Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS
RFC 5302

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support optimal routing within a two-level domain. The IS-IS protocol is specified in ISO 10589, with extensions for supporting IPv4 (Internet Protocol) specified in RFC 1195. This document replaces RFC 2966.

This document extends the semantics presented in RFC 1195 so that a routing domain running with both level 1 and level 2 Intermediate Systems (IS) (routers) can distribute IP prefixes between level 1 and level 2, and vice versa. This distribution requires certain restrictions to ensure that persistent forwarding loops do not form. The goal of this domain-wide prefix distribution is to increase the granularity of the routing information within the domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')

[Ballot discuss]
While this draft does not create any new security considerations, we need to provide readers
with a reference that describes the generic is-is security considerations.  [3567bis] would seem
to be the best choice.  This could reasonably be cleared with the following RFC Editor Note:


--- draft RFC Editor Note ----

(1) Please make the following substitution in section 6:

OLD

  This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

NEW

  This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for
  general security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC3567bis].

(2) In the Section 8.2, please insert the following reference:

[RFC3567bis]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
              Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
              work in progress.

[Ballot discuss]
While this draft does not create any new security considerations, we need to provide readers
with a reference that describes the generic is-is security considerations.  [3567bis] would seem
to be the best choice.  This could reasonably be cleared with the following RFC Editor Note:


--- draft RFC Editor Note ----

Please make the following suibstitution in section 6

OLD

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

NEW

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for
general security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC3567bis].

In the Section 8.2, please insert the following reference:

[RFC3567bis]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
              Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
              work in progress.

[Ballot discuss]
While this draft does not create any new security considerations, we need to provide readers
with a reference that describes the generic is-is security considerations.  [3567bis] would seem
to be the best choice.  This could reasonably be cleared with the following RFC Editor Note:


--- draft RFC Editor Note ----

Please make the following suibstitution in section 6

OLD

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

NEW

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for security considerations
for IS-IS please see [RFC3567bis].

In the Section 8.2, please insert the following reference:

[RFC3567bis]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
              Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
              work in progress.

[Ballot discuss]
While this draft does not create any new security considerations, we need to provide readers
with a reference that describes the generic is-is security considerations.  [3567bis] would seem
to be the best choice.  This could reasonably be cleared with the following RFC Editor Note:


--- draft RFC Editor Note ----

Please make the following suibstitution in section 6

OLD

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

NEW

This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for security considerations
for IS-IS please see [RFC3567bis].

In the Section 8.2, please insert the following reference: