draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-13.txt		draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14.txt
	Network Working Group N. Bahadur, Ed.		Network Working Group N. Bahadur, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Uber		Internet-Draft Uber
	Intended status: Informational S. Kini, Ed.		Intended status: Informational S. Kini, Ed.
	Expires: July 27, 2018		Expires: August 17, 2018
	J. Medved		J. Medved
	Cisco		Cisco
	January 23, 2018		February 13, 2018
	Routing Information Base Info Model		Routing Information Base Info Model
	draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-13		draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-14
	Abstract		Abstract
	Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are		Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
	typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a		typically performed by network devices (routers and switches) using a
	routing information base (RIB). Protocols and configuration push		routing information base (RIB). Protocols and configuration push
	data into the RIB and the RIB manager installs state into the		data into the RIB and the RIB manager installs state into the
	hardware; for packet forwarding. This draft specifies a information		hardware; for packet forwarding. This draft specifies an information
	model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model. Such		model for the RIB to enable defining a standardized data model, and
	a data model can be used to define an interface to the RIB from an		it was used by the IETF's I2RS WG to design the I2RS RIB data model.
	entity that may even be external to the network device. This		It is being published to record the higher level informational model
	interface can be used to support new use-cases being defined by the		decisions for RIBs so that other developers of RIBs may benefit from
	IETF I2RS WG.		the design concepts.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 49 ¶
	7.3. Performing multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		7.3. Performing multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8. RIB operations at scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8. RIB operations at scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.1. RIB reads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.1. RIB reads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.2. RIB writes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.2. RIB writes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	8.3. RIB events and notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		8.3. RIB events and notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are		Routing and routing functions in enterprise and carrier networks are
	traditionally performed in network devices. Traditionally routers		traditionally performed in network devices. Traditionally routers
	run routing protocols and the routing protocols (along with static		run routing protocols and the routing protocols (along with static
	config) populate the Routing information base (RIB) of the router.		config) populate the Routing information base (RIB) of the router.
	The RIB is managed by the RIB manager and the RIB manager provides a		The RIB is managed by the RIB manager and the RIB manager provides a
	north-bound interface to its clients i.e. the routing protocols to		north-bound interface to its clients i.e. the routing protocols to
	insert routes into the RIB. The RIB manager consults the RIB and		insert routes into the RIB. The RIB manager consults the RIB and
	skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶
	Routing protocols are inherently distributed in nature and each		Routing protocols are inherently distributed in nature and each
	router makes an independent decision based on the routing data		router makes an independent decision based on the routing data
	received from its peers. With the advent of newer deployment		received from its peers. With the advent of newer deployment
	paradigms and the need for specialized applications, there is an		paradigms and the need for specialized applications, there is an
	emerging need to guide the router's routing function [RFC7920].		emerging need to guide the router's routing function [RFC7920].
	Traditional network-device protocol-based RIB population suffices for		Traditional network-device protocol-based RIB population suffices for
	most use cases where distributed network control is used. However		most use cases where distributed network control is used. However
	there are use cases which the network operators currently address by		there are use cases which the network operators currently address by
	configuring static routes, policies and RIB import/export rules on		configuring static routes, policies and RIB import/export rules on
	the routers. There is also a growing list of use cases		the routers. There is also a growing list of use cases in which a
	[I-D.white-i2rs-use-case], [I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc] in which a
	network operator might want to program the RIB based on data		network operator might want to program the RIB based on data
	unrelated to just routing (within that network's domain).		unrelated to just routing (within that network's domain).
	Programming the RIB could be based on other information such as		Programming the RIB could be based on other information such as
	routing data in the adjacent domain or the load on storage and		routing data in the adjacent domain or the load on storage and
	compute in the given domain. Or it could simply be a programmatic		compute in the given domain. Or it could simply be a programmatic
	way of creating on-demand dynamic overlays (e.g. GRE tunnels)		way of creating on-demand dynamic overlays (e.g. GRE tunnels)
	between compute hosts (without requiring the hosts to run traditional		between compute hosts (without requiring the hosts to run traditional
	routing protocols). If there was a standardized publicly documented		routing protocols). If there was a standardized publicly documented
	programmatic interface to a RIB, it would enable further networking		programmatic interface to a RIB, it would enable further networking
	applications that address a variety of use-cases [RFC7920].		applications that address a variety of use-cases [RFC7920].
	A programmatic interface to the RIB involves 2 types of operations -		A programmatic interface to the RIB involves 2 types of operations -
	reading from the RIB and writing (adding/modifying/deleting) to the		reading from the RIB and writing (adding/modifying/deleting) to the
	RIB. [I-D.white-i2rs-use-case] lists various use-cases which require		RIB.
	read and/or write manipulation of the RIB.
