[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lhotka-netmod-routing-cfg) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RFC 8022

NETMOD Working Group                                           L. Lhotka
Internet-Draft                                                    CZ.NIC
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Lindem
Expires: April 18, 2016                                    Cisco Systems
                                                        October 16, 2015


                A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
                    draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-20

Abstract

   This document contains a specification of three YANG modules.
   Together they form the core routing data model which serves as a
   framework for configuring and managing a routing subsystem.  It is
   expected that these modules will be augmented by additional YANG
   modules defining data models for routing protocols, route filters and
   other functions.  The core routing data model provides common
   building blocks for such extensions - routing instances, routes,
   routing information bases (RIB), and routing protocols.

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 18, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology and Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Glossary of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  The Design of the Core Routing Data Model . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries  . . .   8
   5.  Basic Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Routing Instance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.1.1.  Parameters of IPv6 Router Interfaces  . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Routing Information Base (RIB)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Routing Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.4.1.  Routing Pseudo-Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.4.2.  Defining New Routing Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  RPC Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Interactions with Other YANG Modules  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Module "ietf-interfaces"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Module "ietf-ip"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Routing Management YANG Module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . .  29
   9.  IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module . . . . . . . . .  33
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
   Appendix A.  The Complete Data Trees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
     A.1.  Configuration Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
     A.2.  State Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   Appendix B.  Minimum Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   Appendix C.  Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol . . . . . . .  52
   Appendix D.  Example: NETCONF <get> Reply . . . . . . . . . . . .  54
   Appendix E.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  61
     E.1.  Changes Between Versions -19 and -20  . . . . . . . . . .  61
     E.2.  Changes Between Versions -18 and -19  . . . . . . . . . .  61
     E.3.  Changes Between Versions -17 and -18  . . . . . . . . . .  61
     E.4.  Changes Between Versions -16 and -17  . . . . . . . . . .  62
     E.5.  Changes Between Versions -15 and -16  . . . . . . . . . .  62



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     E.6.  Changes Between Versions -14 and -15  . . . . . . . . . .  63
     E.7.  Changes Between Versions -13 and -14  . . . . . . . . . .  63
     E.8.  Changes Between Versions -12 and -13  . . . . . . . . . .  63
     E.9.  Changes Between Versions -11 and -12  . . . . . . . . . .  64
     E.10. Changes Between Versions -10 and -11  . . . . . . . . . .  64
     E.11. Changes Between Versions -09 and -10  . . . . . . . . . .  65
     E.12. Changes Between Versions -08 and -09  . . . . . . . . . .  65
     E.13. Changes Between Versions -07 and -08  . . . . . . . . . .  65
     E.14. Changes Between Versions -06 and -07  . . . . . . . . . .  65
     E.15. Changes Between Versions -05 and -06  . . . . . . . . . .  66
     E.16. Changes Between Versions -04 and -05  . . . . . . . . . .  66
     E.17. Changes Between Versions -03 and -04  . . . . . . . . . .  67
     E.18. Changes Between Versions -02 and -03  . . . . . . . . . .  67
     E.19. Changes Between Versions -01 and -02  . . . . . . . . . .  68
     E.20. Changes Between Versions -00 and -01  . . . . . . . . . .  68
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  69

1.  Introduction

   This document contains a specification of the following YANG modules:

   o  Module "ietf-routing" provides generic components of a routing
      data model.

   o  Module "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
      module with additional data specific to IPv4 unicast.

   o  Module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" augments the "ietf-routing"
      module with additional data specific to IPv6 unicast.  It also
      augments the "ietf-interfaces" module [RFC7223] with IPv6 router
      configuration variables required by [RFC4861].

   These modules together define the so-called core routing data model,
   which is intended as a basis for future data model development
   covering more sophisticated routing systems.  While these three
   modules can be directly used for simple IP devices with static
   routing (see Appendix B), their main purpose is to provide essential
   building blocks for more complicated data models involving multiple
   routing protocols, multicast routing, additional address families,
   and advanced functions such as route filtering or policy routing.  To
   this end, it is expected that the core routing data model will be
   augmented by numerous modules developed by other IETF working groups.

2.  Terminology and Notation

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



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]:

   o  client,

   o  message,

   o  protocol operation,

   o  server.

   The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]:

   o  augment,

   o  configuration data,

   o  container,

   o  container with presence,

   o  data model,

   o  data node,

   o  feature,

   o  leaf,

   o  list,

   o  mandatory node,

   o  module,

   o  schema tree,

   o  state data,

   o  RPC operation.

2.1.  Glossary of New Terms

   core routing data model:  YANG data model comprising "ietf-routing",
      "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing" and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
      modules.

   direct route:  a route to a directly connected network.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   routing information base (RIB):  An object containing a list of
      routes together with other information.  See Section 5.3 for
      details.

   system-controlled entry:  An entry of a list in state data ("config
      false") that is created by the system independently of what has
      been explicitly configured.  See Section 4.1 for details.

   user-controlled entry:  An entry of a list in state data ("config
      false") that is created and deleted as a direct consequence of
      certain configuration changes.  See Section 4.1 for details.

2.2.  Tree Diagrams

   A simplified graphical representation of the complete data tree is
   presented in Appendix A, and similar diagrams of its various subtrees
   appear in the main text.

   o  Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.

   o  Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that
      make the corresponding node conditional.

   o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
      (read-write), "ro" state data (read-only), "-x" RPC operations,
      and "-n" notifications.

   o  Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" a
      container with presence, and "*" denotes a "list" or "leaf-list".

   o  Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
      marked with a colon (":").

   o  Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
      shown.

2.3.  Prefixes in Data Node Names

   In this document, names of data nodes, RPC operations and other data
   model objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear
   from the context in which YANG module each name is defined.
   Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated
   with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.








Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            +--------+---------------------------+-----------+
            | Prefix | YANG module               | Reference |
            +--------+---------------------------+-----------+
            | if     | ietf-interfaces           | [RFC7223] |
            | ip     | ietf-ip                   | [RFC7277] |
            | rt     | ietf-routing              | Section 7 |
            | v4ur   | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 8 |
            | v6ur   | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 9 |
            | yang   | ietf-yang-types           | [RFC6991] |
            | inet   | ietf-inet-types           | [RFC6991] |
            +--------+---------------------------+-----------+

             Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules

3.  Objectives

   The initial design of the core routing data model was driven by the
   following objectives:

   o  The data model should be suitable for the common address families,
      in particular IPv4 and IPv6, and for unicast and multicast
      routing, as well as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS).

   o  A simple IP routing system, such as one that uses only static
      routing, should be configurable in a simple way, ideally without
      any need to develop additional YANG modules.

   o  On the other hand, the core routing framework must allow for
      complicated implementations involving multiple routing information
      bases (RIB) and multiple routing protocols, as well as controlled
      redistributions of routing information.

   o  Device vendors will want to map the data models built on this
      generic framework to their proprietary data models and
      configuration interfaces.  Therefore, the framework should be
      flexible enough to facilitate such a mapping and accommodate data
      models with different logic.

4.  The Design of the Core Routing Data Model

   The core routing data model consists of three YANG modules.  The
   first module, "ietf-routing", defines the generic components of a
   routing system.  The other two modules, "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"
   and "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing", augment the "ietf-routing" module
   with additional data nodes that are needed for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast
   routing, respectively.  Figures 1 and 2 show abridged views of the
   configuration and state data hierarchies.  See Appendix A for the
   complete data trees.



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   +--rw routing
      +--rw routing-instance* [name]
         +--rw name
         +--rw type?
         +--rw enabled?
         +--rw router-id?
         +--rw description?
         +--rw routing-protocols
         |  +--rw routing-protocol* [type name]
         |     +--rw type
         |     +--rw name
         |     +--rw description?
         |     +--rw static-routes
         |           ...
         +--rw ribs
            +--rw rib* [name]
               +--rw name
               +--rw address-family?
               +--rw description?

                  Figure 1: Configuration data hierarchy.

   +--ro routing-state
      +--ro routing-instance* [name]
         +--ro name
         +--ro type?
         +--ro router-id?
         +--ro interfaces
         |  +--ro interface*
         +--ro routing-protocols
         |  +--ro routing-protocol* [type name]
         |     +--ro type
         |     +--ro name
         +--ro ribs
            +--ro rib* [name]
               +--ro name
               +--ro address-family
               +--ro default-rib?
               +--ro routes
                     ...

                      Figure 2: State data hierarchy.

   As can be seen from Figures 1 and 2, the core routing data model
   introduces several generic components of a routing framework: routing
   instances, RIBs containing lists of routes, and routing protocols.
   Section 5 describes these components in more detail.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


4.1.  System-Controlled and User-Controlled List Entries

   The core routing data model defines several lists in the schema tree,
   for example "routing-instance" or "rib", that have to be populated
   with at least one entry in any properly functioning device, and
   additional entries may be configured by a client.

   In such a list, the server creates the required item as a so-called
   system-controlled entry in state data, i.e., inside the "routing-
   state" container.

   Additional entries may be created in the configuration by a client,
   e.g., via the NETCONF protocol.  These are so-called user-controlled
   entries.  If the server accepts a configured user-controlled entry,
   then this entry also appears in the state data version of the list.

   Corresponding entries in both versions of the list (in state data and
   configuration) have the same value of the list key.

   A client may also provide supplemental configuration of system-
   controlled entries.  To do so, the client creates a new entry in the
   configuration with the desired contents.  In order to bind this entry
   to the corresponding entry in the state data list, the key of the
   configuration entry has to be set to the same value as the key of the
   state entry.

