RFC 9067
A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy
Pages: ~38
IETF/rtg/rtgwg/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-31
Proposed Standard
A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing routing policies in a vendor-neutral way. The model provides a generic routing policy framework that can be extended for specific routing protocols using the YANG 'augment' mechanism.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9067 .
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info ) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Terminology and Notation
- 3. Model Overview
- 4. Route Policy Expression
- 5. Policy Evaluation
- 6. Applying Routing Policy
- 7. YANG Module and Tree
- 8. Security Considerations
- 9. IANA Considerations
- 10. References
- Appendix A. Routing Protocol-Specific Policies
- Appendix B. Policy Examples
- Acknowledgements
- Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
This document describes a YANG data model [RFC 7950] for routing policy configuration based on operational usage and best practices in a variety of service provider networks. The model is intended to be vendor neutral to allow operators to manage policy configuration consistently in environments with routers supplied by multiple vendors.
The YANG modules in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC 8342].
1.1. Goals and Approach
This model does not aim to be feature complete; it is a subset of the policy configuration parameters available in a variety of vendor implementations but supports widely used constructs for managing how routes are imported, exported, and modified across different routing protocols. The model development approach has been to examine actual policy configurations in use across several operator networks. Hence, the focus is on enabling policy configuration capabilities and structure that are in wide use.
Despite the differences in details of policy expressions and conventions in various vendor implementations, the model reflects the observation that a relatively simple condition-action approach can be readily mapped to several existing vendor implementations and also gives operators a familiar and straightforward way to express policy. A side effect of this design decision is that other methods for expressing policies are not considered.
Consistent with the goal to produce a data model that is vendor neutral, only policy expressions that are deemed to be widely available in prevalent implementations are included in the model. Those configuration items that are only available from a single implementation are omitted from the model with the expectation they will be available in separate vendor-provided modules that augment the current model.
2. Terminology and Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
- Routing policy:
- A routing policy defines how routes are imported, exported, modified, andadvertised between routing protocol instances or within a single routingprotocol instance.
- Policy chain:
- A policy chain is a sequence of policy definitions. They can bereferenced from different contexts.
- Policy statement:
- Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either ofwhich may be empty).
- client
- server
- configuration
- system state
- operational state
- intended configuration
- action
- augment
- container
- container with presence
- data model
- data node
- feature
- leaf
- list
- mandatory node
- module
- schema tree
- RPC (Remote Procedure Call) operation
2.1. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in [RFC 8340].
2.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model objects are often used without a prefix if it is clear in which YANG module each name is defined given the context. Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| if | ietf-interfaces | [RFC 8343] |
| rt | ietf-routing | [RFC 8349] |
| yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC 6991] |
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC 6991] |
3. Model Overview
The routing policy module has three main parts:
- A generic framework is provided to express policies as sets of related conditions and actions. This includes match sets and actions that are useful across many routing protocols.
- A structure that allows routing protocol models to add protocol-specific policy conditions and actions through YANG augmentations is also provided. There is a complete example of this for [RFC 4271] policies in the proposed vendor-neutral [IDR-BGP-MODEL]. Appendix A provides an example of how an augmentation for BGP policies might be accomplished. Note that this section is not normative, as the BGP model is still evolving.
- Finally, a reusable grouping is defined for attaching import and export rules in the context of routing configuration for different protocols, Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instances, etc. This also enables the creation of policy chains and the expression of default policy behavior. In this document, policy chains are sequences of policy definitions that are applied in order (described in Section 4).
4. Route Policy Expression
Policies are expressed as a sequence of top-level policy definitions, each of which consists of a sequence of policy statements. Policy statements in turn consist of simple condition-action tuples. Conditions may include multiple match or comparison operations, and similarly, actions may include multiple changes to route attributes or indicate a final disposition of accepting or rejecting the route. This structure is shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--ro match-modified-attributes? boolean
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| ...
+--rw actions
...
4.1. Defined Sets for Policy Matching
The model provides a collection of generic sets that can be used for matching in policy conditions. These sets are applicable for route selection across multiple routing protocols. They may be further augmented by protocol-specific models that have their own defined sets. The defined sets include:
- prefix sets:
- Each prefix set defines a set of IP prefixes, each with an associated IPprefix and netmask range (or exact length).
- neighbor sets:
- Each neighbor set defines a set of neighboring nodes by their IPaddresses. A neighbor set is used for selecting routes based on the neighborsadvertising the routes.
- tag sets:
- Each tag set defines a set of generic tag values that can be used inmatches for selecting routes.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
| +--rw prefix-sets
| | +--rw prefix-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw mode? enumeration
| | +--rw prefixes
| | +--rw prefix-list* [ip-prefix mask-length-lower
| | mask-length-upper]
| | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| | +--rw mask-length-lower uint8
| | +--rw mask-length-upper uint8
| +--rw neighbor-sets
| | +--rw neighbor-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw address* inet:ip-address
| +--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw tag-value* tag-type
4.2. Policy Conditions
Policy statements consist of a set of conditions and actions (either of which may be empty). Conditions are used to match route attributes against a defined set (e.g., a prefix set) or to compare attributes against a specific value.
