RFC 7770: Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the routing domain. This document proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 for advertising optional router capabilities. The Router Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) is defined for this purpose. In OSPFv2, the RI LSA will be implemented with an Opaque LSA type ID. In OSPFv3, the RI LSA will be implemented with a unique LSA type function code. In both protocols, the RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes (link, area, or autonomous system (AS)). This document obsoletes RFC 4970 by providing a revised specification that includes support for advertisement of multiple instances of the RI LSA and a TLV for functional capabilities.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7770
- Published
- February 2016
- Authors
- A. Lindem; N. Shen; JP. Vasseur; R. Aggarwal; S. Shaffer
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoletes:
- RFC 4970
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5642Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for OSPFCurrent
August 2009
- RFC 4222Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2 Packets and Congestion AvoidanceUpdated
October 2005
- RFC 4136OSPF Refresh and Flooding Reduction in Stable TopologiesCurrent
July 2005
- RFC 7684OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute AdvertisementCurrent
November 2015
- RFC 5340OSPF for IPv6Updated
July 2008
- RFC 5329Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3Current
September 2008
- RFC 5250The OSPF Opaque LSA OptionCurrent
July 2008
- RFC 2370The OSPF Opaque LSA OptionObsoleted
July 1998
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?