TEAS Working Group I. Busi
Internet-Draft Huawei
Obsoletes: 8776 (if approved) A. Guo
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies
Expires: 18 March 2024 X. Liu
Alef Edge
T. Saad
Cisco Systems Inc.
I. Bryskin
Individual
15 September 2023
Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-07
Abstract
This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings
in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types and
groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model Traffic
Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities. This document
obsoletes RFC 8776.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 March 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Path Computation Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2. Protocol Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Packet TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 8776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
A.1. TE Types YANG Diffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
A.2. Packet TE Types YANG Diffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Appendix B. Option Considered for updating RFC8776 . . . . . . . 140
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
1. Introduction
YANG [RFC6020] [RFC7950] is a data modeling language used to model
configuration data, state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and
notifications for network management protocols such as the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241]. The YANG language
supports a small set of built-in data types and provides mechanisms
to derive other types from the built-in types.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
This document introduces a collection of common data types derived
from the built-in YANG data types. The derived types and groupings
are designed to be the common types applicable for modeling Traffic
Engineering (TE) features in model(s) defined outside of this
document.
This document adds few additional common data types, identities, and
groupings to both the "ietf-te-types" and the "ietf-te-packet-types"
YANG models and obsoletes [RFC8776].
For further details, see the revision statements of the YANG modules
in Sections X and Y or the summary in Appendix A.
CHANGE NOTE: These definitions have been developed in
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te], [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-path-computation] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo] and are quite mature:
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] and [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-path-computation] in
particular are in WG Last Call and some definitions have been moved
to this document as part of WG LC comments resolution.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
1.1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology
The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
[RFC7950].
1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes and other data model objects
are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
corresponding YANG imported modules, as shown in Table 1.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
+=================+======================+===========+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+=================+======================+===========+
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+
| rt-types | ietf-routing-types | [RFC8294] |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+
| te-types | ietf-te-types | RFCXXXX |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+
| te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | RFCXXXX |
+-----------------+----------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules
RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number assigned to this
document.
2. Acronyms and Abbreviations
GMPLS:
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
LSP:
Label Switched Path
LSR:
Label Switching Router
LER:
Label Edge Router
MPLS:
Multiprotocol Label Switching
RSVP:
Resource Reservation Protocol
TE:
Traffic Engineering
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
DS-TE:
Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering
SRLG:
Shared Risk Link Group
NBMA:
Non-Broadcast Multi-Access
APS:
Automatic Protection Switching
SD:
Signal Degrade
SF:
Signal Fail
WTR:
Wait-to-Restore
PM:
Performance Metrics
3. Overview
This document defines two YANG modules for common TE types: "ietf-te-
types" for TE generic types and "ietf-te-packet-types" for packet-
specific types. Other technology-specific TE types are outside the
scope of this document.
3.1. TE Types Module Contents
The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that
are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-
plane instance.
The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable types
and groupings:
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
te-bandwidth:
A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE bandwidth. The
modeling structure allows augmentation for each technology. For
unspecified technologies, the string-encoded "te-bandwidth" type
is used.
te-label:
A YANG grouping that defines the generic TE label. The modeling
structure allows augmentation for each technology. For
unspecified technologies, "rt-types:generalized-label" is used.
performance-metrics-attributes:
A YANG grouping that defines one-way and two-way measured
Performance Metrics (PM) and indications of anomalies on link(s)
or the path as defined in [RFC7471], [RFC8570], and [RFC7823].
performance-metrics-throttle-container:
A YANG grouping that defines configurable thresholds for
advertisement suppression and measurement intervals.
te-ds-class:
A type representing the Differentiated Services (DS) Class-Type of
traffic as defined in [RFC4124].
te-label-direction:
An enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse direction
of a label.
te-hop-type:
An enumerated type for specifying that a hop is loose or strict.
te-global-id:
A type representing the identifier that uniquely identifies an
operator, which can be either a provider or a client. The
definition of this type is taken from [RFC6370] and [RFC5003].
This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally unique
context for TE topologies.
te-node-id:
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad notation.
This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described
in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in
Section 3 of [RFC6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV
described in Section 4.3 of [RFC5305], or the TE Router ID TLV
described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6119]. The reachability of such
a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as that described in
Section 6.2 of [RFC6827].
te-topology-id:
A type representing the identifier for a topology. It is optional
to have one or more prefixes at the beginning, separated by
colons. The prefixes can be "network-types" as defined in the
"ietf-network" module in [RFC8345], to help the user better
understand the topology before further inquiry is made.
te-tp-id:
A type representing the identifier of a TE interface Link
Termination Point (LTP) on a specific TE node where the TE link
connects. This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link
identifier [RFC3630] [RFC5305].
te-path-disjointness:
A type representing the different resource disjointness options
for a TE tunnel path as defined in [RFC4872].
admin-groups:
A union type for a TE link's classic or extended administrative
groups as defined in [RFC3630], [RFC5305], and [RFC7308].
srlg:
A type representing the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) as defined
in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307].
te-metric:
A type representing the TE metric as defined in [RFC3785].
te-recovery-status:
An enumerated type for the different statuses of a recovery action
as defined in [RFC4427] and [RFC6378].
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
path-attribute-flags:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP path flags as defined in
[RFC3209], [RFC4090], [RFC4736], [RFC5712], [RFC4920], [RFC5420],
[RFC7570], [RFC4875], [RFC5151], [RFC5150], [RFC6001], [RFC6790],
[RFC7260], [RFC8001], [RFC8149], and [RFC8169].
link-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported link protection types as
defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4427].
restoration-scheme-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP restoration schemes as
defined in [RFC4872].
protection-external-commands:
A base YANG identity for supported protection-related external
commands used for troubleshooting purposes, as defined in
[RFC4427] and [ITU_G.808.1].
CHANGE NOTE: The description and reference of the identity action-
exercise, which applies only to APS and it is not defined in RFC4427,
has been updated to reference ITU-T G.808.1.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
association-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP association types as
defined in [RFC6780], [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [RFC8800].
CHANGE NOTE: The association-type-diversity identity, defined in
[RFC8800] has been added to the association-type base identity.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
objective-function-type:
A base YANG identity for supported path objective functions as
defined in [RFC5541].
CHANGE NOTE: The objective-function-type identity has been redefined
to be used only for path objective functions and a new svec-
objective-function-type identity has been added for the
Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) objective functions. Therefore the of-
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption, of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link
and of-minimize-cost-path-set identities, defined in [RFC5541] and
derived from the objective-function-type identity, have been
obsoleted because not applicable to paths but to Synchronization
VECtor (SVEC) objects.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
te-tunnel-type:
A base YANG identity for supported TE tunnel types as defined in
[RFC3209] and [RFC4875].
lsp-encoding-types:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP encoding types as defined
in [RFC3471].
lsp-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported LSP protection types as defined
in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873].
switching-capabilities:
A base YANG identity for supported interface switching
capabilities as defined in [RFC3471].
resource-affinities-type:
A base YANG identity for supported attribute filters associated
with a tunnel that must be satisfied for a link to be acceptable
as defined in [RFC2702] and [RFC3209].
path-metric-type:
A base YANG identity for supported path metric types as defined in
[RFC3785] and [RFC7471].
explicit-route-hop:
A YANG grouping that defines supported explicit routes as defined
in [RFC3209] and [RFC3477].
te-link-access-type:
An enumerated type for the different TE link access types as
defined in [RFC3630].
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
CHANGE NOTE: The module "ietf-te-types" has been updated to add the
following YANG identities, types and groupings.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
lsp-provisioning-error-reason:
A base YANG identity for reporting LSP provisioning error reasons.
No standard LPS provisioning error reasons are defined in this
document.
path-computation-error-reason:
A base YANG identity for reporting path computation error reasons
as defined in Section 3.1.1.
protocol-origin-type:
A base YANG identity for the type of protocol origin as defined in
Section 3.1.2.
svec-objective-function-type:
A base YANG identity for supported SVEC objective functions as
defined in [RFC5541] and [RFC8685].
svec-metric-type:
A base YANG identity for supported SVEC objective functions as
defined in [RFC5541].
encoding-and-switching-type:
This is a common grouping to define the LSP encoding and switching
types.
CHANGE NOTE: The tunnel-admin-state-auto YANG identity, derived from
the tunnel-admin-status-type base YANG identity has also been added.
No description is provided, since no description for the tunnel-
admin-status-type base YANG identity has been provided in RFC8776.
CHANGE NOTE: The lsp-restoration-restore-none YANG identity, derived
from the lsp-restoration-type base YANG identity has also been added.
No description is provided, since no description for the lsp-
restoration-type base YANG identity has been provided in RFC8776.
RFC Editor: remove the two CHANGE NOTEs above and this note
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
3.1.1. Path Computation Errors
The "ietf-te-types" module contains the YANG reusable identities for
reporting path computation error reasons as defined in [RFC5440],
[RFC5441], [RFC5520], [RFC5557], [RFC8306], and [RFC8685].
It also defines the following additional YANG reusable identities for
reporting also the following path computation error reasons:
path-computation-error-no-topology:
A YANG identity for reporting path computation error when there is
no topology with the provided topology identifier.
3.1.2. Protocol Origin
The "ietf-te-types" module contains the YANG reusable identities for
the type of protocol origin as defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC9012].
It also defines the following additional YANG reusable identities for
the type of protocol origin:
protocol-origin-api:
A YANG identity to be used when the type of protocol origin is an
Application Programmable Interface (API).
3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module (Section 5) covers the common types
and groupings that are specific to packet technology.
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG
reusable types and groupings:
backup-protection-type:
A base YANG identity for supported protection types that a backup
or bypass tunnel can provide as defined in [RFC4090].
te-class-type:
A type that represents the Diffserv-TE Class-Type as defined in
[RFC4124].
bc-type:
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
A type that represents Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints (BCs) as
defined in [RFC4124].
bc-model-type:
A base YANG identity for supported Diffserv-TE Bandwidth
Constraints Models as defined in [RFC4125], [RFC4126], and
[RFC4127].
te-bandwidth-requested-type:
An enumerated type for the different options to request bandwidth
for a specific tunnel.
performance-metrics-attributes-packet:
A YANG grouping that contains the generic performance metrics and
additional packet-specific metrics.
CHANGE NOTE: The module "ietf-te-packet-types" has been updated to
add the following YANG identities and groupings.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
bandwidth-profile-type:
A base YANG identity for various bandwidth profiles specified in
[MEF_10.3], [RFC2697], [RFC2698] and [RFC4115] that may be used to
limit bandwidth utilization of packet flows (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs).
te-packet-path-bandwidth
A YANG grouping that defines the path bandwidth information and
could be used in any Packet TE model (e.g., MPLS-TE topology
model) for the path bandwidth representation (e.g., the bandwidth
of an MPLS-TE LSP).
All the path and LSP bandwidth related sections in the "ietf-te-
types" generic module, Section 4, need to be augmented with this
grouping for the usage of Packet TE technologies.
The Packet TE path bandwidth can be represented by a bandwidth
profile as follow:
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
+--:(packet)
+--rw bandwidth-profile-name? string
+--rw bandwidth-profile-type? identityref
+--rw cir? uint64
+--rw eir? uint64
+--rw cbs? uint64
+--rw ebs? uint64
NOTE: Other formats for the MPLS-TE path bandwidth are defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-mpls] and they could be added in a future
update of this document.
te-packet-link-bandwidth:
A YANG grouping that defines the link bandwidth information and
could be used in any Packet TE model (e.g., MPLS-TE topology) for
link bandwidth representation.
All the link bandwidth related sections in the "ietf-te-types"
generic module, Section 4, need to be augmented with this grouping
for the usage of Packet TE technologies.
