored set of paths, in order to pick
the best.";
leaf tiebreaker-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of tiebreakers.";
}
}
}
}
case objective-function {
if-feature "path-optimization-objective-function";
/* Objective functions */
container objective-function {
description
"The objective function container that includes
attributes to impose when computing a TE path.";
leaf objective-function-type {
type identityref {
base objective-function-type;
}
default "te-types:of-minimize-cost-path";
description
"Objective function entry.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-affinities {
description
"Path affinities grouping.";
container path-affinities-values {
description
"Path affinities represented as values.";
list path-affinities-value {
key "usage";
description
"List of named affinity constraints.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base resource-affinities-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of value affinity
constraints.";
}
leaf value {
type admin-groups;
default "";
description
"The affinity value. The default is empty.";
}
}
}
container path-affinity-names {
description
"Path affinities represented as names.";
list path-affinity-name {
key "usage";
description
"List of named affinity constraints.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base resource-affinities-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of named affinity
constraints.";
}
list affinity-name {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Identifies a named affinity entry.";
}
description
"List of named affinities.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-srlgs {
description
"Path SRLG grouping.";
container path-srlgs-lists {
description
"Path SRLG properties container.";
list path-srlgs-list {
key "usage";
description
"List of SRLG values to be included or excluded.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in a list of SRLGs to either
include or exclude.";
}
leaf-list values {
type srlg;
description
"List of SRLG values.";
}
}
}
container path-srlgs-names {
description
"Container for the list of named SRLGs.";
list path-srlgs-name {
key "usage";
description
"List of named SRLGs to be included or excluded.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in a list of named SRLGs to either
include or exclude.";
}
leaf-list names {
type string;
description
"List of named SRLGs.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-disjointness {
description
"Path disjointness grouping.";
leaf disjointness {
type te-path-disjointness;
description
"The type of resource disjointness.
When configured for a primary path, the disjointness level
applies to all secondary LSPs. When configured for a
secondary path, the disjointness level overrides the level
configured for the primary path.";
}
}
grouping common-path-constraints-attributes {
description
"Common path constraints configuration grouping.";
uses common-constraints;
uses generic-path-metric-bounds;
uses generic-path-affinities;
uses generic-path-srlgs;
}
grouping generic-path-constraints {
description
"Global named path constraints configuration grouping.";
container path-constraints {
description
"TE named path constraints container.";
uses common-path-constraints-attributes;
uses generic-path-disjointness;
}
}
grouping generic-path-properties {
description
"TE generic path properties grouping.";
container path-properties {
config false;
description
"The TE path properties.";
list path-metric {
key "metric-type";
description
"TE path metric type.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"TE path metric type.";
}
leaf accumulative-value {
type uint64;
description
"TE path metric accumulative value.";
}
}
uses generic-path-affinities;
uses generic-path-srlgs;
container path-route-objects {
description
"Container for the list of route objects either returned by
the computation engine or actually used by an LSP.";
list path-route-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects either returned by the computation
engine or actually used by an LSP.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key
values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5. Packet TE Types YANG Module
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types"
module defined in Section 4 of this document.
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-packet-types@2020-06-10.yang"
module ietf-te-packet-types {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types";
prefix te-packet-types;
/* Import TE generic types */
import ietf-te-types {
prefix te-types;
reference
"RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
}
organization
"IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Editor: Tarek Saad
<mailto:tsaad@juniper.net>
Editor: Rakesh Gandhi
<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>
Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>
Editor: Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Editor: Igor Bryskin
<mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>";
description
"This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful YANG
data type definitions specific to MPLS TE. The model fully
conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2020 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 8776; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-06-10 {
description
"Latest revision of TE MPLS types.";
reference
"RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
}
/**
* Typedefs
*/
typedef te-bandwidth-requested-type {
type enumeration {
enum specified {
description
"Bandwidth is explicitly specified.";
}
enum auto {
description
"Bandwidth is automatically computed.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying whether bandwidth is
explicitly specified or automatically computed.";
}
typedef te-class-type {
type uint8;
description
"Diffserv-TE Class-Type. Defines a set of Traffic Trunks
crossing a link that is governed by a specific set of
bandwidth constraints. Class-Type is used for the purposes
of link bandwidth allocation, constraint-based routing, and
admission control.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
typedef bc-type {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
"Diffserv-TE bandwidth constraints as defined in RFC 4124.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
typedef bandwidth-kbps {
type uint64;
units "Kbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in kilobits per second.";
}
typedef bandwidth-mbps {
type uint64;
units "Mbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in megabits per second.";
}
typedef bandwidth-gbps {
type uint64;
units "Gbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in gigabits per second.";
}
identity backup-protection-type {
description
"Base identity for the backup protection type.";
}
identity backup-protection-link {
base backup-protection-type;
description
"Backup provides link protection only.";
}
identity backup-protection-node-link {
base backup-protection-type;
description
"Backup offers node (preferred) or link protection.";
}
identity bc-model-type {
description
"Base identity for the Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints
Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-rdm {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4127: Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-mam {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4125: Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-mar {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Maximum Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints
Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4126: Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
& Performance Comparisons";
}
grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet {
description
"Contains PM attributes.";
uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes {
augment "performance-metrics-one-way" {
leaf one-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-min-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency normality.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency normality.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way delay variation in microseconds.";
reference
"RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement, Section 4.2";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way delay variation normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
description
"One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision
is 0.000003%, where the maximum is 50.331642%.";
reference
"RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions, Section 4.4";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Packet loss normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
description
"PM one-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM
grouping.";
}
augment "performance-metrics-two-way" {
leaf two-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-min-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay variation in microseconds.";
reference
"RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement, Section 4.2";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way delay variation normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision
is 0.000003%.";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way packet loss normality.";
}
description
"PM two-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM
grouping.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
}
}
grouping one-way-performance-metrics-packet {
description
"One-way packet PM throttle grouping.";
leaf one-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way delay variation in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is
0.000003%.";
}
}
grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet {
description
"Two-way packet PM throttle grouping.";
leaf two-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay variation in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is
0.000003%.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container-packet {
description
"Packet PM threshold grouping.";
uses te-types:performance-metrics-throttle-container {
augment "throttle/threshold-out" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM threshold-out packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
}
augment "throttle/threshold-in" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM threshold-in packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
}
augment "throttle/threshold-accelerated-advertisement" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM accelerated advertisement packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
6. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following URIs in the "ns" subregistry
within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC 3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers two YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names"
registry [RFC 6020].
