RFC 9833: A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits
- M. Boucadair, Ed.,
- R. Roberts, Ed.,
- O. Gonzalez de Dios,
- S. Barguil,
- B. Wu
Abstract
The document specifies a common attachment circuits (ACs) YANG data model, which is designed to be reusable by other models. This design is meant to ensure consistent AC structures among models that manipulate ACs. For example, this common model can be reused by service models to expose ACs as a service, service models that require binding a service to a set of ACs, network and device models to provision ACs, etc.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
Connectivity services are provided by networks to customers via dedicated terminating points (e.g., Service Functions (SFs), Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBRs), data center gateways, or Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)). A connectivity service ensures data transfer from (or destined to) a given terminating point to (or originating from) other terminating points. Objectives for such a connectivity service may be negotiated and agreed upon between a customer and a network provider.¶
For that data transfer to take place within the provider network, it is assumed that adequate setup is provisioned over the links connecting the customer's terminating points to the provider network (typically, a Provider Edge (PE)), thereby enabling successful data exchange. This necessary provisioning is referred to in this document as an "attachment circuit" (AC), while the underlying link is referred to as the "bearer".¶
When a customer requests a new service, that service can be associated with existing ACs or may require the instantiation of new ACs. Whether these ACs are dedicated to a particular service or shared among multiple services depends on the specific deployment.¶
Examples of ACs are depicted in Figure 1. A Customer Edge (CE) may be realized as a physical node or a logical entity. From the network's perspective, a CE is treated as a peer Service Attachment Point (SAP) [RFC9408]. CEs can be dedicated to a single service (e.g., Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) or Layer 2 VPN) or can host multiple services (e.g., SFs [RFC7665]). A single AC, as viewed by the network provider, may be bound to one or more peer SAPs (e.g., "CE1" and "CE2"). For instance, as discussed in [RFC4364], multiple CEs can attach to a PE over the same AC. This approach is typically deployed when the Layer 2 infrastructure between the CE and the network supports a multipoint service. A single CE may also terminate multiple ACs (e.g., "CE3" and "CE4"), which may be carried over the same or distinct bearers.¶
This document specifies a common module
The common AC module eases data inheritance between modules (e.g., from service to network models as per [RFC8969]).¶
The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342].¶
2. Conventions and Definitions
The meanings of the symbols in the YANG tree diagrams are defined in [RFC8340].¶
LxSM refers to both the L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466] and the L3VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299].¶
LxNM refers to both the L2VPN Network Model (L2NM) [RFC9291] and the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) [RFC9182].¶
This document uses the following term:¶
- Bearer:
-
A physical or logical link that connects a CE (or site) to a provider network.¶
A bearer can be a wireless or wired link. One or multiple technologies can be used to build a bearer. The bearer type can be specified by a customer.¶
The operator allocates a unique bearer reference to identify a bearer within its network (e.g., customer line identifier). Such a reference can be retrieved by a customer and then used in subsequent service placement requests to unambiguously identify where a service is to be bound.¶
The concept of bearer can be generalized to refer to the required underlying connection for the provisioning of an AC.¶
One or multiple ACs may be hosted over the same bearer (e.g., multiple Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs) on the same bearer that is provided by a physical link).¶
The names of data nodes are prefixed using the prefix associated with the corresponding imported YANG module as shown in Table 1.¶
3. Relationship to Other AC Data Models
Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the various AC data models:¶
The "ietf
4. Description of the AC Common YANG Module
The full tree diagram of the module is provided in Appendix A. Subtrees are provided in the following subsections for the reader's convenience.¶
4.1. Features
The module defines the following features:¶
- 'layer2-ac':
-
Used to indicate support of ACs with Layer 2 properties.¶
- 'layer3-ac':
-
Used to indicate support of ACs with Layer 3 properties.¶
- 'server
-assigned -reference' : -
Used to indicate support of server
-generated references to access relevant resources. Typically, a server can be a network controller or a router in a provider network.¶ For example, a bearer request is first created using a name that is assigned by the client, but if this feature is supported, the request will also include a server
-generated reference. That reference can be used when requesting the creation of an AC over the existing bearer.¶
4.2. Identities
The module defines a set of identities, including the following:¶
- 'address
-allocation -type' : -
Used to specify the IP address allocation type in an AC. For example, this identity is used to indicate whether the provider network provides DHCP service, DHCP relay, or static addressing. Note that for the IPv6 case, Stateless Address Autoconfigurati
on (SLAAC) [RFC4862] can be used.¶ - 'local
-defined -next -hop' : -
Used to specify next-hop actions. For example, this identity can be used to indicate an action to discard traffic for a given destination or treat traffic towards addresses within the specified next-hop prefix as though they are connected to a local link.¶
