Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
03 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-12-20
03 (System)
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 …
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]')
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from isis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-rfc2966bis@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2008-10-06
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-10-06
03 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5302' added by Amy Vezza
2008-10-03
03 (System) RFC published
2008-07-16
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-07-16
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-07-16
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-07-16
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-07-16
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-07-16
03 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2008-07-16
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-07-04
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-07-03
2008-07-03
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-03
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-07-03
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-07-03
03 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-07-03
03 Tim Polk
[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 …
[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.
2008-07-03
03 Tim Polk
[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 …
[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.
2008-07-03
03 Tim Polk
[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 …
[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.
2008-07-03
03 Tim Polk
[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 …
[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:
2008-07-03
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-07-03
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-07-03
03 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-07-02
03 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-07-02
03 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-07-02
03 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-02
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-07-02
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
The reference to RFC3784 should be changed to cite the respective -bis document that is about to obsolete the original RFC.
2008-07-02
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
The references to RFC2966 and RFC3784 should be changed to cite the respective -bis documents that are about to obsolete the original RFCs.
2008-07-02
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-07-01
03 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-07-01
03 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-07-01
03 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2008-06-26
03 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-07-03 by Ross Callon
2008-06-26
03 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2008-06-23
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-06-18
03 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-06-09
03 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-06-09
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-06-09
03 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation by Ross Callon
2008-06-09
03 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-06-09
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-06-09
03 (System) Last call text was added
2008-06-09
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-06-09
03 Ross Callon Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-06-19 by Ross Callon
2008-06-03
03 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-06-19 by Ross Callon
2008-06-03
03 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested::External Party by Ross Callon
2008-04-25
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-isis-rfc2966bis-03.txt
2008-04-09
03 Ross Callon Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2008-03-18
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-isis-rfc2966bis-02.txt
2008-02-10
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-isis-rfc2966bis-01.txt
2008-02-08
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-isis-rfc2966bis-00.txt