Name: ietf-te-types
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Prefix: te-types
Reference: RFC 8776
Name: ietf-te-packet-types
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Prefix: te-packet-types
Reference: RFC 8776
7. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines 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 8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [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.
The YANG module in this document defines common TE type definitions
(e.g., typedef, identity, and grouping statements) in YANG data
modeling language to be imported and used by other TE modules. When
imported and used, the resultant schema will have data nodes that can
be writable or readable. Access to such 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.
The security considerations spelled out in the YANG 1.1 specification
[RFC 7950] apply for this document as well.
8. References
8.1. 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 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>.
[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 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 8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8294, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8294>.
[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 8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8345>.
[RFC 8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8446>.
8.2. Informative References
[G.709] ITU-T, "Interfaces for the optical transport network",
ITU-T Recommendation G.709, June 2016,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709/>.
[RFC 2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2702, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2702>.
[RFC 3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3209>.
[RFC 3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3272, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3272>.
[RFC 3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3471, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3471>.
[RFC 3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3477, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3477>.
[RFC 3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3630>.
[RFC 3785] Le Faucheur, F., Uppili, R., Vedrenne, A., Merckx, P., and
T. Telkamp, "Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric
as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric", BCP 87,
RFC 3785, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3785, May 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3785>.
[RFC 4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4090>.
[RFC 4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4124, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4124>.
[RFC 4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4125, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4125>.
[RFC 4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4126, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4126>.
[RFC 4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4127, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4127>.
[RFC 4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4202>.
[RFC 4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4203>.
[RFC 4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4328, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4328>.
[RFC 4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4427, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4427>.
[RFC 4561] Vasseur, J.-P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan,
"Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-
Object", RFC 4561, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4561, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4561>.
[RFC 4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4657>.
[RFC 4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4736, November
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4736>.
[RFC 4872] Lang, J.P., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4872>.
[RFC 4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4873,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4873>.
[RFC 4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4875>.
[RFC 4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N.,
and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and
GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4920, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4920>.
[RFC 5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5003, September
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5003>.
[RFC 5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5150, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5150>.
[RFC 5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5151, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5151>.
[RFC 5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5305>.
[RFC 5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5307>.
[RFC 5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5420>.
[RFC 5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5541>.
[RFC 5712] Meyer, M., Ed. and JP. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Traffic
Engineering Soft Preemption", RFC 5712,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5712, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5712>.
[RFC 5817] Ali, Z., Vasseur, JP., Zamfir, A., and J. Newton,
"Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic
Engineering Networks", RFC 5817, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5817,
April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5817>.
[RFC 6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6001, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6001>.
[RFC 6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
Switching", RFC 6004, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6004, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6004>.
[RFC 6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6119,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6119>.
[RFC 6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6370, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6370>.
[RFC 6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6378,
October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6378>.
[RFC 6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6511,
February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6511>.
[RFC 6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6780, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6780>.
[RFC 6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6790>.
[RFC 6827] Malis, A., Ed., Lindem, A., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols", RFC 6827,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6827, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6827>.
[RFC 7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7139, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7139>.
[RFC 7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7260, June
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7260>.
[RFC 7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7308>.
[RFC 7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7471>.
[RFC 7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7551>.
[RFC 7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7570, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7570>.
[RFC 7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback",
RFC 7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7571, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7571>.
[RFC 7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7579, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7579>.
[RFC 7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi,
"Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions",
RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7823, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7823>.
[RFC 8001] Zhang, F., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Margaria, C.,
Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for
Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information",
RFC 8001, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8001, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8001>.
[RFC 8149] Saad, T., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Ali, Z., Venator, R., and
Y. Kamite, "RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely
Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8149, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8149,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8149>.
[RFC 8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8169>.
[RFC 8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8570>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the members of the multi-vendor YANG
design team who are involved in the definition of these data types.
The authors would also like to thank Tom Petch, Jan Lindblad, Sergio
Belotti, Italo Busi, Carlo Perocchio, Francesco Lazzeri, and Aihua
Guo for their review comments and for providing valuable feedback on
this document.
Contributors
Himanshu Shah
Ciena
Email: hshah@ciena.com
Young Lee
Samsung Electronics
Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xufeng Liu
Volta Networks
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Igor Bryskin
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Email: i_bryskin@yahoo.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 162440 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, June 11th, 2020
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