- 'l2
-tunnel -type' : -
Used to control the Layer 2 tunnel selection for an AC. The current version supports indicating pseudowire, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), and Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN).¶
- 'l3
-tunnel -type' : -
Used to control the Layer 3 tunnel selection for an AC. Examples of such type are: IP-in-IP [RFC2003], IPsec [RFC4301], and Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC1701][RFC1702][RFC7676].¶
- 'precedence
-type' : -
Used to indicate the redundancy type when requesting ACs. For example, this identity can be used to tag primary and secondary ACs.¶
- 'role':
-
Used to indicate the type of an AC: User-to-Network Interface (UNI), Network
-to -Network Interface (NNI), or public NNI.¶ The reader may refer to [MEF6], [MEF17], [RFC6004], or [RFC6215] for examples of discussions regarding the use of UNI and NNI reference points.¶
- New administrative status types:
-
In addition to the status types already defined in [RFC9181], this document defines:¶
- 'bgp-role':
-
Used to indicate the BGP role when establishing a BGP session per [RFC9234].¶
4.3. Reusable Groupings
The module also defines a set of reusable groupings, including the following:¶
- 'service-status' (Figure 3):
-
Controls the administrative service status and reports the operational service status.¶
- 'ac-profile-cfg' (Figure 3):
-
A grouping with a set of valid provider profile identifiers. The following profiles are supported:¶
- 'encryption
-profile -identifier' : -
Refers to a set of policies related to the encryption setup that can be applied when provisioning an AC.¶
- 'qos
-profile -identifier' : -
Refers to a set of policies, such as classification, marking, and actions (e.g., [RFC3644]).¶
- 'failure
-detection -profile -identifier' : -
Refers to a set of failure detection policies (e.g., Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) policies [RFC5880]) that can be invoked when building an AC.¶
- 'forwarding
-profile -identifier' : -
Refers to the policies that apply to the forwarding of packets conveyed within an AC. Such policies may consist, for example, of applying Access Control Lists (ACLs).¶
- 'routing
-profile -identifier' : -
Refers to a set of routing policies that will be invoked (e.g., BGP policies) when building an AC.¶
- 'encryption
- 'op
-instructions' (Figure 3): -
Defines a set of parameters to specify basic scheduling instructions and report related events for a service request (e.g., AC or bearer)
('service -status' ). Advanced scheduling groupings are defined in [YANG-SCHEDULE].¶ - Layer 2 encapsulations (Figure 4):
-
Groupings for the following encapsulation schemes are supported: dot1Q, QinQ, and priority
-tagged .¶ - Layer 2 tunnel services (Figure 4):
-
These groupings are used to define Layer 2 tunnel services that may be needed for the activation of an AC. Examples of supported Layer 2 services are the pseudowire (Section 6.1 of [RFC8077]), VPLS, or VXLAN [RFC7348].¶
- Layer 3 address allocation (Figure 5):
-
Defines both IPv4 and IPv6 groupings to specify IP address allocation over an AC. Both dynamic and static address schemes are supported.¶
For both IPv4 and IPv6, 'address
-allocation -type' is used to indicate the IP address allocation mode to activate. When 'address -allocation -type' is set to 'provider -dhcp', DHCP assignments can be made locally or by an external DHCP server. Such behavior is controlled by setting 'dhcp -service -type' .¶ Note that if 'address
-allocation -type' is set to 'slaac', the Prefix Information option of Router Advertisements that will be issued for SLAAC purposes will carry the IPv6 prefix that is determined by 'local-address' and 'prefix -length' .¶ - IP connections (Figure 5):
-
Defines IPv4 and IPv6 groupings for managing Layer 3 connectivity over an AC. Both basic and more elaborated IP connection groupings are supported.¶
- Routing parameters & Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) (Figure 6):
-
In addition to static routing, the module supports the following routing protocols: BGP [RFC4271], OSPF [RFC4577] [RFC6565], IS-IS [ISO10589][RFC1195][RFC5308], and RIP [RFC2453]. For all supported routing protocols, 'address
-family' indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families are to be activated. For example, this parameter is used to determine whether RIPv2 [RFC2453], RIP Next Generation (RIPng), or both are to be enabled [RFC2080]. More details about supported routing groupings are provided hereafter:¶ - Authentication:
-
These groupings include the required information to manage the authentication of OSPF, IS-IS, BGP, and RIP. The groupings support local specification of authentication keys and the associated authentication algorithm to accommodate legacy implementations that do not support key chains [RFC8177].¶
Note that this version of the common AC model covers authentication options that are common to both OSPFv2 [RFC4577] and OSPFv3 [RFC6565]; as such, the model does not support [RFC4552].¶
Similar to [RFC9182], this version of the common AC model assumes that parameters specific to the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) are preconfigured as part of the key chain that is referenced in the model. No assumption is made about how such a key chain is preconfigured. However, the structure of the key chain should cover data nodes beyond those in [RFC8177], mainly SendID and RecvID (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]).¶
- BGP peer groups
('bgp -peer -group -without -name' and 'bgp -peer -group -with -name' ): - Includes a set of parameters to identify a BGP peer
group. Such a group can be defined by providing a local Autonomous System
Number (ASN), a customer's ASN, and the address families to be
activated for this group. BGP peer groups can be identified by a
name
('bgp -peer -group -with -name' ).¶ - Basic OSPF and IS-IS parameters ('ospf-basic' and 'isis-basic'):
