The China Mobile, Huawei, and ZTE BNG Simple Control and User Plane Separation Protocol (S-CUSP)
draft-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8772.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Shujun Hu , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mach Chen , Fengwei Qin , Zhenqiang Li , Tee Mong Chua | ||
Last updated | 2019-06-24 (Latest revision 2019-06-14) | ||
Replaces | draft-cuspdt-rtgwg-cu-separation-bng-protocol | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
IETF conflict review | conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol, conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol, conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol, conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol, conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol, conflict-review-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol | ||
Additional resources | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8772 (Informational) | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chz-simple-cu-separation-bng-protocol-02
Network Working Group X. Liu Internet-Draft Volta Networks Intended status: Standards Track I. Bryskin Expires: April 27, 2022 Individual V. Beeram T. Saad Juniper Networks H. Shah Ciena S. Litkowski Cisco October 24, 2021 YANG Data Model for SR and SR TE Topologies on MPLS Data Plane draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-11 Abstract This document defines a YANG data model for Segment Routing (SR) topology and Segment Routing (SR) traffic engineering (TE) topology, using MPLS data plane. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of Liu, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft YANG SR MPLS Topology October 2021 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Modeling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Segment Routing (SR) MPLS Topology . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Segment Routing (SR) MPLS TE Topology . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Relations to ietf-segment-routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. Topology Type Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Topology Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6. Node Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7. Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Model Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. Companion YANG Model for Non-NMDA Compliant Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.1. SR MPLS Topology State Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Appendix B. Data Tree Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 B.1. SR MPLS Topology with TE Not Enabled . . . . . . . . . . 30 B.2. SR MPLS Topology with TE Enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix C. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1. Introduction This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model for describing the presentations of Segment Routing (SR) topology and Segment Routing (SR) traffic engineering (TE) topology. The version of the model limits the transport type to an MPLS dataplane. Liu, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft YANG SR MPLS Topology October 2021 1.1. Terminology 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 following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined here: o augment o data model o data node 1.2. Tree Diagrams Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in [RFC8340]. 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1. +--------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | +--------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+ | nw | ietf-network | [RFC8345] | | nt | ietf-network-topology | [RFC8345] | | l3t | ietf-l3-unicast-topology | [RFC8346] | | sr-cmn | ietf-segment-routing- | [RFC9020] | | | common | | | tet | ietf-te-topology | [RFC8795] | | tet- | ietf-te-topology-packet | [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-top | | pkt | | o] | +--------+--------------------------+-------------------------------+ Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules Liu, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft YANG SR MPLS Topology October 2021 2. Modeling Considerations 2.1. Segment Routing (SR) MPLS Topology The Layer 3 network topology model is discussed in [RFC8346]. The Segment Routing (SR) MPLS topology model proposed in this document augments and uses the ietf-l3-unicast-topology module defined in [RFC8346]. SR MPLS related attributes are covered in the ietf-sr- mpls-topology module. +------------------------------+ | Layer 3 Network Topology | | ietf-l3-unicast-topology | +---------------^--------------+ | | | | +------------^-----------+ | SR MPLS Topology | | ietf-sr-mpls-topology | +------------------------+ Figure 1: SR MPLS topology augmentation 2.2. Segment Routing (SR) MPLS TE Topology A Segment Routing (SR) MPLS TE topology is an instance of SR MPLS topology with TE enabled. In order to instantiate an SR MPLS TE topology, the ietf-sr-mpls-topology module defined in this document can be used together with the ietf-te-topology module defined in [RFC8795] and the ietf-te-topology-packet module defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo]. All these modules directly or indirectly augment the ietf-network-topology module defind in [RFC8345], as shown in Figure 2. Liu, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft YANG SR MPLS Topology October 2021 +---------------------------+ | Network Topology | | ietf-network-topology | +-^-----------------------^-+ / \ / \ / \ / \ +-------------^-------------+ +-------------^-------------+ | Layer 3 Unicast Topology | | TE Topology | | ietf-l3-unicast-topology | | ietf-te-topology | +-------------^-------------+ +-------------^-------------+ | | | | | | | | +-------------^-------------+ +-------------^-------------+ | SR MPLS Topology | | TE Packet Topology | | ietf-sr-mpls-topology | | ietf-te-topology-packet | +---------------------------+ +---------------------------+ Figure 2: SR TE topology instance inheritance relations Figure 3 shows the data structure of an SR TE topology instance. Because of the augmentation relationships shown in Figure 2, a data instance of an SR MPLS TE topology contains the capabilities from all these modules, so that the data includes the attributes from ietf- network-topology, ietf-l3-unicast-topology, ietf-sr-mpls-topology, ietf-te-topology, and ietf-te-topology-packet. Liu, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 5] Internet-Draft YANG SR MPLS Topology October 2021 +--------------------------------------------------------+ | ietf-network-topology: | | network-id (key) | | network-types: { | | l3-unicast-topology: { | | sr-mpls{} | | } | | te-topology: { | | packet{} | | } | | } | | <other network topology attributes> | +-----------------------------+--------------------------+ | ietf-l3-unicast-topology: | ietf-te-topology: | | <L3 unicast attributes> | <TE attributes> | +-----------------------------+--------------------------+ | ietf-sr-mpls-topology: | ietf-te-topology-packet: | | <SR MPLS attributes> | <TE packet attributesINTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP about a BNG subscriber. 4 IPv4 Subscriber Carries the IPv4 address of a BNG subscriber. 5 IPv6 Subscriber Carries the IPv6 address of a BNG subscriber. 6 Subscriber Policy Carries the policy information applied to a BNG subscriber. 7 IPv4 Routing Carries the IPv4 network routing information. 8 IPv6 Routing Carries the IPv6 network routing information. 9 IPv4 Static Subscriber Detect Carries the IPv4 static subscriber detect information. 10 IPv6 Static Subscriber Detect Carries the IPv6 static subscriber detect information. 11 L2TP-LAC Subscriber Carries the L2TP LAC subscriber information. 12 L2TP-LNS Subscriber Carries the L2TP LNS subscriber information. 13 L2TP-LAC-Tunnel Carries the L2TP LAC tunnel subscriber information. 14 L2TP-LNS-Tunnel Carries the L2TP LNS tunnel subscriber information. 15 Subscriber CGN Port Range Carries the public IPv4 address and related port range of a BNG subscriber. 16-99 unassigned - 100 Hello Used for version and Keep Alive timers negotiation. 101 Error Information Carried in the Ack of the control message. Carries the processing result, success, or error. 102 Keep Alive Carried in the Hello message for Keep Alive timers negotiation. 103-199 unassigned - 200 Interface Status Interfaces status reported by the UP including physical interfaces, sub-interfaces, trunk interfaces, and tunnel interfaces. 201 Board Status Board information reported by the UP including the board type and in-position status. 202-299 unassigned - 300 Subscriber Traffic Statistics User traffic statistics. 301 Subscriber Detection Results User detection information. 302 Update Response The processing result of a subscriber session update. Hu, et al [Page 116] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP 303-299 unassigned - 400 Address Allocation Request Request address allocation. 401 Address Allocation Response Address allocation response. 402 Address Renewal Request Request for address lease renewal. 403 Address Renewal Response Response to a request for extending an IP address lease. 404 Address Release Request Request to release the address. 405 Address Release Response Ack of a message releasing an IP address. 406-1023 unassigned - 1024 Vendor As implemented by vendor. 1039-4095 unassigned - 9.3. TLV Operation Codes TLV operation codes appear in the Oper field in the header of some TLVs. See Section 7.1. Code Operation ---- ---------- 0 - reserved 1 Update 2 Delete 3-15 - unassigned Hu, et al [Page 117] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP 9.4. Sub-TLV Types See Section 7.3. Type Name Section of this document ---- ------------------ ------------------------ 0 - reserved 1 VRF Name 7.3.1. 2 Ingress-QoS-Profile 7.3.1. 3 Egress-QoS-Profile 7.3.1. 4 User-ACL-Policy 7.3.1. 5 Multicast-ProfileV4 7.3.1. 6 Multicast-ProfileV6 7.3.1. 7 Ingress-CAR 7.3.2. 8 Egress-CAR 7.3.3. 9 NAT-Instance 7.3.1. 10 Pool-Name 7.3.1. 11 If-Desc 7.3.4. 12 IPv6-Address List 7.3.5. 13 Vendor 7.3.6. 12-64534 - unassigned 65535 - reserved 9.5. Error Codes Value Name Remarks ------- ------- -------- 0 Success Success 1 Fail Malformed message received. 2 TLV-Unknown One or more of the TLVs was not understood. 3 TLV-Length The TLV length is abnormal. 4-999 - unassigned Unassigned basic error codes. 1000 - reserved 1001 Version-Mismatch The version negotiation fails. Terminate. The subsequent service processes corresponding to the UP are suspended. 1002 Keepalive Error The keepalive negotiation fails. 1003 Timer Expires The establishment timer expired. 1004-1999 - unassigned Unassigned error codes for version negotiation. 2000 - reserved 2001 Synch-NoReady The data to be smoothed is not ready. 2002 Synch-Unsupport The request for smooth data is not supported. 2003-2999 - unassigned Unassigned data synchronization error codes. Hu, et al [Page 118] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP 3000 - reserved 3001 Pool-Mismatch The corresponding address pool cannot be found. 3002 Pool-Full The address pool is fully allocated and no address segment is available. 3003 Subnet-Mismatch The address pool subnet cannot be found. 3004 Subnet-Conflict Subnets in the address pool have been classified into other clients. 3005-3999 - unassigned Unassigned error codes for address allocation. 4000 - reserved 4001 Update-Fail-No-Res The forwarding table fails to be delivered because the forwarding resources are insufficient. 4002 QoS-Update-Success The QoS policy takes effect. 4003 QoS-Update-Sq-Fail Failed to process the queue in the QoS policy. 4004 QoS-Update-CAR-Fail Processing of the CAR in the QoS policy fails. 4005 Statistic-Fail-No-Res Statistics processing failed due to insufficient statistics resources. 4006-4999 - unassigned forwarding table delivery error codes. 