TEAS Working Group I. Busi Internet-Draft Huawei Obsoletes: 8776 (if approved) A. Guo Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies Expires: 9 May 2025 X. Liu Alef Edge T. Saad Cisco Systems Inc. I. Bryskin Individual 5 November 2024 Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-14 Abstract This document defines a collection of common data types, identities, and groupings in YANG data modeling language. These derived common data types, identities and groupings are intended to be imported by other modules, e.g., those which model the 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 9 May 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Path Computation Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Protocol Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Packet TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 A.1. TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 A.2. Packet TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 8776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 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] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The YANG language supports a small set of built-in data types and provides mechanisms to derive other types from the built-in types. This document introduces a collection of common data types derived from the built-in YANG data types. The derived data types, identities, and groupings are mainly designed to be the common Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 definitions applicable for modeling Traffic Engineering (TE) features in model(s) defined outside of this document. Nevertheless, these common definitions can be used by any other module per the guidance in Section 4.12 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. This document adds new 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, refer to Appendix B. 1.1. Terminology 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. The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in [RFC7950]. 1.2. Tree Diagrams Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in [RFC8340]. 1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names 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. +=================+======================+========================+ | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | +=================+======================+========================+ | yang | ietf-yang-types | Section 3 of [RFC6991] | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ | inet | ietf-inet-types | Section 4 of [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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX through this document with the RFC number assigned to this document. Please remove this note. 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations APS: Automatic Protection Switching DS-TE: Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching LER: Label Edge Router LSP: Label Switched Path LSR: Label Switching Router MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching NBMA: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access PM: Performance Metrics RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol SD: Signal Degrade SF: Signal Fail SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group TE: Traffic Engineering WTR: Wait-to-Restore 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. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable groupings: 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. The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable data types: 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 Section 3 of [RFC6370] and Section 3 of [RFC5003]. This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally unique context for TE topologies. te-node-id: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4 octets in dotted-quad notation or as 16 octets in full, mixed, shortened, or shortened-mixed IPv6 address notation. This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in Section 6.2 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 [RFC6378] and [RFC4427]. The "ietf-te-types" module contains the following YANG reusable identities: 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]. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 [RFC4872], [RFC6368], [RFC7271] and [RFC4427]. association-type: A base YANG identity for supported LSP association types as defined in [RFC6780], [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [RFC8800]. objective-function-type: A base YANG identity for supported path objective functions as defined in [RFC5541]. 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 [RFC3209] and [RFC2702]. path-metric-type: A base YANG identity for supported path metric types as defined in [RFC3630], [RFC3785], [RFC5440], [RFC7471], [RFC8233], [RFC8570] and [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo-14]. The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type. The derived identities SHOULD describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define. For example, the bound of the 'path-metric-loss', defined in 'ietf-te-packet-types', is defined in multiples of the basic unit 0.000003% as described in [RFC7471] and [RFC8570]. 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 9 May 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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. 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. path-computation-error-no-dependent-server: A YANG identity for reporting path computation error when 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. The derived identities are defined in the "ietf-te-types" module because there are error reasons which are: 1. applicable only to the TE YANG models and not to PCEP environments (e.g., path-computation-error-no-topology); 2. technology-specific (e.g., No RWA constraints met) which are better defined in technology-specific YANG models; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 3. match more than one PCEP numbers in order to hide the details of the underlay PCE architecture (e.g., path-computation-error-no- dependent-server). 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: 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. bandwidth-profile-type: A base YANG identity for various bandwidth profiles specified in [MEF_10.3], [RFC2697] and [RFC2698] that may be used to limit bandwidth utilization of packet flows (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs). Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 bandwidth-profile-parameters: A YANG grouping that defines common parameters for bandwidth profiles in packet networks. 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. 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: [RFC9522], [RFC4090], [RFC4202], [RFC4328], [RFC4561], [RFC4657], [RFC4736], [RFC6004], [RFC6378], [RFC6511], [RFC7139], [RFC7271], [RFC7308], [RFC7551], [RFC7571], [RFC7579], and [ITU-T_G.709]. file "ietf-te-types@2024-10-24.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 { prefix inet; reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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: WG List: Editor: Tarek Saad Editor: Rakesh Gandhi Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Editor: Xufeng Liu Editor: Igor Bryskin "; description "This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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) 2024 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 2024-10-30 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - lsp-provisioning-error-reason; - association-type-diversity; - tunnel-admin-state-auto; - lsp-restoration-restore-none; - restoration-scheme-rerouting; - path-metric-optimization-type; - link-path-metric-type; - link-metric-type and its derived identities; - path-computation-error-reason and its derived identities; - protocol-origin-type and its derived identities; - svec-objective-function-type and its derived identities; - svec-metric-type and its derived identities. This revision adds the following new data types: - path-type. This revision adds the following new groupings: - encoding-and-switching-type; - te-generic-node-id. This revision updates the following identities: - objective-function-type; - action-exercise; - path-metric-type; - path-metric-te; - path-metric-igp; - path-metric-hop; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 - path-metric-delay-average; - path-metric-delay-minimum; - path-metric-residual-bandwidth; - path-metric-optimize-includes; - path-metric-optimize-excludes; - te-optimization-criterion. This revision updates the following data types: - te-node-id. This revision updates the following groupings: - explicit-route-hop: - adds the following leaves: - node-id-uri; - link-tp-id-uri; - updates the following leaves: - node-id; - link-tp-id; - record-route-state: - adds the following leaves: - node-id-uri; - link-tp-id-uri; - updates the following leaves: - node-id; - link-tp-id; - optimization-metric-entry: - updates the following leaves: - metric-type; - tunnel-constraints; - adds the following leaves: - network-id; - path-constraints-route-objects: - updates the following containers: - explicit-route-objects-always; - generic-path-metric-bounds: - updates the following leaves: - metric-type; - generic-path-optimization - adds the following leaves: - tiebreaker; - deprecate the following containers: - tiebreakers. This revision obsoletes the following identities: - of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption; - of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link; - of-minimize-cost-path-set; - lsp-protection-reroute-extra; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 - lsp-protection-reroute. This revision provides also few editorial changes."; reference "RFC XXXX: 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 "Initial Version 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."