Match conditions may be further modified using the match-set-options configuration, which allows network operators to change the behavior of a match. Three options are supported:
- 'all':
- Match is true only if the given value matches all members of the set.
- 'any':
- Match is true if the given value matches any member of the set.
- 'invert':
- Match is true if the given value does not match any member of the given set.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw conditions
| +--rw call-policy?
| +--rw source-protocol?
| +--rw match-interface
| | +--rw interface?
| +--rw match-prefix-set
| | +--rw prefix-set?
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| +--rw match-neighbor-set
| | +--rw neighbor-set?
| +--rw match-tag-set
| | +--rw tag-set?
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| +--rw match-route-type
| +--rw route-type*
4.3. Policy Actions
When policy conditions are satisfied, policy actions are used to set various attributes of the route being processed or to indicate the final disposition of the route, i.e., accept or reject.
Similar to policy conditions, the routing policy model includes generic actions in addition to the basic route disposition actions. These are shown below.
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw policy-definitions
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw actions
+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type
+--rw set-metric
| +--rw metric-modification?
| | metric-modification-type
| +--rw metric? uint32
+--rw set-metric-type
| +--rw metric-type? identityref
+--rw set-route-level
| +--rw route-level? identityref
+--rw set-route-preference? uint16
+--rw set-tag? tag-type
+--rw set-application-tag? tag-type
4.4. Policy Subroutines
Policy 'subroutines' (or nested policies) are supported by allowing policy statement conditions to reference other policy definitions using the call-policy configuration. Called policies apply their conditions and actions before returning to the calling policy statement and resuming evaluation. The outcome of the called policy affects the evaluation of the calling policy. If the called policy results in an accept-route, then the subroutine returns an effective Boolean true value to the calling policy. For the calling policy, this is equivalent to a condition statement evaluating to a true value, thus the calling party continues in its evaluation of the policy (see Section 5). Note that the called policy may also modify attributes of the route in its action statements. Similarly, a reject-route action returns false, and the calling policy evaluation will be affected accordingly. When the end of the subroutine policy statements is reached, the default route disposition action is returned (i.e., Boolean false for reject-route). Consequently, a subroutine cannot explicitly accept or reject a route. Rather, the called policy returns Boolean true if its outcome is accept-route or Boolean false if its outcome is reject-route. Route acceptance or rejection is solely determined by the top-level policy.
Note that the called policy may itself call other policies (subject to implementation limitations). The model does not prescribe a nesting depth because this varies among implementations. For example, an implementation may only support a single level of subroutine recursion. As with any routing policy construction, care must be taken with nested policies to ensure that the effective return value results in the intended behavior. Nested policies are a convenience in many routing policy constructions, but creating policies nested beyond a small number of levels (e.g., two to three) is discouraged. Also, implementations MUST perform validation to ensure that there is no recursion among nested routing policies.
5. Policy Evaluation
Evaluation of each policy definition proceeds by evaluating its individual policy statements in the order that they are defined. When all the condition statements in a policy statement are satisfied, the corresponding action statements are executed. If the actions include either accept-route or reject-route actions, evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and no further policy statement is evaluated. If there are multiple policies in the policy chain, subsequent policies are not evaluated. Policy chains are sequences of policy definitions (as described in Section 4).
If the conditions are not satisfied, then evaluation proceeds to the next policy statement. If none of the policy statement conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated. When the end of the policy chain is reached, the default route disposition action is performed (i.e., reject-route unless an alternate default action is specified for the chain).
Whether the route's pre-policy attributes are used for testing policy statement conditions is dependent on the implementation-specific value of the match-modified-attributes leaf. If match-modified-attributes is false and actions modify route attributes, these modifications are not used for policy statement conditions. Conversely, if match-modified-attributes is true and actions modify the policy application-specific attributes, the attributes as modified by the policy are used for policy condition statements.
6. Applying Routing Policy
Routing policy is applied by defining and attaching policy chains in various routing contexts. Policy chains are sequences of policy definitions (described in Section 4). They can be referenced from different contexts. For example, a policy chain could be associated with a routing protocol and used to control its interaction with its protocol peers, or it could be used to control the interaction between a routing protocol and the local routing information base. A policy chain has an associated direction (import or export) with respect to the context in which it is referenced.
The routing policy model defines an apply-policy grouping that can be imported and used by other models. As shown below, it allows definition of import and export policy chains, as well as specifies the default route disposition to be used when no policy definition in the chain results in a final decision.
The default policy defined by the model is to reject the route for both import and export policies.