4. TE Types YANG Module
The "ietf-te-types" module imports from the following modules:
* "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in [RFC6991]
* "ietf-routing-types" as defined in [RFC8294]
In addition to [RFC6991] and [RFC8294], this module references the
following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings:
[RFC3272], [RFC4090], [RFC4202], [RFC4328], [RFC4561], [RFC4657],
[RFC4736], [RFC6004], [RFC6511], [RFC7139], [RFC7308], [RFC7551],
[RFC7571], [RFC7579], and [ITU-T_G.709].
CHANGE NOTE: Please focus your review only on the updates to the YANG
model: see also Appendix A.1.
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-types@2023-06-27.yang"
module ietf-te-types {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types";
prefix te-types;
import ietf-inet-types {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-routing-types {
prefix rt-types;
reference
"RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area";
}
import ietf-network {
prefix "nw";
reference "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
}
import ietf-network-topology {
prefix "nt";
reference "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
}
organization
"IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Editor: Tarek Saad
<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Editor: Rakesh Gandhi
<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>
Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>
Editor: Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Editor: Igor Bryskin
<mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>";
description
"This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
YANG data type definitions specific to TE. The model fully
conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED',
'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when,
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License set
forth in Section 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 of RFC XXXX
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.";
revision 2023-06-27 {
description
"Added:
- base identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason;
- identity association-type-diversity;
- identity tunnel-admin-state-auto;
- identity lsp-restoration-restore-none;
- base identity path-computation-error-reason and
its derived identities;
- base identity protocol-origin-type and
its derived identities;
- base identity svec-objective-function-type and its derived
identities;
- base identity svec-metric-type and its derived identities;
- grouping encoding-and-switching-type.
Updated:
- description of the base identity objective-function-type;
- description and reference of identity action-exercise.
Obsoleted:
- identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption
- identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link
- identity of-minimize-cost-path-set";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
reference
"RFC XXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
Engineering";
}
// RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number, update date
// information and remove this note
revision 2020-06-10 {
description
"Latest revision of TE types.";
reference
"RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
}
/**
* Typedefs
*/
typedef admin-group {
type yang:hex-string {
/* 01:02:03:04 */
length "1..11";
}
description
"Administrative group / resource class / color representation
in 'hex-string' type.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering
RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
typedef admin-groups {
type union {
type admin-group;
type extended-admin-group;
}
description
"Derived types for TE administrative groups.";
}
typedef extended-admin-group {
type yang:hex-string;
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Extended administrative group / resource class / color
representation in 'hex-string' type.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.";
reference
"RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
typedef path-attribute-flags {
type union {
type identityref {
base session-attributes-flags;
}
type identityref {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
}
}
description
"Path attributes flags type.";
}
typedef performance-metrics-normality {
type enumeration {
enum unknown {
value 0;
description
"Unknown.";
}
enum normal {
value 1;
description
"Normal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is not set.";
}
enum abnormal {
value 2;
description
"Abnormal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is set.";
}
}
description
"Indicates whether a performance metric is normal (anomalous
bit not set), abnormal (anomalous bit set), or unknown.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
typedef srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG type.";
reference
"RFC 4203: OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
RFC 5307: IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
typedef te-common-status {
type enumeration {
enum up {
description
"Enabled.";
}
enum down {
description
"Disabled.";
}
enum testing {
description
"In some test mode.";
}
enum preparing-maintenance {
description
"The resource is disabled in the control plane to prepare
for a graceful shutdown for maintenance purposes.";
reference
"RFC 5817: Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS
Traffic Engineering Networks";
}
enum maintenance {
description
"The resource is disabled in the data plane for maintenance
purposes.";
}
enum unknown {
description
"Status is unknown.";
}
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Defines a type representing the common states of a TE
resource.";
}
typedef te-bandwidth {
type string {
pattern '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
+ '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?'
+ '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
+ '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+'
+ '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|'
+ '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?'
+ '[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|'
+ '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*';
}
description
"This is the generic bandwidth type. It is a string containing
a list of numbers separated by commas, where each of these
numbers can be non-negative decimal, hex integer, or
hex float:
(dec | hex | float)[*(','(dec | hex | float))]
For the packet-switching type, the string encoding follows
the type 'bandwidth-ieee-float32' as defined in RFC 8294
(e.g., 0x1p10), where the units are in bytes per second.
For the Optical Transport Network (OTN) switching type,
a list of integers can be used, such as '0,2,3,1', indicating
two ODU0s and one ODU3. ('ODU' stands for 'Optical Data
Unit'.) For Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM),
a list of pairs of slot numbers and widths can be used,
such as '0,2,3,3', indicating a frequency slot 0 with
slot width 2 and a frequency slot 3 with slot width 3.
Canonically, the string is represented as all lowercase and in
hex, where the prefix '0x' precedes the hex number.";
reference
"RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area
ITU-T Recommendation G.709: Interfaces for the
optical transport network";
}
typedef te-ds-class {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"The Differentiated Services Class-Type of traffic.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering, Section 4.3.1";
}
typedef te-global-id {
type uint32;
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify an operator, which can be
either a provider or a client.
The definition of this type is taken from RFCs 6370 and 5003.
This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally
unique context for TE topologies.";
reference
"RFC 5003: Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation
RFC 6370: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers";
}
typedef te-hop-type {
type enumeration {
enum loose {
description
"A loose hop in an explicit path.";
}
enum strict {
description
"A strict hop in an explicit path.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying loose or strict paths.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3.3";
}
typedef te-link-access-type {
type enumeration {
enum point-to-point {
description
"The link is point-to-point.";
}
enum multi-access {
description
"The link is multi-access, including broadcast and NBMA.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
description
"Defines a type representing the access type of a TE link.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
typedef te-label-direction {
type enumeration {
enum forward {
description
"Label allocated for the forward LSP direction.";
}
enum reverse {
description
"Label allocated for the reverse LSP direction.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying the forward or reverse
label.";
}
typedef te-link-direction {
type enumeration {
enum incoming {
description
"The explicit route represents an incoming link on
a node.";
}
enum outgoing {
description
"The explicit route represents an outgoing link on
a node.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying the direction of a link on
a node.";
}
typedef te-metric {
type uint32;
description
"TE metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
typedef te-node-id {
type yang:dotted-quad;
description
"A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE
topology.
The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad
notation.
This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV
described in Section 2.4.1 of RFC 3630, the TE Router ID
described in Section 3 of RFC 6827, the Traffic Engineering
Router ID TLV described in Section 4.3 of RFC 5305, or the
TE Router ID TLV described in Section 3.2.1 of RFC 6119.
The reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a
mechanism such as that described in Section 6.2 of RFC 6827.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2, Section 2.4.1
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering,
Section 4.3
RFC 6119: IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS, Section 3.2.1
RFC 6827: Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols, Section 3";
}
typedef te-oper-status {
type te-common-status;
description
"Defines a type representing the operational status of
a TE resource.";
}
typedef te-admin-status {
type te-common-status;
description
"Defines a type representing the administrative status of
a TE resource.";
}
typedef te-path-disjointness {
type bits {
bit node {
position 0;
description
"Node disjoint.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
bit link {
position 1;
description
"Link disjoint.";
}
bit srlg {
position 2;
description
"SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) disjoint.";
}
}
description
"Type of the resource disjointness for a TE tunnel path.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
typedef te-recovery-status {
type enumeration {
enum normal {
description
"Both the recovery span and the working span are fully
allocated and active, data traffic is being
transported over (or selected from) the working
span, and no trigger events are reported.";
}
enum recovery-started {
description
"The recovery action has been started but not completed.";
}
enum recovery-succeeded {
description
"The recovery action has succeeded. The working span has
reported a failure/degrade condition, and the user traffic
is being transported (or selected) on the recovery span.";
}
enum recovery-failed {
description
"The recovery action has failed.";
}
enum reversion-started {
description
"The reversion has started.";
}
enum reversion-succeeded {
description
"The reversion action has succeeded.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
enum reversion-failed {
description
"The reversion has failed.";
}
enum recovery-unavailable {
description
"The recovery is unavailable, as a result of either an
operator's lockout command or a failure condition
detected on the recovery span.";
}
enum recovery-admin {
description
"The operator has issued a command to switch the user
traffic to the recovery span.";
}
enum wait-to-restore {
description
"The recovery domain is recovering from a failure/degrade
condition on the working span that is being controlled by
the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer.";
}
}
description
"Defines the status of a recovery action.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection";
}
typedef te-template-name {
type string {
pattern '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*';
}
description
"A type for the name of a TE node template or TE link
template.";
}
typedef te-topology-event-type {
type enumeration {
enum add {
value 0;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been added.";
}
enum remove {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
value 1;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been removed.";
}
enum update {
value 2;
description
"A TE node or TE link has been updated.";
}
}
description
"TE event type for notifications.";
}
typedef te-topology-id {
type union {
type string {
length "0";
// empty string
}
type string {
pattern '([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+:)*'
+ '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*';
}
}
description
"An identifier for a topology.
It is optional to have one or more prefixes at the beginning,
separated by colons. The prefixes can be 'network-types' as
defined in the 'ietf-network' module in RFC 8345, to help the
user better understand the topology before further inquiry
is made.";
reference
"RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
}
typedef te-tp-id {
type union {
type uint32;
// Unnumbered
type inet:ip-address;
// IPv4 or IPv6 address
}
description
"An identifier for a TE link endpoint on a node.
