RFC 9834: YANG Data Models for Bearers and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)
- M. Boucadair, Ed.,
- R. Roberts, Ed.,
- O. Gonzalez de Dios,
- S. Barguil,
- B. Wu
Abstract
Delivery of network services assumes that appropriate setup is provisioned over the links that connect customer termination points and a provider network. The required setup to allow successful data exchange over these links is referred to as an attachment circuit (AC), while the underlying link is referred to as a "bearer".¶
This document specifies a YANG service data model for ACs. This model can be used for the provisioning of ACs before or during service provisioning (e.g., RFC 9543 Network Slice Service).¶
The document also specifies a YANG service data model for managing bearers over which ACs are established.¶
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
1.1. Scope and Intended Use
Connectivity services are provided by networks to customers via dedicated termination points, such as Service Functions (SFs) [RFC7665], Customer Edges (CEs), peer Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBRs), data centers gateways, or Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). A connectivity service is basically about ensuring data transfer received from or destined to a given termination point to or from other termination points. The objectives for the connectivity service can be negotiated and agreed upon between the customer and the network provider. To facilitate data transfer within the provider network, it is assumed that the appropriate setup is provisioned over the links that connect customer termination points and a provider network (usually via a Provider Edge (PE)), allowing data to be successfully exchanged over these links. The required setup is referred to in this document as an attachment circuit (AC), while the underlying link is referred to as a "bearer".¶
When a customer requests a new service, the service can be bound to existing ACs or trigger the instantiation of new ACs. The provisioning of a service should, thus, accommodate both deployments.¶
Also, because the instantiation of an AC requires coordinating the provisioning of endpoints that might not belong to the same administrative entity (customer vs. provider or distinct operational teams within the same provider, etc.), providing programmatic means to expose Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS) greatly simplifies the provisioning of services delivered over an AC. For example, management systems of adjacent domains that need to connect via an AC will use such means to agree upon the resources that are required for the activation of both sides of an AC (e.g., Layer 2 tags, IP address family, or IP subnets).¶
This document specifies a YANG service data model ("ietf-ac-svc") for managing ACs that are exposed by a network to its customers, such as an enterprise site, an SF, a hosting infrastructure, or a peer network provider. The model can be used for the provisioning of ACs prior to or during advanced service provisioning (e.g., RFC 9543 Network Slice Service defined in "A Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF Technologies" [RFC9543]).¶
The "ietf-ac-svc" module (Section 6.2) includes a set of reusable groupings. Whether a service model that wants to describe the ACs associated with the service reuses structures defined in the "ietf-ac-svc" or simply includes an AC reference (that was communicated during AC service instantiation) is a design choice of these service models. Relying upon the AC service model to manage ACs over which services are delivered has the merit of decorrelating the management of the (core) service from the ACs. This allows upgrades (to reflect recent AC technologies or new features such as new encryption schemes or additional routing protocols) to be done in just one place rather than in each (core) service model. This document favors the approach of completely relying upon the AC service model instead of duplicating data nodes into specific modules of advanced services that are delivered over an AC.¶
Since the provisioning of an AC requires a bearer to be in place, this document introduces a new module called "ietf
An AC service request can provide a reference to a bearer or a set of peer Service Attachment Points (SAPs) specified in "A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)" [RFC9408]. Both schemes are supported in the AC service model. When several bearers are available, the AC service request may filter them based on the bearer type, synchronization support, etc.¶
Each AC is identified with a unique identifier within a provider domain. From a network provider standpoint, an AC can be bound to a single or multiple SAPs [RFC9408]. Likewise, the same SAP can be bound to one or multiple ACs. However, the mapping between an AC and a PE in the provider network that terminates that AC is hidden to the application that makes use of the AC service model. Such mapping information is internal to the network controllers. As such, the details about the (node-specific) attachment interfaces are not exposed in the AC service model. However, these details are exposed at the network model per "A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits" [RFC9835]. "A YANG Data Model for Augmenting VPN Service and Network Models with Attachment Circuits" [RFC9836] specifies augmentations to the L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466] and the L3VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299] to bind LxVPN services to ACs.¶
The AC service model does not make any assumptions about the internal structure or even the nature of the services that will be delivered over an AC or a set of ACs. Customers do not have access to that network view other than the ACs that they ordered. For example, the AC service model can be used to provision a set of ACs to connect multiple sites (Site1, Site2, ..., SiteX) for a customer who also requested VPN services. If the provisioning of these services requires specific configuration on ASBR nodes, such configuration is handled at the network level and is not exposed to the customer at the service level. However, the network controller will have access to such a view, as the service points in these ASBRs will be exposed as SAPs with 'role' set to 'ietf
The AC service model can be used in a variety of contexts, such as (but not limited to) those provided in Appendix A:¶
The document adheres to the principles discussed in "Service Models Explained" (Section 3 of [RFC8309]) for the encoding and communication protocols used for the interaction between a customer and a provider. Also, consistent with "A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG" [RFC8969], the service models defined in the document can be used independently of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / RESTCONF.¶
The YANG data models in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342].¶
1.2. Positioning ACaaS vs. Other Data Models
The AC model specified in this document is not a network model [RFC8969]. As such, the model does not expose details related to specific nodes in the provider's network that terminate an AC (e.g., network node identifiers). The mapping between an AC as seen by a customer and the network implementation of an AC is maintained by the network controllers and is not exposed to the customer. This mapping can be maintained using a variety of network models, such as an augmented SAP AC network model [RFC9835].¶
The AC service model is not a device model. A network provider may use a variety of device models (e.g., "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)" [RFC8349] or "YANG Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)" [BGP4-YANG]) to provision an AC service in relevant network nodes.¶
The AC service model reuses common types and structures defined in "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs" [RFC9181].¶
