Browse Prior Art Database

Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS (RFC2763) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003361D
Original Publication Date: 2000-Feb-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-10
Document File: 5 page(s) / 6K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

N. Shen: AUTHOR [+1]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC2763: DOI


This document defines a new TLV which allows the IS-IS routers to flood their name to system ID mapping information across the IS-IS network. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 41% of the total text.

Network Working Group N. Shen Request for Comments: 2763 Siara Systems Category: Informational H. Smit Cisco Systems February 2000

Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for 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 (2000). All Rights Reserved.


Currently, there does not exist a simple and dynamic mechanism for routers running IS-IS to learn about symbolic hostnames. This document defines a new TLV which allows the IS-IS routers to flood their name to system ID mapping information across the IS-IS network.

1. Introduction

IS-IS uses a 1-8 byte system ID (normally 6 bytes) to represent a node in the network. For management and operation reasons, network operators need to check the status of IS-IS adjacencies, entries in the routing table and the content of the IS-IS link state database. It is obvious that, when looking at diagnostics information, hexadecimal representations of systemIDs and LSP identifiers are less clear than symbolic names.

One way to overcome this problem is to define a name-to-systemID mapping on a router. This mapping can be used bidirectionally. E.g., to find symbolic names for systemIDs, and to find systemIDs for symbolic names. One way to build this table of mappings is by static definitions. Among network administrators who use IS-IS as their IGP it is current practice to define such static mappings.

Thus every router has to maintain a table with mappings between router names and systemIDs. These tables need to contain all names and systemIDs of all routers in the network.

Shen & Smit Informational [Page 1]

RFC 2763 Dynamic Hostname February 2000

There are several ways one could build such a table. One is via static configurations. Another scheme that could be implemented is via DNS lookups. In this document we propose a third solution. We hope the proposed solution is easier and more manageable than static mapping or DNS schemes.

2. Possible solutions

The obvious drawback of static configuration of mappings is the issue of scalability and maintainability. The network operators have to maintain the name tables. They have to maintain an entry in the table for every router in the network. They have to maintain this table on each router in the network. The effort to create and maintain these static tables grows with the total number of routers on the network. Changing the name or systemID of one router, or adding one new router introduced will affect the configurations of all the other routers on the network. This will make it very likely that those static tables are outdated.

Having one table that can be updated in a centralized place would be helpful. One could imagine using the DNS system for this. A drawback is that during the time of network problems, the response time of DNS services might not be satisfactory or the DNS servi...