Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata ExistInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. WenRequest for Comments: 8466 ComcastCategory: Standards Track G. Fioccola, Ed.ISSN: 2070-1721 Telecom Italia C. Xie China Telecom L. Jalil Verizon October 2018A YANG Data Model forLayer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service DeliveryAbstract This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to configure a Layer 2 provider-provisioned VPN service. It is up to a management system to take this as an input and generate specific configuration models to configure the different network elements to deliver the service. How this configuration of network elements is done is out of scope for this document. The YANG data model defined in this document includes support for point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWSs) and multipoint Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLSs) that use Pseudowires signaled using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) as described in RFCs 4761 and 6624. The YANG data model defined in this document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined inRFC 8342.Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available inSection 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.Table of Contents1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53. The Layer 2 VPN Service Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.1. Layer 2 VPN Service Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.2. Layer 2 VPN Physical Network Topology . . . . . . . . . .74. Service Data Model Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95. Design of the Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115.1. Features and Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205.2. VPN Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205.2.1. VPN Service Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215.2.2. VPN Service Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225.2.2.1. Route Target Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . .225.2.2.2. Any-to-Any . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225.2.2.3. Hub-and-Spoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225.2.2.4. Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint . . . . . . . . . . . . .235.2.3. Cloud Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245.2.4. Extranet VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275.2.5. Frame Delivery Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285.3. Site Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305.3.1. Devices and Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315.3.2. Site Network Accesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .325.3.2.1. Bearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335.3.2.2. Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335.4. Site Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . .385.5.1. Site VPN Flavors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .385.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single . .395.5.1.2. Multi-VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi . . .395.5.1.3. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni . . . . . . . . . . . .405.5.1.4. E2E: site-vpn-flavor-e2e . . . . . . . . . . . .415.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .415.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .415.5.2.2. VPN Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .435.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site . . . . . . . . . . .485.6.1. Constraint: Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .495.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location . . . . . . . . .505.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type . . . . . . . . . .515.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . .525.7. Route Distinguisher and Network Instance Allocation . . .535.8. Site-Network-Access Availability . . . . . . . . . . . .545.9. SVC MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.10. Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.10.1. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .565.10.2. QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .575.10.2.1. QoS Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .575.10.2.2. QoS Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .585.10.3. Support for BUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .595.11. Site Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .605.12. MAC Loop Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .615.13. MAC Address Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .615.14. Enhanced VPN Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .625.14.1. Carriers' Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .625.15. External ID References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .635.16. Defining NNIs and Inter-AS Support . . . . . . . . . . .645.16.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor . . . . . .665.16.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor . . . . . .705.16.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor . . . . . .73 5.17. Applicability of L2SM in Inter-provider and Inter-domain Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .746. Interaction with Other YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . .767. Service Model Usage Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .778. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .829. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15210. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15311. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15311.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15311.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20181. Introduction This document defines a YANG data model for the Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) service. This model defines service configuration elements that can be used in communication protocols between customers and network operators. Those elements can also be used as input to automated control and configuration applications and can generate specific configuration models to configure the different network elements to deliver the service. How this configuration of network elements is done is out of scope for this document. Further discussion of the way that services are modeled in YANG and the relationship between "customer service models" like the one described in this document and configuration models can be found in [RFC8309] and [RFC8199]. Sections4 and6 also provide more information on how this service model could be used and how it fits into the overall modeling architecture. The YANG data model defined in this document includes support for point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWSs) and multipoint Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLSs) that use Pseudowires signaled using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) as described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6624]. It also conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].1.1. Terminology The following terms are defined in [RFC6241] and are not redefined here: o client o configuration data o server o state data The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined here: o augment o data model o data nodeWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in [RFC7950].1.1.1. 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 inBCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.1.2. Tree Diagrams Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in [RFC8340].2. Definitions This document uses the following terms: Service Provider (SP): The organization (usually a commercial undertaking) responsible for operating the network that offers VPN services to clients and customers. Customer Edge (CE) Device: Equipment that is dedicated to a particular customer and is directly connected to one or more PE devices via Attachment Circuits (ACs). A CE is usually located at the customer premises and is usually dedicated to a single VPN, although it may support multiple VPNs if each one has separate ACs. The CE devices can be routers, bridges, switches, or hosts. Provider Edge (PE) Device: Equipment managed by the SP that can support multiple VPNs for different customers and is directly connected to one or more CE devices via ACs. A PE is usually located at an SP Point of Presence (POP) and is managed by the SP. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS): A VPLS is a provider service that emulates the full functionality of a traditional LAN. A VPLS makes it possible to interconnect several LAN segments over a packet switched network (PSN) and makes the remote LAN segments behave as one single LAN. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS): A VPWS is a point-to-point circuit (i.e., link) connecting two CE devices. The link is established as a logical Layer 2 circuit through a PSN. The CE in the customer network is connected to a PE in the provider network via an AC: the AC is either a physical or logical circuit. A VPWSWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 differs from a VPLS in that the VPLS is point-to-multipoint while the VPWS is point-to-point. In some implementations, a set of VPWSs is used to create a multi-site L2VPN network. Pseudowire (PW): A Pseudowire is an emulation of a native service over a PSN. The native service may be ATM, Frame Relay, Ethernet, low-rate Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM), or Synchronous Optical Network / Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), while the PSN may be MPLS, IP (either IPv4 or IPv6), or Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3). MAC-VRF: A Virtual Routing and Forwarding table for Media Access Control (MAC) addresses on a PE. It is sometimes also referred to as a Virtual Switching Instance (VSI). UNI: User-to-Network Interface. The physical demarcation point between the customer's area of responsibility and the provider's area of responsibility. NNI: Network-to-Network Interface. A reference point representing the boundary between two networks that are operated as separate administrative domains. The two networks may belong to the same provider or to two different providers. This document uses the following abbreviations: BSS: Business Support System BUM: Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast CoS: Class of Service LAG: Link Aggregation Group LLDP: Link Layer Discovery Protocol OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance OSS: Operations Support System PDU: Protocol Data Unit QoS: Quality of ServiceWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20183. The Layer 2 VPN Service Model A Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) service is a collection of sites that are authorized to exchange traffic between each other over a shared infrastructure of a common technology. The L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) described in this document provides a common understanding of how the corresponding L2VPN service is to be deployed over the shared infrastructure. This document presents the L2SM using the YANG data modeling language [RFC7950] as a formal language that is both human readable and parsable by software for use with protocols such as the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. This service model is limited to VPWS-based VPNs and VPLS-based VPNs as described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6624] and to Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs) as described in [RFC7432].3.1. Layer 2 VPN Service Types From a technology perspective, a set of basic L2VPN service types include: o Point-to-point VPWSs that use LDP-signaled Pseudowires or L2TP-signaled Pseudowires [RFC6074]. o Multipoint VPLSs that use LDP-signaled Pseudowires or L2TP-signaled Pseudowires [RFC6074]. o Multipoint VPLSs that use a BGP control plane as described in [RFC4761] and [RFC6624]. o IP-only LAN Services (IPLSs) that are a functional subset of VPLS services [RFC7436]. o BGP MPLS-based EVPN services as described in [RFC7432] and [RFC7209]. o EVPN VPWSs as specified in [RFC8214].3.2. Layer 2 VPN Physical Network Topology Figure 1 below depicts a typical SP's physical network topology. Most SPs have deployed an IP, MPLS, or Segment Routing (SR) multi-service core infrastructure. Ingress Layer 2 service frames will be mapped to either an Ethernet Pseudowire (e.g., Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3)) or a Virtual Extensible Local AreaWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Network (VXLAN) PE-to-PE tunnel. The details of these tunneling mechanisms are left to the provider's discretion and are not part of the L2SM. An L2VPN provides end-to-end Layer 2 connectivity over this multi-service core infrastructure between two or more customer locations or a collection of sites. ACs are placed between CE devices and PE devices that backhaul Layer 2 service frames from the customer over the access network to the provider network or remote site. The demarcation point (i.e., UNI) between the customer and the SP can be placed between either (1) customer nodes and the CE device or (2) the CE device and the PE device. The actual bearer connection between the CE and the PE will be described in the L2SM. The SP may also choose a "seamless MPLS" approach to expand the PWE3 or VXLAN tunnel between sites. The SP may leverage Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) to autodiscover and signal the PWE3 or VXLAN tunnel endpoints. Site A | |Site B --- ---- | VXLAN/PW | --- | | | | |<------------------------>| | | | C +---+ CE | | | | C | | | | | | --------- | | | --- ----\ | ( ) | /--- \ -|-- ( ) -|-- ---- / \| | ( ) | | | |/ | PE +---+ IP/MPLS/SR +---+ PE +---+ CE | /| | ( Network ) | | | |\ / ---- ( ) ---- ---- \ --- ----/ ( ) \--- | | | | ----+---- | | | C +---+ CE | | | C | | | | | --+-- | | --- ---- | PE | --- --+-- | Site C --+-- | CE | --+-- | --+-- | C | ----- Figure 1: Reference Network for the Use of the L2SMWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 From the customer's perspective, however, all the CE devices are connected over a simulated LAN environment as shown in Figure 2. Broadcast and multicast packets are sent to all participants in the same bridge domain. CE---+----+-----+---CE | | | | | | | | | CE---+ CE +---CE Figure 2: Customer's View of the L2VPN4. Service Data Model Usage The L2SM provides an abstracted interface to request, configure, and manage the components of an L2VPN service. The model is used by a customer who purchases connectivity and other services from an SP to communicate with that SP. A typical usage for this model is as an input to an orchestration layer that is responsible for translating it into configuration commands for the network elements that deliver/enable the service. The network elements may be routers, but also servers (like Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)) that are necessary within the network. The configuration of network elements may be done using the Command Line Interface (CLI) or any other configuration (or "southbound") interface such as NETCONF [RFC6241] in combination with device- specific and protocol-specific YANG data models. This way of using the service model is illustrated in Figure 3 and is described in more detail in [RFC8309] and [RFC8199]. The split of the orchestration function between a "service orchestrator" and a "network orchestrator" is clarified in [RFC8309]. The usage of this service model is not limited to this example: it can be used by any component of the management system but not directly by network elements. The usage and structure of this model should be compared to the Layer 3 VPN service model defined in [RFC8299].Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 ---------------------------- | Customer Service Requester | ---------------------------- | | L2SM | | | ----------------------- | Service Orchestration | ----------------------- | | Service +-------------+ | Delivery +------>| Application | | Model | | BSS/OSS | | V +-------------+ ----------------------- | Network Orchestration | ----------------------- | | +----------------+ | | Config manager | | +----------------+ | Device | | Models | | -------------------------------------------- Network +++++++ + AAA + +++++++ ++++++++ Bearer ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ + CE A + ----------- + PE A + + PE B + ---- + CE B + ++++++++ Connection ++++++++ ++++++++ ++++++++ Site A Site B Figure 3: Reference Architecture for the Use of the L2SM The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) [MEF-6] has also developed an architecture for network management and operations, but the work of the MEF embraces all aspects of lifecycle service orchestration, including billing, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), order management, and lifecycle management. The IETF's work on service models is typically smaller and offers a simple, self-contained service YANG module. See [RFC8309] for more details.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185. Design of the Data Model The L2SM is structured in a way that allows the provider to list multiple circuits of various service types for the same customer. A circuit represents an end-to-end connection between two or more customer locations. The YANG module is divided into two main containers: "vpn-services" and "sites". The "vpn-svc" container under vpn-services defines global parameters for the VPN service for a specific customer. A site contains at least one network access (i.e., site network accesses providing access to the sites, as defined inSection 5.3.2), and there may be multiple network accesses in the case of multihoming. Site-to-network-access attachment is done through a bearer with a Layer 2 connection on top. The bearer refers to properties of the attachment that are below Layer 2, while the connection refers to Layer 2 protocol-oriented properties. The bearer may be allocated dynamically by the SP, and the customer may provide some constraints or parameters to drive the placement. Authorization of traffic exchanges is done through what we call a VPN policy or VPN topology that defines routing exchange rules between sites. End-to-end multi-segment connectivity can be realized by using a combination of per-site connectivity and per-segment connectivity at different segments. Figure 4 shows the overall structure of the YANG module: module: ietf-l2vpn-svc +--rw l2vpn-svc +--rw vpn-profiles | +--rw valid-provider-identifiers | +--rw cloud-identifier* string{cloud-access}? | +--rw qos-profile-identifier* string | +--rw bfd-profile-identifier* string | +--rw remote-carrier-identifier* string +--rw vpn-services | +--rw vpn-service* [vpn-id] | +--rw vpn-id svc-id | +--rw vpn-svc-type? identityref | +--rw customer-name? string | +--rw svc-topo? identityref | +--rw cloud-accesses {cloud-access}? | | +--rw cloud-access* [cloud-identifier] | | +--rw cloud-identifierWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/ | | | valid-provider-identifiers/cloud-identifier | | +--rw (list-flavor)? | | +--:(permit-any) | | | +--rw permit-any? empty | | +--:(deny-any-except) | | | +--rw permit-site* | | | : -> /l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id | | +--:(permit-any-except) | | +--rw deny-site* | | -> /l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id | +--rw frame-delivery {frame-delivery}? | | +--rw customer-tree-flavors | | | +--rw tree-flavor* identityref | | +--rw bum-frame-delivery | | | +--rw bum-frame-delivery* [frame-type] | | | +--rw frame-type identityref | | | +--rw delivery-mode? identityref | | +--rw multicast-gp-port-mapping identityref | +--rw extranet-vpns {extranet-vpn}? | | +--rw extranet-vpn* [vpn-id] | | +--rw vpn-id svc-id | | +--rw local-sites-role? identityref | +--rw ce-vlan-preservation boolean | +--rw ce-vlan-cos-preservation boolean | +--rw carrierscarrier? boolean {carrierscarrier}? +--rw sites +--rw site* [site-id] +--rw site-id string +--rw site-vpn-flavor? identityref +--rw devices | +--rw device* [device-id] | +--rw device-id string | +--rw location | | -> ../../../locations/location/location-id | +--rw management | +--rw transport? identityref | +--rw address? inet:ip-address +--rw management | +--rw type identityref +--rw locations | +--rw location* [location-id] | +--rw location-id string | +--rw address? string | +--rw postal-code? string | +--rw state? string | +--rw city? string | +--rw country-code? stringWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 +--rw site-diversity {site-diversity}? | +--rw groups | +--rw group* [group-id] | +--rw group-id string +--rw vpn-policies | +--rw vpn-policy* [vpn-policy-id] | +--rw vpn-policy-id string | +--rw entries* [id] | +--rw id string | +--rw filters | | +--rw filter* [type] | | +--rw type identityref | | +--rw lan-tag* uint32 {lan-tag}? | +--rw vpn* [vpn-id] | +--rw vpn-id | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/ | | vpn-service/vpn-id | +--rw site-role? identityref +--rw service | +--rw qos {qos}? | | +--rw qos-classification-policy | | | +--rw rule* [id] | | | +--rw id string | | | +--rw (match-type)? | | | | +--:(match-flow) | | | | | +--rw match-flow | | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp | | | | | +--rw dot1q? uint16 | | | | | +--rw pcp? uint8 | | | | | +--rw src-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw dst-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw color-type? identityref | | | | | +--rw target-sites* | | | | | | svc-id {target-sites}? | | | | | +--rw any? empty | | | | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id | | | | +--:(match-application) | | | | +--rw match-application? identityref | | | +--rw target-class-id? string | | +--rw qos-profile | | +--rw (qos-profile)? | | +--:(standard) | | | +--rw profile? | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/ | | | valid-provider-identifiers/ | | | qos-profile-identifier | | +--:(custom) | | +--rw classes {qos-custom}?Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | | +--rw class* [class-id] | | +--rw class-id string | | +--rw direction? identityref | | +--rw policing? identityref | | +--rw byte-offset? uint16 | | +--rw frame-delay | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency? empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw delay-bound? uint16 | | +--rw frame-jitter | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter? empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw delay-bound? uint32 | | +--rw frame-loss | | | +--rw rate? decimal64 | | +--rw bandwidth | | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent decimal64 | | +--rw end-to-end? empty | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}? | +--rw signaling-type? identityref +--rw broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast {bum}? | +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast-gp-address-mapping* [id] | | +--rw id uint16 | | +--rw vlan-id uint16 | | +--rw mac-gp-address yang:mac-address | | +--rw port-lag-number? uint32 | +--rw bum-overall-rate? uint32 | +--rw bum-rate-per-type* [type] | +--rw type identityref | +--rw rate? uint32 +--rw mac-loop-prevention {mac-loop-prevention}? | +--rw protection-type? identityref | +--rw frequency? uint32 | +--rw retry-timer? uint32 +--rw access-control-list | +--rw mac* [mac-address] | +--rw mac-address yang:mac-address +--ro actual-site-start? yang:date-and-time +--ro actual-site-stop? yang:date-and-time +--rw bundling-type? identityref +--rw default-ce-vlan-id uint32 +--rw site-network-accesses +--rw site-network-access* [network-access-id]Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 +--rw network-access-id string +--rw remote-carrier-name? string +--rw type? identityref +--rw (location-flavor) | +--:(location) | | +--rw location-reference? | | -> ../../../locations/location/ | | location-id | +--:(device) | +--rw device-reference? | -> ../../../devices/device/device-id +--rw access-diversity {site-diversity}? | +--rw groups | | +--rw group* [group-id] | | +--rw group-id string | +--rw constraints | +--rw constraint* [constraint-type] | +--rw constraint-type identityref | +--rw target | +--rw (target-flavor)? | +--:(id) | | +--rw group* [group-id] | | +--rw group-id string | +--:(all-accesses) | | +--rw all-other-accesses? empty | +--:(all-groups) | +--rw all-other-groups? empty +--rw bearer | +--rw requested-type {requested-type}? | | +--rw type? string | | +--rw strict? boolean | +--rw always-on? boolean {always-on}? | +--rw bearer-reference? string {bearer-reference}? +--rw connection | +--rw encapsulation-type? identityref | +--rw eth-inf-type? identityref | +--rw tagged-interface | | +--rw type? identityref | | +--rw dot1q-vlan-tagged {dot1q}? | | | +--rw tg-type? identityref | | | +--rw cvlan-id uint16 | | +--rw priority-tagged | | | +--rw tag-type? identityref | | +--rw qinq {qinq}? | | | +--rw tag-type? identityref | | | +--rw svlan-id uint16 | | | +--rw cvlan-id uint16 | | +--rw qinany {qinany}?Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | | | +--rw tag-type? identityref | | | +--rw svlan-id uint16 | | +--rw vxlan {vxlan}? | | +--rw vni-id uint32 | | +--rw peer-mode? identityref | | +--rw peer-list* [peer-ip] | | +--rw peer-ip inet:ip-address | +--rw untagged-interface | | +--rw speed? uint32 | | +--rw mode? neg-mode | | +--rw phy-mtu? uint32 | | +--rw lldp? boolean | | +--rw oam-802.3ah-link {oam-3ah}? | | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw uni-loop-prevention? boolean | +--rw lag-interfaces {lag-interface}? | | +--rw lag-interface* [index] | | +--rw index string | | +--rw lacp {lacp}? | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw mode? neg-mode | | +--rw speed? uint32 | | +--rw mini-link-num? uint32 | | +--rw system-priority? uint16 | | +--rw micro-bfd {micro-bfd}? | | | +--rw enabled? enumeration | | | +--rw interval? uint32 | | | +--rw hold-timer? uint32 | | +--rw bfd {bfd}? | | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | | +--rw (holdtime)? | | | +--:(profile) | | | | +--rw profile-name? | | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/ | | | | vpn-profiles/ | | | | valid-provider-identifiers/ | | | | bfd-profile-identifier | | | +--:(fixed) | | | +--rw fixed-value? uint32 | | +--rw member-links | | | +--rw member-link* [name] | | | +--rw name string | | | +--rw speed? uint32 | | | +--rw mode? neg-mode | | | +--rw link-mtu? uint32 | | | +--rw oam-802.3ah-link {oam-3ah}? | | | +--rw enabled? boolean | | +--rw flow-control? booleanWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | | +--rw lldp? boolean | +--rw cvlan-id-to-svc-map* [svc-id] | | +--rw svc-id | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/ | | | vpn-id | | +--rw cvlan-id* [vid] | | +--rw vid uint16 | +--rw l2cp-control {l2cp-control}? | | +--rw stp-rstp-mstp? control-mode | | +--rw pause? control-mode | | +--rw lacp-lamp? control-mode | | +--rw link-oam? control-mode | | +--rw esmc? control-mode | | +--rw l2cp-802.1x? control-mode | | +--rw e-lmi? control-mode | | +--rw lldp? boolean | | +--rw ptp-peer-delay? control-mode | | +--rw garp-mrp? control-mode | +--rw oam {oam} | +--rw md-name string | +--rw md-level uint16 | +--rw cfm-802.1-ag* [maid] | | +--rw maid string | | +--rw mep-id? uint32 | | +--rw mep-level? uint32 | | +--rw mep-up-down? enumeration | | +--rw remote-mep-id? uint32 | | +--rw cos-for-cfm-pdus? uint32 | | +--rw ccm-interval? uint32 | | +--rw ccm-holdtime? uint32 | | +--rw alarm-priority-defect? identityref | | +--rw ccm-p-bits-pri? ccm-priority-type | +--rw y-1731* [maid] | +--rw maid string | +--rw mep-id? uint32 | +--rw type? identityref | +--rw remote-mep-id? uint32 | +--rw message-period? uint32 | +--rw measurement-interval? uint32 | +--rw cos? uint32 | +--rw loss-measurement? boolean | +--rw synthetic-loss-measurement? boolean | +--rw delay-measurement | | +--rw enable-dm? boolean | | +--rw two-way? boolean | +--rw frame-size? uint32 | +--rw session-type? enumeration +--rw availabilityWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | +--rw access-priority? uint32 | +--rw (redundancy-mode)? | +--:(single-active) | | +--rw single-active? empty | +--:(all-active) | +--rw all-active? empty +--rw vpn-attachment | +--rw (attachment-flavor) | +--:(vpn-id) | | +--rw vpn-id? | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/ | | | vpn-service/vpn-id | | +--rw site-role? identityref | +--:(vpn-policy-id) | +--rw vpn-policy-id? | -> ../../../../vpn-policies/ | vpn-policy/vpn-policy-id +--rw service | +--rw svc-bandwidth {input-bw}? | | +--rw bandwidth* [direction type] | | +--rw direction identityref | | +--rw type identityref | | +--rw cos-id? uint8 | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-id | | +--rw cir uint64 | | +--rw cbs uint64 | | +--rw eir? uint64 | | +--rw ebs? uint64 | | +--rw pir? uint64 | | +--rw pbs? uint64 | +--rw svc-mtu uint16 | +--rw qos {qos}? | | +--rw qos-classification-policy | | | +--rw rule* [id] | | | +--rw id string | | | +--rw (match-type)? | | | | +--:(match-flow) | | | | | +--rw match-flow | | | | | +--rw dscp? inet:dscp | | | | | +--rw dot1q? uint16 | | | | | +--rw pcp? uint8 | | | | | +--rw src-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw dst-mac? yang:mac-address | | | | | +--rw color-type? identityref | | | | | +--rw target-sites* | | | | | | svc-id {target-sites}? | | | | | +--rw any? empty | | | | | +--rw vpn-id? svc-idWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | | | | +--:(match-application) | | | | +--rw match-application? identityref | | | +--rw target-class-id? string | | +--rw qos-profile | | +--rw (qos-profile)? | | +--:(standard) | | | +--rw profile? | | | -> /l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/ | | | valid-provider-identifiers/ | | | qos-profile-identifier | | +--:(custom) | | +--rw classes {qos-custom}? | | +--rw class* [class-id] | | +--rw class-id string | | +--rw direction? identityref | | +--rw policing? identityref | | +--rw byte-offset? uint16 | | +--rw frame-delay | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-latency? | | | | empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw delay-bound? uint16 | | +--rw frame-jitter | | | +--rw (flavor)? | | | +--:(lowest) | | | | +--rw use-lowest-jitter? | | | | empty | | | +--:(boundary) | | | +--rw delay-bound? uint32 | | +--rw frame-loss | | | +--rw rate? decimal64 | | +--rw bandwidth | | +--rw guaranteed-bw-percent | | | decimal64 | | +--rw end-to-end? empty | +--rw carrierscarrier {carrierscarrier}? | +--rw signaling-type? identityref +--rw broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast {bum}? | +--rw multicast-site-type? enumeration | +--rw multicast-gp-address-mapping* [id] | | +--rw id uint16 | | +--rw vlan-id uint16 | | +--rw mac-gp-address yang:mac-address | | +--rw port-lag-number? uint32 | +--rw bum-overall-rate? uint32 | +--rw bum-rate-per-type* [type]Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 | +--rw type identityref | +--rw rate? uint32 +--rw mac-loop-prevention {mac-loop-prevention}? | +--rw protection-type? identityref | +--rw frequency? uint32 | +--rw retry-timer? uint32 +--rw access-control-list | +--rw mac* [mac-address] | +--rw mac-address yang:mac-address +--rw mac-addr-limit +--rw limit-number? uint16 +--rw time-interval? uint32 +--rw action? identityref Figure 4: Overall Structure of the YANG Module5.1. Features and Augmentation The model defined in this document implements many features that allow implementations to be modular. As an example, the Layer 2 protocol parameters (Section 5.3.2.2) proposed to the customer may also be enabled through features. This model also defines some features for options that are more advanced, such as support for extranet VPNs (Section 5.2.4), site diversity (Section 5.3), and QoS (Section 5.10.2). In addition, as for any YANG data model, this service model can be augmented to implement new behaviors or specific features. For example, this model defines VXLAN [RFC7348] for Ethernet packet encapsulation; if VXLAN encapsulation does not fulfill all requirements for describing the service, new options can be added through augmentation.5.2. VPN Service Overview The vpn-service list item contains generic information about the VPN service. The vpn-id in the vpn-service list refers to an internal reference for this VPN service. This identifier is purely internal to the organization responsible for the VPN service. The vpn-service list is composed of the following characteristics: Customer information (customer-name): Used to identify the customer. VPN service type (vpn-svc-type): Used to indicate the VPN service type. The identifier is an identity allowing any encoding for the local administration of the VPN service. Note that another identity can be an extension of the base identity.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Cloud access (cloud-access): All sites in the L2VPN SHOULD be permitted to access the cloud by default. The "cloud-access" container provides parameters for authorization rules. A cloud identifier is used to reference the target service. This identifier is local to each administration. Service topology (svc-topo): Used to identify the type of VPN service topology that is required. Frame delivery service (frame-delivery): Defines the frame delivery support required for the L2VPN, e.g., multicast delivery, unicast delivery, or broadcast delivery. Extranet VPN (extranet-vpns): Indicates that a particular VPN needs access to resources located in another VPN.5.2.1. VPN Service Type The "vpn-svc-type" parameter defines the service type for provider- provisioned L2VPNs. The current version of the model supports six flavors: o Point-to-point VPWSs connecting two customer sites. o Point-to-point or point-to-multipoint VPWSs connecting a set of customer sites [RFC8214]. o Multipoint VPLSs connecting a set of customer sites. o Multipoint VPLSs connecting one or more root sites and a set of leaf sites but preventing inter-leaf-site communication. o EVPN services [RFC7432] connecting a set of customer sites. o EVPN VPWSs between two customer sites or a set of customer sites as specified in [RFC8214]. Other L2VPN service types could be included by augmentation. Note that an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service or an Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service is an Ethernet Line (E-Line) service [MEF-6]or a point-to-point Ethernet Virtual Circuit (EVC) service, while an Ethernet Private LAN (EP-LAN) service or an Ethernet Virtual Private LAN (EVP-LAN) service is an Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) service [MEF-6] or a multipoint-to-multipoint EVC service.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.2.2. VPN Service Topologies The types of VPN service topologies discussed below can be used for configuration if needed. The module described in this document currently supports any-to-any, Hub-and-Spoke (where Hubs can exchange traffic), and Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint (where Hubs cannot exchange traffic). New topologies could be added by augmentation. By default, the any-to-any VPN service topology is used.5.2.2.1. Route Target Allocation A Layer 2 PE-based VPN (such as a VPLS-based VPN or an EVPN that uses BGP as its signaling protocol) can be built using Route Targets (RTs) as described in [RFC4364] and [RFC7432]. The management system is expected to automatically allocate a set of RTs upon receiving a VPN service creation request. How the management system allocates RTs is out of scope for this document, but multiple ways could be envisaged, as described inSection 6.2.1.1 of [RFC8299].5.2.2.2. Any-to-Any +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | VPN1_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ VPN1_Site 2 | | | | VPN1_Site 3 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ VPN1_Site 4 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 5: Any-to-Any VPN Service Topology In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all VPN sites can communicate with each other without any restrictions. The management system that receives an any-to-any L2VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the MAC-VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the any-to-any case, a single RT is generally required, and every MAC-VRF imports and exports this RT.5.2.2.3. Hub-and-Spoke +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site 1 | | +------------------------------------+ | | | +------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site 2 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 6: Hub-and-Spoke VPN Service TopologyWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology, o all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites (i.e., Spoke sites cannot communicate with each other). o Hubs can communicate with each other. The management system that receives a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the MAC-VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the Hub-and-Spoke case, two RTs are generally required (one RT for Hub routes and one RT for Spoke routes). A Hub MAC-VRF that connects Hub sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes through the Spoke RT. It will also import the Hub RT to allow Hub-to-Hub communication. A Spoke MAC-VRF that connects Spoke sites will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes through the Hub RT.5.2.2.4. Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Hub_Site 1 ------ PE1 PE2 ------ Spoke_Site 1 | +--------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | | +--------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ | Hub_Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Spoke_Site 2 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 7: Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN Service Topology In the Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN service topology, o all Spoke sites can communicate only with Hub sites (i.e., Spoke sites cannot communicate with each other). o Hubs cannot communicate with each other. The management system that receives a Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint L2VPN service request through this model is expected to assign and then configure the VRF and RTs on the appropriate PEs. In the Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint case, at least two RTs are required for Hubs and Spokes, respectively (at least one RT for Hub routes and at least one RT for Spoke routes). A Hub VRF that connects Hub sites will export Hub routes with the Hub RT and will import Spoke routes through the Spoke RT. A Spoke VRF that connects Spoke sites will export Spoke routes with the Spoke RT and will import Hub routes through the Hub RT.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The management system MUST take into account constraints on Hub-and-Spoke connections, as in the previous case. Hub-and-Spoke Disjoint can also be seen as multiple Hub-and-Spoke VPNs (one per Hub) that share a common set of Spoke sites.5.2.3. Cloud Access This model provides cloud access configuration through the cloud-access container. The usage of cloud-access is targeted for public cloud access and Internet access. The cloud-access container provides parameters for authorization rules. Note that this model considers that public cloud and public Internet access share some commonality; therefore, it does not distinguish Internet access from cloud access. If needed, a different label for Internet access could be added by augmentation. Private cloud access may be addressed through the site container as described inSection 5.3, with usage consistent with sites of type "NNI". A cloud identifier is used to reference the target service. This identifier is local to each administration. By default, all sites in the L2VPN SHOULD be permitted to access the cloud or the Internet. If restrictions are required, a user MAY configure some limitations for some sites or nodes by using policies, i.e., the "permit-site" or "deny-site" leaf-list. The permit-site leaf-list defines the list of sites authorized for cloud access. The deny-site leaf-list defines the list of sites denied for cloud access. The model supports both "deny-any-except" and "permit-any-except" authorization. How the restrictions will be configured on network elements is out of scope for this document.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 L2VPN ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ + Site 3 + --- + Cloud 1 + + Site 1 + ++++++++++++ + + + Site 2 + --- ++++++++++++ + + + Internet + + Site 4 + ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | +++++++++++ + Cloud 2 + +++++++++++ Figure 8: Example of Cloud Access Configuration As shown in Figure 8, we configure the global VPN to access the Internet by creating a cloud-access container pointing to the cloud identifier for the Internet service. (This is illustrated in the XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] below.) No authorized sites will be configured, as all sites are required to be able to access the Internet. <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id> <cloud-accesses> <cloud-access> <cloud-identifier>INTERNET</cloud-identifier> </cloud-access> </cloud-accesses> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> </l2vpn-svc> If Site 1 and Site 2 require access to Cloud 1, a new cloud-access container pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 1 will be created. The permit-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to Site 1 and Site 2.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id> <cloud-accesses> <cloud-access> <cloud-identifier>Cloud1</cloud-identifier> <permit-site>site1</permit-site> <permit-site>site2</permit-site> </cloud-access> </cloud-accesses> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> </l2vpn-svc> If all sites except Site 1 require access to Cloud 2, a new cloud-access container pointing to the cloud identifier of Cloud 2 will be created. The deny-site leaf-list will be filled with a reference to Site 1. <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>123456487</vpn-id> <cloud-accesses> <cloud-access> <cloud-identifier>Cloud2</cloud-identifier> <deny-site>site1</deny-site> </cloud-access> </cloud-accesses> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> </l2vpn-svc>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.2.4. Extranet VPNs There are some cases where a particular VPN needs access to resources (servers, hosts, etc.) that are external. Those resources may be located in another VPN. +-----------+ +-----------+ / \ / \ Site A -- | VPN A | --- | VPN B | --- Site B \ / \ / (Shared +-----------+ +-----------+ resources) Figure 9: Example of Shared VPN Resources As illustrated in Figure 9, VPN B has some resources on Site B that need to be made available to some customers/partners. Specifically, VPN A must be able to access those VPN B resources. Such a VPN connection scenario can be achieved via a VPN policy as defined inSection 5.5.2.2. But there are some simple cases where a particular VPN (VPN A) needs access to all resources in another VPN (VPN B). The model provides an easy way to set up this connection using the "extranet-vpns" container. The extranet-vpns container defines a list of VPNs a particular VPN wants to access. The extranet-vpns container is used on customer VPNs accessing extranet resources in another VPN. In Figure 9, in order to provide VPN A with access to VPN B, the extranet-vpns container needs to be configured under VPN A with an entry corresponding to VPN B. There is no service configuration requirement on VPN B. Readers should note that even if there is no configuration requirement on VPN B, if VPN A lists VPN B as an extranet, all sites in VPN B will gain access to all sites in VPN A. The "site-role" leaf defines the role of the local VPN sites in the target extranet VPN service topology. Site roles are defined inSection 5.4. In the example below, VPN A accesses VPN B resources through an extranet connection. A Spoke role is required for VPN A sites, as sites from VPN A must not be able to communicate with each other through the extranet VPN connection.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id> <svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id> <svc-topo>any-to-any</svc-topo> <extranet-vpns> <extranet-vpn> <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id> <local-sites-role>spoke-role</local-sites-role> </extranet-vpn> </extranet-vpns> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> </l2vpn-svc> This model does not define how the extranet configuration will be achieved within the network. Any VPN interconnection scenario that is more complex (e.g., only certain parts of sites on VPN A accessing only certain parts of sites on VPN B) needs to be achieved using a VPN attachment as defined inSection 5.5.2 and, in particular, a VPN policy as defined inSection 5.5.2.2.5.2.5. Frame Delivery Service If a BUM (Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, or Multicast) frame delivery service is supported for an L2VPN, some global frame delivery parameters are required as input for the service request. When a CE sends BUM packets, replication occurs at the ingress PE and three frame types need to be supported. Users of this model will need to provide the flavors of trees that will be used by customers within the L2VPN (customer-tree-flavors). The model defined in this document supports bidirectional, shared, and source-based trees (and can be augmented to contain other tree types). Multiple flavors of trees can be supported simultaneously.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Operator network ______________ / \ | | | | Recv -- Site 2 ------- PE2 | | PE1 --- Site 1 --- Source 1 | | \ | | -- Source 2 | | | | Recv -- Site 3 ------- PE3 | | | | | Recv -- Site 4 ------- PE4 | / | | Recv -- Site 5 ------- | | | | | | \______________/ Figure 10: BUM Frame Delivery Service Example Multicast-group-to-port mappings can be created using the "rp-group-mappings" leaf. Two group-to-port mapping methods are supported: o Static configuration of multicast Ethernet addresses and ports/interfaces. o A multicast control protocol based on Layer 2 technology that signals mappings of multicast addresses to ports/interfaces, such as the Generic Attribute Registration Protocol (GARP) / GARP Multicast Registration Protocol (GARP/GMRP) [IEEE-802-1D].Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.3. Site Overview A site represents a connection of a customer office to one or more VPN services. Each site is associated with one or more locations. +-------------+ / \ +-----| VPN1 | +------------------+ | \ / | | | +-------------+ | New York Office |------ (site) -----+ | | | +-------------+ +------------------+ | / \ +-----| VPN2 | \ / +-------------+ Figure 11: Example: Customer Office and Two VPN Services The provider uses the site container to store information regarding detailed implementation arrangements made with either the customer or peer operators at each interconnect location. We restrict the L2SM to exterior interfaces (i.e., UNIs and NNIs) only, so all internal interfaces and the underlying topology are outside the scope of the L2SM. Typically, the following characteristics of a site interface handoff need to be documented as part of the service design: Unique identifier (site-id): An arbitrary string to uniquely identify the site within the overall network infrastructure. The format of "site-id" is determined by the local administrator of the VPN service. Device (device): The customer can request one or more customer premises equipment entities from the SP for a particular site. Management (management): Defines the model of management for the site -- for example, type, management-transport, address. This parameter determines the boundary between the SP and the customer, i.e., who has ownership of the CE device. Location (location): The site location information. Allows easy retrieval of data about the nearest available resources. Site diversity (site-diversity): Presents some parameters to support site diversity.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Site network accesses (site-network-accesses): Defines the list of ports to the site and their properties -- in particular, bearer, connection, and service parameters. A site-network-access represents an Ethernet logical connection to a site. A site may have multiple site-network-accesses. +------------------+ Site | |------------------------------------- | |****** (site-network-access#1) ****** | New York Office | | |****** (site-network-access#2) ****** | |------------------------------------- +------------------+ Figure 12: Two Site-Network-Accesses for a Site Multiple site-network-accesses are used, for instance, in the case of multihoming. Some other meshing cases may also include multiple site-network-accesses. The site configuration is viewed as a global entity; we assume that it is mostly the management system's role to split the parameters between the different elements within the network. For example, in the case of the site-network-access configuration, the management system needs to split the parameters between the PE configuration and the CE configuration. The site may support single-homed access or multihoming. In the case of multihoming, the site can support multiple site-network-accesses. Under each site-network-access, "vpn-attachment" is defined; vpn-attachment will describe the association between a given site-network-access and a given site, as well as the VPN to which that site will connect.5.3.1. Devices and Locations The information in the "location" sub-container under a site container and in the "devices" container allows easy retrieval of data about the nearest available facilities and can be used for access topology planning. It may also be used by other network orchestration components to choose the targeted upstream PE and downstream CE. Location is expressed in terms of postal information. More detailed information or other location information can be added by augmentation. A site may be composed of multiple locations. All the locations will need to be configured as part of the "locations" container and list.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 A typical example of a multi-location site is a headquarters office in a city, where the office is composed of multiple buildings. Those buildings may be located in different parts of the city and may be linked by intra-city fibers (a customer metropolitan area network). This model does not represent connectivity between multiple locations of a site, because that connectivity is controlled by the customer. In such a case, when connecting to a VPN service, the customer may ask for multihoming based on its distributed locations. New York Site +------------------+ Site | +--------------+ |------------------------------------- | | Manhattan | |****** (site-network-access#1) ****** | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | | Brooklyn | |****** (site-network-access#2) ****** | +--------------+ |------------------------------------- +------------------+ Figure 13: Two Site-Network-Accesses, Two Sites A customer may also request the use of some premises equipment entities (CEs) from the SP via the devices container. Requesting a CE implies a provider-managed or co-managed model. A particular device must be requested for a particular already-configured location. This would help the SP send the device to the appropriate postal address. In a multi-location site, a customer may, for example, request a CE for each location on the site where multihoming must be implemented. In Figure 13, one device may be requested for the Manhattan location and one other for the Brooklyn location. By using devices and locations, the user can influence the multihoming scenario they want to implement: single CE, dual CE, etc.5.3.2. Site Network Accesses The L2SM includes a set of essential physical interface properties and Ethernet-layer characteristics in the "site-network-accesses" container. Some of these are critical implementation arrangements that require consent from both the customer and the provider. As mentioned earlier, a site may be multihomed. Each logical network access for a site is defined in the site-network-accesses container. The site-network-access parameter defines how the site is connected on the network and is split into three main classes of parameters: o bearer: defines requirements of the attachment (below Layer 2).Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 o connection: defines Layer 2 protocol parameters of the attachment. o availability: defines the site's availability policy. The availability parameters are defined inSection 5.8. The site-network-access has a specific type (site-network-access type). This document defines two types: o point-to-point: describes a point-to-point connection between the SP and the customer. o multipoint: describes a multipoint connection between the SP and the customer. This site-network-access type may have an impact on the parameters offered to the customer, e.g., an SP might not offer MAC loop protection for multipoint accesses. It is up to the provider to decide what parameters are supported for point-to-point and/or multipoint accesses. Multipoint accesses are out of scope for this document; some containers defined in the model may require extensions in order to work properly for multipoint accesses.5.3.2.1. Bearer The "bearer" container defines the requirements for the site attachment (below Layer 2) to the provider network. The bearer parameters will help to determine the access media to be used.5.3.2.2. Connection The "connection" container defines the Layer 2 protocol parameters of the attachment (e.g., vlan-id or circuit-id) and provides connectivity between customer Ethernet switches. Depending on the management mode, it refers to PE-CE-LAN segment addressing or to CE-to-customer-LAN segment addressing. In any case, it describes the responsibility boundary between the provider and the customer. For a customer-managed site, it refers to the PE-CE-LAN segment connection. For a provider-managed site, it refers to the CE-to-customer-LAN segment connection. The "encapsulation-type" parameter allows the user to select between Ethernet encapsulation (port-based) or Ethernet VLAN encapsulation (VLAN-based). All of the allowed Ethernet interface types of service frames can be listed under "ether-inf-type", e.g., untagged interface, tagged interface, LAG interface.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Corresponding to "ether-inf-type", the connection container also presents three sets of link attributes: untagged interface, tagged interface, and optional LAG interface attributes. These parameters are essential for the connection to be properly established between the CE devices and the PE devices. The connection container also defines a Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) attribute that allows control-plane protocol interaction between the CE devices and the PE device.5.3.2.2.1. Untagged Interface For each untagged interface (untagged-interface), there are basic configuration parameters like interface index and speed, interface MTU, auto-negotiation and flow-control settings, etc. In addition, and based on mutual agreement, the customer and provider may decide to enable advanced features, such as LLDP, IEEE 802.3ah [IEEE-802-3ah], or MAC loop detection/prevention at a UNI. If loop avoidance is required, the attribute "uni-loop-prevention" must be set to "true".5.3.2.2.2. Tagged Interface If the tagged service is enabled on a logical unit on the connection at the interface, "encapsulation-type" should be specified as the Ethernet VLAN encapsulation (if VLAN-based) or VXLAN encapsulation, and "eth-inf-type" should be set to indicate a tagged interface. In addition, "tagged-interface-type" should be specified in the "tagged-interface" container to determine how tagging needs to be done. The current model defines five ways to perform VLAN tagging: o priority-tagged: SPs encapsulate and tag packets between the CE and the PE with the frame priority level. o dot1q-vlan-tagged: SPs encapsulate packets between the CE and the PE with one or a set of customer VLAN (CVLAN) IDs. o qinq: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with multiple CVLAN IDs and a single VLAN tag with a single SP VLAN (SVLAN). o qinany: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with unknown CVLANs and a single VLAN tag with a single SVLAN. o vxlan: SPs encapsulate packets that enter their networks with a VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) and a peer list.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The overall S-tag for the Ethernet circuit and (if applicable) C-tag-to-SVC mapping (where "SVC" stands for "Switched Virtual Circuit") have been placed in the "service" container. For the qinq and qinany options, the S-tag under "qinq" and "qinany" should match the S-tag in the service container in most cases; however, VLAN translation is required for the S-tag in certain deployments at the external-facing interface or upstream PEs to "normalize" the outer VLAN tag to the service S-tag into the network and translate back to the site's S-tag in the opposite direction. One example of this is with a Layer 2 aggregation switch along the path: the S-tag for the SVC has been previously assigned to another service and thus cannot be used by this AC.5.3.2.2.3. LAG Interface Sometimes, the customer may require multiple physical links bundled together to form a single, logical, point-to-point LAG connection to the SP. Typically, the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) is used to dynamically manage adding or deleting member links of the aggregate group. In general, a LAG allows for increased service bandwidth beyond the speed of a single physical link while providing graceful degradation as failure occurs, thus increasing availability. In the L2SM, there is a set of attributes under "lag-interface" related to link aggregation functionality. The customer and provider first need to decide on whether LACP PDUs will be exchanged between the edge devices by specifying the "LACP-state" as "on" or "off". If LACP is to be enabled, then both parties need to further specify (1) whether LACP will be running in active or passive mode and (2) the time interval and priority level of the LACP PDU. The customer and provider can also determine the minimum aggregate bandwidth for a LAG to be considered as a valid path by specifying the optional "mini-link-num" attribute. To enable fast detection of faulty links, micro-BFD [RFC7130] ("BFD" stands for "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection") runs independent UDP sessions to monitor the status of each member link. The customer and provider should agree on the BFD hello interval and hold time. Each member link will be listed under the LAG interface with basic physical link properties. Certain attributes, such as flow control, encapsulation type, allowed ingress Ethertype, and LLDP settings, are at the LAG level.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.3.2.2.4. CVLAN-ID-to-SVC Mapping When more than one service is multiplexed onto the same interface, ingress service frames are conditionally transmitted through one of the L2VPN services based upon a pre-arranged customer-VLAN-to-SVC mapping. Multiple CVLANs can be bundled across the same SVC. The bundling type will determine how a group of CVLANs is bundled into one VPN service (i.e., VLAN-bundling). When applicable, "cvlan-id-to-svc-map" contains the list of CVLANs that are mapped to the same service. In most cases, this will be the VLAN access-list for the inner 802.1Q tag [IEEE-802-1Q] (the C-tag). A VPN service can be set to preserve the CE-VLAN ID and CE-VLAN CoS from the source site to the destination site. This is required when the customer wants to use the VLAN header information between its two sites. CE-VLAN ID preservation and CE-VLAN CoS preservation are applied on each site-network-access within sites. "Preservation" means that the value of the CE-VLAN ID and/or CE-VLAN CoS at the source site must be equal to the value at a destination site belonging to the same L2VPN service. If all-to-one bundling is enabled (i.e., the bundling type is set to "all-to-one bundling"), then preservation applies to all ingress service frames. If all-to-one bundling is disabled, then preservation applies to tagged ingress service frames having the CE-VLAN ID.5.3.2.2.5. L2CP Control Support The customer and the SP should arrange in advance whether or not to allow control-plane protocol interaction between the CE devices and the PE device. To provide seamless operation with multicast data transport, the transparent operation of Ethernet control protocols (e.g., the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) [IEEE-802-1D]) can be employed by customers. To support efficient dynamic transport, Ethernet multicast control frames (e.g., GARP/GMRP [IEEE-802-1D]) can be used between the CE and the PE. However, solutions MUST NOT assume that all CEs are always running such protocols (typically in the case where a CE is a router and is not aware of Layer 2 details). The destination MAC addresses of these L2CP PDUs fall within two reserved blocks specified by the IEEE 802.1 Working Group. Packets with destination MAC addresses in these multicast ranges have special forwarding rules.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 o Bridge block of protocols: 01-80-C2-00-00-00 through 01-80-C2-00-00-0F o MRP block of protocols: 01-80-C2-00-00-20 through 01-80-C2-00-00-2F Layer 2 protocol tunneling allows SPs to pass subscriber Layer 2 control PDUs across the network without being interpreted and processed by intermediate network devices. These L2CP PDUs are transparently encapsulated across the MPLS-enabled core network in QinQ fashion. The "L2CP-control" container contains the list of commonly used L2CP protocols and parameters. The SP can specify discard-mode, peer-mode, or tunnel-mode actions for each individual protocol.5.3.2.2.6. Ethernet Service OAM The advent of Ethernet as a wide-area network technology brings the additional requirements of end-to-end service monitoring and fault management in the SP network, particularly in the area of service availability and Mean Time To Repair (MTTR). Ethernet Service OAM in the L2SM refers to the combined protocol suites of IEEE 802.1ag [IEEE-802-1ag] and ITU-T Y.1731 [ITU-T-Y-1731]. Generally speaking, Ethernet Service OAM enables SPs to perform service continuity checks, fault isolation, and packet delay/jitter measurement at per-customer and per-site-network-access granularity. The information collected from Ethernet Service OAM data sets is complementary to other higher-layer IP/MPLS OSS tools to ensure that the required SLAs can be met. The 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) functional model is structured with hierarchical Maintenance Domains (MDs), each assigned with a unique maintenance level. Higher-level MDs can be nested over lower-level MDs. However, the MDs cannot intersect. The scope of each MD can be solely within a customer network or solely within the SP network. An MD can interact between CEs and PEs (customer-to- provider) or between PEs (provider-to-provider), or it can tunnel over another SP network. Depending on the use-case scenario, one or more Maintenance Entity Group End Points (MEPs) can be placed on the external-facing interface, sending CFM PDUs towards the core network ("Up MEP") or downstream link ("Down MEP"). The "cfm-802.1-ag" sub-container under "site-network-access" presents the CFM Maintenance Association (MA), i.e., Down MEP for the UNI MA.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 For each MA, the user can define the Maintenance Association Identifier (MAID), MEP level, MEP direction, Remote MEP ID, CoS level of the CFM PDUs, Continuity Check Message (CCM) interval and hold time, alarm-priority defect (i.e., the lowest-priority defect that is allowed to generate a fault alarm), CCM priority type, etc. ITU-T Y.1731 Performance Monitoring (PM) provides essential network telemetry information that includes the measurement of Ethernet service frame delay, frame delay variation, frame loss, and frame throughput. The delay/jitter measurement can be either one-way or two-way. Typically, a Y.1731 PM probe sends a small amount of synthetic frames along with service frames to measure the SLA parameters. The "y-1731" sub-container under "site-network-access" contains a set of parameters to define the PM probe information, including MAID, local and Remote MEP ID, PM PDU type, message period and measurement interval, CoS level of the PM PDUs, loss measurement by synthetic or service frame options, one-way or two-way delay measurement, PM frame size, and session type.5.4. Site Roles A VPN has a particular service topology, as described inSection 5.2.2. As a consequence, each site belonging to a VPN is assigned a particular role in this topology. The site-role leaf defines the role of the site in a particular VPN topology. In the any-to-any VPN service topology, all sites MUST have the same role, which will be "any-to-any-role". In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub-and-Spoke- Disjoint VPN service topology, sites MUST have a Hub role or a Spoke role.5.5. Site Belonging to Multiple VPNs5.5.1. Site VPN Flavors A site may be part of one or more VPNs. The "site-vpn-flavor" defines the way that the VPN multiplexing is done. There are four possible types of external-facing connections associated with an EVPN service and a site. Therefore, the model supports four flavors: o site-vpn-flavor-single: The site belongs to only one VPN. o site-vpn-flavor-multi: The site belongs to multiple VPNs, and all the logical accesses of the sites belong to the same set of VPNs.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 o site-vpn-flavor-nni: The site represents an NNI where two administrative domains belonging to the same or different providers interconnect. o site-vpn-flavor-e2e: The site represents an end-to-end multi-segment connection.5.5.1.1. Single VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-single Figure 14 depicts a single VPN attachment. The site connects to only one VPN. +--------+ +------------------+ Site / \ | |-----------------------------| | | |***(site-network-access#1)***| VPN1 | | New York Office | | | | |***(site-network-access#2)***| | | |-----------------------------| | +------------------+ \ / +--------+ Figure 14: Single VPN Attachment5.5.1.2. Multi-VPN Attachment: site-vpn-flavor-multi Figure 15 shows a site connected to multiple VPNs. +---------+ +---/----+ \ +------------------+ Site / | \ | | |--------------------------------- | |VPN B| | |***(site-network-access#1)******* | | | | New York Office | | | | | | |***(site-network-access#2)******* \ | / | |-----------------------------| VPN A+-----|---+ +------------------+ \ / +--------+ Figure 15: Multi-VPN Attachment In Figure 15, the New York office is multihomed. Both logical accesses are using the same VPN attachment rules, and both are connected to VPN A and to VPN B. Reaching VPN A or VPN B from the New York office will be done via MAC destination-based forwarding. Having the same destination reachable from the two VPNs may cause routing problems. The customerWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 administration's role in this case would be to ensure the appropriate mapping of its MAC addresses in each VPN. See Sections5.5.2 and 5.10.2 for more details. See alsoSection 5.10.3 for details regarding support for BUM.5.5.1.3. NNI: site-vpn-flavor-nni A Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) scenario may be modeled using the sites container. It is helpful for the SP to indicate that the requested VPN connection is not a regular site but rather is an NNI, as specific default device configuration parameters may be applied in the case of NNIs (e.g., Access Control Lists (ACLs), routing policies). SP A SP B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + (MAC-VRF2)-(VPN2)-(MAC-VRF2)+ | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + (MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + (MAC-VRF2)-(VPN2)-(MAC-VRF2)+ | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- Figure 16: Option A NNI ScenarioWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Figure 16 illustrates an option A NNI scenario that can be modeled using the sites container. In order to connect its customer VPNs (VPN1 and VPN2) in SP B, SP A may request the creation of some site-network-accesses to SP B. The site-vpn-flavor-nni type will be used to inform SP B that this is an NNI and not a regular customer site.5.5.1.4. E2E: site-vpn-flavor-e2e An end-to-end (E2E) multi-segment VPN connection to be constructed out of several connectivity segments may be modeled. It is helpful for the SP to indicate that the requested VPN connection is not a regular site but rather is an end-to-end VPN connection, as specific default device configuration parameters may be applied in the case of site-vpn-flavor-e2e (e.g., QoS configuration). In order to establish a connection between Site 1 in SP A and Site 2 in SP B spanning multiple domains, SP A may request the creation of end-to-end connectivity to SP B. The site-vpn-flavor-e2e type will be used to indicate that this is an end-to-end connectivity setup and not a regular customer site.5.5.2. Attaching a Site to a VPN Due to the multiple site-vpn flavors, the attachment of a site to an L2VPN is done at the site-network-access (logical access) level through the "vpn-attachment" container. The vpn-attachment container is mandatory. The model provides two ways to attach a site to a VPN: o By referencing the target VPN directly. o By referencing a VPN policy for attachments that are more complex. These options allow the user to choose the flavor that provides the best fit.5.5.2.1. Referencing a VPN Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular logical access to a VPN. This is the best way in the case of a single VPN attachment. When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role setting must be added to express the role of the site in the target VPN service topology. <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> <sites> <site> <site-id>SITE1</site-id> <locations> <location> <location-id>L1</location-id> </location> </locations> <management> <type>customer-managed</type> </management> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> <svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA2</network-access-id> <service> <svc-bandwidth>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> <svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> </site> </sites> </l2vpn-svc> The example above describes a multi-VPN case where a site (SITE 1) has two logical accesses (LA1 and LA2), attached to both VPNA and VPNB.5.5.2.2. VPN Policy The "vpn-policy" list helps express a multi-VPN scenario where a logical access belongs to multiple VPNs. As a site can belong to multiple VPNs, the vpn-policy list may be composed of multiple entries. A filter can be applied to specify that only some LANs at the site should be part of a particular VPN. A site can be composed of multiple LAN segments, and each LAN segment can be connected to a different VPN. Each time a site (or LAN) is attached to a VPN, the user must precisely describe its role (site-role) within the target VPN service topology.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Site 1 ------ PE7 | +-------------------------+ [VPN2] | | | +-------------------------+ | | Site 2 ------ PE3 PE4 ------ Site 3 | +-----------------------------------+ | | | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Site 4 ------ PE5 | PE6 ------ Site 5 | | | | | | [VPN3] | | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | +----------------------------+ Figure 17: VPN Policy Example In Figure 17, Site 5 is part of two VPNs: VPN3 and VPN2. It will play a Hub role in VPN2 and an any-to-any role in VPN3. We can express such a multi-VPN scenario as follows: <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> <sites> <site> <locations> <location> <location-id>L1</location-id> </location> </locations> <management> <type>customer-managed</type> </management> <site-id>Site5</site-id> <vpn-policies>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <vpn-policy> <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id> <entries> <id>ENTRY1</id> <vpn> <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id> <site-role>hub-role</site-role> </vpn> </entries> <entries> <id>ENTRY2</id> <vpn> <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id> <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role> </vpn> </entries> </vpn-policy> </vpn-policies> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id> <site> <site-id>SITE1</site-id> <locations> <location> <location-id>L1</location-id> </location> </locations> <management> <type>customer-managed</type> </management> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA2</network-access-id> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> <svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>VPNB</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> </site> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> </site> </sites> </l2vpn-svc>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Now, if a more granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be used. For example, if LAN1 from Site 5 must be attached to VPN2 as a Hub and LAN2 must be attached to VPN3, the following configuration can be used: <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> <sites> <site> <locations> <location> <location-id>L1</location-id> </location> </locations> <management> <type>customer-managed</type> </management> <site-id>Site5</site-id> <vpn-policies> <vpn-policy> <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id> <entries> <id>ENTRY1</id> <filters> <filter> <type>lan</type> <lan-tag>LAN1</lan-tag> </filter> </filters> <vpn> <vpn-id>VPN2</vpn-id> <site-role>hub-role</site-role> </vpn> </entries> <entries> <id>ENTRY2</id>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <filters> <filter> <type>lan</type> <lan-tag>LAN2</lan-tag> </filter> </filters> <vpn> <vpn-id>VPN3</vpn-id> <site-role>any-to-any-role</site-role> </vpn> </entries> </vpn-policy> </vpn-policies> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>LA1</network-access-id> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> <svc-mtu>1514</svc-mtu> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-policy-id>POLICY1</vpn-policy-id> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> </site> </sites> </l2vpn-svc>5.6. Deciding Where to Connect the Site The management system will have to determine where to connect each site-network-access of a particular site to the provider network (e.g., PE or aggregation switch).Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 This model defines parameters and constraints that can influence the meshing of the site-network-access. The management system MUST honor all customer constraints, or, if a constraint is too strict and cannot be fulfilled, the management system MUST NOT provision the site and MUST provide the user with information regarding any constraints that could not be fulfilled. How this information is provided is out of scope for this document. Whether or not to relax the constraint would then be left up to the user. Parameters such as site location (seeSection 5.6.2) and access type (seeSection 5.6.3) affect the service placement that the management system applies. In addition to parameters and constraints, the management system's decision MAY be based on any other internal constraints that are left up to the SP, e.g., least load, distance.5.6.1. Constraint: Device In the case of provider management or co-management, one or more devices have been ordered by the customer to a particular location that has already been configured. The customer may force a particular site-network-access to be connected on a particular device that it ordered. New York Site +------------------+ Site | +--------------+ |------------------------------------- | | Manhattan | | | | CE1********* (site-network-access#1) ****** | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | | Brooklyn | | | | CE2********* (site-network-access#2) ****** | +--------------+ | | |------------------------------------- +------------------+ Figure 18: Example of a Constraint Applied to a Device In Figure 18, site-network-access#1 is associated with CE1 in the service request. The SP must ensure the provisioning of this connection.