   An example can be seen in Appendix D: the "/routing-state/routing-
   instance" list has a single system-controlled entry whose "name" key
   has the value "rtr0".  This entry is configured by the "/routing/
   routing-instance" entry whose "name" key is also "rtr0".

   Deleting a user-controlled entry from the configuration list results
   in the removal of the corresponding entry in the state data list.  In
   contrast, if a system-controlled entry is deleted from the
   configuration list, only the extra configuration specified in that
   entry is removed but the corresponding state data entry remains in
   the list.

5.  Basic Building Blocks

   This section describes the essential components of the core routing
   data model.

5.1.  Routing Instance

   The core routing data model supports one or more routing instances
   appearing as entries of the "routing-instance" list.  Each routing
   instance has separate configuration and state data under



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance" and "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-
   instance", respectively.

   No attempt has been made to define the semantics for every type of
   routing instance.  The core routing data model defines identities for
   two ubiquitous routing instance types:

   o  "default-routing-instance" - this routing instance type represents
      the default (or only) routing instance.  All implementations MUST
      provide one and only one system-controlled routing instance of
      this type.

   o  "vrf-routing-instance" - this routing instance type represents VRF
      (virtual routing and forwarding) routing instances that are used
      for virtual private networks (VPN) including BGP/MPLS
      VPN_[RFC4364].

   It is expected that future YANG modules will define other types of
   routing instances.  For every such type, an identity derived from
   "rt:routing-instance" SHALL be defined.  This identity is then
   referred to by the value of the "type" leaf (a child node of
   "routing-instance" list).

   By default, all network layer interfaces are assigned to the routing
   instance of the "default-routing-instance" type.  This can be changed
   by configuring the "rt:routing-instance" leaf in the interface
   configuration.

5.1.1.  Parameters of IPv6 Router Interfaces

   YANG module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" (Section 9) augments the
   configuration and state data of IPv6 interfaces with definitions of
   the following variables as required by [RFC4861], sec. 6.2.1:

   o  send-advertisements,

   o  max-rtr-adv-interval,

   o  min-rtr-adv-interval,

   o  managed-flag,

   o  other-config-flag,

   o  link-mtu,

   o  reachable-time,




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  retrans-timer,

   o  cur-hop-limit,

   o  default-lifetime,

   o  prefix-list: a list of prefixes to be advertised.

      The following parameters are associated with each prefix in the
      list:

      *  valid-lifetime,

      *  on-link-flag,

      *  preferred-lifetime,

      *  autonomous-flag.

   NOTES:

   1.  The "IsRouter" flag, which is also required by [RFC4861], is
       implemented in the "ietf-ip" module [RFC7277] (leaf
       "ip:forwarding").

   2.  The original specification [RFC4861] allows the implementations
       to decide whether the "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime"
       parameters remain the same in consecutive advertisements, or
       decrement in real time.  However, the latter behavior seems
       problematic because the values might be reset again to the
       (higher) configured values after a configuration is reloaded.
       Moreover, no implementation is known to use the decrementing
       behavior.  The "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing" module therefore
       assumes the former behavior with constant values.

5.2.  Route

   Routes are basic elements of information in a routing system.  The
   core routing data model defines only the following minimal set of
   route attributes:

   o  "destination-prefix": IP prefix specifying the set of destination
      addresses for which the route may be used.  This attribute is
      mandatory.

   o  "route-preference": an integer value (also known as administrative
      distance) that is used for selecting a preferred route among




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


      routes with the same destination prefix.  A lower value means a
      more preferred route.

   o  "next-hop": determines the action to be performed with a packet.

   Routes are primarily state data that appear as entries of RIBs
   (Section 5.3) but they may also be found in configuration data, for
   example as manually configured static routes.  In the latter case,
   configurable route attributes are generally a subset of route
   attributes described above.

5.3.  Routing Information Base (RIB)

   Every routing instance manages one or more routing information bases
   (RIB).  A RIB is a list of routes complemented with administrative
   data.  Each RIB contains only routes of one address family.  An
   address family is represented by an identity derived from the
   "rt:address-family" base identity.

   In the core routing data model, RIBs are state data represented as
   entries of the list "/routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib".  The
   contents of RIBs are controlled and manipulated by routing protocol
   operations which may result in route additions, removals and
   modifications.  This also includes manipulations via the "static"
   and/or "direct" pseudo-protocols, see Section 5.4.1.

   Each routing instance has, for every supported address family, one
   RIB marked as the so-called default RIB.  Its role is explained in
   Section 5.4.

   Simple router implementations that do not advertise the feature
   "multiple-ribs" will typically create one system-controlled RIB per
   routing instance and supported address family, and mark it as the
   default RIB.

   More complex router implementations advertising the "multiple-ribs"
   feature support multiple RIBs per address family that can be used for
   policy routing and other purposes.

5.4.  Routing Protocol

   The core routing data model provides an open-ended framework for
   defining multiple routing protocol instances within a routing
   instance.  Each routing protocol instance MUST be assigned a type,
   which is an identity derived from the "rt:routing-protocol" base
   identity.  The core routing data model defines two identities for the
   direct and static pseudo-protocols (Section 5.4.1).




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   Multiple routing protocol instances of the same type MAY be
   configured within the same routing instance.

5.4.1.  Routing Pseudo-Protocols

   The core routing data model defines two special routing protocol
   types - "direct" and "static".  Both are in fact pseudo-protocols,
   which means they are confined to the local device and do not exchange
   any routing information with adjacent routers.

   Every routing instance MUST implement exactly one instance of the
   "direct" pseudo-protocol type.  It is the source of direct routes for
   all configured address families.  Direct routes are normally supplied
   by the operating system kernel, based on the configuration of network
   interface addresses, see Section 6.2.  Direct routes MUST be
   installed in default RIBs of all supported address families.

   A pseudo-protocol of the type "static" allows for specifying routes
   manually.  It MAY be configured in zero or multiple instances,
   although a typical configuration will have exactly one instance per
   routing instance.

5.4.2.  Defining New Routing Protocols

   It is expected that future YANG modules will create data models for
   additional routing protocol types.  Such a new module has to define
   the protocol-specific configuration and state data, and it has to fit
   it into the core routing framework in the following way:

   o  A new identity MUST be defined for the routing protocol and its
      base identity MUST be set to "rt:routing-protocol", or to an
      identity derived from "rt:routing-protocol".

   o  Additional route attributes MAY be defined, preferably in one
      place by means of defining a YANG grouping.  The new attributes
      have to be inserted by augmenting the definitions of the nodes

       /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route

      and

       /rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route,

      and possibly other places in the configuration, state data,
      notifications, and RPC input or output.






Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Configuration parameters and/or state data for the new protocol
      can be defined by augmenting the "routing-protocol" data node
      under both "/routing" and "/routing-state".

   By using a "when" statement, the augmented configuration parameters
   and state data specific to the new protocol SHOULD be made
   conditional and valid only if the value of "rt:type" or "rt:source-
   protocol" is equal to the new protocol's identity.

   It is also RECOMMENDED that protocol-specific data nodes be
   encapsulated in an appropriately named container with presence.  Such
   a container may contain mandatory data nodes that are otherwise
   forbidden at the top level of an augment.

   The above steps are implemented by the example YANG module for the
   RIP routing protocol in Appendix C.

5.5.  RPC Operations

   The "ietf-routing" module defines one RPC operation:

   o  fib-route: query a routing instance for the active route in the
      Forwarding Information Base (FIB).  It is the route that is
      currently used for sending datagrams to a destination host whose
      address is passed as an input parameter.

6.  Interactions with Other YANG Modules

   The semantics of the core routing data model also depends on several
   configuration parameters that are defined in other YANG modules.

6.1.  Module "ietf-interfaces"

   The following boolean switch is defined in the "ietf-interfaces" YANG
   module [RFC7223]:

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/if:enabled

      If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
      then all routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on that
      interface.

6.2.  Module "ietf-ip"

   The following boolean switches are defined in the "ietf-ip" YANG
   module [RFC7277]:

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:enabled



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


      If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
      then all IPv4 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
      that interface.

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:forwarding

      If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
      then the forwarding of IPv4 datagrams through this interface MUST
      be disabled.  However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv4
      routing functions, such as routing protocols.

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:enabled

      If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
      then all IPv6 routing and forwarding functions MUST be disabled on
      that interface.

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6/ip:forwarding

      If this switch is set to "false" for a network layer interface,
      then the forwarding of IPv6 datagrams through this interface MUST
      be disabled.  However, the interface MAY participate in other IPv6
      routing functions, such as routing protocols.

   In addition, the "ietf-ip" module allows for configuring IPv4 and
   IPv6 addresses and network prefixes or masks on network layer
   interfaces.  Configuration of these parameters on an enabled
   interface MUST result in an immediate creation of the corresponding
   direct route.  The destination prefix of this route is set according
   to the configured IP address and network prefix/mask, and the
   interface is set as the outgoing interface for that route.

7.  Routing Management YANG Module

   RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
   the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
   with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-routing@2015-10-16.yang"

   module ietf-routing {

     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing";

     prefix "rt";

     import ietf-yang-types {
       prefix "yang";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     }

     import ietf-interfaces {
       prefix "if";
     }

     organization
       "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";

     contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
        WG List:  <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>

        WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau
                  <mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com>

        WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
                  <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>

        WG Chair: Kent Watsen
                  <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>

        Editor:   Ladislav Lhotka
                  <mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>";

     description
       "This YANG module defines essential components for the management
        of a routing subsystem.

