[rfc-dist] RFC 9377 on IS-IS Flood Reflection

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue, 04 April 2023 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7058CC16B5A5; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NgcjOlF_6Zga; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F2EC17B32A; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 783D455EB6; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, lsr@ietf.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230404234419.783D455EB6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 16:44:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-dist/q3XZbLeituMKqfQw6uGUh9wf7NA>
Subject: [rfc-dist] RFC 9377 on IS-IS Flood Reflection
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:44:31 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 9377

        Title:      IS-IS Flood Reflection 
        Author:     T. Przygienda, Ed.,
                    C. Bowers,
                    Y. Lee,
                    A. Sharma,
                    R. White
        Status:     Experimental
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2023
        Mailbox:    prz@juniper.net,
                    chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com,
                    yiu_lee@comcast.com,
                    as3957@gmail.com,
                    russ@riw.us
        Pages:      19
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9377

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC9377

This document describes a backward-compatible, optional IS-IS
extension that allows the creation of IS-IS flood reflection
topologies. Flood reflection permits topologies in which IS-IS Level
1 (L1) areas provide transit-forwarding for IS-IS Level 2 (L2) areas
using all available L1 nodes internally.  It accomplishes this by
creating L2 flood reflection adjacencies within each L1 area. Those
adjacencies are used to flood L2 Link State Protocol Data Units
(LSPs) and are used in the L2 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation. 
However, they are not ordinarily utilized for forwarding within the
flood reflection cluster.    This arrangement gives the L2 topology
significantly better scaling properties than prevalently used flat
designs.  As an additional benefit, only those routers directly
participating in flood reflection are required to support the
feature.  This allows for incremental deployment of scalable L1
transit areas in an existing, previously flat network design, without
the necessity of upgrading all routers in the network.

This document is a product of the Link State Routing Working Group of the IETF.


EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the
Internet community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any
kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC