IS-IS Process ID Verification
draft-hu-rtgwg-isis-process-verification-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zehua Hu , Jiayuan Hu | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-30 | ||
| Replaces | draft-hu-isis-process-verification | ||
| Replaced by | draft-hu-lsr-isis-process-verification | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-hu-lsr-isis-process-verification | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
In IS-IS deployments, the process identifier (process ID) is used on a local router to distinguish and manage different IS-IS protocol instances. Process ID is local to the router and is not transmitted to neighbors, providing operational flexibility. However, because the process ID is also used to implement route redistribution and specify administrative tags for fine-grained control, its misconfiguration can lead to severe impacts (e.g., routing loops or black holes) with difficult troubleshooting. To address this problem, network operators typically deploy a consistent process ID on both ends of a link within the same domain, to reduce configuration complexity. In this context, to avoid the misconfiguration of the IS-IS process ID, this document introduces two optional approaches for process ID verification. When process ID verification is enabled, an IS-IS adjacency can be established only when the process identifiers at both ends of the link match.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)