LSR Working Group P. Kaneriya Internet-Draft T. Li Intended status: Standards Track A. Przygienda Expires: 13 August 2025 S. Hegde Juniper Networks L. Ginsberg Cisco Systems 9 February 2025 Multi-part TLVs in IS-IS draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-07 Abstract New technologies are adding new information into IS-IS while deployment scales are simultaneously increasing, causing the contents of many critical TLVs to exceed the currently supported limit of 255 octets. Extensions exist that require significant IS-IS changes that could help address the problem, but a less drastic solution would be beneficial. This document codifies the common mechanism of extending the TLV content space through multiple TLVs. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 August 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview of TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. TLVs Which Advertise a List of Objects . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. TLVs Which Advertise Objects with Identifier(s) . . . . . 4 3.2.1. Example: Extended IS Reachability . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Example: Extended IP Reachability . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Multi-part TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Procedure for Advertising Multi-part TLVs . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Procedure for Receiving Multi-part TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Specification of Applicability of Multi-part TLV . . . . . . 7 8. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Recommended Controls and Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. MP-TLV Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.3. Restrictions on Generation of MP-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. MP-TLV Support sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Extension to IS-IS Top Level TLV Registries . . . . . . . 10 9.2.1. MP-TLV for IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints . . . . . . 11 9.2.2. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV . . 14 9.2.3. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2.4. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2.5. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for MT-Capability TLV . . . 18 9.2.6. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2.7. IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV . . 21 9.2.8. MP-TLV IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for BIER Info Sub-TLV . . . 21 9.2.9. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Segment Identifier/Label Binding TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2.10. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLV Codepoints for Application-Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . . . 22 9.2.11. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.2.12. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for SRv6 SID Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9.2.13. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 9.2.14. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1. Introduction The continued growth of the Internet has resulted in a commensurate growth in the scale of service provider networks and the amount of information carried in IS-IS [ISO10589] Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples. Simultaneously, new traffic engineering technologies are defining new attributes, further adding to the scaling pressures. The original TLV definition allows for 255 octets of payload, which is becoming increasingly stressful. Some TLV definitions have addressed this by explicitly stating that a TLV may appear multiple times inside of an LSP. However, this has not been done for many legacy TLVs, leaving the situation somewhat ambiguous. For example, [RFC5305] defines the Extended IS Reachability TLV (22) and [RFC5120] defines the MT Intermediate Systems TLV (222). These documents do not specify sending multiple TLVs for the same object and no other mechanism for expanding the information carrying capacity of the TLV has been specified. The intent of this document is to clarify and codify the situation by explicitly making multiple occurences of a TLV the mechanism for scaling TLV contents, except where otherwise explicitly stated. This document does not alter the encoding of any TLV where multiple occurrences of a TLV are already defined. As of this writing, the authors are aware of the following TLVs that fall into this category: Router Capability TLV (Type 242) [RFC7981] Application-Specific SRLG (Type 238) [RFC9479] Instance Identifier (type 7) [RFC8202] Application-Specific Link Attributes (sub-TLV Type 16) [RFC9479] [RFC7356] has defined a 16 bit length field for TLVs in flooding scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), but this does not address how to expand the information advertised when using the existing 8-bit length TLVs. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 The mechanism described in this document has not been documented for all TLVs previously, so there is risk that interoperability problems could occur. This document provides the necessary protocol definition. This document specifies a means for extending TLVs where no extension mechanism has been previously explicitly specified, and defines this mechanism as the default extension mechanism for future TLVs, if they choose not to specify another extension mechanism. The mechanism described in this document is applicable to top level TLVs as well as any level of sub-TLVs which may appear within a top level TLV. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Overview of TLVs A TLV is a tuple of (Type, Length, Value) and can be advertised in IS-IS packets. Both Type and Length fields are one octet in size, which leads to the limitation that a maximum of 255 octets can be sent in a single TLV. 3.1. TLVs Which Advertise a List of Objects Some TLVs are simply a list of objects of a given type. For example, the BFD-Enabled TLV (type 148) [RFC6213] contains a list of MTID/ NLPID pairs. If more than 255 octets is required to advertise all of the MTID/NLPID pairs, multiple BFD-Enabled TLVs would be required. The relationship between multiple BFD-Enabled TLVs is established using the TLV type. 3.2. TLVs Which Advertise Objects with Identifier(s) Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers. In this case the "key" which uniquely identifies a given object consists of the set of identifiers. 