1.2.1. Why Not Use the L2SM as a Reference Data Model for ACaaS?
The L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466] covers some AC-related considerations. Nevertheless, the L2SM structure is primarily focused on Layer 2 aspects. For example, the L2SM does not cover Layer 3 provisioning, which is required for the typical AC instantiation.¶
1.2.2. Why Not Use the L3SM as a Reference Data Model for ACaaS?
Like the L2SM, the L3VPN Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299] addresses certain AC-related aspects. However, the L3SM structure does not sufficiently address Layer 2 provisioning requirements. Additionally, the L3SM is primarily designed for conventional L3VPN deployments and, as such, has some limitations for instantiating ACs in other deployment contexts (e.g., cloud environments). For example, the L3SM does not provide the capability to provision multiple BGP peer groups over the same AC.¶
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.¶
The meanings of the symbols in the YANG tree diagrams are defined in "YANG Tree Diagrams" [RFC8340].¶
LxSM refers to both the L2SM and the L3SM.¶
LxVPN refers to both Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) and Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN).¶
LxNM refers to both the L2VPN Network Model (L2NM) and the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM).¶
This document uses the following terms:¶
- Bearer:
-
A physical or logical link that connects a customer node (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 (e.g., Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]). 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 used in subsequent service placement requests to unambiguously identify where a service is to be bound.¶
The concept of a 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 VLANs on the same bearer that is provided by a physical link).¶
- Customer Edge (CE):
-
Equipment that is dedicated to a customer and is connected to one or more PEs via ACs.¶
A CE can be a router, a bridge, a switch, etc.¶
- Provider Edge (PE):
-
Equipment owned and managed by the service provider that can support multiple services for different customers.¶
Per "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology" (Section 5.2 of [RFC4026]), a PE is a device located at the edge of the service network with the functionality that is needed to interface with the customer.¶
A PE is connected to one or more CEs via ACs.¶
- Network controller:
-
Denotes a functional entity responsible for the management of the service provider network. One or multiple network controllers can be deployed in a service provider network.¶
- Network Function (NF):
-
Used to refer to the same concept as SF (Section 1.4 of [RFC7665]).¶
NF is also used in this document, as this term is widely used outside the IETF.¶
NF and SF are used interchangeably
.¶ - Parent Bearer:
-
Refers to a bearer (e.g., LAG) that is used to build other bearers. These bearers (called child bearers) inherit the parent bearer properties.¶
- Parent AC:
-
Refers to an AC that is used to build other ACs. These ACs (called Child ACs) inherit the Parent AC properties.¶
- Service orchestrator:
-
Refers to a functional entity that interacts with the customer of a network service.¶
A service orchestrator is typically responsible for the ACs, the PE selection, and requesting the activation of the requested service to a network controller.¶
A service orchestrator may interact with one or more network controllers.¶
- Service provider network:
-
A network that is able to provide network services (e.g., LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).¶
- Service provider:
-
An entity that offers network services (e.g., LxVPN or RFC 9543 Network Slice Services).¶
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 1 depicts the relationship between the various AC data models:¶
The "ietf
4. Sample Uses of the Data Models
4.1. ACs Terminated by One or Multiple CEs
Figure 2 depicts two target topology flavors that involve ACs. These topologies have the following characteristics
4.2. Separate AC Provisioning vs. Actual Service Provisioning
The procedure to provision a service in a service provider network may depend on the practices adopted by a service provider. This includes the workflow put in place for the provisioning of network services and how they are bound to an AC. For example, a single AC may be used to host multiple connectivity services. In order to avoid service interference and redundant information in various locations, a service provider may expose an interface to manage ACs network-wide. Customers can then request a bearer or an AC to be put in place and then refer to that bearer or AC when requesting services that are bound to the bearer or AC. [RFC9836] specifies augmentations to the L2SM and the L3SM to bind LxVPN services to ACs.¶
4.3. Sample Deployment Models
Figure 3 illustrates an example of how the bearer/AC service models can be used between a customer and a provider. Internals to the provider orchestration domain (or customer orchestration domain) are hidden to the customer (or provider).¶
Resources that are needed to activate an AC (e.g., Layer 2 or Layer 3 identifiers) are typically imposed by the provider. However, the deployment model assumes that the customer may supply a specific identifier (e.g., selected from a pool that was pre-provisioned by the provider) in a service request. The provider may accept or reject such request.¶
Figure 4 illustrates an example of how the bearer/AC service models involve a third party. This deployment model follows a recursive approach, but other client/server alternative modes with a third party can be considered. In a recursive deployment, the Service Broker exposes a server to a customer for the ordering of AC services, but it also acts as a client when communicating with a provider. How the Service Broker decides to terminate a recursion for a given service request or create child service requests is specific to each deployment.¶
Figure 5 shows the positioning of the AC service model in the overall service delivery process, with a focus on the provider.¶
In order to ease the mapping between the service model and underlying network models (e.g., the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM) and SAP), the name conventions used in existing network data models are reused as much as possible. For example, 'local-address' is used rather than 'provider
5. Description of the Data Models
5.1. The Bearer Service ("ietf-bearer-svc") YANG Module
Figure 6 shows the tree for managing the bearers (that is, the properties of an attachment that are below Layer 3). A bearer can be a physical or logical link (e.g., LAG [IEEE802.1AX]). Also, a bearer can be a wireless or wired link. A reference to a bearer is generated by the operator. Such a reference can be used, e.g., in a subsequent service request to create an AC. The anchoring of the AC can also be achieved by indicating (with or without a bearer reference) a peer SAP identifier (e.g., an identifier of an SF).¶
In some deployments, a customer may first retrieve a list of available presence locations before placing an order for a bearer creation. The request is filtered based upon a customer name and an Autonomous System Number (ASN). The reserved value "AS 0" [RFC7607] is used for customers with no ASN. The retrieved location names may then be referenced in a bearer creation request