        Copyright (c) 2015 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
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
        NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
        'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
        in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
        (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
        full legal notices.";




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     revision 2015-10-16 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
     }

     /* Features */

     feature multiple-ribs {
       description
         "This feature indicates that the server supports user-defined
          RIBs.

          Servers that do not advertise this feature SHOULD provide
          exactly one system-controlled RIB per routing-instance and
          supported address family and make them also the default RIBs.
          These RIBs then appear as entries of the list
          /routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib.";
     }

     feature router-id {
       description
         "This feature indicates that the server supports configuration
          of an explicit 32-bit router ID that is used by some routing
          protocols.

          Servers that do not advertise this feature set a router ID
          algorithmically, usually to one of configured IPv4 addresses.
          However, this algorithm is implementation-specific.";
     }

     /* Identities */

     identity address-family {
       description
         "Base identity from which identities describing address
          families are derived.";
     }

     identity ipv4 {
       base address-family;
       description
         "This identity represents IPv4 address family.";
     }

     identity ipv6 {
       base address-family;



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       description
         "This identity represents IPv6 address family.";
     }

     identity routing-instance {
       description
         "Base identity from which identities describing routing
          instance types are derived.";
     }

     identity default-routing-instance {
       base routing-instance;
       description
         "This identity represents either a default routing instance, or
          the only routing instance on systems that do not support
          multiple instances.";
     }

     identity vrf-routing-instance {
       base routing-instance;
       description
         "This identity represents a VRF routing instance. The type is
          distinct from the default-routing-instance. There may be
          multiple vrf-routing-interfaces.";
     }

     identity routing-protocol {
       description
         "Base identity from which routing protocol identities are
          derived.";
     }

     identity direct {
       base routing-protocol;
       description
         "Routing pseudo-protocol that provides routes to directly
          connected networks.";
     }

     identity static {
       base routing-protocol;
       description
         "Static routing pseudo-protocol.";
     }

     /* Type Definitions */

     typedef routing-instance-ref {



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       type leafref {
         path "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:name";
       }
       description
         "This type is used for leafs that reference a routing instance
          configuration.";
     }

     typedef routing-instance-state-ref {
       type leafref {
         path "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:name";
       }
       description
         "This type is used for leafs that reference state data of a
          routing instance.";
     }

     typedef route-preference {
       type uint32;
       description
         "This type is used for route preferences.";
     }

     /* Groupings */

     grouping address-family {
       description
         "This grouping provides a leaf identifying an address
          family.";
       leaf address-family {
         type identityref {
           base address-family;
         }
         mandatory "true";
         description
           "Address family.";
       }
     }

     grouping router-id {
       description
         "This grouping provides router ID.";
       leaf router-id {
         type yang:dotted-quad;
         description
           "A 32-bit number in the form of a dotted quad that is used by
            some routing protocols identifying a router.";
         reference



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


           "RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2.";
       }
     }

     grouping special-next-hop {
       description
         "This grouping provides a leaf with an enumeration of special
          next-hops.";
       leaf special-next-hop {
         type enumeration {
           enum blackhole {
             description
               "Silently discard the packet.";
           }
           enum unreachable {
             description
               "Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
                message indicating that the destination host is
                unreachable.";
           }
           enum prohibit {
             description
               "Discard the packet and notify the sender with an error
                message indicating that the communication is
                administratively prohibited.";
           }
           enum receive {
             description
               "The packet will be received by the local system.";
           }
         }
         description
           "Special next-hop options.";
       }
     }

     grouping next-hop-content {
       description
         "Generic parameters of next-hops in static routes.";
       choice next-hop-options {
         mandatory "true";
         description
           "Options for next-hops in static routes.

            Modules for address families MUST augment this choice with
            the 'next-hop-address' case, which is a leaf containing a
            gateway address of that address family.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            It is expected that further cases will be added through
            augments from other modules, e.g., for Equal-Cost Multipath
            routing (ECMP).";
         leaf outgoing-interface {
           type if:interface-ref;
           description
             "Name of the outgoing interface.";
         }
         case special-next-hop {
           uses special-next-hop;
         }
       }
     }

     grouping next-hop-state-content {
       description
         "Generic parameters of next-hops in state data.";
       choice next-hop-options {
         mandatory "true";
         description
           "Options for next-hops in state data.

            Modules for address families MUST augment this choice with
            the 'next-hop-address' case, which is a leaf containing a
            gateway address of that address family.

            It is expected that further cases will be added through
            augments from other modules, e.g., for ECMP or recursive
            next-hops.";
         leaf outgoing-interface {
           type if:interface-state-ref;
           description
             "Name of the outgoing interface.";
         }
         case special-next-hop {
           uses special-next-hop;
         }
       }
     }

     grouping route-metadata {
       description
         "Common route metadata.";
       leaf source-protocol {
         type identityref {
           base routing-protocol;
         }
         mandatory "true";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


         description
           "Type of the routing protocol from which the route
            originated.";
       }
       leaf active {
         type empty;
         description
           "Presence of this leaf indicates that the route is preferred
            among all routes in the same RIB that have the same
            destination prefix.";
       }
       leaf last-updated {
         type yang:date-and-time;
         description
           "Time stamp of the last modification of the route. If the
            route was never modified, it is the time when the route was
            inserted into the RIB.";
       }
     }

     /* State data */

     augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface" {
       description
         "This augment adds a reference to the routing-instance to which
          the interface is assigned.";
       leaf routing-instance {
         type routing-instance-state-ref;
         description
           "The name of the routing instance to which the interface is
            assigned.";
       }
     }

     container routing-state {
       config "false";
       description
         "State data of the routing subsystem.";
       list routing-instance {
         key "name";
         min-elements "1";
         description
           "Each list entry is a container for state data of a routing
            instance.

            An implementation MUST provide one and only one
            system-controlled routing instance(s) of the type
            'rt:default-routing-instance', and MAY support other types.



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            An implementation MAY restrict the number of routing
            instances of each supported type.";
         leaf name {
           type string;
           description
             "The name of the routing instance.

              For system-controlled instances the name SHOULD be
              persistent, i.e., it doesn't change after a reboot.";
         }
         leaf type {
           type identityref {
             base routing-instance;
           }
           description
             "The routing instance type.";
         }
         uses router-id {
           description
             "Global router ID.

              It may be either configured or assigned algorithmically by
              the implementation.";
         }
         container interfaces {
           description
             "Network layer interfaces belonging to the routing
              instance.";
           leaf-list interface {
             type if:interface-state-ref;
             must "../../name = /if:interfaces-state/"
                + "if:interface[if:name=current()]/"
                + "rt:routing-instance" {
               error-message
                 "Routing instance is not assigned to the interface.";
               description
                 "This reference must mirror a corresponding assignment
                  of the ancestor routing-instance to the interface.";
             }
             description
               "Each entry is a reference to the name of a configured
                network layer interface.";
           }
         }
         container routing-protocols {
           description
             "Container for the list of routing protocol instances.";
           list routing-protocol {



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


             key "type name";
             description
               "State data of a routing protocol instance.

                An implementation MUST provide exactly one
                system-controlled instance of the type 'direct'. Other
                instances MAY be created by configuration.";
             leaf type {
               type identityref {
                 base routing-protocol;
               }
               description
                 "Type of the routing protocol.";
             }
             leaf name {
               type string;
               description
                 "The name of the routing protocol instance.

                  For system-controlled instances this name is
                  persistent, i.e., it SHOULD NOT change across
                  reboots.";
             }
           }
         }
         container ribs {
           description
             "Container for RIBs.";
           list rib {
             key "name";
             min-elements "1";
             description
               "Each entry represents a RIB identified by the 'name'
                key. All routes in a RIB MUST belong to the same address
                family.

                For each routing instance, an implementation SHOULD
                provide one system-controlled default RIB for each
                supported address family.";
             leaf name {
               type string;
               description
                 "The name of the RIB.";
             }
             uses address-family;
             leaf default-rib {
               if-feature multiple-ribs;
               type boolean;



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


               default "true";
               description
                 "This flag has the value of 'true' if and only if the
                  RIB is the default RIB for the given address family.

                  A default RIB always receives direct routes. By
                  default it also receives routes from all routing
                  protocols.";
             }
             container routes {
               description
                 "Current content of the RIB.";
               list route {
                 description
                   "A RIB route entry. This data node MUST be augmented
                    with information specific for routes of each address
                    family.";
                 leaf route-preference {
                   type route-preference;
                   description
                     "This route attribute, also known as administrative
                      distance, allows for selecting the preferred route
                      among routes with the same destination prefix. A
                      smaller value means a more preferred route.";
                 }
                 container next-hop {
                   description
                     "Route's next-hop attribute.";
                   uses next-hop-state-content;
                 }
                 uses route-metadata;
               }
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }

     /* Configuration Data */

     augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
       description
         "This augment adds a routing-instance reference to interface
          configuration.";
       leaf routing-instance {
         type routing-instance-ref;
         description
           "The name of the routing instance to which the interface is



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            to be assigned.

            By default, all network layer interfaces belong to the
            routing-instance of the 'default-routing-instance' type.";
       }
     }

     container routing {
       description
         "Configuration parameters for the routing subsystem.";
       list routing-instance {
         key "name";
         description
           "Configuration of a routing instance.";
         leaf name {
           type string;
           description
             "The name of the routing instance.

