rfc9296.original   rfc9296.txt 
Network Working Group D. Liu Independent Submission D. Liu
Internet-Draft J. Halpern Request for Comments: 9296 J. Halpern
Intended status: Informational C. Zhang Category: Informational C. Zhang
Expires: 25 November 2022 Ericsson ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson
24 May 2022 August 2022
Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P) ifStackTable for the Point-to-Point (P2P) Interface over a LAN Type:
Interface over LAN Definition and Examples
draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12
Abstract Abstract
RFC 5309 defines the Point-to-Point (P2P) circuit type, one of the RFC 5309 defines the Point-to-Point (P2P) circuit type, one of the
two circuit types used in the link state routing protocols, and two circuit types used in the link-state routing protocols, and
highlights that it is important to identify the correct circuit type highlights that it is important to identify the correct circuit type
when forming adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and when forming adjacencies, flooding link-state database packets, and
monitoring the link state. monitoring the link state.
This document provides advice about the ifStack for the P2P interface This document provides advice about the ifStack for the P2P interface
over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control, maintenance and over a LAN Type to facilitate operational control, maintenance, and
statistics. statistics.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
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 This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 November 2022. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9296.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components to this document.
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language
3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type . . . . . . . . 3 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type
3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if . . . . 3 3.1. P2P Interface: higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if
3.2. P2P Interface Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. P2P Interface Statistics
3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Examples
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5309] defines the P2P circuit type and highlights that it is [RFC5309] defines the Point-to-Point (P2P) circuit type and
important to identify the correct circuit type when forming highlights that it is important to identify the correct circuit type
adjacencies, flooding link state database packets, and monitoring the when forming adjacencies, flooding link-state database packets, and
link state. monitoring the link state.
To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to To simplify configuration and operational control, it is helpful to
represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P represent the fact that an interface is to be considered a P2P
interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This interface over a LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. This
enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the enables, for example, routing protocols to automatically inherit the
correct operating mode from the interface stack without further correct operating mode from the interface stack without further
configuration (No need to explicitly configure the P2P interface in configuration (i.e., there is no need to explicitly configure the P2P
routing protocols). interface in routing protocols).
It is helpful to map the P2P interface over LAN type in the interface It is helpful to map the P2P interface over a LAN type in the
management stack table. If no entry specifies the P2P interface interface management stack table. If no entry specifies the lower
lower layer, management tools lose the ability to retrieve and layer of the P2P interface, then management tools lose the ability to
measure properties specific to lower layers. retrieve and measure properties specific to lower layers.
The P2P interface over LAN type is intended to be used solely as a In standard network management protocols that make use of
means to signal in standard network management protocols that make ifStackTables, the P2P interface over a LAN type is intended to be
use of ifStackTables that the upper layer interface is P2P interface, used solely as a means to signal that the upper-layer interface of
and thus the upper and lower layers of P2P over LAN type will be link-data layer is a P2P interface. Thus, the upper and lower layers
expected to apply appropriate semantics: In general, P2P over LAN of P2P over a LAN type are expected to apply appropriate semantics.
type higher layer SHOULD always be "ipForward" (Value 142, In general, the higher layer of a P2P over a LAN type SHOULD be
[Assignment]), and the P2P over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any "ipForward" (value 142 in [Assignment]), and the lower layer of P2P
appropriate link data layer of "ipForward". over a LAN type SHOULD be any appropriate link-data layer of
"ipForward".
The assignment of 303, as the value for p2pOverLan ifType was made by The assignment of 303 as the value for the p2pOverLan ifType was made
Expert Review [Assignment]. So the purpose of this document is to by Expert Review (see [Assignment] and [RFC8126]). The purpose of
request IANA to add this document as a reference to ifType 303, as this document is to serve as a reference for ifType 303 by suggesting
well as suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over how the ifStackTable for the P2P interface over a LAN type is to be
LAN type, and provide examples. used and providing examples.
It should be noted that this document reflects the operating model It should be noted that this document reflects the operating model
used on some routers. Other routers that use different models may used on some routers. Other routers that use different models may
not represent a P2P as a separate interface. not represent a P2P as a separate interface.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. "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.