This attribute is mapped to a local or remote link identifier
as defined in RFCs 3630 and 5305.";
reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The typedef path-type below has been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
typedef path-type {
type enumeration {
enum primary-path {
description
"Indicates that the TE path is a primary path.";
}
enum secondary-path {
description
"Indicates that the TE path is a secondary path.";
}
enum primary-reverse-path {
description
"Indicates that the TE path is a primary reverse path.";
}
enum secondary-reverse-path {
description
"Indicates that the TE path is a secondary reverse path.";
}
}
description
"The type of TE path, indicating whether a path is a primary,
or a reverse primary, or a secondary, or a reverse secondary
path.";
}
/* TE features */
feature p2mp-te {
description
"Indicates support for Point-to-Multipoint TE (P2MP-TE).";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
feature frr-te {
description
"Indicates support for TE Fast Reroute (FRR).";
reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
feature extended-admin-groups {
description
"Indicates support for TE link extended administrative
groups.";
reference
"RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE)";
}
feature named-path-affinities {
description
"Indicates support for named path affinities.";
}
feature named-extended-admin-groups {
description
"Indicates support for named extended administrative groups.";
}
feature named-srlg-groups {
description
"Indicates support for named SRLG groups.";
}
feature named-path-constraints {
description
"Indicates support for named path constraints.";
}
feature path-optimization-metric {
description
"Indicates support for path optimization metrics.";
}
feature path-optimization-objective-function {
description
"Indicates support for path optimization objective functions.";
}
/*
* Identities
*/
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason
// has been added in this module revision
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason {
description
"Base identity for LSP provisioning errors.";
}
identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
}
identity local-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Local protection is desired.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.7.1";
}
identity se-style-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Shared explicit style, to allow the LSP to be established
and share resources with the old LSP.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity local-recording-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Label recording is desired.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.7.1";
}
identity bandwidth-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Requests FRR bandwidth protection on LSRs, if present.";
reference
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity node-protection-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Requests FRR node protection on LSRs, if present.";
reference
"RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity path-reevaluation-request {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"This flag indicates that a path re-evaluation (of the
current path in use) is requested. Note that this does
not trigger any LSP reroutes but instead just signals a
request to evaluate whether a preferable path exists.";
reference
"RFC 4736: Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)";
}
identity soft-preemption-desired {
base session-attributes-flags;
description
"Soft preemption of LSP resources is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5712: MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption";
}
identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for LSP attributes flags.";
}
identity end-to-end-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates end-to-end rerouting behavior for an LSP
undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to
specify the behavior of end-to-end LSP recovery for
established LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity boundary-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates boundary rerouting behavior for an LSP undergoing
establishment. This MAY also be used to specify
segment-based LSP recovery through nested crankback for
established LSPs. The boundary Area Border Router (ABR) /
Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) can decide to forward
the PathErr message upstream to either an upstream boundary
ABR/ASBR or the ingress LSR. Alternatively, it can try to
select another egress boundary LSR.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity segment-based-rerouting-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates segment-based rerouting behavior for an LSP
undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to specify
segment-based LSP recovery for established LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE
RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity lsp-integrity-required {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that LSP integrity is required.";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity contiguous-lsp-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that a contiguous LSP is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5151: Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering --
Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity lsp-stitching-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that LSP stitching is desired.";
reference
"RFC 5150: Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity pre-planned-lsp-flag {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that the LSP MUST be provisioned in the
control plane only.";
reference
"RFC 6001: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity non-php-behavior-flag {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that non-PHP (non-Penultimate Hop Popping) behavior
for the LSP is desired.";
reference
"RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band
Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity oob-mapping-flag {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates that signaling of the egress binding information is
out of band (e.g., via the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)).";
reference
"RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band
Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity entropy-label-capability {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Indicates entropy label capability.";
reference
"RFC 6790: The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding
RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)";
}
identity oam-mep-entity-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"OAM Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP) entities
desired.";
reference
"RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration";
}
identity oam-mip-entity-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"OAM Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIP)
entities desired.";
reference
"RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration";
}
identity srlg-collection-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"SRLG collection desired.";
reference
"RFC 7570: Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO)
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
RFC 8001: RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk
Link Group (SRLG) Information";
}
identity loopback-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"This flag indicates that a particular node on the LSP is
required to enter loopback mode. This can also be
used to specify the loopback state of the node.";
reference
"RFC 7571: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and
Loopback";
}
identity p2mp-te-tree-eval-request {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"P2MP-TE tree re-evaluation request.";
reference
"RFC 8149: RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)";
}
identity rtm-set-desired {
base lsp-attributes-flags;
description
"Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag requested.";
reference
"RFC 8169: Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks";
}
identity link-protection-type {
description
"Base identity for the link protection type.";
}
identity link-protection-unprotected {
base link-protection-type;
description
"Unprotected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-extra-traffic {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base link-protection-type;
description
"Extra-Traffic protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity link-protection-shared {
base link-protection-type;
description
"Shared protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-1-for-1 {
base link-protection-type;
description
"One-for-one (1:1) protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-1-plus-1 {
base link-protection-type;
description
"One-plus-one (1+1) protected link type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity link-protection-enhanced {
base link-protection-type;
description
"A compound link protection type derived from the underlay
TE tunnel protection configuration supporting the TE link.";
}
identity association-type {
description
"Base identity for the tunnel association.";
}
identity association-type-recovery {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base association-type;
description
"Association type for recovery, used to associate LSPs of the
same tunnel for recovery.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery
RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions";
}
identity association-type-resource-sharing {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for resource sharing, used to enable
resource sharing during make-before-break.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery
RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions";
}
identity association-type-double-sided-bidir {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for double-sided bidirectional LSPs,
used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels that are
independently configured on either endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
identity association-type-single-sided-bidir {
base association-type;
description
"Association type for single-sided bidirectional LSPs,
used to associate two LSPs of two tunnels, where one
tunnel is configured on one side/endpoint and the other
tunnel is dynamically created on the other endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions
RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity association-type-diversity below has
// been added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity association-type-diversity {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base association-type;
description
"Association Type diversity used to associate LSPs whose
paths are to be diverse from each other.";
reference
"RFC8800: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity
Constraint Signaling";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The description of the base identity
// objective-function-type has been updated
// in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity objective-function-type {
description
"Base identity for path objective function type.";
}
identity of-minimize-cost-path {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing path cost.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-minimize-load-path {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the load on one or more
paths.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity of-maximize-residual-bandwidth {
base objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for maximizing residual bandwidth.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
// below has been obsoleted in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption {
base objective-function-type;
status obsolete;
description
"Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth
consumption.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link
// below has been obsoleted in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link {
base objective-function-type;
status obsolete;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that
is carrying the highest load.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-cost-path-set
// below has been obsoleted in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity of-minimize-cost-path-set {
base objective-function-type;
status obsolete;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity path-computation-method {
description
"Base identity for supported path computation mechanisms.";
}
identity path-locally-computed {
base path-computation-method;
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the
path is computed by the local LER.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering, Section 5.4";
}
identity path-externally-queried {
base path-computation-method;
description
"Constrained-path LSP in which the path is obtained by
querying an external source, such as a PCE server.
In the case that an LSP is defined to be externally queried,
it may also have associated explicit definitions (provided
to the external source to aid computation). The path that is
returned by the external source may require further local
computation on the device.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering
RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity path-explicitly-defined {
base path-computation-method;
description
"Constrained-path LSP in which the path is
explicitly specified as a collection of strict and/or loose
hops.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering";
}
identity lsp-metric-type {
description
"Base identity for the LSP metric specification types.";
}
identity lsp-metric-relative {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity
refers is specified as a value relative to the IGP metric
cost to the LSP's tail end.";
reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity lsp-metric-absolute {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric specified for the LSPs to which this identity
refers is specified as an absolute value.";
reference
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity lsp-metric-inherited {
base lsp-metric-type;
description
"The metric for the LSPs to which this identity refers is
not specified explicitly; rather, it is directly inherited
from the IGP cost.";
reference
"RFC 4657: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Protocol Generic Requirements";
}
identity te-tunnel-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific tunnel types are derived.";
}
identity te-tunnel-p2p {
base te-tunnel-type;
description
"TE Point-to-Point (P2P) tunnel type.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity te-tunnel-p2mp {
base te-tunnel-type;
description
"TE P2MP tunnel type.";
reference
"RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity tunnel-action-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific tunnel action types
are derived.";
}
identity tunnel-action-resetup {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that tears down the tunnel's current LSP
(if any) and attempts to re-establish a new LSP.";
}
identity tunnel-action-reoptimize {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that reoptimizes the placement of the
tunnel LSP(s).";
}
identity tunnel-action-switchpath {
base tunnel-action-type;
description
"TE tunnel action that switches the tunnel's LSP to use the
specified path.";
}
identity te-action-result {
description
"Base identity from which specific TE action results
are derived.";
}
identity te-action-success {
base te-action-result;
description
"TE action was successful.";
}
identity te-action-fail {
base te-action-result;
description
"TE action failed.";
}
identity tunnel-action-inprogress {
base te-action-result;
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"TE action is in progress.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE tunnel administrative states.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-up {
base tunnel-admin-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's administrative state is up.";
}
identity tunnel-admin-state-down {
base tunnel-admin-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's administrative state is down.";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity tunnel-admin-state-auto below
// has been added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity tunnel-admin-state-auto {
base tunnel-admin-state-type;
description
"Tunnel administrative auto state. The administrative status
in state datastore transitions to 'tunnel-admin-up' when the
tunnel used by the client layer, and to 'tunnel-admin-down'
when it is not used by the client layer.";
}
identity tunnel-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE tunnel states.";
}
identity tunnel-state-up {
base tunnel-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's state is up.";
}
identity tunnel-state-down {
base tunnel-state-type;
description
"Tunnel's state is down.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity lsp-state-type {
description
"Base identity for TE LSP states.";
}
identity lsp-path-computing {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation is in progress.";
}
identity lsp-path-computation-ok {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation was successful.";
}
identity lsp-path-computation-failed {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State path computation failed.";
}
identity lsp-state-setting-up {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is being set up.";
}
identity lsp-state-setup-ok {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State setup was successful.";
}
identity lsp-state-setup-failed {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State setup failed.";
}
identity lsp-state-up {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is up.";
}
identity lsp-state-tearing-down {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is being torn down.";
}
identity lsp-state-down {
base lsp-state-type;
description
"State is down.";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-type {
description
"Base identity for TE path invalidation action types.";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-drop {
base path-invalidation-action-type;
description
"Upon invalidation of the TE tunnel path, the tunnel remains
valid, but any packet mapped over the tunnel is dropped.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 2.5";
}
identity path-invalidation-action-teardown {
base path-invalidation-action-type;
description
"TE path invalidation action teardown.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 2.5";
}
identity lsp-restoration-type {
description
"Base identity from which LSP restoration types are derived.";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The identity lsp-restoration-restore-none
// below has been added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity lsp-restoration-restore-none {
base lsp-restoration-type;
description
"No LSP affected by a failure is restored.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity lsp-restoration-restore-any {
base lsp-restoration-type;
description
"Any LSP affected by a failure is restored.";
}
identity lsp-restoration-restore-all {
base lsp-restoration-type;
description
"Affected LSPs are restored after all LSPs of the tunnel are
broken.";
}
identity restoration-scheme-type {
description
"Base identity for LSP restoration schemes.";
}
identity restoration-scheme-preconfigured {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is preconfigured prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity restoration-scheme-precomputed {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is precomputed prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity restoration-scheme-presignaled {
base restoration-scheme-type;
description
"Restoration LSP is presignaled prior to the failure.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lsp-protection-type {
description
"Base identity from which LSP protection types are derived.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-unprotected {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'Unprotected' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-reroute-extra {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'(Full) Rerouting' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-reroute {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'Rerouting without Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-1-for-n {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-1-for-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"LSP protection '1:1 Protection Type'.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
identity lsp-protection-unidir-1-plus-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1+1 Unidirectional Protection' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-bidir-1-plus-1 {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"'1+1 Bidirectional Protection' LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery";
}
identity lsp-protection-extra-traffic {
base lsp-protection-type;
description
"Extra-Traffic LSP protection type.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lsp-protection-state {
description
"Base identity of protection states for reporting purposes.";
}
identity normal {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"Normal state.";
}
identity signal-fail-of-protection {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"The protection transport entity has a signal fail condition
that is of higher priority than the forced switchover
command.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity lockout-of-protection {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A Loss of Protection (LoP) command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity forced-switch {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A forced switchover command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity signal-fail {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"There is a signal fail condition on either the working path
or the protection path.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity signal-degrade {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"There is a signal degrade condition on either the working
path or the protection path.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity manual-switch {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A manual switchover command is active.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
identity wait-to-restore {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A WTR timer is running.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity do-not-revert {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"A Do Not Revert (DNR) condition is active because of