The same customer site (CE, SF, etc.) can terminate one or multiple bearers; each of them is uniquely identified by a reference that is assigned by the network provider. These bearers can terminate on the same or distinct network nodes. CEs that terminate multiple bearers are called multi-homed CEs.¶
A bearer can be created, modified, or discovered from the network. For example, the following deployment options can be considered:¶
- Greenfield creation:
-
In this scenario, bearers are created from scratch using specific requests made to a network controller. This method allows providers to tailor bearer creation to meet customer
-specific needs. For example, a bearer request may indicate some hints about the placement constraints ('placement -constraints' ). These constraints are used by a provider to determine how/where to terminate a bearer in the network side (e.g., Point of Presence (PoP) or PE selection).¶ - Auto-discovery using network protocols:
-
Devices can use specific protocols (e.g., Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) [IEEE802.1AB]) to automatically discover and connect to available network resources. A network controller can use such reported information to expose discovered bearers from the network using the same bearer data model structure.¶
A request to create a bearer may include a set of constraints
The descriptions of the bearer data nodes are as follows:¶
- 'name':
-
Used to uniquely identify a bearer. This name is typically selected by the client when requesting a bearer.¶
- 'customer-name':
-
Indicates the name of the customer who ordered the bearer.¶
- 'description':
-
Includes a textual description of the bearer.¶
- 'group':
-
Tags a bearer with one or more identifiers that are used to group a set of bearers.¶
- 'op-comment':
-
Includes operational comments that may be useful for managing the bearer (building, level, etc.). No structure is associated with this data node to accommodate all deployments.¶
- 'bearer
-parent -ref' : -
Specifies the parent bearer. This data node can be used, e.g., if a bearer is a member of a LAG.¶
- 'bearer
-lag -member' : -
Lists the bearers that are members of a LAG. Members can be declared as part of a LAG using 'bearer
-parent -ref' .¶ - 'sync
-phy -capable' : -
Reports whether a synchronization physical (Sync PHY) mechanism is supported for this bearer.¶
- 'sync
-phy -enabled' : -
Indicates whether a Sync PHY mechanism is enabled for a bearer. It only applies when 'sync
-phy -capable' is set to 'true'.¶ - 'sync-phy-type':
-
Specifies the Sync PHY mechanism (e.g., SyncE [ITU-T-G.781]) enabled for the bearer.¶
- 'provider
-location -reference' : -
Indicates a location identified by a provider
-assigned reference.¶ - 'customer
-point' : -
Specifies the customer termination point for the bearer. A bearer request can indicate a device, a site, a combination thereof, or custom information. All these schemes are supported in the model.¶
- 'type':
-
Specifies the bearer type (Ethernet, wireless, LAG, etc.).¶
- 'test-only':
-
Indicates that a request is only for test validation and not for enforcement, even if there are no errors. This is used for feasibility checks. This data node is applicable only when the data model is used with protocols that do not have built-in support of such option. For example, this data node is redundant with the "test-only" value of the
<test-option>parameter in the NETCONF<edit-config>operation (Section 7.2 of [RFC6241]).¶ - 'bearer
-reference' : -
Returns an internal reference for the service provider to uniquely identify the bearer. This reference can be used when requesting services. Appendix A.1 provides an example about how this reference can be retrieved by a customer.¶
Whether the 'bearer
-reference' mirrors the content of the 'name' is deployment -specific . The module does not assume nor preclude such schemes.¶ - 'ac-svc-ref':
-
Specifies the set of ACs that are bound to the bearer.¶
- 'requested
-start' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the bearer is expected to be active.¶
- 'requested
-stop' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the bearer is expected to be disabled.¶
- 'actual-start':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the bearer was enabled.¶
- 'actual-stop':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the bearer was disabled.¶
- 'status':
-
Used to track the overall status of a given bearer. Both the operational and administrative status are maintained together with a timestamp.¶
The 'admin-status' attribute is typically configured by a network operator to indicate whether the service is enabled, disabled, or subjected to additional testing or pre-deployment checks. These additional options, such as 'admin-testing' and 'admin
-pre -deployment', provide the operators the flexibility to conduct additional validations on the bearer before deploying services over that connection.¶ - 'oper-status':
-
Reflects the operational state of a bearer as observed. As a bearer can contain multiple services, the operational status should only reflect the status of the bearer connection. To obtain network-level service status, specific network models, such as those in Section 7.3 of [RFC9182] or Section 7.3 of [RFC9291], should be consulted.¶
It is important to note that the 'admin-status' attribute should remain independent of the 'oper-status'. In other words, the setting of the intended administrative state (e.g., 'admin-up' or 'admin
-testing' ) MUST NOT be influenced by the current operational state. If the bearer is administrativel y set to 'admin-down', it is expected that the bearer will also be operationally 'op-down' as a result of this administrative decision.¶ To assess the service delivery status for a given bearer comprehensively
, it is recommended to consider both administrative and operational service status values in conjunction. This holistic approach allows a network controller or operator to identify anomalies effectively.¶ For instance, when a bearer is administrativel
y enabled but the 'operational -status' of that bearer is reported as 'op-down', it should be expected that the 'oper-status' of services transported over that bearer is also down. These status values differing should trigger the detection of an anomaly condition.¶ See "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs" [RFC9181] for more details.¶
5.2. The Attachment Circuit Service ("ietf-ac-svc") YANG Module
The full tree diagram of the "ietf-ac-svc" module is provided in Appendix B. Subtrees are provided in the following subsections for the reader's convenience.¶
5.2.1. Overall Structure
The overall tree structure of the AC service module is shown in Figure 7.¶
The rationale for deciding whether a reusable grouping is included in this document or moved into the AC common module [RFC9833] is as follows:¶
Each AC is identified with a unique name ('../ac/name') within a domain. The mapping between this AC and a local PE that terminates the AC is hidden to the application that makes use of the AC service model. This information is internal to the network controller. As such, the details about the (node-specific) attachment interfaces are not exposed in this service model.¶