- These groupings include the minimal set of routing configuration that is required for the activation of OSPF and IS-IS.¶
- Static routing:
- Parameters to configure an entry or a list of IP static routing entries.¶
The 'redundancy
-group' grouping lists the groups to which an AC belongs [RFC9181]. For example, the 'group-id' is used to associate redundancy or protection constraints of ACs.¶ - Bandwidth parameters (Figure 7):
-
Bandwidth parameters can be represented using the Committed Information Rate (CIR), the Excess Information Rate (EIR), or the Peak Information Rate (PIR).¶
These parameters can be provided per bandwidth type. Type values are taken from [RFC9181]. For example, the following values can be used:¶
5. Common Attachment Circuit YANG Module
This module uses types defined in [RFC6991], [RFC8177], [RFC9181], and [IEEE_802.1Q].¶
6. Security Considerations
The "ietf
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [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.¶
The YANG module defines a set of identities, types, and groupings. These nodes are intended to be reused by other YANG modules. The module by itself does not expose any data nodes that are writable, data nodes that contain read-only state, or RPCs. As such, there are no additional security issues related to the YANG module that need to be considered.¶
Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document
should identify the corresponding security considerations. For
example, reusing some of these groupings will expose privacy-related
information (e.g., 'ipv6
Several groupings
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:¶
- URI:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :ietf -ac -common¶ - Registrant Contact:
- The IESG.¶
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry:¶
8. References
8.1. Normative References
- [IEEE_802.1Q]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
-Bridges and Bridged Networks" , IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022, DOI 10.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2022 .10004498 doi >..org /10 .1109 /IEEESTD .2022 .10004498 - [ISO10589]
-
ISO/IEC, "Information technology - Telecommunicati
ons and information exchange between systems - Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless , ISO/IEC 10589:2002, , <https://-mode network service (ISO8473)" www >..iso .org /standard /30932 .html - [RFC1195]
-
Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC1195 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc1195 - [RFC2080]
-
Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2080 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2080 - [RFC2453]
-
Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2453 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2453 - [RFC3688]
-
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3688 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3688 - [RFC4271]
-
Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4271 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4271 - [RFC4577]
-
Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the Provider
/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" , RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC4577 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4577 - [RFC5308]
-
Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5308 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5308 - [RFC5925]
-
Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5925 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5925 - [RFC6020]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6020 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6020 - [RFC6565]
-
Pillay-Esnault, P., Moyer, P., Doyle, J., Ertekin, E., and M. Lundberg, "OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge (PE-CE) Routing Protocol", RFC 6565, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6565 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6565 - [RFC6991]
-
Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6991 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6991 - [RFC7348]
-
Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7348 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7348 - [RFC8077]
-
Martini, L., Ed. and G. Heron, Ed., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", STD 84, RFC 8077, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8077 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8077 - [RFC8177]
-
Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J. Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8177 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8177 - [RFC8341]
-
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8341 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8341 - [RFC8342]
-
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8342 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8342 - [RFC9181]
-
Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., and Q. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9181, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9181 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9181
8.2. Informative References
- [MEF17]
-
The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Service OAM Requirements & Framework - Phase 1", MEF Technical Specification, MEF 17, , <https://
www >..mef .net /wp -content /uploads /2015 /04 /MEF -17 .pdf - [MEF6]
-
The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF Technical Specification, MEF 6, , <https://
www >..mef .net /Assets /Technical _Specifications /PDF /MEF _6 .pdf - [RFC1701]
-
Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC1701 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc1701 - [RFC1702]
-
Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation over IPv4 networks", RFC 1702, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC1702 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc1702 - [RFC2003]