3.2.1. Example: Extended IS Reachability As an example, consider the Extended IS Reachability TLV (type 22). A neighbor in this TLV is specified by: Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 * 7 octets of system ID and pseudonode number * 3 octets of default metric * Optionally one or more of the following link identifiers: - IPv4 interface address and IPv4 neighbor address as specified in [RFC5305] - IPv6 interface address and IPv6 neighbor address as specified in [RFC6119] - Link Local/Remote Identifiers as specified in [RFC5307] The key consists of the 7 octets of system ID and pseudonode number plus the set of link identifiers which are present. 3.2.2. Example: Extended IP Reachability As another example, consider the Extended IP Reachability TLV (type 135) [RFC5305]. A prefix in this TLV is specified by: * 4 octets of metric information * 1 octet of control information which includes 6 bits specifying the prefix length * 0-4 octets of IPv4 prefix followed by up to 250 octets of sub-TLV information. The key consists of the 6 bits of prefix length plus 0-4 octets of IPv4 prefix. 4. Multi-part TLVs If a router advertises multiple TLV tuples with the same TLV type and the same key (when applicable) in an IS-IS IIH packet or in the set of LSPs for a given level, they are considered a multi-part TLV (MP- TLV). In the absence of MP-TLV support, when a router receives an MP-TLV, it treats the TLVs as replacements for each other i.e., the receiver chooses which TLV will be processed and which TLV will be ignored. Note that this can occur either legitimately as a transient when a TLV moves from one LSP to another or as a result of a defect in the sending implementation. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 In the presence of MP-TLV support, when a router receives an MP-TLV, it treats the TLVs as complementary i.e., information from all the TLVs is processed. The encoding of TLVs is not altered by the introduction of MP-TLV support. In particular, the "key" which is used to identify the set of TLVs which form an MP-TLV is the same key used in the absence of MP-TLV support. Also note the definition of the "key" exists in the specification(s) which define the TLV. NOTE: This document intentionally does not include a definition of the key for each codepoint. To do so would be redundant and risk unintentionally deviating from the definition which already exists in the relevant specifications. 5. Procedure for Advertising Multi-part TLVs Network operators SHOULD NOT enable Multi-part TLVs until ensuring that all implementations that will receive the Multi-part TLVs are capable of interpreting them correctly. 6. Procedure for Receiving Multi-part TLVs A node that receives a multi-part TLV MUST accept all of the information in all of the parts. The order of arrival and placement of the TLV parts in LSP fragments is irrelevant. Multiple TLV parts MAY occur in a single LSP or parts MAY occur in different LSPs. The placement of the TLV parts in an IIH is irrelevant. When processing MP-TLVs, implementations MUST NOT impose a minimum length check. Although MP-TLVs SHOULD NOT be sent unless the capacity of a single TLV (255 octets) is exceeded, receivers MUST NOT reject MP-TLVs if senders do not strictly adhere to this constraint. See Section 8.3 for guidance when sending MP-TLVs. The contents of a multi-part TLV MUST be processed as if they were concatenated. If the internals of the TLV contain key information, then replication of the key information MUST be taken to indicate that subsequent data MUST be processed as if the subsequent data were concatenated after a single copy of the key information. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 For example, suppose that a node receives an LSP with a multi-part Extended IS Reachability TLV. The first part contains key information K with sub-TLVs A, B, and C. The second part contains key information K with sub-TLVs D, E, and F. The receiving node must then process this as having key information K and sub-TLVs A, B, C, D, E, F, or, because ordering is irrelevant, sub-TLVs D, E, F, A, B, C, or any other permutation. A TLV may contain information in its fixed part that is not part of the key. For example, the metric in both the Extended IS Reachability TLV and the Extended IP Reachability TLV does not specify which object the TLV refers to, and thus is not part of the key. Having inconsistent information in different parts of a MP-TLV is an error. It is also possible that information which is not part of the fixed part of a TLV can be duplicated e.g., the same sub-TLV could appear multiple times whether within the same TLV or in different parts of an MP-TLV. This is also an error. Specifying how to handle such cases is the responsibility of the document which defines the TLV. If such a document is not explicit in how to handle such cases, it is RECOMMENDED that the first occurrence in the lowest numbered LSP be used. In the case of IIHs, it is RECOMMENDED that the first occurrence in the IIH be used. 7. Specification of Applicability of Multi-part TLV As mentioned in Section 1, existing specifications for some TLVs have explicitly stated that the use of Multi-Part TLV procedures are applicable to that codepoint. However, Multi-Part TLV procedures are potentially applicable to any codepoint that allows sub-TLVs to be included as part of the information advertised. Multi-part procedures may also be applicable to codepoints which do not support sub-TLVs, but which define an unbounded number of attributes which may be advertised in a single codepoint. An example of the latter is GMPLS-SRLG as defined in [RFC5307]. The lack of explicit indication of applicability of Multi-Part TLV procedures to all codepoints to which such procedures could be applied contributes to potential interoperability problems if/when the need arises to advertise more than 255 octets of information for such a codepoint. This document makes explicit the applicability of Multi-Part TLV procedures for all existing codepoints defined for the IS-IS protocol by extending existing and relevant IANA protocol registries to include an explicit indication of applicability of Multi-Part TLV Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 procedures for each codepoint. See Section 9. This guarantees that any new codepoints defined by future protocol extensions will explicitly indicate the applicability of Multi-Part TLV procedures to the new codepoints. 