	In order to understand what is in a router's RIB, methods like per-		In order to understand what is in a router's RIB, methods like per-
	protocol SNMP MIBs and show output screen scraping are used. These		protocol SNMP MIBs and show output screen scraping are used. These
	methods are not scalable, since they are client pull mechanisms and		methods are not scalable, since they are client pull mechanisms and
	not proactive push (from the router) mechanisms. Screen scraping is		not proactive push (from the router) mechanisms. Screen scraping is
	error prone (since the output format can change) and is vendor		error prone (since the output format can change) and is vendor
	dependent. Building a RIB from per-protocol MIBs is error prone		dependent. Building a RIB from per-protocol MIBs is error prone
	since the MIB data represent protocol data and not the exact		since the MIB data represent protocol data and not the exact
	information that went into the RIB. Thus, just getting read-only RIB		information that went into the RIB. Thus, just getting read-only RIB
	information from a router is a hard task.		information from a router is a hard task.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 17 ¶
	1.1. Conventions used in this document		1.1. Conventions used in this document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	2. RIB data		2. RIB data
	This section describes the details of a RIB. It makes forward		This section describes the details of a RIB. It makes forward
	references to objects in the RIB grammar (Section 6). A high-level		references to objects in the RIB grammar (Section 6). A high-level
	description of the RIB contents is as shown below.		description of the RIB contents is as shown in Figure 2. Please note
			that for ease of ASCII art representation this drawing shows a single
			routing-instance, a single, RIB, and a single route. Sub-sections of
			this Section describe the logical data nodes that should be contained
			within a RIB. Section 3 and Section 4 describe the high level read
			and write operations.
	network-device		network-device
	|		|
	| 0..N		| 0..N
	|		|
	routing-instance (s)		routing-instance (s)
	| |		| |
	| |		| |
	0..N | | 0..N		0..N | | 0..N
	| |		| |
	skipping to change at page 5, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 46 ¶
	| 0..N		| 0..N
	|		|
	route(s)		route(s)
	Figure 2: RIB model		Figure 2: RIB model
	2.1. RIB definition		2.1. RIB definition
	A RIB is an entity that contains routes. A RIB is identified by its		A RIB is an entity that contains routes. A RIB is identified by its
	name and a RIB is contained within a routing instance (Section 2.2).		name and a RIB is contained within a routing instance (Section 2.2).
	There can be many routing instances and each routing intance can		There MAY be many routing instances and each routing intance MAY
	contain 1 or more RIBs. The name MUST be unique within a routing		contain 1 or more RIBs. The name MUST be unique within a routing
	instance. All routes in a given RIB MUST be of the same rib family		instance. All routes in a given RIB MUST be of the same rib family
	(e.g. IPv4). Each RIB MUST belong to a routing instance.		(e.g. IPv4). Each RIB MUST belong to a routing instance.
	A routing instance can have multiple RIBs. A routing instance can		A routing instance MAY have multiple RIBs. A routing instance MAY
	even have two or more RIBs of the same rib family (e.g. IPv6). A		even have two or more RIBs of the same rib family (e.g. IPv6). A
	typical case where this can be used is for multi-topology routing		typical case where this can be used is for multi-topology routing
	([RFC4915], [RFC5120]).		([RFC4915], [RFC5120]).
	Each RIB can be optionally associated with a ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK		Each RIB MAY be optionally associated with a ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK
	attribute that enables Reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP		attribute that enables Reverse path forwarding (RPF) checks on all IP
	routes in that RIB. Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used to		routes in that RIB. Reverse path forwarding (RPF) check is used to
	prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic. For IP packets, the IP		prevent spoofing and limit malicious traffic. For IP packets, the IP
	source address is looked up and the rpf interface(s) associated with		source address is looked up and the rpf interface(s) associated with
	the route for that IP source address is found. If the incoming IP		the route for that IP source address is found. If the incoming IP
	packet's interface matches one of the rpf interface(s), then the IP		packet's interface matches one of the rpf interface(s), then the IP
	packet is forwarded based on its IP destination address; otherwise,		packet is forwarded based on its IP destination address; otherwise,
	the IP packet is discarded.		the IP packet is discarded.
	2.2. Routing instance		2.2. Routing instance
	skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶
	nexthop might be routing instance C. Thus, routing instance B is not		nexthop might be routing instance C. Thus, routing instance B is not
	associated with any interface. And given that this routing instance		associated with any interface. And given that this routing instance
	does not do any control plane interaction with other network devices,		does not do any control plane interaction with other network devices,
	a ROUTER_ID is also not needed.		a ROUTER_ID is also not needed.