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 typedef extended-admin-group { type yang:hex-string; 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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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"; } 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "Status is unknown."; } } 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 G.709: Interfaces for the optical transport network - Edition 6.0 (06/2020)"; } typedef te-ds-class { type uint8 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 range "0..7"; } description "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 18] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } enum multi-access { description "The link is multi-access, including broadcast and NBMA."; } } 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 19] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 type uint32; description "TE metric."; reference "RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric"; } typedef te-node-id { type union { type yang:dotted-quad; type inet:ipv6-address-no-zone; } description "A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4 octets in dotted-quad notation, or as 16 octets in full, mixed, shortened, or shortened-mixed IPv6 address 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, the TE Router ID TLV described in Section 3.2.1 of RFC 6119, or the IPv6 TE Router ID TLV described in Section 4.1 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 20] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 21] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } typedef te-template-name { type string { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 22] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 23] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2 RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"; } 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 */ Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 24] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 25] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } feature path-optimization-objective-function { description "Indicates support for path optimization objective functions."; } /* * Identities */ 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"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 26] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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; 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 27] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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)"; } 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)"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 28] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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)"; } 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)"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 29] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 { 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"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 30] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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) 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 31] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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 { base link-protection-type; description "Extra-Traffic 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-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"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 32] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 { 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; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 33] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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)"; } 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 "RFC 8800: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity Constraint Signaling"; } identity objective-function-type { description "Base identity for path objective function types."; } 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)"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 34] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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)"; } identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption { base objective-function-type; status obsolete; description "Objective function for minimizing aggregate bandwidth consumption. This identity has been obsoleted: the 'svec-of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption' identity SHOULD be used instead."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } 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. This identity has been obsoleted: the 'svec-of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link' identity SHOULD be used instead."; reference Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 35] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity of-minimize-cost-path-set { base objective-function-type; status obsolete; description "Objective function for minimizing the cost on a path set. This identity has been obsoleted: the 'svec-of-minimize-cost-path-set' identity SHOULD be used instead."; 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 "Indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the path is computed by the local LER."; reference "RFC 9522: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering, Section 4.4"; } 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 9522: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 36] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 9522: 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 "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 37] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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)"; } 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)."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 38] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "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."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 39] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } 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."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 40] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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, Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 41] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } identity lsp-restoration-restore-none { base lsp-restoration-type; description "No LSP affected by a failure is restored."; } 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-rerouting { base restoration-scheme-type; description "Restoration LSP is computed after the failure detection. This restoration scheme is also known as 'Full LSP Re-routing.'"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 42] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; } identity restoration-scheme-preconfigured { base restoration-scheme-type; description "Restoration LSP is preconfigured prior to the failure."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; } identity restoration-scheme-precomputed { base restoration-scheme-type; description "Restoration LSP is precomputed prior to the failure."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; } identity restoration-scheme-presignaled { base restoration-scheme-type; description "Restoration LSP is presignaled prior to the failure."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; } identity lsp-protection-type { description "Base identity from which LSP protection types are derived."; 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 43] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "'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; status obsolete; description "'(Full) Rerouting' LSP protection type. This identity has been obsoleted: the 'restoration-scheme-rerouting' identity SHOULD be used instead."; 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; status obsolete; description "'Rerouting without Extra-Traffic' LSP protection type. This identity has been obsoleted: the 'restoration-scheme-rerouting' identity SHOULD be used instead."; 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 44] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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"; } 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 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery"; } identity lsp-protection-state { description "Base identity of protection states for reporting purposes."; } identity normal { base lsp-protection-state; description "Normal state."