-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-14.txt
6328 lines (5256 loc) · 211 KB
/
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-14.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
PCE Working Group D. Dhody, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track J. Hardwick
Expires: January 9, 2021 Metaswitch
V. Beeram
Juniper Networks
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
July 8, 2020
A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol
(PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-14
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for the management of Path
Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for communications
between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation
Element (PCE), or between two PCEs. The data model includes
configuration and state data.
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 January 9, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Refrences in the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. The Design of PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. The Overview of PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. The Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. The Peer Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. The Session Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. RPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. The Full PCEP Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. The Design of PCEP Statistics Data Model . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Advanced PCE Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7.1. Stateful PCE's LSP-DB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Open Issues and Next Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8.1. The PCE-Initiated LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. PCEP over TLS (PCEPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. PCEP YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.1. ietf-pcep module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.2. ietf-pcep-stats module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
13. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Appendix B. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed.
PCEP is the communication protocol between a PCC and PCE and is
defined in [RFC5440]. PCEP interactions include path computation
requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of
specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE). [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of MPLS TE LSPs.
This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model for the management
of PCEP speakers. It is important to establish a common data model
for how PCEP speakers are identified, configured, and monitored. The
data model includes configuration data and state data.
This document contains a specification of the PCEP YANG module,
"ietf-pcep" which provides the PCEP [RFC5440] data model.
The PCEP operational state is included in the same tree as the PCEP
configuration consistent with Network Management Datastore
Architecture [RFC8342]. The origin of the data is indicated as per
the origin metadata annotation.
2. Requirements Language
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.
3. Terminology and Notation
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655] and
[RFC5440]. In particular, it uses the following acronyms.
o Path Computation Request message (PCReq).
o Path Computation Reply message (PCRep).
o Notification message (PCNtf).
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
o Error message (PCErr).
o Request Parameters object (RP).
o Synchronization Vector object (SVEC).
o Explicit Route object (ERO).
This document also uses the following terms defined in [RFC7420]:
o PCEP entity: a local PCEP speaker.
o PCEP peer: to refer to a remote PCEP speaker.
o PCEP speaker: where it is not necessary to distinguish between
local and remote.
Further, this document also uses the following terms defined in
[RFC8231] :
o Stateful PCE, Passive Stateful PCE, Active Stateful PCE
o Delegation, Revocation, Redelegation
o LSP State Report, Path Computation Report message (PCRpt).
o LSP State Update, Path Computation Update message (PCUpd).
[RFC8281] :
o PCE-initiated LSP, Path Computation LSP Initiate Message
(PCInitiate).
[RFC8408] :
o Path Setup Type (PST).
[RFC8664] :
o Segment Routing (SR).
[RFC6241] :
o Configuration data.
o State data.
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
3.1. Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
defined in [RFC8340].
3.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes 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 |
+----------+------------------+-------------------------------------+
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] |
| te | ietf-te | [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] |
| te-types | ietf-te-types | [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] |
| key- | ietf-key-chain | [RFC8177] |
| chain | | |
| nacm | ietf-netconf-acm | [RFC8341] |
| tlss | ietf-tls-server | [I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server |
| | | ] |
| tlsc | ietf-tls-client | [I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server |
| | | ] |
| ospf | ietf-ospf | [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang] |
| isis | ietf-isis | [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] |
+----------+------------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules
3.3. Refrences in the Model
Following documents are refrenced in the model defined in this
document -
