mpls N. Nainar Internet-Draft C. Pignataro Intended status: Standards Track M. Sankaranarayanan Expires: 31 January 2023 Cisco Systems, Inc. W. Zheng Huawei 30 July 2022 YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-03 Abstract This document describes the YANG data model for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) LSP Ping. The model is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in RFC 7950 and conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as described in RFC 8342. 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 https://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 31 January 2023. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 1] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Design of Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Scope of Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Module Hierarchy Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Optional Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. RPC Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5. Configuration and Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. Augment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.7. The Complete Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. LSP Ping YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1. Introduction [RFC8029] describes the mechanism to detect any data-plane failures in MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The MPLS echo request is triggered from the head end node with different TLVs carrying control plane information such as Target FEC Stack that are used by the transit or the tail end node to validate the path and detect any failures. The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] is one of the network management protocols that defines the mechanism to manage network devices. YANG version 1 defined in [RFC6020] and version 1.1 defined in [RFC7950] is a modular data modeling language used to represent the data structure of the configuration and operational state of any device managed using NETCONF. Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 2] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 This document describes the YANG data model for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) LSP Ping. The model is based on YANG 1.1 as defined in [RFC7950] and conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as described in [RFC8342]. 1.1. Requirements notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 1.2. Terminology This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8029], [RFC7950], and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the terminologies. 1.3. Tree Diagrams This document uses the graphical representation of the data models defined in [RFC8340]. 2. Design of Data Model 2.1. Scope of Model [RFC8029] describes the mechanism to detect any data-plane failures in MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). [RFC6425] extends the mechanism further to P2MP MPLS LSPs. [RFC8287] extends the mechanism for Segment Routing with MPLS data plane. The goal of this document is to produce a data model that provides a common user interface to the MPLS LSP Ping and allows the user to either configure and schedule the testing or to activate on-demand. 2.2. Module Hierarchy Organization The module is currently defined in a way that can be used to instruct the echo parameters information that the initiator node must include in the payload and in the probe header. The module is defined to use RPC operations to execute LSP Ping and LSP Path tracing with multipath awareness and retrieve the result information. Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 3] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 The future version of the module will be updated to include ways to configure the testing parameters and schedule the testing on any node for continuous monitoring and use notification to receive any change in the monitoring status. 2.3. Optional Capabilities This module includes the option to configure the MPLS OAM feature that is required in some vendor software to enable the capability. This is not a mandatory feature and so the module is compatible with nodes that does not require any such configuration. The structure of the configuration is as shown below: module: ietf-mpls-lsp-ping augment /rt:routing/mpls:mpls: +--rw mpls-oam {mpls-oam}? +--rw enable? boolean 2.4. RPC Operations This module defines 3 different RPC operations as below: * Continuity Check * Single Path Discovery * Multi Path Discovery RPC "continuity-check" triggers LSP Ping from the initiator node to validate the path for any specific FEC defined in the Target FEC Stack and retrieves the response from the responder node as RPC output. The probe count object is used to control the number of probes sent. For each probe sent, a response is expected to be retrieved. The global-flags object can be used to control the FEC validation as defined in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC8029].. RPC "single-path-discovery" triggers the LSP trace from the Initiator node to trace the path for any specific FEC defined in the Target FEC Stack and retrieves the response from each transit hops as RPC output. While the input parameters are similar to RPC continuity- check, this RPC will instruct the initiator node to send probes by sequentially incrementing the TTL of the probe. RPC "multi-path-discovery" is similar to "single-path-discovery" with an additional ddmap-hash as an input parameter and retrieves the response from each equal cost multipath (ECMP) transit hops as RPC output. Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 4] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 2.5. Configuration and Notifications module: ietf-mpls-lsp-ping augment /rt:routing/mpls:mpls: +--rw mpls-oam {mpls-oam}? +--rw enable boolean This module includes the option to configure the MPLS OAM feature that is required in some vendor software to enable the capability. This is not a mandatory feature and so the module is compatible with nodes that does not require any such configuration. Leaf "enable" helps user to configure the MPLS OAM feature if required. 2.6. Augment Method To be Updated. 2.7. The Complete Tree Following is a complete tree representation of LSP Ping YANG module. module: ietf-mpls-lsp-ping augment /rt:routing/mpls:mpls: +--rw mpls-oam {mpls-oam}? +--rw enable? boolean rpcs: +---x continuity-check | +---w input | | +---w echo-header-parameters | | | +---w source-address? ip-address | | | +---w destination-address? ip-loopback-address | | | +---w traffic-class? mpls-traffic-class | | | +---w mpls-entropy-label? mpls-entropy-label | | | +---w header-mpls-ttl? uint8 | | | +---w mpls-exp-label? boolean | | +---w echo-payload-parameters | | | +---w reply-tos-tlv? boolean | | | +---w reply-tos-value | | | | +---w reply-tos-value? uint8 | | | +---w probe-size? uint32 | | | +---w probe-sweep | | | | +---w min-probe-sweep? uint16 | | | | +---w max-probe-sweep? uint16 | | | +---w target-fec-stack-type | | | | +---w target-fec-stack-type identityref Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 5] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 | | | | +---w (target-fec-stack-value)? | | | | +--:(ldp-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w ldp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(rsvp) | | | | | +---w tunnel-id? uint32 | | | | +--:(vpn-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w vrf-id? uint32 | | | | | +---w vpn-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(pw) | | | | | +---w pw-id? uint32 | | | | | +---w remote-pe-addr? inet:ip-address | | | | +--:(bgp-label-prefix) | | | | | +---w bgp-label-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(generic-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w generic-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(igp-ip-prefix) | | | | +---w protocol? identityref | | | | +---w igp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +---w target-fec-type target-fec-type | | | +---w reply-mode? reply-mode | | | +---w return-ttl-tlv? boolean | | | +---w return-ttl-value | | | | +---w return-ttl-value? uint8 | | | +---w global-flags | | | +---w v-flag? boolean | | | +---w t-flag? boolean | | | +---w r-flag? boolean | | +---w echo-scheduling-parameters | | +---w probe-interval | | | +---w min-probe-interval? identityref | | | +---w max-probe-interval? identityref | | +---w probe-count? uint32 | | +---w probe-timeout? identityref | | +---w output-info | | +---w output-intf* [interface] | | | +---w interface if:interface-ref | | +---w nexthop? inet:ip-address | +--ro output | +--ro response-list* [response-index] | +--ro response-index uint32 | +--ro response-header-parameters | | +--ro resp-source-address ip-address | | +--ro resp-destination-address ip-address | | +--ro resp-traffic-class uint8 | +--ro response-payload-parameters | +--ro reply-mode reply-mode | +--ro return-code return-code | +--ro return-sub-code uint8 Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 6] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 | +--ro seq-number uint32 | +--ro timestamp-sent yang:date-and-time | +--ro timestamp-received yang:date-and-time | +--ro target-fec-type target-fec-type +---x single-path-discovery | +---w input | | +---w echo-header-parameters | | | +---w source-address? ip-address | | | +---w destination-address? ip-loopback-address | | | +---w traffic-class? mpls-traffic-class | | | +---w mpls-entropy-label? mpls-entropy-label | | | +---w header-mpls-ttl? uint8 | | | +---w mpls-exp-label? boolean | | +---w echo-payload-parameters | | | +---w reply-tos-tlv? boolean | | | +---w reply-tos-value | | | | +---w reply-tos-value? uint8 | | | +---w probe-size? uint32 | | | +---w probe-sweep | | | | +---w min-probe-sweep? uint16 | | | | +---w max-probe-sweep? uint16 | | | +---w target-fec-stack-type | | | | +---w target-fec-stack-type identityref | | | | +---w (target-fec-stack-value)? | | | | +--:(ldp-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w ldp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(rsvp) | | | | | +---w tunnel-id? uint32 | | | | +--:(vpn-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w vrf-id? uint32 | | | | | +---w vpn-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(pw) | | | | | +---w pw-id? uint32 | | | | | +---w remote-pe-addr? inet:ip-address | | | | +--:(bgp-label-prefix) | | | | | +---w