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 45] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 reference "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 46] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } identity wait-to-restore { base lsp-protection-state; description "A Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer is running."; reference "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection 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 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 47] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 7271: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators 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 7271: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } identity clear-freeze { base protection-external-commands; description "An action that clears the active freeze state."; reference "RFC 7271: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 48] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators 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 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery 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 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery 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 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 49] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery 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 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } 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 "RFC 7271: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 50] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } identity clear { base protection-external-commands; description "An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a protection, forced switchover, manual switchover, Wait-to-Restore (WTR) state, or exercise command."; reference "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"; } identity switching-capabilities { description "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"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 51] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 52] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 53] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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."; 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"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 54] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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."; } 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."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 55] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 56] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; } identity path-metric-optimization-type { description "Base identity used to define the path metric optimization types."; } identity link-path-metric-type { description "Base identity used to define the link and the path metric types. The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type and the derived identities SHOULD describe the unit of the path metric types they define."; } identity link-metric-type { base link-path-metric-type; description "Base identity for the link metric types."; } identity link-metric-te { base link-metric-type; description "Traffic Engineering (TE) Link Metric."; reference "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2, Section 2.5.5 RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering, Section 3.7"; } identity link-metric-igp { base link-metric-type; description "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Link Metric."; reference "RFC 3785: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric"; } identity link-metric-delay-average { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 57] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 base link-metric-type; description "Unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.1 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.1"; } identity link-metric-delay-minimum { base link-metric-type; description "Minimum unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.2 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.2"; } identity link-metric-delay-maximum { base link-metric-type; description "Maximum unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.2 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.2"; } identity link-metric-residual-bandwidth { base link-metric-type; description "Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth, measured in units of bytes per second. It is defined to be Maximum Bandwidth minus the bandwidth currently allocated to LSPs."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.5 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.5"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 58] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } identity path-metric-type { base link-path-metric-type; base path-metric-optimization-type; description "Base identity for the path metric types."; } identity path-metric-te { base path-metric-type; description "Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Metric."; reference "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP), Section 7.8"; } identity path-metric-igp { base path-metric-type; description "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Path Metric."; reference "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP), section 7.8"; } identity path-metric-hop { base path-metric-type; description "Hop Count Path Metric."; reference "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP), Section 7.8"; } identity path-metric-delay-average { base path-metric-type; description "The Path Delay Metric, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC8233: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs), Section 3.1.1"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 59] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 identity path-metric-delay-minimum { base path-metric-type; description "The Path Min Delay Metric, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo: Carrying SR-Algorithm information in PCE-based Networks, draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-14, Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2"; } identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth { base path-metric-type; description "The Path Residual Bandwidth, defined as the minimum Link Residual Bandwidth all the links along the path. The Path Residual Bandwidth can be seen as the path metric associated with the Maximum residual Bandwidth Path (MBP) objective function."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity path-metric-optimize-includes { base path-metric-optimization-type; description "A metric that optimizes the number of included resources specified in a set."; } identity path-metric-optimize-excludes { base path-metric-optimization-type; description "A metric that optimizes to a maximum the number of excluded resources specified in a set."; } identity path-tiebreaker-type { description "Base identity for the path tiebreaker type."; } identity path-tiebreaker-minfill { base path-tiebreaker-type; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 60] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "Min-Fill LSP path placement: selects the path with the most available bandwidth (load balance LSPs over more links)."; } identity path-tiebreaker-maxfill { base path-tiebreaker-type; description "Max-Fill LSP path placement: selects the path with the least available bandwidth (packing more LSPs over few links)."; } 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 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels 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 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS"; } 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 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 61] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS"; } identity te-optimization-criterion { description "Base identity for the TE optimization criteria."; reference "RFC 9522: 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 9 May 2025 [Page 62] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } 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 "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP), Section 7.5"; } 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; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 63] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "RFC 5441: A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture"; } 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 "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 64] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } identity path-computation-error-destination-domain-unknown { base path-computation-error-reason; description "Path computation has failed because the destination domain was unknown. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 65] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 It corresponds to bit 22 of the Flags field of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV."; reference "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 8306: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 5557: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent Optimization https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } identity path-computation-error-no-gco-solution { base path-computation-error-reason; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 66] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "RFC 5557: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent Optimization https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 5520: Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 5441: A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 67] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP); https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } 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 "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP); https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } identity path-computation-error-no-server { base path-computation-error-reason; description "Path computation has failed because path computation server is unavailable."; reference "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP); https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } identity protocol-origin-type { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 68] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "Base identity for protocol origin type."; } identity protocol-origin-api { base protocol-origin-type; description "Protocol origin is via Application Programming Interface (API)."; } identity protocol-origin-pcep { base protocol-origin-type; description "Protocol origin is Path Computation Engine Protocol (PCEP)."; reference "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity protocol-origin-bgp { base protocol-origin-type; description "Protocol origin is Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)."; reference "RFC 9012: The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute"; } identity svec-objective-function-type { description "Base identity for SVEC objective function type."; reference "RFC 5541: 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 "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 69] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "RFC 5541: 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 "RFC 5541: 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 "RFC 8685: 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 "RFC 8685: 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 70] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) (MSS)."; reference "RFC 8685: 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 "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture."; } identity svec-metric-type { description "Base identity for SVEC metric type."