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Documents | Reference |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| RSVP-TE: Extensions to | [RFC3209] |
| RSVP for LSP Tunnels | |
| OSPF Protocol Extensions | [RFC5088] |
| for Path Computation | |
| Element (PCE) Discovery | |
| IS-IS Protocol Extensions | [RFC5089] |
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
| for Path Computation | |
| Element (PCE) Discovery | |
| Path Computation Element | [RFC5440] |
| (PCE) Communication | |
| Protocol (PCEP) | |
| Preserving Topology | [RFC5520] |
| Confidentiality in Inter- | |
| Domain Path Computation | |
| Using a Path-Key-Based | |
| Mechanism | |
| Encoding of Objective | [RFC5541] |
| Functions in the Path | |
| Computation Element | |
| Communication Protocol | |
| (PCEP) | |
| Path Computation Element | [RFC5557] |
| Communication Protocol | |
| (PCEP) Requirements and | |
| Protocol Extensions in | |
| Support of Global | |
| Concurrent Optimization | |
| Common YANG Data Types | [RFC6991] |
| YANG Data Model for Key | [RFC8177] |
| Chains | |
| Path Computation Element | [RFC8231] |
| Communication Protocol | |
| (PCEP) Extensions for | |
| Stateful PCE | |
| Optimizations of Label | [RFC8232] |
| Switched Path State | |
| Synchronization Procedures | |
| for a Stateful PCE | |
| PCEPS: Usage of TLS to | [RFC8253] |
| Provide a Secure Transport | |
| for the Path Computation | |
| Element Communication | |
| Protocol (PCEP) | |
| Path Computation Element | [RFC8281] |
| Communication Protocol | |
| (PCEP) Extensions for PCE- | |
| Initiated LSP Setup in a | |
| Stateful PCE Model | |
| Extensions to the Path | [RFC8306] |
| Computation Element | |
| Communication Protocol | |
| (PCEP) for Point-to- | |
| Multipoint Traffic | |
| Engineering Label Switched | |
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
| Paths | |
| Network Configuration | [RFC8341] |
| Access Control Model | |
| Conveying Path Setup Type | [RFC8408] |
| in PCE Communication | |
| Protocol (PCEP) Messages | |
| Traffic Engineering Common | [RFC8776] |
| YANG Types | |
| A YANG Data Model for | [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] |
| Traffic Engineering | |
| Tunnels and Interfaces | |
| YANG Groupings for TLS | [I-D.ietf-netconf-tls-client-server] |
| Clients and TLS Servers | |
| PCEP Extensions for | [RFC8664] |
| Segment Routing | |
| PCEP Extensions for | [RFC8697] |
| Establishing Relationships | |
| Between Sets of LSPs | |
| YANG Data Model for OSPF | [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang] |
| Protocol | |
| YANG Data Model for IS-IS | [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] |
| Protocol | |
| PCEP extensions for GMPLS | [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions] |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 2: Refrences in the YANG modules
4. Objectives
This section describes some of the design objectives for the model:
o In case of existing implementations, it needs to map the data
model defined in this document to their proprietary native data
model. To facilitate such mappings, the data model should be
simple.
o The data model should be suitable for new implementations to use
as is.
o Mapping to the PCEP MIB Module should be clear.
o The data model should allow for static configurations of peers.
o The data model should include read-only counters in order to
gather statistics for sent and received PCEP messages, received
messages with errors, and messages that could not be sent due to
errors. This could be in a separate model which augments the base
data model.
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
o It should be fairly straightforward to augment the base data model
for advanced PCE features.
5. The Design of PCEP Data Model
5.1. The Overview of PCEP Data Model
The PCEP YANG module defined in this document has all the common
building blocks for the PCEP protocol.
module: ietf-pcep
+--rw pcep!
+--rw entity
+--rw addr inet:ip-address
+--rw enabled? boolean
+--rw role pcep-role
+--rw description? string
+--rw speaker-entity-id? string
| {stateful-sync-opt}?
+--rw admin-status? pcep-admin-status
+--ro index? uint32
+--ro oper-status? pcep-oper-status
+--rw domain
| +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| ...
+--rw capability
| ...
+--rw pce-info
| +--rw scope
| | ...
| +--rw neigh-domains
| | ...
| +--rw path-key {path-key}?
| ...
+--ro lsp-db {stateful}?
| +--ro db-ver? uint64
| | {stateful-sync-opt}?
| +--ro association-list*
| | [id source global-source extended-id]
| | ...
| +--ro lsp* [plsp-id pcc-id lsp-id]
| ...
+--ro path-keys {path-key}?
| +--ro path-keys* [path-key]
| ...
+--rw peers
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
+--rw peer* [addr]
+--ro sessions
+--ro session* [initiator]
...
rpcs:
+---x trigger-resync {stateful,stateful-sync-opt}?
+---w input
+---w pcc? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
notifications:
+---n pcep-session-up
| ...
+---n pcep-session-down
| ...
+---n pcep-session-local-overload
| ...
+---n pcep-session-local-overload-clear
| ...
+---n pcep-session-peer-overload
| ...
+---n pcep-session-peer-overload-clear
...
5.2. The Entity
The PCEP yang module may contain status information for the local
PCEP entity.
The entity has an IP address (using ietf-inet-types [RFC6991]) and a
"role" leaf (the local entity PCEP role) as mandatory.
Note that, the PCEP MIB module [RFC7420] uses an entity list and a
system generated entity index as a primary index to the read only
entity table. If the device implements the PCEP MIB, the "index"
leaf MUST contain the value of the corresponding pcePcepEntityIndex
and only one entity is assumed.