non-revertive behavior.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity failure-of-protocol {
base lsp-protection-state;
description
"LSP protection is not working because of a protocol failure
condition.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity protection-external-commands {
description
"Base identity from which protection-related external commands
used for troubleshooting purposes are derived.";
}
identity action-freeze {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command that prevents any switchover action from being taken
and, as such, freezes the current state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity clear-freeze {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active freeze state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-lockout-of-normal {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command to ensure that the normal traffic is not allowed
to use the protection transport entity.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity clear-lockout-of-normal {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active lockout of the
normal state.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-lockout-of-protection {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator
command to ensure that the protection transport entity is
temporarily not available to transport a traffic signal
(either normal or Extra-Traffic).";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-forced-switch {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch
the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or the
null signal to the protection transport entity, unless a
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity action-manual-switch {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch
the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or
the null signal to the protection transport entity, unless
a fault condition exists on other transport entities or a
switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
// cCHANGE NOTE: The description and reference of the
// identity action-exercise have been updated in this module
// revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity action-exercise {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that starts testing whether or not Automatic
Protection Switching (APS) communication is operating
correctly. It is of lower priority than any
other state or command.";
reference
"ITU-T G.808.1 v4.0 (05/2014): Generic protection switching -
Linear trail and subnetwork protection";
}
identity clear {
base protection-external-commands;
description
"An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a
protection, forced switchover, manual switchover, WTR state,
or exercise command.";
reference
"RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
identity switching-capabilities {
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Base identity for interface switching capabilities.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-psc1 {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-evpl {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL).";
reference
"RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet
Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching";
}
identity switching-l2sc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-tdm {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-otn {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"OTN-TDM capable.";
reference
"RFC 7138: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks";
}
identity switching-dcsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC).";
reference
"RFC 6002: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel
Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions";
}
identity switching-lsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity switching-fsc {
base switching-capabilities;
description
"Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-types {
description
"Base identity for encoding types.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-packet {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Packet LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-ethernet {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Ethernet LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-pdh {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"ANSI/ETSI PDH LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-sdh {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI T1.105 LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-digital-wrapper {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Digital Wrapper LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-lambda {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Lambda (photonic) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-fiber {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Fiber LSP encoding.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-fiber-channel {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"FiberChannel LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description";
}
identity lsp-encoding-oduk {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Control";
}
identity lsp-encoding-optical-channel {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"G.709 Optical Channel LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Control";
}
identity lsp-encoding-line {
base lsp-encoding-types;
description
"Line (e.g., 8B/10B) LSP encoding.";
reference
"RFC 6004: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro
Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching";
}
identity path-signaling-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific LSP path setup types
are derived.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity path-setup-static {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"Static LSP provisioning path setup.";
}
identity path-setup-rsvp {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"RSVP-TE signaling path setup.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity path-setup-sr {
base path-signaling-type;
description
"Segment-routing path setup.";
}
identity path-scope-type {
description
"Base identity from which specific path scope types are
derived.";
}
identity path-scope-segment {
base path-scope-type;
description
"Path scope segment.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery";
}
identity path-scope-end-to-end {
base path-scope-type;
description
"Path scope end to end.";
reference
"RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery";
}
identity route-usage-type {
description
"Base identity for route usage.";
}
identity route-include-object {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base route-usage-type;
description
"'Include route' object.";
}
identity route-exclude-object {
base route-usage-type;
description
"'Exclude route' object.";
reference
"RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
identity route-exclude-srlg {
base route-usage-type;
description
"Excludes SRLGs.";
reference
"RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
identity path-metric-type {
description
"Base identity for the path metric type.";
}
identity path-metric-te {
base path-metric-type;
description
"TE path metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
identity path-metric-igp {
base path-metric-type;
description
"IGP path metric.";
reference
"RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a
second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric";
}
identity path-metric-hop {
base path-metric-type;
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Hop path metric.";
}
identity path-metric-delay-average {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Average unidirectional link delay.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-delay-minimum {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Minimum unidirectional link delay.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth {
base path-metric-type;
description
"Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth, which is defined to be
Maximum Bandwidth (RFC 3630) minus the bandwidth currently
allocated to LSPs.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2
RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
}
identity path-metric-optimize-includes {
base path-metric-type;
description
"A metric that optimizes the number of included resources
specified in a set.";
}
identity path-metric-optimize-excludes {
base path-metric-type;
description
"A metric that optimizes to a maximum the number of excluded
resources specified in a set.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-type {
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Base identity for the path tiebreaker type.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-minfill {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Min-Fill LSP path placement.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-maxfill {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Max-Fill LSP path placement.";
}
identity path-tiebreaker-random {
base path-tiebreaker-type;
description
"Random LSP path placement.";
}
identity resource-affinities-type {
description
"Base identity for resource class affinities.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS";
}
identity resource-aff-include-all {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, all of which must be present for a link
to be acceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity resource-aff-include-any {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, any of which must be present for a link
to be acceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
identity resource-aff-exclude-any {
base resource-affinities-type;
description
"The set of attribute filters associated with a
tunnel, any of which renders a link unacceptable.";
reference
"RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
identity te-optimization-criterion {
description
"Base identity for the TE optimization criteria.";
reference
"RFC 3272: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering";
}
identity not-optimized {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimization is not applied.";
}
identity cost {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimized on cost.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity delay {
base te-optimization-criterion;
description
"Optimized on delay.";
reference
"RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
}
identity path-computation-srlg-type {
description
"Base identity for SRLG path computation.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity srlg-ignore {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Ignores SRLGs in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-strict {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a strict SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-preferred {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a preferred SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
identity srlg-weighted {
base path-computation-srlg-type;
description
"Includes a weighted SRLG check in the path computation.";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity path-computation-error-reason
// and its derived identities below have been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity path-computation-error-reason {
description
"Base identity for path computation error reasons.";
}
identity path-computation-error-path-not-found {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because of an unspecified
reason.";
reference
"Section 7.5 of RFC5440";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-topology {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because there is no topology
with the provided topology-identifier.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity path-computation-error-no-dependent-server {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because one or more dependent
path computation servers are unavailable.
The dependent path computation server could be
a Backward-Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) downstream
PCE or a child PCE.";
reference
"RFC5441, RFC8685";
}
identity path-computation-error-pce-unavailable {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because PCE is not available.
It corresponds to bit 31 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5440;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-inclusion-hop {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because there is no
node or link provided by one or more inclusion hops.";
}
identity path-computation-error-destination-unknown-in-domain {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because the destination node is
unknown in indicated destination domain.
It corresponds to bit 19 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC8685;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-resource {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because there is no
available resource in one or more domains.
It corresponds to bit 20 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC8685;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-child-pce-unresponsive {
base path-computation-error-no-dependent-server;
description
"Path computation has failed because child PCE is not
responsive.
It corresponds to bit 21 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC8685;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-destination-domain-unknown {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because the destination domain
was unknown.
It corresponds to bit 22 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC8685;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-p2mp {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because of P2MP reachability
problem.
It corresponds to bit 24 of the Flags field of the
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC8306;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-gco-migration {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because of no Global Concurrent
Optimization (GCO) migration path found.
It corresponds to bit 26 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5557;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-gco-solution {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because of no GCO solution
found.
It corresponds to bit 25 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5557;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-pks-expansion {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because of Path-Key Subobject
(PKS) expansion failure.
It corresponds to bit 27 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5520;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity path-computation-error-brpc-chain-unavailable {
base path-computation-error-no-dependent-server;
description
"Path computation has failed because PCE BRPC chain
unavailable.
It corresponds to bit 28 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5441;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-source-unknown {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because source node is
unknown.
It corresponds to bit 29 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5440;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-destination-unknown {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because destination node is
unknown.
It corresponds to bit 30 of the Flags field of the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
reference
"RFC5440;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
identity path-computation-error-no-server {
base path-computation-error-reason;
description
"Path computation has failed because path computation
server is unavailable.";
reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"RFC5440;
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity protocol-origin-type and
// its derived identities below have been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity protocol-origin-type {
description
"Base identity for protocol origin type.";
}
identity protocol-origin-api {
base protocol-origin-type;
description
"Protocol origin is via Application Programmable Interface
(API).";
}
identity protocol-origin-pcep {
base protocol-origin-type;
description
"Protocol origin is Path Computation Engine Protocol
(PCEP).";
reference "RFC5440";
}
identity protocol-origin-bgp {
base protocol-origin-type;
description
"Protocol origin is Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).";
reference "RFC9012";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity svec-objective-function-type
// and its derived identities below have been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity svec-objective-function-type {
description
"Base identity for SVEC objective function type.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity svec-of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth
consumption (MBC).";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that
is carrying the highest load (MLL).";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-cost-path-set {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set
(MCC).";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-common-transit-domain {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the number of common
transit domains (MCTD).";
reference
"RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-shared-link {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
links (MSL).";
reference
"RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
(PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-shared-srlg {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) (MSS).";
reference
"RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
}
identity svec-of-minimize-shared-nodes {
base svec-objective-function-type;
description
"Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
nodes (MSN).";
reference
"RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity svec-metric-type and
// its derived identities below have been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity svec-metric-type {
description
"Base identity for SVEC metric type.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-metric-cumul-te {
base svec-metric-type;
description
"Cumulative TE cost.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-metric-cumul-igp {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
base svec-metric-type;
description
"Cumulative IGP cost.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-metric-cumul-hop {
base svec-metric-type;
description
"Cumulative Hop path metric.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-metric-aggregate-bandwidth-consumption {
base svec-metric-type;
description
"Aggregate bandwidth consumption.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
identity svec-metric-load-of-the-most-loaded-link {
base svec-metric-type;
description
"Load of the most loaded link.";
reference
"RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
}
/**
* TE bandwidth groupings
**/
grouping te-bandwidth {
description
"This grouping defines the generic TE bandwidth.
For some known data-plane technologies, specific modeling
structures are specified. The string-encoded 'te-bandwidth'
type is used for unspecified technologies.
The modeling structure can be augmented later for other
technologies.";
container te-bandwidth {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Container that specifies TE bandwidth. The choices
can be augmented for specific data-plane technologies.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type te-bandwidth;
description
"Bandwidth specified in a generic format.";
}
}
}
}
}
/**
* TE label groupings
**/
grouping te-label {
description
"This grouping defines the generic TE label.
The modeling structure can be augmented for each technology.
For unspecified technologies, 'rt-types:generalized-label'
is used.";
container te-label {
description
"Container that specifies the TE label. The choices can
be augmented for specific data-plane technologies.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type rt-types:generalized-label;
description
"TE label specified in a generic format.";
}
}
}
leaf direction {
type te-label-direction;
default "forward";
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Label direction.";
}
}
}
grouping te-topology-identifier {
description
"Augmentation for a TE topology.";
container te-topology-identifier {
description
"TE topology identifier container.";
leaf provider-id {
type te-global-id;
default "0";
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify a provider.
If omitted, it assumes that the topology provider ID
value = 0 (the default).";
}
leaf client-id {
type te-global-id;
default "0";
description
"An identifier to uniquely identify a client.
If omitted, it assumes that the topology client ID
value = 0 (the default).";
}
leaf topology-id {
type te-topology-id;
default "";
description
"When the datastore contains several topologies,
'topology-id' distinguishes between them. If omitted,
the default (empty) string for this leaf is assumed.";
}
}
}
/**
* TE performance metrics groupings
**/
grouping performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss {
description
"Performance Metrics (PM) information in real time that can
be applicable to links or connections. PM defined in this
grouping are applicable to generic TE PM as well as packet TE
PM.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
description
"One-way delay normality.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss {
description
"PM information in real time that can be applicable to links or
connections. PM defined in this grouping are applicable to
generic TE PM as well as packet TE PM.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf two-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"Two-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
description
"Two-way delay normality.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth {
description
"PM information in real time that can be applicable to links.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
PM defined in this grouping are applicable to generic TE PM
as well as packet TE PM.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from
Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and
provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Residual bandwidth normality.";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual
bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the
actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a
bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the
sum of the component link available bandwidths.";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Available bandwidth normality.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual
utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router).