              For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf must
              be the same as the name of the corresponding entry in
              state data.

              For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be
              used.";
         }
         leaf type {
           type identityref {
             base routing-instance;
           }
           default "rt:default-routing-instance";
           description
             "The type of the routing instance.";
         }
         leaf enabled {
           type boolean;
           default "true";
           description
             "Enable/disable the routing instance.

              If this parameter is false, the parent routing instance is
              disabled and does not appear in state data, despite any
              other configuration that might be present.";
         }
         uses router-id {
           if-feature router-id;
           description
             "Configuration of the global router ID. Routing protocols



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


              that use router ID can use this parameter or override it
              with another value.";
         }
         leaf description {
           type string;
           description
             "Textual description of the routing instance.";
         }
         container routing-protocols {
           description
             "Configuration of routing protocol instances.";
           list routing-protocol {
             key "type name";
             description
               "Each entry contains configuration of a routing protocol
                instance.";
             leaf type {
               type identityref {
                 base routing-protocol;
               }
               description
                 "Type of the routing protocol - an identity derived
                  from the 'routing-protocol' base identity.";
             }
             leaf name {
               type string;
               description
                 "An arbitrary name of the routing protocol instance.";
             }
             leaf description {
               type string;
               description
                 "Textual description of the routing protocol
                  instance.";
             }
             container static-routes {
               when "../type='rt:static'" {
                 description
                   "This container is only valid for the 'static'
                    routing protocol.";
               }
               description
                 "Configuration of the 'static' pseudo-protocol.

                  Address-family-specific modules augment this node with
                  their lists of routes.";
             }
           }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


         }
         container ribs {
           description
             "Configuration of RIBs.";
           list rib {
             key "name";
             description
               "Each entry contains configuration for a RIB identified
                by the 'name' key.

                Entries having the same key as a system-controlled entry
                of the list /routing-state/routing-instance/ribs/rib are
                used for configuring parameters of that entry. Other
                entries define additional user-controlled RIBs.";
             leaf name {
               type string;
               description
                 "The name of the RIB.

                  For system-controlled entries, the value of this leaf
                  must be the same as the name of the corresponding
                  entry in state data.

                  For user-controlled entries, an arbitrary name can be
                  used.";
             }
             uses address-family {
               description
                 "Address family of the RIB.

                  It is mandatory for user-controlled RIBs. For
                  system-controlled RIBs it can be omitted, otherwise it
                  must match the address family of the corresponding
                  state entry.";
               refine "address-family" {
                 mandatory "false";
               }
             }
             leaf description {
               type string;
               description
                 "Textual description of the RIB.";
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     /* RPC operations */

     rpc fib-route {
       description
         "Return the active FIB route that a routing-instance uses for
          sending packets to a destination address.";
       input {
         leaf routing-instance-name {
           type routing-instance-state-ref;
           mandatory "true";
           description
             "Name of the routing instance whose forwarding information
              base is being queried.

              If the routing instance with name equal to the value of
              this parameter doesn't exist, then this operation SHALL
              fail with error-tag 'data-missing' and error-app-tag
              'routing-instance-not-found'.";
         }
         container destination-address {
           description
             "Network layer destination address.

              Address family specific modules MUST augment this
              container with a leaf named 'address'.";
           uses address-family;
         }
       }
       output {
         container route {
           description
             "The active FIB route for the specified destination.

              If the routing instance has no active FIB route for the
              destination address, no output is returned - the server
              SHALL send an <rpc-reply> containing a single element
              <ok>.

              Address family specific modules MUST augment this list
              with appropriate route contents.";
           uses address-family;
           container next-hop {
             description
               "Route's next-hop attribute.";
             uses next-hop-state-content;
           }
           uses route-metadata;
         }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       }
     }
   }

   <CODE ENDS>

8.  IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module

   RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
   the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
   with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2015-10-16.yang"

   module ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing {

     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing";

     prefix "v4ur";

     import ietf-routing {
       prefix "rt";
     }

     import ietf-inet-types {
       prefix "inet";
     }

     organization
       "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";

     contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
        WG List:  <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>

        WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau
                  <mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com>

        WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
                  <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>

        WG Chair: Kent Watsen
                  <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>

        Editor:   Ladislav Lhotka
                  <mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>";

     description



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       "This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
        configuration and state data for IPv4 unicast routing.

        Copyright (c) 2015 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
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
        NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
        'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
        in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
        (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
        full legal notices.";

     revision 2015-10-16 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
     }

     /* Identities */

     identity ipv4-unicast {
       base rt:ipv4;
       description
         "This identity represents the IPv4 unicast address family.";
     }

     /* State data */

     augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
           + "rt:routes/rt:route" {
       when "../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments an IPv4 unicast route.";
       leaf destination-prefix {



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


         type inet:ipv4-prefix;
         description
           "IPv4 destination prefix.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
           + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options" {
       when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv4 unicast routes.";
       leaf next-hop-address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         description
           "IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
       }
     }

     /* Configuration data */

     augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/"
           + "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
       description
         "This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
          pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv4 unicast.";
       container ipv4 {
         description
           "Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
            consists of a list of routes.";
         list route {
           key "destination-prefix";
           description
             "A list of static routes.";
           leaf destination-prefix {
             type inet:ipv4-prefix;
             mandatory "true";
             description
               "IPv4 destination prefix.";
           }
           leaf description {
             type string;
             description
               "Textual description of the route.";
           }
           container next-hop {



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


             description
               "Configuration of next-hop.";
             uses rt:next-hop-content {
               augment "next-hop-options" {
                 description
                   "Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv4 static routes.";
                 leaf next-hop-address {
                   type inet:ipv4-address;
                   description
                     "IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
                 }
               }
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }

     /* RPC operations */

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
       when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of
          the 'rt:fib-route' operation.";
       leaf address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         description
           "IPv4 destination address.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
       when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
          operation.";
       leaf destination-prefix {
         type inet:ipv4-prefix;
         description
           "IPv4 destination prefix.";
       }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     }

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/"
           + "rt:next-hop-options" {
       when "../rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "Augment 'next-hop-options' in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
          operation.";
       leaf next-hop-address {
         type inet:ipv4-address;
         description
           "IPv4 address of the next-hop.";
       }
     }
   }

   <CODE ENDS>

9.  IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module

   RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
   the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
   with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2015-10-16.yang"

   module ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing {

     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing";

     prefix "v6ur";

     import ietf-routing {
       prefix "rt";
     }

     import ietf-inet-types {
       prefix "inet";
     }

     import ietf-interfaces {
       prefix "if";
     }

     import ietf-ip {



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       prefix "ip";
     }

     organization
       "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";

     contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
        WG List:  <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>

        WG Chair: Thomas Nadeau
                  <mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com>

        WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
                  <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>

        WG Chair: Kent Watsen
                  <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>

        Editor:   Ladislav Lhotka
                  <mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>";

     description
       "This YANG module augments the 'ietf-routing' module with basic
        configuration and state data for IPv6 unicast routing.

        Copyright (c) 2015 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
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
        NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and
        'OPTIONAL' in the module text are to be interpreted as described
        in RFC 2119 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
        (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
        full legal notices.";

     revision 2015-10-16 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       reference
         "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management";
     }

     /* Identities */

     identity ipv6-unicast {
       base rt:ipv6;
       description
         "This identity represents the IPv6 unicast address family.";
     }

     /* State data */

     augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
       description
         "Augment interface state data with IPv6-specific parameters of
          router interfaces.";
       container ipv6-router-advertisements {
         description
           "Parameters of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
         leaf send-advertisements {
           type boolean;
           description
             "A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic
              Router Advertisements and responds to Router
              Solicitations.";
         }
         leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
           type uint16 {
             range "4..1800";
           }
           units "seconds";
           description
             "The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
              multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
         }
         leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
           type uint16 {
             range "3..1350";
           }
           units "seconds";
           description
             "The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
              multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
         }
         leaf managed-flag {
           type boolean;



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


           description
             "The value that is placed in the 'Managed address
              configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
         }
         leaf other-config-flag {
           type boolean;
           description
             "The value that is placed in the 'Other configuration' flag
              field in the Router Advertisement.";
         }
         leaf link-mtu {
           type uint32;
           description
             "The value that is placed in MTU options sent by the
              router. A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are
              sent.";
         }
         leaf reachable-time {
           type uint32 {
             range "0..3600000";
           }
           units "milliseconds";
           description
             "The value that is placed in the Reachable Time field in
              the Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A
              value of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
         }
         leaf retrans-timer {
           type uint32;
           units "milliseconds";
           description
             "The value that is placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
              Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
              of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
         }
         leaf cur-hop-limit {
           type uint8;
           description
             "The value that is placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the
              Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
              of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
         }
         leaf default-lifetime {
           type uint16 {
             range "0..9000";
           }
           units "seconds";
           description



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


             "The value that is placed in the Router Lifetime field of
              Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
              A value of zero indicates that the router is not to be
              used as a default router.";
         }
         container prefix-list {
           description
             "A list of prefixes that are placed in Prefix Information
              options in Router Advertisement messages sent from the
              interface.