The AC service model uses groupings and types defined in the AC common model [RFC9833]
Features are used to tag conditional portions of the model in order to accommodate various deployments (support of layer 2 ACs, Layer 3 ACs, IPv4, IPv6, routing protocols, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), etc.).¶
5.2.2. Service Profiles
5.2.2.1. Description
The 'specific
As shown in Figure 8, two profile types can be defined: 'specific
The following specific provisioning profiles can be defined as follows:¶
- '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., 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.¶
5.2.2.2. Referencing Service/Specific Profiles
All the above mentioned profiles are uniquely identified by the provider server. To ease referencing these profiles by other data models, specific typedefs are defined for each of these profiles. Likewise, an AC reference typedef is defined when referencing a (global) AC by its name is required. These typedefs SHOULD be used when other modules need a reference to one of these profiles or ACs.¶
5.2.3. Attachment Circuits Profiles
The 'ac
5.2.4. AC Placement Constraints
The 'placement
The structure of 'placement
5.2.5. Attachment Circuits
The structure of 'attachment
A request may also include some timing constraints
The 'ac' data nodes are described as follows:¶
- 'customer-name':
-
Indicates the name of the customer who ordered the AC or a set of ACs.¶
- 'description':
-
Includes a textual description of the AC.¶
- 'test-only':
-
Indicates that a request is only for a validation test and not for enforcement, even if there are no errors. This is used for feasibility checks. This data node is applicable only when the data model is used with protocols that do not have built-in support of such option.¶
- 'requested
-start' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the AC is expected to be active.¶
- 'requested
-stop' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the AC is expected to be disabled.¶
- 'actual-start':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the AC was enabled.¶
- 'actual-stop':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the AC was disabled.¶
- 'role':
-
Specifies whether an AC is used, e.g., as User-to-Network Interface (UNI) or Network
-to -Network Interface (NNI).¶ - 'peer-sap-id':
-
Includes references to the remote endpoints of an AC [RFC9408]. 'peer' is drawn here from the perspective of the provider network. That is, a 'peer-sap' will refer to a customer node.¶
- 'group
-profile -ref' : -
Indicates references to one or more profiles that are defined in Section 5.2.3.¶
- 'parent-ref':
-
Specifies an AC that is inherited by an AC.¶
In contexts where dynamic termination points are managed for a given AC, a Parent AC can be defined with a set of stable and common information, while Child ACs are defined to track dynamic information. These Child ACs are bound to the Parent AC, which is exposed to services (as a stable reference).¶
Whenever a Parent AC is deleted, all its Child ACs MUST be deleted.¶
A Child AC MAY rely upon more than one Parent AC (e.g., parent Layer 2 AC and parent Layer 3 AC). In such cases, these ACs MUST NOT be overlapping. An example to illustrate the use of multiple Parent ACs is provided in Appendix A.12.¶
- 'child-ref':
-
Lists one or more references of Child ACs that rely upon this AC as a Parent AC.¶
- 'group':
-
Lists the groups to which an AC belongs [RFC9181]. For example, the 'group-id' is used to associate redundancy or protection constraints of ACs. An example is provided in Appendix A.5.¶
- 'service-ref':
-
Reports the set of services that are bound to the AC. The services are indexed by their type.¶
- 'server
-reference' : -
Reports the internal reference that is assigned by the provider for this AC. This reference is used to accommodate deployment contexts (e.g., Section 9.1.2 of [RFC8921]) where an identifier is generated by the provider to identify a service order locally.¶
- 'name':
-
Associates a name that uniquely identifies an AC within a service provider network.¶
- 'service
-profile' : -
References a set of service
-specific profiles.¶ - 'l2-connection':
-
See Section 5.2.5.1.¶
- 'ip-connection':
-
See Section 5.2.5.2.¶
- 'routing':
-
See Section 5.2.5.3.¶
- 'oam':
-
See Section 5.2.5.4.¶
- 'security':
-
See Section 5.2.5.5.¶
- 'service':
-
See Section 5.2.5.6.¶
5.2.5.1. Layer 2 Connection Structure
The 'l2-connection' container (Figure 11) is used to configure the relevant Layer 2 properties of an AC, including encapsulation details and tunnel terminations. For the encapsulation details, the model supports the definition of the type as well as the identifiers (e.g., VLAN-IDs) of each of the encapsulation
'bearer
This structure relies upon the common groupings defined in [RFC9833].¶
5.2.5.2. IP Connection Structure
The 'ip-connection' container is used to configure the relevant IP properties of an AC. The model supports the usage of dynamic and static addressing. This structure relies upon the common groupings defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC9833]. Both IPv4 and IPv6 parameters are supported.¶
For ACs that require Layer 3 tunnel establishment, the ACaaS includes a provision for future augmentations to define
tunnel-specific data nodes
5.2.5.3. Routing
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 14, the 'routing
In addition to static routing (Section 5.2.5.3.1), the module supports BGP (Section 5.2.5.3.2), OSPF (Section 5.2.5.3.3), IS-IS (Section 5.2.5.3.4), and RIP (Section 5.2.5.3.5). It also includes a reference to the 'routing
5.2.5.3.1. Static Routing
The static tree structure is shown in Figure 15.¶
As depicted in Figure 15, the following data nodes can be defined for a given IP prefix:¶
- 'lan-tag':
-
Indicates a local tag (e.g., "myfavorite
-lan" ) that is used to enforce local policies.¶ - 'next-hop':
-
Indicates the next hop to be used for the static route.¶
It can be identified by an IP address, a predefined next-hop type (e.g., 'discard' or 'local-link'), etc.¶
- 'metric':
-
Indicates the metric associated with the static route entry. This metric is used when the route is exported into an IGP.¶
- 'failure
-detection -profile' : -
Indicates a failure detection profile (e.g., BFD) that applies for this entry.¶
- 'status':
-
Used to convey the status of a static route entry. This data node can also be used to control the (de)activation of individual static route entries.¶
5.2.5.3.2. BGP
An AC service activation with BGP routing [RFC4271] SHOULD include at least the customer's AS Number (ASN) and the provider's ASN. Additional information can be supplied by a customer in a request or exposed by a provider in a response to a query request in order to ease the process of automating the provisioning of BGP sessions (the customer does not use the primary IP address to establish the underlying BGP session, communicate the provider's IP address used to establish the BGP session, share authentication parameters, bind the session to a forwarding protection profile, etc.).¶
The BGP tree structure is shown in Figure 16.¶
For deployment cases where an AC service request includes a list of neighbors with redundant information, the ACaaS allows factorizing shared data by means of 'peer-group'. Thus, the presence of 'peer-groups' in a service request is optional.¶
