Network Working Group A. Shaikh
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational R. Shakir
Expires: October 8, 2016 Jive Communications
K. D'Souza
C. Chase
AT&T
April 6, 2016
Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider Networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-01
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
operational practice. The model provides a generic policy framework
which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.
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 http://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 October 8, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
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. Goals and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Model overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Route policy expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Defined sets for policy matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Policy conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Policy actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Policy subroutines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Policy evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Applying routing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Routing protocol-specific policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. YANG modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Routing policy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Routing policy types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10. Policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix B. Change summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.1. Changes between revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
and -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. Introduction
This document describes a YANG [RFC6020] data model for routing
policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in
a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be
vendor-neutral, in order to allow operators to manage policy
configuration in a consistent, intuitive way in heterogeneous
environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.
1.1. Goals and approach
This model does not aim to be feature complete -- it is a subset of
the policy configuration parameters available in a variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing how
routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
protocols. The model development approach has been to examine actual
policy configurations in use across a number of operator networks.
Hence the focus is on enabling policy configuration capabilities and
structure that are in wide use.
Despite the differences in details of policy expressions and
conventions in various vendor implementations, the model reflects the
observation that a relatively simple condition- action approach can
be readily mapped to several existing vendor implementations, and
also gives operators an intuitive and straightforward way to express
policy without sacrificing flexibility. A side affect of this design
decision is that legacy methods for expressing policies are not
considered. Such methods could be added as an augmentation to the
model if needed.
Consistent with the goal to produce a data model that is vendor
neutral, only policy expressions that are deemed to be widely
available in existing major implementations are included in the
model. Those configuration items that are only available from a
single implementation are omitted from the model with the expectation
they will be available in separate vendor-provided modules that
augment the current model.
2. Model overview
The routing policy model is defined in two YANG modules, the main
policy module, and an auxiliary module providing additional generic
types. The model has three main parts:
o A generic framework to express policies as sets of related
conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that
are useful across many routing protocols.
o A structure that allows routing protocol models to add protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions though YANG augmentations.
There is a complete example of this for BGP [RFC4271] policies in
the proposed vendor-neutral BGP data model
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model].
o A reusable grouping for attaching import and export rules in the
context of routing configuration for different protocols, VRFs,
etc. This also enables creation of policy chains and expressing
default policy behavior.
These modules make use of the standard Internet types, such as IP
addresses, autonomous system numbers, etc., defined in RFC 6991
[RFC6991].
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
3. Route policy expression
Policies are expressed as a sequence of top-level policy definitions
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy
statements in turn consist of simple condition-action tuples.
Conditions may include multiple match or comparison operations, and
similarly, actions may effect multiple changes to route attributes,
or indicate a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route.
This structure is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| ...
+--rw actions
...
3.1. Defined sets for policy matching
The models provides a set of generic sets that can be used for
matching in policy conditions. These sets are applicable across
multiple routing protocols, and may be further augmented by protocol-
specific models which have their own defined sets. The supported
defined sets include:
o prefix sets - define a set of IP prefixes, each with an associated
CIDR netmask range (or exact length)
o neighbor sets - define a set of neighboring nodes by their IP
addresses
o tag set - define a set of generic tag values that can be used in
matches for filtering routes
The model structure for defined sets is shown below.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
+--rw prefix-sets
| +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name]
| +--rw prefix-set-name string
| +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| +--rw masklength-range string
+--rw neighbor-sets
| +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name]
| +--rw neighbor-set-name string
| +--rw neighbor* [address]
| +--rw address inet:ip-address
+--rw tag-sets
+--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name]
+--rw tag-set-name string
+--rw tag* [value]
+--rw value pt:tag-type
3.2. Policy conditions
Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either
of which may be empty). Conditions are used to match route
attributes against a defined set (e.g., a prefix set), or to compare
attributes against a specific value.
Match conditions may be further modified using the match-set-options
configuration which allows operators to change the behavior of a
match. Three options are supported:
o ALL - match is true only if the given value matches all members of
the set.
o ANY - match is true if the given value matches any member of the
set.
o INVERT - match is true if the given value does not match any
member of the given set.
Not all options are appropriate for matching against all defined sets
(e.g., match ALL in a prefix set does not make sense). In the model,
a restricted set of match options is used where applicable.