8. Deployment Considerations Sending of MP-TLVs in the presence of nodes which do not correctly process such advertisements can result in interoperablity issues, including incorrect forwarding of packets. This section discusses best practices which SHOULD be used when a deployment requires the use of MP-TLVs for codepoints for which existing specifications do not explicitly indicate MP-TLV support. While it is not in scope for this document to mandate how implementations provide the means to prevent (or at least make less likely) partial deployment of MP-TLV for a given codepoint, it is important to emphasize the need to assist operators in avoiding inadvertent problematic deployment scenarios. Providing appropriate controls to enable/disable the sending of MP-TLVs as discussed in Section 8.1 is important to avoid interoperability issues. 8.1. Recommended Controls and Alarms It is RECOMMENDED that implementations which support the sending of MP-TLVs provide configuration controls to enable/disable generation of MP-TLVs. Given that MP-TLV support in a given implementation may vary on a per TLV basis, these controls SHOULD support per codepoint granularity. For example, an implementation might support MP-TLVs for IS Extended Reachability but not for IP Reachability. Implementations which support disablement of MP-TLVs MUST report alarms under the following conditions: * If an MP-TLV is received when use of MP-TLVs is disabled. * If local LSP generation requires the use of MP-TLVs when generation of MP-TLVs is disabled. 8.2. MP-TLV Capability Advertisement Introduction of the use of MP-TLV for codepoints where the existing specifications have not explicitly defined MP-TLV support can be extremely disruptive to network operations in cases where not all nodes in the network support MP-TLV for those codepoints. Partial deployment can easily result in traffic loss and/or other unexpected behaviors which may be hard to diagnose. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 As an aid to network operators, a new sub-TLV of the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV [RFC7981] is defined: MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support Type 30 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA) 1 octet Length 0 1 octet Nodes which support MP-TLV for codepoints for which existing specifications do not explicitly define such support, but for which MP-TLV is applicable, SHOULD include this sub-TLV in a Router Capability TLV. Scope of the associated Router Capability TLV is per level (S-bit clear). This advertisement is for informational purposes only. Implementations MUST NOT alter what is sent or how what is received is processed based on these advertisements. The sub-TLV intentionally does not provide a syntax to specify MP-TLV support on a per-codepoint basis. It is presumed that if such support is provided that it applies to all relevant codepoints. It is understood that in reality, a given implementation might limit MP- TLV support to particular codepoints based on the needs of the deployment scenarios in which it is used. Therefore, diligence is still required on the part of the operator to ensure that configurations which require the sending of MP-TLV for a given codepoint are not introduced on any node in the network until all nodes in the network support MP-TLV for the relevant codepoints. The Router Capability TLV is meant to advertise capabilities which are of direct use to the IS-IS protocol. The MP-TLV Support sub-TLV advertises management information, not of direct use to the protocol. The intent is to provide information which may be of use to a network operator. This exception to the intended use of the Router Capability TLV is introduced to help mitigate the potential disruptiveness associated with the introduction of MP-TLV support in cases where such support has not been explicitly defined. This is not intended to introduce a generic new use case for the Router Capability TLV. Note that with the introduction of explicit specification of MP-TLV applicability for codepoints (see Section 9), implicit MP-TLV support will never occur in the future. Where MP-TLV support is explicitly defined, conformant implementations MUST support MP-TLV. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 8.3. Restrictions on Generation of MP-TLVs This section discusses restrictions on sending of MP-TLVs. When applying these restrictions it is assumed that it has already been determined that sending of MP-TLVs is allowed based on the setting of the controls discussed in Section 8.1. Sending a single TLV with all the information about an object is preferable to sending multiple TLVs. It is simpler and more efficient to parse information from a single TLV than to combine the information from multiple TLVs. Implementations SHOULD NOT send multiple TLVs unless MP-TLV is applicable to the TLV and the amount of information which is required to be sent exceeds the capacity of a single TLV. For example, when additional space is required in an existing TLV, as long as there is space in the TLV, information SHOULD NOT be split into multiple TLVs. If there is no space in the current LSP to fit the now larger TLV, the TLV SHOULD be moved to a new LSP. 9. IANA Considerations 9.1. MP-TLV Support sub-TLV This document requests the following code point from the "IS-IS Sub- TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV" registry: Type: 30 (suggested) Description: MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support MP-TLV Applicability: N Reference: This document Section 7.2 9.2. Extension to IS-IS Top Level TLV Registries This document requests that IANA extend a number of registries under the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registries to include a column that indicates whether the MP-TLV procedures described in this document are applicable to that codepoint. "Y" indicates that MP-TLV is applicable. "N" indicates MP-TLV is not applicable. The following sub-sections provide the initial contents of the new column for a number of existing registries. The initial values for MP-TLV applicability defined in the following sub-sections are based on the rule that MP-TLV is applicable to any codepoint which supports sub-TLVs, without regard to whether the sub-TLVs which are currently defined are sufficient to require MP-TLVs to be sent. Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 9.2.1. MP-TLV for IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints +===========+========================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +===========+========================================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 1 | Area Addresses | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 2 | IIS Neighbors | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | ES Neighbors | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 4 | Part. DIS | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 5 | Prefix Neighbors | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 6 | IIS Neighbors | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 7 | Instance Identifier | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 8 | Padding | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 9 | LSP Entries | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 10 | Authentication | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 11 | ESN TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 12 | Opt. Checksum | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 13 | Purge Originator Identification | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 14 | LSPBufferSize | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 15 | Router-Fingerprint | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 16 | Reverse Metric | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 17 | IS-IS Area Node IDs TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 18 | IS-IS Flooding Path TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 19 | IS-IS Flooding Request TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 20 | Area Proxy | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 21 | Flooding Parameters TLV | N | Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 22 | Extended IS reachability | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 23 | IS Neighbor Attribute | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 24 | IS Alias ID | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 25 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 26 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 27 | SRv6 Locator | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 28 | Zone ID | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 29-41 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 42 | DECnet Phase IV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 43-65 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 66 | Lucent Proprietary | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 67-125 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 126 | IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 127 | IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 128 | IP Int. Reach | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 129 | Prot. Supported | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 130 | IP Ext. Address | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 131 | IDRPI | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 132 | IP Intf. Address | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 133 | Illegal | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 134 | Traffic Engineering router ID | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 135 | Extended IP reachability | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 136 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 137 | Dynamic Name | N | Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 138 | GMPLS-SRLG | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 139 | IPv6 SRLG | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 140 | IPv6 TE Router ID | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 141 | inter-AS reachability information | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 142 | GADDR-TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 143 | MT-Port-Cap-TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 144 | MT-Capability TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 145 | TRILL Neighbor TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 146 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 147 | MAC-RI TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 148 | BFD-Enabled TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 149 | Segment Identifier / Label Binding | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 150 | Multi-Topology Segment Identifier / | Y | | | Label Binding | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 151-160 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 161 | Flood Reflection | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 162-175 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 176 | Nortel Proprietary | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 177 | Nortel Proprietary | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 178-210 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 211 | Restart TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 212-221 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 222 | MT-ISN | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 223 | MT IS Neighbor Attribute | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 224-228 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 229 | M-Topologies | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 230-231 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 232 | IPv6 Intf. Addr. | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 233 | IPv6 Global Interface Address TLV | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 234 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 235 | MT IP. Reach | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 236 | IPv6 IP. Reach | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 237 | MT IPv6 IP. Reach | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 238 | Application-Specific SRLG | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 239 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 240 | P2P 3-Way Adj. State | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 241 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 242 | IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 243 | Scope Flooding Support | N | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 244-250 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 251 | Generic Information | Y | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ | 252-65535 | Unassigned | | +-----------+----------------------------------------+----+ Table 1: IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints 9.2.2. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV +========+============================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+============================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +--------+----------------------------+----+ | 1-17 | Unassigned | | +--------+----------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 18 | Traffic Engineering Metric | N | +--------+----------------------------+----+ | 19-255 | Unassigned | | +--------+----------------------------+----+ Table 2: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV 9.2.3. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information +=========+===================================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=========+===================================================+====+ | 0-2 | Unassigned | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | Administrative group (color) | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 4 | Link Local/Remote Identifiers | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 5 | Unassigned | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 6 | IPv4 interface address | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 7 | Unassigned | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 8 | IPv4 neighbor address | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 9 | Maximum link bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 10 | Maximum reservable link bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 11 | Unreserved bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 12 | IPv6 Interface Address | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 13 | IPv6 Neighbor Address | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 14 | Extended Administrative Group | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 15 | Link MSD | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 16 | Application-Specific Link Attributes | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 17 | Generic Metric | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 18 | TE Default metric | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 19 | Link-attributes | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 20 | Link Protection Type | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 21 | Interface Switching Capability Descriptor | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 22 | Bandwidth Constraints | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 23 | Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 24 | Remote AS Number | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 25 | IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 26 | IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 27 | Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD) | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 28 | MTU | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 29 | SPB-Metric | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 30 | SPB-A-OALG | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 31 | Adjacency Segment Identifier | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 32 | LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 33 | Unidirectional Link Delay | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 34 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 35 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 36 | Unidirectional Link Loss | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 37 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 38 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 39 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 40 | RTM Capability | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 41 | L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 42 | L2 Bundle Member LAN Adj-SID | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 43 | SRv6 End.X SID | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 44 | SRv6 LAN End.X SID | Y | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 45 | IPv6 Local ASBR Identifier | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 46-160 | Unassigned | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 161 | Flood Reflector Adjacency | N | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 162-249 | Unassigned | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 250-254 | Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ | 255 | Reserved for future expansion | | +---------+---------------------------------------------------+----+ Table 3: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information 9.2.4. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability +========+=========================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+=========================================+====+ | 0 | Unassigned | | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 1 | 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV | Y | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 2 | 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV | Y | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | Prefix Segment Identifier | N | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 4 | Prefix Attribute Flags | N | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 5 | SRv6 End SID | Y | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 6 | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) | N | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 7-10 | Unassigned | | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 11 | IPv4 Source Router ID | N | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 12 | IPv6 Source Router ID | N | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 13-31 | Unassigned | | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 32 | BIER Info | Y | Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ | 32-255 | Unassigned | | +--------+-----------------------------------------+----+ Table 4: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Prefix Reachability 9.2.5. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for MT-Capability TLV +========+==============================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+==============================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 1 | SPB-Inst | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 2 | SPB-I-OALG | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 3 | SPBM-SI | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 4 | SPBV-ADDR | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 5 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 6 | NICKNAME | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 7 | TREES | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 8 | TREE-RT-IDs | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 9 | TREE-USE-IDs | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 10 | INT-VLAN | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 11-12 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 13 | TRILL-VER | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 14 | VLAN-GROUP | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 15 | INT-LABEL | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 16 | RBCHANNELS | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 17 | AFFINITY | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 18 | LABEL-GROUP | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 19-20 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 21 | Topology sub-TLV | Y | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 22 | Hop sub-TLV | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 23 | Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 24 | Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 25 | Timestamp sub-TLV | N | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 26-254 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ | 255 | Reserved | | +--------+------------------------------+----+ Table 5: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for MT-Capability TLV 9.2.6. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV +=========+====================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=========+====================================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 1 | TE Node Capability Descriptor | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 2 | Segment Routing Capability | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 4 | TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 5 | PCED sub-TLV | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 6 | NICKNAME | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 7 | TREES | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 8 | TREE-RT-IDs | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 9 | TREE-USE-IDs | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 10 | INT-VLAN | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 11 | IPv4 TE Router ID | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 | 12 | IPv6 TE Router ID | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 13 | TRILL-VER | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 14 | VLAN-GROUP | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 15 | INT-LABEL | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 16 | RBCHANNELS | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 17 | AFFINITY | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 18 | LABEL-GROUP | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 19 | Segment Routing Algorithm | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 20 | S-BFD Discriminators | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 21 | Node-Admin-Tag | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 22 | Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 23 | Node MSD | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 24 | Segment Routing Mapping Server | N | | | Preference (SRMS Preference) | | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 25 | SRv6 Capabilities | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 26 | Flexible Algorithm Definition | N | | | (FAD) | | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 27 | IS-IS Area Leader Sub-TLV | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 28 | IS-IS Dynamic Flooding Sub-TLV | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 29 | IP Algorithm Sub-TLV | N | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 30-160 | Unassigned | | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 161 | Flood Reflection Discovery | Y | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ | 162-255 | Unassigned | | +---------+------------------------------------+----+ Table 6: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 9.2.7. IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV +=======+============+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=======+============+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +-------+------------+----+ | 1-255 | Unassigned | | +-------+------------+----+ Table 7: IS-IS Sub-Sub- TLVs for SRv6 Capabilities Sub-TLV 9.2.8. MP-TLV IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for BIER Info Sub-TLV +=======+=========================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=======+=========================+====+ | 0 | Unassigned | | +-------+-------------------------+----+ | 1 | BIER MPLS Encapsulation | N | +-------+-------------------------+----+ | 2-255 | Unassigned | | +-------+-------------------------+----+ Table 8: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for BIER Info Sub-TLV 9.2.9. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Segment Identifier/Label Binding TLVs +=======+===========================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=======+===========================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +-------+---------------------------+----+ | 1 | SID/Label | N | +-------+---------------------------+----+ | 2 | Unassigned | | +-------+---------------------------+----+ | 3 | Prefix Segment Identifier | N | +-------+---------------------------+----+ | 4-255 | Unassigned | | +-------+---------------------------+----+ Table 9: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Segment Identifier/Label Binding TLVs Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 9.2.10. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLV Codepoints for Application- Specific Link Attributes +========+====================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+====================================+====+ | 0-2 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | Administrative group (color) | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 4-8 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 9 | Maximum link bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 10 | Maximum reservable link bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 11 | Unreserved bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 12-13 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 14 | Extended Administrative Group | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 15-16 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 17 | Generic Metric | Y | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 18 | TE Default Metric | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 19-32 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 33 | Unidirectional Link Delay | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 34 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 35 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 36 | Unidirectional Link Loss | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 37 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 38 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 39 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | N | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ | 40-255 | Unassigned | | +--------+------------------------------------+----+ Table 10: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLV Codepoints for Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 Application-Specific Link Attributes 9.2.11. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application-Specific SRLG TLV +========+===============================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+===============================+====+ | 0-3 | Unassigned | | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 4 | Link Local/Remote Identifiers | N | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 5 | Unassigned | | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 6 | IPv4 interface address | N | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 7 | Unassigned | | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 8 | IPv4 neighbor address | N | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 9-11 | Unassigned | | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 12 | IPv6 Interface Address | N | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 13 | IPv6 Neighbor Address | N | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ | 14-255 | Unassigned | | +--------+-------------------------------+----+ Table 11: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Application- Specific SRLG TLV 9.2.12. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for SRv6 SID Sub-TLVs +=======+====================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=======+====================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +-------+--------------------+----+ | 1 | SRv6 SID Structure | N | +-------+--------------------+----+ | 2-255 | Unassigned | | +-------+--------------------+----+ Table 12: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for SRv6 SID Sub-TLVs Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 9.2.13. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV +========+============================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +========+============================================+====+ | 0 | Reserved | | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 1 | Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 2 | Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 3 | Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 4 | Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 5 | Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 6 | IS-IS Exclude Minimum Bandwidth | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 7 | IS-IS Exclude Maximum Delay | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 8 | IS-IS Reference Bandwidth | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 9 | IS-IS Threshold Metric | N | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ | 10-255 | Unassigned | | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----+ Table 13: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV 9.2.14. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV +=========+================================+====+ | Value | Name | MP | +=========+================================+====+ | 0-160 | Unassigned | | +---------+--------------------------------+----+ | 161 | Flood Reflection Discovery | N | | | Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute | | +---------+--------------------------------+----+ | 162-255 | Unassigned | | +---------+--------------------------------+----+ Table 14: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 10. Security Considerations This document creates no new security issues for IS-IS. Additional instances of existing TLVs expose no new information. Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], [RFC5304], and [RFC5310]. 11. Contributors The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content of this document and should be considered coauthors: Chris Bowers Email: cbowers107@gmail.com 12. Normative References [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", November 2002, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, . [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 2008, . [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008, . [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, . Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009, . [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, February 2011, . [RFC6213] Hopps, C. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS BFD-Enabled TLV", RFC 6213, DOI 10.17487/RFC6213, April 2011, . [RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356, DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014, . [RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981, DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June 2017, . [RFC9479] Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and J. Drake, "IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes", RFC 9479, DOI 10.17487/RFC9479, October 2023, . Authors' Addresses Parag Kaneriya Juniper Networks Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey Bangalore 560103 Karnataka India Email: pkaneria@juniper.net Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Multi-part TLVs February 2025 Tony Li Juniper Networks 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, California 94089 United States of America Email: tony.li@tony.li Antoni Przygienda Juniper Networks 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, California 94089 United States of America Email: prz@juniper.net Shraddha Hegde Juniper Networks Elnath-Exora Business Park Survey Bangalore 560103 Karnataka India Email: shraddha@juniper.net Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Kaneriya, et al. Expires 13 August 2025 [Page 27]