The various information related to this entity such as its domain,
capcabilities etc. Further incase when the entity is PCE it could
also have path-key and the LSP-DB information.
module: ietf-pcep
+--rw pcep!
+--rw entity
+--rw addr inet:ip-address
+--rw enabled? boolean
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
+--rw role pcep-role
+--rw description? string
+--rw speaker-entity-id? string {sync-opt}?
+--rw admin-status? boolean
+--ro index? uint32
+--ro oper-status? pcep-oper-status
+--rw domain
| +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| +--rw domain-type domain-type
| +--rw domain domain
+--rw capability
| +--rw capability? bits
| +--rw pce-initiated? boolean {pce-initiated}?
| +--rw include-db-ver? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-resync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-initial-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw incremental-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw sr {sr}?
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw msd-limit? boolean
| +--rw nai? boolean
+--rw msd? uint8 {sr}?
+--rw pce-info
| +--rw scope
| | +--rw path-scope? bits
| | +--rw intra-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-as-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-layer-pref? uint8
| +--rw neigh-domains
| | +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| | +--rw domain-type domain-type
| | +--rw domain domain
| +--rw path-key {path-key}?
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw discard-timer? uint32
| +--rw reuse-time? uint32
| +--rw pce-id? inet:ip-address
+--rw connect-timer? uint16
+--rw connect-max-retry? uint32
+--rw init-backoff-timer? uint16
+--rw max-backoff-timer? uint32
+--rw open-wait-timer? uint16
+--rw keep-wait-timer? uint16
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
+--rw keep-alive-timer? uint8
+--rw dead-timer? uint8
+--rw allow-negotiation? boolean
+--rw max-keep-alive-timer? uint8
+--rw max-dead-timer? uint8
+--rw min-keep-alive-timer? uint8
+--rw min-dead-timer? uint8
+--rw sync-timer? uint16 {svec}?
+--rw request-timer? uint16
+--rw max-sessions? uint32
+--rw max-unknown-reqs? uint32
+--rw max-unknown-msgs? uint32
+--rw pcep-notification-max-rate uint32
+--rw stateful-parameter {stateful}?
| +--rw state-timeout? uint32
| +--rw redelegation-timeout? uint32
| +--rw rpt-non-pcep-lsp? boolean
+--rw of-list {objective-function}?
| +--rw objective-function* [of]
| +--rw of identityref
+--ro lsp-db {stateful}?
| +--ro db-ver? uint64 {sync-opt}?
| +--ro association-list*
| | [type id source global-source extended-id]
| | {association}?
| | +--ro type identityref
| | +--ro id uint16
| | +--ro source inet:ip-address
| | +--ro global-source uint32
| | +--ro extended-id string
| | +--ro lsp* [plsp-id pcc-id lsp-id]
| | +--ro plsp-id -> /pcep/entity/lsp-db/lsp/plsp-id
| | +--ro pcc-id -> /pcep/entity/lsp-db/lsp/pcc-id
| | +--ro lsp-id -> /pcep/entity/lsp-db/lsp/lsp-id
| +--ro lsp* [plsp-id pcc-id lsp-id]
| +--ro plsp-id uint32
| +--ro pcc-id inet:ip-address
| +--ro source?
| | -> /te:te/lsps-state/lsp/source
| +--ro destination?
| | -> /te:te/lsps-state/lsp/destination
| +--ro tunnel-id?
| | -> /te:te/lsps-state/lsp/tunnel-id
| +--ro lsp-id
| | -> /te:te/lsps-state/lsp/lsp-id
| +--ro extended-tunnel-id?
| | -> /te:te/lsps-state/lsp/extended-tunnel-id
| +--ro admin-state? boolean
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
| +--ro operational-state? operational-state
| +--ro delegated
| | +--ro enabled? boolean
| | +--ro peer? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| | +--ro srp-id? uint32
| +--ro initiation {pce-initiated}?
| | +--ro enabled? boolean
| | +--ro peer? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro symbolic-path-name? string
| +--ro last-error? identityref
| +--ro pst? identityref
| +--ro association-list*
| [type id source global-source extended-id]
| {association}?
| +--ro type
| | -> /pcep/entity/lsp-db/association-list/type
| +--ro id
| | -> /pcep/entity/lsp-db/association-list/id
| +--ro source leafref
| +--ro global-source leafref
| +--ro extended-id leafref
+--ro path-keys {path-key}?