Comparison conditions may similarly use options to change how route
attributes should be tested, e.g., for equality or inequality,
against a given value.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
While most policy conditions will be added by individual routing
protocol models via augmentation, this routing policy model includes
several generic match conditions and also the ability to test which
protocol or mechanism installed a route (e.g., BGP, IGP, static,
etc.). The conditions included in the model are shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw conditions
+--rw call-policy?
+--rw match-interface?
+--rw match-prefix-set!
| +--rw prefix-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw match-neighbor-set!
| +--rw neighbor-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw match-tag-set!
| +--rw tag-set?
| +--rw match-set-options?
+--rw install-protocol-eq?
+--rw igp-conditions
3.3. Policy actions
When policy conditions are satisfied, policy actions are used to set
various attributes of the route being processed, or to indicate the
final disposition of the route, i.e., accept or reject.
Similar to policy conditions, the routing policy model includes
generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions.
These are shown below.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw actions
+--rw (route-disposition)?
| +--:(accept-route)
| | +--rw accept-route? empty
| +--:(reject-route)
| +--rw reject-route? empty
+--rw igp-actions
+--rw set-tag? pt:tag-type
3.4. Policy subroutines
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing
policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions
using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their
conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy
affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then the
subroutine returns an effective boolean true value to the calling
policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition
statement evaluating to a true value and evaluation of the policy
continues (see Section 4). Note that the called policy may also
modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly,
a reject-route action returns false and the calling policy evaluation
will be affected accordingly.
Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject
to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a
nesting depth because this varies among implementations, with some
major implementations only supporting a single subroutine, for
example. As with any routing policy construction, care must be taken
with nested policies to ensure that the effective return value
results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a convenience
in many routing policy constructions but creating policies nested
beyond a small number of levels (e.g., 2-3) should be discouraged.
4. Policy evaluation
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action statement
has either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
current policy definition stops, and no further policy definitions in
the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the
next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions
are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition
stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.
When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route
disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an an
alternate default action is specified for the chain).
5. Applying routing policy
Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in
various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy
definitions (described in Section 3) that have an associated
direction (import or export) with respect to the routing context in
which they are defined. The routing policy model defines an apply-
policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As
shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains,
as well as specifying the default route disposition to be used when
no policy definition in the chain results in a final decision.
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy? default-policy-type
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy? default-policy-type
The default policy defined by the model is to reject the route for
both import and export policies.
An example of using the apply-policy group in another routing model
is shown below for BGP. Here, import and export policies are applied
in the context of a particular BGP peer group. Note that the policy
chains reference policy definitions by name that are defined in the
routing policy model.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
+--rw bgp!
+--rw peer-groups
+--rw peer-group* [peer-group-name]
+--rw peer-group-name
+--rw config
| +--rw peer-as?
| +--rw local-as?
| +--rw peer-type?
| +--rw auth-password?
| +--rw remove-private-as?
| +--rw route-flap-damping?
| +--rw send-community?
| +--rw description?
| +--rw peer-group-name?
+--ro state
| +--ro peer-as?
| +--ro local-as?
| +--ro peer-type?
| +--ro auth-password?
| +--ro remove-private-as?
| +--ro route-flap-damping?
| +--ro send-community?
| +--ro description?
| +--ro peer-group-name?
| +--ro total-paths?
| +--ro total-prefixes?
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw config
| | +--rw import-policy*
| | +--rw default-import-policy?
| | +--rw export-policy*
| | +--rw default-export-policy?
| +--ro state
| +--ro import-policy*
| +--ro default-import-policy?
| +--ro export-policy*
| +--ro default-export-policy?
...
6. Routing protocol-specific policies
Routing models that require the ability to apply routing policy may
augment the routing policy model with protocol or other specific
policy configuration. The routing policy model assumes that
additional defined sets, conditions, and actions may all be added by
other models.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
An example of this is shown below, in which the BGP configuration
model in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model] adds new defined sets to match on
community values or AS paths. The model similarly augments BGP-
specific conditions and actions into the corresponding sections of
the routing policy model.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
+--rw prefix-sets
| +--rw prefix-set* [prefix-set-name]
| +--rw prefix-set-name
| +--rw prefix* [ip-prefix masklength-range]
| +--rw ip-prefix
| +--rw masklength-range
+--rw neighbor-sets
| +--rw neighbor-set* [neighbor-set-name]
| +--rw neighbor-set-name
| +--rw neighbor* [address]
| +--rw address
+--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [tag-set-name]
| +--rw tag-set-name
| +--rw tag* [value]
| +--rw value
+--rw bgp-pol:bgp-defined-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set* [community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-sets
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set* [ext-community-set-name]
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-set-name
| +--rw bgp-pol:ext-community-member*
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-sets
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set* [as-path-set-name]
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-name
+--rw bgp-pol:as-path-set-member*
7. Security Considerations
Routing policy configuration has a significant impact on network
operations, and as such any related model carries potential security
risks.