3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type 3. Interface Stack Table for P2P Interface Type
3.1. P2P Interface higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if 3.1. P2P Interface: higher-layer-if and lower-layer-if
If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], then each entry in the
"/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the "/interfaces/interface" list (see "A YANG Data Model for Interface
operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in Management" [RFC8343]) in the operational state is typically mapped
[RFC8343]. Therefore the P2P interface over LAN type should also be to one ifEntry as required in [RFC8343]. Therefore, the P2P
fully mapped to one ifEntry by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher- interface over a LAN type should also be fully mapped to one ifEntry
layer-if" and "lower-layer-if", defined in [RFC8343]). by defining the "ifStackTable" ("higher-layer-if" and "lower-layer-
if", defined in [RFC8343]).
In ifStackTable the P2P interface over LAN type higher layer SHALL be In the ifStackTable, the higher layer of the P2P interface over a LAN
network layer "ipForward" to enable IP routing, and the P2P interface type SHALL be network layer "ipForward" to enable IP routing, and the
over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any link data layer that can be lower layer of the P2P interface over a LAN type SHOULD be any link-
bound to "ipForward" including "ethernetCsmacd", "ieee8023adLag", data layer that can be bound to "ipForward", including
"l2vlan", and so on (defined in IANA). "ethernetCsmacd", "ieee8023adLag", "l2vlan", and so on (defined in
the iana-if-type YANG module [IANA-ifTYPE]).
The P2P interface over LAN type ifStackTable can be defined along the The P2P interface over the LAN type ifStackTable can be defined along
lines of following example (In the example, "lower-layer-if" takes the lines of the following example, which complies with [RFC8343] and
"ethernetCsmacd" but in fact, "lower-layer-if" can be any other [RFC6991]. In the example, "lower-layer-if" takes "ethernetCsmacd",
available link data layer. See Appendix A for more examples) which but, in fact, "lower-layer-if" can be any other available link-data
complies with [RFC8343] [RFC6991]: layer. See Appendix A for more examples.
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>isis_int</name> <name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type> <type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface> </interface>
<interface> <interface>
<name>eth1</name> <name>eth1</name>
<type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type> <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at line 174
<!-- counters now shown here --> <!-- counters now shown here -->
</statistics> </statistics>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 1 Figure 1
3.2. P2P Interface Statistics 3.2. P2P Interface Statistics
Because multiple IP interfaces can be bound to one physical port, the Because multiple IP interfaces can be bound to one physical port, the
statistics on the physical port SHOULD be a complete set which statistics on the physical port SHOULD be a complete set that
includes statistics of all upper layer interfaces. Therefore, each includes statistics of all upper-layer interfaces. Therefore, each
p2p interface collects and displays traffic that has been sent to it P2P interface collects and displays traffic that has been sent to it
via higher layers or received from it via lower layers. via higher layers or received from it via lower layers.
3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State 3.3. P2P Interface Administrative State
The P2P interface can be shutdown independently of the underlying The P2P interface can be shut down independently of the underlying
interface. interface.
If the P2P interface is administratively up, then the "oper-status", If the P2P interface is administratively up, then the "oper-status"
defined in [RFC8343], of that interface SHALL fully reflect state of (defined in [RFC8343]) of that interface SHALL fully reflect the
the underlying interface; if the P2P interface is administratively state of the underlying interface; if the P2P interface is
down, then the "oper-status" of that interface SHALL be down. administratively down, then the "oper-status" of that interface SHALL
Examples can be found in Appendix A. be down. Examples can be found in Appendix A.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The writeable attribute "admin-status" of p2povervlan ifType is The writable attribute "admin-status" of the p2povervlan ifType is
inherited from [RFC8343]. Other objects associated with the inherited from [RFC8343]. Other objects associated with the
p2povervlan ifType are read-only. With this in mind, the p2povervlan ifType are read-only. With this in mind, the
considerations discussed Section 7 of [RFC8343] otherwise apply to considerations discussed in Section 7 of [RFC8343] otherwise apply to
the p2povervlan ifType. the p2povervlan ifType.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
In the Interface Types registry, IANA has assigned a value of 303 for In the "Interface Types (ifType)" registry, value 303 is assigned to
p2pOverLan [Assignment] with a reference of [RFC5309]. IANA is p2pOverLan [Assignment]. As this document explains how the
requested to amend the reference for that code point to be to this p2pOverLan (303) ifType is to be used, IANA has amended the reference
document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type for p2pOverLan (303) to point to this document (instead of [RFC5309])
module (originally specified in [RFC7224]) which currently points to and made a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module
[RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to be used. [IANA-ifTYPE] (originally specified in [RFC7224]).