              By default, these are all prefixes that the router
              advertises via routing protocols as being on-link for the
              interface from which the advertisement is sent.";
           list prefix {
             key "prefix-spec";
             description
               "Advertised prefix entry and its parameters.";
             leaf prefix-spec {
               type inet:ipv6-prefix;
               description
                 "IPv6 address prefix.";
             }
             leaf valid-lifetime {
               type uint32;
               units "seconds";
               description
                 "The value that is placed in the Valid Lifetime in the
                  Prefix Information option. The designated value of all
                  1's (0xffffffff) represents infinity.

                  An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
                  consecutive advertisements except when it is
                  explicitly changed in configuration.";
             }
             leaf on-link-flag {
               type boolean;
               description
                 "The value that is placed in the on-link flag ('L-bit')
                  field in the Prefix Information option.";
             }
             leaf preferred-lifetime {
               type uint32;
               units "seconds";
               description
                 "The value that is placed in the Preferred Lifetime in
                  the Prefix Information option, in seconds. The
                  designated value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


                  infinity.

                  An implementation SHOULD keep this value constant in
                  consecutive advertisements except when it is
                  explicitly changed in configuration.";
             }
             leaf autonomous-flag {
               type boolean;
               description
                 "The value that is placed in the Autonomous Flag field
                  in the Prefix Information option.";
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
           + "rt:routes/rt:route" {
       when "../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments an IPv6 unicast route.";
       leaf destination-prefix {
         type inet:ipv6-prefix;
         description
           "IPv6 destination prefix.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
           + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options" {
       when "../../../rt:address-family = 'v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv6 unicast routes.";
       leaf next-hop-address {
         type inet:ipv6-address;
         description
           "IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
       }
     }

     /* Configuration data */



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6" {
       description
         "Augment interface configuration with IPv6-specific parameters
          of router interfaces.";
       container ipv6-router-advertisements {
         description
           "Configuration of IPv6 Router Advertisements.";
         leaf send-advertisements {
           type boolean;
           default "false";
           description
             "A flag indicating whether or not the router sends periodic
              Router Advertisements and responds to Router
              Solicitations.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvSendAdvertisements.";
         }
         leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
           type uint16 {
             range "4..1800";
           }
           units "seconds";
           default "600";
           description
             "The maximum time allowed between sending unsolicited
              multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              MaxRtrAdvInterval.";
         }
         leaf min-rtr-adv-interval {
           type uint16 {
             range "3..1350";
           }
           units "seconds";
           must ". <= 0.75 * ../max-rtr-adv-interval" {
             description
               "The value MUST NOT be greater than 75 % of
                'max-rtr-adv-interval'.";
           }
           description
             "The minimum time allowed between sending unsolicited
              multicast Router Advertisements from the interface.

              The default value to be used operationally if this leaf is
              not configured is determined as follows:




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


              - if max-rtr-adv-interval >= 9 seconds, the default value
                is 0.33 * max-rtr-adv-interval;

              - otherwise it is 0.75 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              MinRtrAdvInterval.";
         }
         leaf managed-flag {
           type boolean;
           default "false";
           description
             "The value to be placed in the 'Managed address
              configuration' flag field in the Router Advertisement.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvManagedFlag.";
         }
         leaf other-config-flag {
           type boolean;
           default "false";
           description
             "The value to be placed in the 'Other configuration' flag
              field in the Router Advertisement.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvOtherConfigFlag.";
         }
         leaf link-mtu {
           type uint32;
           default "0";
           description
             "The value to be placed in MTU options sent by the router.
              A value of zero indicates that no MTU options are sent.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvLinkMTU.";
         }
         leaf reachable-time {
           type uint32 {
             range "0..3600000";
           }
           units "milliseconds";
           default "0";
           description
             "The value to be placed in the Reachable Time field in the
              Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
              of zero means unspecified (by this router).";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvReachableTime.";
         }
         leaf retrans-timer {
           type uint32;
           units "milliseconds";
           default "0";
           description
             "The value to be placed in the Retrans Timer field in the
              Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
              of zero means unspecified (by this router).";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvRetransTimer.";
         }
         leaf cur-hop-limit {
           type uint8;
           description
             "The value to be placed in the Cur Hop Limit field in the
              Router Advertisement messages sent by the router. A value
              of zero means unspecified (by this router).

              If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use
              the value specified in IANA Assigned Numbers that was in
              effect at the time of implementation.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvCurHopLimit.

              IANA: IP Parameters,
              http://www.iana.org/assignments/ip-parameters";
         }
         leaf default-lifetime {
           type uint16 {
             range "0..9000";
           }
           units "seconds";
           description
             "The value to be placed in the Router Lifetime field of
              Router Advertisements sent from the interface, in seconds.
              It MUST be either zero or between max-rtr-adv-interval and
              9000 seconds. A value of zero indicates that the router is
              not to be used as a default router. These limits may be
              overridden by specific documents that describe how IPv6
              operates over different link layers.

              If this parameter is not configured, the device SHOULD use



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


              a value of 3 * max-rtr-adv-interval.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvDefaultLifeTime.";
         }
         container prefix-list {
           description
             "Configuration of prefixes to be placed in Prefix
              Information options in Router Advertisement messages sent
              from the interface.

              Prefixes that are advertised by default but do not have
              their entries in the child 'prefix' list are advertised
              with the default values of all parameters.

              The link-local prefix SHOULD NOT be included in the list
              of advertised prefixes.";
           reference
             "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6) -
              AdvPrefixList.";
           list prefix {
             key "prefix-spec";
             description
               "Configuration of an advertised prefix entry.";
             leaf prefix-spec {
               type inet:ipv6-prefix;
               description
                 "IPv6 address prefix.";
             }
             choice control-adv-prefixes {
               default "advertise";
               description
                 "The prefix either may be explicitly removed from the
                  set of advertised prefixes, or parameters with which
                  it is advertised may be specified (default case).";
               leaf no-advertise {
                 type empty;
                 description
                   "The prefix will not be advertised.

                    This can be used for removing the prefix from the
                    default set of advertised prefixes.";
               }
               case advertise {
                 leaf valid-lifetime {
                   type uint32;
                   units "seconds";
                   default "2592000";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


                   description
                     "The value to be placed in the Valid Lifetime in
                      the Prefix Information option. The designated
                      value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
                      infinity.";
                   reference
                     "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                      (IPv6) - AdvValidLifetime.";
                 }
                 leaf on-link-flag {
                   type boolean;
                   default "true";
                   description
                     "The value to be placed in the on-link flag
                      ('L-bit') field in the Prefix Information
                      option.";
                   reference
                     "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                      (IPv6) - AdvOnLinkFlag.";
                 }
                 leaf preferred-lifetime {
                   type uint32;
                   units "seconds";
                   must ". <= ../valid-lifetime" {
                     description
                       "This value MUST NOT be greater than
                        valid-lifetime.";
                   }
                   default "604800";
                   description
                     "The value to be placed in the Preferred Lifetime
                      in the Prefix Information option. The designated
                      value of all 1's (0xffffffff) represents
                      infinity.";
                   reference
                     "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                      (IPv6) - AdvPreferredLifetime.";
                 }
                 leaf autonomous-flag {
                   type boolean;
                   default "true";
                   description
                     "The value to be placed in the Autonomous Flag
                      field in the Prefix Information option.";
                   reference
                     "RFC 4861: Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6
                      (IPv6) - AdvAutonomousFlag.";
                 }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


               }
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/"
           + "rt:routing-protocol/rt:static-routes" {
       description
         "This augment defines the configuration of the 'static'
          pseudo-protocol with data specific to IPv6 unicast.";
       container ipv6 {
         description
           "Configuration of a 'static' pseudo-protocol instance
            consists of a list of routes.";
         list route {
           key "destination-prefix";
           description
             "A list of static routes.";
           leaf destination-prefix {
             type inet:ipv6-prefix;
             mandatory "true";
             description
               "IPv6 destination prefix.";
           }
           leaf description {
             type string;
             description
               "Textual description of the route.";
           }
           container next-hop {
             description
               "Configuration of next-hop.";
             uses rt:next-hop-content {
               augment "next-hop-options" {
                 description
                   "Augment 'next-hop-options' in IPv6 static routes.";
                 leaf next-hop-address {
                   type inet:ipv6-address;
                   description
                     "IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
                 }
               }
             }
           }
         }
       }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     }

     /* RPC operations */

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
       when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments the 'rt:destination-address' parameter of
          the 'rt:fib-route' operation.";
       leaf address {
         type inet:ipv6-address;
         description
           "IPv6 destination address.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
       when "rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "This leaf augments the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
          operation.";
       leaf destination-prefix {
         type inet:ipv6-prefix;
         description
           "IPv6 destination prefix.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route/rt:next-hop/"
           + "rt:next-hop-options" {
       when "../rt:address-family='v6ur:ipv6-unicast'" {
         description
           "This augment is valid only for IPv6 unicast.";
       }
       description
         "Augment 'next-hop-options' in the reply to the 'rt:fib-route'
          operation.";
       leaf next-hop-address {
         type inet:ipv6-address;
         description
           "IPv6 address of the next-hop.";
       }



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 45]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     }
   }

   <CODE ENDS>

10.  IANA Considerations

   RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
   actual RFC number (and remove this note).

   This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
   registry [RFC3688]:

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

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

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

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

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

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

   This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
   Names registry [RFC6020]:












Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 46]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   name:         ietf-routing
   namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing
   prefix:       rt
   reference:    RFC XXXX
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   name:         ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
   namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing
   prefix:       v4ur
   reference:    RFC XXXX
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   name:         ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
   namespace:    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing
   prefix:       v6ur
   reference:    RFC XXXX
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

11.  Security Considerations

   Configuration and state data conforming to the core routing data
   model (defined in this document) are designed to be accessed via the
   NETCONF protocol [RFC6241].  The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure
   transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is
   SSH [RFC6242].  The NETCONF access control model [RFC6536] provides
   the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF users to a pre-
   configured subset of all available NETCONF protocol operations and
   content.