| +--ro path-keys* [path-key]
| +--ro path-key uint16
| +--ro cps
| | +--ro explicit-route-objects* [index]
| | +--ro index uint32
| | +--ro (type)?
| | +--:(numbered-node-hop)
| | | +--ro numbered-node-hop
| | | +--ro node-id te-node-id
| | | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type
| | +--:(numbered-link-hop)
| | | +--ro numbered-link-hop
| | | +--ro link-tp-id te-tp-id
| | | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type
| | | +--ro direction? te-link-direction
| | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
| | | +--ro unnumbered-link-hop
| | | +--ro link-tp-id te-tp-id
| | | +--ro node-id te-node-id
| | | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type
| | | +--ro direction? te-link-direction
| | +--:(as-number)
| | | +--ro as-number-hop
| | | +--ro as-number inet:as-number
| | | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type
| | +--:(label)
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
| | +--ro label-hop
| | +--ro te-label
| | +--ro (technology)?
| | | +--:(generic)
| | | ...
| | +--ro direction?
| | te-label-direction
| +--ro pcc-original? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro req-id? uint32
| +--ro retrieved? boolean
| +--ro pcc-retrieved? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro creation-time? yang:timestamp
| +--ro discard-time? uint32
| +--ro reuse-time? uint32
+--rw peers
+--rw peer* [addr]
...
5.3. The Peer Lists
The peer list contains peer(s) that the local PCEP entity knows
about. A PCEP speaker is identified by its IP address. If there is
a PCEP speaker in the network that uses multiple IP addresses then it
looks like multiple distinct peers to the other PCEP speakers in the
network.
Since PCEP sessions can be ephemeral, the peer list tracks a peer
even when no PCEP session currently exists to that peer. The
statistics contained are an aggregate of the statistics for all
successive sessions to that peer.
To limit the quantity of information that is stored, an
implementation MAY choose to discard this information if and only if
no PCEP session exists to the corresponding peer.
The data model for PCEP peer presented in this document uses a flat
list of peers. Each peer in the list is identified by its IP address
(addr-type, addr).
There is a list for static peer configuration and operational state
of all peers (i.e.static as well as discovered)("/pcep/entity/
peers"). The list is used to enable remote PCE configuration at PCC
(or PCE) and has the operational state of these peers as well as the
remote PCE peer which were discovered and PCC peers that have
initiated session.
module: ietf-pcep
+--rw pcep!
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
+--rw entity
...
+--rw peers
+--rw peer* [addr]
+--rw addr inet:ip-address
+--rw role pcep-role
+--rw description? string
+--rw domain
| +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| +--rw domain-type domain-type
| +--rw domain domain
+--rw capability
| +--rw capability? bits
| +--rw pce-initiated? boolean
| | {pce-initiated}?
| +--rw include-db-ver? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-resync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-initial-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw incremental-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw sr {sr}?
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw msd-limit? boolean
| +--rw nai? boolean
+--rw msd? uint8 {sr}?
+--rw pce-info
| +--rw scope
| | +--rw path-scope? bits
| | +--rw intra-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-as-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-layer-pref? uint8
| +--rw neigh-domains
| +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| +--rw domain-type domain-type
| +--rw domain domain
+--rw delegation-pref? uint8 {stateful}?
+--rw auth
| +--rw (auth-type-selection)?
| +--:(auth-key-chain)
| | +--rw key-chain?
| | key-chain:key-chain-ref
| +--:(auth-key)
| | +--rw crypto-algorithm identityref
| | +--rw (key-string-style)?
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
| | +--:(keystring)
| | | +--rw keystring? string
| | +--:(hexadecimal)
| | {key-chain:hex-key-string}?
| | +--rw hexadecimal-string?
| | yang:hex-string
| +--:(auth-tls) {tls}?
| +--rw (role)?
| +--:(server)
| | +--rw tls-server
| | ...
| +--:(client)
| +--rw tls-client
| ...
+--ro discontinuity-time? yang:timestamp
+--ro initiate-session? boolean
+--ro session-exists? boolean
+--ro session-up-time? yang:timestamp
+--ro session-fail-time? yang:timestamp
+--ro session-fail-up-time? yang:timestamp
+--ro sessions
+--ro session* [initiator]
...
5.4. The Session Lists
The session list contains PCEP session that the PCEP entity (PCE or
PCC) is currently participating in. The statistics in session are
semantically different from those in peer since the former applies to
the current session only, whereas the latter is the aggregate for all
sessions that have existed to that peer.