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.6.2. Constraint/Parameter: Site Location The location information provided in this model MAY be used by a management system to determine the target PE to mesh the site (SP side). A particular location must be associated with each site network access when configuring it. The SP MUST honor the termination of the access on the location associated with the site network access (customer side). The "country-code" in the site location should be expressed as an ISO 3166 code and is similar to the "country" label defined in [RFC4119]. The site-network-access location is determined by the "location-flavor". In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed site, the user is expected to configure a "device-reference" (device case) that will bind the site-network-access to a particular device that the customer ordered. As each device is already associated with a particular location, in such a case the location information is retrieved from the device location. In the case of a customer-managed site, the user is expected to configure a "location-reference" (location case); this provides a reference to an existing configured location and will help with placement. POP#1 (New York) +---------+ | PE1 | Site 1 ---... | PE2 | (Atlantic City) | PE3 | +---------+ POP#2 (Washington) +---------+ | PE4 | | PE5 | | PE6 | +---------+ POP#3 (Philadelphia) +---------+ | PE7 | Site 2 CE#1---... | PE8 | (Reston) | PE9 | +---------+ Figure 19: Location Information for Sites In Figure 19, Site 1 is a customer-managed site with a location "L1", while Site 2 is a provider-managed site for which a CE (CE#1) was ordered. Site 2 is configured with "L2" as its location. WhenWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 configuring a site-network-access for Site 1, the user will need to reference location L1 so that the management system will know that the access will need to terminate on this location. Then, for distance reasons, this management system may mesh Site 1 on a PE in the Philadelphia POP. It may also take into account resources available on PEs to determine the exact target PE (e.g., least loaded). For Site 2, the user is expected to configure the site-network-access with a device-reference to CE#1 so that the management system will know that the access must terminate on the location of CE#1 and must be connected to CE#1. For placement of the SP side of the access connection, in the case of the nearest PE used, it may mesh Site 2 on the Washington POP.5.6.3. Constraint/Parameter: Access Type The management system needs to elect the access media to connect the site to the customer (for example, xDSL, leased line, Ethernet backhaul). The customer may provide some parameters/constraints that will provide hints to the management system. The bearer container information SHOULD be the first piece of information considered when making this decision: o The "requested-type" parameter provides information about the media type that the customer would like to use. If the "strict" leaf is equal to "true", this MUST be considered a strict constraint so that the management system cannot connect the site with another media type. If the "strict" leaf is equal to "false" (default) and if the requested media type cannot be fulfilled, the management system can select another media type. The supported media types SHOULD be communicated by the SP to the customer via a mechanism that is out of scope for this document. o The "always-on" leaf defines a strict constraint: if set to "true", the management system MUST elect a media type that is "always-on" (e.g., this means no dial-in access type). o The "bearer-reference" parameter is used in cases where the customer has already ordered a network connection to the SP apart from the L2VPN site and wants to reuse this connection. The string used is an internal reference from the SP and describes the already-available connection. This is also a strict requirement that cannot be relaxed. How the reference is given to the customer is out of scope for this document, but as an example, when the customer ordered the bearer (through a process that is out of scope for this model), the SP may have provided the bearer reference that can be used for provisioning services on top.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Any other internal parameters from the SP can also be used. The management system MAY use other parameters, such as the requested "input svc-bandwidth" and "output svc-bandwidth", to help decide which access type to use.5.6.4. Constraint: Access Diversity Each site-network-access may have one or more constraints that would drive the placement of the access. By default, the model assumes that there are no constraints, but allocation of a unique bearer per site-network-access is expected. In order to help with the different placement scenarios, a site-network-access may be tagged using one or multiple group identifiers. The group identifier is a string, so it can accommodate both explicit naming of a group of sites (e.g., "multihomed-set1") and the use of a numbered identifier (e.g., 12345678). The meaning of each group-id is local to each customer administrator, and the management system MUST ensure that different customers can use the same group-ids. One or more group-ids can also be defined at the site level; as a consequence, all site-network-accesses under the site MUST inherit the group-ids of the site to which they belong. When, in addition to the site group-ids some group-ids are defined at the site-network-access level, the management system MUST consider the union of all groups (site level and site-network-access level) for this particular site-network-access. For an already-configured site-network-access, each constraint MUST be expressed against a targeted set of site-network-accesses. This site-network-access (i.e., the already-configured site-network-access) MUST never be taken into account in the targeted set of site-network-accesses -- for example, "My site-network-access S must not be connected on the same POP as the site-network-accesses that are part of Group 10." The set of site-network-accesses against which the constraint is evaluated can be expressed as a list of groups, "all-other-accesses", or "all-other-groups". The all-other-accesses option means that the current site-network-access constraint MUST be evaluated against all the other site-network-accesses belonging to the current site. The all-other-groups option means that the constraint MUST be evaluated against all groups to which the current site-network-access does not belong. The current model defines multiple constraint-types: o pe-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 52]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 o pop-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same POP as the targeted site-network-accesses. o linecard-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT be connected to the same linecard as the targeted site-network- accesses. Note that the customer can request linecard-diverse for site-network-accesses, but the specific linecard identifier used should not be exposed to the customer. o bearer-diverse: The current site-network-access MUST NOT use common bearer components compared to bearers used by the targeted site-network-accesses. "bearer-diverse" provides some level of diversity at the access level. As an example, two bearer-diverse site-network-accesses must not use the same Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM), Broadband Access Switch (BAS), or Layer 2 switch. o same-pe: The current site-network-access MUST be connected to the same PE as the targeted site-network-accesses. o same-bearer: The current site-network-access MUST be connected using the same bearer as the targeted site-network-accesses. These constraint-types can be extended through augmentation. Each constraint is expressed as "The site-network-access S must be <constraint-type> (e.g., pe-diverse, pop-diverse) from these <target> site-network-accesses." The group-id used to target some site-network-accesses may be the same as the one used by the current site-network-access. This eases the configuration of scenarios where a group of site-network-access points has a constraint between the access points in the group.5.7. Route Distinguisher and Network Instance Allocation The Route Distinguisher (RD) is a critical parameter of BGP-based L2VPNs as described in [RFC4364] that provides the ability to distinguish common addressing plans in different VPNs. As for Route Targets (RTs), a management system is expected to allocate a MAC-VRF on the target PE and an RD for that MAC-VRF; that RD MUST be unique across all MAC-VRFs on the target PE. If a MAC-VRF already exists on the target PE and the MAC-VRF fulfills the connectivity constraints for the site, there is no need to recreate another MAC-VRF, and the site MAY be meshed within the existing MAC-VRF. How the management system checks to see if an existing MAC-VRF fulfills the connectivity constraints for a site is out of scope for this document.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 53]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 If no such MAC-VRF exists on the target PE, the management system has to initiate the creation of a new MAC-VRF on the target PE and has to allocate a new RD for the new MAC-VRF. The management system MAY apply a per-VPN or per-MAC-VRF allocation policy for the RD, depending on the SP's policy. In a per-VPN allocation policy, all MAC-VRFs (dispatched on multiple PEs) within a VPN will share the same RD value. In a per-MAC-VRF model, all MAC-VRFs should always have a unique RD value. Some other allocation policies are also possible, and this document does not restrict the allocation policies to be used. The allocation of RDs MAY be done in the same way as RTs. The information provided inSection 5.2.2.1 could also be used in this scenario. Note that an SP MAY configure a target PE for an automated allocation of RDs. In this case, there will be no need for any backend system to allocate an RD value.5.8. Site-Network-Access Availability A site may be multihomed, meaning that it has multiple site-network-access points. The placement constraints defined inSection 5.6 will help ensure physical diversity. When the site-network-accesses are placed on the network, a customer may want to use a particular routing policy on those accesses. The "site-network-access/availability" container defines parameters for site redundancy. The "access-priority" leaf defines a preference for a particular access. This preference is used to model load-balancing or primary/backup scenarios. The higher the access-priority value, the higher the preference will be. The "redundancy-mode" attribute is defined for a multihoming site and used to model single-active and active/active scenarios. It allows for multiple active paths in forwarding state and for load-balancing options.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 54]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Figure 20 illustrates how the access-priority attribute can be used. Hub#1 LAN (Primary/backup) Hub#2 LAN (Load-sharing) | | | access-priority 1 access-priority 1 | |--- CE1 ------- PE1 PE3 --------- CE3 --- | | | | | |--- CE2 ------- PE2 PE4 --------- CE4 --- | | access-priority 2 access-priority 1 | PE5 | | | CE5 | Spoke#1 site (Single-homed) Figure 20: Example: Configuring Access Priority In Figure 20, Hub#2 requires load-sharing, so all the site-network- accesses must use the same access-priority value. On the other hand, as Hub#1 requires a primary site-network-access and a backup site-network-access, a higher access-priority setting will be configured on the primary site-network-access. Scenarios that are more complex can also be modeled. Let's consider a Hub site with five accesses to the network (A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5). The customer wants to load-share its traffic on A1 and A2 in the nominal situation. If A1 and A2 fail, the customer wants to load-share its traffic on A3 and A4; finally, if A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all down, the customer wants to use A5. We can model this easily by configuring the following access-priority values: A1=100, A2=100, A3=50, A4=50, A5=10. The access-priority scenario has some limitations. An access-priority scenario like the previous one with five accesses but with the constraint of having traffic load-shared between A3 and A4 in the case where only A1 or A2 (not both) is down is not achievable. But the access-priority attribute defined will cover most of the deployment use cases, and if necessary the model can be extended via augmentation to support additional use cases.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 55]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.9. SVC MTU The MTU of subscriber service frames can be derived from the physical interface MTU by default, or it can be specified under the "svc-mtu" leaf if it is different than the default number.5.10. Service The service container defines service parameters associated with the site.5.10.1. Bandwidth The service bandwidth refers to the bandwidth requirement between the CE and the PE and can be represented using the Committed Information Rate (CIR), the Excess Information Rate (EIR), or the Peak Information Rate (PIR). The requested bandwidth is expressed as ingress bandwidth and egress bandwidth. The ingress or egress direction uses the customer site as the point of reference: "ingress-direction bandwidth" refers to download bandwidth for the site, and "egress-direction bandwidth" refers to upload bandwidth for the site. The service bandwidth is only configurable at the site-network-access level (i.e., for the site network access associated with the site). Using a different ingress and egress bandwidth will allow an SP to know if a customer allows for asymmetric bandwidth access like ADSL. It can also be used to set the rate limit in a different way for uploads and downloads on symmetric bandwidth access. The svc-bandwidth parameter has a specific type. This document defines four types: o bw-per-access: bandwidth is per connection or site network access, providing rate enforcement for all service frames at the interface that are associated with a particular network access. o bw-per-cos: bandwidth is per CoS, providing rate enforcement for all service frames for a given CoS with a specific cos-id. o bw-per-svc: bandwidth is per site, providing rate enforcement for all service frames that are associated with a particular VPN service. o opaque bandwidth is the total bandwidth that is not associated with any particular cos-id, VPN service identified with the vpn-id, or site network access ID.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 56]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The svc-bandwidth parameter must include a "cos-id" parameter if the "type" is set to "bw-per-cos". The cos-id can be assigned based on either (1) the IEEE 802.1p value [IEEE-802-1D] in the C-tag or (2) the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) in the Ethernet frame header. Service frames are metered against the bandwidth profile based on the cos-id. The svc-bandwidth parameter must be associated with a specific "site-network-access-id" parameter if the "type" is set to "bw-per-access". Multiple bandwidths per cos-id can be associated with the same site network access. The svc-bandwidth parameter must include a specific "vpn-id" parameter if the "type" is set to "bw-per-svc". Multiple bandwidths per cos-id can be associated with the same EVPN service.5.10.2. QoS The model defines QoS parameters as an abstraction: o qos-classification-policy: Defines a set of ordered rules to classify customer traffic. o qos-profile: Provides a QoS scheduling profile to be applied.5.10.2.1. QoS Classification QoS classification rules are handled by "qos-classification-policy". qos-classification-policy is an ordered list of rules that match a flow or application and set the appropriate target CoS (target-class-id). The user can define the match using a more specific flow definition (based on Layer 2 source and destination MAC addresses, cos, dscp, cos-id, color-id, etc.). A "color-id" will be assigned to a service frame to identify its QoS profile conformance. A service frame is "green" if it is conformant with the "committed" rate of the bandwidth profile. A service frame is "yellow" if it exceeds the "committed" rate but is conformant with the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. Finally, a service frame is "red" if it is conformant with neither the "committed" rate nor the "excess" rate of the bandwidth profile. When a flow definition is used, the user can use a target-sites leaf-list to identify the destination of a flow rather than using destination addresses. In such a case, an association between the site abstraction and the MAC addresses used by this site must be done dynamically. How this association is done is out of scope for this document. The association of a site to an L2VPN is done through the vpn-attachment container. Therefore, the user can also employ theWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 57]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "target-sites" leaf-list and "vpn-attachment" to identify the destination of a flow targeted to a specific VPN service. A rule that does not have a "match" statement is considered a "match-all" rule. An SP may implement a default terminal classification rule if the customer does not provide it. It will be up to the SP to determine its default target class. This model defines some applications, but new application identities may be added through augmentation. The exact meaning of each application identity is up to the SP, so it will be necessary for the SP to advise the customer on the usage of application-matching.5.10.2.2. QoS Profile A user can choose between the standard profile provided by the operator or a custom profile. The QoS profile ("qos-profile") defines the traffic-scheduling policy to be used by the SP. A custom QoS profile is defined as a list of CoS entries and associated properties. The properties are as follows: o direction: Used to specify the direction to which the qos-profile setting is applied. This model supports the site-to-WAN direction ("site-to-wan"), the WAN-to-site direction ("wan-to-site"), and both directions ("bidirectional"). By default, "bidirectional" is used. In the case of both directions, the provider should ensure scheduling according to the requested policy in both traffic directions (SP to customer and customer to SP). As an example, a device-scheduling policy may be implemented on both the PE side and the CE side of the WAN link. In the case of the WAN-to-site direction, the provider should ensure scheduling from the SP network to the customer site. As an example, a device-scheduling policy may be implemented only on the PE side of the WAN link towards the customer. o policing: Optional. Indicates whether policing should apply to one-rate, two-color or to two-rate, three-color. o byte-offset: Optional. Indicates how many bytes in the service frame header are excluded from rate enforcement. o frame-delay: Used to define the latency constraint of the class. The latency constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible latency or as a latency boundary expressed in milliseconds. How this latency constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP implementation: a strict priority-queuing mechanism may be used on the access and in the core network, or a low-latency routing path may be created for this traffic class.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 58]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 o frame-jitter: Used to define the jitter constraint of the class. The jitter constraint can be expressed as the lowest possible jitter or as a jitter boundary expressed in microseconds. How this jitter constraint will be fulfilled is up to the SP implementation: a strict priority-queuing mechanism may be used on the access and in the core network, or a jitter-aware routing path may be created for this traffic class. o bandwidth: Used to define a guaranteed amount of bandwidth for the CoS. It is expressed as a percentage. The "guaranteed-bw-percent" parameter uses available bandwidth as a reference. The available bandwidth should not fall below the CIR value defined under the input svc-bandwidth or the output svc-bandwidth. When the "qos-profile" container is implemented on the CE side, the output svc-bandwidth is taken into account as a reference. When it is implemented on the PE side, the input svc-bandwidth is used. By default, the bandwidth reservation is only guaranteed at the access level. The user can use the "end-to-end" leaf to request an end-to-end bandwidth reservation, including across the MPLS transport network. (In other words, the SP will activate something in the MPLS core to ensure that the bandwidth request from the customer will be fulfilled by the MPLS core as well.) How this is done (e.g., RSVP-TE reservation, controller reservation) is out of scope for this document. In addition, due to network conditions, some constraints may not be completely fulfilled by the SP; in this case, the SP should advise the customer about the limitations. How this communication is done is out of scope for this document.5.10.3. Support for BUM The "broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast" container defines the type of site in the customer multicast service topology: source, receiver, or both. These parameters will help the management system optimize the multicast service. Multiple multicast group-to-port mappings can be created using the "multicast-gp-address-mapping" list. The "multicast-gp-address-mapping" list defines the multicast group address and port LAG number. Those parameters will help the SP select the appropriate association between an interface and a multicast group to fulfill the customer service requirement. To ensure that a given frame is transparently transported, a whole Layer 2 multicast frame (whether for data or control) should not be altered from a CE to other CEs, except for the VLAN ID field. VLAN IDs assigned by the SP can also be altered.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 59]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 For point-to-point services, the provider only needs to deliver a single copy of each service frame to the remote PE, regardless of whether the destination MAC address of the incoming frame is unicast, multicast, or broadcast. Therefore, all service frames should be delivered unconditionally. BUM frame forwarding in multipoint-to-multipoint services, on the other hand, involves both local flooding to other ACs on the same PE and remote replication to all other PEs, thus consuming additional resources and core bandwidth. Special BUM frame disposition rules can be implemented at external-facing interfaces (UNIs or External NNIs (E-NNIs)) to rate-limit the BUM frames, in terms of the number of packets per second or bits per second. The threshold can apply to all BUM traffic, or one threshold can be applied for each category of traffic.5.11. Site Management The "management" sub-container is intended for site management options, depending on device ownership and security access control. Three common management models are as follows: Provider-managed CE: The provider has sole ownership of the CE device. Only the provider has access to the CE. The responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is between the CE and the customer network. This is the most common use case. Customer-managed CE: The customer has sole ownership of the CE device. Only the customer has access to the CE. In this model, the responsibility boundary between the SP and the customer is between the PE and the CE. Co-managed CE: The provider has ownership of the CE device and is responsible for managing the CE. However, the provider grants the customer access to the CE for some configuration/monitoring purposes. In this co-managed mode, the responsibility boundary is the same as for the provider-managed model. The selected management mode is specified under the "type" leaf. The "address" leaf stores CE device management addressing information. The "management-transport" leaf is used to identify the transport protocol for management traffic: IPv4 or IPv6. Additional security options may be derived based on the particular management model selected.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 60]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.12. MAC Loop Protection MAC address flapping between different physical ports typically indicates a bridge loop condition in the customer network. Misleading entries in the MAC cache table can cause service frames to circulate around the network indefinitely and saturate the links throughout the provider's network, affecting other services in the same network. In the case of EVPNs, it also introduces massive BGP updates and control-plane instability. The SP may opt to implement a switching loop-prevention mechanism at the external-facing interfaces for multipoint-to-multipoint services by imposing a MAC address move threshold. The MAC move rate and prevention-type options are listed in the "mac-loop-prevention" container.5.13. MAC Address Limit The optional "mac-addr-limit" container contains the customer MAC address limit and information that describes the action taken when the limit is exceeded and the aging time for a MAC address. When multiple services are provided on the same network element, the MAC address table (and the Routing Information Base space for MAC routes in the case of EVPNs) is a shared common resource. SPs may impose a maximum number of MAC addresses learned from the customer for a single service instance by using the "mac-addr-limit" leaf and may use the "action" leaf to specify the action taken when the upper limit is exceeded: drop the packet, flood the packet, or simply send a warning log message. For point-to-point services, if MAC learning is disabled, then the MAC address limit is not necessary.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 61]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.14. Enhanced VPN Features5.14.1. Carriers' Carriers In the case of Carriers' Carriers (CsC) [RFC8299], a customer may want to build an MPLS service using an L2VPN to carry its traffic. LAN customer1 | | CE1 | | ------------- (vrf_cust1) CE1_ISP1 | ISP1 POP | MPLS link | ------------- | (vrf ISP1) PE1 (...) Provider backbone PE2 (vrf ISP1) | | ------------ | | MPLS link | ISP1 POP CE2_ISP1 (vrf_cust1) | ------------ | CE2 | LAN customer1 Figure 21: MPLS Service Using an L2VPN to Carry Traffic In Figure 21, ISP1 resells an L2VPN service but has no core network infrastructure between its POPs. ISP1 uses an L2VPN as the core network infrastructure (belonging to another provider) between its POPs.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 62]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 In order to support CsC, the VPN service must indicate MPLS support by setting the "carrierscarrier" leaf to "true" in the vpn-service list. The link between CE1_ISP1/PE1 and CE2_ISP1/PE2 must also run an MPLS signaling protocol. This configuration is done at the site level. In this model, LDP or BGP can be used as the MPLS signaling protocol. In the case of LDP, an IGP routing protocol MUST also be activated. In the case of BGP signaling, BGP MUST also be configured as the routing protocol. If CsC is enabled, the requested "svc-mtu" leaf will refer to the MPLS MTU and not to the link MTU.5.15. External ID References The service model sometimes refers to external information through identifiers. As an example, to order cloud access to a particular Cloud Service Provider (CSP), the model uses an identifier to refer to the targeted CSP. If a customer is directly using this service model as an API (through RESTCONF or NETCONF, for example) to order a particular service, the SP should provide a list of authorized identifiers. In the case of cloud access, the SP will provide the associated identifiers for each available CSP. The same applies to other identifiers, such as qos-profile. As a usage example, the remote-carrier-name setting is used in the NNI case because it should be known by the current L2VPN SP to which it is connecting, while the cloud-identifier setting should be known by both the current L2VPN SP and the customer because it is applied to the public cloud or Internet access. How an SP provides the meanings of those identifiers to the customer is out of scope for this document.