The following data nodes are supported for each BGP 'peer-group':¶
- 'name':
-
Defines a name for the peer group.¶
- 'local-as':
-
Reports the provider's ASN. This information is used at the customer side to configure the BGP session with the provider network.¶
- 'peer-as':
-
Indicates the customer's ASN. This information is used at the provider side to configure the BGP session with the customer equipment.¶
- 'address
-family' : -
Indicates the address family of the peer. It can be set to 'ipv4', 'ipv6', or 'dual-stack'.¶
This address family might be used together with the service type that uses an AC (e.g., 'vpn-type' [RFC9182]) to derive the appropriate Address Family Identifiers (AFIs) / Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFIs) that will be part of the derived device configurations (e.g., unicast IPv4 MPLS L3VPN (AFI,SAFI = 1,128) as defined in Section 4.3.4 of [RFC4364]).¶
- 'role':
-
Specifies the BGP role in a session. Role values are taken from the list defined in Section 4 of [RFC9234]. This parameter is useful for interconnection scenarios.¶
This is an optional parameter.¶
- 'local-address':
-
Reports a provider's IP address to use to establish the BGP transport session.¶
- 'bgp
-max -prefix' : -
Indicates the maximum number of BGP prefixes allowed in a session for this group.¶
- 'authentication'
: -
The module adheres to the recommendations in Section 13.2 of [RFC4364], as it allows enabling the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] and accommodates the installed base that makes use of MD5.¶
Similar to [RFC9182], this version of the ACaaS assumes that parameters specific to the TCP-AO are preconfigured as part of the key chain that is referenced in the ACaaS. 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 "YANG Data Model for Key Chains" [RFC8177], mainly SendID and RecvID (Section 3.1 of [RFC5925]).¶
For each neighbor, the following data nodes are supported in addition to similar parameters that are provided for a peer group:¶
- 'server
-reference' : -
Reports the internal reference that is assigned by the provider for this BGP session. This is an optional parameter.¶
- 'remote
-address' : -
Specifies the customer's IP address used to establish this BGP session. If not present, this means that the primary customer IP address is used as the remote IP address.¶
- 'requested
-start' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the BGP session is expected to be active.¶
- 'requested
-stop' : -
Specifies the requested date and time when the BGP session is expected to be disabled.¶
- 'actual-start':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the BGP session was enabled.¶
- 'actual-stop':
-
Reports the actual date and time when the BGP session was disabled.¶
- 'status':
-
Indicates the status of the BGP routing instance.¶
- 'peer-group':
-
Specifies a name of a peer group.¶
Parameters that are provided at the 'neighbor' level take precedence over the ones provided in the peer group.¶
This is an optional parameter.¶
- 'failure
-detection -profile' : -
Indicates a failure detection profile (BFD) that applies for a BGP neighbor. This is an optional parameter.¶
5.2.5.3.3. OSPF
The OSPF tree structure is shown in Figure 17.¶
The following OSPF data nodes are supported:¶
- 'address
-family' : -
Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families are to be activated.¶
- 'area-id':
-
Indicates the OSPF Area ID.¶
- 'metric':
-
Associates a metric with OSPF routes.¶
- 'sham-links':
-
Used to create OSPF sham links between two ACs sharing the same area and having a backdoor link (Section 4.2.7 of [RFC4577] and Section 5 of [RFC6565]).¶
- 'authentication'
: -
Controls the authentication schemes to be enabled for the OSPF instance. The model supports authentication options that are common to both OSPF versions: the Authentication Trailer for OSPFv2 [RFC5709][RFC7474] and OSPFv3 [RFC7166].¶
- 'status':
-
Indicates the status of the OSPF routing instance.¶
5.2.5.3.4. IS-IS
The IS-IS tree structure is shown in Figure 18.¶
The following IS-IS data nodes are supported:¶
- 'address
-family' : -
Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families are to be activated.¶
- 'area-address':
-
Indicates the IS-IS area address.¶
- 'authentication'
: -
Controls the authentication schemes to be enabled for the IS-IS instance. Both the specification of a key chain [RFC8177] and the direct specification of key and authentication algorithms are supported.¶
- 'status':
-
Indicates the status of the IS-IS routing instance.¶
5.2.5.3.5. RIP
The RIP tree structure is shown in Figure 19.¶
'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) [RFC2080], or both are to be enabled.¶
5.2.5.3.6. VRRP
The model supports the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) [RFC9568] on an AC (Figure 20).¶
The following data nodes are supported:¶
- 'address
-family' : -
Indicates whether IPv4, IPv6, or both address families are to be activated. Note that VRRP version 3 [RFC9568] supports both IPv4 and IPv6.¶
- 'status':
-
Indicates the status of the VRRP instance.¶
Note that no authentication data node is included for VRRP, as there isn't any type of VRRP authentication at this time (see Section 9 of [RFC9568]).¶
5.2.5.4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 21, the 'oam' container defines OAM-related parameters of an AC.¶
This version of the module supports BFD. The following BFD data nodes can be specified:¶
- 'id':
-
An identifier that uniquely identifies a BFD session.¶
- 'local-address':
-
Indicates the provider's IP address used for a BFD session.¶
- 'remote
-address' : -
Indicates the customer's IP address used for a BFD session.¶
- 'profile':
-
Refers to a BFD profile.¶
- 'holdtime':
-
Used to indicate the expected BFD holddown time, in milliseconds.¶
- 'status':
-
Indicates the status of the BFD session.¶
5.2.5.5. Security
As shown in the tree depicted in Figure 22, the 'security' container defines a set of AC security parameters.¶
The 'security' container specifies a minimum set of encryption
5.2.5.6. Service
The structure of the 'service' container is depicted in Figure 23.¶
The 'service' container defines the following data nodes:¶
- 'mtu':
-
Specifies the Layer 2 MTU, in bytes, for the AC.¶
- 'svc
-pe -to -ce -bandwidth' and 'svc -ce -to -pe -bandwidth' : -
- 'svc
-pe -to -ce -bandwidth' : - Indicates the inbound bandwidth of the AC (i.e., download bandwidth from the service provider to the customer site).¶
- 'svc
-ce -to -pe -bandwidth' : -
Indicates the outbound bandwidth of the AC (i.e., upload bandwidth from the customer site to the service provider).¶
Both 'svc
-pe -to -ce -bandwidth' and 'svc -ce -to -pe -bandwidth' can be represented using the Committed Information Rate (CIR), the Excess Information Rate (EIR), or the Peak Information Rate (PIR). Both reuse the 'bandwidth -per -type' grouping defined in [RFC9833].¶ - 'svc
6. YANG Modules
7. Security Considerations
This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7.1 of [YANG-GUIDELINES].¶
The "ietf
Servers MUST verify that requesting clients are entitled to access and manipulate a given bearer or AC. For example, a given customer must not have access to bearers/ACs of other customers. 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.¶
