Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Scharf
Request for Comments: 9648 Hochschule Esslingen
Category: Standards Track M. Jethanandani
ISSN: 2070-1721 Kloud Services
V. Murgai
F5, Inc.
August 2024
A
YANG Data Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration and
State TCP
Abstract
This document specifies a minimal YANG data model for TCP on devices
that are configured and managed by network management protocols. The
YANG data model defines a container for all TCP connections and
groupings of authentication parameters that can be imported and used
in TCP implementations or by other models that need to configure TCP
parameters. The model also includes basic TCP statistics. The model
is compliant with Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
(RFC 8342).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available 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/rfc9648.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 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. Requirements Language
3. YANG Module Overview
3.1. Scope
3.2. Model Design
3.3. Tree Diagram
4. TCP YANG Data Model
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. The IETF XML Registry
5.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Examples
A.1. Keepalive Configuration
A.2. TCP-AO Configuration
Appendix B. Complete Tree Diagram
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC9293] is used by many
applications in the Internet, including control and management
protocols. As such, TCP is implemented on network elements that can
be configured and managed via network management protocols such as
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040].
This document specifies a minimal YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] data model for
configuring and managing TCP on network elements that support YANG, a
TCP connection table, a TCP listener table containing information
about a particular TCP listener, and an augmentation of the YANG data
model for key chains [RFC8177] to support authentication. The YANG
module specified in this document is compliant with Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].
The YANG module has a narrow scope and focuses on a subset of
fundamental TCP functions and basic statistics. It defines a
container for a list of TCP connections that includes definitions
from "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers" [RFC9643]. The
model adheres to the recommendation in "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)" [RFC4364]. Therefore, it allows enabling of TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] and accommodates the
installed base that makes use of MD5. The module can be augmented or
updated to address more advanced or implementation-specific TCP
features in the future.
This specification does not deprecate the Management Information Base
(MIB) for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC4022]. The
basic statistics defined in this document follow the model of the TCP
MIB. A TCP extended statistics MIB [RFC4898] is also available, but
this document does not cover such extended statistics. The YANG
module also omits some selected parameters included in TCP MIB, most
notably Retransmission Timeout (RTO) configuration and a maximum
connection limit. This is a conscious decision as these parameters
hardly matter in a state-of-the-art TCP implementation. It would
also be possible to translate a MIB into a YANG module, for instance,
using "Translation of Structure of Management Information Version 2
(SMIv2) MIB Modules to YANG Modules" [RFC6643]. However, this
approach is not used in this document, because a translated model
would not be up-to-date.
There are other existing TCP-related YANG data models, which are
orthogonal to this specification. Examples are:
* TCP header attributes are modeled in other security-related
models, such as those described in "YANG Data Model for Network
Access Control Lists (ACLs)" [RFC8519], "Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel
Specification" [RFC8783], "I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model"
[NSF-CAP-YANG], or "I2NSF Network Security Function-Facing
Interface YANG Data Model" [NSF-FACING-YANG].
* TCP-related configuration of a NAT (e.g., NAT44, NAT64, or
Destination NAT) is defined in "A YANG Module for Network Address
Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation (NPT)" [RFC8512]
and "A YANG Data Model for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)" [RFC8513].
* TCP-AO and TCP MD5 configuration for Layer 3 VPNs is modeled in "A
YANG Network Data Model for Layer 3 VPNs" [RFC9182]. This model
assumes that TCP-AO-specific parameters are preconfigured in
addition to the key chain parameters.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. YANG Module Overview
3.1. Scope
TCP is implemented on different system architectures. As a result,
there are many different and often implementation-specific ways to
configure parameters of the TCP engine. In addition, in many TCP/IP
stacks, configuration exists for different scopes:
* System-wide configuration: Many TCP implementations have
configuration parameters that affect all TCP connections from or
to this TCP stack. Typical examples include enabling or disabling
optional protocol features. For instance, many implementations
can turn on or off use of window scaling the Transmission (defined in "Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC9293] (TCP)" [RFC9293]) for all TCP connections.
