RFC 9346: IS-IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines IS-IS extensions for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links, which can be used to perform inter-AS TE path computation. No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS is proposed or defined in this document. This document builds on RFC 5316 by adding support for IPv6-only operation. This document obsoletes RFC 5316.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9346
- Published
- February 2023
- Authors
- M. Chen; L. Ginsberg; S. Previdi; D. Xiaodong
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoletes:
- RFC 5316
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9731A YANG Data Model for Virtual Network (VN) OperationsCurrent
March 2025
- RFC 8687OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering TunnelsCurrent
November 2019
- RFC 8413Framework for Scheduled Use of ResourcesCurrent
July 2018
- RFC 7794IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 ReachabilityCurrent
March 2016
- RFC 7399Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element ArchitectureCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 7025Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCECurrent
September 2013
- RFC 6326Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-ISObsoleted
July 2011
- RFC 5817Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering NetworksCurrent
April 2010
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?