+--rw apply-policy
| +--rw import-policy*
| +--rw default-import-policy? default-policy-type
| +--rw export-policy*
| +--rw default-export-policy? default-policy-type
7. YANG Module and Tree
7.1. Routing Policy Model Tree
The tree of the routing policy model is shown below.
module: ietf-routing-policy
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
| +--rw prefix-sets
| | +--rw prefix-set* [name mode]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw mode enumeration
| | +--rw prefixes
| | +--rw prefix-list* [ip-prefix mask-length-lower
| | mask-length-upper]
| | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| | +--rw mask-length-lower uint8
| | +--rw mask-length-upper uint8
| +--rw neighbor-sets
| | +--rw neighbor-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw address* inet:ip-address
| +--rw tag-sets
| +--rw tag-set* [name]
| +--rw name string
| +--rw tag-value* tag-type
+--rw policy-definitions
+--ro match-modified-attributes? boolean
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| +--rw call-policy? -> ../../../../../..
| /policy-definitions
| /policy-definition/name
| +--rw source-protocol? identityref
| +--rw match-interface
| | +--rw interface? if:interface-ref
| +--rw match-prefix-set
| | +--rw prefix-set? -> ../../../../../../..
| | /defined-sets
| | /prefix-sets
| | /prefix-set/name
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| | match-set-options-type
| +--rw match-neighbor-set
| | +--rw neighbor-set? -> ../../../../../../..
| | /defined-sets
| | /neighbor-sets
| | /neighbor-set/name
| +--rw match-tag-set
| | +--rw tag-set? -> ../../../../../../..
| | /defined-sets/tag-sets
| | /tag-set/name
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| | match-set-options-type
| +--rw match-route-type
| +--rw route-type* identityref
+--rw actions
+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type
+--rw set-metric
| +--rw metric-modification?
| metric-modification-type
| +--rw metric? uint32
+--rw set-metric-type
| +--rw metric-type? identityref
+--rw set-route-level
| +--rw route-level? identityref
+--rw set-route-preference? uint16
+--rw set-tag? tag-type
+--rw set-application-tag? tag-type
7.2. Routing Policy Model
The following RFCs are not referenced in the document text but are referenced in the ietf-routing-policy.yang module: [RFC 2328], [RFC 3101], [RFC 5130], [RFC 5302], [RFC 6991], and [RFC 8343].
module ietf-routing-policy {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy";
prefix rt-pol;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-interfaces {
prefix if;
reference
"RFC 8343: A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management";
}
import ietf-routing {
prefix rt;
reference
"RFC 8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing
Management (NMDA Version)";
}
organization
"IETF RTGWG - Routing Area Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/>
WG List: <mailto: rtgwg@ietf.org>
Editors: Yingzhen Qu
<mailto: yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>
Jeff Tantsura
<mailto: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Acee Lindem
<mailto: acee@cisco.com>
Xufeng Liu
<mailto: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>";
description
"This module describes a YANG data model for routing policy
configuration. It is a limited subset of all of the policy
configuration parameters available in the variety of vendor
implementations, but supports widely used constructs for
managing how routes are imported, exported, modified, and
advertised across different routing protocol instances or
within a single routing protocol instance. This module is
intended to be used in conjunction with routing protocol
configuration modules (e.g., BGP) defined in other models.
This YANG module conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA), as described in RFC 8342.
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) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
forth 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 9067;
see the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
reference
"RFC 9067: A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy.";
revision 2021-10-11 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 9067: A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy.";
}
/* Identities */
identity metric-type {
description
"Base identity for route metric types.";
}
identity ospf-type-1-metric {
base metric-type;
description
"Identity for the OSPF type 1 external metric types. It
is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-type-2-metric {
base metric-type;
description
"Identity for the OSPF type 2 external metric types. It
is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity isis-internal-metric {
base metric-type;
description
"Identity for the IS-IS internal metric types. It is only
applicable to IS-IS routes.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity isis-external-metric {
base metric-type;
description
"Identity for the IS-IS external metric types. It is only
applicable to IS-IS routes.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity route-level {
description
"Base identity for route import level.";
}
identity ospf-normal {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for OSPF importation into normal areas.
It is only applicable to routes imported
into the OSPF protocol.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-nssa-only {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for the OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) area
importation. It is only applicable to routes imported
into the OSPF protocol.";
reference
"RFC 3101: The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option";
}
identity ospf-normal-nssa {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for OSPF importation into both normal and NSSA
areas. It is only applicable to routes imported into
the OSPF protocol.";
reference
"RFC 3101: The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option";
}
identity isis-level-1 {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for IS-IS Level 1 area importation. It is only
applicable to routes imported into the IS-IS protocol.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity isis-level-2 {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for IS-IS Level 2 area importation. It is only
applicable to routes imported into the IS-IS protocol.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity isis-level-1-2 {
base route-level;
description
"Identity for IS-IS importation into both Level 1 and Level 2
areas. It is only applicable to routes imported into the
IS-IS protocol.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity proto-route-type {
description
"Base identity for route type within a protocol.";
}
identity isis-level-1-type {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for IS-IS Level 1 route type. It is only
applicable to IS-IS routes.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity isis-level-2-type {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for IS-IS Level 2 route type. It is only
applicable to IS-IS routes.";
reference
"RFC 5302: Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with
Two-Level IS-IS";
}
identity ospf-internal-type {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF intra-area or inter-area route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-external-type {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF external type 1/2 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-external-t1-type {
base ospf-external-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF external type 1 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-external-t2-type {
base ospf-external-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF external type 2 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2";
}
identity ospf-nssa-type {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF NSSA type 1/2 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 3101: The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option";
}
identity ospf-nssa-t1-type {
base ospf-nssa-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF NSSA type 1 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 3101: The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option";
}
identity ospf-nssa-t2-type {
base ospf-nssa-type;
description
"Identity for OSPF NSSA type 2 route type.