5000-4294967295 - reserved Hu, et al [Page 119] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP 10. IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA actions. Hu, et al [Page 120] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP 11. Security Considerations The Service, Control, and Management Interfaces between the CP and UP might be across the general Internet or other hostile environment. The ability of an adversary to block or corrupt messages or introduce spurious messages on any one or more of these interfaces would give the adversary the ability to stop subscribers from accessing network services, disrupt existing subscriber sessions, divert traffic, mess up accounting statistics, and generally cause havoc. Damage would not necessarily be limited to one or a few subscribers but could disrupt routing or deny service to one or more instances of the CP or otherwise cause extensive interference. If the adversary knows the details of the UP equipment and its forwarding rule capabilities, the adversary may be able to cause a copy of all user data to be sent to an address of the adversary's choosing, thus enabling eavesdropping. Thus, appropriate protections MUST be implemented to provide integrity, authenticity, and secrecy of traffic over those interfaces. Whether such protection is used is a network operator decision. See [RFC6241] for Management Interface / NETCONF security. Security on the Service Interface is dependent on the tunneling protocol used which is out of scope for this document. Security for the Control Interface, over which the S-CUSP protocol flows, is further discussed below. S-CUSP messages do not provide security. Thus, if these messages are exchanged in an environment where security is a concern, that security MUST be provided by another protocol such as TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] or IPSEC. TLS 1.3 is the mandatory to implement protocol for interoperability. However, such security protocols need not always be used and lesser security precautions might be appropriate because, in some cases, the communication between the CP and UP is in a benign environment. Hu, et al [Page 121] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Contributors Zhouyi Yu Huawei Technologies Email: yuzhouyi@huawei.com Chengguang Niu Huawei Technologies Email: chengguang.niu@huawei.com Zitao Wang Huawei Technologies Email: wangzitao@huawei.com Jun Song Huawei Technologies Email: song.jun@huawei.com Dan Meng H3C Technologies No.1 Lixing Center No.8 guangxun south street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100102 China Email: mengdan@h3c.com Hanlei Liu H3C Technologies No.1 Lixing Center No.8 guangxun south street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100102 China Email: hanlei_liu@h3c.com Hu, et al [Page 122] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Normative References [RFC20] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc20>. [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc793>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC 2661, DOI 10.17487/RFC2661, August 1999, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2661>. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2865>. [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. Hu, et al [Page 123] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Informative References [802.1Q] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks / Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2014, 3 November 2013. [RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, DOI 10.17487/RFC1661, July 1994, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1661>. [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2131>. [RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, DOI 10.17487/RFC2516, February 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2516>. [RFC2698] Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color Marker", RFC 2698, DOI 10.17487/RFC2698, September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2698>. [RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc3022> [RFC3336] Thompson, B., Koren, T., and B. Buffam, "PPP Over Asynchronous Transfer Mode Adaptation Layer 2 (AAL2)", RFC 3336, DOI 10.17487/RFC3336, December 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3336>. [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>. [RFC7042] Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 7042, DOI 10.17487/RFC7042, October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7042>. [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/RFC7348, August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. Hu, et al [Page 124] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc7942>. [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. [TR-384] Broadband Forum, "Cloud Central Office Reference Architectural Framework", BBF TR-384, 2018. Hu, et al [Page 125] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Authors' Addresses Shujun Hu China Mobile 32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District Beijing, Beijing 100053 China Email: hushujun@chinamobile.com Donald Eastlake, 3rd Futurewei Technologies 1424 Pro Shop Court Davenport, FL 33896 USA Phone: +1-508-333-2270 Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com Mach (Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Bldg., No. 156 Beiqing Road Beijing 100095 China Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Fengwei Qin China Mobile 32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District Beijing, Beijing 100053 China Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com Zhenqiang Li China Mobile 32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District Beijing, Beijing 100053 China Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Hu, et al [Page 126] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Tee Mong Chua Singapore Telecommunications Limited 31 Exeter Road, #05-04 Comcentre Podium Block Singapore City 239732 Singapore Email: teemong@singtel.com Hu, et al [Page 127] INTERNET-DRAFT Simple BNG CUSP Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Hu, et al [Page 128]