* Interface configuration: It can be useful to use different TCP
parameters on different interfaces, e.g., different device ports
or IP interfaces. In that case, TCP parameters can be part of the
interface configuration. Typical examples are the Maximum Segment
Size (MSS) or configuration related to hardware offloading.
* Connection parameters: Many implementations have means to
influence the behavior of each TCP connection, e.g., on the
programming interface used by applications. Typical examples are
socket options in the socket API, such as disabling the Nagle
algorithm (as described in "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)"
[RFC9293]) by TCP_NODELAY. If an application uses such an
interface, it is possible that the configuration of the
application or application protocol includes TCP-related
parameters. An example is the BGP YANG module for service
provider networks [BGP-MODEL].
* Application preferences: Setting of TCP parameters can also be
part of application preferences, templates, or profiles. An
example would be the preferences defined in "An Abstract
Application Layer Interface to Transport Services"
[TAPS-INTERFACE].
As a result, there is no ground truth for setting certain TCP
parameters, and traditionally generally different TCP implementations have used
different modeling approaches. For instance, one implementation may
define a given configuration parameter globally, while another one
uses per-interface settings, and both approaches work well for the
corresponding use cases. Also, different systems may use different
default values. In addition, TCP can be implemented in different
ways and design choices by the protocol engine often affect
configuration options.
Nonetheless, a number of TCP stack parameters require configuration
by YANG data models. This document therefore defines a minimal YANG
data model with fundamental parameters. An important use case is the
TCP configuration on network elements, such as routers, which often
use YANG data models. The model therefore specifies TCP parameters
that are important on such TCP stacks.
In particular, this applies to the support of the TCP Authentication
Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] and the corresponding cryptographic
algorithms [RFC5926]. TCP-AO is used on routers to secure routing
protocols such as BGP. In that case, a YANG data model for TCP-AO
configuration is required. The model defined in this document
includes the required parameters for TCP-AO configuration, such as
the values of SendID and RecvID. The key chain for TCP-AO can be
modeled by the YANG data model for key chains [RFC8177]. The
groupings defined in this document can be imported and used as part
of such a preconfiguration.
Given an installed base, the model also allows enabling of the legacy
TCP MD5 [RFC2385] signature option. The TCP MD5 signature option was
obsoleted by TCP-AO in 2010. If current implementations require TCP
authentication, it is RECOMMENDED to use TCP-AO [RFC5925].
Similar to the TCP MIB [RFC4022], this document also specifies basic
statistics, a TCP connection list, and a TCP listener list.
* Statistics: Counters for the number of active/passive opens, sent
and received TCP segments, errors, and possibly other detailed
debugging information.
* TCP connection list: Access to status information for all TCP
connections. Note that the connection table is modeled as a list
that is read-writeable, readable and writeable, even though a connection cannot be
created by adding entries to the table. Similarly, deletion of
connections from this list is implementation-specific.
* TCP listener list: A list containing information about TCP
listeners, i.e., applications willing to accept connections.
This allows implementations of TCP MIB [RFC4022] to migrate to the
YANG data model defined in this memo. Note that the TCP MIB does not
include means to reset statistics, which are defined in this
document. This is not a major addition, as a reset can simply be
implemented by storing offset values for the counters.
This version of the module does not model details of Multipath TCP
[RFC8684]. This could be addressed in a later version of this
document.
3.2. Model Design
The YANG data model defined in this document includes definitions
from "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers" [RFC9643].
Similar to that model, this specification defines YANG groupings.
This allows reuse of these groupings in different YANG data models.
It is intended that these groupings will be used either standalone or
for TCP-based protocols as part of a stack of protocol-specific
configuration models. An example could be the one described in "YANG
Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)" [BGP-MODEL].