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 63]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.16. Defining NNIs and Inter-AS Support An Autonomous System (AS) is a single network or group of networks that are controlled by a common system administration group and that use a single, clearly defined routing protocol. In some cases, VPNs need to span different ASes in different geographical areas or span different SPs. The connection between ASes is established by the SPs and is seamless to the customer. Examples include: o A partnership between SPs (e.g., carrier, cloud) to extend their VPN services seamlessly. o An internal administrative boundary within a single SP (e.g., backhaul versus core versus data center). NNIs have to be defined to extend the VPNs across multiple ASes. [RFC4761] defines multiple flavors of VPN NNI implementations (e.g., VPLSs). Each implementation has pros and cons; this topic is outside the scope of this document. For example, in an inter-AS option A (two ASes), AS Border Router (ASBR) peers are connected by multiple interfaces with at least one of those interfaces spanning the two ASes while being present in the same VPN. In order for these ASBRs to signal label blocks, they associate each interface with a MAC-VRF (VSI) (Section 2) and a BGP session. As a result, traffic between devices in the back-to-back VPLS is Ethernet. In this scenario, the VPNs are isolated from each other, and because the traffic is Ethernet, QoS mechanisms that operate on Ethernet traffic can be applied to achieve customer SLAs.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 64]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 -------- -------------- ----------- / \ / \ / \ | Cloud | | | | | | Provider |-----NNI-----| |----NNI---| Data Center | | #1 | | | | | \ / | | \ / -------- | | ----------- | | -------- | My network | ----------- / \ | | / \ | Cloud | | | | | | Provider |-----NNI-----| |---NNI---| L2VPN | | #2 | | | | Partner | \ / | | | | -------- | | | | \ / | | -------------- \ / | ----------- | NNI | | ------------------- / \ | | | | | | | L2VPN Partner | | | \ / ------------------- Figure 22: SP Network with Several NNIs Figure 22 illustrates an SP network called "My network" that has several NNIs. This network uses NNIs to: o increase its footprint by relying on L2VPN partners. o connect its own data-center services to the customer L2VPN. o enable the customer to access its private resources located in a private cloud owned by some CSPs.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 65]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.16.1. Defining an NNI with the Option A Flavor AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link +++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | +(MAC-VRF1)--(VPN1)--(MAC-VRF1)+ | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | +(MAC-VRF2)--(VPN2)--(MAC-VRF2)+ | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ +++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link +++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | +(MAC-VRF1)--(VPN1)--(MAC-VRF1)+ | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | +(MAC-VRF2)--(VPN2)--(MAC-VRF2)+ | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ +++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- Figure 23: NNI Defined with the Option A Flavor: Example 1 In option A, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple physical connections between the ASes. A VPN connection -- physical or logical (on top of physical) -- is created for each VPN that needs to cross the AS boundary, thus providing a back-to-back VPLS model. From a service model's perspective, this VPN connection can be seen as a site. Let's say that AS B wants to extend some VPN connections for VPN C on AS A. The administrator of AS B can use this service model to order a site on AS A. All connection scenarios could be realized using the features of the current model. As an example, Figure 23 shows two physical connections that have logical connections per VPN overlaid on them. This could be seen as a multi-VPN scenario. Also, the administrator of AS B will be able toWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 66]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 choose the appropriate routing protocol (e.g., External BGP (EBGP)) to dynamically exchange routes between ASes. This document assumes that the option A NNI flavor SHOULD reuse the existing VPN site modeling. Figure 24 illustrates an example where a customer wants its CSP A to attach its virtual network N to an existing L2VPN (VPN1) that it has from L2VPN SP B. CSP A L2VPN SP B ----------------- ----------- / \ / \ | | | | | | VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++++ |--- VPN1 | | + +____________+ + | Site 1 | |-------+(MAC-VRF1)-(VPN1)-(MAC-VRF1)+ | | | + + + + | | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | | + +____________+ + | | | ++++++++ ++++++++++ | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | |Virtual | | | Site 2 | |Network | | | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | | | | | Site 3 \ / \ / ----------------- ----------- | | VPN1 Site 4 VM = Virtual Machine Figure 24: NNI Defined with the Option A Flavor: Example 2 To create the VPN connectivity, the CSP or the customer may use the L2SM that SP B exposes. We could consider that, as the NNI is shared, the physical connection (bearer) between CSP A and SP B already exists. CSP A may request through a service model the creation of a new site with a single site-network-access (single-homing is used in Figure 24). As a placement constraint, CSP A may use the existing bearer reference it has from SP A to force the placement of the VPN NNI on the existing link. The XML below illustrates a possible configuration request to SP B:Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 67]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-profiles> <valid-provider-identifiers> <qos-profile-identifier> <id>GOLD</id> </qos-profile-identifier> <qos-profile-identifier> <id>PLATINUM</id> </qos-profile-identifier> </valid-provider-identifiers> </vpn-profiles> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>VPN1</vpn-id> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> <sites> <site> <site-id>CSP_A_attachment</site-id> <locations> <location> <location-id>NY1</location-id> <city>NY</city> <country-code>US</country-code> </location> </locations> <site-vpn-flavor>site-vpn-flavor-nni</site-vpn-flavor> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>CSP_A_VN1</network-access-id> <connection> <encapsulation-type>vlan</encapsulation-type> <eth-inf-type>tagged</eth-inf-type> <tagged-interface> <tagged-inf-type>dot1q</tagged-inf-type> <dot1q-vlan-tagged> <cvlan-id>17</cvlan-id> </dot1q-vlan-tagged> </tagged-interface> </connection> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 68]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> <management> <type>customer-managed</type> </management> </site> </sites> </l2vpn-svc> The case described above is different from a scenario using the cloud-accesses container, as the cloud-access provides a public cloud access while this example enables access to private resources located in a CSP network.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 69]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.16.2. Defining an NNI with the Option B Flavor AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR +<---MP-BGP---->+ ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- Figure 25: NNI Defined with the Option B Flavor: Example 1 In option B, the two ASes are connected to each other with physical links on ASBRs. For resiliency purposes, there may be multiple physical connections between the ASes. The VPN "connection" between ASes is done by exchanging VPN routes through MP-BGP [RFC4761]. There are multiple flavors of implementations of such an NNI. For example: 1. The NNI is internal to the provider and is situated between a backbone and a data center. There is enough trust between the domains to not filter the VPN routes. So, all the VPN routes are exchanged. RT filtering may be implemented to save some unnecessary route states. 2. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN routes for specific RTs only. Each provider is authorized to use the RT values from the other provider.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 70]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 3. The NNI is used between providers that agreed to exchange VPN routes for specific RTs only. Each provider has its own RT scheme. So, a customer spanning the two networks will have different RTs in each network for a particular VPN. Case 1 does not require any service modeling, as the protocol enables the dynamic exchange of necessary VPN routes. Case 2 requires that an RT-filtering policy on ASBRs be maintained. From a service-modeling point of view, it is necessary to agree on the list of RTs to authorize. In Case 3, both ASes need to agree on the VPN RT to exchange, as well as how to map a VPN RT from AS A to the corresponding RT in AS B (and vice versa). Those modelings are currently out of scope for this document. CSP A L3VPN SP B ----------------- ------------------ / \ / \ | | | | | | VM --| ++++++++ NNI ++++++++ |--- VPN1 | | + +__________+ + | Site 1 | |-------+ + + + | | | + ASBR +<-MP-BGP->+ ASBR + | | | + +__________+ + | | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | |Virtual | | | Site 2 | |Network | | | | VM --| | | |--- VPN1 | | | | | Site 3 \ / | | ----------------- | | \ / ------------------ | | VPN1 Site 4 VM = Virtual Machine Figure 26: NNI Defined with the Option B Flavor: Example 2Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 71]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 Figure 26 shows an NNI connection between CSP A and SP network B. The SPs do not trust each other and use different RT allocation policies. So, in terms of implementation, the customer VPN has a different RT in each network (RT A in CSP A and RT B in SP network B). In order to connect the customer's virtual network in CSP A to the customer's L2VPN (VPN1) in SP network B, CSP A should request that SP network B open the customer VPN on the NNI (accept the appropriate RT). Who does the RT translation depends on the agreement between the two SPs: SP B may permit CSP A to request VPN (RT) translation.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 72]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20185.16.3. Defining an NNI with the Option C Flavor AS A AS B ------------------- ------------------- / \ / \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Multihop EBGP ++++++++ | | + + + + | | + + + + | | + RGW +<----MP-BGP---->+ RGW + | | + + + + | | + + + + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ++++++++ Inter-AS link ++++++++ | | + +_______________+ + | | + + + + | | + ASBR + + ASBR + | | + + + + | | + +_______________+ + | | ++++++++ ++++++++ | | | | | | | | | \ / \ / ------------------- ------------------- Figure 27: NNI Defined with the Option C FlavorWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 73]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 From a VPN service's perspective, the option C NNI is very similar to option B, as an MP-BGP session is used to exchange VPN routes between the ASes. The difference is that the forwarding plane and the control plane are on different nodes, so the MP-BGP session is multihop between routing gateway (RGW) nodes. From a VPN service's point of view, modeling options B and C will be configured identically.5.17. Applicability of L2SM in Inter-provider and Inter-domain Orchestration In the case where the ASes belong to different providers, one might imagine that providers would like to have fewer signaling sessions crossing the AS boundary and that the entities that terminate the sessions could be restricted to a smaller set of devices. Two approaches can be taken: a. Construct inter-provider control connections to run only between the two border routers. b. Allow end-to-end, multi-segment connectivity to be constructed out of several connectivity segments, without maintaining an end-to-end control connection. Inter-provider control connections as described in approach (a) can be realized using the techniques provided inSection 5.16 (e.g., defining NNIs). Multi-segment connectivity as described in approach (b) can produce an inter-AS solution that more closely resembles scheme (b) inSection 10 of [RFC4364]. It may be realized using "stitching" of per-site connectivity and service segments at different domains, e.g., end-to-end connectivity between Site 1 and Site 3 spans multiple domains (e.g., metropolitan area networks) and can be constructed by stitching network access connectivity within Site 1 with SEG1, SEG3, and SEG4, and network access connectivity within Site 3 (as shown in Figure 28). The assumption is that the service orchestration component in Figure 3 should have visibility into the complete abstract topology and resource availability. This may rely on network planning.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 74]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 ---------- ---------- ---------- | | | | | | +--+ +---+ +---+ +--+ Site 1|PE|==SEG1==| |==SEG3==| |==SEG4==|PE|Site 3 +--+ +---+ | | +--+ | | | | | | ---------- | | | | | | | | +--+ +---+ | | +---+ +--+ Site 2|PE|==SEG2==| |==SEG5==| |==SEG6==| |==SEG7==|PE|Site 4 +--+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +--+ | | | | | | | | ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Figure 28: Example: Inter-provider and Inter-domain Orchestration Note that SEG1, SEG2, SEG3, SEG4, SEG5, and SEG6 can also be regarded as network access connectivity within a site and can be created as a normal site using the L2SM. In Figure 28, we use BGP redistribution of L2VPN Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) instances from AS to neighboring AS. First, the PE routers use BGP to redistribute L2VPN NLRIs to either an ASBR or a route reflector of which an ASBR is a client. The ASBR then uses BGP to redistribute those L2VPN NLRIs to an ASBR in another AS, which in turn distributes them to the PE routers in that AS, or perhaps to another ASBR that in turn distributes them, and so on. In this case, a PE can learn the address of an ASBR through which it could reach another PE to which it wishes to establish connectivity. That is, a local PE will receive a BGP advertisement containing an L2VPN NLRI corresponding to an L2VPN instance in which the local PE has some attached members. The BGP next hop for that L2VPN NLRI will be an ASBR of the local AS. Then, rather than building a control connection all the way to the remote PE, it builds one only to the ASBR. A connectivity segment can now be established from the PE to the ASBR. The ASBR in turn can establish connectivity to the ASBR of the next AS and then stitch that connectivity to the connectivity from the PE as described in [RFC6073]. Repeating the process at each ASBR leads to a sequence of connectivity segments that, when stitched together, connect the two PEs. Note that in the approach just described, the local PE may never learn the IP address of the remote PE. It learns the L2VPN NLRI advertised by the remote PE, which need not contain the remote PE address, and it learns the IP address of the ASBR that is the BGP next hop for that NLRI.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 75]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 When this approach is used for VPLS or for full-mesh VPWS, it leads to a full mesh of connectivity among the PEs, but it does not require a full mesh of control connections (LDP or L2TPv3 sessions). Instead, the control connections within a single AS run among all the PEs of that AS and the ASBRs of the AS. A single control connection between the ASBRs of adjacent ASes can be used to support as many AS-to-AS connectivity segments as may be needed.6. Interaction with Other YANG Modules As explained inSection 4, this service model is not intended to configure network elements; rather, it is instantiated in a management system. The management system might follow modular design and comprise two different components: a. The component instantiating the service model (let's call it the service component). b. The component responsible for network element configuration (let's call it the configuration component). In some cases, when a split is needed between the behavior and functions that a customer requests and the technology that the network operator has available to deliver the service [RFC8309], a new component can be separated out of the service component (let's call it the control component). This component is responsible for network-centric operation and is aware of many features such as topology, technology, and operator policy. As an optional component, it can use the service model as input and is not required at all if the control component delegates its control operations to the configuration component. InSection 7, we provide an example of translation of service provisioning requests to router configuration lines as an illustration. In the YANG-based ecosystem, it is expected that NETCONF and YANG will be used between the configuration component and network elements to configure the requested service on those elements. In this framework, it is expected that YANG data models will be used to configure service components on network elements. There will be a strong relationship between the abstracted view provided by this service model and the detailed configuration view that will be provided by specific configuration models for network elements suchWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 76]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 as those defined in [MPLS-L2VPN-YANG] and [EVPN-YANG]. Service components that would need configuration of network elements in support of the service model defined in this document include: o Network instance definitions that include defined VPN policies. o Physical interfaces. o Ethernet-layer parameters (e.g., VLAN IDs). o QoS: classification, profiles, etc. o Support for Ethernet Service OAM.7. Service Model Usage Example As explained inSection 4, this service model is intended to be instantiated at a management layer and is not intended to be used directly on network elements. The management system serves as a central point of configuration of the overall service. This section provides an example of how a management system can use this model to configure an L2VPN service on network elements. This example provides a VPN service for three sites using point-to-point VPWS and a Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology as shown in Figure 29. Load balancing is not considered in this case. Site 1 ............ : : P2P VPWS :Spoke Site:-----PE1--------------------------+ : : | Site 3 :..........: | ............ | : : PE3-----: Hub Site : Site 2 | : : ............ | :..........: : : P2P VPWS | :Spoke Site:-----PE2--------------------------+ : : :..........: Figure 29: Reference Network for Simple ExampleWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 77]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The following XML describes the overall simplified service configuration of this VPN. <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id> <vpn-svc-type>vpws</vpn-svc-type> <svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>12456488</vpn-id> <vpn-svc-type>vpws</vpn-svc-type> <svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> </l2vpn-svc> When receiving the request for provisioning the VPN service, the management system will internally (or through communication with another OSS component) allocate VPN RTs. In this specific case, two RTs will be allocated (100:1 for Hubs and 100:2 for Spokes). The output below describes the configuration of Spoke Site 1. <?xml version="1.0"?> <l2vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"> <vpn-services> <vpn-service> <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id> <svc-topo>hub-spoke</svc-topo> <ce-vlan-preservation>true</ce-vlan-preservation> <ce-vlan-cos-preservation>true</ce-vlan-cos-preservation> </vpn-service> </vpn-services> <sites> <site> <site-id>Spoke_Site1</site-id> <locations> <location> <location-id>NY1</location-id> <city>NY</city> <country-code>US</country-code> </location>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 78]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 </locations> <site-network-accesses> <site-network-access> <network-access-id>Spoke_UNI-Site1</network-access-id> <access-diversity> <groups> <group> <group-id>20</group-id> </group> </groups> </access-diversity> <connection> <encapsulation-type>vlan</encapsulation-type> <tagged-interface> <dot1q-vlan-tagged> <cvlan-id>17</cvlan-id> </dot1q-vlan-tagged> </tagged-interface> <l2cp-control> <stp-rstp-mstp>tunnel</stp-rstp-mstp> <lldp>true</lldp> </l2cp-control> </connection> <service> <svc-bandwidth> <bandwidth> <direction>input-bw</direction> <type>bw-per-cos</type> <cir>450000000</cir> <cbs>20000000</cbs> <eir>1000000000</eir> <ebs>200000000</ebs> </bandwidth> </svc-bandwidth> <carrierscarrier> <signaling-type>bgp</signaling-type> </carrierscarrier> </service> <vpn-attachment> <vpn-id>12456487</vpn-id> <site-role>spoke-role</site-role> </vpn-attachment> </site-network-access> </site-network-accesses> <management> <type>provider-managed</type> </management> </site>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 79]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 </sites> </l2vpn-svc> When receiving the request for provisioning Spoke Site 1, the management system MUST allocate network resources for this site. It MUST first determine the target network elements to provision the access and, in particular, the PE router (or possibly an aggregation switch). As described in Sections5.3.1 and5.6, the management system SHOULD use the location information and MUST use the access-diversity constraint to find the appropriate PE. In this case, we consider that Spoke Site 1 requires PE diversity with Hubs and that the management system will allocate PEs based on least distance. Based on the location information, the management system finds the available PEs in the area closest to the customer and picks one that fits the access-diversity constraint. When the PE is chosen, the management system needs to allocate interface resources on the node. One interface is selected from the PE's available pool of resources. The management system can start provisioning the PE node using any means it wishes (e.g., NETCONF, CLI). The management system will check to see if a VSI that fits its needs is already present. If not, it will provision the VSI: the RD will come from the internal allocation policy model, and the RTs will come from the vpn-policy configuration of the site (i.e., the management system will allocate some RTs for the VPN). As the site is a Spoke site (site-role), the management system knows which RTs must be imported and exported. As the site is provider managed, some management RTs may also be added (100:5000). Standard provider VPN policies MAY also be added in the configuration. Example of a generated PE configuration:l2vpn vsi context one vpn id 12456487 autodiscovery bgp signaling bgp ve id 1001 <---- identify the PE routers within the VPLS domain ve range 50 <---- VPLS Edge (VE) size route-distinguisher 100:3123234324 route-target import 100:1 route-target import 100:5000 <---- Standard SP configuration route-target export 100:2 for provider-managed CE ! When the VSI has been provisioned, the management system can start configuring the access on the PE using the allocated interface information. The tag or VLAN (e.g., service instance tag) is chosen by the management system. One tag will be picked from an allocated subnet for the PE, and another will be used for the CE configuration.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 80]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 LACP protocols will also be configured between the PE and the CE; in the case of the provider-managed model, the choice is left to the SP. This choice is independent of the LACP protocol chosen by the customer. Example of a generated PE configuration: ! bridge-domain 1 member Ethernet0/0 service-instance 100 member vsi one ! l2 router-id 198.51.100.1 ! l2 router-id 2001:db8::10:1/64 ! interface Ethernet0/0 no ip address service instance 100 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 100 ! ! router bgp 1 bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 198.51.100.4 remote-as 1 neighbor 198.51.100.4 update-source Loopback0 ! address-family l2vpn vpls neighbor 198.51.100.4 activate neighbor 198.51.100.4 send-community extended neighbor 198.51.100.4 suppress-signaling-protocol ldp neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:4 activate neighbor 2001:db8::0a10:4 send-community extended exit-address-family ! interface vlan 100 <---- Associating the AC with no ip address the MAC-VRF at the PE xconnect vsi PE1-VPLS-A ! vlan 100 state activeWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 81]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 As the CE router is not reachable at this stage, the management system can produce a complete CE configuration that can be manually uploaded to the node (e.g., before sending the CE to the customer premises at the appropriate postal address, as described inSection 5.3.1). The CE configuration will be built in the same way as the PE configuration is built. Based on (1) the CE type (vendor/model) allocated to the customer and (2) bearer information, the management system knows which interface must be configured on the CE. PE-CE link configuration is expected to be handled automatically using the SP's OSS, as both resources are managed internally. CE-to-LAN interface parameters, such as dot1Q tags, are derived from the Ethernet connection, taking into account how the management system distributes dot1Q tags between the PE and the CE within the subnet. This will allow a plug'n'play configuration to be produced for the CE. Example of a generated CE configuration: interface Ethernet0/1 switchport trunk allowed vlan none switchport mode trunk service instance 100 ethernet encapsulation default l2protocol forward cdp xconnect 203.0.113.1 100 encapsulation mpls !8. YANG Module This YANG module imports typedefs from [RFC6991] and [RFC8341].