Although [RFC5440] forbids more than one active PCEP session between
a given pair of PCEP entities at any given time, there is a window
during session establishment where two sessions may exist for a given
pair, one representing a session initiated by the local PCEP entity
and the other representing a session initiated by the peer. If
either of these sessions reaches active state first, then the other
is discarded.
The data model for PCEP session presented in this document uses a
flat list of sessions. Each session in the list is identified by its
initiator. This index allows two sessions to exist transiently for a
given peer, as discussed above.
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
module: ietf-pcep
+--rw pcep!
+--rw entity
...
+--rw peers
+--rw peer* [addr]
...
+--ro sessions
+--ro session* [initiator]
+--ro initiator pcep-initiator
+--ro role?
| -> /pcep/entity/role
+--ro state-last-change? yang:timestamp
+--ro state? pcep-sess-state
+--ro session-creation? yang:timestamp
+--ro connect-retry? yang:counter32
+--ro local-id? uint8
+--ro remote-id? uint8
+--ro keepalive-timer? uint8
+--ro peer-keepalive-timer? uint8
+--ro dead-timer? uint8
+--ro peer-dead-timer? uint8
+--ro ka-hold-time-rem? uint8
+--ro overloaded? boolean
+--ro overload-time? uint32
+--ro peer-overloaded? boolean
+--ro peer-overload-time? uint32
+--ro lspdb-sync? sync-state
| {stateful}?
+--ro recv-db-ver? uint64
| {stateful,sync-opt}?
+--ro of-list {objective-function}?
| +--ro objective-function* [of]
| +--ro of identityref
+--ro pst-list
| +--ro path-setup-type* [pst]
| +--ro pst identityref
+--ro assoc-type-list {association}?
| +--ro assoc-type* [at]
| +--ro at identityref
+--ro speaker-entity-id? string {sync-opt}?
+--ro discontinuity-time? yang:timestamp
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
5.5. Notifications
This YANG model defines a list of notifications to inform client of
important events detected during the protocol operation. The
notifications defined cover the PCEP MIB notifications.
notifications:
+---n pcep-session-up
| +--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro session-initiator?
| | -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/sessions/session/initiator
| +--ro state-last-change? yang:timestamp
| +--ro state? pcep-sess-state
+---n pcep-session-down
| +--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro session-initiator? pcep-initiator
| +--ro state-last-change? yang:timestamp
| +--ro state? pcep-sess-state
+---n pcep-session-local-overload
| +--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro session-initiator?
| | -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/sessions/session/initiator
| +--ro overloaded? boolean
| +--ro overload-time? uint32
+---n pcep-session-local-overload-clear
| +--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro overloaded? boolean
+---n pcep-session-peer-overload
| +--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
| +--ro session-initiator?
| | -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/sessions/session/initiator
| +--ro peer-overloaded? boolean
| +--ro peer-overload-time? uint32
+---n pcep-session-peer-overload-clear
+--ro peer-addr? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
+--ro peer-overloaded? boolean
5.6. RPC
This YANG model defines a RPC to trigger state resynchronization to a
particular PCEP peer.
rpcs:
+---x trigger-resync {stateful,sync-opt}?
+---w input
+---w pcc? -> /pcep/entity/peers/peer/addr
Dhody, et al. Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCE-YANG July 2020
5.7. The Full PCEP Data Model
The module, "ietf-pcep", defines the basic components of a PCE
speaker. The tree depth in the tree is set to 10.
module: ietf-pcep
+--rw pcep!
+--rw entity
+--rw addr inet:ip-address
+--rw enabled? boolean
+--rw role pcep-role
+--rw description? string
+--rw speaker-entity-id? string {sync-opt}?
+--rw admin-status? boolean
+--ro index? uint32
+--ro oper-status? pcep-oper-status
+--rw domain
| +--rw domain* [domain-type domain]
| +--rw domain-type domain-type
| +--rw domain domain
+--rw capability
| +--rw capability? bits
| +--rw pce-initiated? boolean {pce-initiated}?
| +--rw include-db-ver? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-resync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw trigger-initial-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw incremental-sync? boolean
| | {stateful,sync-opt}?
| +--rw sr {sr}?
| +--rw enabled? boolean
| +--rw msd-limit? boolean
| +--rw nai? boolean
+--rw msd? uint8 {sr}?
+--rw pce-info
| +--rw scope
| | +--rw path-scope? bits
| | +--rw intra-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-area-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-as-pref? uint8
| | +--rw inter-layer-pref? uint8
| +--rw neigh-domains