	2.3. Route		2.3. Route
	A route is essentially a match condition and an action following the		A route is essentially a match condition and an action following the
	match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (IPv4, MPLS,		match. The match condition specifies the kind of route (IPv4, MPLS,
	etc.) and the set of fields to match on. Figure 3 represents the		etc.) and the set of fields to match on. Figure 3 represents the
	overall contents of a route.		overall contents of a route. Please note that for ease of depiction
			in ASCII art only a single instance of the route attribute, match
			flags, or nexthop is depicted.
	route		route
	| | |		| | |
	+---------+ | +----------+		+---------+ | +----------+
	| | |		| | |
	0..N | | |		0..N | | |
	route-attribute match nexthop		route-attribute match nexthop
	|		|
	|		|
	skipping to change at page 8, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 8 ¶
	| | | | |		| | | | |
	| | | | |		| | | | |
	IPv4 IPv6 MPLS MAC Interface		IPv4 IPv6 MPLS MAC Interface
	Figure 3: Route model		Figure 3: Route model
	This document specifies the following match types:		This document specifies the following match types:
	o IPv4: Match on destination and/or source IP address in the IPv4		o IPv4: Match on destination and/or source IP address in the IPv4
	header		header
	o IPv6: Match on destination and/or source IP address in the IPv6		o IPv6: Match on destination and/or source IP address in the IPv6
	header		header
	o MPLS: Match on a MPLS label at the top of the MPLS label stack		o MPLS: Match on a MPLS label at the top of the MPLS label stack
	o MAC: Match on MAC destination addresses in the ethernet header		o MAC: Match on MAC destination addresses in the ethernet header
	o Interface: Match on incoming interface of the packet		o Interface: Match on incoming interface of the packet
			A route MAY be matched on one or more these match types by policy as
			either an "AND" (to restrict the number of routes) or an "OR" (to
			combine two filters).
	Each route MUST have associated with it the following mandatory route		Each route MUST have associated with it the following mandatory route
	attributes.		attributes.
	o ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that allows for		o ROUTE_PREFERENCE: This is a numerical value that allows for
	comparing routes from different protocols. Static configuration		comparing routes from different protocols. Static configuration
	is also considered a protocol for the purpose of this field. It		is also considered a protocol for the purpose of this field. It
	is also known as administrative-distance. The lower the value,		is also known as administrative-distance. The lower the value,
	the higher the preference. For example there can be an OSPF route		the higher the preference. For example there can be an OSPF route
	for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:DB8::1/32) with a preference of 5.		for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:DB8::1/32) with a preference of 5.
	If a controller programs a route for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:		If a controller programs a route for 192.0.2.1/32 (or IPv6 2001:
	DB8::1/32) with a preference of 2, then the controller's route		DB8::1/32) with a preference of 2, then the controller's route
	skipping to change at page 8, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶
	to dictate behavior. For more examples of preference, see		to dictate behavior. For more examples of preference, see
	Section 7.1.		Section 7.1.
	Each route can have associated with it one or more optional route		Each route can have associated with it one or more optional route
	attributes.		attributes.
	o route-vendor-attributes: Vendors can specify vendor-specific		o route-vendor-attributes: Vendors can specify vendor-specific
	attributes using this. The details of this attribute is outside		attributes using this. The details of this attribute is outside
	the scope of this document.		the scope of this document.
	Each route has associated with it a Nexthop. Nexthop is described in		Each route has associated with it a Nexthop. Nexthop is described in
	the next section		Section 2.4.
			Additional features to match multicast packets were considered (E.g.
			TTL of the packet to limit the range of a multicast group), but these
			were not added to this information model. Future RIB information
			models should investigate these multicast features.
	2.4. Nexthop		2.4. Nexthop
	A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. For		A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. For
	example, if a route lookup results in sending the packet out a given		example, if a route lookup results in sending the packet out a given
	interface, then the nexthop represents that interface.		interface, then the nexthop represents that interface.
	Nexthops can be fully resolved nexthops or unresolved nexthop. A		Nexthops can be fully resolved nexthops or unresolved nexthop. A
	resolved nexthop has adequate information to send the outgoing packet		resolved nexthop has adequate information to send the outgoing packet
	to the destination by forwarding it on an interface to a directly		to the destination by forwarding it on an interface to a directly
	skipping to change at page 9, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 34 ¶
	eligible route. Conversely, when all the nexthops of a route are		eligible route. Conversely, when all the nexthops of a route are
	unresolved that route can no longer be used to forward packets. Such		unresolved that route can no longer be used to forward packets. Such
	a route is considered ineligible to be installed in the FIB and is		a route is considered ineligible to be installed in the FIB and is
	henceforth referred to as a FIB-ineligible route. The RIB		henceforth referred to as a FIB-ineligible route. The RIB
	information model allows an external entity to program routes whose		information model allows an external entity to program routes whose
	nexthops may be unresolved initially. Whenever an unresolved nexthop		nexthops may be unresolved initially. Whenever an unresolved nexthop
	gets resolved, the RIB manager will send a notification of the same		gets resolved, the RIB manager will send a notification of the same
	(see Section 5 ).		(see Section 5 ).