There are a number of data nodes defined in these YANG modules that are
writable
- 'placement
-constraints' : -
An attacker who is able to access this data node can modify the attributes to influence how a service is delivered to a customer, and this leads to Service Level Agreement (SLA) violations.¶
- 'bearer':
-
An attacker who is able to access this data node can modify the attributes of bearer and thus hinder how ACs are built.¶
In addition, an attacker could attempt to add a new bearer or delete existing ones. An attacker may also change the requested type, whether it is for test-only, or the activation scheduling.¶
The following subtrees and data nodes have particular
sensitivities
- 'specific
-provisioning -profiles' : -
This container includes a set of sensitive data that influences how an AC will be delivered. For example, an attacker who has access to these data nodes may be able to manipulate routing policies, QoS policies, or encryption properties.¶
These profiles are defined with "nacm
:default -deny -write" tagging [RFC9833].¶ - 'service
-provisioning -profiles' : -
An attacker who has access to these data nodes may be able to manipulate service
-specific policies to be applied for an AC.¶ This container is defined with "nacm
:default -deny -write" tagging.¶ - 'ac':
-
An attacker who is able to access this data node can modify the attributes of an AC (e.g., QoS, bandwidth, routing protocols, keying material), leading to malfunctioning of services that will be delivered over that AC and therefore to SLA violations. In addition, an attacker could attempt to add a new AC.¶
Some of the readable data nodes in these YANG modules may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. Specifically, the following subtrees and data nodes have particular
sensitivities
- 'customer-name', 'customer
-point' and 'locations': -
An attacker can retrieve privacy-related information about locations from where the customer is connected or can be serviced. Disclosing such information may be used to infer the identity of the customer.¶
The following subtrees and data nodes have particular
sensitivities
- 'customer-name', 'l2
-connection', and 'ip -connection' : -
An attacker can retrieve privacy-related information, which can be used to track a customer. Disclosing such information may be considered a violation of the customer
-provider trust relationship.¶ - 'keying
-material' : -
An attacker can retrieve the cryptographic keys protecting the underlying connectivity services (routing, in particular). These keys could be used to inject spoofed routing advertisements.¶
There are no particularly sensitive RPC or action operations.¶
Several data nodes ('bgp', 'ospf', 'isis', 'rip', and 'customer
Section 5.2.5.5 specifies a set of encryption
8. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:¶
- URI:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :ietf -bearer -svc¶ - Registrant Contact:
- The IESG.¶
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
- URI:
- urn
:ietf :params :xml :ns :yang :ietf -ac -svc¶ - Registrant Contact:
- The IESG.¶
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
IANA has registered the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry group.¶
9. References
9.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [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 - [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 - [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 - [RFC5709]
-
Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M., Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5709 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5709 - [RFC5880]
-
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5880 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5880 - [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 - [RFC7166]
-
Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7166 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7166 - [RFC7474]
-
Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed., "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7474 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7474 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [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 - [RFC8792]
-
Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8792 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8792 - [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 - [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 - [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 - [RFC9568]
-
Lindem, A. and A. Dogra, "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 9568, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9568 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9568 - [RFC9833]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits", RFC 9833, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9833 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9833
9.2. Informative References
- [BGP4-YANG]
-
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-idr -bgp -model -18 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -idr -bgp -model -18 - [IEEE802.1AB]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery", IEEE Std 802.1AB-2016, DOI 10
.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2016 .7433915 doi >..org /10 .1109 /IEEESTD .2016 .7433915 - [IEEE802.1AX]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020, DOI 10
.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2020 .9105034 doi >..org /10 .1109 /IEEESTD .2020 .9105034 - [Instance-Data]
-
"Example of AC SVC Instance Data", Commit 8081bb7, , <https://
github >..com /boucadair /attachment -circuit -model /blob /main /xml -examples /svc -full -instance .xml - [ITU-T-G.781]
-
ITU-T, "Synchronization layer functions for frequency synchronization based on the physical layer", ITU-T Recommendation G.781, , <https://
www >..itu .int /rec /T -REC -G .781 - [NSSM]
-
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 - [PEERING-API]
-
Aguado, C., Griswold, M., Ramseyer, J., Servin, A., Strickx, T., and Q. Misell, "Peering API", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-grow -peering -api -01 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -grow -peering -api -01 - [RFC0826]
-
Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37, RFC 826, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC0826 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc826 - [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 - [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 - [RFC4026]
-
Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4026 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4026 - [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 - [RFC4861]
-
Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4861 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4861 - [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 - [RFC6151]
-
Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms", RFC 6151, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6151 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6151 - [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 - [RFC6952]
-
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6952 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6952 - [RFC7607]
-