3.3. Tree Diagram
This section provides an abridged tree diagram for the YANG module
defined in this document. Annotations used in the diagram are
defined in "YANG Tree Diagrams" [RFC8340]. A complete tree diagram
can be found in Appendix B.
module: ietf-tcp
+--rw tcp!
+--rw connections
| ...
+--ro tcp-listeners* [type address port]
| ...
+--ro statistics {statistics}?
...
augment /key-chain:key-chains/key-chain:key-chain/key-chain:key:
+--rw authentication {authentication}?
+--rw keychain? key-chain:key-chain-ref
+--rw (authentication)?
...
4. TCP YANG Data Model
This YANG module references "The TCP Authentication Option"
[RFC5925], "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature
Option" [RFC2385], and "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)"
[RFC9293] and imports "Common YANG Data Types" [RFC6991], "Network
Configuration Access Control Model" [RFC8341], and "YANG Groupings
for TCP Clients and TCP Servers" [RFC9643].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-tcp@2022-09-11.yang"
module ietf-tcp {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp";
prefix tcp;
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types.";
}
import ietf-tcp-common {
prefix tcpcmn;
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers.";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types.";
}
import ietf-netconf-acm {
prefix nacm;
reference
"RFC 8341: Network Configuration Access Control Model.";
}
import ietf-key-chain {
prefix key-chain;
reference
"RFC 8177: YANG Data Model for Key Chains.";
}
organization
"IETF TCPM Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm/about
WG List: TCPM WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Authors: Michael Scharf <michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Vishal Murgai <vmurgai@gmail.com>";
description
"This module focuses on fundamental TCP functions and basic
statistics. The model can be augmented to address more advanced
or implementation-specific TCP features.
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 9648
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9648); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.";
revision 2022-09-11 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9648: A YANG Data Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Configuration and State."; TCP.";
}
// Typedefs
typedef mss {
type uint16;
description
"Type definition for the Maximum Segment Size.";
}
// Features
feature statistics {
description
"This implementation supports statistics reporting.";
}
feature authentication {
description
"This implementation supports authentication.";
}
// Identities
identity aes-128 {
base key-chain:crypto-algorithm;
description
"AES128 authentication algorithm used by TCP-AO.";
reference
"RFC 5926: Cryptographic Algorithms for the TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO).";
}
// TCP-AO Groupings
grouping ao {
leaf send-id {
type uint8 {
range "0..max";
}
description
"The SendID is inserted as the KeyID of the TCP-AO option
of outgoing segments. In a consistent configuration, the
SendID matches the RecvID at the other endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option, Section 3.1.";
}
leaf recv-id {
type uint8 {
range "0..max";
}
description
"The RecvID is matched against the TCP-AO KeyID of incoming
segments. In a consistent configuration, the RecvID matches
the SendID at the other endpoint.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option, Section 3.1.";
}
leaf include-tcp-options {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"When set to true, TCP options are included in the message
authentication code (MAC) calculation.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option, Section 3.1.";
}
leaf accept-key-mismatch {
type boolean;
description
"Accept, when set to true, TCP segments with a Master Key
Tuple (MKT) that is not configured.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option, Section 7.3.";
}
leaf r-next-key-id {
type uint8;
config false;
description
"A field indicating the Master Key Tuple (MKT) that is ready
at the sender to be used to authenticate received segments,
i.e., the desired 'receive next' key ID.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option.";
}
description
"Authentication Option (AO) for TCP.";
reference
"RFC 5925: The TCP Authentication Option.";
}
// TCP configuration
container tcp {
presence "The container for TCP configuration.";
description
"TCP container.";
container connections {
list connection {
key "local-address remote-address local-port remote-port";
leaf local-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"Identifies the address that is used by the local
endpoint for the connection and is one of the four
elements that form the connection identifier.";
}
leaf remote-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"Identifies the address that is used by the remote
endpoint for the connection and is one of the four
elements that form the connection identifier.";
}
leaf local-port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"Identifies the local TCP port used for the connection
and is one of the four elements that form the
connection identifier.";
}
leaf remote-port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"Identifies the remote TCP port used for the connection
and is one of the four elements that form the
connection identifier.";
}
leaf mss {
type mss;
description
"Maximum Segment Size (MSS) desired on this connection.