It is only applicable to OSPF routes.";
reference
"RFC 3101: The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option";
}
identity bgp-internal {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for routes learned from internal BGP (IBGP).
It is only applicable to BGP routes.";
reference
"RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
}
identity bgp-external {
base proto-route-type;
description
"Identity for routes learned from external BGP (EBGP).
It is only applicable to BGP routes.";
reference
"RFC 4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)";
}
/* Type Definitions */
typedef default-policy-type {
type enumeration {
enum accept-route {
description
"Default policy to accept the route.";
}
enum reject-route {
description
"Default policy to reject the route.";
}
}
description
"Type used to specify route disposition in
a policy chain. This typedef is used in
the default import and export policy.";
}
typedef policy-result-type {
type enumeration {
enum accept-route {
description
"Policy accepts the route.";
}
enum reject-route {
description
"Policy rejects the route.";
}
}
description
"Type used to specify route disposition in
a policy chain.";
}
typedef tag-type {
type union {
type uint32;
type yang:hex-string;
}
description
"Type for expressing route tags on a local system,
including IS-IS and OSPF; may be expressed as either decimal
or hexadecimal integer.";
reference
"RFC 2328: OSPF Version 2
RFC 5130: A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using
Administrative Tags";
}
typedef match-set-options-type {
type enumeration {
enum any {
description
"Match is true if given value matches any member
of the defined set.";
}
enum all {
description
"Match is true if given value matches all
members of the defined set.";
}
enum invert {
description
"Match is true if given value does not match any
member of the defined set.";
}
}
default "any";
description
"Options that govern the behavior of a match statement. The
default behavior is any, i.e., the given value matches any
of the members of the defined set.";
}
typedef metric-modification-type {
type enumeration {
enum set-metric {
description
"Set the metric to the specified value.";
}
enum add-metric {
description
"Add the specified value to the existing metric.
If the result overflows the maximum metric
(0xffffffff), set the metric to the maximum.";
}
enum subtract-metric {
description
"Subtract the specified value from the existing metric. If
the result is less than 0, set the metric to 0.";
}
}
description
"Type used to specify how to set the metric given the
specified value.";
}
/* Groupings */
grouping prefix {
description
"Configuration data for a prefix definition.
The combination of mask-length-lower and mask-length-upper
define a range for the mask length or single 'exact'
length if mask-length-lower and mask-length-upper are
equal.
Example: 192.0.2.0/24 through 192.0.2.0/26 would be
expressed as prefix: 192.0.2.0/24,
mask-length-lower=24,
mask-length-upper=26
Example: 192.0.2.0/24 (an exact match) would be
expressed as prefix: 192.0.2.0/24,
mask-length-lower=24,
mask-length-upper=24
Example: 2001:DB8::/32 through 2001:DB8::/64 would be
expressed as prefix: 2001:DB8::/32,
mask-length-lower=32,
mask-length-upper=64";
leaf ip-prefix {
type inet:ip-prefix;
mandatory true;
description
"The IP prefix represented as an IPv6 or IPv4 network
number followed by a prefix length with an intervening
slash character as a delimiter. All members of the
prefix-set MUST be of the same address family as the
prefix-set mode.";
}
leaf mask-length-lower {
type uint8 {
range "0..128";
}
description
"Mask length range lower bound. It MUST NOT be less than
the prefix length defined in ip-prefix.";
}
leaf mask-length-upper {
type uint8 {
range "1..128";
}
must '../mask-length-upper >= ../mask-length-lower' {
error-message "The upper bound MUST NOT be less "
+ "than lower bound.";
}
description
"Mask length range upper bound. It MUST NOT be less than
lower bound.";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-group {
description
"Grouping containing options relating to how a particular set
will be matched.";
leaf match-set-options {
type match-set-options-type;
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behavior of the
match operation.";
}
}
grouping match-set-options-restricted-group {
description
"Grouping for a restricted set of match operation
modifiers.";
leaf match-set-options {
type match-set-options-type {
enum any {
description
"Match is true if given value matches any
member of the defined set.";
}
enum invert {
description
"Match is true if given value does not match
any member of the defined set.";
}
}
description
"Optional parameter that governs the behavior of the
match operation. This leaf only supports
the 'any' and 'invert' match options.
Matching on 'all' is not supported.";
}
}
grouping apply-policy-group {
description
"Top-level container for routing policy applications. This
grouping is intended to be used in routing models where
needed.";
container apply-policy {
description
"Anchor point for routing policies in the model.
Import and export policies are with respect to the local
routing table, i.e., export (send) and import (receive),
depending on the context.";
leaf-list import-policy {
type leafref {
path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/"
+ "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"List of policy names in sequence to be applied on
receiving redistributed routes from another routing
protocol or receiving a routing update in the current
context, e.g., for the current peer group, neighbor,
address family, etc.";
}
leaf default-import-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default "reject-route";
description
"Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the import policy chain is satisfied.";
}
leaf-list export-policy {
type leafref {
path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/"
+ "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance true;
}
ordered-by user;
description
"List of policy names in sequence to be applied on
redistributing routes from one routing protocol to another
or sending a routing update in the current context, e.g.,
for the current peer group, neighbor, address family,
etc.";
}
leaf default-export-policy {
type default-policy-type;
default "reject-route";
description
"Explicitly set a default policy if no policy definition
in the export policy chain is satisfied.";
}
}
}
container routing-policy {
description
"Top-level container for all routing policy.";
container defined-sets {
description
"Predefined sets of attributes used in policy match
statements.";
container prefix-sets {
description
"Data definitions for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
prefixes that are matched as part of a policy.";
list prefix-set {
key "name mode";
description
"List of the defined prefix sets";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the prefix set; this is used as a label to
reference the set in match conditions.";
}
leaf mode {
type enumeration {
enum ipv4 {
description
"Prefix set contains IPv4 prefixes only.";
}
enum ipv6 {
description
"Prefix set contains IPv6 prefixes only.";
}
}
description
"Indicates the mode of the prefix set in terms of
which address families (IPv4 or IPv6) are present.
The mode provides a hint; all prefixes MUST be of
the indicated type. The device MUST validate
all prefixes and reject the configuration if there
is a discrepancy.";
}
container prefixes {
description
"Container for the list of prefixes in a policy
prefix list. Since individual prefixes do not have
unique actions, the order in which the prefix in
prefix-list are matched has no impact on the outcome
and is left to the implementation. A given prefix-set
condition is satisfied if the input prefix matches
any of the prefixes in the prefix-set.";
list prefix-list {
key "ip-prefix mask-length-lower mask-length-upper";
description
"List of prefixes in the prefix set.";
uses prefix;
}
}
}
}
container neighbor-sets {
description
"Data definition for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
neighbors that can be matched in a routing policy.";
list neighbor-set {
key "name";
description
"List of defined neighbor sets for use in policies.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the neighbor set; this is used as a label
to reference the set in match conditions.";
}
leaf-list address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"List of IP addresses in the neighbor set.";
}
}
}
container tag-sets {
description
"Data definitions for a list of tags that can
be matched in policies.";
list tag-set {
key "name";
description
"List of tag set definitions.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the tag set; this is used as a label to
reference the set in match conditions.";
}
leaf-list tag-value {
type tag-type;
description
"Value of the tag set member.";
}
}
}
}
container policy-definitions {
description
"Enclosing container for the list of top-level policy
definitions.";
leaf match-modified-attributes {
type boolean;
config false;
description
"This boolean value dictates whether matches are performed
on the actual route attributes or route attributes
modified by policy statements preceding the match.";
}
list policy-definition {
key "name";
description
"List of top-level policy definitions, keyed by unique
name. These policy definitions are expected to be
referenced (by name) in policy chains specified in
import or export configuration statements.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the top-level policy definition; this name
is used in references to the current policy.";
}
container statements {
description
"Enclosing container for policy statements.";
list statement {
key "name";
ordered-by user;
description
"Policy statements group conditions and actions
within a policy definition. They are evaluated in
the order specified.";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"Name of the policy statement.";
}
container conditions {
description
"Condition statements for the current policy
statement.";
leaf call-policy {
type leafref {
path "../../../../../../"
+ "rt-pol:policy-definitions/"
+ "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name";
require-instance true;
}
description
"Applies the statements from the specified policy
definition and then returns control to the current
policy statement. Note that the called policy
may itself call other policies (subject to
implementation limitations). This is intended to
provide a policy 'subroutine' capability. The
called policy SHOULD contain an explicit or a
default route disposition that returns an
effective true (accept-route) or false
(reject-route); otherwise, the behavior may be
ambiguous. The call-policy MUST NOT have been
previously called without returning (i.e.,
recursion is not allowed).";
}
leaf source-protocol {
type identityref {
base rt:control-plane-protocol;
}
description
"Condition to check the protocol / method used to
install the route into the local routing table.";
}
container match-interface {
leaf interface {
type if:interface-ref;
description
"Reference to a base interface.";
}
description
"Container for interface match conditions";
}