<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-l2vpn-svc@2018-10-09.yang"module ietf-l2vpn-svc { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc"; prefix l2vpn-svc; import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; } import ietf-netconf-acm { prefix nacm; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 82]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 organization "IETF L2SM Working Group."; contact "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/l2sm/> WG List: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org> Editor: Giuseppe Fioccola <mailto:giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it>"; description "This YANG module defines a generic service configuration model for Layer 2 VPN services common across all vendor implementations. Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth inSection 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part ofRFC 8466; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2018-10-09 { description "Initial revision."; reference "RFC 8466: A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery"; } feature carrierscarrier { description "Enables the support of carriers' carriers (CsC)."; } feature ethernet-oam { description "Enables the support of Ethernet Service OAM."; } feature extranet-vpn { description "Enables the support of extranet VPNs."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 83]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 feature l2cp-control { description "Enables the support of L2CP control."; } feature input-bw { description "Enables the support of input bandwidth in a VPN."; } feature output-bw { description "Enables the support of output bandwidth in a VPN."; } feature uni-list { description "Enables the support of a list of UNIs in a VPN."; } feature cloud-access { description "Allows the VPN to connect to a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) or an ISP."; } feature oam-3ah { description "Enables the support of OAM 802.3ah."; } feature micro-bfd { description "Enables the support of micro-BFD."; } feature bfd { description "Enables the support of BFD."; } feature signaling-options { description "Enables the support of signaling options."; } feature site-diversity { descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 84]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Enables the support of site diversity constraints in a VPN."; } feature encryption { description "Enables the support of encryption."; } feature always-on { description "Enables support for the 'always-on' access constraint."; } feature requested-type { description "Enables support for the 'requested-type' access constraint."; } feature bearer-reference { description "Enables support for the 'bearer-reference' access constraint."; } feature qos { description "Enables support for QoS."; } feature qos-custom { description "Enables the support of a custom QoS profile."; } feature lag-interface { description "Enables LAG interfaces."; } feature vlan { description "Enables the support of VLANs."; } feature dot1q { description "Enables the support of dot1Q."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 85]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 feature qinq { description "Enables the support of QinQ."; } feature qinany { description "Enables the support of QinAny."; } feature vxlan { description "Enables the support of VXLANs."; } feature lan-tag { description "Enables LAN tag support in a VPN."; } feature target-sites { description "Enables the support of the 'target-sites' match-flow parameter."; } feature bum { description "Enables BUM capabilities in a VPN."; } feature mac-loop-prevention { description "Enables the MAC loop-prevention capability in a VPN."; } feature lacp { description "Enables the Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) capability in a VPN."; } feature mac-addr-limit { description "Enables the MAC address limit capability in a VPN."; } feature acl {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 86]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Enables the ACL capability in a VPN."; } feature cfm { description "Enables the 802.1ag CFM capability in a VPN."; } feature y-1731 { description "Enables the Y.1731 capability in a VPN."; } typedef svc-id { type string; description "Defines the type of service component identifier."; } typedef ccm-priority-type { type uint8 { range "0..7"; } description "A 3-bit priority value to be used in the VLAN tag, if present in the transmitted frame."; } typedef control-mode { type enumeration { enum peer { description "'peer' mode, i.e., participate in the protocol towards the CE. Peering is common for LACP and the Ethernet Local Management Interface (E-LMI) and, occasionally, for LLDP. For VPLSs and VPWSs, the subscriber can also request that the SP peer enable spanning tree."; } enum tunnel { description "'tunnel' mode, i.e., pass to the egress or destination site. For EPLs, the expectation is that L2CP frames are tunneled."; } enum discard { description "'discard' mode, i.e., discard the frame.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 87]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } } description "Defines the type of control mode on L2CP protocols."; } typedef neg-mode { type enumeration { enum full-duplex { description "Defines full-duplex mode."; } enum auto-neg { description "Defines auto-negotiation mode."; } } description "Defines the type of negotiation mode."; } identity site-network-access-type { description "Base identity for the site-network-access type."; } identity point-to-point { base site-network-access-type; description "Identity for a point-to-point connection."; } identity multipoint { base site-network-access-type; description "Identity for a multipoint connection, e.g., an Ethernet broadcast segment."; } identity tag-type { description "Base identity from which all tag types are derived."; } identity c-vlan { base tag-type; description "A CVLAN tag, normally using the 0x8100 Ethertype.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 88]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } identity s-vlan { base tag-type; description "An SVLAN tag."; } identity c-s-vlan { base tag-type; description "Using both a CVLAN tag and an SVLAN tag."; } identity multicast-tree-type { description "Base identity for the multicast tree type."; } identity ssm-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for the Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) tree type."; reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery"; } identity asm-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for the Any-Source Multicast (ASM) tree type."; reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery"; } identity bidir-tree-type { base multicast-tree-type; description "Identity for the bidirectional tree type."; reference "RFC 8299: YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery"; } identity multicast-gp-address-mapping { description "Identity for mapping type."; } identity static-mapping { base multicast-gp-address-mapping; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 89]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity for static mapping, i.e., attach the interface to the multicast group as a static member."; } identity dynamic-mapping { base multicast-gp-address-mapping; description "Identity for dynamic mapping, i.e., an interface was added to the multicast group as a result of snooping."; } identity tf-type { description "Identity for the traffic type."; } identity multicast-traffic { base tf-type; description "Identity for multicast traffic."; } identity broadcast-traffic { base tf-type; description "Identity for broadcast traffic."; } identity unknown-unicast-traffic { base tf-type; description "Identity for unknown unicast traffic."; } identity encapsulation-type { description "Identity for the encapsulation type."; } identity ethernet { base encapsulation-type; description "Identity for Ethernet type."; } identity vlan { base encapsulation-type; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 90]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity for the VLAN type."; } identity carrierscarrier-type { description "Identity of the CsC type."; } identity ldp { base carrierscarrier-type; description "Use LDP as the signaling protocol between the PE and the CE."; } identity bgp { base carrierscarrier-type; description "Use BGP (as perRFC 8277) as the signaling protocol between the PE and the CE. In this case, BGP must also be configured as the routing protocol."; } identity eth-inf-type { description "Identity of the Ethernet interface type."; } identity tagged { base eth-inf-type; description "Identity of the tagged interface type."; } identity untagged { base eth-inf-type; description "Identity of the untagged interface type."; } identity lag { base eth-inf-type; description "Identity of the LAG interface type."; } identity bw-type {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 91]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Identity of the bandwidth type."; } identity bw-per-cos { base bw-type; description "Bandwidth is per CoS."; } identity bw-per-port { base bw-type; description "Bandwidth is per site network access."; } identity bw-per-site { base bw-type; description "Bandwidth is per site. It is applicable to all the site network accesses within the site."; } identity bw-per-svc { base bw-type; description "Bandwidth is per VPN service."; } identity site-vpn-flavor { description "Base identity for the site VPN service flavor."; } identity site-vpn-flavor-single { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used when the site belongs to only one VPN."; } identity site-vpn-flavor-multi { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used when a logical connection of a site belongs to multiple VPNs."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 92]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 identity site-vpn-flavor-nni { base site-vpn-flavor; description "Identity for the site VPN service flavor. Used to describe an NNI option A connection."; } identity service-type { description "Base identity of the service type."; } identity vpws { base service-type; description "Point-to-point Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) service type."; } identity pwe3 { base service-type; description "Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) service type."; } identity ldp-l2tp-vpls { base service-type; description "LDP-based or L2TP-based multipoint Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) service type. This VPLS uses LDP-signaled Pseudowires or L2TP-signaled Pseudowires."; } identity bgp-vpls { base service-type; description "BGP-based multipoint VPLS service type. This VPLS uses a BGP control plane as described in RFCs 4761 and 6624."; } identity vpws-evpn { base service-type; description "VPWS service type using Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs) as specified inRFC 7432."; } identity pbb-evpn {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 93]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 base service-type; description "Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) service type using EVPNs as specified inRFC 7432."; } identity bundling-type { description "The base identity for the bundling type. It supports multiple CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service or all CE-VLANs associated with an L2VPN service."; } identity multi-svc-bundling { base bundling-type; description "Identity for multi-service bundling, i.e., multiple CE-VLAN IDs can be associated with an L2VPN service at a site."; } identity one2one-bundling { base bundling-type; description "Identity for one-to-one service bundling, i.e., each L2VPN can be associated with only one CE-VLAN ID at a site."; } identity all2one-bundling { base bundling-type; description "Identity for all-to-one bundling, i.e., all CE-VLAN IDs are mapped to one L2VPN service."; } identity color-id { description "Base identity of the color ID."; } identity color-id-cvlan { base color-id; description "Identity of the color ID based on a CVLAN."; } identity cos-id {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 94]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Identity of the CoS ID."; } identity cos-id-pcp { base cos-id; description "Identity of the CoS ID based on the Port Control Protocol (PCP)."; } identity cos-id-dscp { base cos-id; description "Identity of the CoS ID based on DSCP."; } identity color-type { description "Identity of color types."; } identity green { base color-type; description "Identity of the 'green' color type."; } identity yellow { base color-type; description "Identity of the 'yellow' color type."; } identity red { base color-type; description "Identity of the 'red' color type."; } identity policing { description "Identity of the type of policing applied."; } identity one-rate-two-color { base policing; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 95]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity of one-rate, two-color (1R2C)."; } identity two-rate-three-color { base policing; description "Identity of two-rate, three-color (2R3C)."; } identity bum-type { description "Identity of the BUM type."; } identity broadcast { base bum-type; description "Identity of broadcast."; } identity unicast { base bum-type; description "Identity of unicast."; } identity multicast { base bum-type; description "Identity of multicast."; } identity loop-prevention-type { description "Identity of loop prevention."; } identity shut { base loop-prevention-type; description "Identity of shut protection."; } identity trap { base loop-prevention-type; description "Identity of trap protection."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 96]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 identity lacp-state { description "Identity of the LACP state."; } identity lacp-on { base lacp-state; description "Identity of LACP on."; } identity lacp-off { base lacp-state; description "Identity of LACP off."; } identity lacp-mode { description "Identity of the LACP mode."; } identity lacp-passive { base lacp-mode; description "Identity of LACP passive."; } identity lacp-active { base lacp-mode; description "Identity of LACP active."; } identity lacp-speed { description "Identity of the LACP speed."; } identity lacp-fast { base lacp-speed; description "Identity of LACP fast."; } identity lacp-slow { base lacp-speed; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 97]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity of LACP slow."; } identity bw-direction { description "Identity for the bandwidth direction."; } identity input-bw { base bw-direction; description "Identity for the input bandwidth."; } identity output-bw { base bw-direction; description "Identity for the output bandwidth."; } identity management { description "Base identity for the site management scheme."; } identity co-managed { base management; description "Identity for a co-managed site."; } identity customer-managed { base management; description "Identity for a customer-managed site."; } identity provider-managed { base management; description "Identity for a provider-managed site."; } identity address-family { description "Identity for an address family."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 98]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 identity ipv4 { base address-family; description "Identity for an IPv4 address family."; } identity ipv6 { base address-family; description "Identity for an IPv6 address family."; } identity vpn-topology { description "Base identity for the VPN topology."; } identity any-to-any { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for the any-to-any VPN topology."; } identity hub-spoke { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for the Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology."; } identity hub-spoke-disjoint { base vpn-topology; description "Identity for the Hub-and-Spoke VPN topology, where Hubs cannot communicate with each other."; } identity site-role { description "Base identity for a site type."; } identity any-to-any-role { base site-role; description "Site in an any-to-any L2VPN."; } identity spoke-role {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 99]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 base site-role; description "Spoke site in a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN."; } identity hub-role { base site-role; description "Hub site in a Hub-and-Spoke L2VPN."; } identity pm-type { description "Performance-monitoring type."; } identity loss { base pm-type; description "Loss measurement."; } identity delay { base pm-type; description "Delay measurement."; } identity fault-alarm-defect-type { description "Indicates the alarm-priority defect (i.e., the lowest-priority defect that is allowed to generate a fault alarm)."; } identity remote-rdi { base fault-alarm-defect-type; description "Indicates the aggregate health of the Remote MEPs."; } identity remote-mac-error { base fault-alarm-defect-type; description "Indicates that one or more of the Remote MEPs are reporting a failure in their Port Status TLVs or Interface Status TLVs.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 100]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } identity remote-invalid-ccm { base fault-alarm-defect-type; description "Indicates that at least one of the Remote MEP state machines is not receiving valid Continuity Check Messages (CCMs) from its Remote MEP."; } identity invalid-ccm { base fault-alarm-defect-type; description "Indicates that one or more invalid CCMs have been received and that a period of time 3.5 times the length of those CCMs' transmission intervals has not yet expired."; } identity cross-connect-ccm { base fault-alarm-defect-type; description "Indicates that one or more cross-connect CCMs have been received and that 3.5 times the period of at least one of those CCMs' transmission intervals has not yet expired."; } identity frame-delivery-mode { description "Delivery types."; } identity discard { base frame-delivery-mode; description "Service frames are discarded."; } identity unconditional { base frame-delivery-mode; description "Service frames are unconditionally delivered to the destination site."; } identity unknown-discard { base frame-delivery-mode; description "Service frames are conditionally delivered to theWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 101]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 destination site. Packets with unknown destination addresses will be discarded."; } identity placement-diversity { description "Base identity for site placement constraints."; } identity bearer-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for bearer diversity. The bearers should not use common elements."; } identity pe-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for PE diversity."; } identity pop-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for POP diversity."; } identity linecard-diverse { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for linecard diversity."; } identity same-pe { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for having sites connected on the same PE."; } identity same-bearer { base placement-diversity; description "Identity for having sites connected using the same bearer."; } identity tagged-inf-type { descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 102]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity for the tagged interface type."; } identity priority-tagged { base tagged-inf-type; description "Identity for the priority-tagged interface."; } identity qinq { base tagged-inf-type; description "Identity for the QinQ tagged interface."; } identity dot1q { base tagged-inf-type; description "Identity for the dot1Q VLAN tagged interface."; } identity qinany { base tagged-inf-type; description "Identity for the QinAny tagged interface."; } identity vxlan { base tagged-inf-type; description "Identity for the VXLAN tagged interface."; } identity provision-model { description "Base identity for the provision model."; } identity single-side-provision { description "Identity for single-sided provisioning with discovery."; } identity doubled-side-provision { description "Identity for double-sided provisioning."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 103]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 identity mac-learning-mode { description "MAC learning mode."; } identity data-plane { base mac-learning-mode; description "User MAC addresses are learned through ARP broadcast."; } identity control-plane { base mac-learning-mode; description "User MAC addresses are advertised through EVPN-BGP."; } identity vpn-policy-filter-type { description "Base identity for the filter type."; } identity lan { base vpn-policy-filter-type; description "Identity for a LAN tag filter type."; } identity mac-action { description "Base identity for a MAC action."; } identity drop { base mac-action; description "Identity for dropping a packet."; } identity flood { base mac-action; description "Identity for packet flooding."; } identity warning { base mac-action; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 104]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identity for sending a warning log message."; } identity qos-profile-direction { description "Base identity for the QoS-profile direction."; } identity site-to-wan { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for the site-to-WAN direction."; } identity wan-to-site { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for the WAN-to-site direction."; } identity bidirectional { base qos-profile-direction; description "Identity for both the WAN-to-site direction and the site-to-WAN direction."; } identity vxlan-peer-mode { description "Base identity for the VXLAN peer mode."; } identity static-mode { base vxlan-peer-mode; description "Identity for VXLAN access in the static mode."; } identity bgp-mode { base vxlan-peer-mode; description "Identity for VXLAN access by BGP EVPN learning."; } identity customer-application { description "Base identity for a customer application."