Note that the 'effective send MSS' can be smaller than
what is configured here.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf pmtud {
type boolean;
default "false";
description
"Turns Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD)
on (true) or off (false).";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
uses tcpcmn:tcp-common-grouping;
leaf state {
type enumeration {
enum closed {
value 1;
description
"Connection is closed. Connections in this state
may not appear in this list.";
}
enum listen {
value 2;
description
"Represents waiting for a connection request from any
remote TCP peer and port.";
}
enum syn-sent {
value 3;
description
"Represents waiting for a matching connection request
after having sent a connection request.";
}
enum syn-received {
value 4;
description
"Represents waiting for a confirming connection
request acknowledgement acknowledgment after having both received
and sent a connection request.";
}
enum established {
value 5;
description
"Represents an open connection; data received can be
delivered to the user. The normal state for the
data transfer phase of the connection.";
}
enum fin-wait-1 {
value 6;
description
"Represents waiting for a connection termination
request from the remote TCP peer or an
acknowledgement
acknowledgment of the connection termination
request previously sent.";
}
enum fin-wait-2 {
value 7;
description
"Represents waiting for a connection termination
request from the remote TCP peer.";
}
enum close-wait {
value 8;
description
"Represents waiting for a connection termination
request from the local user.";
}
enum last-ack {
value 9;
description
"Represents waiting for an acknowledgement acknowledgment of the
connection termination request previously sent to
the remote TCP peer (this termination request sent
to the remote TCP peer already included an
acknowledgement
acknowledgment of the termination request sent from
the remote TCP peer).";
}
enum closing {
value 10;
description
"Represents waiting for a connection termination
request acknowledgement acknowledgment from the remote TCP peer.";
}
enum time-wait {
value 11;
description
"Represents waiting for enough time to pass to be
sure the remote TCP peer received the
acknowledgement
acknowledgment of its connection termination
request and to avoid new connections being impacted
by delayed segments from previous connections.";
}
}
config false;
description
"The state of this TCP connection.";
}
description
"List of TCP connections with their parameters.
The list is modeled as writeable even though only some of
the nodes are writeable, e.g., keepalive. Connections
that are created and match this list SHOULD apply the
writeable parameters. At the same time, implementations
may not allow creation of new TCP connections simply by
adding entries to the list. Furthermore, the behavior
upon removal is implementation-specific. Implementations
may not support closing or resetting a TCP connection
upon an operation that removes the entry from the list.
The operational state of this list SHOULD reflect
connections that have configured but not created and
connections that have been created. Connections in the
CLOSED state are not reflected on this list.";
}
description
"A container of all TCP connections.";
}
list tcp-listeners {
key "type address port";
config false;
description
"A table containing information about a particular
TCP listener.";
leaf type {
type inet:ip-version;
description
"The address type of address. The value
should be unspecified (0) if connection initiations
to all local IP addresses are accepted.";
}
leaf address {
type union {
type inet:ip-address;
type string {
length "0";
}
}
description
"The local IP address for this TCP connection.
The value of this node can be represented in three
possible ways, depending on the characteristics of the
listening application:
1. For an application willing to accept both IPv4 and
IPv6 datagrams, the value of this node must be
''h (a zero-length octet string), with the value
of the corresponding 'type' object being
unspecified (0).
2. For an application willing to accept only IPv4 or
IPv6 datagrams, the value of this node must be
'0.0.0.0' or '::' respectively, with
'type' representing the appropriate address type.