-
Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2003 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2003 - [RFC3644]
-
Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., Cohen, R., and B. Moore, "Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information Model", RFC 3644, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3644 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3644 - [RFC4252]
-
Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4252 - [RFC4301]
-
Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4301 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4301 - [RFC4364]
-
Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4364 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4364 - [RFC4552]
-
Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication
/Confidentiality for OSPFv3" , RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC4552 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4552 - [RFC4862]
-
Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigurati
on" , RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC4862 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4862 - [RFC5880]
-
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5880 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5880 - [RFC6004]
-
Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", RFC 6004, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6004 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6004 - [RFC6215]
-
Bocci, M., Levrau, L., and D. Frost, "MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network
-to , RFC 6215, DOI 10-Network Interfaces" .17487 , , <https:///RFC6215 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6215 - [RFC6241]
-
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6241 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6241 - [RFC7665]
-
Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7665 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7665 - [RFC7676]
-
Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 7676, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7676 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7676 - [RFC8040]
-
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8040 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8040 - [RFC8299]
-
Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8299 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8299 - [RFC8340]
-
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8340 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8340 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC8466]
-
Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8466 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8466 - [RFC8695]
-
Liu, X., Sarda, P., and V. Choudhary, "A YANG Data Model for the Routing Information Protocol (RIP)", RFC 8695, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8695 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8695 - [RFC8969]
-
Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8969 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8969 - [RFC9000]
-
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9000 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9000 - [RFC9182]
-
Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Munoz, L., and A. Aguado, "A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9182, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9182 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9182 - [RFC9234]
-
Azimov, A., Bogomazov, E., Bush, R., Patel, K., and K. Sriram, "Route Leak Prevention and Detection Using Roles in UPDATE and OPEN Messages", RFC 9234, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9234 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9234 - [RFC9291]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Barguil, S., and L. Munoz, "A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs", RFC 9291, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9291 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9291 - [RFC9408]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., Wu, Q., and V. Lopez, "A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)", RFC 9408, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9408 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9408 - [RFC9834]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)", RFC 9834, , <https://
www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9834 - [RFC9835]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits", RFC 9835, , <https://
www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9835 - [RFC9836]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Barguil, S., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits", RFC 9836, , <https://
www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9836 - [YANG-NSS]
-
Wu, B., Dhody, D., Rokui, R., Saad, T., and J. Mullooly, "A YANG Data Model for the RFC 9543 Network Slice Service", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-teas -ietf -network -slice -nbi -yang -25 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -teas -ietf -network -slice -nbi -yang -25 - [YANG-SCHEDULE]
-
Ma, Q., Ed., Wu, Q., Boucadair, M., Ed., and D. King, "A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netmod -schedule -yang -04 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netmod -schedule -yang -04
Acknowledgments
The document reuses many of the structures that were defined in [RFC9181] and [RFC9182].¶
Thanks to Ebben Aries for the YANG Doctors review, Andy Smith and Gyanh Mishra for the RTGDIR reviews, Watson Ladd for the SECDIR review, and Behcet Sarikaya for the GENART review.¶
Thanks to Reza Rokui for the shepherd review.¶
Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.¶
Thanks to Éric Vyncke, Gunter Van de Velde, Orie Steele, and Paul Wouters for the IESG review.¶