For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to
be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Bandwidth utilization normality.";
}
}
grouping one-way-performance-metrics {
description
"One-way PM throttle grouping.";
leaf one-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Residual bandwidth that subtracts tunnel reservations from
Maximum Bandwidth (or link capacity) (RFC 3630) and
provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes.";
reference
"RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2";
}
leaf one-way-available-bandwidth {
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Available bandwidth that is defined to be residual
bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used for the
actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. For a
bundled link, available bandwidth is defined to be the
sum of the component link available bandwidths.";
}
leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32;
units "bytes per second";
default "0x0p0";
description
"Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual
utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router).
For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to
be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations.";
}
}
grouping two-way-performance-metrics {
description
"Two-way PM throttle grouping.";
leaf two-way-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-thresholds {
description
"Grouping for configurable thresholds for measured
attributes.";
uses one-way-performance-metrics;
uses two-way-performance-metrics;
}
grouping performance-metrics-attributes {
description
"Contains PM attributes.";
container performance-metrics-one-way {
description
"One-way link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
uses performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss;
uses performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth;
}
container performance-metrics-two-way {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"Two-way link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS
Networks";
uses performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss;
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container {
description
"Controls PM throttling.";
container throttle {
must 'suppression-interval >= measure-interval' {
error-message "'suppression-interval' cannot be less than "
+ "'measure-interval'.";
description
"Constraint on 'suppression-interval' and
'measure-interval'.";
}
description
"Link performance information in real time.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly
Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric
Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions";
leaf one-way-delay-offset {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Offset value to be added to the measured delay value.";
}
leaf measure-interval {
type uint32;
default "30";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to measure the extended metric
values.";
}
leaf advertisement-interval {
type uint32;
default "0";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to advertise the extended metric
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
values.";
}
leaf suppression-interval {
type uint32 {
range "1..max";
}
default "120";
description
"Interval, in seconds, to suppress advertisement of the
extended metric values.";
reference
"RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions, Section 6";
}
container threshold-out {
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
description
"If the measured parameter falls outside an upper bound
for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound
for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised
value is not already outside that bound, an 'anomalous'
announcement (anomalous bit set) will be triggered.";
}
container threshold-in {
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
description
"If the measured parameter falls inside an upper bound
for all but the minimum-delay metric (or a lower bound
for the minimum-delay metric only) and the advertised
value is not already inside that bound, a 'normal'
announcement (anomalous bit cleared) will be triggered.";
}
container threshold-accelerated-advertisement {
description
"When the difference between the last advertised value and
the current measured value exceeds this threshold, an
'anomalous' announcement (anomalous bit set) will be
triggered.";
uses performance-metrics-thresholds;
}
}
}
/**
* TE tunnel generic groupings
**/
grouping explicit-route-hop {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"The explicit route entry grouping.";
choice type {
description
"The explicit route entry type.";
case numbered-node-hop {
container numbered-node-hop {
must "node-id-uri or node-id" {
description
"At least one node identifier MUST be present.";
}
leaf node-id-uri {
type nw:node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the topology.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
description
"Numbered node route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case numbered-link-hop {
container numbered-link-hop {
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"TE Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
leaf direction {
type te-link-direction;
default "outgoing";
description
"Link route object direction.";
}
description
"Numbered link explicit route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case unnumbered-link-hop {
container unnumbered-link-hop {
must "(link-tp-id-uri or link-tp-id) and " +
"(node-id-uri or node-id)" {
description
"At least one node identifier and at least one Link
Termination Point (LTP) identifier MUST be present.";
}
leaf link-tp-id-uri {
type nt:tp-id;
description
"Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
}
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
description
"TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID
and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered
TE link.";
}
leaf node-id-uri {
type nw:node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the topology.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf hop-type {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
leaf direction {
type te-link-direction;
default "outgoing";
description
"Link route object direction.";
}
description
"Unnumbered link explicit route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,
Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
}
case as-number {
container as-number-hop {
leaf as-number {
type inet:as-number;
mandatory true;
description
"The Autonomous System (AS) number.";
}
leaf hop-type {
type te-hop-type;
default "strict";
description
"Strict or loose hop.";
}
description
"AS explicit route hop.";
}
}
case label {
container label-hop {
description
"Label hop type.";
uses te-label;
}
description
"The label explicit route hop type.";
}
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
grouping record-route-state {
description
"The Record Route grouping.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Record Route hop index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
choice type {
description
"The Record Route entry type.";
case numbered-node-hop {
container numbered-node-hop {
must "node-id-uri or node-id" {
description
"At least one node identifier MUST be present.";
}
description
"Numbered node route hop container.";
leaf node-id-uri {
type nw:node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the topology.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"Numbered node route hop.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
case numbered-link-hop {
container numbered-link-hop {
description
"Numbered link route hop container.";
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
mandatory true;
description
"Numbered TE LTP identifier.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"Numbered link route hop.";
}
case unnumbered-link-hop {
container unnumbered-link-hop {
must "(link-tp-id-uri or link-tp-id) and " +
"(node-id-uri or node-id)" {
description
"At least one node identifier and at least one Link
Termination Point (LTP) identifier MUST be present.";
}
leaf link-tp-id-uri {
type nt:tp-id;
description
"Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
}
leaf link-tp-id {
type te-tp-id;
description
"TE LTP identifier. The combination of the TE link ID
and the TE node ID is used to identify an unnumbered
TE link.";
}
leaf node-id-uri {
type nw:node-id;
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"The identifier of a node in the topology.";
}
leaf node-id {
type te-node-id;
description
"The identifier of a node in the TE topology.";
}
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
description
"Unnumbered link Record Route hop.";
reference
"RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)";
}
description
"Unnumbered link route hop.";
}
case label {
container label-hop {
description
"Label route hop type.";
uses te-label;
leaf-list flags {
type path-attribute-flags;
description
"Path attributes flags.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO)
Node-Id Sub-Object";
}
}
description
"The label Record Route entry types.";
}
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
grouping label-restriction-info {
description
"Label set item information.";
leaf restriction {
type enumeration {
enum inclusive {
description
"The label or label range is inclusive.";
}
enum exclusive {
description
"The label or label range is exclusive.";
}
}
default "inclusive";
description
"Indicates whether the list item is inclusive or exclusive.";
}
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"The index of the label restriction list entry.";
}
container label-start {
must "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and"
+ " not(te-label/direction))"
+ " or "
+ "(../label-end/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)"
+ " or "
+ "(not(te-label/direction) and"
+ " (../label-end/te-label/direction = 'forward'))"
+ " or "
+ "(not(../label-end/te-label/direction) and"
+ " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" {
error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the "
+ "same direction.";
}
description
"This is the starting label if a label range is specified.
This is the label value if a single label is specified,
in which case the 'label-end' attribute is not set.";
uses te-label;
}
container label-end {
must "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and"
+ " not(te-label/direction))"
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
+ " or "
+ "(../label-start/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)"
+ " or "
+ "(not(te-label/direction) and"
+ " (../label-start/te-label/direction = 'forward'))"
+ " or "
+ "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and"
+ " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" {
error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the "
+ "same direction.";
}
description
"This is the ending label if a label range is specified.
This attribute is not set if a single label is specified.";
uses te-label;
}
container label-step {
description
"The step increment between labels in the label range.
The label start/end values will have to be consistent
with the sign of label step. For example,
'label-start' < 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' > 0
'label-start' > 'label-end' enforces 'label-step' < 0.";
choice technology {
default "generic";
description
"Data-plane technology type.";
case generic {
leaf generic {
type int32;
default "1";
description
"Label range step.";
}
}
}
}
leaf range-bitmap {
type yang:hex-string;
description
"When there are gaps between 'label-start' and 'label-end',
this attribute is used to specify the positions
of the used labels. This is represented in big endian as
'hex-string'.
The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest
to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the
configured value may be omitted for brevity.
Each bit position in the 'range-bitmap' 'hex-string' maps
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
to a label in the range derived from 'label-start'.
For example, assuming that 'label-start' = 16000 and
'range-bitmap' = 0x01000001, then:
- bit position (0) is set, and the corresponding mapped
label from the range is 16000 + (0 * 'label-step') or
16000 for default 'label-step' = 1.
- bit position (24) is set, and the corresponding mapped
label from the range is 16000 + (24 * 'label-step') or
16024 for default 'label-step' = 1.";
}
}
grouping label-set-info {
description
"Grouping for the list of label restrictions specifying what
labels may or may not be used.";
container label-restrictions {
description
"The label restrictions container.";
list label-restriction {
key "index";
description
"The absence of the label restrictions container implies
that all labels are acceptable; otherwise, only restricted
labels are available.";
reference
"RFC 7579: General Network Element Constraint Encoding
for GMPLS-Controlled Networks";
uses label-restriction-info;
}
}
}
grouping optimization-metric-entry {
description
"Optimization metrics configuration grouping.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies the 'metric-type' that the path computation
process uses for optimization.";
}
leaf weight {
type uint8;
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
default "1";
description
"TE path metric normalization weight.";
}
container explicit-route-exclude-objects {
when "../metric-type = "
+ "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-excludes'";
description
"Container for the 'exclude route' object list.";
uses path-route-exclude-objects;
}
container explicit-route-include-objects {
when "../metric-type = "
+ "'te-types:path-metric-optimize-includes'";
description
"Container for the 'include route' object list.";
uses path-route-include-objects;
}
}
grouping common-constraints {
description
"Common constraints grouping that can be set on
a constraint set or directly on the tunnel.";
uses te-bandwidth {
description
"A requested bandwidth to use for path computation.";
}
leaf link-protection {
type identityref {
base link-protection-type;
}
default "te-types:link-protection-unprotected";
description
"Link protection type required for the links included
in the computed path.";
reference
"RFC 4202: Routing Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
}
leaf setup-priority {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
default "7";
description
"TE LSP requested setup priority.";
reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
leaf hold-priority {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
default "7";
description
"TE LSP requested hold priority.";
reference
"RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels";
}
leaf signaling-type {
type identityref {
base path-signaling-type;
}
default "te-types:path-setup-rsvp";
description
"TE tunnel path signaling type.";
}
}
grouping tunnel-constraints {
description
"Tunnel constraints grouping that can be set on
a constraint set or directly on the tunnel.";
leaf network-id {
type nw:network-id;
description
"The network topology identifier.";
}
uses te-topology-identifier;
uses common-constraints;
}
grouping path-constraints-route-objects {
description
"List of route entries to be included or excluded when
performing the path computation.";
container explicit-route-objects-always {
description
"Container for the 'exclude route' object list.";
list route-object-exclude-always {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects to always exclude from the path
computation.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Explicit Route Object index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
list route-object-include-exclude {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects to include or exclude in the path
computation.";
leaf explicit-route-usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
default "te-types:route-include-object";
description
"Indicates whether to include or exclude the
route object. The default is to include it.";
}
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object include-exclude index. The index is used
to identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop {
augment "type" {
case srlg {
container srlg {
description
"SRLG container.";
leaf srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG value.";
}
}
description
"An SRLG value to be included or excluded.";
}
description
"Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
exclusion.";
}
}
}
}
}
grouping path-route-include-objects {
description
"List of route objects to be included when performing
the path computation.";
list route-object-include-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of Explicit Route Objects to be included in the
path computation.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
}
grouping path-route-exclude-objects {
description
"List of route objects to be excluded when performing
the path computation.";
list route-object-exclude-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of Explicit Route Objects to be excluded in the
path computation.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop {
augment "type" {
case srlg {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
container srlg {
description
"SRLG container.";
leaf srlg {
type uint32;
description
"SRLG value.";
}
}
description
"An SRLG value to be included or excluded.";
}
description
"Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG
exclusion.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-metric-bounds {
description
"TE path metric bounds grouping.";
container path-metric-bounds {
description
"TE path metric bounds container.";
list path-metric-bound {
key "metric-type";
description
"List of TE path metric bounds.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of 'metric-type' items
bound for the TE path.";
}
leaf upper-bound {
type uint64;
default "0";
description
"Upper bound on the end-to-end TE path metric. A zero
indicates an unbounded upper limit for the specific
'metric-type'.";
}
}
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
grouping generic-path-optimization {
description
"TE generic path optimization grouping.";
container optimizations {
description
"The objective function container that includes
attributes to impose when computing a TE path.";
choice algorithm {
description
"Optimizations algorithm.";
case metric {
if-feature "path-optimization-metric";
/* Optimize by metric */
list optimization-metric {
key "metric-type";
description
"TE path metric type.";
uses optimization-metric-entry;
}
/* Tiebreakers */
container tiebreakers {
description
"Container for the list of tiebreakers.";
list tiebreaker {
key "tiebreaker-type";
description
"The list of tiebreaker criteria to apply on an
equally favored set of paths, in order to pick
the best.";
leaf tiebreaker-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of tiebreakers.";
}
}
}
}
case objective-function {
if-feature "path-optimization-objective-function";
/* Objective functions */
container objective-function {
description
"The objective function container that includes
attributes to impose when computing a TE path.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
leaf objective-function-type {
type identityref {
base objective-function-type;
}
default "te-types:of-minimize-cost-path";
description
"Objective function entry.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-affinities {
description
"Path affinities grouping.";
container path-affinities-values {
description
"Path affinities represented as values.";
list path-affinities-value {
key "usage";
description
"List of named affinity constraints.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base resource-affinities-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of value affinity
constraints.";
}
leaf value {
type admin-groups;
default "";
description
"The affinity value. The default is empty.";
}
}
}
container path-affinity-names {
description
"Path affinities represented as names.";
list path-affinity-name {
key "usage";
description
"List of named affinity constraints.";
leaf usage {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
type identityref {
base resource-affinities-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in the list of named affinity
constraints.";
}
list affinity-name {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Identifies a named affinity entry.";
}
description
"List of named affinities.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-srlgs {
description
"Path SRLG grouping.";
container path-srlgs-lists {
description
"Path SRLG properties container.";
list path-srlgs-list {
key "usage";
description
"List of SRLG values to be included or excluded.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in a list of SRLGs to either
include or exclude.";
}
leaf-list values {
type srlg;
description
"List of SRLG values.";
}
}
}
container path-srlgs-names {
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Container for the list of named SRLGs.";
list path-srlgs-name {
key "usage";
description
"List of named SRLGs to be included or excluded.";
leaf usage {
type identityref {
base route-usage-type;
}
description
"Identifies an entry in a list of named SRLGs to either
include or exclude.";
}
leaf-list names {
type string;
description
"List of named SRLGs.";
}
}
}
}
grouping generic-path-disjointness {
description
"Path disjointness grouping.";
leaf disjointness {
type te-path-disjointness;
description
"The type of resource disjointness.