3. For an application that is listening for data
destined only to a specific IP address, the value
of this node is the specific local address, with
'type' representing the appropriate address type.";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"The local port number for this TCP connection.";
}
}
container statistics {
if-feature "statistics";
config false;
leaf active-opens {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of times that TCP connections have made a
direct transition to the SYN-SENT state from the CLOSED
state.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf passive-opens {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of times TCP connections have made a direct
transition to the SYN-RCVD state from the LISTEN state.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf attempt-fails {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of times that TCP connections have made a
direct transition to the CLOSED state from either the
SYN-SENT state or the SYN-RCVD state, plus the number of
times that TCP connections have made a direct transition
to the LISTEN state from the SYN-RCVD state.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf establish-resets {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of times that TCP connections have made a
direct transition to the CLOSED state from either the
ESTABLISHED state or the CLOSE-WAIT state.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf currently-established {
type yang:gauge32;
description
"The number of TCP connections for which the current state
is either ESTABLISHED or CLOSE-WAIT.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf in-segments {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The total number of TCP segments received, including those
received in error. This count includes TCP segments
received on currently established connections.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf out-segments {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The total number of TCP segments sent, including those on
current connections but excluding those containing only
retransmitted octets.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf retransmitted-segments {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The total number of TCP segments retransmitted; that is,
the number of TCP segments transmitted containing one or
more previously transmitted octets.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf in-errors {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The total number of TCP segments received in error
(e.g., bad TCP checksums).";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf out-resets {
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of TCP segments sent containing the RST flag.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).";
}
leaf auth-failures {
if-feature "authentication";
type yang:counter64;
description
"The number of times that authentication has failed either
with TCP-AO or MD5.";
}
action reset {
nacm:default-deny-all;
description
"Reset statistics action command.";
input {
leaf reset-at {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Time when the reset action needs to be
executed.";
}
}
output {
leaf reset-finished-at {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"Time when the reset action command completed.";
}
}
}
description
"Statistics across all connections.";
}
}
augment "/key-chain:key-chains/key-chain:key-chain/key-chain:key" {
description
"Augmentation of the key-chain model to add TCP-AO and TCP-MD5
authentication.";
container authentication {
if-feature "authentication";
leaf keychain {
type key-chain:key-chain-ref;
description
"Reference to the key chain that will be used by
this model. Applicable for TCP-AO and TCP-MD5
only.";
reference
"RFC 8177: YANG Data Model for Key Chains.";
}
choice authentication {
container ao {
presence "Presence container for all TCP-AO related"
+ " configuration";
uses ao;
description
"Use TCP-AO to secure the connection.";
}
container md5 {
presence "Presence container for all MD5 related"
+ " configuration";
description
"Use TCP-MD5 to secure the connection. As the TCP MD5
signature option is obsoleted by TCP-AO, it is
RECOMMENDED to use TCP-AO instead.";
reference
"RFC 2385: Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option.";
}
description
"Choice of TCP authentication.";
}
description
"Authentication definitions for TCP configuration.
This includes parameters such as how to secure the
connection, which can be part of either the client
or server.";
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. The IETF XML Registry
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" registry defined in
the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp
Registrant Contact: The IESG. IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
5.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
IANA has registered the following in the "YANG Module Names" registry
created by "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)" [RFC6020].
Name: ietf-tcp
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp
Prefix: tcp
Reference: RFC 9648
The registration
This is not an IANA maintained module; however, the URI and other
details of the module are maintained by IANA.
6. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
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:
* Common configuration included from NETCONF client and server
models [RFC9643]. Unrestricted access to all the nodes, e.g.,
keepalive idle timer, can cause connections to fail or to timeout
prematurely.
* Authentication configuration. Unrestricted access to the nodes
under authentication configuration can prevent the use of
authenticated communication and cause connection setups to fail.
This can result in massive security vulnerabilities and service
disruption for the traffic requiring authentication.