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity svec-metric-cumulative-te { base svec-metric-type; description "Cumulative TE cost."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity svec-metric-cumulative-igp { base svec-metric-type; description "Cumulative IGP cost."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } identity svec-metric-cumulative-hop { base svec-metric-type; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 71] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "Cumulative Hop path metric."; reference "RFC 5541: 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 "RFC 5541: 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 "RFC 5541: 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 { 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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 72] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "Label direction."; } } } grouping te-topology-identifier { description Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 73] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; leaf one-way-delay { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 74] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using 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. 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 75] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "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; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 76] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 77] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; uses performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss; uses performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth; } container performance-metrics-two-way { 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; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 78] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using 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 values."; } leaf suppression-interval { type uint32 { range "1..max"; } default "120"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 79] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { description "The explicit route entry grouping."; choice type { description "The explicit route entry type."; case numbered-node-hop { container numbered-node-hop { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 80] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "Strict or loose hop."; } leaf direction { type te-link-direction; default "outgoing"; description Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 81] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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 { type te-hop-type; default "strict"; description "Strict or loose hop."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 82] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } } } grouping record-route-state { description Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 83] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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."; } case numbered-link-hop { container numbered-link-hop { description "Numbered link route hop container."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 84] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 "The identifier of a node in the topology."; } leaf node-id { type te-node-id; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 85] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } } } grouping label-restriction-info { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 86] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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))" + " or " + "(../label-start/te-label/direction = te-label/direction)" + " or " Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 87] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 + "(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'. In case the restriction is 'inclusive', the bit-position is set if the corresponding mapped label is available. In this case, if the range-bitmap is not present, all the labels in the range are available. In case the restriction is 'exclusive', the bit-position is Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 88] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 set if the corresponding mapped label is not available. In this case, if the range-bitmap is not present, all the labels in the range are not available. 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 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 89] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 base path-metric-optimization-type; } description "Identifies the 'metric-type' that the path computation process uses for optimization."; } leaf weight { type uint8; 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)"; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 90] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } leaf setup-priority { type uint8 { range "0..7"; } default "7"; description "TE LSP requested setup priority."; reference "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 91] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 container explicit-route-objects { description "Container for the explicit route object lists."; list route-object-exclude-always { key "index"; ordered-by user; description "List of route objects to always exclude from the path computation."; 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; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 92] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "SRLG value."; } } description "An SRLG value to be included or excluded."; } description "Augmentation for a generic explicit route for SRLG 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 93] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 { 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 "Top-level container for the list of path metric bounds."; list path-metric-bound { key "metric-type"; description "List of path metric bounds, which can apply to link and path metrics. TE paths which have at least one path metric which exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT be selected. TE paths that traverse TE links which have at least one link metric which exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT be selected."; leaf metric-type { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 94] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 type identityref { base link-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 specified 'metric-type'. A zero indicates an unbounded upper limit for the specificied 'metric-type'. The unit of is interpreted in the context of the 'metric-type' identity."; } } } } 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 { status deprecated; description "Container for the list of tiebreakers. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 95] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 This container has been deprecated by the tiebreaker leaf."; list tiebreaker { key "tiebreaker-type"; status deprecated; 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; } status deprecated; 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."; leaf objective-function-type { type identityref { base objective-function-type; } default "te-types:of-minimize-cost-path"; description "Objective function entry."; } } } } } leaf tiebreaker { type identityref { base path-tiebreaker-type; } default "te-types:path-tiebreaker-random"; description "The tiebreaker criteria to apply on an equally favored set of paths, in order to pick the best."; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 96] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 { 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 97] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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 "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 98] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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."; 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 99] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 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 encoding-and-switching-type { description Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 100] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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 "RFC 3945: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture"; } leaf switching-type { type identityref { base te-types:switching-capabilities; } description "LSP switching type."; reference "RFC 3945: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture"; } } grouping te-generic-node-id { description "A reusable grouping for a TE generic node identifier."; leaf id { type union { type te-node-id; type inet:ip-address; type nw:node-id; } description "The identifier of the node. It can be represented as IP address or dotted quad address or as an URI. The type data node disambiguates the union type."; } leaf type { type enumeration { enum ip { description "IP address representation of the node identifier."; } enum te-id { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 101] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "TE identifier of the node"; } enum node-id { description "URI representation of the node identifier."; } } description "Type of node identifier representation."; } } } 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. file "ietf-te-packet-types@2024-10-17.