IS-IS Automatic Encapsulation
draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-03
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(isis WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Philip Christian | ||
| Last updated | 2003-03-31 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
RFC 1195 [1] documents a dual routing protocol that can be used to route both CLNP and IPv4, that is Integrated IS-IS. Integrated IS- IS can now also be used to route IPv6 [12]. RFC 1195 [1] places certain topological restrictions on networks that are routed using Integrated IS-IS, specifically that every Intermediate System in a level-1 area must be able to forward all network layer protocols that are present in that area, and that every level-2 Intermediate System must be able to forward all network layer protocols present in the routing domain. The mechanism described in this document enables an Intermediate System or a group of Intermediate Systems that do not support a particular network layer protocol to be used in a level-1 area or level-2 subdomain where that network layer protocol is present. Specifically the mechanism provides automatic encapsulation and unencapsulation so that a packet or PDU may pass through an Intermediate System that would not normally be able to forward that type of packet.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)