[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores

Network Working Group                                       M. Bjorklund
Internet-Draft                                            Tail-f Systems
Updates: 6020 (if approved)                                    L. Lhotka
Intended status: Standards Track                                  CZ.NIC
Expires: April 8, 2013                                   October 5, 2012


                  Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG
                 draft-bjorklund-netmod-operational-00

Abstract

   This document defines the concept of operational state data in the
   context of YANG and the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF).  It
   updates RFC 6020 with rules for how to model the operational state,
   and defines NETCONF operations to retrieve and modify the operational
   state.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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



Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       1.1.1.  Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Modeling and Retrieving Operational State  . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.1.  Example: Interface List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Modifying the Operational State  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.1.  Example: Routing Table Modification  . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Operational State Datastore  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Configuration Datastore  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Alternative A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Alternative B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Alternative C  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Protocol Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.1.  <get-operational>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.1.1.  Example: Ethernet Duplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  <edit-operational> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  YANG Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix A.  Example: Interface List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix B.  Example: Ethernet Duplex  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix C.  Example: Admin vs. Oper State . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
















Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Terminology

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

1.1.1.  Terms

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

   o  client

   o  configuration datastore

   o  datastore

   o  server

   The following terms are defined in [RFC6020] and are not redefined
   here:

   o  data model

   o  schema tree

   o  data node

   The following terms are used within this document:

   o  operational state data: The data in the operational state
      datastore.

   o  operational state datastore: A conceptual data structure from
      which one can determine device state and behavior.













Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


2.  Objectives

   o  Develop a general model applicable not only to NETCONF but also to
      other approaches (RESTful, editable state data etc.).

   o  Develop a specific model for NETCONF and YANG.

   o  As little changes to NETCONF and YANG as possible.

   o  Clarification of the terms "operational state data" and
      "configuration".








































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


3.  Problem Statement

3.1.  Modeling and Retrieving Operational State

   The NETCONF operation <get> returns both device state data and the
   running configuration.  Quite often, device parameters require a dual
   representation, both as configuration and state data.

   For instance, an IP address may be specified in an interface
   configuration but, depending on other circumstances, this address may
   not be used for that interface.  In any case, an operator should be
   able to obtain the addresses that are in operational use.

   This implies that some state data must be modeled separately from the
   configuration data, which leads to a certain amount of duplication in
   data models.  This approach has other drawbacks, too.  It is counter-
   intuitive to data model designers, for whom configuration and state
   parameters are closely related (see Section 3.1.1 for an example).
   Data model duplication is error prone and leads to bigger data
   models, that are more difficult to understand.  Further, there is no
   formal information in the data model about the relationship between
   the configuration and operational state data.

3.1.1.  Example: Interface List

   Suppose we want to model a list of interfaces.  We allow pre-
   configuration, i.e., it is legal to configure an interface for which
   there is currently no hardware present in the system.  In this simple
   example, each interface has a name and a counter of the number of
   packets received.  The counter is operational state data.

     list interface {
       key name;

       leaf name { ... }
       leaf in-packets {
         type yang:counter64;
         config false;
       }
       ...
     }

   A particular device has hardware for two interfaces with names "eth0"
   and "eth1".  In the configuration there is:







Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


      <interface>
        <name>eth0</name>
        ...
      </interface>
      <interface>
        <name>eth2</name>
        ...
      </interface>

   We can see this by doing <get-config>.

   Operationally, however, the interfaces used are "eth0" and "eth1",
   although "eth1" does not have any configuration and does not send or
   receive packets.

   How can an operator learn about the presence of "eth1"?  The <get>
   operation returns the running configuration and state data together.
   So, <get> will not show "eth1", since it is not present in the
   running configuration.

   With NETCONF as currently defined, the only alternative is to
   duplicate the data model:

       list interface {
         key name;

         leaf name { ...}
         ...
       }

       list interface-oper {
         config false;
         key name;

         leaf name { ...}
         leaf in-packets { ... }
         ...
       }

3.2.  Modifying the Operational State

   In some cases, it is useful for clients to directly modify the
   operational state.  An example of this is the recent discussions
   around an Interface to the Routing System (IRS), where a client needs
   to modify the routing table, without storing routes in the
   configuration.

   With NETCONF as currently designed, the only way to do this is to



Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


   define separate rpc operations.  This leads to another kind of data
   model duplication, where every writable parameter is modeled both as
   state data that can be retrieved using the <get> operation, and also
   as input parameters to at least one rpc operation.

3.2.1.  Example: Routing Table Modification

   Suppose we want to model IPv4 routing tables as operational state,
   and we also want to be able to let a client modify this data.  We
   have to do:

     list routing-table {
       config false;
       key name;

       leaf name { ... }
       list route {
         key id;

         leaf id { ... }
         leaf dest-prefix { ... }
         leaf next-hop { ... }
         ...
       }
     }

     rpc add-route {
       input {
         leaf routing-table-name { ... }
         leaf route-id { ... }
         leaf dest-prefix { ... }
         leaf next-hop { ... }
       }
     }

     rpc delete-route {
       input {
         leaf routing-table-name { ... }
         leaf route-id { ... }
       }
     }










Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


4.  Datastores

   The fundamental idea of this document is to define operational state
   data as an explicit data structure called the operational state
   datastore.  It is available to all management interfaces, which
   includes NETCONF but also other interfaces such as SNMP.

   The "running" configuration datastore is viewed as a separate overlay
   data structure whose layout is identical to the subset of the
   operational state datastore that represents configuration.

4.1.  Operational State Datastore

   The operational state datastore consists of all parameters that
   provide information about the instantaneous state of the device and
   immediately influence the device's behavior.

   The operational state datastore is a conceptual data structure.  This
   means that implementations may choose any suitable representation of
   the datastore, or even generate it dynamically upon request.

   Operational state may be modified through one or more management
   interfaces, or through the operation of network protocols.  All such
   means of accessing and changing the operational state act
   conceptually on the same data - the operational state datastore.  It
   means, for instance, that any change caused by a network protocol is
   immediately visible to all management interfaces.

   The schema for the operational state datastore is made up of all data
   nodes defined in YANG modules, specifically both "config true" and
   "config false" data nodes.

   Note that when <get-config> is used to retrieve a "config true" node,
   the value stored in the configuration datastore is returned.  When
   <get-operational> is used to retrieve the same node, the value
   actually used by the device is returned.  This value may or may not
   be the same as the value in the datastore.

   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Open Question                                                     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Should there be a YANG statement 'operational <bool>' so that     |
   | config true nodes can be marked as not being part of the          |
   | operational schema?                                               |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Nodes in the operational data store cannot be directly modified using
   the standard NETCONF operations.



Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Open Question                                                     |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | introduce oper:writable for nodes that can be modified by         |
   | <edit-operational>.                                               |
   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

4.2.  Configuration Datastore

   The configuration datastore can be thought of as a blueprint for the
   operational datastore.  Specifically, the schema for the
   configuration datastore is congruent to a subtree of the schema for
   operational state datastore containing only "config true" nodes.  In
   other words, every data node in the configuration datastore schema
   has a corresponding data node with the same name in the operational
   datastore schema, and the latter data node is "config true".

   Whenever a NETCONF client modifies the configuration datastore, the
   server MUST immediately attempt to project the changes into the
   operational state datastore.  Most of the time, it simply means
   copying the values in the configuration datastore to the
   corresponding nodes in the operational state datastore.  If a leaf's
   default value is in use (See section 7.6.1. of RFC 6020), the default
   value is copied to the operational data store.

   The configuration datastore may contain data nodes that are not
   projected into the operational state datastore.  This happens in the
   following three scenarios:

   1.  Pre-provisioned configuration prepared for hardware components
       that are not yet present in the device.  See Section 3.1.1 above.

   2.  Pre-provisioned configuration for components (hardware,
       protocols, etc.) that are intended to replace an existing item
       but are of a different type.

   3.  Parts of configuration that are momentarily not applicable.














Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


5.  Constraints

   This document updates section 8 of RFC 6020 with rules for the
   operational state datastore.

   NOTE: The rest of this section documents some alternatives that the
   authors want to discuss

   There are a couple of design alternatives here:

5.1.  Alternative A

   No constraints ("must", "mandatory", "unique", "min-elements",
   "max-elements") are enforced on the operational state datastore.  For
   example, this means that a mandatory "config true" leaf does not have
   to be present in the operational state datastore.

   The problem with this approach is that there is no way to formally
   define constraints on the OSD in the data model.  This may be needed
   in order to allow for coexistence of NETCONF with other management
   interfaces that do not use the configuration datastore.  Such
   constraints can be specified in description statement though.

5.2.  Alternative B

   Change the definitions of mandatory, must, to work on osd instead of
   config.

   This would be a major backwards incompatible change to YANG, and it
   would not be possible to define constraints on the configuration.

5.3.  Alternative C

   Introduce new YANG statements for OSD constraints, e.g. osd:must,
   osd:mandatory etc.

   The drawback with this is that it adds complexity.














Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


6.  Protocol Operations

6.1.  <get-operational>

   This document introduces a new operation <get-operational>, which is
   used to retrieve the operational state data from a device.  Note how
   this operation differs from <get>, which is used to retrieve both the
   running configuration and state data.

   <get-operational> takes the same parameters as <get>.

   Since leafs with default values defined in the data model are always
   explicitly set in the operational data store, there is no need for
   :with-defaults handling in the <get-operational> operation.

6.1.1.  Example: Ethernet Duplex

   As an example, consider a very simplified data model with a single
   leaf for ethernet duplex:

     leaf duplex {
       type enumeration {
         enum "half";
         enum "full";
         enum "auto";
       }
       config true;
     }

   Suppose a device with this data model implements the candidate
   datastore.  The following is an example of data from such a device:

     get-config from candidate:


       <duplex>half</duplex>


     get-config from running:


       <duplex>auto</duplex>


     get-operational:


       <duplex>full</duplex>



Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


   In this example, the running configuration tells the device to
   negotiate the duplex mode, and the current, operationally used, value
   is "full".  At the same time, the (uncommitted) candidate
   configuration contains the value "half".