YANG data models are generally designed to be used with the NETCONF
protocol over an SSH transport. This provides an authenticated and
secure channel over which to transfer configuration and operational
data. Note that use of alternate transport or data encoding (e.g.,
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
JSON over HTTPS) would require similar mechanisms for authenticating
and securing access to configuration data.
Most of the data elements in the policy model could be considered
sensitive from a security standpoint. Unauthorized access or invalid
data could cause major disruption.
8. IANA Considerations
This YANG data model and the component modules currently use a
temporary ad-hoc namespace. If and when it is placed on redirected
for the standards track, an appropriate namespace URI will be
registered in the IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. The routing policy
YANG modules will be registered in the "YANG Module Names" registry
[RFC6020].
9. YANG modules
The routing policy model is described by the YANG modules in the
sections below.
9.1. Routing policy model
<CODE BEGINS> file "openconfig-routing-policy.yang"
module openconfig-routing-policy {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy";
prefix "oc-rpol";
// import some basic types
import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; }
import openconfig-interfaces { prefix oc-if; }
import openconfig-policy-types { prefix oc-pol-types; }
import openconfig-extensions { prefix oc-ext; }
// meta
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
description
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
"This module describes a YANG model for routing policy
configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy
configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for managing
how routes are imported, exported, and modified across different
routing protocols. This module is intended to be used in
conjunction with routing protocol configuration models (e.g.,
BGP) defined in other modules.
Route policy expression:
Policies are expressed as a set of top-level policy definitions,
each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy
statements consist of simple condition-action tuples. Conditions
may include mutiple match or comparison operations, and similarly
actions may be multitude of changes to route attributes or a
final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route.
Route policy evaluation:
Policy definitions are referenced in routing protocol
configurations using import and export configuration statements.
The arguments are members of an ordered list of named policy
definitions which comprise a policy chain, and optionally, an
explicit default policy action (i.e., reject or accept).
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its
corresponding individual policy statements in order. When a
condition statement in a policy statement is satisfied, the
corresponding action statement is executed. If the action
statement has either accept-route or reject-route actions, policy
evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further
policy definitions in the chain are evaluated.
If the condition is not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to
the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement
conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy
definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is
evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the
default route disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route
unless an an alternate default action is specified for the
chain).
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by
allowing policy statement conditions to reference another policy
definition which applies conditions and actions from the
referenced policy before returning to the calling policy
statement and resuming evaluation. If the called policy
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
results in an accept-route (either explicit or by default), then
the subroutine returns an effective true value to the calling
policy. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false. If the
subroutine returns true, the calling policy continues to evaluate
the remaining conditions (using a modified route if the
subroutine performed any changes to the route).";
oc-ext:openconfig-version "2.0.0";
revision "2016-03-28" {
description
"OpenConfig public release";
reference "2.0.0";
}
// typedef statements
typedef default-policy-type {
type enumeration {
enum ACCEPT_ROUTE {
description "default policy to accept the route";
}
enum REJECT_ROUTE {
description "default policy to reject the route";
}
}
description "type used to specify default route disposition in
a policy chain";
}
// grouping statements
grouping prefix-set-config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix sets used in policy
definitions.";
leaf prefix-set-name {
type string;
description
"name / label of the prefix set -- this is used to
reference the set in match conditions";
}
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
grouping prefix-set-state {
description
"Operational state data for prefix sets";
}
grouping prefix-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definitions for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
prefixes which are matched as part of a policy";
container prefix-sets {
description
"Enclosing container ";
list prefix-set {
key prefix-set-name;
description
"List of the defined prefix sets";
leaf prefix-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/prefix-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to prefix name list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix sets";
uses prefix-set-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses prefix-set-config;
uses prefix-set-state;
}
uses prefix-top;
}
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
}
grouping prefix-config {
description
"Configuration data for a prefix definition";
leaf ip-prefix {
type inet:ip-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The prefix member in CIDR notation -- while the
prefix may be either IPv4 or IPv6, most
implementations require all members of the prefix set
to be the same address family. Mixing address types in
the same prefix set is likely to cause an error.";
}
leaf masklength-range {
type string {
pattern '^([0-9]+\.\.[0-9]+)|exact$';
}
description
"Defines a range for the masklength, or 'exact' if
the prefix has an exact length.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 through 10.3.192.0/24 would be
expressed as prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: 21..24.