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 ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; } import ietf-te-types { prefix te-types; reference "RFC XXXX: 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: WG List: Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 102] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Editor: Tarek Saad Editor: Rakesh Gandhi Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Editor: Xufeng Liu Editor: Igor Bryskin "; description "This YANG module contains a collection of generally useful YANG data type definitions specific to Packet Traffic Enginnering (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) 2024 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 2024-10-30 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - bandwidth-profile-type; - link-metric-delay-variation; - link-metric-loss; - path-metric-delay-variation; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 103] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 - path-metric-loss. This revision adds the following new groupings: - bandwidth-profile-parameters; - te-packet-path-bandwidth; - te-packet-link-bandwidth. This revision provides also few editorial changes."; reference "RFC XXXX: 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 */ identity bandwidth-profile-type { description "Bandwidth Profile Types"; } identity mef-10 { base bandwidth-profile-type; description "MEF 10 Bandwidth Profile"; reference "MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3"; } identity rfc-2697 { base bandwidth-profile-type; description "RFC 2697 Bandwidth Profile"; reference "RFC 2697: A Single Rate Three Color Marker"; } identity rfc-2698 { base bandwidth-profile-type; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 104] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "RFC 2698 Bandwidth Profile"; reference "RFC 2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker"; } // Derived identities from te-types:link-metric-type identity link-metric-delay-variation { base te-types:link-metric-type; description "The Unidirectional Delay Variation Metric, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.3 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.3"; } identity link-metric-loss { base te-types:link-metric-type; description "The Unidirectional Link Loss Metric, measured in units of 0.000003%."; reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.4 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.4"; } // Derived identities from te-types:link-metric-type identity path-metric-delay-variation { base te-types:path-metric-type; description "The Path Delay Variation Metric, measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 8233: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs), Section 3.1.2"; } identity path-metric-loss { base te-types:path-metric-type; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 105] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "The Path Loss Metric, measured in units of 0.000003%."; reference "RFC 8233: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs), Section 3.1.3"; } /* * Typedefs */ typedef te-bandwidth-requested-type { type enumeration { enum specified-value { description "Bandwidth value is explicitly specified."; } enum specified-profile { description "Bandwidth profile is explicitly specified."; } enum auto { description "Bandwidth is automatically computed."; } } description "Enumerated type for specifying whether bandwidth is 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 106] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; } 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 107] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 108] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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."; 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 8570: IS-IS 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 9 May 2025 [Page 109] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; } description "PM one-way packet-specific augmentation for a generic PM grouping."; } 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 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 110] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; } leaf two-way-delay-variation { type uint32 { 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 111] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using 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 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using 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 { Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 112] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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 one-way-performance-metrics-gauge-packet { description "One-way packet PM throttle grouping. This grouping is used to report the same metrics defined in the one-way-performance-metrics-packet grouping, using gauges instead of uint32 data types and referencing IPPM RFCs instead of IGP-TE RFCs."; leaf one-way-min-delay { type yang:gauge64; description "One-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; } leaf one-way-max-delay { type yang:gauge64; description "One-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; reference "RFC 7679: A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 113] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 leaf one-way-delay-variation { type yang:gauge64; description "One-way delay variation in microseconds."; reference "RFC 3393: IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)"; } leaf one-way-packet-loss { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 5; range "0..100"; } description "The ratio of packets dropped to packets transmitted between two endpoints."; reference "RFC 7680: A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)"; } } grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet { description "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."; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 114] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 } 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 two-way-performance-metrics-gauge-packet { description "Two-way packet PM throttle grouping. This grouping is used to report the same metrics defined in the two-way-performance-metrics-packet grouping, using gauges instead of uint32 data types and referencing IPPM RFCs instead of IGP-TE RFCs."; leaf two-way-min-delay { type yang:gauge64; description "Two-way minimum delay or latency in microseconds."; reference "RFC 2681: A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM"; } leaf two-way-max-delay { type yang:gauge64; description "Two-way maximum delay or latency in microseconds."; reference "RFC 2681: A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM"; } leaf two-way-delay-variation { type yang:gauge64; description "Two-way delay variation in microseconds."; reference "RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement"; } leaf two-way-packet-loss { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 5; range "0..100"; } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 115] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 description "The ratio of packets dropped to packets transmitted between two endpoints."; } } 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."; } 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."; } } } grouping bandwidth-profile-parameters { description "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles in packet networks."; leaf cir { type uint64; units "bits/second"; description "Committed Information Rate (CIR)."; } leaf cbs { type uint64; units "bytes"; description Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 116] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 "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)."; } } grouping te-packet-path-bandwidth { description "Bandwidth attributes for TE Packet paths."; container packet-bandwidth { description "Bandwidth attributes for TE Packet paths."; leaf specification-type { type te-bandwidth-requested-type; description "The bandwidth specification type, either explicitly specified or automatically computed."; } leaf set-bandwidth { when "../specification-type = 'specified-value'" { description "When the bandwidth value is explicitly specified."; } type bandwidth-kbps; description "Set the bandwidth value explicitly, e.g., using offline Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 117] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 calculation."; } container bandwidth-profile { when "../specification-type = 'specified-profile'" { description "When the bandwidth profile is explicitly specified."; } description "Set the bandwidth profile attributes explicitly."; 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."; } uses bandwidth-profile-parameters; } leaf class-type { type te-types:te-ds-class; description "The Class-Type of traffic transported by the LSP."; reference "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, Section 4.3.1"; } leaf signaled-bandwidth { type te-packet-types:bandwidth-kbps; config false; description "The currently signaled bandwidth of the LSP. In the case where the bandwidth is specified explicitly, then this will match the value of the set-bandwidth leaf. In the cases where the bandwidth is dynamically computed by the system, the current value of the bandwidth should be reflected."; } } } Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 118] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 grouping te-packet-link-bandwidth { description "Bandwidth attributes for Packet TE links."; leaf packet-bandwidth { type uint64; units "bits/second"; description "Bandwidth value for Packet TE links."; } } } Figure 2: Packet TE Types YANG module 6. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to update the following URIs in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] to refer to this document: 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 requests IANA to register the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry group. name: ietf-te-types Maintained by IANA? N namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types prefix: te-types reference: RFC XXXX name: ietf-te-packet-types Maintained by IANA? N namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types prefix: te-packet-types reference: RFC XXXX 7. Security Considerations This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 119] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 The "ietf-te-types" and the "ietf-te-packet-types" YANG modules define data models that are designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication. 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 modules define a set of identities, types, and groupings. These nodes are intended to be reused by other YANG modules. The modules by themselves do not expose any data nodes that are writable, data nodes that contain read-only state, or RPCs. As such, there are no additional security issues related to the YANG module that need to be considered. Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document should identify the corresponding security considerations. For example, reusing some of these groupings will expose privacy-related information (e.g., 'node-example'). 8. References 8.1. Normative References [ITU-T_G.709] International Telecommunication Union, "Interfaces for the optical transport network", ITU-T G.709 , June 2020, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 120] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, . [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, . [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, . [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 121] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873, May 2007, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 122] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC5712] Meyer, M., Ed. and JP. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption", RFC 5712, DOI 10.17487/RFC5712, January 2010, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 123] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, February 2011, . [RFC6368] Marques, P., Raszuk, R., Patel, K., Kumaki, K., and T. Yamagata, "Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 6368, DOI 10.17487/RFC6368, September 2011, . [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, DOI 10.17487/RFC6370, September 2011, . [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, . [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, . [RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780, DOI 10.17487/RFC6780, October 2012, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 124] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, . [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, . [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, . [RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014, . [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, . [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, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 125] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8233] Dhody, D., Wu, Q., Manral, V., Ali, Z., and K. Kumaki, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, DOI 10.17487/RFC8233, September 2017, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 126] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [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, . [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 127] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis] Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- netmod-rfc8407bis-20, 21 October 2024, . [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo-14] Sidor, S., Tokar, A., Peng, S., Peng, S., and A. Stone, "Carrying SR-Algorithm Information in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- pce-sid-algo-14, 25 September 2024, . [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, . [RFC2698] Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color Marker", RFC 2698, DOI 10.17487/RFC2698, September 1999, . [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, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 128] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [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, . [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, . [RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC4127, June 2005, . [RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252, January 2006, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 129] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, . [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, . [RFC9522] Farrel, A., Ed., "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering", RFC 9522, DOI 10.17487/RFC9522, January 2024, . Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees This appendix presents the complete tree of the TE and Packet TE types data model. See [RFC8340] for an explanation of the symbols used. The data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the corresponding line. Editors' Note: The YANG trees have been generated by pyang and have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC EDITOR. A.1. TE Types Schema Tree =============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================ module: ietf-te-types grouping te-bandwidth: +-- te-bandwidth +-- (technology)? +--:(generic) +-- generic? te-bandwidth grouping te-label: +-- te-label +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 130] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 +-- direction? te-label-direction grouping te-topology-identifier: +-- te-topology-identifier +-- provider-id? te-global-id +-- client-id? te-global-id +-- topology-id? te-topology-id grouping performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss: +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-delay-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss: +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth: +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-available-bandwidth-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping one-way-performance-metrics: +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 grouping two-way-performance-metrics: +-- two-way-delay? uint32 grouping performance-metrics-thresholds: +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- two-way-delay? uint32 grouping performance-metrics-attributes: +-- performance-metrics-one-way Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 131] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-delay-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- performance-metrics-two-way +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container: +-- throttle +-- one-way-delay-offset? uint32 +-- measure-interval? uint32 +-- advertisement-interval? uint32 +-- suppression-interval? uint32 +-- threshold-out | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- threshold-in | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- threshold-accelerated-advertisement +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 132] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- two-way-delay? uint32 grouping explicit-route-hop: +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) +-- label-hop +-- te-label +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label +-- direction? te-label-direction grouping record-route-state: +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- flags* path-attribute-flags +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- flags* path-attribute-flags +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 133] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- flags* path-attribute-flags +--:(label) +-- label-hop +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- flags* path-attribute-flags grouping label-restriction-info: +-- restriction? enumeration +-- index? uint32 +-- label-start | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- label-end | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- label-step | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? int32 +-- range-bitmap? yang:hex-string grouping label-set-info: +-- label-restrictions +-- label-restriction* [index] +-- restriction? enumeration +-- index? uint32 +-- label-start | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- label-end | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 134] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- label-step | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? int32 +-- range-bitmap? yang:hex-string grouping optimization-metric-entry: +-- metric-type? identityref +-- weight? uint8 +-- explicit-route-exclude-objects | +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index] | +-- index? uint32 | +-- (type)? | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(numbered-link-hop) | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | +--:(as-number) | | +-- as-number-hop | | +-- as-number inet:as-number | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(label) | | +-- label-hop | | +-- te-label | | +-- (technology)? | | | +--:(generic) | | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | | +-- direction? te-label-direction | +--:(srlg) | +-- srlg | +-- srlg? uint32 +-- explicit-route-include-objects Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 135] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 +-- route-object-include-object* [index] +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) +-- label-hop +-- te-label +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label +-- direction? te-label-direction grouping common-constraints: +-- te-bandwidth | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? te-bandwidth +-- link-protection? identityref +-- setup-priority? uint8 +-- hold-priority? uint8 +-- signaling-type? identityref grouping tunnel-constraints: +-- network-id? nw:network-id +-- te-topology-identifier | +-- provider-id? te-global-id | +-- client-id? te-global-id | +-- topology-id? te-topology-id +-- te-bandwidth Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 136] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? te-bandwidth +-- link-protection? identityref +-- setup-priority? uint8 +-- hold-priority? uint8 +-- signaling-type? identityref grouping path-constraints-route-objects: +-- explicit-route-objects +-- route-object-exclude-always* [index] | +-- index? uint32 | +-- (type)? | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(numbered-link-hop) | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | +--:(as-number) | | +-- as-number-hop | | +-- as-number inet:as-number | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(label) | +-- label-hop | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- route-object-include-exclude* [index] +-- explicit-route-usage? identityref +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 137] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) | +-- label-hop | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +--:(srlg) +-- srlg +-- srlg? uint32 grouping path-route-include-objects: +-- route-object-include-object* [index] +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 138] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) +-- label-hop +-- te-label +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label +-- direction? te-label-direction grouping path-route-exclude-objects: +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index] +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) | +-- label-hop | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +--:(srlg) Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 139] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 +-- srlg +-- srlg? uint32 grouping generic-path-metric-bounds: +-- path-metric-bounds +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type] +-- metric-type? identityref +-- upper-bound? uint64 grouping generic-path-optimization: +-- optimizations | +-- (algorithm)? | +--:(metric) {path-optimization-metric}? | | +-- optimization-metric* [metric-type] | | | +-- metric-type? identityref | | | +-- weight? uint8 | | | +-- explicit-route-exclude-objects | | | | +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index] | | | | +-- index? uint32 | | | | +-- (type)? | | | | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | | | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | | | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | | | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +--:(numbered-link-hop) | | | | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | | | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | | | | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | | | | | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | | | | | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | | | | | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | | | | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | | | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | | +-- direction? | | | | | te-link-direction | | | | +--:(as-number) | | | | | +-- as-number-hop | | | | | +-- as-number inet:as-number | | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +--:(label) | | | | | +-- label-hop | | | | | +-- te-label | | | | | +-- (technology)? | | | | | | +--:(generic) | | | | | | +-- generic? | | | | | | rt-types:generalized\ Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 140] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 -label | | | | | +-- direction? | | | | | te-label-direction | | | | +--:(srlg) | | | | +-- srlg | | | | +-- srlg? uint32 | | | +-- explicit-route-include-objects | | | +-- route-object-include-object* [index] | | | +-- index? uint32 | | | +-- (type)? | | | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | +--:(numbered-link-hop) | | | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | | | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | | | | +-- unnumbered-link-hop | | | | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | | | | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | | | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | | | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +-- direction? | | | | te-link-direction | | | +--:(as-number) | | | | +-- as-number-hop | | | | +-- as-number inet:as-number | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | +--:(label) | | | +-- label-hop | | | +-- te-label | | | +-- (technology)? | | | | +--:(generic) | | | | +-- generic? | | | | rt-types:generalized\ -label | | | +-- direction? | | | te-label-direction | | x-- tiebreakers | | x-- tiebreaker* [tiebreaker-type] | | x-- tiebreaker-type? identityref | +--:(objective-function) | {path-optimization-objective-function}? Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 141] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- objective-function | +-- objective-function-type? identityref +-- tiebreaker? identityref grouping generic-path-affinities: +-- path-affinities-values | +-- path-affinities-value* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- value? admin-groups +-- path-affinity-names +-- path-affinity-name* [usage] +-- usage? identityref +-- affinity-name* [name] +-- name? string grouping generic-path-srlgs: +-- path-srlgs-lists | +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- values* srlg +-- path-srlgs-names +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage] +-- usage? identityref +-- names* string grouping generic-path-disjointness: +-- disjointness? te-path-disjointness grouping common-path-constraints-attributes: +-- te-bandwidth | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? te-bandwidth +-- link-protection? identityref +-- setup-priority? uint8 +-- hold-priority? uint8 +-- signaling-type? identityref +-- path-metric-bounds | +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type] | +-- metric-type? identityref | +-- upper-bound? uint64 +-- path-affinities-values | +-- path-affinities-value* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- value? admin-groups +-- path-affinity-names | +-- path-affinity-name* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- affinity-name* [name] | +-- name? string +-- path-srlgs-lists | +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage] Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 142] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- usage? identityref | +-- values* srlg +-- path-srlgs-names +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage] +-- usage? identityref +-- names* string grouping generic-path-constraints: +-- path-constraints +-- te-bandwidth | +-- (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +-- generic? te-bandwidth +-- link-protection? identityref +-- setup-priority? uint8 +-- hold-priority? uint8 +-- signaling-type? identityref +-- path-metric-bounds | +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type] | +-- metric-type? identityref | +-- upper-bound? uint64 +-- path-affinities-values | +-- path-affinities-value* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- value? admin-groups +-- path-affinity-names | +-- path-affinity-name* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- affinity-name* [name] | +-- name? string +-- path-srlgs-lists | +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- values* srlg +-- path-srlgs-names | +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- names* string +-- disjointness? te-path-disjointness grouping generic-path-properties: +--ro path-properties +--ro path-metric* [metric-type] | +--ro metric-type? identityref | +--ro accumulative-value? uint64 +--ro path-affinities-values | +--ro path-affinities-value* [usage] | +--ro usage? identityref | +--ro value? admin-groups +--ro path-affinity-names Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 143] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +--ro path-affinity-name* [usage] | +--ro usage? identityref | +--ro affinity-name* [name] | +--ro name? string +--ro path-srlgs-lists | +--ro path-srlgs-list* [usage] | +--ro usage? identityref | +--ro values* srlg +--ro path-srlgs-names | +--ro path-srlgs-name* [usage] | +--ro usage? identityref | +--ro names* string +--ro path-route-objects +--ro path-route-object* [index] +--ro index? uint32 +--ro (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +--ro numbered-node-hop | +--ro node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +--ro node-id? te-node-id | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) | +--ro numbered-link-hop | +--ro link-tp-id te-tp-id | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type | +--ro direction? te-link-direction +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) | +--ro unnumbered-link-hop | +--ro link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +--ro link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +--ro