When configured for a primary path, the disjointness level
applies to all secondary LSPs. When configured for a
secondary path, the disjointness level overrides the level
configured for the primary path.";
}
}
grouping common-path-constraints-attributes {
description
"Common path constraints configuration grouping.";
uses common-constraints;
uses generic-path-metric-bounds;
uses generic-path-affinities;
uses generic-path-srlgs;
}
grouping generic-path-constraints {
description
"Global named path constraints configuration grouping.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
container path-constraints {
description
"TE named path constraints container.";
uses common-path-constraints-attributes;
uses generic-path-disjointness;
}
}
grouping generic-path-properties {
description
"TE generic path properties grouping.";
container path-properties {
config false;
description
"The TE path properties.";
list path-metric {
key "metric-type";
description
"TE path metric type.";
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base path-metric-type;
}
description
"TE path metric type.";
}
leaf accumulative-value {
type uint64;
description
"TE path metric accumulative value.";
}
}
uses generic-path-affinities;
uses generic-path-srlgs;
container path-route-objects {
description
"Container for the list of route objects either returned by
the computation engine or actually used by an LSP.";
list path-route-object {
key "index";
ordered-by user;
description
"List of route objects either returned by the computation
engine or actually used by an LSP.";
leaf index {
type uint32;
description
"Route object entry index. The index is used to
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identify an entry in the list. The order of entries
is defined by the user without relying on key
values.";
}
uses explicit-route-hop;
}
}
}
}
// NOTE: The grouping encoding-and-switching-type below has been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
grouping encoding-and-switching-type {
description
"Common grouping to define the LSP encoding and
switching types";
leaf encoding {
type identityref {
base te-types:lsp-encoding-types;
}
description
"LSP encoding type.";
reference
"RFC3945";
}
leaf switching-type {
type identityref {
base te-types:switching-capabilities;
}
description
"LSP switching type.";
reference
"RFC3945";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 1: TE Types YANG module
5. Packet TE Types YANG Module
The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types"
module defined in Section 4 of this document.
CHANGE NOTE: Please focus your review only on the updates to the YANG
model: see also Appendix A.1.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
RFC Editor: remove the CHANGE NOTE above and this note
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-te-packet-types@2023-07-10.yang"
module ietf-te-packet-types {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types";
prefix te-packet-types;
/* Import TE generic types */
import ietf-te-types {
prefix te-types;
reference
"RFCXXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
Engineering";
}
// RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number
// and remove this note
organization
"IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Editor: Tarek Saad
<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Editor: Rakesh Gandhi
<mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>
Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>
Editor: Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Editor: Igor Bryskin
<mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com>";
description
"This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful YANG
data type definitions specific to MPLS TE. The model fully
conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
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 Revised BSD License set
forth in Section 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 of RFC XXXX
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.";
revision 2023-07-10 {
description
"Added common TE packet identities:
- bandwidth-profile-type.
Added common TE packet groupings:
- te-packet-path-bandwidth;
- te-packet-link-bandwidth.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
Engineering";
}
// RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number, update date
// information and remove this note
revision 2020-06-10 {
description
"Latest revision of TE MPLS types.";
reference
"RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
}
/*
* Identities
*/
// CHANGE NOTE: The base identity bandwidth-profile-type and
// its derived identities below have been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
identity bandwidth-profile-type {
description
"Bandwidth Profile Types";
}
identity mef-10-bwp {
base bandwidth-profile-type;
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
description
"MEF 10 Bandwidth Profile";
reference
"MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3";
}
identity rfc-2697-bwp {
base bandwidth-profile-type;
description
"RFC 2697 Bandwidth Profile";
reference
"RFC2697: A Single Rate Three Color Marker";
}
identity rfc-2698-bwp {
base bandwidth-profile-type;
description
"RFC 2698 Bandwidth Profile";
reference
"RFC2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker";
}
identity rfc-4115-bwp {
base bandwidth-profile-type;
description
"RFC 4115 Bandwidth Profile";
reference
"RFC4115: A Differentiated Service Two-Rate, Three-Color
Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic";
}
/*
* Typedefs
*/
typedef te-bandwidth-requested-type {
type enumeration {
enum specified {
description
"Bandwidth is explicitly specified.";
}
enum auto {
description
"Bandwidth is automatically computed.";
}
}
description
"Enumerated type for specifying whether bandwidth is
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
explicitly specified or automatically computed.";
}
typedef te-class-type {
type uint8;
description
"Diffserv-TE Class-Type. Defines a set of Traffic Trunks
crossing a link that is governed by a specific set of
bandwidth constraints. Class-Type is used for the purposes
of link bandwidth allocation, constraint-based routing, and
admission control.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
typedef bc-type {
type uint8 {
range "0..7";
}
description
"Diffserv-TE bandwidth constraints as defined in RFC 4124.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
typedef bandwidth-kbps {
type uint64;
units "Kbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in kilobits per second.";
}
typedef bandwidth-mbps {
type uint64;
units "Mbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in megabits per second.";
}
typedef bandwidth-gbps {
type uint64;
units "Gbps";
description
"Bandwidth values, expressed in gigabits per second.";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
identity backup-protection-type {
description
"Base identity for the backup protection type.";
}
identity backup-protection-link {
base backup-protection-type;
description
"Backup provides link protection only.";
}
identity backup-protection-node-link {
base backup-protection-type;
description
"Backup offers node (preferred) or link protection.";
}
identity bc-model-type {
description
"Base identity for the Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints
Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware
MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-rdm {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4127: Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-mam {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4125: Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering";
}
identity bc-model-mar {
base bc-model-type;
description
"Maximum Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Model type.";
reference
"RFC 4126: Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
& Performance Comparisons";
}
/*
* Groupings
*/
grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet {
description
"Contains PM attributes.";
uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes {
augment "performance-metrics-one-way" {
leaf one-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-min-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency normality.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency normality.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
description
"One-way delay variation in microseconds.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
reference
"RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement, Section 4.2";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"One-way delay variation normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
description
"One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision
is 0.000003%, where the maximum is 50.331642%.";
reference
"RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions, Section 4.4";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Packet loss normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
description
"PM one-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM
grouping.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
augment "performance-metrics-two-way" {
leaf two-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-min-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay variation in microseconds.";
reference
"RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement, Section 4.2";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way delay variation normality.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision
is 0.000003%.";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss-normality {
type te-types:performance-metrics-normality;
default "normal";
description
"Two-way packet loss normality.";
}
description
"PM two-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM
grouping.";
reference
"RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for
Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using
TE Metric Extensions
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions";
}
}
}
grouping one-way-performance-metrics-packet {
description
"One-way packet PM throttle grouping.";
leaf one-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way delay variation in microseconds.";
}
leaf one-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"One-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is
0.000003%.";
}
}
grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet {
description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
"Two-way packet PM throttle grouping.";
leaf two-way-min-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-max-delay {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-delay-variation {
type uint32 {
range "0..16777215";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way delay variation in microseconds.";
}
leaf two-way-packet-loss {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 6;
range "0..50.331642";
}
default "0";
description
"Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic
sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is
0.000003%.";
}
}
grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container-packet {
description
"Packet PM threshold grouping.";
uses te-types:performance-metrics-throttle-container {
augment "throttle/threshold-out" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM threshold-out packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
}
augment "throttle/threshold-in" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM threshold-in packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
}
augment "throttle/threshold-accelerated-advertisement" {
uses one-way-performance-metrics-packet;
uses two-way-performance-metrics-packet;
description
"PM accelerated advertisement packet augmentation for a
generic grouping.";
}
}
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The te-packet-path-bandwidth below has been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
grouping te-packet-path-bandwidth {
description
"Path bandwidth for Packet. ";
leaf bandwidth-profile-name {
type string;
description "Name of Bandwidth Profile.";
}
leaf bandwidth-profile-type {
type identityref {
base bandwidth-profile-type;
}
description "Type of Bandwidth Profile.";
}
leaf cir {
type uint64;
units "bits/second";
mandatory true;
description
"Committed Information Rate (CIR).";
}
leaf cbs {
type uint64;
units "bits/second";
mandatory true;
description
"Committed Burst Size (CBS).";
}
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 108]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
leaf eir {
type uint64;
units "bits/second";
description
"Excess Information Rate (EIR).";
}
leaf ebs {
type uint64;
units "bytes";
description
"Excess Burst Size (EBS).";
}
leaf pir {
type uint64;
units "bits/second";
description
"Peak Information Rate (PIR).";
}
leaf pbs {
type uint64;
units "bytes";
description
"Peak Burst Size (PBS).";
}
}
// CHANGE NOTE: The te-packet-path-bandwidth below has been
// added in this module revision
// RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
grouping te-packet-link-bandwidth {
description
"Link Bandwidth for Packet. ";
leaf packet-bandwidth {
type uint64;
units "bits/second";
description
"Available bandwith value.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 2: Packet TE Types YANG module
6. IANA Considerations
For the following URIs in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688], IANA has
updated the reference field to refer to this document:
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 109]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document also adds updated YANG modules to the "YANG Module
Names" registry [RFC7950]:
name: ietf-te-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types
prefix: te-types
reference: RFC XXXX
name: ietf-te-packet-types
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types
prefix: te-packet-types
reference: RFC XXXX
RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number assigned to this
document.
