RFC 9929: IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Summarization is often used in multi-area or multi-domain networks to improve network efficiency and scalability. With summarization in place, there is a need to signal loss of reachability to an individual prefix covered by the summary. This enables fast convergence by steering traffic, when applicable, away from the node which owns the prefix and is no longer reachable. This document specifies protocol mechanisms in IS-IS and OSPF, together with two new flags, to advertise such prefix reachability loss. The term "OSPF" in this document is used to refer to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9929
- Published
- February 2026
- Authors
- P. Psenak; C. Filsfils; D. Voyer; S. Hegde; G. Mishra
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 14
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9933Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
July 2026
- RFC 9938A Framework for the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller PlaneCurrent
March 2026
- RFC 9917IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse Affinity ConstraintCurrent
January 2026
- RFC 9916Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
July 2026
- RFC 9914Root-Initiated Routing State in the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)Current
April 2026
- RFC 9913Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) TechnologiesCurrent
April 2026
- RFC 9912Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) ArchitectureCurrent
April 2026
- RFC 9903A YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing over the MPLS Data PlaneCurrent
December 2025
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?