   A number of data nodes defined in the YANG modules belonging to the
   configuration part of the core routing data model are
   writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., "config true" in YANG terms,
   which is the default).  These data nodes may be considered sensitive
   or vulnerable in some network environments.  Write operations to
   these data nodes, such as "edit-config", can have negative effects on
   the network if the protocol operations are not properly protected.

   The vulnerable "config true" parameters and subtrees are the
   following:

   /if:interfaces/if:interface/rt:routing-instance:  This leaf assigns a
      network layer interface to a routing instance.

   /routing/routing-instance/routing-protocols/routing-protocol:  This
      list specifies the routing protocols configured on a device.



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 47]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   /routing/routing-instance/ribs/rib:  This list specifies the RIBs
      configured for the device.

   Unauthorised access to any of these lists can adversely affect the
   routing subsystem of both the local device and the network.  This may
   lead to network malfunctions, delivery of packets to inappropriate
   destinations and other problems.

12.  Acknowledgments

   The authors wish to thank Nitin Bahadur, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
   Bogdanovic, Jeff Haas, Joel Halpern, Wes Hardaker, Sriganesh Kini,
   David Lamparter, Andrew McGregor, Jan Medved, Xiang Li, Stephane
   Litkowski, Thomas Morin, Tom Petch, Bruno Rijsman,
   Juergen Schoenwaelder, Phil Shafer, Dave Thaler, Yi Yang, Derek Man-
   Kit Yeung and Jeffrey Zhang for their helpful comments and
   suggestions.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.






Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 48]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC
              6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

   [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.

   [RFC7277]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", RFC
              7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC6087]  Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
              Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, DOI 10.17487/RFC6087,
              January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6087>.

   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.

   [RFC6536]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, DOI
              10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.

Appendix A.  The Complete Data Trees

   This appendix presents the complete configuration and state data
   trees of the core routing data model.  See Section 2.2 for an
   explanation of the symbols used.  Data type of every leaf node is
   shown near the right end of the corresponding line.

A.1.  Configuration Data












Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 49]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   +--rw routing
      +--rw routing-instance* [name]
         +--rw name                 string
         +--rw type?                identityref
         +--rw enabled?             boolean
         +--rw router-id?           yang:dotted-quad
         +--rw description?         string
         +--rw routing-protocols
         |  +--rw routing-protocol* [type name]
         |     +--rw type             identityref
         |     +--rw name             string
         |     +--rw description?     string
         |     +--rw static-routes
         |        +--rw v6ur:ipv6
         |        |  +--rw v6ur:route* [destination-prefix]
         |        |     +--rw v6ur:destination-prefix  inet:ipv6-prefix
         |        |     +--rw v6ur:description?        string
         |        |     +--rw v6ur:next-hop
         |        |        +--rw (next-hop-options)
         |        |           +--:(outgoing-interface)
         |        |           |  +--rw v6ur:outgoing-interface?
         |        |           +--:(special-next-hop)
         |        |           |  +--rw v6ur:special-next-hop?
         |        |           +--:(next-hop-address)
         |        |              +--rw v6ur:next-hop-address?
         |        +--rw v4ur:ipv4
         |           +--rw v4ur:route* [destination-prefix]
         |              +--rw v4ur:destination-prefix  inet:ipv4-prefix
         |              +--rw v4ur:description?        string
         |              +--rw v4ur:next-hop
         |                 +--rw (next-hop-options)
         |                    +--:(outgoing-interface)
         |                    |  +--rw v4ur:outgoing-interface?
         |                    +--:(special-next-hop)
         |                    |  +--rw v4ur:special-next-hop?
         |                    +--:(next-hop-address)
         |                       +--rw v4ur:next-hop-address?
         +--rw ribs
            +--rw rib* [name]
               +--rw name              string
               +--rw address-family?   identityref
               +--rw description?      string

A.2.  State Data







Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 50]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   +--ro routing-state
      +--ro routing-instance* [name]
         +--ro name                 string
         +--ro type?                identityref
         +--ro router-id?           yang:dotted-quad
         +--ro interfaces
         |  +--ro interface*   if:interface-state-ref
         +--ro routing-protocols
         |  +--ro routing-protocol* [type name]
         |     +--ro type    identityref
         |     +--ro name    string
         +--ro ribs
            +--ro rib* [name]
               +--ro name              string
               +--ro address-family    identityref
               +--ro default-rib?      boolean {multiple-ribs}?
               +--ro routes
                  +--ro route*
                     +--ro route-preference?          route-preference
                     +--ro next-hop
                     |  +--ro (next-hop-options)
                     |     +--:(outgoing-interface)
                     |     |  +--ro outgoing-interface?
                     |     +--:(special-next-hop)
                     |     |  +--ro special-next-hop?       enumeration
                     |     +--:(next-hop-address)
                     |     |  +--ro v6ur:next-hop-address?
                     |     +--:(next-hop-address)
                     |        +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
                     +--ro source-protocol            identityref
                     +--ro active?                    empty
                     +--ro last-updated?             yang:date-and-time
                     +--ro v6ur:destination-prefix?  inet:ipv6-prefix
                     +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix?  inet:ipv4-prefix

Appendix B.  Minimum Implementation

   Some parts and options of the core routing model, such as user-
   defined RIBs, are intended only for advanced routers.  This appendix
   gives basic non-normative guidelines for implementing a bare minimum
   of available functions.  Such an implementation may be used for hosts
   or very simple routers.

   A minimum implementation provides a single system-controlled routing
   instance of the type "default-routing-instance", and will not allow
   clients to create any user-controlled instances.





Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 51]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   Typically, the feature "multiple-ribs" will not be supported.  This
   means that a single system-controlled RIB is available for each
   supported address family - IPv4, IPv6 or both.  These RIBs must be
   the default RIBs.  No user-controlled RIBs are allowed.

   In addition to the mandatory instance of the "direct" pseudo-
   protocol, a minimum implementation should support configuring
   instance(s) of the "static" pseudo-protocol.

   Platforms with severely constrained resources may use deviations for
   restricting the data model, e.g., limiting the number of "static"
   routing protocol instances.

Appendix C.  Example: Adding a New Routing Protocol

   This appendix demonstrates how the core routing data model can be
   extended to support a new routing protocol.  The YANG module
   "example-rip" shown below is intended as an illustration rather than
   a real definition of a data model for the RIP routing protocol.  For
   the sake of brevity, this module does not obey all the guidelines
   specified in [RFC6087].  See also Section 5.4.2.

   module example-rip {

     namespace "http://example.com/rip";

     prefix "rip";

     import ietf-interfaces {
       prefix "if";
     }

     import ietf-routing {
       prefix "rt";
     }

     identity rip {
       base rt:routing-protocol;
       description
         "Identity for the RIP routing protocol.";
     }

     typedef rip-metric {
       type uint8 {
         range "0..16";
       }
     }




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 52]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


     grouping route-content {
       description
         "This grouping defines RIP-specific route attributes.";
       leaf metric {
         type rip-metric;
       }
       leaf tag {
         type uint16;
         default "0";
         description
           "This leaf may be used to carry additional info, e.g. AS
            number.";
       }
     }

     augment "/rt:routing-state/rt:routing-instance/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
           + "rt:routes/rt:route" {
       when "rt:source-protocol = 'rip:rip'" {
         description
           "This augment is only valid for a routes whose source
            protocol is RIP.";
       }
       description
         "RIP-specific route attributes.";
       uses route-content;
     }

     augment "/rt:fib-route/rt:output/rt:route" {
       description
         "RIP-specific route attributes in the output of 'active-route'
          RPC.";
       uses route-content;
     }

     augment "/rt:routing/rt:routing-instance/rt:routing-protocols/"
           + "rt:routing-protocol" {
       when "rt:type = 'rip:rip'" {
         description
           "This augment is only valid for a routing protocol instance
            of type 'rip'.";
       }
       container rip {
         presence "RIP configuration";
         description
           "RIP instance configuration.";
         container interfaces {
           description
             "Per-interface RIP configuration.";



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 53]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


           list interface {
             key "name";
             description
               "RIP is enabled on interfaces that have an entry in this
                list, unless 'enabled' is set to 'false' for that
                entry.";
             leaf name {
               type if:interface-ref;
             }
             leaf enabled {
               type boolean;
               default "true";
             }
             leaf metric {
               type rip-metric;
               default "1";
             }
           }
         }
         leaf update-interval {
           type uint8 {
             range "10..60";
           }
           units "seconds";
           default "30";
           description
             "Time interval between periodic updates.";
         }
       }
     }
   }

Appendix D.  Example: NETCONF <get> Reply

   This section contains a sample reply to the NETCONF <get> message,
   which could be sent by a server supporting (i.e., advertising them in
   the NETCONF <hello> message) the following YANG modules:

   o  ietf-interfaces [RFC7223],

   o  ietf-ip [RFC7277],

   o  ietf-routing (Section 7),

   o  ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing (Section 8),

   o  ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing (Section 9).




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 54]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   We assume a simple network set-up as shown in Figure 3: router "A"
   uses static default routes with the "ISP" router as the next-hop.
   IPv6 router advertisements are configured only on the "eth1"
   interface and disabled on the upstream "eth0" interface.