7. 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 Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [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.
The YANG module in this document defines common TE type definitions
(e.g., typedef, identity, and grouping statements) in YANG data
modeling language to be imported and used by other TE modules. When
imported and used, the resultant schema will have data nodes that can
be writable or readable. Access to such 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.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 110]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
The security considerations spelled out in the YANG 1.1 specification
[RFC7950] apply for this document as well.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ITU_G.808.1]
ITU-T Recommendation G.808.1, "Generic protection
switching - Linear trail and subnetwork protection", ITU-T
G.808.1 , May 2014.
[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>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557,
July 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5557>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 111]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>.
[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[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>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 112]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
[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>.
[RFC8685] Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Casellas, R.,
and D. King, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path
Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture", RFC 8685,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8685, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8685>.
[RFC8776] Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., and I. Bryskin,
"Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering",
RFC 8776, DOI 10.17487/RFC8776, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8776>.
[RFC8800] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity
Constraint Signaling", RFC 8800, DOI 10.17487/RFC8800,
July 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8800>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo]
Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V. P., Saad, T., Shah, H.
C., and O. G. de Dios, "YANG Data Model for Layer 3 TE
Topologies", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-yang-l3-te-topo-14, 12 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
yang-l3-te-topo-14>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 113]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-path-computation]
Busi, I., Belotti, S., de Dios, O. G., Sharma, A., and Y.
Shi, "A YANG Data Model for requesting path computation",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-yang-
path-computation-21, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
yang-path-computation-21>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V. P., Bryskin, I.,
and O. G. de Dios, "A YANG Data Model for Traffic
Engineering Tunnels, Label Switched Paths and Interfaces",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-
33, 4 July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-33>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-mpls]
Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V. P., and I.
Bryskin, "A YANG Data Model for MPLS Traffic Engineering
Tunnels", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-yang-te-mpls-04, 26 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
yang-te-mpls-04>.
[ITU-T_G.709]
International Telecommunication Union, "Interfaces for the
optical transport network", ITU-T G.709 , June 2020.
[MEF_10.3] MEF, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3", MEF 10.3 ,
October 2013.
[RFC2697] Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Single Rate Three Color
Marker", RFC 2697, DOI 10.17487/RFC2697, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2697>.
[RFC2698] Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color
Marker", RFC 2698, DOI 10.17487/RFC2698, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2698>.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2702>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 114]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC3272] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3272, DOI 10.17487/RFC3272, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3272>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC3785] Le Faucheur, F., Uppili, R., Vedrenne, A., Merckx, P., and
T. Telkamp, "Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric
as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric", BCP 87,
RFC 3785, DOI 10.17487/RFC3785, May 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3785>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC4115] Aboul-Magd, O. and S. Rabie, "A Differentiated Service
Two-Rate, Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of
in-Profile Traffic", RFC 4115, DOI 10.17487/RFC4115, July
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4115>.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 115]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4125>.
[RFC4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering & Performance Comparisons", RFC 4126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4126, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4126>.
[RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC4127, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4127>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4328, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4328>.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>.
[RFC4561] Vasseur, J.-P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan,
"Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-
Object", RFC 4561, DOI 10.17487/RFC4561, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4561>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 116]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC4736, November
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4736>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J.P., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N.,
and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and
GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, DOI 10.17487/RFC5003, September
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5003>.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 117]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5712] Meyer, M., Ed. and JP. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Traffic
Engineering Soft Preemption", RFC 5712,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5712, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5712>.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
Switching", RFC 6004, DOI 10.17487/RFC6004, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004>.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6370, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370>.
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511,
February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 118]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6780, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6780>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC6827] Malis, A., Ed., Lindem, A., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols", RFC 6827,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6827, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6827>.
[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D.,
and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139>.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 119]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
[RFC7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback",
RFC 7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>.
[RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.
[RFC7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi,
"Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions",
RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>.
[RFC8001] Zhang, F., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Margaria, C.,
Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for
Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information",
RFC 8001, DOI 10.17487/RFC8001, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8001>.
[RFC8149] Saad, T., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Ali, Z., Venator, R., and
Y. Kamite, "RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely
Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8149, DOI 10.17487/RFC8149,
April 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8149>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
[RFC9314] Jethanandani, M., Ed., Rahman, R., Ed., Zheng, L., Ed.,
Pallagatti, S., and G. Mirsky, "YANG Data Model for
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 9314,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9314, September 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9314>.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 120]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 8776
To be added in a future revision of this draft.
A.1. TE Types YANG Diffs
RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication.
This section provides the diff between the YANG module in section 3.1
of [RFC8776] and the YANG model revision in Section 4.
The intention of this appendix is to facilitate focusing the review
of the YANG model in Section 4 to the changes compared with the YANG
model in [RFC8776].
This diff has been generated using the following UNIX commands to
compare the YANG module revisions in section 3.1 of [RFC8776] and in
Section 4:
diff ietf-te-types@2020-06-10.yang ietf-te-types.yang
> model-diff.txt
sed 's/^/ /' model-diff.txt > model-diff-spaces.txt
sed 's/^ > / > /' model-diff-spaces.txt
> model-updates.txt
The output (model-updates.txt) is reported here:
21a22,31
> import ietf-network {
> prefix "nw";
> reference "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
> }
>
> import ietf-network-topology {
> prefix "nt";
> reference "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";
> }
>
30c40
< <mailto:tsaad@juniper.net>
---
> <mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>
55c65
< Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
---
> Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
60c70
< the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 121]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
---
> the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
65,66c75,108
< This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8776; see the
< RFC itself for full legal notices.";
---
> This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
> for full legal notices.";
>
> revision 2023-06-27 {
> description
> "Added:
> - base identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason;
> - identity association-type-diversity;
> - identity tunnel-admin-state-auto;
> - identity lsp-restoration-restore-none;
> - base identity path-computation-error-reason and
> its derived identities;
> - base identity protocol-origin-type and
> its derived identities;
> - base identity svec-objective-function-type and its derived
> identities;
> - base identity svec-metric-type and its derived identities;
> - grouping encoding-and-switching-type.
>
> Updated:
> - description of the base identity objective-function-type;
> - description and reference of identity action-exercise.
>
> Obsoleted:
> - identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption
> - identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link
> - identity of-minimize-cost-path-set";
> reference
> "RFC XXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
> Engineering";
> }
> // RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number, update date
> // information and remove this note
545a588,615
> // CHANGE NOTE: The typedef path-type below has been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> typedef path-type {
> type enumeration {
> enum primary-path {
> description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 122]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> "Indicates that the TE path is a primary path.";
> }
> enum secondary-path {
> description
> "Indicates that the TE path is a secondary path.";
> }
> enum primary-reverse-path {
> description
> "Indicates that the TE path is a primary reverse path.";
> }
> enum secondary-reverse-path {
> description
> "Indicates that the TE path is a secondary reverse path.";
> }
> }
> description
> "The type of TE path, indicating whether a path is a primary,
> or a reverse primary, or a secondary, or a reverse secondary
> path.";
> }
>
606a677,684
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason
> // has been added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity lsp-provisioning-error-reason {
> description
> "Base identity for LSP provisioning errors.";
> }
>
982a1061,1078
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity association-type-diversity below has
> // been added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity association-type-diversity {
> base association-type;
> description
> "Association Type diversity used to associate LSPs whose
> paths are to be diverse from each other.";
> reference
> "RFC8800: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity
> Constraint Signaling";
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The description of the base identity
> // objective-function-type has been updated
> // in this module revision
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 123]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
985c1081
< "Base objective function type.";
---
> "Base identity for path objective function type.";
1015a1112,1114
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption
> // below has been obsoleted in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
1017a1117
> status obsolete;
1020c1120
< consumption.";
---
> consumption.";
1023c1123
< Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
---
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
1025a1126,1128
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link
> // below has been obsoleted in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
1027a1131
> status obsolete;
1030c1134
< is carrying the highest load.";
---
> is carrying the highest load.";
1033c1137
< Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
---
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)";
1035a1140,1142
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity of-minimize-cost-path-set
> // below has been obsoleted in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
1037a1145
> status obsolete;
1216a1325,1336
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity tunnel-admin-state-auto below
> // has been added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity tunnel-admin-state-auto {
> base tunnel-admin-state-type;
> description
> "Tunnel administrative auto state. The administrative status
> in state datastore transitions to 'tunnel-admin-up' when the
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 124]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> tunnel used by the client layer, and to 'tunnel-admin-down'
> when it is not used by the client layer.";
> }
>
1321a1442,1450
> // CHANGE NOTE: The identity lsp-restoration-restore-none
> // below has been added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity lsp-restoration-restore-none {
> base lsp-restoration-type;
> description
> "No LSP affected by a failure is restored.";
> }
>
1628a1758,1761
> // cCHANGE NOTE: The description and reference of the
> // identity action-exercise have been updated in this module
> // revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
1632,1633c1765,1767
< "An action that starts testing whether or not APS communication
< is operating correctly. It is of lower priority than any
---
> "An action that starts testing whether or not Automatic
> Protection Switching (APS) communication is operating
> correctly. It is of lower priority than any
1636,1637c1770,1771
< "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology
< for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)";
---
> "ITU-T G.808.1 v4.0 (05/2014): Generic protection switching -
> Linear trail and subnetwork protection";
2110a2245,2641
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity path-computation-error-reason
> // and its derived identities below have been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity path-computation-error-reason {
> description
> "Base identity for path computation error reasons.";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-path-not-found {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because of an unspecified
> reason.";
> reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 125]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> "Section 7.5 of RFC5440";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-topology {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because there is no topology
> with the provided topology-identifier.";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-dependent-server {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because one or more dependent
> path computation servers are unavailable.
>
> The dependent path computation server could be
> a Backward-Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) downstream
> PCE or a child PCE.";
> reference
> "RFC5441, RFC8685";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-pce-unavailable {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because PCE is not available.
>
> It corresponds to bit 31 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5440;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-inclusion-hop {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because there is no
> node or link provided by one or more inclusion hops.";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-destination-unknown-in-domain {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because the destination node is
> unknown in indicated destination domain.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 126]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
>
> It corresponds to bit 19 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC8685;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-resource {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because there is no
> available resource in one or more domains.
>
> It corresponds to bit 20 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC8685;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-child-pce-unresponsive {
> base path-computation-error-no-dependent-server;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because child PCE is not
> responsive.
>
> It corresponds to bit 21 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC8685;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-destination-domain-unknown {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because the destination domain
> was unknown.
>
> It corresponds to bit 22 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC8685;
>
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 127]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-p2mp {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because of P2MP reachability
> problem.
>
> It corresponds to bit 24 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC8306;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-gco-migration {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because of no Global Concurrent
> Optimization (GCO) migration path found.
>
> It corresponds to bit 26 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5557;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-gco-solution {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because of no GCO solution
> found.
>
> It corresponds to bit 25 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5557;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-pks-expansion {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 128]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> "Path computation has failed because of Path-Key Subobject
> (PKS) expansion failure.
>
> It corresponds to bit 27 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5520;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-brpc-chain-unavailable {
> base path-computation-error-no-dependent-server;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because PCE BRPC chain
> unavailable.