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
* Unrestricted access to connection information of the client or
server can be used by a malicious user to launch an attack.
* Similarly, unrestricted access to statistics of the client or
server can be used by a malicious user to exploit any
vulnerabilities of the system.
Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control access to these operations. These are the
operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
* The YANG module allows for the statistics to be cleared by
executing the reset action. This action should be restricted to
users with the right permission.
The module specified in this document supports MD5 to basically
accommodate the installed BGP base. MD5 suffers from the security
weaknesses discussed in Section 2 of [RFC6151] or Section 2.1 of
[RFC6952].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, DOI 10.17487/RFC2385, August
1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2385>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC5926] Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5926, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5926>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.
[RFC9643] Watsen, K. and M. Scharf, "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients
and TCP Servers", RFC 9643, DOI 10.17487/RFC9643, May
2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643>.
7.2. Informative References
[BGP-MODEL]
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG
Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17, 5
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-17>.
[NSF-CAP-YANG]
Hares, S., Ed., Jeong, J., Ed., Kim, J., Moskowitz, R.,
and Q. Lin, "I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-
data-model-32, 23 May 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-
capability-data-model-32>.
[NSF-FACING-YANG]
Kim, J., Ed., Jeong, J., Ed., Park, J., Hares, S., and Q.
Lin, "I2NSF Network Security Function-Facing Interface
YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-29, 1 June 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-
nsf-facing-interface-dm-29>.
[RFC4022] Raghunarayan, R., Ed., "Management Information Base for
the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4022, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4022>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4898] Mathis, M., Heffner, J., and R. Raghunarayan, "TCP
Extended Statistics MIB", RFC 4898, DOI 10.17487/RFC4898,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4898>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[RFC6643] Schoenwaelder, J., "Translation of Structure of Management
Information Version 2 (SMIv2) MIB Modules to YANG
Modules", RFC 6643, DOI 10.17487/RFC6643, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6643>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC8512] Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar, S., Jacquenet, C.,
Vinapamula, S., and Q. Wu, "A YANG Module for Network
Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation
(NPT)", RFC 8512, DOI 10.17487/RFC8512, January 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8512>.
[RFC8513] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Sivakumar, "A YANG
Data Model for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)", RFC 8513,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8513, January 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8513>.
[RFC8519] Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.
[RFC8684] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8684>.
[RFC8783] Boucadair, M., Ed. and T. Reddy.K, Ed., "Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data
Channel Specification", RFC 8783, DOI 10.17487/RFC8783,
May 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8783>.
[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., Munoz, L., and A. Aguado, "A YANG Network Data Model
for Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9182, DOI 10.17487/RFC9182,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9182>.
[RFC9235] Touch, J. and J. Kuusisaari, "TCP Authentication Option
(TCP-AO) Test Vectors", RFC 9235, DOI 10.17487/RFC9235,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9235>.
[TAPS-INTERFACE]
Trammell, B., Ed., Welzl, M., Ed., Enghardt, R.,
Fairhurst, G., Kühlewind, M., Perkins, C., Tiesel, P., and
T. Pauly, "An Abstract Application Layer Interface to
Transport Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-taps-interface-26, 16 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-
interface-26>.
Appendix A. Examples
A.1. Keepalive Configuration
This particular example demonstrates how a particular connection can
be configured for keepalives.
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--
This example shows how TCP keepalive, MSS, and PMTU can be configure\
d for a given connection. An idle connection is dropped after
idle-time + (max-probes * probe-interval).
-->
<tcp
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp">
<connections>
<connection>
<local-address>192.0.2.1</local-address>
<remote-address>192.0.2.2</remote-address>
<local-port>1025</local-port>
<remote-port>22</remote-port>
<mss>1400</mss>
<pmtud>true</pmtud>
<keepalives>
<idle-time>5</idle-time>
<max-probes>5</max-probes>
<probe-interval>10</probe-interval>
</keepalives>
</connection>
</connections>
</tcp>
A.2. TCP-AO Configuration
The following example demonstrates how to model a TCP-AO [RFC5925]
configuration for the example in "TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
Test Vectors" [RFC9235]. The IP addresses and other parameters are
taken from the test vectors.