                   +-----------------+
                   |                 |
                   |    Router ISP   |
                   |                 |
                   +--------+--------+
                            |2001:db8:0:1::2
                            |192.0.2.2
                            |
                            |
                            |2001:db8:0:1::1
                        eth0|192.0.2.1
                   +--------+--------+
                   |                 |
                   |     Router A    |
                   |                 |
                   +--------+--------+
                        eth1|198.51.100.1
                            |2001:db8:0:2::1
                            |

                  Figure 3: Example network configuration

   A reply to the NETCONF <get> message sent by router "A" would then be
   as follows:

   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <rpc-reply
      message-id="101"
      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
      xmlns:v4ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing"
      xmlns:v6ur="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing"
      xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
      xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type"
      xmlns:ip="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip"
      xmlns:rt="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing">
    <data>
     <if:interfaces>
      <if:interface>
       <if:name>eth0</if:name>
       <if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
       <if:description>
        Uplink to ISP.
       </if:description>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 55]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       <rt:routing-instance>rtr0</rt:routing-instance>
       <ip:ipv4>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>192.0.2.1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
       </ip:ipv4>
       <ip:ipv6>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:1::1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:autoconf>
         <ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
        </ip:autoconf>
       </ip:ipv6>
      </if:interface>
      <if:interface>
       <if:name>eth1</if:name>
       <if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
       <if:description>
        Interface to the internal network.
       </if:description>
       <rt:routing-instance>rtr0</rt:routing-instance>
       <ip:ipv4>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>198.51.100.1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
       </ip:ipv4>
       <ip:ipv6>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:2::1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:autoconf>
         <ip:create-global-addresses>false</ip:create-global-addresses>
        </ip:autoconf>
       </ip:ipv6>
      </if:interface>
     </if:interfaces>
     <if:interfaces-state>
      <if:interface>
       <if:name>eth0</if:name>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 56]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


       <if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
       <if:phys-address>00:0C:42:E5:B1:E9</if:phys-address>
       <if:oper-status>up</if:oper-status>
       <rt:routing-instance>rtr0</rt:routing-instance>
       <if:statistics>
        <if:discontinuity-time>
         2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00
        </if:discontinuity-time>
       </if:statistics>
       <ip:ipv4>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>192.0.2.1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
       </ip:ipv4>
       <ip:ipv6>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:1::1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
         <v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
         <v6ur:prefix-list>
          <v6ur:prefix>
           <v6ur:prefix-spec>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:prefix-spec>
          </v6ur:prefix>
         </v6ur:prefix-list>
        </v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
       </ip:ipv6>
      </if:interface>
      <if:interface>
       <if:name>eth1</if:name>
       <if:type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
       <if:phys-address>00:0C:42:E5:B1:EA</if:phys-address>
       <if:oper-status>up</if:oper-status>
       <rt:routing-instance>rtr0</rt:routing-instance>
       <if:statistics>
        <if:discontinuity-time>
         2015-10-24T17:11:29+02:00
        </if:discontinuity-time>
       </if:statistics>
       <ip:ipv4>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 57]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>198.51.100.1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>24</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
       </ip:ipv4>
       <ip:ipv6>
        <ip:forwarding>true</ip:forwarding>
        <ip:mtu>1500</ip:mtu>
        <ip:address>
         <ip:ip>2001:0db8:0:2::1</ip:ip>
         <ip:prefix-length>64</ip:prefix-length>
        </ip:address>
        <v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
         <v6ur:send-advertisements>true</v6ur:send-advertisements>
         <v6ur:prefix-list>
          <v6ur:prefix>
           <v6ur:prefix-spec>2001:db8:0:2::/64</v6ur:prefix-spec>
          </v6ur:prefix>
         </v6ur:prefix-list>
        </v6ur:ipv6-router-advertisements>
       </ip:ipv6>
      </if:interface>
     </if:interfaces-state>
     <rt:routing>
      <rt:routing-instance>
       <rt:name>rtr0</rt:name>
       <rt:description>Router A</rt:description>
       <rt:router-id>192.0.2.1</rt:router-id>
       <rt:routing-protocols>
        <rt:routing-protocol>
         <rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
         <rt:name>st0</rt:name>
         <rt:description>
          Static routing is used for the internal network.
         </rt:description>
         <rt:static-routes>
          <v4ur:ipv4>
           <v4ur:route>
            <v4ur:destination-prefix>
             0.0.0.0/0
            </v4ur:destination-prefix>
            <v4ur:next-hop>
             <v4ur:next-hop-address>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop-address>
            </v4ur:next-hop>
           </v4ur:route>
          </v4ur:ipv4>
          <v6ur:ipv6>
           <v6ur:route>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 58]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            <v6ur:destination-prefix>::/0</v6ur:destination-prefix>
            <v6ur:next-hop>
             <v6ur:next-hop-address>
              2001:db8:0:1::2
             </v6ur:next-hop-address>
            </v6ur:next-hop>
           </v6ur:route>
          </v6ur:ipv6>
         </rt:static-routes>
        </rt:routing-protocol>
       </rt:routing-protocols>
      </rt:routing-instance>
     </rt:routing>
     <rt:routing-state>
      <rt:routing-instance>
       <rt:name>rtr0</rt:name>
       <rt:interfaces>
        <rt:interface>eth0</rt:interface>
        <rt:interface>eth1</rt:interface>
       </rt:interfaces>
       <rt:routing-protocols>
        <rt:routing-protocol>
         <rt:type>rt:static</rt:type>
         <rt:name>st0</rt:name>
        </rt:routing-protocol>
       </rt:routing-protocols>
       <rt:ribs>
        <rt:rib>
         <rt:name>ipv4-master</rt:name>
         <rt:address-family>v4ur:ipv4-unicast</rt:address-family>
         <rt:default-rib>true</rt:default-rib>
         <rt:routes>
          <rt:route>
           <v4ur:destination-prefix>
            192.0.2.1/24
           </v4ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:next-hop>
            <rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
          <rt:route>
           <v4ur:destination-prefix>
            198.51.100.0/24
           </v4ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:next-hop>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 59]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


            <rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
          <rt:route>
           <v4ur:destination-prefix>0.0.0.0/0</v4ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:static</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:route-preference>5</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:next-hop>
            <v4ur:next-hop-address>192.0.2.2</v4ur:next-hop-address>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
         </rt:routes>
        </rt:rib>
        <rt:rib>
         <rt:name>ipv6-master</rt:name>
         <rt:address-family>v6ur:ipv6-unicast</rt:address-family>
         <rt:default-rib>true</rt:default-rib>
         <rt:routes>
          <rt:route>
           <v6ur:destination-prefix>
            2001:db8:0:1::/64
           </v6ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:next-hop>
            <rt:outgoing-interface>eth0</rt:outgoing-interface>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
          <rt:route>
           <v6ur:destination-prefix>
            2001:db8:0:2::/64
           </v6ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:next-hop>
            <rt:outgoing-interface>eth1</rt:outgoing-interface>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:direct</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:route-preference>0</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T17:11:27+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
          <rt:route>
           <v6ur:destination-prefix>::/0</v6ur:destination-prefix>
           <rt:next-hop>
            <v6ur:next-hop-address>



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 60]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


             2001:db8:0:1::2
            </v6ur:next-hop-address>
           </rt:next-hop>
           <rt:source-protocol>rt:static</rt:source-protocol>
           <rt:route-preference>5</rt:route-preference>
           <rt:last-updated>2015-10-24T18:02:45+02:00</rt:last-updated>
          </rt:route>
         </rt:routes>
        </rt:rib>
       </rt:ribs>
      </rt:routing-instance>
     </rt:routing-state>
    </data>
   </rpc-reply>

Appendix E.  Change Log

   RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.

E.1.  Changes Between Versions -19 and -20

   o  Assignment of L3 interfaces to routing instances is now part of
      interface configuration.

   o  Next-hop options in configuration were aligned with state data.

   o  It is recommended to enclose protocol-specific configuration in a
      presence container.

E.2.  Changes Between Versions -18 and -19

   o  The leaf "route-preference" was removed from the "routing-
      protocol" container in both "routing" and "routing-state".

   o  The "vrf-routing-instance" identity was added in support of a
      common routing-instance type in addition to the "default-routing-
      instance".

   o  Removed "enabled" switch from "routing-protocol".

E.3.  Changes Between Versions -17 and -18

   o  The container "ribs" was moved under "routing-instance" (in both
      "routing" and "routing-state").

   o  Typedefs "rib-ref" and "rib-state-ref" were removed.

   o  Removed "recipient-ribs" (both state and configuration).



Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 61]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Removed "connected-ribs" from "routing-protocol" (both state and
      configuration).

   o  Configuration and state data for IPv6 RA were moved under
      "if:interface" and "if:interface-state".

   o  Assignment of interfaces to routing instances now use leaf-list
      rather than list (both config and state).  The opposite reference
      from "if:interface" to "rt:routing-instance" was changed to a
      single leaf (an interface cannot belong to multiple routing
      instances).

   o  Specification of a default RIB is now a simple flag under "rib"
      (both config and state).

   o  Default RIBs are marked by a flag in state data.