bgp-label-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(generic-ip-prefix) | | | | | +---w generic-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | | +--:(igp-ip-prefix) | | | | +---w protocol? identityref | | | | +---w igp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +---w target-fec-type target-fec-type | | | +---w reply-mode? reply-mode | | | +---w return-ttl-tlv? boolean | | | +---w return-ttl-value | | | | +---w return-ttl-value? uint8 | | | +---w global-flags | | | +---w v-flag? boolean Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 7] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 | | | +---w t-flag? boolean | | | +---w r-flag? boolean | | +---w echo-scheduling-parameters | | +---w probe-interval | | | +---w min-probe-interval? identityref | | | +---w max-probe-interval? identityref | | +---w probe-count? uint32 | | +---w probe-timeout? identityref | | +---w output-info | | +---w output-intf* [interface] | | | +---w interface if:interface-ref | | +---w nexthop? inet:ip-address | +--ro output | +--ro response-list* [response-index] | +--ro response-index uint32 | +--ro response-header-parameters | | +--ro resp-source-address ip-address | | +--ro resp-destination-address ip-address | | +--ro resp-traffic-class uint8 | +--ro response-payload-parameters | | +--ro reply-mode reply-mode | | +--ro return-code return-code | | +--ro return-sub-code uint8 | | +--ro seq-number uint32 | | +--ro timestamp-sent yang:date-and-time | | +--ro timestamp-received yang:date-and-time | | +--ro target-fec-type target-fec-type | +--ro response-payload-optional-parameters | +--ro ddmap | +--ro ddmap-mtu? int16 | +--ro ddmap-downstream-address? ip-address | +--ro ddmap-downstream-intf-index? int32 | +--ro ddmap-return-code? return-code | +--ro ddmap-return-subcode? int16 | +--ro ddmap-label-stack* [label] | +--ro label rt-types:mpls-label | +--ro protocol? ddmap-protocol +---x multi-path-discovery +---w input | +---w echo-header-parameters | | +---w source-address? ip-address | | +---w destination-address? ip-loopback-address | | +---w traffic-class? mpls-traffic-class | | +---w mpls-entropy-label? mpls-entropy-label | | +---w header-mpls-ttl? uint8 | | +---w mpls-exp-label? boolean | +---w echo-payload-parameters | | +---w reply-tos-tlv? boolean Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 8] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 | | +---w reply-tos-value | | | +---w reply-tos-value? uint8 | | +---w probe-size? uint32 | | +---w probe-sweep | | | +---w min-probe-sweep? uint16 | | | +---w max-probe-sweep? uint16 | | +---w target-fec-stack-type | | | +---w target-fec-stack-type identityref | | | +---w (target-fec-stack-value)? | | | +--:(ldp-ip-prefix) | | | | +---w ldp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +--:(rsvp) | | | | +---w tunnel-id? uint32 | | | +--:(vpn-ip-prefix) | | | | +---w vrf-id? uint32 | | | | +---w vpn-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +--:(pw) | | | | +---w pw-id? uint32 | | | | +---w remote-pe-addr? inet:ip-address | | | +--:(bgp-label-prefix) | | | | +---w bgp-label-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +--:(generic-ip-prefix) | | | | +---w generic-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | | +--:(igp-ip-prefix) | | | +---w protocol? identityref | | | +---w igp-ip-prefix? inet:ip-prefix | | +---w target-fec-type target-fec-type | | +---w reply-mode? reply-mode | | +---w return-ttl-tlv? boolean | | +---w return-ttl-value | | | +---w return-ttl-value? uint8 | | +---w global-flags | | +---w v-flag? boolean | | +---w t-flag? boolean | | +---w r-flag? boolean | +---w echo-scheduling-parameters | | +---w probe-interval | | | +---w min-probe-interval? identityref | | | +---w max-probe-interval? identityref | | +---w probe-count? uint32 | | +---w probe-timeout? identityref | | +---w output-info | | +---w output-intf* [interface] | | | +---w interface if:interface-ref | | +---w nexthop? inet:ip-address | +---w ddmap-hash | +---w ddmap-hash? multipath-hashtype +--ro output Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 9] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 +--ro response-list* [response-index] +--ro response-index uint32 +--ro response-header-parameters | +--ro resp-source-address ip-address | +--ro resp-destination-address ip-address | +--ro resp-traffic-class uint8 +--ro response-payload-parameters | +--ro reply-mode reply-mode | +--ro return-code return-code | +--ro return-sub-code uint8 | +--ro seq-number uint32 | +--ro timestamp-sent yang:date-and-time | +--ro timestamp-received yang:date-and-time | +--ro target-fec-type target-fec-type +--ro response-payload-optional-parameters +--ro ddmap +--ro ddmap-mtu? int16 +--ro ddmap-downstream-address? ip-address +--ro ddmap-downstream-intf-index? int32 +--ro ddmap-return-code? return-code +--ro ddmap-return-subcode? int16 +--ro ddmap-label-stack* [label] +--ro label rt-types:mpls-label +--ro protocol? ddmap-protocol 3. LSP Ping YANG Module file "ietf-mpls-lsp-ping@2020-06-09.yang" module ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rev1d { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-rev1d"; prefix "lsp-ping"; import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Types."; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Types."; } import ietf-interfaces { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 10] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 prefix if; reference "RFC 8343: YANG Interface Management"; } import ietf-lime-time-types { prefix lime; } import ietf-routing { prefix rt; reference "RFC 8022: YANG Routing Management"; } import ietf-mpls { prefix mpls; reference "to be updated"; } import ietf-routing-types { prefix rt-types; reference "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area."; } organization "IETF MPLS Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Editor: Nagendra Kumar Nainar Editor: Carlos Pignataro "; description "This YANG module defines the configuration of MPLS LSP Ping. Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 11] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices. The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2020-06-09 { description "Initial revision."; reference "To be Updated"; } feature mpls-oam { description "MPLS OAM feature."; } typedef ipv4-loopback-address { type inet:ipv4-address { pattern '127.*'; } description "This type represents an IPv4 Loopback address, which is in the range of 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255."; reference "RFC 1212: Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers."; } typedef ipv6-loopback-address { type inet:ipv6-address { pattern 'to-be-updated'; } description "This type represents an IPv6 Loopback address, which is ::1/128"; reference Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 12] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 "RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture."; } typedef ip-loopback-address { type union { type ipv4-loopback-address; type ipv6-loopback-address; } description "This type represents a version-neutral IP Loopback address."; } typedef ip-address { type union { type inet:ipv4-address; type inet:ipv6-address; } description "Version neutral IP Address"; } typedef mpls-traffic-class { type uint8 { range 0..7; } description "MPLS Traffic Class (EXP) value within range 0 to 7."; } typedef mpls-entropy-label { type rt-types:mpls-label-general-use; description "This type represents the Entropy Label, which is outside the reserved range."; reference "RFC 6790: The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"; } typedef multipath-hashtype { type enumeration { enum mp-empty { value "0"; description "No Multipath"; } enum mp-ip-addr { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 13] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 value "2"; description "IP Address based Multipath Information Encoding"; } enum mp-ip-range { value "4"; description "IP Address range based Multipath Information Encoding"; } enum mp-ip-bitmask { value "8"; description "Bit masked IP Address set for Multipath Information Encoding"; } enum mp-label-bitmask { value "9"; description "Bit masked Label set for Multipath Information Encoding"; } } description "This type represents the multipath Data type to be used in the DDMAP for Multipath tracing."; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.4.1.1."; } typedef reply-mode { type enumeration { enum do-not-reply { value "1"; description "Do not Reply"; reference "RFC8029: Section 3"; } enum reply-udp { value "2"; description "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet"; reference "RFC8029: Section 3"; } enum reply-udp-ra { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 14] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 value "3"; description "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert"; reference "RFC8029: Section 3"; } enum reply-app-cc { value "4"; description "Reply via application-level control channel"; reference "RFC8029: Section 3"; } enum reply-via-path { value "5"; description "Reply via Specified Path"; reference "RFC7110: Section 4.1"; } } description "This type defines the Reply mode"; } typedef return-code { type enumeration { enum no-return { value "0"; description "No Return Code"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum malformed-echo { value "1"; description "Malformed Echo Request Received"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum unknown-tlvs { value "2"; description "One or more of the TLVs was not understood"; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 15] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum egress-reply { value "3"; description "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum egress-nomap { value "4"; description "Replying router has no mapping for the FEC at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum dd-mismatch { value "5"; description "Downstream Mapping Mismatch"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum unknown-upstream { value "6"; description "Upstream Interface Index Unknown"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum reserved { value "7"; description "Reserved"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum label-switched { value "8"; description "Label switched at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum label-switched-no-mpls { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 16] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 value "9"; description "Label switched but no MPLS forwarding at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum FEC-map-mismatch { value "10"; description "Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum no-label { value "11"; description "No label entry at stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum protocol-mismatch { value "12"; description "Protocol not associated with interface at FEC stack-depth "; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum premature-terminate { value "13"; description "Premature termination of ping due to label stack shrinking to a single label"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum ddmap-return-code { value "14"; description "See DDMAP TLV for meaning of Return Code and Return Subcode"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } enum label-switched-fec-change { value "15"; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 17] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 description "Label switched with FEC change"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } } description "This defines the Return codes received in the Echo Response."; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.1"; } typedef ddmap-protocol { type enumeration { enum unknown { value "0"; description "Unknown Signaling Protocol"; } enum static { value "1"; description "Static Signaling Protocol"; } enum bgp { value "2"; description "BGP Signaling Protocol"; } enum ldp { value "3"; description "LDP Signaling Protocol"; } enum rsvp-te { value "4"; description "RSVP-TE Signaling Protocol"; } } description "This defines the Signaling Protocol received in the DDMAP."; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.4.1.2"; } Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 18] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 identity igp-proto { description "IGP Protocol."; } identity igp-any { base igp-proto; description "Any IGP Protocol. The value is set to 0 in the TLV."; reference "RFC8287: Section 9.2"; } identity igp-ospfv2 { base igp-proto; description "OSPFv2 IGP Protocol. The value is set to 1 in the TLV."; reference "RFC8287: Section 9.2"; } identity igp-ospfv3 { base igp-proto; description "OSPFv3 IGP Protocol. The value is set to 3 in the TLV."; reference "RFC8287: Section 9.2"; } identity igp-isis { base igp-proto; description "ISIS IGP Protocol. The value is set to 2 in the TLV."; reference "RFC8287: Section 9.2"; } identity target-fec-type { description "Target FEC Stack TLV Type"; } identity ldp-ip-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "LDP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 19] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 identity rsvp { base target-fec-type; description "RSVP IPv4/IPv6 LSP."; } identity vpn-ip-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "VPN IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } identity pw { base target-fec-type; description "FEC 129 pseudowire IPv4/IPv6."; } identity bgp-label-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "BGP labeled IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } identity generic-ip-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "Generic IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } identity nil-fec { base target-fec-type; description "Nil FEC TLV."; } identity igp-ip-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "IGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix Segment ID."; } identity igp-adj-prefix { base target-fec-type; description "IGP Adjacency Segment ID."; } Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 20] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 grouping global-flags { container global-flags { leaf v-flag { type boolean; default false; description "Section 3 of RFC8029 - The V (Validate FEC Stack) flag is used if the FEC stack should be validated"; } leaf t-flag { type boolean; default false; description "Section 3 of RFC8029 - The T flag is set if the response is expected only if TTL expires"; } leaf r-flag { type boolean; default false; description "Section 3 of RFC8029 - The R flag is set if the responder should return the reverse-path FEC information."; } } } grouping echo-header-parameters { container echo-header-parameters { leaf source-address { type ip-address; description "Specifies the Source IP address in the Echo Request header."; } leaf destination-address { type ip-loopback-address; description "Specifies the Destination IP address in the Echo Request header."; } leaf traffic-class { type mpls-traffic-class; description "Specifies the MPLS traffic class in the Echo Request header."; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 21] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 } leaf mpls-entropy-label { type mpls-entropy-label; description "Specifies the Entropy Label to be inserted along with the Label Stack for the Echo Request header."; } leaf header-mpls-ttl { type uint8; default 255; description "Specifies the TTL value for the MPLS Label in the Echo Request header."; } leaf mpls-exp-label { type boolean; description "This optional attribute is used to force the insertion of