Kumari, W., Bush, R., Schiller, H., and K. Patel, "Codification of AS 0 Processing", RFC 7607, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7607 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7607 - [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 - [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 - [RFC8309]
-
Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8309 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8309 - [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 - [RFC8349]
-
Lhotka, L., Lindem, A., and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8349 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8349 - [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 - [RFC8921]
-
Boucadair, M., Ed., Jacquenet, C., Zhang, D., and P. Georgatsos, "Dynamic Service Negotiation: The Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP)", RFC 8921, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8921 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8921 - [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 - [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 - [RFC9543]
-
Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9543 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9543 - [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, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9835 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, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9836 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -opsawg -ac -lxsm -lxnm -glue -14 - [YANG
-GUIDELINES] -
Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., Ed., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netmod -rfc8407bis -28 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netmod -rfc8407bis -28
Appendix A. Examples
This section includes a non-exhaustive list of examples to illustrate the use of the service models defined in this document. An example of instance data can also be found at [Instance-Data].¶
Some of the examples below use line wrapping per [RFC8792].¶
A.1. Create a New Bearer
An example of a request message body to create a bearer is shown in Figure 24.¶
A 'bearer
Note that the response also indicates that Sync Phy mechanism is supported for this bearer.¶
A.2. Create an AC over an Existing Bearer
An example of a request message body to create a simple AC over an existing bearer is shown in Figure 26. The bearer reference is assumed to be known to both the customer and the network provider. Such a reference can be retrieved, e.g., following the example described in Appendix A.1 or using other means (including exchanged out-of-band or via proprietary APIs).¶
Figure 27 shows the message body of a GET response received from the controller and that indicates the 'cvlan-id' that was assigned for the requested AC.¶
A.3. Create an AC for a Known Peer SAP
An example of a request to create a simple AC, when the peer SAP is known, is shown in Figure 28. In this example, the peer SAP identifier points to an identifier of an SF. The (topological) location of that SF is assumed to be known to the network controller. For example, this can be determined as part of an on-demand procedure to instantiate an SF in a cloud. That instantiated SF can be granted a connectivity service via the provider network.¶
Figure 29 shows the received GET response with the required information to connect the SF.¶
A.4. One CE, Two ACs
Let us consider the example of an eNodeB (CE) that is directly connected to the access routers of the mobile backhaul (see Figure 30). In this example, two ACs are needed to service the eNodeB (e.g., distinct VLANs for control and user planes).¶
An example of a request to create the ACs to service the eNodeB is shown in Figure 31. This example assumes that static addressing is used for both ACs.¶
Figure 32 shows the message body of a GET response received from the controller.¶
The example shown Figure 32 is not optimal as it includes many redundant data. Figure 33 shows a more compact request that factorizes all the redundant data.¶
A customer may request adding a new AC by simply referring to an existing per-node AC profile as shown in Figure 34. This AC inherits all the data that was enclosed in the indicated per-node AC profile (IP addressing, routing, etc.).¶
A.5. Control Precedence over Multiple ACs
When multiple ACs are requested by the same customer for the same site, the request can tag one of these ACs as 'primary' and the other ones as 'secondary'. An example of such a request is shown in Figure 36. In this example, both ACs are bound to the same 'group-id', and the 'precedence' data node is set as a function of the intended role of each AC (primary or secondary).¶
A.6. Create Multiple ACs Bound to Multiple CEs
Figure 37 shows an example of CEs that are interconnected by a service provider network.¶
Let's assume that a request to instantiate the various ACs that are shown in Figure 37 is sent by the customer. Figure 38 depicts the example of the message body of a GET response that is received from the controller.¶
A.7. Binding Attachment Circuits to an IETF Network Slice
This example shows how the AC service model complements the model defined in "A YANG Data Model for the RFC 9543 Network Slice Service" [NSSM] to connect a site to an RFC 9543 Network Slice Service.¶
First, Figure 39 describes the end-to-end network topology as well as the orchestration scopes:¶
SFs are deployed within each site.¶
Figure 40 describes the logical connectivity enforced thanks to both IETF Network Slice and ACaaS models.¶
Figure 41 shows the message body of the request to create the required ACs using the ACaaS module.¶
Figure 42 shows the message body of a response to a GET request received from the controller.¶
Figure 43 shows the message body of the request to create an RFC 9543 Network Slice Service bound to the ACs created using Figure 41. Only references to these ACs are included in the RFC 9543 Network Slice Service request.¶
A.8. Connecting a Virtualized Environment Running in a Cloud Provider
This example (Figure 44) shows how the AC service model can be used to connect a Cloud Infrastructure to a service provider network. This example makes the following assumptions:¶
Figure 45 illustrates the pre
Next, API workflows can be initiated by:¶
Figure 46 shows the message body of the request to create the required ACs to connect the virtualized Cloud Provider (VM) using the ACaaS module.¶
Figure 47 shows the message body of the response received from the provider as a response to a query message. Note that this Cloud Provider mandates the use of MD5 authentication for establishing BGP connections.¶
A.9. Connect Customer Network Through BGP
CE-PE routing using BGP is a common scenario in the context of MPLS VPNs and is widely used in enterprise networks. In the example depicted in Figure 48, the CE routers are customer-owned devices belonging to an AS (ASN 65536). CEs are located at the edge of the provider's network (PE) and use point-to-point interfaces to establish BGP sessions. The point-to-point interfaces rely upon a physical bearer ("line-113") to reach the provider network.¶