node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +--ro node-id? te-node-id | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type | +--ro direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) | +--ro as-number-hop | +--ro as-number inet:as-number | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) +--ro label-hop +--ro te-label +--ro (technology)? | +--:(generic) | +--ro generic? | rt-types:generalized-label +--ro direction? te-label-direction grouping encoding-and-switching-type: +-- encoding? identityref Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 144] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 +-- switching-type? identityref grouping te-generic-node-id: +-- id? union +-- type? enumeration A.2. Packet TE Types Schema Tree module: ietf-te-packet-types grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet: +-- performance-metrics-one-way | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-delay-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-min-delay-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-max-delay-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-delay-variation? uint32 | +-- one-way-delay-variation-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 | +-- one-way-packet-loss-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- performance-metrics-two-way +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-min-delay-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-max-delay-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 145] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-variation-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 +-- two-way-packet-loss-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping one-way-performance-metrics-packet: +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping one-way-performance-metrics-gauge-packet: +-- one-way-min-delay? yang:gauge64 +-- one-way-max-delay? yang:gauge64 +-- one-way-delay-variation? yang:gauge64 +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet: +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping two-way-performance-metrics-gauge-packet: +-- two-way-min-delay? yang:gauge64 +-- two-way-max-delay? yang:gauge64 +-- two-way-delay-variation? yang:gauge64 +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container-packet: +-- throttle +-- one-way-delay-offset? uint32 +-- measure-interval? uint32 +-- advertisement-interval? uint32 +-- suppression-interval? uint32 +-- threshold-out | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- two-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-delay-variation? uint32 | +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 | +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 | +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 146] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 +-- threshold-in | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- two-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-delay-variation? uint32 | +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 | +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 | +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 | +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 +-- threshold-accelerated-advertisement +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping bandwidth-profile-parameters: +-- cir? uint64 +-- cbs? uint64 +-- eir? uint64 +-- ebs? uint64 +-- pir? uint64 +-- pbs? uint64 grouping te-packet-path-bandwidth: +-- packet-bandwidth +-- specification-type? te-bandwidth-requested-type +-- set-bandwidth? bandwidth-kbps +-- bandwidth-profile | +-- bandwidth-profile-name? string Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 147] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 | +-- bandwidth-profile-type? identityref | +-- cir? uint64 | +-- cbs? uint64 | +-- eir? uint64 | +-- ebs? uint64 | +-- pir? uint64 | +-- pbs? uint64 +-- class-type? te-types:te-ds-class +--ro signaled-bandwidth? te-packet-types:bandwidth-kbps grouping te-packet-link-bandwidth: +-- packet-bandwidth? uint64 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 8776 This version adds new common data types, identities, and groupings to the YANG modules. It also updates some of the existing data types, identities, and groupings in the YANG modules and fixes few bugs in [RFC8776]. The following new identities have been added to the 'ietf-te-types' module: * lsp-provisioning-error-reason; * association-type-diversity; * tunnel-admin-state-auto; * lsp-restoration-restore-none; * restoration-scheme-rerouting; * path-metric-optimization-type; * link-path-metric-type; * link-metric-type and its derived identities; * path-computation-error-reason and its derived identities; * protocol-origin-type and its derived identities; * svec-objective-function-type and its derived identities; * svec-metric-type and its derived identities. The following new data types have been added to the 'ietf-te-types' module: Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 148] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 * path-type; * te-gen-node-id. The following new groupings have been added to the 'ietf-te-types' module: * encoding-and-switching-type; * te-generic-node-id. The following new identities have been added to the 'ietf-te-packet- types' module: * bandwidth-profile-type; * link-metric-delay-variation; * link-metric-loss; * path-metric-delay-variation; * path-metric-loss. The following new groupings have been added to the 'ietf-te-packet- types' module: * te-packet-path-bandwidth; * te-packet-link-bandwidth. The following identities, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'ietf-te-types' module: * objective-function-type (editorial); * action-exercise (bug fix); * path-metric-type: new base identities have been added; * path-metric-te (bug fix); * path-metric-igp (bug fix); * path-metric-hop (bug fix); Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 149] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 * path-metric-delay-average (bug fix); * path-metric-delay-minimum (bug fix); * path-metric-residual-bandwidth (bug fix); * path-metric-optimize-includes (bug fix); * path-metric-optimize-excludes (bug fix); * te-optimization-criterion (editorial). The following data type, already defined in [RFC8776], has been updated in the 'ietf-te-types' module: * te-node-id; The data type has been changed to be a union. The following groupings, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'ietf-te-types' module: * explicit-route-hop The following new leaves have been added to the 'explicit-route- hop' grouping: - node-id-uri; - link-tp-id-uri; The following leaves, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'explicit-route-hop': - node-id; - link-tp-id. The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: o node-id or node-id-uri; o link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. * explicit-route-hop Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 150] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 The following new leaves have been added to the 'explicit-route- hop' grouping: - node-id-uri; - link-tp-id-uri; The following leaves, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'explicit-route-hop': - node-id; - link-tp-id. The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: o node-id or node-id-uri; o link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. * optimization-metric-entry: The following leaves, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'optimization-metric-entry': - metric-type; The base identity has been updated without impacting the set of derived identities that are allowed. * tunnel-constraints; The following new leaf have been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: - network-id; * path-constraints-route-objects: The following container, already defined in [RFC8776], has been updated in the 'path-constraints-route-objects': - explicit-route-objects-always; Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 151] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 The container has been renamed as 'explicit-route-objects'. This change is not affecting any IETF standard YANG models since this grouping has not yet been used by any YANG model defined in existing IETF RFCs. * generic-path-metric-bounds: The following leaves, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'optimization-metric-entry': - metric-type; The base identity has been updated to: o increase the set of derived identities that are allowed and; o remove from this set the 'path-metric-optimize-includes' and the 'path-metric-optimize-excludes' identities (bug fixing) * generic-path-optimization The following new leaf have been added to the 'generic-path- optimization' grouping: - tiebreaker; The following container, already defined in [RFC8776], has been deprecated: - tiebreakers. The following identities, already defined in [RFC8776], have been obsoletes in the 'ietf-te-types' module for bug fixing: * of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption; * of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link; * of-minimize-cost-path-set; * lsp-protection-reroute-extra; * lsp-protection-reroute. Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 152] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 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. The authors would like to thank Mohamed Boucadair and Sergio Belotti for their valuable comments and suggestions on this document. 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 Xufeng Liu Alef Edge Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com Tarek Saad Cisco Systems Inc. Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com Igor Bryskin Individual Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 153] Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types November 2024 Email: i_bryskin@yahoo.com Busi, et al. Expires 9 May 2025 [Page 154]