container match-prefix-set {
leaf prefix-set {
type leafref {
path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/"
+ "prefix-sets/prefix-set/name";
}
description
"References a defined prefix set.";
}
uses match-set-options-restricted-group;
description
"Match a referenced prefix-set according to the
logic defined in the match-set-options leaf.";
}
container match-neighbor-set {
leaf neighbor-set {
type leafref {
path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/"
+ "neighbor-sets/neighbor-set/name";
require-instance true;
}
description
"References a defined neighbor set.";
}
description
"Match a referenced neighbor set.";
}
container match-tag-set {
leaf tag-set {
type leafref {
path "../../../../../../../defined-sets/"
+ "tag-sets/tag-set/name";
require-instance true;
}
description
"References a defined tag set.";
}
uses match-set-options-group;
description
"Match a referenced tag set according to the logic
defined in the match-set-options leaf.";
}
container match-route-type {
description
"This container provides route-type match
condition";
leaf-list route-type {
type identityref {
base proto-route-type;
}
description
"Condition to check the protocol-specific type
of route. This is normally used during route
importation to select routes or to set
protocol-specific attributes based on the route
type.";
}
}
}
container actions {
description
"Top-level container for policy action
statements.";
leaf policy-result {
type policy-result-type;
description
"Select the final disposition for the route,
either accept or reject.";
}
container set-metric {
leaf metric-modification {
type metric-modification-type;
description
"Indicates how to modify the metric.";
}
leaf metric {
type uint32;
description
"Metric value to set, add, or subtract.";
}
description
"Set the metric for the route.";
}
container set-metric-type {
leaf metric-type {
type identityref {
base metric-type;
}
description
"Route metric type.";
}
description
"Set the metric type for the route.";
}
container set-route-level {
leaf route-level {
type identityref {
base route-level;
}
description
"Route import level.";
}
description
"Set the level for importation or
exportation of routes.";
}
leaf set-route-preference {
type uint16;
description
"Set the preference for the route. It is also
known as 'administrative distance' and allows for
selecting the preferred route among routes with
the same destination prefix. A smaller value is
more preferred.";
}
leaf set-tag {
type tag-type;
description
"Set the tag for the route.";
}
leaf set-application-tag {
type tag-type;
description
"Set the application tag for the route.
The application-specific tag is an additional tag
that can be used by applications that require
semantics and/or policy different from that of the
tag. For example, the tag is usually
automatically advertised in OSPF AS-External Link
State Advertisements (LSAs) while this
application-specific tag is not advertised
implicitly.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
8. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC 6241] or RESTCONF [RFC 8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC 6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC 8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC 8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
- /routing-policy/defined-sets/prefix-sets
- Modification to prefix sets could result in a Denial-of-Service (DoS)attack. An attacker may try to modify prefix sets and redirect or droptraffic. Redirection of traffic could be used as part of a more elaborateattack to either collect sensitive information or masquerade aservice. Additionally, a control plane DoS attack could be accomplished byallowing a large number of routes to be leaked into a routing protocol domain(e.g., BGP).
- /routing-policy/defined-sets/neighbor-sets
- Modification to the neighbor sets could be used to mount a DoS attack ormore elaborate attack as with prefix sets. For example, a DoS attack could bemounted by changing the neighbor set from which routes are accepted.
- /routing-policy/defined-sets/tag-sets
- Modification to the tag sets could be used to mount a DoS attack. Routeswith certain tags might be redirected or dropped. The implications are similarto prefix sets and neighbor sets. However, the attack may be more difficult todetect as the routing policy usage of route tags and intent must be understoodto recognize the breach. Conversely, the implications of prefix set orneighbor set modification are easier to recognize.
- /routing-policy/policy-definitions/policy-definition/statements/statement/conditions
- Modification to the conditions could be used to mount a DoS attack orother attack. An attacker may change a policy condition and redirect or droptraffic. As with prefix sets, neighbor sets, or tag sets, traffic redirectioncould be used as part of a more elaborate attack.
- /routing-policy/policy-definitions/policy-definition/statements/statement/actions
- Modification to actions could be used to mount a DoS attack or otherattack. Traffic may be redirected or dropped. As with prefix sets,neighbor sets, or tag sets, traffic redirection could be used as part of amore elaborate attack. Additionally, route attributes may be changed to mounta second-level attack that is more difficult to detect.
- /routing-policy/defined-sets/prefix-sets
- Knowledge of these data nodes can be used to ascertain which localprefixes are susceptible to a DoS attack.
- /routing-policy/defined-sets/neighbor-sets
- Knowledge of these data nodes can be used to ascertain local neighborsagainst whom to mount a DoS attack.
- /routing-policy/policy-definitions/policy-definition/statements/
- Knowledge of these data nodes can be used to attack the local router witha DoS attack. Additionally, policies and their attendantconditions and actions should be considered proprietary and disclosure couldbe used to ascertain partners, customers, and suppliers. Furthermore, thepolicies themselves could represent intellectual property and disclosure coulddiminish their corresponding business advantage.
9. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" subregistry of the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC 3688]:
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy
- Registrant Contact:
- The IESG
- XML:
- N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
- Name:
- ietf-routing-policy
- Maintained by IANA?