The AC in this case uses a SAP identifier to refer to the physical interface used for the connection between the PE and the CE. The AC includes all the additional logical attributes to describe the connection between the two ends, including VLAN information and IP addressing. Also, the configuration details of the BGP session make use of peer group details instead of defining the entire configuration inside the 'neighbor' data node.¶
This scenario allows the provider to maintain a list of ACs belonging to the same customer without requiring the full service configuration.¶
A.10. Interconnection via Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
This section illustrates how to use the AC service model for interconnection purposes. To that aim, the document assumes a simplified IXP configuration without zooming into IXP deployment specifics. Let us assume that networks are interconnected via a Layer 2 facility. Let us also assume a deployment context where selective peering is in place between these networks. Networks that are interested in establishing selective BGP peerings expose a dedicated ACaaS server to the IXP to behave as an ACaaS provider. BGP is used to exchange routing information and reachability announcements between those networks. Any network operator connected to an IXP can behave as a client (i.e., initiate a BGP peering request).¶
This example follows the recursive deployment model depicted in Figure 4. Specifically, base AC service requests are handled locally by the IXP. However, binding BGP sessions to existing ACs involves a recursion step.¶
The following subsections exemplify a deployment flow, but BGP sessions can be managed without having to systematically execute all the steps detailed hereafter.¶
The bearer/AC service models can be used to establish interconnection between two networks without involving an IXP.¶
A.10.1. Retrieve Interconnection Locations
Figure 51 shows an example message body of a request to retrieve a list of interconnection locations. The request includes a customer name and an ASN to filter out the locations.¶
Figure 52 provides an example of a response to a query received from the server with a list of available interconnection locations.¶
A.10.2. Create Bearers and Retrieve Bearer References
A peer can then use the location information and select the ones where it can request new bearers. As shown in Figure 53, the request includes a location reference that is known to the server (returned in Figure 52).¶
The bearer is then activated by the server as shown in Figure 54. A 'bearer
A.10.3. Manage ACs and BGP Sessions
As depicted in Figure 55, each network connects to the IXP switch via a bearer over which an AC is created.¶
The AC configuration (Figure 56) includes parameters such as VLAN configuration, IP addresses, MTU, and any additional settings required for connectivity. The peering location is inferred from the 'bearer
Figure 57 shows the received response to a query with the required information for the activation of the AC.¶
Once the ACs are established, BGP peering sessions can be configured between routers of the participating networks. BGP sessions can be established via a route server or between two networks. For the sake of illustration, let us assume that BGP sessions are established directly between two networks. Figure 58 shows an example of a request to add a BGP session to an existing AC. The properties of that AC are not repeated in this request because that information is already communicated during the creation of the AC.¶
Figure 59 provides the example of a response that indicates that the request is awaiting validation. The response also includes a server-assigned reference for this BGP session.¶
Once validation is accomplished, a status update is communicated back to the requestor. The BGP session can then be established over the AC. The BGP session configuration includes parameters such as neighbor IP addresses, ASNs, authentication settings (if required), etc. The configuration is triggered at each side of the BGP connection (i.e., peer ASBRs).¶
A.11. Connectivity of Cloud Network Functions
A.11.1. Scope
This section demonstrates how the AC service model permits managing connectivity requirements for complex Network Functions (NFs) -- containerized or virtualized -- that are typically deployed in telco networks. This integration leverages the concept of "Parent AC" to decouple physical and logical connectivity so that several ACs can share Layer 2 and Layer 3 resources. This approach provides flexibility, scalability, and API stability.¶
The NFs have the following characteristics
A.11.2. Physical Infrastructure
Figure 61 describes the physical infrastructure. The compute nodes (customer) are attached to the provider infrastructure thanks to a set of physical links on which ACs are provisioned (i.e., "compute
A.11.3. NFs Deployment
The NFs are deployed on this infrastructure in the following way:¶
For readability, the payload is displayed as a single JSON file (Figure 63). In practice, several API calls may take place to initialize these resources (e.g., GET requests from the customer to retrieve the IP address pools for NFs on "vlan 100" thanks to parent configuration and BGP configuration and POST extra routes for user planes and BFD).¶
Note that no individual IP addresses are assigned for the NF user plane instances (i.e., no 'customer
A.11.4. NF Failure and Scale-Out
Assuming a failure of "compute-01", the instance "nf-up-1" can be redeployed to "compute-07" by the NF / cloud orchestration. The NFs can be scaled-out thanks to the creation of an extra instance "nf-up7" on "compute-08". Since connectivity is pre
Finally, the addition or deletion of compute nodes in the deployment ("compute-11", "compute-12", etc.) involves merely changes on Child ACs and possible routing on the Parent AC. In any case, the Parent AC is a stable identifier, which can be consumed as a reference by end-to-end service models for VPN configuration such as AC Glue [RFC9836], RFC 9543 Network Slice Service [NSSM], etc. This decoupling to a stable identifier provides great benefits in terms of scalability and flexibility since once the reference with the Parent AC is implemented, no API call involving the VPN model is needed for any modification in the cloud.¶
A.12. BFD and Static Addressing
Figure 65 shows a topology example of a set of CEs connected to a provider network via dedicated bearers. Each of these CEs maintains two BFD sessions with the provider network.¶
Figure 66 shows the message body of the ACaaS configuration to enable the target architecture shown in Figure 65. This example uses an AC group profile to factorize common data between all involved ACs. It also uses Child ACs that inherit the properties of two Parent ACs, each terminating in a separate gateway in the provider network.¶
Acknowledgments
This document leverages [RFC9182] and [RFC9291]. Thanks to Gyan Mishra for the review.¶
Thanks to Ebben Aries for the YANG Doctors review and for providing [Instance-Data].¶
Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the careful RTGDIR review, Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review, Gyan Mishra for the GENART review, and Adrian Farrel for the OPSDIR review.¶
Thanks to Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo for the careful shepherd review.¶
Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.¶
Thanks to Éric Vyncke, Gunter Van de Velde, Erik Kline, and Paul Wouters for the IESG review.¶