Example: 10.3.192.0/21 would be expressed as
prefix: 10.3.192.0/21,
masklength-range: exact";
}
}
grouping prefix-state {
description
"Operational state data for prefix definitions";
}
grouping prefix-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for prefixes in a prefix list";
container prefixes {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of prefixes in a policy
prefix list";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
list prefix {
key "ip-prefix masklength-range";
description
"List of prefixes in the prefix set";
leaf ip-prefix {
type leafref {
path "../config/ip-prefix";
}
description
"Reference to the ip-prefix list key.";
}
leaf masklength-range {
type leafref {
path "../config/masklength-range";
}
description
"Reference to the masklength-range list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix definition";
uses prefix-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for prefix definition";
uses prefix-config;
uses prefix-state;
}
}
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-config {
description
"Configuration data for neighbor set definitions";
leaf neighbor-set-name {
type string;
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"name / label of the neighbor set -- this is used to
reference the set in match conditions";
}
leaf-list address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"List of IP addresses in the neighbor set";
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-state {
description
"Operational state data for neighbor set definitions";
}
grouping neighbor-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definition for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
neighbors which can be matched in a routing policy";
container neighbor-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of neighbor set
definitions";
list neighbor-set {
key neighbor-set-name;
description
"List of defined neighbor sets for use in policies.";
leaf neighbor-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/neighbor-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to the neighbor set name list key.";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for neighbor sets.";
uses neighbor-set-config;
}
container state {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
config false;
description
"Operational state data for neighbor sets.";
uses neighbor-set-config;
uses neighbor-set-state;
}
}
}
}
grouping tag-set-config {
description
"Configuration data for tag set definitions.";
leaf tag-set-name {
type string;
description
"name / label of the tag set -- this is used to reference
the set in match conditions";
}
leaf-list tag-value {
type oc-pol-types:tag-type;
description
"Value of the tag set member";
}
}
grouping tag-set-state {
description
"Operational state data for tag set definitions.";
}
grouping tag-set-top {
description
"Top-level data definitions for a list of tags which can
be matched in policies";
container tag-sets {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of tag sets.";
list tag-set {
key tag-set-name;
description
"List of tag set definitions.";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
leaf tag-set-name {
type leafref {
path "../config/tag-set-name";
}
description
"Reference to the tag set name list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for tag sets";
uses tag-set-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for tag sets";
uses tag-set-config;
uses tag-set-state;
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-defined-sets {
description
"Data definitions for pre-defined sets of attributes used in
policy match conditions. These sets are generic and can
be used in matching conditions in different routing
protocols.";
uses prefix-set-top;
uses neighbor-set-top;
uses tag-set-top;
}
grouping match-set-options-group {
description
"Grouping containing options relating to how a particular set
should be matched";
leaf match-set-options {
type oc-pol-types:match-set-options-type;
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour of the
match operation";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-restricted-group {
description
"Grouping for a restricted set of match operation modifiers";
leaf match-set-options {
type oc-pol-types:match-set-options-restricted-type;
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behaviour of the
match operation. This leaf only supports matching on ANY
member of the set or inverting the match. Matching on ALL is
not supported)";
}
}
grouping match-interface-condition-config {
description
"Configuration data for interface match condition";
uses oc-if:interface-ref-common;
}
grouping match-interface-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for interface match condition";
}
grouping match-interface-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for the interface match condition";
container match-interface {
description
"Top-level container for interface match conditions";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for interface match conditions";
uses match-interface-condition-config;
}
container state {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
config false;
description
"Operational state data for interface match conditions";
uses match-interface-condition-config;
uses match-interface-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-config {
description
"Configuration data for prefix-set conditions";
leaf prefix-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/prefix-sets/" +
"prefix-set/prefix-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined prefix set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for prefix-set conditions";
}
grouping prefix-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for prefix-set conditions";
container match-prefix-set {
description
"Match a referenced prefix-set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options leaf";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for a prefix-set condition";
uses prefix-set-condition-config;
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for a prefix-set condition";
uses prefix-set-condition-config;
uses prefix-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-config {
description
"Configuration data for neighbor-set conditions";
leaf neighbor-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/neighbor-sets/" +