- N
- Namespace:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy
- Prefix:
- rt-pol
- Reference:
- RFC 9067
10. References
10.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc2119 - [RFC2328]
-
J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc2328 - [RFC3101]
-
P. Murphy, "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc3101 - [RFC3688]
-
M. Mealling, "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc3688 - [RFC4271]
-
Y. Rekhter, T. Li, and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc4271 - [RFC5130]
-
S. Previdi, M. Shand, and C. Martin, "A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5130 - [RFC5302]
-
T. Li, H. Smit, and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302, DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc5302 - [RFC6020]
-
M. Bjorklund, "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc6020 - [RFC6241]
-
R. Enns, M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, and A. Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc6241 - [RFC6242]
-
M. Wasserman, "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc6242 - [RFC6991]
-
J. Schoenwaelder, "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc6991 - [RFC7950]
-
M. Bjorklund, "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc7950 - [RFC8040]
-
A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8040 - [RFC8174]
-
B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8174 - [RFC8340]
-
M. Bjorklund, and L. Berger, "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8340 - [RFC8341]
-
A. Bierman, and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8341 - [RFC8342]
-
M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, P. Shafer, K. Watsen, and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8342 - [RFC8343]
-
M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8343 - [RFC8349]
-
L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, and Y. Qu, "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA Version)", RFC 8349, DOI 10.17487/RFC8349, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8349 - [RFC8446]
-
E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ >.rfc8446
10.2. Informative References
-
[IDR-BGP-MODEL]
-
Juniper Networks, , , , and , "BGP YANG Model for Service Provider Networks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09, June 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ >.html/ draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 - [W3C.REC-xml11]
-
T. Bray, J. Paoli, M. Sperberg-McQueen, E. Maler, F. Yergeau, and J. Cowan, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)", W3C Consortium Recommendation REC-xml11-20060816, August 2006,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/ >.2006/ REC-xml11-20060816
Appendix A. Routing Protocol-Specific Policies
Routing models that require the ability to apply routing policy may augment the routing policy model with protocol or other specific policy configuration. The routing policy model assumes that additional defined sets, conditions, and actions may all be added by other models.
The example below illustrates how another data model can augment parts of this routing policy data model. It uses specific examples from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09 to show in a concrete manner how the different pieces fit together. This example is not normative with respect to [IDR-BGP-MODEL]. The model similarly augments BGP-specific conditions and actions in the corresponding sections of the routing policy model. In the example below, the XPath prefix "bp:" specifies import from the ietf-bgp-policy sub-module and the XPath prefix "bt:" specifies import from the ietf-bgp-types sub-module [IDR-BGP-MODEL].
module: ietf-routing-policy
+--rw routing-policy
+--rw defined-sets
| +--rw prefix-sets
| | +--rw prefix-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw mode? enumeration
| | +--rw prefixes
| | +--rw prefix-list* [ip-prefix mask-length-lower
| | mask-length-upper]
| | +--rw ip-prefix inet:ip-prefix
| | +--rw mask-length-lower uint8
| | +--rw mask-length-upper uint8
| +--rw neighbor-sets
| | +--rw neighbor-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw address* inet:ip-address
| +--rw tag-sets
| | +--rw tag-set* [name]
| | +--rw name string
| | +--rw tag-value* tag-type
| +--rw bp:bgp-defined-sets
| +--rw bp:community-sets
| | +--rw bp:community-set* [name]
| | +--rw bp:name string
| | +--rw bp:member* union
| +--rw bp:ext-community-sets
| | +--rw bp:ext-community-set* [name]
| | +--rw bp:name string
| | +--rw bp:member* union
| +--rw bp:as-path-sets
| +--rw bp:as-path-set* [name]
| +--rw bp:name string
| +--rw bp:member* string
+--rw policy-definitions
+--ro match-modified-attributes? boolean
+--rw policy-definition* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw statements
+--rw statement* [name]
+--rw name string
+--rw conditions
| +--rw call-policy?
| +--rw source-protocol? identityref
| +--rw match-interface
| | +--rw interface? if:interface-ref
| +--rw match-prefix-set
| | +--rw prefix-set? prefix-set/name
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| | match-set-options-type
| +--rw match-neighbor-set
| | +--rw neighbor-set?
| +--rw match-tag-set
| | +--rw tag-set?
| | +--rw match-set-options?
| | match-set-options-type
| +--rw match-route-type
| +--rw route-type* identityref
| +--rw bp:bgp-conditions
| +--rw bp:med-eq? uint32
| +--rw bp:origin-eq? bt:bgp-origin-attr-type
| +--rw bp:next-hop-in* inet:ip-address-no-zone
| +--rw bp:afi-safi-in* identityref
| +--rw bp:local-pref-eq? uint32
| +--rw bp:route-type? enumeration
| +--rw bp:community-count
| +--rw bp:as-path-length
| +--rw bp:match-community-set
| | +--rw bp:community-set?
| | +--rw bp:match-set-options?
| +--rw bp:match-ext-community-set
| | +--rw bp:ext-community-set?
| | +--rw bp:match-set-options?
| +--rw bp:match-as-path-set
| +--rw bp:as-path-set?
| +--rw bp:match-set-options?
