Browse Prior Art Database

Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) (RFC3719)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000022104D
Original Publication Date: 2004-Feb-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2004-Feb-26
Document File: 16 page(s) / 34K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Parker: AUTHOR [+2]

Abstract

This document discusses a number of differences between the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol as described in ISO 10589 and the protocol as it is deployed today. These differences are discussed as a service to those implementing, testing, and deploying the IS-IS Protocol. A companion document discusses differences between the protocol described in RFC 1195 and the protocol as it is deployed today for routing IP traffic.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 10% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Parker, Ed.

Request for Comments: 3719 Axiowave Networks

Category: Informational February 2004

Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using

Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document discusses a number of differences between the

Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol as

described in ISO 10589 and the protocol as it is deployed today.

These differences are discussed as a service to those implementing,

testing, and deploying the IS-IS Protocol. A companion document

discusses differences between the protocol described in RFC 1195 and

the protocol as it is deployed today for routing IP traffic.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Constants That Are Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Variables That Are Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. Alternative Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. ReceiveLSPBufferSize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6. Padding Hello PDUs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7. Zero Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

8. Purging Corrupted LSPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

9. Checking System ID in Received point-to-point IIH PDUs. . . . 10

10. Doppelganger LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

11. Generating a Complete Set of CSNPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

12. Overload Bit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

14. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

15. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

16. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

17. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Parker Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3719 Interoperable Networks using IS-IS February 2004

1. Introduction

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

But in practice, there is.

Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

Interior Gateway Protocols such as IS-IS are designed to provide

timely information about the best routes in a routing domain. The

original design of IS-IS, as described in ISO 10589 [1] has proved to

be quite durable. However, a number of original design choices have

been modified. This document addresses differences between the

protocol described in ISO 10589 and the protocol that can be observed

on the wire today. A companion document discusses differences

between the protocol described in RFC 1195 [2] for routing IP traffic

and current practice.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" in

this document are to be interpreted as des...