"neighbor-set/neighbor-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined neighbor set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for neighbor-set conditions";
}
grouping neighbor-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for neighbor-set conditions";
container match-neighbor-set {
description
"Match a referenced neighbor set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options-leaf";
container config {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Configuration data ";
uses neighbor-set-condition-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses neighbor-set-condition-config;
uses neighbor-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping tag-set-condition-config {
description
"Configuration data for tag-set condition statements";
leaf tag-set {
type leafref {
path "/routing-policy/defined-sets/tag-sets/tag-set" +
"/tag-set-name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description "References a defined tag set";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
}
grouping tag-set-condition-state {
description
"Operational state data for tag-set condition statements";
}
grouping tag-set-condition-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for tag-set conditions";
container match-tag-set {
description
"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic defined
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
in the match-options-set leaf";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for tag-set conditions";
uses tag-set-condition-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data tag-set conditions";
uses tag-set-condition-config;
uses tag-set-condition-state;
}
}
}
grouping generic-conditions {
description "Condition statement definitions for checking
membership in a generic defined set";
uses match-interface-condition-top;
uses prefix-set-condition-top;
uses neighbor-set-condition-top;
uses tag-set-condition-top;
}
grouping igp-generic-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP policy conditions";
}
grouping igp-conditions {
description "grouping for IGP-specific policy conditions";
container igp-conditions {
description "Policy conditions for IGP attributes";
uses igp-generic-conditions;
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
}
grouping generic-actions {
description
"Definitions for common set of policy action statements that
manage the disposition or control flow of the policy";
choice route-disposition {
description
"Select the final disposition for the route, either
accept or reject.";
leaf accept-route {
type empty;
description "accepts the route into the routing table";
}
leaf reject-route {
type empty;
description "rejects the route";
}
}
}
grouping igp-actions-config {
description
"Configuration data for IGP policy actions";
leaf set-tag {
type oc-pol-types:tag-type;
description
"Set the tag value for OSPF or IS-IS routes.";
}
}
grouping igp-actions-state {
description
"Operational state data for IGP policy actions ";
}
grouping igp-actions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping ";
container igp-actions {
description
"Actions to set IGP route attributes; these actions
apply to multiple IGPs";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
container config {
description
"Configuration data ";
uses igp-actions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data ";
uses igp-actions-config;
uses igp-actions-state;
}
}
}
grouping policy-conditions-config {
description
"Configuration data for general policy conditions, i.e., those
not related to match-sets";
leaf call-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when
//it is supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
description
"Applies the statements from the specified policy
definition and then returns control the current
policy statement. Note that the called policy may
itself call other policies (subject to
implementation limitations). This is intended to
provide a policy 'subroutine' capability. The
called policy should contain an explicit or a
default route disposition that returns an
effective true (accept-route) or false
(reject-route), otherwise the behavior may be
ambiguous and implementation dependent";
}
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
leaf install-protocol-eq {
type identityref {
base oc-pol-types:INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
}
description
"Condition to check the protocol / method used to install
the route into the local routing table";
}
}
grouping policy-conditions-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy conditions";
}
grouping policy-conditions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for policy conditions";
container conditions {
description
"Condition statements for the current policy statement";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy conditions";
uses policy-conditions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy conditions";
uses policy-conditions-config;
uses policy-conditions-state;
}
uses generic-conditions;
uses igp-conditions;
}
}
grouping policy-statements-config {
description
"Configuration data for policy statements";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
leaf name {
type string;
description
"name of the policy statement";
}
}
grouping policy-statements-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy statements";
}
grouping policy-actions-config {
description
"Configuration data for policy actions";
uses generic-actions;
}
grouping policy-actions-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy actions";
}
grouping policy-actions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for policy actions";
container actions {
description
"Top-level container for policy action statements";
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy actions";
uses policy-actions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy actions";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
uses policy-actions-config;
uses policy-actions-state;
}
uses igp-actions-top;
}
}
grouping policy-statements-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for the policy statements list";
container statements {
description
"Enclosing container for policy statements";
list statement {
key name;
// TODO: names of policy statements within a policy
// definition should be optional, however, YANG
// requires a unique id for lists; not sure that a
// compound key works either -- need to investigate
// further.