+--rw actions
+--rw policy-result? policy-result-type
+--rw set-metric
| +--rw metric-modification?
| +--rw metric? uint32
+--rw set-metric-type
| +--rw metric-type? identityref
+--rw set-route-level
| +--rw route-level? identityref
+--rw set-route-preference? uint16
+--rw set-tag? tag-type
+--rw set-application-tag? tag-type
+--rw bp:bgp-actions
+--rw bp:set-route-origin?
| bt:bgp-origin-attr-type
+--rw bp:set-local-pref? uint32
+--rw bp:set-next-hop? bgp-next-hop-type
+--rw bp:set-med? bgp-set-med-type
+--rw bp:set-as-path-prepend
| +--rw bp:repeat-n? uint8
+--rw bp:set-community
| +--rw bp:method? enumeration
| +--rw bp:options?
| +--rw bp:inline
| | +--rw bp:communities* union
| +--rw bp:reference
| +--rw bp:community-set-ref?
+--rw bp:set-ext-community
+--rw bp:method? enumeration
+--rw bp:options?
+--rw bp:inline
| +--rw bp:communities* union
+--rw bp:reference
+--rw bp:ext-community-set-ref?
Appendix B. Policy Examples
Below, we show examples of XML-encoded configuration data using the routing policy and BGP models to illustrate both how policies are defined and how they can be applied. Note that the XML [W3C.REC-xml11] has been simplified for readability.
The following example shows how prefix set and tag set can be defined. The policy condition is to match a prefix set and a tag set, and the action is to accept routes that match the condition.
In the following example, all routes in the RIB that have been learned from OSPF advertisements corresponding to OSPF intra-area and inter-area route types should get advertised into IS-IS level 2 advertisements.
<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<routing-policy
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">
<defined-sets>
<prefix-sets>
<prefix-set>
<name>prefix-set-A</name>
<mode>ipv4</mode>
<prefixes>
<prefix-list>
<ip-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ip-prefix>
<mask-length-lower>24</mask-length-lower>
<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>
</prefix-list>
<prefix-list>
<ip-prefix>198.51.100.0/24</ip-prefix>
<mask-length-lower>24</mask-length-lower>
<mask-length-upper>32</mask-length-upper>
</prefix-list>
</prefixes>
</prefix-set>
<prefix-set>
<name>prefix-set-B</name>
<mode>ipv6</mode>
<prefixes>
<prefix-list>
<ip-prefix>2001:DB8::/32</ip-prefix>
<mask-length-lower>32</mask-length-lower>
<mask-length-upper>64</mask-length-upper>
</prefix-list>
</prefixes>
</prefix-set>
</prefix-sets>
<tag-sets>
<tag-set>
<name>cust-tag1</name>
<tag-value>10</tag-value>
</tag-set>
</tag-sets>
</defined-sets>
<policy-definitions>
<policy-definition>
<name>export-tagged-BGP</name>
<statements>
<statement>
<name>term-0</name>
<conditions>
<match-prefix-set>
<prefix-set>prefix-set-A</prefix-set>
</match-prefix-set>
<match-tag-set>
<tag-set>cust-tag1</tag-set>
</match-tag-set>
</conditions>
<actions>
<policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
</actions>
</statement>
</statements>
</policy-definition>
</policy-definitions>
</routing-policy>
</config>
<config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<routing-policy
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing-policy">
<policy-definitions>
<policy-definition>
<name>export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-IS-IS-level-2</name>
<statements>
<statement>
<name>term-0</name>
<conditions>
<match-route-type>
<route-type>ospf-internal-type</route-type>
</match-route-type>
</conditions>
<actions>
<set-route-level>
<route-level>isis-level-2</route-level>
</set-route-level>
<policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
</actions>
</statement>
</statements>
</policy-definition>
</policy-definitions>
</routing-policy>
</config>
Acknowledgements
The routing policy module defined in this document is based on the OpenConfig route policy model. The authors would like to thank OpenConfig for their contributions, especially those of Anees Shaikh, Rob Shakir, Kevin D'Souza, and Chris Chase.
The authors are grateful for valuable contributions to this document and the associated models from Ebben Aires, Luyuan Fang, Josh George, Stephane Litkowski, Ina Minei, Carl Moberg, Eric Osborne, Steve Padgett, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Jim Uttaro, Russ White, and John Heasley.
Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani, John Scudder, Alvaro Retana, Chris Bowers, Tom Petch, and Kris Lambrechts for their reviews and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Yingzhen Qu
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara CA 95050
United States of America
Email: yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Acee Lindem
Cisco
301 Midenhall Way
Cary NC 27513
United States of America
Email: acee@cisco.com
Xufeng Liu
Volta Networks
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