6.2.  <edit-operational>

   [Editor's note: NOT FINISHED - not clear if we need this]

   Introduce edit-operational.  This modifies the subset of the
   operational data tree that is also marked as writable.

   Drawback: does not handle persistent operational data.  If we have
   persistent operational data, this has to be its own data store that
   can be read and written.

   A data model w/o the writable markers cannot be written to.  This is
   a problem, since it is not obvious that the original designer though
   about future use cases.  For example, our route tables are read-only.
   Then IRS comes along and wants to write to this data.  Do we have to
   update our spec?  Not good.  One option is for IRS to publish a
   deviation data model that added the writable statement to our model.
   This would be backwards compliant and good.  Even better would be if
   they could publish a conformance statement in a module, w/o the need
   for deviations.


























Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


7.  YANG Module

   RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication and
   remove this note.

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-netconf-operational.yang"

   module ietf-netconf-operational {

     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-operational";
     prefix "oper";

     import ietf-yang-types {
       prefix yang;
     }
     import ietf-inet-types {
       prefix inet;
     }
     import ietf-netconf {
       prefix nc;
     }

     rpc get-operational {
       input {
         choice filter-spec {
           anyxml subtree-filter {
             description
               "This parameter identifies the portions of the
                operational state datastore to retrieve.";
             reference "RFC 6241, Section 6.";
           }
           leaf xpath-filter {
             if-feature nc:xpath;
             type yang:xpath1.0;
             description
               "This parameter contains an XPath expression
                identifying the portions of the operational state
                datastore to retrieve.";
           }
         }
       }

       output {
         anyxml data {
           description
             "Copy of the operational state data that matched the filter
              criteria (if any).  An empty data container indicates that
              the request did not produce any results.";



Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


           }
       }
     }

     rpc edit-operational {
       input {
         leaf default-operation {
           type enumeration {
             enum merge {
               description
                 "The default operation is merge.";
             }
             enum replace {
               description
                 "The default operation is replace.";
             }
             enum none {
               description
                 "There is no default operation.";
             }
           }
           default "merge";
           description
             "The default operation to use.";
         }

         choice edit-content {
           mandatory true;
           description
             "The content for the edit operation.";

           anyxml data {
             description
               "Inline data content.";
           }
           leaf url {
             if-feature nc:url;
             type inet:uri;
             description
               "URL-based config content.";
           }
         }
       }
     }
   }

   <CODE ENDS>




Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers a URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
   Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is
   requested to be made.

        URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-operational

        Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.

        XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
   registry [RFC6020].

     name:         ietf-netconf-operational
     namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-operational
     prefix:       oper
     reference:    RFC XXXX
































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


9.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security concerns in
   addition to those specified in [RFC6020] and [RFC6241].















































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
              Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              October 2010.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, June 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.
































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


Appendix A.  Example: Interface List

   With the proposed solution, the interface list example from ^ex-if-
   list-2, can be solved with a single list:

     list interface {
       key name;

       leaf name { ... }
       leaf in-packets {
         type yang:counter64;
         config false;
       }
       ...
     }

   The operation <get-operational> will return the interfaces available
   on the device:

      <interface>
        <name>eth0</name>
        ...
      </interface>
      <interface>
        <name>eth1</name>
        ...
      </interface>

   And <get-config> on running will return the configured interfaces,
   just as before:

      <interface>
        <name>eth0</name>
        ...
      </interface>
      <interface>
        <name>eth2</name>
        ...
      </interface>












Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


Appendix B.  Example: Ethernet Duplex

   A typical problem is when the value space for the configuration data
   is a super set of the value space for the operational state data.  An
   example of this is Ethernet duplex, which can be configured as
   "half", "full", or "auto", but the operationally used value is either
   "half" or "full".  Without the definition of operational state in
   this document, this would have to be modeled as two separate leafs:

     leaf duplex {
       type enumeration {
         enum "half";
         enum "full";
         enum "auto";
       }
     }

     leaf oper-duplex {
       type enumeration {
         enum "half";
         enum "full";
       }
     }

   With the solution defined in this document, a single leaf is
   sufficient:

     leaf duplex {
       type enumeration {
         enum "half";
         enum "full";
         enum "auto";
       }
     }

















Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


Appendix C.  Example: Admin vs. Oper State

   Another common problem is when the value space for the configured
   data is a subset of the operational state data.  An example is an
   interface's desired state, and its operational state.  The desired
   state can be "up" or "down", but the operational state can be "up",
   "lower-layer-down", "testing", etc.

   These kind of situations are still best modeled as two separate
   leafs, one "admin-state" and one "oper-state".









































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Operational Data in NETCONF and YANG      October 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Martin Bjorklund
   Tail-f Systems

   Email: mbj@tail-f.com


   Ladislav Lhotka
   CZ.NIC

   Email: lhotka@nic.cz







































Bjorklund & Lhotka        Expires April 8, 2013                [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/