	The overall structure and usage of a nexthop is as shown in the		The overall structure and usage of a nexthop is as shown in the
	figure below.		figure below. For ease of ASCII art depiction, only a single
			instance of any component of the nexthop is shown in Figure 4.
	route		route
	|		|
	| 0..N		| 0..N
	|		|
	nexthop <-------------------------------+		nexthop <-------------------------------+
	| |		| |
	+-------+----------------------------+-------------+ |		+-------+----------------------------+-------------+ |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	skipping to change at page 23, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 50 ¶
	There can be cases where a single network event results in multiple		There can be cases where a single network event results in multiple
	events and/or notifications from the network device to an external		events and/or notifications from the network device to an external
	entity. On the other hand, due to timing of multiple things		entity. On the other hand, due to timing of multiple things
	happening at the same time, a network device might have to send		happening at the same time, a network device might have to send
	multiple events and/or notifications to an external entity. The		multiple events and/or notifications to an external entity. The
	network device originated event/notification message MUST support		network device originated event/notification message MUST support
	bulking of multiple events and notifications in a single message.		bulking of multiple events and notifications in a single message.
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	All interactions between a RIB manager and an external entity MUST be		The Informational module specified in this document defines a schema
	authenticated and authorized. The RIB manager MUST protect itself		for data models that are designed to be accessed via network
	against a denial of service attack by a rogue external entity, by		management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].
	throttling request processing. A RIB manager MUST enforce limits on		The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
	how much data can be programmed by an external entity and return		mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH)
	error when such a limit is reached.		[RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-
			implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246].
	The RIB manager MUST expose a data-model that it implements. An		The NETCONF access control model [RFC6536] provides the means to
	external agent MUST send requests to the RIB manager that comply with		restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
	the supported data-model. The data-model MUST specify the behavior		preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
	of the RIB manager on handling of unsupported data requests.		operations and content.
			The RIB info model specifies read and write operations to network
			devices. These network devices might be considered sensitive or
			vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations to these
			network devices without proper protection can have a negative effect
			on network operations. Due to this factor, it is recommended that
			data models also consider the following in their design:
			o Require utilization of the authentication and authorization
			features of the NETCONF or RESTCONF suite of protocols.
			o Augment the limits on how much data can be written or updated by a
			remote entity built to include enough protection for a RIB model.
			o Expose the specific RIB model implemented via NETCONF/RESTCONF
			data models.
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	This document does not generate any considerations for IANA.		This document does not generate any considerations for IANA.
	11. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Ron Folkes, Jeffrey Zhang, the		The authors would like to thank Ron Folkes, Jeffrey Zhang, the
	working group co-chairs and reviewers on their comments and		working group co-chairs and reviewers on their comments and
	suggestions on this draft. The following people contributed to the		suggestions on this draft. The following people contributed to the
	skipping to change at page 24, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 25, line 9 ¶
	12.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC2119, March 1997,		RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc]
	Hares, S. and M. Chen, "Use Cases for Virtual Connections
	on Demand (VCoD) and Virtual Network on Demand (VNoD)
	using Interface to Routing System",
	draft-hares-i2rs-use-case-vn-vc-03 (work in progress),
	July 2014.
	[I-D.white-i2rs-use-case]
	White, R., Hares, S., and A. Retana, "Protocol Independent
	Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System",
	draft-white-i2rs-use-case-06 (work in progress),
	July 2014.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,		RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
	[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi		[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
	Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to		Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
	Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/		Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC5120, February 2008,		RFC5120, February 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
			[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
			(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
			RFC5246, August 2008,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
	[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax		[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
	Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol		Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
	Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511,		Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511,
	April 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.		April 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
			[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,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
			[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
			Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
			<https://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,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
	[RFC7920] Atlas, A., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and D. Ward, "Problem		[RFC7920] Atlas, A., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and D. Ward, "Problem
	Statement for the Interface to the Routing System",		Statement for the Interface to the Routing System",
	RFC 7920, DOI 10.17487/RFC7920, June 2016,		RFC 7920, DOI 10.17487/RFC7920, June 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7920>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7920>.
			[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
			Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Nitin Bahadur (editor)		Nitin Bahadur (editor)
	Uber		Uber
	900 Arastradero Rd		900 Arastradero Rd
	Palo Alto, CA 94304		Palo Alto, CA 94304
	US		US
	Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com		Email: nitin_bahadur@yahoo.com
End of changes. 23 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		86 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/