ordered-by user;
description
"Policy statements group conditions and actions
within a policy definition. They are evaluated in
the order specified (see the description of policy
evaluation at the top of this module.";
leaf name {
type leafref {
path "../config/name";
}
description
"Reference to list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy statements";
uses policy-statements-config;
}
container state {
config false;
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Operational state data for policy statements";
uses policy-statements-config;
uses policy-statements-state;
}
uses policy-conditions-top;
uses policy-actions-top;
}
}
}
grouping defined-sets-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for defined set definitions";
container defined-sets {
description
"Predefined sets of attributes used in policy match
statements";
uses generic-defined-sets;
}
}
grouping policy-definitions-config {
description
"Configuration data for policy definitions";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the top-level policy definition -- this name
is used in references to the current policy";
}
}
grouping policy-definitions-state {
description
"Operational state data for policy definitions";
}
grouping policy-definitions-top {
description
"Top-level grouping for the policy definition list";
container policy-definitions {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Enclosing container for the list of top-level policy
definitions";
list policy-definition {
key name;
description
"List of top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique
name. These policy definitions are expected to be
referenced (by name) in policy chains specified in import
or export configuration statements.";
leaf name {
type leafref {
path "../config/name";
}
description
"Reference to the list key";
}
container config {
description
"Configuration data for policy defintions";
uses policy-definitions-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state data for policy definitions";
uses policy-definitions-config;
uses policy-definitions-state;
}
uses policy-statements-top;
}
}
}
grouping routing-policy-top {
description
"Top level container for OpenConfig routing policy";
container routing-policy {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Top-level container for all routing policy configuration";
uses defined-sets-top;
uses policy-definitions-top;
}
}
grouping apply-policy-import-config {
description
"Configuration data for applying import policies";
leaf-list import-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/oc-rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list of policy names in sequence to be applied on
receiving a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-import-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT_ROUTE;
description
"explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the import policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-export-config {
description
"Configuration data for applying export policies";
leaf-list export-policy {
type leafref {
path "/oc-rpol:routing-policy/oc-rpol:policy-definitions/" +
"oc-rpol:policy-definition/oc-rpol:name";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
//TODO: require-instance should be added when it's
//supported in YANG 1.1
//require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"list of policy names in sequence to be applied on
sending a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-export-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default REJECT_ROUTE;
description
"explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the export policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-config {
description
"Configuration data for routing policies";
uses apply-policy-import-config;
uses apply-policy-export-config;
}
grouping apply-policy-state {
description
"Operational state associated with routing policy";
//TODO: identify additional state data beyond the intended
//policy configuration.
}
grouping apply-policy-group {
description
"Top level container for routing policy applications. This
grouping is intended to be used in routing models where
needed.";
container apply-policy {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
description
"Anchor point for routing policies in the model.