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 105]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 identity web { base customer-application; description "Identity for a web application (e.g., HTTP, HTTPS)."; } identity mail { base customer-application; description "Identity for a mail application."; } identity file-transfer { base customer-application; description "Identity for a file-transfer application (e.g., FTP, SFTP)."; } identity database { base customer-application; description "Identity for a database application."; } identity social { base customer-application; description "Identity for a social-network application."; } identity games { base customer-application; description "Identity for a gaming application."; } identity p2p { base customer-application; description "Identity for a peer-to-peer application."; } identity network-management { base customer-application; description "Identity for a management application (e.g., Telnet, syslog, SNMP).";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 106]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } identity voice { base customer-application; description "Identity for a voice application."; } identity video { base customer-application; description "Identity for a videoconference application."; } identity embb { base customer-application; description "Identity for the enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) application. Note that the eMBB application requires strict threshold values for a wide variety of network performance parameters (e.g., data rate, latency, loss rate, reliability)."; } identity urllc { base customer-application; description "Identity for the Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications (URLLC) application. Note that the URLLC application requires strict threshold values for a wide variety of network performance parameters (e.g., latency, reliability)."; } identity mmtc { base customer-application; description "Identity for the massive Machine Type Communications (mMTC) application. Note that the mMTC application requires strict threshold values for a wide variety of network performance parameters (e.g., data rate, latency, loss rate, reliability)."; } grouping site-acl { container access-control-list { if-feature "acl"; list mac {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 107]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 key "mac-address"; leaf mac-address { type yang:mac-address; description "MAC addresses."; } description "List of MAC addresses."; } description "Container for the ACL."; } description "Grouping that defines the ACL."; } grouping site-bum { container broadcast-unknown-unicast-multicast { if-feature "bum"; leaf multicast-site-type { type enumeration { enum receiver-only { description "The site only has receivers."; } enum source-only { description "The site only has sources."; } enum source-receiver { description "The site has both sources and receivers."; } } default "source-receiver"; description "Type of multicast site."; } list multicast-gp-address-mapping { key "id"; leaf id { type uint16; description "Unique identifier for the mapping."; } leaf vlan-id { type uint16 { range "0..1024";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 108]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } mandatory true; description "The VLAN ID of the multicast group. The range of the 12-bit VLAN ID is 0 to 1024."; } leaf mac-gp-address { type yang:mac-address; mandatory true; description "The MAC address of the multicast group."; } leaf port-lag-number { type uint32; description "The ports/LAGs belonging to the multicast group."; } description "List of port-to-group mappings."; } leaf bum-overall-rate { type uint64; units "bps"; description "Overall rate for BUM."; } list bum-rate-per-type { key "type"; leaf type { type identityref { base bum-type; } description "BUM type."; } leaf rate { type uint64; units "bps"; description "Rate for BUM."; } description "List of limit rates for the BUM type."; } description "Container of BUM configurations."; } descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 109]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Grouping for BUM."; } grouping site-mac-loop-prevention { container mac-loop-prevention { if-feature "mac-loop-prevention"; leaf protection-type { type identityref { base loop-prevention-type; } default "trap"; description "Protection type. By default, the protection type is 'trap'."; } leaf frequency { type uint32; default "5"; description "The number of times to detect MAC duplication, where a 'duplicate MAC address' situation has occurred and the duplicate MAC address has been added to a list of duplicate MAC addresses. By default, the number of times is 5."; } leaf retry-timer { type uint32; units "seconds"; description "The retry timer. When the retry timer expires, the duplicate MAC address will be flushed from the MAC-VRF."; } description "Container of MAC loop-prevention parameters."; } description "Grouping for MAC loop prevention."; } grouping site-service-qos-profile { container qos { if-feature "qos"; container qos-classification-policy { list rule { key "id"; ordered-by user; leaf id {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 110]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 type string; description "A description identifying the QoS classification policy rule."; } choice match-type { default "match-flow"; case match-flow { container match-flow { leaf dscp { type inet:dscp; description "DSCP value."; } leaf dot1q { type uint16; description "802.1Q matching. It is a VLAN tag added into a frame."; } leaf pcp { type uint8 { range "0..7"; } description "PCP value."; } leaf src-mac { type yang:mac-address; description "Source MAC."; } leaf dst-mac { type yang:mac-address; description "Destination MAC."; } leaf color-type { type identityref { base color-type; } description "Color types."; } leaf-list target-sites { if-feature "target-sites"; type svc-id; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 111]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identifies a site as a traffic destination."; } leaf any { type empty; description "Allow all."; } leaf vpn-id { type svc-id; description "Reference to the target VPN."; } description "Describes flow-matching criteria."; } } case match-application { leaf match-application { type identityref { base customer-application; } description "Defines the application to match."; } } description "Choice for classification."; } leaf target-class-id { type string; description "Identification of the CoS. This identifier is internal to the administration."; } description "List of marking rules."; } description "Configuration of the traffic classification policy."; } container qos-profile { choice qos-profile { description "Choice for the QoS profile. Can be a standard profile or a customized profile."; case standard { descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 112]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Standard QoS profile."; leaf profile { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/" + "valid-provider-identifiers/" + "qos-profile-identifier"; } description "QoS profile to be used."; } } case custom { description "Customized QoS profile."; container classes { if-feature "qos-custom"; list class { key "class-id"; leaf class-id { type string; description "Identification of the CoS. This identifier is internal to the administration."; } leaf direction { type identityref { base qos-profile-direction; } default "bidirectional"; description "The direction in which the QoS profile is applied. By default, the direction is bidirectional."; } leaf policing { type identityref { base policing; } default "one-rate-two-color"; description "The policing type can be either one-rate, two-color (1R2C) or two-rate, three-color (2R3C). By default, the policing type is 'one-rate-two-color'."; } leaf byte-offset { type uint16; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 113]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Number of bytes in the service frame header that are excluded from the QoS calculation (e.g., extra VLAN tags)."; } container frame-delay { choice flavor { case lowest { leaf use-lowest-latency { type empty; description "The traffic class should use the path with the lowest delay."; } } case boundary { leaf delay-bound { type uint16; units "milliseconds"; description "The traffic class should use a path with a defined maximum delay."; } } description "Delay constraint on the traffic class."; } description "Delay constraint on the traffic class."; } container frame-jitter { choice flavor { case lowest { leaf use-lowest-jitter { type empty; description "The traffic class should use the path with the lowest jitter."; } } case boundary { leaf delay-bound { type uint32; units "microseconds"; description "The traffic class should use a path with a defined maximum jitter."; } }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 114]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Jitter constraint on the traffic class."; } description "Jitter constraint on the traffic class."; } container frame-loss { leaf rate { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 2; range "0..100"; } units "percent"; description "Frame loss rate constraint on the traffic class."; } description "Container for frame loss rate."; } container bandwidth { leaf guaranteed-bw-percent { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 5; range "0..100"; } units "percent"; mandatory true; description "Used to define the guaranteed bandwidth as a percentage of the available service bandwidth."; } leaf end-to-end { type empty; description "Used if the bandwidth reservation must be done on the MPLS network too."; } description "Bandwidth constraint on the traffic class."; } description "List of CoS entries."; } description "Container for list of CoS entries."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 115]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } } description "Qos profile configuration."; } description "QoS configuration."; } description "Grouping that defines QoS parameters for a site."; } grouping site-service-mpls { container carrierscarrier { if-feature "carrierscarrier"; leaf signaling-type { type identityref { base carrierscarrier-type; } default "bgp"; description "CsC. By default, the signaling type is 'bgp'."; } description "Container for CsC."; } description "Grouping for CsC."; } container l2vpn-svc { container vpn-profiles { container valid-provider-identifiers { leaf-list cloud-identifier { if-feature "cloud-access"; type string; description "Identification of the public cloud service or Internet service. Local to each administration."; } leaf-list qos-profile-identifier { type string; description "Identification of the QoS profile to be used. Local to each administration."; } leaf-list bfd-profile-identifier { type string;Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 116]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Identification of the SP BFD profile to be used. Local to each administration."; } leaf-list remote-carrier-identifier { type string; description "Identification of the remote carrier name to be used. It can be an L2VPN partner, data-center SP, or private CSP. Local to each administration."; } nacm:default-deny-write; description "Container for valid provider identifiers."; } description "Container for VPN profiles."; } container vpn-services { list vpn-service { key "vpn-id"; leaf vpn-id { type svc-id; description "Defines a service identifier."; } leaf vpn-svc-type { type identityref { base service-type; } default "vpws"; description "Service type. By default, the service type is 'vpws'."; } leaf customer-name { type string; description "Customer name."; } leaf svc-topo { type identityref { base vpn-topology; } default "any-to-any"; description "Defines the service topology, e.g., 'any-to-any', 'hub-spoke'."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 117]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 container cloud-accesses { if-feature "cloud-access"; list cloud-access { key "cloud-identifier"; leaf cloud-identifier { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/" + "valid-provider-identifiers" + "/cloud-identifier"; } description "Identification of the cloud service. Local to each administration."; } choice list-flavor { case permit-any { leaf permit-any { type empty; description "Allow all sites."; } } case deny-any-except { leaf-list permit-site { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id"; } description "Site ID to be authorized."; } } case permit-any-except { leaf-list deny-site { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/sites/site/site-id"; } description "Site ID to be denied."; } } description "Choice for cloud access policy. By default, all sites in the L2VPN MUST be authorized to access the cloud."; } description "Cloud access configuration."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 118]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Container for cloud access configurations."; } container frame-delivery { if-feature "bum"; container customer-tree-flavors { leaf-list tree-flavor { type identityref { base multicast-tree-type; } description "Type of tree to be used."; } description "Types of trees used by the customer."; } container bum-deliveries { list bum-delivery { key "frame-type"; leaf frame-type { type identityref { base tf-type; } description "Type of frame delivery. It supports unicast frame delivery, multicast frame delivery, and broadcast frame delivery."; } leaf delivery-mode { type identityref { base frame-delivery-mode; } default "unconditional"; description "Defines the frame delivery mode ('unconditional' (default), 'conditional', or 'discard'). By default, service frames are unconditionally delivered to the destination site."; } description "List of frame delivery types and modes."; } description "Defines the frame delivery types and modes."; } leaf multicast-gp-port-mapping { type identityref { base multicast-gp-address-mapping;Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 119]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } mandatory true; description "Describes the way in which each interface is associated with the multicast group."; } description "Multicast global parameters for the VPN service."; } container extranet-vpns { if-feature "extranet-vpn"; list extranet-vpn { key "vpn-id"; leaf vpn-id { type svc-id; description "Identifies the target VPN that the local VPN wants to access."; } leaf local-sites-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default "any-to-any-role"; description "Describes the role of the local sites in the target VPN topology. In the any-to-any VPN service topology, the local sites must have the same role, which will be 'any-to-any-role'. In the Hub-and-Spoke VPN service topology or the Hub-and-Spoke-Disjoint VPN service topology, the local sites must have a Hub role or a Spoke role."; } description "List of extranet VPNs to which the local VPN is attached."; } description "Container for extranet VPN configurations."; } leaf ce-vlan-preservation { type boolean; mandatory true; description "Preserves the CE-VLAN ID from ingress to egress, i.e., the CE-VLAN tag of the egress frame is identical to that of the ingress frame that yielded this egress service frame. If all-to-one bundling withinWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 120]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 a site is enabled, then preservation applies to all ingress service frames. If all-to-one bundling is disabled, then preservation applies to tagged ingress service frames having CE-VLAN IDs 1 through 4094."; } leaf ce-vlan-cos-preservation { type boolean; mandatory true; description "CE VLAN CoS preservation. The PCP bits in the CE-VLAN tag of the egress frame are identical to those of the ingress frame that yielded this egress service frame."; } leaf carrierscarrier { if-feature "carrierscarrier"; type boolean; default "false"; description "The VPN is using CsC, and so MPLS is required."; } description "List of VPN services."; } description "Container for VPN services."; } container sites { list site { key "site-id"; leaf site-id { type string; description "Identifier of the site."; } leaf site-vpn-flavor { type identityref { base site-vpn-flavor; } default "site-vpn-flavor-single"; description "Defines the way that the VPN multiplexing is done, e.g., whether the site belongs to a single VPN site or a multi-VPN site. By default, the site belongs to a single VPN."; } container devices { when "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:provider-managed') or "Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 121]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 + "derived-from-or-self(../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for a provider-managed or co-managed device."; } list device { key "device-id"; leaf device-id { type string; description "Identifier for the device."; } leaf location { type leafref { path "../../../locations/location/location-id"; } mandatory true; description "Location of the device."; } container management { when "derived-from-or-self(../../../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for a co-managed device."; } leaf transport { type identityref { base address-family; } description "Transport protocol or address family used for management."; } leaf address { when '(../ transport)' { description "If the address family is specified, then the address should also be specified. If the transport is not specified, then the address should not be specified."; } type inet:ip-address; description "Management address."; } descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 122]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Management configuration. Applicable only for a co-managed device."; } description "List of devices requested by the customer."; } description "Device configurations."; } container management { leaf type { type identityref { base management; } mandatory true; description "Management type of the connection."; } description "Management configuration."; } container locations { list location { key "location-id"; leaf location-id { type string; description "Location ID."; } leaf address { type string; description "Address (number and street) of the site."; } leaf postal-code { type string; description "Postal code of the site. The format of 'postal-code' is similar to the 'PC' (postal code) label format defined inRFC 4119."; } leaf state { type string; description "State (region) of the site. This leaf can also be used to describe a region of a country that does not have states."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 123]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 leaf city { type string; description "City of the site."; } leaf country-code { type string; description "Country of the site. The format of 'country-code' is similar to the 'country' label defined inRFC 4119."; } description "List of locations."; } description "Location of the site."; } container site-diversity { if-feature "site-diversity"; container groups { list group { key "group-id"; leaf group-id { type string; description "The group-id to which the site belongs."; } description "List of group-ids."; } description "Groups to which the site belongs. All site network accesses will inherit those group values."; } description "The type of diversity constraint."; } container vpn-policies { list vpn-policy { key "vpn-policy-id"; leaf vpn-policy-id { type string; description "Unique identifier for the VPN policy."; } list entries { key "id";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 124]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 leaf id { type string; description "Unique identifier for the policy entry."; } container filters { list filter { key "type"; ordered-by user; leaf type { type identityref { base vpn-policy-filter-type; } description "Type of VPN policy filter."; } leaf-list lan-tag { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:lan')" { description "Only applies when the VPN policy filter is a LAN tag filter."; } if-feature "lan-tag"; type uint32; description "List of Ethernet LAN tags to be matched. An Ethernet LAN tag identifies a particular broadcast domain in a VPN."; } description "List of filters used on the site. This list can be augmented."; } description "If a more granular VPN attachment is necessary, filtering can be used. If used, it permits the splitting of site LANs among multiple VPNs. The site LAN can be split based on either the LAN tag or the LAN prefix. If no filter is used, all the LANs will be part of the same VPNs with the same role."; } list vpn { key "vpn-id"; leaf vpn-id { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id"; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 125]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Reference to an L2VPN."; } leaf site-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default "any-to-any-role"; description "Role of the site in the L2VPN."; } description "List of VPNs with which the LAN is associated."; } description "List of entries for an export policy."; } description "List of VPN policies."; } description "VPN policy."; } container service { uses site-service-qos-profile; uses site-service-mpls; description "Service parameters on the attachment."; } uses site-bum; uses site-mac-loop-prevention; uses site-acl; leaf actual-site-start { type yang:date-and-time; config false; description "This leaf is optional. It indicates the date and time when the service at a particular site actually started."; } leaf actual-site-stop { type yang:date-and-time; config false; description "This leaf is optional. It indicates the date and time when the service at a particular site actually stopped."; } leaf bundling-type { type identityref {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 126]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 base bundling-type; } default "one2one-bundling"; description "Bundling type. By default, each L2VPN can be associated with only one CE-VLAN, i.e., one-to-one bundling is used."; } leaf default-ce-vlan-id { type uint32; mandatory true; description "Default CE VLAN ID set at the site level."; } container site-network-accesses { list site-network-access { key "network-access-id"; leaf network-access-id { type string; description "Identifier of network access."; } leaf remote-carrier-name { when "derived-from-or-self(../../../site-vpn-flavor," + "'l2vpn-svc:site-vpn-flavor-nni')" { description "Relevant when the site's VPN flavor is 'site-vpn-flavor-nni'."; } type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/" + "valid-provider-identifiers" + "/remote-carrier-identifier"; } description "Remote carrier name. The 'remote-carrier-name' parameter must be configured only when 'site-vpn-flavor' is set to 'site-vpn-flavor-nni'. If it is not set, it indicates that the customer does not know the remote carrier's name beforehand."; } leaf type { type identityref { base site-network-access-type; } default "point-to-point"; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 127]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Describes the type of connection, e.g., point-to-point or multipoint."; } choice location-flavor { case location { when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:customer-managed')" { description "Applicable only for a customer-managed device."; } leaf location-reference { type leafref { path "../../../locations/location/location-id"; } description "Location of the site-network-access."; } } case device { when "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:provider-managed') or " + "derived-from-or-self(../../management/type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:co-managed')" { description "Applicable only for a provider-managed or co-managed device."; } leaf device-reference { type leafref { path "../../../devices/device/device-id"; } description "Identifier of the CE to use."; } } mandatory true; description "Choice of how to describe the site's location."; } container access-diversity { if-feature "site-diversity"; container groups { list group { key "group-id"; leaf group-id { type string; description "Group-id to which the site belongs.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 128]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } description "List of group-ids."; } description "Groups to which the site or site-network-access belongs."; } container constraints { list constraint { key "constraint-type"; leaf constraint-type { type identityref { base placement-diversity; } description "The type of diversity constraint."; } container target { choice target-flavor { default "id"; case id { list group { key "group-id"; leaf group-id { type string; description "The constraint will apply against this particular group-id."; } description "List of groups."; } } case all-accesses { leaf all-other-accesses { type empty; description "The constraint will apply against all other site network accesses of this site."; } } case all-groups { leaf all-other-groups { type empty; description "The constraint will apply against all other groups the customer is managing.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 129]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } } description "Choice for the group definition."; } description "The constraint will apply against this list of groups."; } description "List of constraints."; } description "Constraints for placing this site network access."; } description "Diversity parameters."; } container bearer { container requested-type { if-feature "requested-type"; leaf type { type string; description "Type of requested bearer: Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay, IP Layer 2 transport, Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), SONET/SDH, PPP."; } leaf strict { type boolean; default "false"; description "Defines whether the requested type is a preference or a strict requirement."; } description "Container for requested types."; } leaf always-on { if-feature "always-on"; type boolean; default "true"; description "Request for an 'always-on' access type. For example, this could mean no dial-in access type."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 130]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 leaf bearer-reference { if-feature "bearer-reference"; type string; description "An internal reference for the SP."; } description "Bearer-specific parameters. To be augmented."; } container connection { leaf encapsulation-type { type identityref { base encapsulation-type; } default "ethernet"; description "Encapsulation type. By default, the encapsulation type is set to 'ethernet'."; } leaf eth-inf-type { type identityref { base eth-inf-type; } default "untagged"; description "Ethernet interface type. By default, the Ethernet interface type is set to 'untagged'."; } container tagged-interface { leaf type { type identityref { base tagged-inf-type; } default "priority-tagged"; description "Tagged interface type. By default, the type of the tagged interface is 'priority-tagged'."; } container dot1q-vlan-tagged { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:dot1q')" { description "Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is 'dot1q'."; } if-feature "dot1q"; leaf tg-type {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 131]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 type identityref { base tag-type; } default "c-vlan"; description "Tag type. By default, the tag type is 'c-vlan'."; } leaf cvlan-id { type uint16; mandatory true; description "VLAN identifier."; } description "Tagged interface."; } container priority-tagged { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:priority-tagged')" { description "Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is 'priority-tagged'."; } leaf tag-type { type identityref { base tag-type; } default "c-vlan"; description "Tag type. By default, the tag type is 'c-vlan'."; } description "Priority tagged."; } container qinq { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:qinq')" { description "Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is 'qinq'."; } if-feature "qinq"; leaf tag-type { type identityref { base tag-type; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 132]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 default "c-s-vlan"; description "Tag type. By default, the tag type is 'c-s-vlan'."; } leaf svlan-id { type uint16; mandatory true; description "SVLAN identifier."; } leaf cvlan-id { type uint16; mandatory true; description "CVLAN identifier."; } description "QinQ."; } container qinany { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:qinany')" { description "Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is 'qinany'."; } if-feature "qinany"; leaf tag-type { type identityref { base tag-type; } default "s-vlan"; description "Tag type. By default, the tag type is 's-vlan'."; } leaf svlan-id { type uint16; mandatory true; description "SVLAN ID."; } description "Container for QinAny."; } container vxlan { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, "Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 133]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 + "'l2vpn-svc:vxlan')" { description "Only applies when the type of the tagged interface is 'vxlan'."; } if-feature "vxlan"; leaf vni-id { type uint32; mandatory true; description "VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI)."; } leaf peer-mode { type identityref { base vxlan-peer-mode; } default "static-mode"; description "Specifies the VXLAN access mode. By default, the peer mode is set to 'static-mode'."; } list peer-list { key "peer-ip"; leaf peer-ip { type inet:ip-address; description "Peer IP."; } description "List of peer IP addresses."; } description "QinQ."; } description "Container for tagged interfaces."; } container untagged-interface { leaf speed { type uint32; units "mbps"; default "10"; description "Port speed."; } leaf mode { type neg-mode; default "auto-neg";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 134]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Negotiation mode."; } leaf phy-mtu { type uint32; units "bytes"; description "PHY MTU."; } leaf lldp { type boolean; default "false"; description "LLDP. Indicates that LLDP is supported."; } container oam-802.3ah-link { if-feature "oam-3ah"; leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether or not to support OAM 802.3ah links."; } description "Container for OAM 802.3ah links."; } leaf uni-loop-prevention { type boolean; default "false"; description "If this leaf is set to 'true', then the port automatically goes down when a physical loopback is detected."; } description "Container of untagged interface attribute configurations."; } container lag-interfaces { if-feature "lag-interface"; list lag-interface { key "index"; leaf index { type string; description "LAG interface index."