RFC 3359

RFC 3359 💌 Reserved TLV Codepoints in IS-IS

• Number: RFC 3359
• Title: Reserved Type, Length and Value (TLV) Codepoints in Intermediate System to Intermediate System
• Author: Tony Przygienda, Xebeo
• Category: Informational 🎀
• Date: August 2002
• Working group: Network Working Group
• Obsoletes / Updates: The title block lists neither, so this doc doesn't obsolete or update anything. 🌸

---

Status of This Memo ✨

okay so first things first, this memo is just information for the Internet community. It's not an Internet standard of any kind, and distribution is unlimited 💖

Copyright Notice 🫶

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract 🦋

bestie, this doc is all about the implementation codepoints in IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) that several ISPs are literally using today to route inside their own clouds 🌈 IS-IS is an interior gateway routing protocol that OSI came up with originally, and it's used with IP extensions as the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). The doc basically gathers up every Table, Length and Value (TLV) codepoint the protocol is using, plus the ones in pending extensions. It's a whole vibe 💅

1. TLV Codepoints Reserved 👑

here's the big list of codepoints, all the way from Area Addresses to P2P Adjacency State. Every entry shows the name, the value, whether it shows up in IIH, LSP and SNP, and its status 🍓

   _____________________________________________________________________
    Name                    Value  IIH   LSP   SNP  Status

   _____________________________________________________________________

    Area Addresses            1  y     y     n    ISO 10589
    IIS Neighbors             2  n     y     n    ISO 10589
    ES Neighbors              3  n     y     n    ISO 10589
    Part. DIS                 4  n     y     n    ISO 10589
    Prefix Neighbors          5  n     y     n    ISO 10589
    IIS Neighbors             6  y     n     n    ISO 10589
    Padding                   8  y     n     n    ISO 10589
    LSP Entries               9  n     n     y    ISO 10589
    Authentication           10  y     y     y    ISO 10589
    Opt. Checksum            12  y     n     y    IETF-draft
    LSPBufferSize            14  n     y     n    ISO 10589 Rev 2 Draft
    TE IIS Neigh.            22  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    DECnet Phase IV          42  y     n     n    DEC (ancient)
    Lucent Proprietary       66  n     y     n
    IP Int. Reach           128  n     y     n    RFC 1195
    Prot. Supported         129  y     y     n    RFC 1195
    IP Ext. Address         130  n     y     n    RFC 1195
    IDRPI                   131  n     y     y    RFC 1195
    IP Intf. Address        132  y     y     n    RFC 1195
    Illegal                 133  n     n     n    RFC 1195 (not used)
    Router ID               134  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    TE IP. Reach            135  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    Dynamic Name            137  n     y     n    RFC 2763
    Nortel Proprietary      176  n     y     n
    Nortel Proprietary      177  n     y     n
    Restart TLV             211  y     n     n    IETF-draft
    MT-ISN                  222  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    M-Topologies            229  y     y     n    IETF-draft
    IPv6 Intf. Addr.        232  y     y     n    IETF-draft
    MT IP. Reach            235  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    IPv6 IP. Reach          236  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    MT IPv6 IP. Reach       237  n     y     n    IETF-draft
    P2P Adjacency State     240  y     n     n    IETF-draft

2. Assignment Procedures 🧚

this doc is here to help avoid future clashes when assigning TLV numbers. It does NOT count as a standard or an authority that assigns TLV numbers, so don't treat it like one 🙈 TLV assignment happens on a shared, informational basis between the ISO, SIF and the IETF working groups. The core ISIS protocol gets specified in the ISO standards body, but the IP extensions are products of the ISIS working group in the IETF. ISO doesn't have a numbering authority, and IANA is only responsible for IP-related coding points, so as of today there's no plausible central authority to assign TLV numbers. Iykyk 💀

This document will be periodically updated by newer versions, in the fashion of [RP94] and its successors. It may be replaced at any given point in time by some type of official registry.

This document will not indicate specific documents using the codepoints, nor will it resolve the sub-TLV codepoints.

3. Acknowledgments 🌷

Thanks to Les Ginsberg and others for pointing out details and improving this work. The whole squad 🫶

4. Security Consideration 🔒

🚨 bestie, this one's serious: ISIS security applies to the work presented here. No specific security issues are being introduced by this document.

5. References 📚

[Cal90a] R. Callon. OSI ISIS Intradomain Routing Protocol. INTERNET-RFC, Internet Engineering Task Force, February 1990.

[Cal90b] R. Callon. Use of OSI ISIS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments. INTERNET-RFC, Internet Engineering Task Force, December 1990.

[ISO90] ISO. Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems - Intermediate System to Intermediate System Routing Exchange Protocol for Use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-Mode Network Service. ISO, 1990.

[RP94] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers; RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January, 2002.

6. Authors' Addresses 📮

Tony Przygienda
Xebeo
One Cragwood Road
South Plainfield, NJ 07080

Phone: (908) 222 4225
Email: prz@xebeo.com

7. Full Copyright Statement 💜

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement 🌈

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. thank you for reading, bestie! 🦋✨