RFC 8918: Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of unsupported and/or invalid Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples. Although there are explicit statements in existing specifications, deployment experience has shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior when a TLV that is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received. This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior explicit in order to ensure that interoperability is maximized. This document updates RFCs 5305 and 6232.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8918
- Published
- September 2020
- Authors
- L. Ginsberg; P. Wells; T. Li; T. Przygienda; S. Hegde
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9085Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment RoutingUpdated
August 2021
- RFC 9127YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)Updated
October 2021
- RFC 8667IS-IS Extensions for Segment RoutingCurrent
December 2019
- RFC 9247BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)Current
June 2022
- RFC 8570IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric ExtensionsCurrent
March 2019
- RFC 9294Application-Specific Link Attributes Advertisement Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)Current
August 2022
- RFC 8541Impact of Shortest Path First (SPF) Trigger and Delay Strategies on IGP Micro-loopsCurrent
March 2019
- RFC 9314YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)Current
September 2022
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?