E.4.  Changes Between Versions -16 and -17

   o  Added Acee as a co-author.

   o  Removed all traces of route filters.

   o  Removed numeric IDs of list entries in state data.

   o  Removed all next-hop cases except "simple-next-hop" and "special-
      next-hop".

   o  Removed feature "multipath-routes".

   o  Augmented "ietf-interfaces" module with a leaf-list of leafrefs
      pointing form state data of an interface entry to the routing
      instance(s) to which the interface is assigned.

E.5.  Changes Between Versions -15 and -16

   o  Added 'type' as the second key component of 'routing-protocol',
      both in configuration and state data.

   o  The restriction of no more than one connected RIB per address
      family was removed.

   o  Removed the 'id' key of routes in RIBs.  This list has no keys
      anymore.

   o  Remove the 'id' key from static routes and make 'destination-
      prefix' the only key.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 62]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Added 'route-preference' as a new attribute of routes in RIB.

   o  Added 'active' as a new attribute of routes in RIBs.

   o  Renamed RPC operation 'active-route' to 'fib-route'.

   o  Added 'route-preference' as a new parameter of routing protocol
      instances, both in configuration and state data.

   o  Renamed identity 'rt:standard-routing-instance' to 'rt:default-
      routing-instance'.

   o  Added next-hop lists to state data.

   o  Added two cases for specifying next-hops indirectly - via a new
      RIB or a recursive list of next-hops.

   o  Reorganized next-hop in static routes.

   o  Removed all 'if-feature' statements from state data.

E.6.  Changes Between Versions -14 and -15

   o  Removed all defaults from state data.

   o  Removed default from 'cur-hop-limit' in config.

E.7.  Changes Between Versions -13 and -14

   o  Removed dependency of 'connected-ribs' on the 'multiple-ribs'
      feature.

   o  Removed default value of 'cur-hop-limit' in state data.

   o  Moved parts of descriptions and all references on IPv6 RA
      parameters from state data to configuration.

   o  Added reference to RFC 6536 in the Security section.

E.8.  Changes Between Versions -12 and -13

   o  Wrote appendix about minimum implementation.

   o  Remove "when" statement for IPv6 router interface state data - it
      was dependent on a config value that may not be present.

   o  Extra container for the next-hop list.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 63]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Names rather than numeric ids are used for referring to list
      entries in state data.

   o  Numeric ids are always declared as mandatory and unique.  Their
      description states that they are ephemeral.

   o  Descriptions of "name" keys in state data lists are required to be
      persistent.

   o

   o  Removed "if-feature multiple-ribs;" from connected-ribs.

   o  "rib-name" instead of "name" is used as the name of leafref nodes.

   o  "next-hop" instead of "nexthop" or "gateway" used throughout, both
      in node names and text.

E.9.  Changes Between Versions -11 and -12

   o  Removed feature "advanced-router" and introduced two features
      instead: "multiple-ribs" and "multipath-routes".

   o  Unified the keys of config and state versions of "routing-
      instance" and "rib" lists.

   o  Numerical identifiers of state list entries are not keys anymore,
      but they are constrained using the "unique" statement.

   o  Updated acknowledgements.

E.10.  Changes Between Versions -10 and -11

   o  Migrated address families from IANA enumerations to identities.

   o  Terminology and node names aligned with the I2RS RIB model: router
      -> routing instance, routing table -> RIB.

   o  Introduced uint64 keys for state lists: routing-instance, rib,
      route, nexthop.

   o  Described the relationship between system-controlled and user-
      controlled list entries.

   o  Feature "user-defined-routing-tables" changed into "advanced-
      router".





Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 64]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Made nexthop into a choice in order to allow for nexthop-list
      (I2RS requirement).

   o  Added nexthop-list with entries having priorities (backup) and
      weights (load balancing).

   o  Updated bibliography references.

E.11.  Changes Between Versions -09 and -10

   o  Added subtree for state data ("/routing-state").

   o  Terms "system-controlled entry" and "user-controlled entry"
      defined and used.

   o  New feature "user-defined-routing-tables".  Nodes that are useful
      only with user-defined routing tables are now conditional.

   o  Added grouping "router-id".

   o  In routing tables, "source-protocol" attribute of routes now
      reports only protocol type, and its datatype is "identityref".

   o  Renamed "main-routing-table" to "default-routing-table".

E.12.  Changes Between Versions -08 and -09

   o  Fixed "must" expression for "connected-routing-table".

   o  Simplified "must" expression for "main-routing-table".

   o  Moved per-interface configuration of a new routing protocol under
      'routing-protocol'.  This also affects the 'example-rip' module.

E.13.  Changes Between Versions -07 and -08

   o  Changed reference from RFC6021 to RFC6021bis.

E.14.  Changes Between Versions -06 and -07

   o  The contents of <get-reply> in Appendix D was updated: "eth[01]"
      is used as the value of "location", and "forwarding" is on for
      both interfaces and both IPv4 and IPv6.

   o  The "must" expression for "main-routing-table" was modified to
      avoid redundant error messages reporting address family mismatch
      when "name" points to a non-existent routing table.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 65]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  The default behavior for IPv6 RA prefix advertisements was
      clarified.

   o  Changed type of "rt:router-id" to "ip:dotted-quad".

   o  Type of "rt:router-id" changed to "yang:dotted-quad".

   o  Fixed missing prefixes in XPath expressions.

E.15.  Changes Between Versions -05 and -06

   o  Document title changed: "Configuration" was replaced by
      "Management".

   o  New typedefs "routing-table-ref" and "route-filter-ref".

   o  Double slashes "//" were removed from XPath expressions and
      replaced with the single "/".

   o  Removed uniqueness requirement for "router-id".

   o  Complete data tree is now in Appendix A.

   o  Changed type of "source-protocol" from "leafref" to "string".

   o  Clarified the relationship between routing protocol instances and
      connected routing tables.

   o  Added a must constraint saying that a routing table connected to
      the direct pseudo-protocol must not be a main routing table.

E.16.  Changes Between Versions -04 and -05

   o  Routing tables are now global, i.e., "routing-tables" is a child
      of "routing" rather than "router".

   o  "must" statement for "static-routes" changed to "when".

   o  Added "main-routing-tables" containing references to main routing
      tables for each address family.

   o  Removed the defaults for "address-family" and "safi" and made them
      mandatory.

   o  Removed the default for route-filter/type and made this leaf
      mandatory.





Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 66]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  If there is no active route for a given destination, the "active-
      route" RPC returns no output.

   o  Added "enabled" switch under "routing-protocol".

   o  Added "router-type" identity and "type" leaf under "router".

   o  Route attribute "age" changed to "last-updated", its type is
      "yang:date-and-time".

   o  The "direct" pseudo-protocol is always connected to main routing
      tables.

   o  Entries in the list of connected routing tables renamed from
      "routing-table" to "connected-routing-table".

   o  Added "must" constraint saying that a routing table must not be
      its own recipient.

E.17.  Changes Between Versions -03 and -04

   o  Changed "error-tag" for both RPC operations from "missing element"
      to "data-missing".

   o  Removed the decrementing behavior for advertised IPv6 prefix
      parameters "valid-lifetime" and "preferred-lifetime".

   o  Changed the key of the static route lists from "seqno" to "id"
      because the routes needn't be sorted.

   o  Added 'must' constraint saying that "preferred-lifetime" must not
      be greater than "valid-lifetime".

E.18.  Changes Between Versions -02 and -03

   o  Module "iana-afn-safi" moved to I-D "iana-if-type".

   o  Removed forwarding table.

   o  RPC "get-route" changed to "active-route".  Its output is a list
      of routes (for multi-path routing).

   o  New RPC "route-count".

   o  For both RPCs, specification of negative responses was added.

   o  Relaxed separation of router instances.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 67]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Assignment of interfaces to router instances needn't be disjoint.

   o  Route filters are now global.

   o  Added "allow-all-route-filter" for symmetry.

   o  Added Section 6 about interactions with "ietf-interfaces" and
      "ietf-ip".

   o  Added "router-id" leaf.

   o  Specified the names for IPv4/IPv6 unicast main routing tables.

   o  Route parameter "last-modified" changed to "age".

   o  Added container "recipient-routing-tables".

E.19.  Changes Between Versions -01 and -02

   o  Added module "ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing".

   o  The example in Appendix D now uses IP addresses from blocks
      reserved for documentation.

   o  Direct routes appear by default in the forwarding table.

   o  Network layer interfaces must be assigned to a router instance.
      Additional interface configuration may be present.

   o  The "when" statement is only used with "augment", "must" is used
      elsewhere.

   o  Additional "must" statements were added.

   o  The "route-content" grouping for IPv4 and IPv6 unicast now
      includes the material from the "ietf-routing" version via "uses
      rt:route-content".

   o  Explanation of symbols in the tree representation of data model
      hierarchy.

E.20.  Changes Between Versions -00 and -01

   o  AFN/SAFI-independent stuff was moved to the "ietf-routing" module.

   o  Typedefs for AFN and SAFI were placed in a separate "iana-afn-
      safi" module.




Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 68]


Internet-Draft           YANG Routing Management            October 2015


   o  Names of some data nodes were changed, in particular "routing-
      process" is now "router".

   o  The restriction of a single AFN/SAFI per router was lifted.

   o  RPC operation "delete-route" was removed.

   o  Illegal XPath references from "get-route" to the datastore were
      fixed.

   o  Section "Security Considerations" was written.

Authors' Addresses

   Ladislav Lhotka
   CZ.NIC

   Email: lhotka@nic.cz


   Acee Lindem
   Cisco Systems

   Email: acee@cisco.com



























Lhotka & Lindem          Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 69]


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