MPLS Explicit Null in the Label Stack for the Echo Request header."; } } } grouping echo-payload-parameters { container echo-payload-parameters { leaf reply-tos-tlv { type boolean; default false; description "This optional attribute is used to instruct the Initiator to include Reply-TOS TLV."; }//leaf reply-tos-tlv container reply-tos-value { when "../reply-tos-tlv = 'true'" { description "Reply TOS Value is set ONLY when Reply-TOS TLV is required in the Echo Request."; } leaf reply-tos-value { type uint8 { range "0..63"; } description Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 22] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 "TOS value for the return packet."; }//leaf ddmap-hash }//container reply-tos-value leaf probe-size { type uint32 { range 1..15000; } }//leaf probe-size container probe-sweep { when "../probe-size = 'false'" { description "Probe sweep should be used only if a fixed probe size is not defined."; } leaf min-probe-sweep { type uint16 { range 72..18000; } description "This define the minimum size of the probe packet."; } leaf max-probe-sweep { type uint16 { range "72..18000"; } description "This defines the maximum size of the probe packet."; } description "This instructs the initiator to send a sweep of probe packets at varying size between the minimum and maximum value defined."; } container target-fec-stack-type { leaf target-fec-stack-type { type identityref { base target-fec-type; } mandatory true; description "Target FEC STack to define the FEC to be included in the Echo Request"; } choice target-fec-stack-value { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 23] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 description "Target FEC Stack Value"; case ldp-ip-prefix { leaf ldp-ip-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; description "LDP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } } case rsvp { leaf tunnel-id { type uint32; description "RSVP Tunnel ID."; } } case vpn-ip-prefix { leaf vrf-id { type uint32; description "VPN ID."; } leaf vpn-ip-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; description "VPN IP Prefix"; } } case pw { leaf pw-id { type uint32; description "Pseudowire ID."; } leaf remote-pe-addr { type inet:ip-address; description "PW Remote PE Address."; } } case bgp-label-prefix { leaf bgp-label-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; description "BGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } } case generic-ip-prefix { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 24] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 leaf generic-ip-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; description "Generic IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } } case igp-ip-prefix { leaf protocol { type identityref { base igp-proto; } description "IGP Protocol ID."; } leaf igp-ip-prefix { type inet:ip-prefix; description "IGP IPv4/IPv6 Prefix."; } } } } leaf reply-mode { type reply-mode; description "XYZ"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3."; } leaf return-ttl-tlv { type boolean; default "false"; description "'Time to Live' TLV to be included in the Echo Response."; reference "RFC 7394: Section 3."; } container return-ttl-value { when "../return-ttl-tlv = 'true'" { description "When TTL TLV is included in the Echo Request, the value mentioned in this field should be included in the value field of the TLV."; } Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 25] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 leaf return-ttl-value { type uint8; description "Return TTL value"; }//leaf return-ttl-value }//container return-ttl-value uses global-flags; }//container echo-payload-parameters }//grouping echo-payload-parameters grouping echo-scheduling-parameters { container echo-scheduling-parameters { container probe-interval { leaf min-probe-interval { type identityref { base lime:time-unit-type; } default "lime:milliseconds"; description "This defines the minimum leaf interval."; } leaf max-probe-interval { type identityref { base lime:time-unit-type; } default "lime:milliseconds"; description "This defines the maximum leaf interval."; } description "To be Added."; }//container probe-interval leaf probe-count { type uint32; default "5"; description "This defines the number of probe counts."; } leaf probe-timeout { type identityref { base lime:time-unit-type; } default "lime:seconds"; //range "0..3600"; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 26] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 description "This defines the probe timeout interval in Seconds."; } container output-info { list output-intf { key "interface"; leaf interface { type if:interface-ref; description "Specifies the Egress interface to send the probe out."; } description "List of outgoing interfaces"; } leaf nexthop { type inet:ip-address; description "Specifies the next hop address to send the probe out."; } } }//container echo-scheduling-parameters }//grouping echo-scheduling-parameters grouping response-header-parameters { container response-header-parameters { leaf resp-source-address { type ip-address; mandatory true; description "Specifies the Source IP address in the Echo Response header."; } leaf resp-destination-address { type ip-address; mandatory true; description "Specifies the Destination IP address in the Echo Response header."; } leaf resp-traffic-class { type uint8 { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 27] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 range "0..63"; } mandatory true; description "Specifies the TOS/DSCP in the Echo Response header."; } }//container response-header }//grouping response-header grouping response-payload-parameters { container response-payload-parameters { leaf reply-mode { type reply-mode; mandatory true; description "XYZ"; reference "RFC 8029: Section 3."; } leaf return-code { type return-code; mandatory true; description "Return Code received in the Echo Reply Payload."; } leaf return-sub-code { type uint8; mandatory true; description "Return Sub Code received in the Echo Reply Payload."; } leaf seq-number { type uint32; mandatory true; description "Sequence Number received in the Echo Reply Payload."; } leaf timestamp-sent { type yang:date-and-time; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 28] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 mandatory true; description "Timestamp Sent is the time of day in 64-bit NTP timestamp format when MPLS Echo Request is sent."; } leaf timestamp-received { type yang:date-and-time; mandatory true; description "Timestamp Received is the time of day in 64-bit NTP timestamp format when MPLS Echo Response is sent."; } leaf target-fec-type { type target-fec-type; mandatory true; description "Target FEC Stack to define the FEC to be included in the Echo Request."; } }//container response-payload-parameters }//grouping response-payload-parameters grouping response-payload-optional-parameters { container response-payload-optional-parameters { container ddmap { leaf ddmap-mtu { type int16; description "This is used to carry the MTU from the DDMAP received in teh Echo Response Payload."; } leaf ddmap-downstream-address { type ip-address; description "This is used to carry the Downstream Address from the DDMAP received in the Echo Response Payload."; } leaf ddmap-downstream-intf-index { type int32 { range "1..2147483647"; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 29] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 } description "This is used to carry the Downstream Interface Address from the DDMAP received in the Echo Response Payload."; } leaf ddmap-return-code { type return-code; description "This is used to carry the Return Code from the DDMAP received in the Echo Response Payload."; } leaf ddmap-return-subcode { type int16; description "This is used to carry the Return Sub Code from the DDMAP received in the Echo Response Payload."; } list ddmap-label-stack { key "label"; description "This is used to carry the Label Stack from the DDMAP received in the Echo Response Payload."; leaf label { type rt-types:mpls-label; } leaf protocol { type ddmap-protocol; } } }//container ddmap } //response-payload-optional-parameters reference "RFC 8029: Section 3.4 -- DDMAP."; } //grouping resp-payload-optional-parameters /* Configuration */ augment "/rt:routing/mpls:mpls" { if-feature mpls-oam; description Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 30] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 "RFC8029: MPLS OAM Feature Augmentation"; container mpls-oam { leaf enable { type boolean; description "Enable MPLS OAM"; } } } /* RPC */ rpc continuity-check { description "Triggers LSP Ping from the Initiator and return the response."; input { uses echo-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe header."; } uses echo-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe payload."; } uses echo-scheduling-parameters { description "This grouping defines the scheduling parameters to be used by the initiator."; } } output { list response-list { key "response-index"; description "Continuity Check Response List."; leaf response-index { type uint32; mandatory true; } uses response-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response header."; Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 31] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 } uses response-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response payload."; } }//list response-list }//output }//rpc continuity-check rpc single-path-discovery { description "Triggers LSP trace from the Initiator and return the response."; input { uses echo-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe header."; } uses echo-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe payload."; } uses echo-scheduling-parameters { description "This grouping defines the scheduling parameters to be used by the initiator."; } } output { list response-list { key "response-index"; description "Single Path Discovery Response List."; leaf response-index { type uint32; mandatory true; } uses response-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response header."; } Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 32] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 uses response-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response payload."; } uses response-payload-optional-parameters { description "This grouping defines the optional parameters from the received