Import and export policies are with respect to the local
routing table, i.e., export (send) and import (receive),
depending on the context.";
container config {
description
"Policy configuration data.";
uses apply-policy-config;
}
container state {
config false;
description
"Operational state for routing policy";
uses apply-policy-config;
uses apply-policy-state;
}
}
}
uses routing-policy-top;
}
<CODE ENDS>
9.2. Routing policy types
<CODE BEGINS> file "openconfig-policy-types.yang"
module openconfig-policy-types {
yang-version "1";
// namespace
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-policy-types";
prefix "oc-pol-types";
// import some basic types
import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; }
import openconfig-extensions { prefix oc-ext; }
// meta
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
organization
"OpenConfig working group";
contact
"OpenConfig working group
netopenconfig@googlegroups.com";
description
"This module contains general data definitions for use in routing
policy. It can be imported by modules that contain protocol-
specific policy conditions and actions.";
oc-ext:openconfig-version "2.0.0";
revision "2016-03-28" {
description
"OpenConfig public release";
reference "2.0.0";
}
// identity statements
identity ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON {
description
"base type for supported comparison operators on route
attributes";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_EQ {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description "== comparison";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_GE {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description ">= comparison";
}
identity ATTRIBUTE_LE {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
description "<= comparison";
}
typedef match-set-options-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
}
enum ALL {
description "match is true if given value matches all
members of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT {
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set";
}
typedef match-set-options-restricted-type {
type enumeration {
enum ANY {
description "match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set";
}
enum INVERT {
description "match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set";
}
}
default ANY;
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is ANY, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set. Note this type is a
restricted version of the match-set-options-type.";
//TODO: restriction on enumerated types is only allowed in
//YANG 1.1. Until then, we will require this additional type
}
grouping attribute-compare-operators {
description "common definitions for comparison operations in
condition statements";
leaf operator {
type identityref {
base ATTRIBUTE_COMPARISON;
}
description
"type of comparison to be performed";
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
}
leaf value {
type uint32;
description
"value to compare with the community count";
}
}
typedef tag-type {
type union {
type uint32;
type yang:hex-string;
}
description "type for expressing route tags on a local system,
including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal or
hexidecimal integer";
reference
"RFC 2178 OSPF Version 2
RFC 5130 A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using
Administrative Tags";
}
identity INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE {
description
"Base type for protocols which can install prefixes into the
RIB";
}
identity BGP {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "BGP";
reference "RFC 4271";
}
identity ISIS {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "IS-IS";
reference "ISO/IEC 10589";
}
identity OSPF {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "OSPFv2";
reference "RFC 2328";
}
identity OSPF3 {
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "OSPFv3";
reference "RFC 5340";
}
identity STATIC {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "Locally-installed static route";
}
identity DIRECTLY_CONNECTED {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "A directly connected route";
}
identity LOCAL_AGGREGATE {
base INSTALL_PROTOCOL_TYPE;
description "Locally defined aggregate route";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
10. Policy examples
Below we show an example of XML-encoded configuration data using the
routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are
defined, and also how they can be applied. Note that the XML has
been simplified for readability.
<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<routing-policy xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">
<defined-sets>
<prefix-sets>
<prefix-set>
<prefix-set-name>prefix-set-A</prefix-set-name>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>24..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>10.0.0.0/16</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>16..32</masklength-range>
</prefix>
<prefix>
<ip-prefix>192.168.0.0/19</ip-prefix>
<masklength-range>19..24</masklength-range>
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
</prefix>
</prefix-set>
</prefix-sets>
<tag-sets>
<tag-set>
<tag-set-name>cust-tag1</tag-set-name>
<tag>
<value>10</value>
</tag>
</tag-set>
</tag-sets>
</defined-sets>
<policy-definitions>
<policy-definition>
<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>
<statements>
<statement>
<name>term-0</name>
<conditions>
<install-protocol-eq xmlns:ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">ns:OSPF3</install-protocol-eq>
<match-tag-set>
<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>
</match-tag-set>
</conditions>
<actions>
<accept-route />
</actions>
</statement>
</statements>
</policy-definition>
</policy-definitions>
</routing-policy>
</config>
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2014.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
July 2013.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January
2004.
11.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., Patel, K., Hares, S., D'Souza, K.,
Bansal, D., Clemm, A., Alex, A., Jethanandani, M., and X.
Liu, "BGP Model for Service Provider Networks", draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.openconfig-netmod-opstate]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling
of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-
netmod-opstate-01 (work in progress), July 2015.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document
and the associated models from: Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh
George, Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric
Osborne, Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, and Russ
White.
Appendix B. Change summary
B.1. Changes between revisions -00 and -01
Updated policy model with additional condition for matching
interfaces.
B.2. Changes between revisions draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model and -00
This revision updates the draft name to reflect adoption as a working
document in the RTGWG. Minor changes include updates to references
and updated author contact information.
Authors' Addresses
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Routing Policy Model April 2016
Anees Shaikh
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: aashaikh@google.com
Rob Shakir
Jive Communications, Inc.
1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
Email: rjs@rob.sh
Kevin D'Souza
AT&T
200 S. Laurel Ave
Middletown, NJ
US
Email: kd6913@att.com
Chris Chase
AT&T
9505 Arboretum Blvd
Austin, TX
US
Email: chase@labs.att.com
Shaikh, et al. Expires October 8, 2016 [Page 41]