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rob Wilton for his reviews and
valuable comments and suggestions.
7. References 6. References
7.1. Normative references 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000, MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
skipping to change at page 6, line 9 skipping to change at line 237
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC8561] Ahlberg, J., Ye, M., Li, X., Spreafico, D., and M. 6.2. Informative References
Vaupotic, "A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link",
RFC 8561, DOI 10.17487/RFC8561, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8561>.
7.2. Informative References
[Assignment] [Assignment]
"Interface Types (ifType)", IANA, "Interface Types (ifType)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers>.
numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-5>.
[IANA-ifTYPE]
IANA, "YANG Module Names",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Appendix A. Examples Appendix A. Examples
In the case of underlying interface is VLAN sub-interface, the If the underlying interface is a VLAN sub-interface, the
ifStackTable should be defined as: ifStackTable should be defined as:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>isis_int</name> <name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type> <type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface> </interface>
<interface> <interface>
<name>eth1_valn1</name> <name>eth1_valn1</name>
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at line 291
<discontinuity-time> <discontinuity-time>
2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
</discontinuity-time> </discontinuity-time>
<!-- counters now shown here --> <!-- counters now shown here -->
</statistics> </statistics>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 2 Figure 2
In the case of underlying interface is LAG, the ifStackTable should If the underlying interface is Link Aggregation Group (LAG), the
be defined as: ifStackTable should be defined as:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>isis_int</name> <name>isis_int</name>
<type>ianaift:ipForward</type> <type>ianaift:ipForward</type>
</interface> </interface>
<interface> <interface>
<name>eth1_lag1</name> <name>eth1_lag1</name>
<type>ianaift:ieee8023adLag</type> <type>ianaift:ieee8023adLag</type>
skipping to change at page 8, line 35 skipping to change at line 324
<discontinuity-time> <discontinuity-time>
2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00 2021-04-01T03:00:00+00:00
</discontinuity-time> </discontinuity-time>
<!-- counters now shown here --> <!-- counters now shown here -->
</statistics> </statistics>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 3 Figure 3
In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are both If the P2P interface and underlying interface are both
administratively up, and the underlying interface operational status administratively up and the underlying interface operational status
is up: is up:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>p2p</name> <name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type> <type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if> <higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if> <lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status> <admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>up</oper-status> <oper-status>up</oper-status>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 4 Figure 4
In the case of P2P interface and underlying interface are If the P2P interface and underlying interface are administratively up
administratively up, but the underlying interface operational status but the underlying interface operational status is down:
is down:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>p2p</name> <name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type> <type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if> <higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if> <lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status> <admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status> <oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 5 Figure 5
In the case of P2P interface is administratively down: If the P2P interface is administratively down:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>p2p</name> <name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type> <type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if> <higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if> <lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>down</admin-status> <admin-status>down</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status> <oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 6 Figure 6
In the case of P2P interface is administratively up but underlying is If the P2P interface is administratively up but the underlying
administratively down: interface is administratively down:
<CODE BEGINS> <CODE BEGINS>
<interface> <interface>
<name>p2p</name> <name>p2p</name>
<type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type> <type>ianaift:p2pOverLan</type>
<higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if> <higher-layer-if>isis_int</higher-layer-if>
<lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if> <lower-layer-if>eth1</lower-layer-if>
<admin-status>up</admin-status> <admin-status>up</admin-status>
<oper-status>down</oper-status> <oper-status>down</oper-status>
</interface> </interface>
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
Figure 7 Figure 7
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Rob Wilton for his reviews and
valuable comments and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Daiying Liu Daiying Liu
Ericsson Ericsson
No.5 Lize East street No.5 Lize East Street
Beijing Beijing
100102 100102
China China
Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com Email: harold.liu@ericsson.com
Joel Halpern Joel Halpern
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Congjie Zhang Congjie Zhang
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
133 lines changed or deleted 135 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.