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--
This example sets TCP-AO configuration parameters similarly to
the examples in RFC 9235.
-->
<key-chains
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-key-chain">
<key-chain>
<name>ao-config</name>
<description>"An example for TCP-AO configuration."</description>
<key>
<key-id>55</key-id>
<lifetime>
<send-lifetime>
<start-date-time>2017-01-01T00:00:00Z</start-date-time>
<end-date-time>2017-02-01T00:00:00Z</end-date-time>
</send-lifetime>
<accept-lifetime>
<start-date-time>2016-12-31T23:59:55Z</start-date-time>
<end-date-time>2017-02-01T00:00:05Z</end-date-time>
</accept-lifetime>
</lifetime>
<crypto-algorithm
xmlns:tcp=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp">tcp:aes-128</crypto\
-algorithm>
<key-string>
<keystring>testvector</keystring>
</key-string>
<authentication
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp">
<keychain>ao-config</keychain>
<ao>
<send-id>61</send-id>
<recv-id>84</recv-id>
</ao>
</authentication>
</key>
</key-chain>
</key-chains>
Appendix B. Complete Tree Diagram
Here is the complete tree diagram for the TCP YANG data model.
module: ietf-tcp
+--rw tcp!
+--rw connections
| +--rw connection*
| [local-address remote-address local-port remote-port]
| +--rw local-address inet:ip-address
| +--rw remote-address inet:ip-address
| +--rw local-port inet:port-number
| +--rw remote-port inet:port-number
| +--rw mss? mss
| +--rw pmtud? boolean
| +--rw keepalives! {keepalives-supported}?
| | +--rw idle-time uint16
| | +--rw max-probes uint16
| | +--rw probe-interval uint16
| +--ro state? enumeration
+--ro tcp-listeners* [type address port]
| +--ro type inet:ip-version
| +--ro address union
| +--ro port inet:port-number
+--ro statistics {statistics}?
+--ro active-opens? yang:counter64
+--ro passive-opens? yang:counter64
+--ro attempt-fails? yang:counter64
+--ro establish-resets? yang:counter64
+--ro currently-established? yang:gauge32
+--ro in-segments? yang:counter64
+--ro out-segments? yang:counter64
+--ro retransmitted-segments? yang:counter64
+--ro in-errors? yang:counter64
+--ro out-resets? yang:counter64
+--ro auth-failures? yang:counter64
| {authentication}?
+---x reset
+---w input
| +---w reset-at? yang:date-and-time
+--ro output
+--ro reset-finished-at? yang:date-and-time
augment /key-chain:key-chains/key-chain:key-chain/key-chain:key:
+--rw authentication {authentication}?
+--rw keychain? key-chain:key-chain-ref
+--rw (authentication)?
+--:(ao)
| +--rw ao!
| +--rw send-id? uint8
| +--rw recv-id? uint8
| +--rw include-tcp-options? boolean
| +--rw accept-key-mismatch? boolean
| +--ro r-next-key-id? uint8
+--:(md5)
+--rw md5!
Acknowledgements
Michael Scharf was supported by the StandICT.eu project, which is
funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme.
The following persons have contributed to this document by reviews
(in alphabetical order): Mohamed Boucadair, Gorry Fairhurst, Jeffrey
Haas, and Tom Petch.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Scharf
Hochschule Esslingen -
University of Applied Sciences
Kanalstr. 33
73728 Esslingen am Neckar
Germany
Email: michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de
Mahesh Jethanandani
Kloud Services
Email: mjethanandani@gmail.com
Vishal Murgai
F5, Inc.
Email: vmurgai@gmail.com