Echo Response."; } }//list response-list }//output }//rpc single-path-discovery rpc multi-path-discovery { description "Triggers LSP trace with ddmap-hash from the Initiator and return the response."; input { uses echo-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe header."; } uses echo-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters to be set in the probe payload."; } uses echo-scheduling-parameters { description "This grouping defines the scheduling parameters to be used by the initiator."; } container ddmap-hash { leaf ddmap-hash { type multipath-hashtype; description "Hashkey type for the DDMAP"; }//leaf ddmap-hash } } output { list response-list { Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 33] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 key "response-index"; description "Multi Path Discovery Response List."; leaf response-index { type uint32; mandatory true; } uses response-header-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response header."; } uses response-payload-parameters { description "This grouping defines the parameters from the received echo response payload."; } uses response-payload-optional-parameters { description "This grouping defines the optional parameters from the received Echo Response."; } }//list response-list }//output }//rpc multi-path-discovery } 4. IANA Considerations To be Updated. 5. Security Considerations The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446]. Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 34] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 The NETCONF Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content. This module defines RPC operations that may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is therefore important to control the access to these operations. These are the operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability: * Continuity Check: Generates OAM probe for continuity check and retrieves the resulting data from the Initiator node. * Single Path Discovery: Generates OAM probe for single path tracing and retrieves the resulting data from various transit nodes. * Multi Path Discovery: Generates OAM probe for equal cost multipath tracing and retrieves the resulting data from various transit nodes. These operations are used to retrieve the data from the device that needs to execute the OAM command. Unauthorized source access to some sensitive information in the above data may be used for network reconnaissance or lead to denial-of-service attacks on both the local device and the network. 6. Acknowledgement Some part of the YANG model was inspired by the previous model developed by Lianshu Zheng, Guangying Zheng, Greg Mirsky, Reshad Rahman, Faisal Iqbal and the authors would like to acknowledge them. The authors also would like to thank Loa Andersson for his help with forming this team and help organizing the work. 7. Contributors The following are key contributors to this document: Reshad Rahman, Cisco Systems, Inc. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc. 8. References 8.1. Normative References Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 35] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, RFC 6241, June 2011, . [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, . [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, . [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, RFC 8040, January 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, RFC 8174, BCP 14, May 2017, . [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, . [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, BCP 215, RFC 8340, March 2018, . Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 36] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, STD 91, March 2018, . [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . 8.2. Informative References [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping", DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, RFC 6425, November 2011, . [RFC8532] Kumar, D., Wang, Z., Wu, Q., Ed., Rahman, R., and S. Raghavan, "Generic YANG Data Model for the Management of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols That Use Connectionless Communications", RFC 8532, DOI 10.17487/RFC8532, April 2019, . [RFC8533] Kumar, D., Wang, M., Wu, Q., Ed., Rahman, R., and S. Raghavan, "A YANG Data Model for Retrieval Methods for the Management of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols That Use Connectionless Communications", RFC 8533, DOI 10.17487/RFC8533, April 2019, . Authors' Addresses Nagendra Kumar Nainar Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States of America Email: naikumar@cisco.com Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 37] Internet-Draft YANG Data Model for MPLS LSP Ping July 2022 Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987 United States of America Email: cpignata@cisco.com Madhan Sankaranarayanan Cisco Systems, Inc. Manjanam Sansel, Kurunji Nagar Chinnamanur 625515 Tamil Nadu India Email: madsanka@cisco.com Walker Zheng Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing Jiangsu, 210012 China Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com Nainar, et al. Expires 31 January 2023 [Page 38]