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 135]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 container lacp { if-feature "lacp"; leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "LACP on/off. By default, LACP is disabled."; } leaf mode { type neg-mode; description "LACP mode. LACP modes have active mode and passive mode ('false'). 'Active mode' means initiating the auto-speed negotiation and trying to form an Ethernet channel with the other end. 'Passive mode' means not initiating the negotiation but responding to LACP packets initiated by the other end (e.g., full duplex or half duplex)."; } leaf speed { type uint32; units "mbps"; default "10"; description "LACP speed. By default, the LACP speed is 10 Mbps."; } leaf mini-link-num { type uint32; description "Defines the minimum number of links that must be active before the aggregating link is put into service."; } leaf system-priority { type uint16; default "32768"; description "Indicates the LACP priority for the system. The range is from 0 to 65535. The default is 32768."; } container micro-bfd { if-feature "micro-bfd"; leaf enabled { type enumeration { enum on {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 136]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "Micro-bfd on."; } enum off { description "Micro-bfd off."; } } default "off"; description "Micro-BFD on/off. By default, micro-BFD is set to 'off'."; } leaf interval { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; description "BFD interval."; } leaf hold-timer { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; description "BFD hold timer."; } description "Container of micro-BFD configurations."; } container bfd { if-feature "bfd"; leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "BFD activation. By default, BFD is not activated."; } choice holdtime { default "fixed"; case profile { leaf profile-name { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-profiles/" + "valid-provider-identifiers" + "/bfd-profile-identifier"; } description "SP well-known profile.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 137]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } description "SP well-known profile."; } case fixed { leaf fixed-value { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; description "Expected hold time expressed in milliseconds."; } } description "Choice for the hold-time flavor."; } description "Container for BFD."; } container member-links { list member-link { key "name"; leaf name { type string; description "Member link name."; } leaf speed { type uint32; units "mbps"; default "10"; description "Port speed."; } leaf mode { type neg-mode; default "auto-neg"; description "Negotiation mode."; } leaf link-mtu { type uint32; units "bytes"; description "Link MTU size."; } container oam-802.3ah-link { if-feature "oam-3ah";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 138]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether OAM 802.3ah links are supported."; } description "Container for OAM 802.3ah links."; } description "Member link."; } description "Container of the member link list."; } leaf flow-control { type boolean; default "false"; description "Flow control. Indicates whether flow control is supported."; } leaf lldp { type boolean; default "false"; description "LLDP. Indicates whether LLDP is supported."; } description "LACP."; } description "List of LAG interfaces."; } description "Container of LAG interface attribute configurations."; } list cvlan-id-to-svc-map { key "svc-id"; leaf svc-id { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id"; } description "VPN service identifier."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 139]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 list cvlan-id { key "vid"; leaf vid { type uint16; description "CVLAN ID."; } description "List of CVLAN-ID-to-SVC-map configurations."; } description "List of CVLAN-ID-to-L2VPN-service-map configurations."; } container l2cp-control { if-feature "l2cp-control"; leaf stp-rstp-mstp { type control-mode; description "STP / Rapid STP (RSTP) / Multiple STP (MSTP) protocol type applicable to all sites."; } leaf pause { type control-mode; description "Pause protocol type applicable to all sites."; } leaf lacp-lamp { type control-mode; description "LACP / Link Aggregation Marker Protocol (LAMP)."; } leaf link-oam { type control-mode; description "Link OAM."; } leaf esmc { type control-mode; description "Ethernet Synchronization Messaging Channel (ESMC)."; } leaf l2cp-802.1x { type control-mode; description "IEEE 802.1x."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 140]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 leaf e-lmi { type control-mode; description "E-LMI."; } leaf lldp { type boolean; description "LLDP protocol type applicable to all sites."; } leaf ptp-peer-delay { type control-mode; description "Precision Time Protocol (PTP) peer delay."; } leaf garp-mrp { type control-mode; description "GARP/MRP."; } description "Container of L2CP control configurations."; } container oam { if-feature "ethernet-oam"; leaf md-name { type string; mandatory true; description "Maintenance domain name."; } leaf md-level { type uint16 { range "0..255"; } mandatory true; description "Maintenance domain level. The level may be restricted in certain protocols (e.g., protocols in Layer 0 to Layer 7)."; } list cfm-8021-ag { if-feature "cfm"; key "maid"; leaf maid { type string; mandatory true; descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 141]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Identifies a Maintenance Association (MA)."; } leaf mep-id { type uint32; description "Local Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP) ID. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf mep-level { type uint32; description "Defines the MEP level. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf mep-up-down { type enumeration { enum up { description "MEP up."; } enum down { description "MEP down."; } } default "up"; description "MEP up/down. By default, MEP up is used. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf remote-mep-id { type uint32; description "Remote MEP ID. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf cos-for-cfm-pdus { type uint32; description "CoS for CFM PDUs. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf ccm-interval { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; default "10000";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 142]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 description "CCM interval. By default, the CCM interval is 10,000 milliseconds (10 seconds)."; } leaf ccm-holdtime { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; default "35000"; description "CCM hold time. By default, the CCM hold time is 3.5 times the CCM interval."; } leaf alarm-priority-defect { type identityref { base fault-alarm-defect-type; } default "remote-invalid-ccm"; description "The lowest-priority defect that is allowed to generate a fault alarm. By default, 'fault-alarm-defect-type' is set to 'remote-invalid-ccm'. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } leaf ccm-p-bits-pri { type ccm-priority-type; description "The priority parameter for CCMs transmitted by the MEP. The non-existence of this leaf means that no defects are to be reported."; } description "List of 802.1ag CFM attributes."; } list y-1731 { if-feature "y-1731"; key "maid"; leaf maid { type string; mandatory true; description "Identifies an MA."; } leaf mep-id { type uint32; description "Local MEP ID. The non-existence of this leafWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 143]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 means that no measurements are to be reported."; } leaf type { type identityref { base pm-type; } default "delay"; description "Performance-monitoring types. By default, the performance-monitoring type is set to 'delay'. The non-existence of this leaf means that no measurements are to be reported."; } leaf remote-mep-id { type uint32; description "Remote MEP ID. The non-existence of this leaf means that no measurements are to be reported."; } leaf message-period { type uint32; units "milliseconds"; default "10000"; description "Defines the interval between Y.1731 performance-monitoring messages. The message period is expressed in milliseconds."; } leaf measurement-interval { type uint32; units "seconds"; description "Specifies the measurement interval for statistics. The measurement interval is expressed in seconds."; } leaf cos { type uint32; description "CoS. The non-existence of this leaf means that no measurements are to be reported."; } leaf loss-measurement { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether or not to enable lossWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 144]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 measurement. By default, loss measurement is not enabled."; } leaf synthetic-loss-measurement { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether or not to enable synthetic loss measurement. By default, synthetic loss measurement is not enabled."; } container delay-measurement { leaf enable-dm { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether or not to enable delay measurement. By default, delay measurement is not enabled."; } leaf two-way { type boolean; default "false"; description "Indicates whether delay measurement is two-way ('true') or one-way ('false'). By default, one-way measurement is enabled."; } description "Container for delay measurement."; } leaf frame-size { type uint32; units "bytes"; description "Frame size. The non-existence of this leaf means that no measurements are to be reported."; } leaf session-type { type enumeration { enum proactive { description "Proactive mode."; } enum on-demand { description "On-demand mode."; }Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 145]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } default "on-demand"; description "Session type. By default, the session type is 'on-demand'. The non-existence of this leaf means that no measurements are to be reported."; } description "List of configured Y-1731 instances."; } description "Container for Ethernet Service OAM."; } description "Container for connection requirements."; } container availability { leaf access-priority { type uint32; default "100"; description "Access priority. The higher the access-priority value, the higher the preference will be for the access in question."; } choice redundancy-mode { case single-active { leaf single-active { type empty; description "Single-active mode."; } description "In single-active mode, only one node forwards traffic to and from the Ethernet segment."; } case all-active { leaf all-active { type empty; description "All-active mode."; } description "In all-active mode, all nodes can forward traffic."; } descriptionWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 146]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 "Redundancy mode choice."; } description "Container of available optional configurations."; } container vpn-attachment { choice attachment-flavor { case vpn-id { leaf vpn-id { type leafref { path "/l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service/vpn-id"; } description "Reference to an L2VPN. Referencing a vpn-id provides an easy way to attach a particular logical access to a VPN. In this case, the vpn-id must be configured."; } leaf site-role { type identityref { base site-role; } default "any-to-any-role"; description "Role of the site in the L2VPN. When referencing a vpn-id, the site-role setting must be added to express the role of the site in the target VPN service topology."; } } case vpn-policy-id { leaf vpn-policy-id { type leafref { path "../../../../vpn-policies/vpn-policy/" + "vpn-policy-id"; } description "Reference to a VPN policy."; } } mandatory true; description "Choice for the VPN attachment flavor."; } description "Defines the VPN attachment of a site."; } container service {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 147]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 container svc-bandwidth { if-feature "input-bw"; list bandwidth { key "direction type"; leaf direction { type identityref { base bw-direction; } description "Indicates the bandwidth direction. It can be the bandwidth download direction from the SP to the site or the bandwidth upload direction from the site to the SP."; } leaf type { type identityref { base bw-type; } description "Bandwidth type. By default, the bandwidth type is set to 'bw-per-cos'."; } leaf cos-id { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:bw-per-cos')" { description "Relevant when the bandwidth type is set to 'bw-per-cos'."; } type uint8; description "Identifier of the CoS, indicated by DSCP or a CE-VLAN CoS (802.1p) value in the service frame. If the bandwidth type is set to 'bw-per-cos', the CoS ID MUST also be specified."; } leaf vpn-id { when "derived-from-or-self(../type, " + "'l2vpn-svc:bw-per-svc')" { description "Relevant when the bandwidth type is set as bandwidth per VPN service."; } type svc-id; description "Identifies the target VPN. If the bandwidth type is set as bandwidth per VPN service, the vpn-id MUST be specified.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 148]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } leaf cir { type uint64; units "bps"; mandatory true; description "Committed Information Rate. The maximum number of bits that a port can receive or send over an interface in one second."; } leaf cbs { type uint64; units "bps"; mandatory true; description "Committed Burst Size (CBS). Controls the bursty nature of the traffic. Traffic that does not use the configured Committed Information Rate (CIR) accumulates credits until the credits reach the configured CBS."; } leaf eir { type uint64; units "bps"; description "Excess Information Rate (EIR), i.e., excess frame delivery allowed that is not subject to an SLA. The traffic rate can be limited by the EIR."; } leaf ebs { type uint64; units "bps"; description "Excess Burst Size (EBS). The bandwidth available for burst traffic from the EBS is subject to the amount of bandwidth that is accumulated during periods when traffic allocated by the EIR policy is not used."; } leaf pir { type uint64; units "bps"; description "Peak Information Rate, i.e., maximum frame delivery allowed. It is equal to or less than the sum of the CIR and the EIR."; } leaf pbs {Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 149]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 type uint64; units "bps"; description "Peak Burst Size. It is measured in bytes per second."; } description "List of bandwidth values (e.g., per CoS, per vpn-id)."; } description "From the customer site's perspective, the service input/output bandwidth of the connection or download/upload bandwidth from the SP/site to the site/SP."; } leaf svc-mtu { type uint16; units "bytes"; mandatory true; description "SVC MTU. It is also known as the maximum transmission unit or maximum frame size. When a frame is larger than the MTU, it is broken down, or fragmented, into smaller pieces by the network protocol to accommodate the MTU of the network. If CsC is enabled, the requested svc-mtu leaf will refer to the MPLS MTU and not to the link MTU."; } uses site-service-qos-profile; uses site-service-mpls; description "Container for services."; } uses site-bum; uses site-mac-loop-prevention; uses site-acl; container mac-addr-limit { if-feature "mac-addr-limit"; leaf limit-number { type uint16; default "2"; description "Maximum number of MAC addresses learned from the subscriber for a single service instance. The default allowed maximum number of MAC addresses is 2.";Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 150]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 } leaf time-interval { type uint32; units "seconds"; default "300"; description "The aging time of the MAC address. By default, the aging time is set to 300 seconds."; } leaf action { type identityref { base mac-action; } default "warning"; description "Specifies the action taken when the upper limit is exceeded: drop the packet, flood the packet, or simply send a warning log message. By default, the action is set to 'warning'."; } description "Container of MAC address limit configurations."; } description "List of site network accesses."; } description "Container of port configurations."; } description "List of sites."; } description "Container of site configurations."; } description "Container for L2VPN services."; }}<CODE ENDS>Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 151]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 20189. Security Considerations The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446]. The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content. There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service The entries in the list above include all of the VPN service configurations to which the customer subscribes and will use to indirectly create or modify the PE and CE device configurations. Unexpected changes to these entries could lead to service disruptions and/or network misbehavior. o /l2vpn-svc/sites/site The entries in the list above include the customer site configurations. As noted in the previous paragraph, unexpected changes to these entries could lead to service disruptions and/or network misbehavior. Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o /l2vpn-svc/vpn-services/vpn-service o /l2vpn-svc/sites/siteWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 152]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 The entries in the lists above include customer-proprietary or confidential information, e.g., customer name, site location, services to which the customer subscribes. When an SP collaborates with multiple customers, it has to ensure that a given customer can only view and modify its (the customer's) own service information. The data model defines some security parameters that can be extended via augmentation as part of the customer service request; those parameters are described in Sections5.12 and5.13.10. IANA Considerations IANA has assigned a new URI from the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc Registrant Contact: The IESG XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace IANA has assigned a new YANG module name in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]. name: ietf-l2vpn-svc namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l2vpn-svc prefix: l2vpn-svc reference:RFC 846611. References11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry",BCP 81,RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)",RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 153]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>. [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>. [RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M. Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire",RFC 6073, DOI 10.17487/RFC6073, January 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6073>. [RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo, "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)",RFC 6074, DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>. [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)",RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>. [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN",RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>. [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol",RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 154]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase inRFC2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8214] Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J. Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN",RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>. [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91,RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>. [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)",RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>. [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3",RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November 2008, <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.11.2. Informative References [EVPN-YANG] Brissette, P., Ed., Shah, H., Ed., Chen, I., Ed., Hussain, I., Ed., Tiruveedhula, K., Ed., and J. Rabadan, Ed., "Yang Data Model for EVPN", Work in Progress,draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-05, February 2018. [IEEE-802-1ag] IEEE, "802.1ag - 2007 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Amendment 5: Connectivity Fault Management", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2007.4431836. [IEEE-802-1D] IEEE, "802.1D-2004 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2004.94569.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 155]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 [IEEE-802-1Q] IEEE, "802.1Q - 2014 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6991462. [IEEE-802-3ah] IEEE, "802.3ah - 2004 - IEEE Standard for Information technology-- Local and metropolitan area networks-- Part 3: CSMA/CD Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and Management Parameters for Subscriber Access Networks", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2004.94617. [ITU-T-Y-1731] International Telecommunication Union, "Operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, August 2015, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1731/en>. [MEF-6] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase 2", April 2008, <https://mef.net/PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF6-1.pdf>. [MPLS-L2VPN-YANG] Shah, H., Ed., Brissette, P., Ed., Chen, I., Ed., Hussain, I., Ed., Wen, B., Ed., and K. Tiruveedhula, Ed., "YANG Data Model for MPLS-based L2VPN", Work in Progress,draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-08, February 2018. [RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format",RFC 4119, DOI 10.17487/RFC4119, December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4119>. [RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6624>. [RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Ed., Chen, M., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed., Binderberger, M., Ed., and J. Haas, Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces",RFC 7130, DOI 10.17487/RFC7130, February 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7130>.Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 156]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018 [RFC7209] Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Uttaro, J., Bitar, N., Henderickx, W., and A. Isaac, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)",RFC 7209, DOI 10.17487/RFC7209, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7209>. [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks",RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. [RFC7436] Shah, H., Rosen, E., Le Faucheur, F., and G. Heron, "IP-Only LAN Service (IPLS)",RFC 7436, DOI 10.17487/RFC7436, January 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7436>. [RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module Classification",RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8199>. [RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery",RFC 8299, DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>. [RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models Explained",RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8309>. [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",BCP 215,RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.Acknowledgements Thanks to Qin Wu and Adrian Farrel for facilitating work on the initial draft revisions of this document. Thanks to Zonghe Huang, Wei Deng, and Xiaoling Song for their review of this document. Special thanks to Jan Lindblad for his careful review of the YANG. This document has drawn on the work of the L3SM Working Group as provided in [RFC8299].Wen, et al. Standards Track [Page 157]
RFC 8466 L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) October 2018Authors' Addresses Bin Wen Comcast Email: bin_wen@comcast.com Giuseppe Fioccola (editor) Telecom Italia Email: giuseppe.fioccola@tim.it Chongfeng Xie China Telecom Email: xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn Luay Jalil Verizon Email: luay.jalil@verizon.comWen, et al. Standards Track [Page 158]
[8]ページ先頭