>
> It corresponds to bit 28 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5441;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-source-unknown {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because source node is
> unknown.
>
> It corresponds to bit 29 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
> "RFC5440;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-destination-unknown {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because destination node is
> unknown.
>
> It corresponds to bit 30 of the Flags field of the
> NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV.";
> reference
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 129]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> "RFC5440;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> identity path-computation-error-no-server {
> base path-computation-error-reason;
> description
> "Path computation has failed because path computation
> server is unavailable.";
> reference
> "RFC5440;
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml";
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity protocol-origin-type and
> // its derived identities below have been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity protocol-origin-type {
> description
> "Base identity for protocol origin type.";
> }
>
> identity protocol-origin-api {
> base protocol-origin-type;
> description
> "Protocol origin is via Application Programmable Interface
> (API).";
> }
>
> identity protocol-origin-pcep {
> base protocol-origin-type;
> description
> "Protocol origin is Path Computation Engine Protocol
> (PCEP).";
> reference "RFC5440";
> }
>
> identity protocol-origin-bgp {
> base protocol-origin-type;
> description
> "Protocol origin is Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).";
> reference "RFC9012";
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity svec-objective-function-type
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 130]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> // and its derived identities below have been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity svec-objective-function-type {
> description
> "Base identity for SVEC objective function type.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth
> consumption (MBC).";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that
> is carrying the highest load (MLL).";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-cost-path-set {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set
> (MCC).";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-common-transit-domain {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the number of common
> transit domains (MCTD).";
> reference
> "RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 131]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
> Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-shared-link {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
> links (MSL).";
> reference
> "RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
> Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-shared-srlg {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
> Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) (MSS).";
> reference
> "RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
> Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
> }
>
> identity svec-of-minimize-shared-nodes {
> base svec-objective-function-type;
> description
> "Objective function for minimizing the number of shared
> nodes (MSN).";
> reference
> "RFC8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation
> Element (H-PCE) Architecture.";
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity svec-metric-type and
> // its derived identities below have been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity svec-metric-type {
> description
> "Base identity for SVEC metric type.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 132]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
>
> identity svec-metric-cumul-te {
> base svec-metric-type;
> description
> "Cumulative TE cost.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-metric-cumul-igp {
> base svec-metric-type;
> description
> "Cumulative IGP cost.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-metric-cumul-hop {
> base svec-metric-type;
> description
> "Cumulative Hop path metric.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-metric-aggregate-bandwidth-consumption {
> base svec-metric-type;
> description
> "Aggregate bandwidth consumption.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
> identity svec-metric-load-of-the-most-loaded-link {
> base svec-metric-type;
> description
> "Load of the most loaded link.";
> reference
> "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
> Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
> }
>
2514a3046,3054
> must "node-id-uri or node-id" {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 133]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> description
> "At least one node identifier MUST be present.";
> }
> leaf node-id-uri {
> type nw:node-id;
> description
> "The identifier of a node in the topology.";
> }
2517d3056
< mandatory true;
2566a3106,3116
> must "(link-tp-id-uri or link-tp-id) and " +
> "(node-id-uri or node-id)" {
> description
> "At least one node identifier and at least one Link
> Termination Point (LTP) identifier MUST be present.";
> }
> leaf link-tp-id-uri {
> type nt:tp-id;
> description
> "Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
> }
2569d3118
< mandatory true;
2574a3124,3128
> leaf node-id-uri {
> type nw:node-id;
> description
> "The identifier of a node in the topology.";
> }
2577d3130
< mandatory true;
2646a3200,3203
> must "node-id-uri or node-id" {
> description
> "At least one node identifier MUST be present.";
> }
2648a3206,3210
> leaf node-id-uri {
> type nw:node-id;
> description
> "The identifier of a node in the topology.";
> }
2651d3212
< mandatory true;
2696a3258,3268
> must "(link-tp-id-uri or link-tp-id) and " +
> "(node-id-uri or node-id)" {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 134]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> description
> "At least one node identifier and at least one Link
> Termination Point (LTP) identifier MUST be present.";
> }
> leaf link-tp-id-uri {
> type nt:tp-id;
> description
> "Link Termination Point (LTP) identifier.";
> }
2699d3270
< mandatory true;
2704a3276,3280
> leaf node-id-uri {
> type nw:node-id;
> description
> "The identifier of a node in the topology.";
> }
2968a3545,3549
> leaf network-id {
> type nw:network-id;
> description
> "The network topology identifier.";
> }
3379c3960,3987
< }
\ No newline at end of file
---
>
> // NOTE: The grouping encoding-and-switching-type below has been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> grouping encoding-and-switching-type {
> description
> "Common grouping to define the LSP encoding and
> switching types";
> leaf encoding {
> type identityref {
> base te-types:lsp-encoding-types;
> }
> description
> "LSP encoding type.";
> reference
> "RFC3945";
> }
> leaf switching-type {
> type identityref {
> base te-types:switching-capabilities;
> }
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 135]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> description
> "LSP switching type.";
> reference
> "RFC3945";
> }
> }
> }
A.2. Packet TE Types YANG Diffs
RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication.
This section provides the diff between the YANG module in section 3.2
of [RFC8776] and the YANG model revision in Section 5.
The intention of this appendix is to facilitate focusing the review
of the YANG model in Section 5 to the changes compared with the YANG
model in [RFC8776].
This diff has been generated using the following UNIX commands to
compare the YANG module revisions in section 3.2 of [RFC8776] and in
Section 5:
diff ietf-te-packet-types@2020-06-10.yang ietf-te-packet-types.yang
> model-diff.txt
sed 's/^/ /' model-diff.txt > model-diff-spaces.txt
sed 's/^ > / > /' model-diff-spaces.txt
> model-updates.txt
The output (model-updates.txt) is reported here:
11c11,12
< "RFC 8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering";
---
> "RFCXXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
> Engineering";
12a14,15
> // RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number
> // and remove this note
22c25
< <mailto:tsaad@juniper.net>
---
> <mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>
41c44
< Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
---
> Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
46c49
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 136]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
< the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
---
> the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
51,52c54,71
< This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8776; see the
< RFC itself for full legal notices.";
---
> This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
> for full legal notices.";
>
> revision 2023-07-10 {
> description
> "Added common TE packet identities:
> - bandwidth-profile-type.
>
> Added common TE packet groupings:
> - te-packet-path-bandwidth;
> - te-packet-link-bandwidth.";
> reference
> "RFC XXXX: Updated Common YANG Data Types for Traffic
> Engineering";
> }
> // RFC Editor: replace XXXX with actual RFC number, update date
> // information and remove this note
61c80,126
< /**
---
> /*
> * Identities
> */
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The base identity bandwidth-profile-type and
> // its derived identities below have been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> identity bandwidth-profile-type {
> description
> "Bandwidth Profile Types";
> }
>
> identity mef-10-bwp {
> base bandwidth-profile-type;
> description
> "MEF 10 Bandwidth Profile";
> reference
> "MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3";
> }
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 137]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
>
> identity rfc-2697-bwp {
> base bandwidth-profile-type;
> description
> "RFC 2697 Bandwidth Profile";
> reference
> "RFC2697: A Single Rate Three Color Marker";
> }
>
> identity rfc-2698-bwp {
> base bandwidth-profile-type;
> description
> "RFC 2698 Bandwidth Profile";
> reference
> "RFC2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker";
> }
>
> identity rfc-4115-bwp {
> base bandwidth-profile-type;
> description
> "RFC 4115 Bandwidth Profile";
> reference
> "RFC4115: A Differentiated Service Two-Rate, Three-Color
> Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic";
> }
>
> /*
180a246,249
> /*
> * Groupings
> */
>
472a542,611
> }
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The te-packet-path-bandwidth below has been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> grouping te-packet-path-bandwidth {
> description
> "Path bandwidth for Packet. ";
> leaf bandwidth-profile-name {
> type string;
> description "Name of Bandwidth Profile.";
> }
> leaf bandwidth-profile-type {
> type identityref {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 138]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> base bandwidth-profile-type;
> }
> description "Type of Bandwidth Profile.";
> }
> leaf cir {
> type uint64;
> units "bits/second";
> mandatory true;
> description
> "Committed Information Rate (CIR).";
> }
> leaf cbs {
> type uint64;
> units "bits/second";
> mandatory true;
> description
> "Committed Burst Size (CBS).";
> }
> leaf eir {
> type uint64;
> units "bits/second";
> description
> "Excess Information Rate (EIR).";
> }
> leaf ebs {
> type uint64;
> units "bytes";
> description
> "Excess Burst Size (EBS).";
> }
> leaf pir {
> type uint64;
> units "bits/second";
> description
> "Peak Information Rate (PIR).";
> }
> leaf pbs {
> type uint64;
> units "bytes";
> description
> "Peak Burst Size (PBS).";
> }
> }
>
> // CHANGE NOTE: The te-packet-path-bandwidth below has been
> // added in this module revision
> // RFC Editor: remove the note above and this note
> grouping te-packet-link-bandwidth {
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 139]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
> description
> "Link Bandwidth for Packet. ";
> leaf packet-bandwidth {
> type uint64;
> units "bits/second";
> description
> "Available bandwith value.";
Appendix B. Option Considered for updating RFC8776
RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication.
The concern is how to be able to update the ietf-te-types YANG module
published in [RFC8776] without delaying too much the progress of the
mature WG documents.
Three possible options have been identified to address this concern.
One option is to keep these definitions in the YANG modules where
they have initially been defined: other YANG modules can still import
them. The drawback of this approach is that it defeating the value
of common YANG modules like ietf-te-types since common definitions
will be spread around multiple specific YANG modules.
A second option is to define them in a new common YANG module (e.g.,
ietf-te-types-ext). The drawback of this approach is that it will
increase the number of YANG modules providing tiny updates to the
ietf-te-types YANG module.
A third option is to develop a revision of the ietf-te-types YANG
module within an RFC8776-bis. The drawback of this approach is that
the process for developing a big RFC8776-bis just for a tiny update
is too high. Moreover, as suggested during IETF 113 Netmod WG
discussion, a new revision of the ietf-te-packet-types YANG module,
which is also defined in [RFC8776] but it does not need to be
revised, needs to be published just to change its reference to
RFC8776-bis (see [RFC9314]).
A fourth option, considered in the -00 WG version, was to:
* describe within the document only the updates to the ietf-te-types
YANG module proposed by this document;
* include the whole updated YANG model within the main body;
* add some notes, to be removed before publication, within updated
YANG model to focus the review only to the updates to the ietf-te-
types YANG module proposed by this document.
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 140]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Based on the feedbacks from IETF 114 discussion, this version has
been restructured to become an RFC8776-bis, with some notes, to be
removed before publication, to focus the review only to the updates
to the ietf-te-types YANG module proposed by this document.
During the Netmod WG session at IETF 114, an alternative process has
been introduced:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/materials/slides-114-netmod-
ad-topic-managing-the-evolution-of-ietf-yang-modules-00.pdf
Future updates of this document could align with the proposed
approach.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Robert Wilton, Lou Berger, Mahesh
Jethanandani and Jeff Haas for their valuable input to the discussion
about the process to follow to provide tiny updates to a YANG module
already published as an RFC.
This document was prepared using kramdown.
Contributors
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Italo Busi
Huawei
Email: italo.busi@huawei.com
Aihua Guo
Futurewei Technologies
Email: aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 141]
Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types September 2023
Xufeng Liu
Alef Edge
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems Inc.
Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com
Igor Bryskin
Individual
Email: i_bryskin@yahoo.com
Busi, et al. Expires 18 March 2024 [Page 142]