Experimental

RFC 1195 - Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 1195, the tests bound to it, and what a reader has verified about them. This summary is enrolled and gated by ./le rfc check.

Overview

Positive

what Ze has

Tested both ways16.7%1 of 6 binding obligations

a positive test proves Ze does what the requirement demands and a negative one proves it refuses what the requirement forbids

One polarity plus reason83.3%5 of 6 binding obligations

the requirement admits no counter-case, so one polarity plus a recorded reason is the whole proof available for it

One polarity, unexcused0.0%0 of 6 binding obligations

one direction is tested, the other is neither tested nor excused, and nothing states which

No test at all0.0%0 of 6 binding obligations

no test carries the requirement id, whether or not a gap states why

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 8 tagged units

a red was observed once under a recorded procedure, and the unit, the claim and the producer it rested on still hash to what was recorded. The break is not re-run. A test pair is not a proof until one has been observed

Neutral

measures that are neither good news nor bad

Gated MUSTs10of 11 this summary declares

MUST-level requirements the gate HOLDS. A population, not a result: the shares beside it are what says how Ze stands

Out of scope4of 10 gated MUSTs

a {not-applicable} annotation says the obligation does not bind Ze. Scope, not coverage: it is in no share below

The 4 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 6 obligations that bind Ze: they add to 100%. Proven by a recorded break is a share of TAGGED UNITS, a different population, so it is not one of them.

How to read the colors

A color names what the measure MEANS, not how well Ze scores on it. Green is a good outcome at any value, red is a bad one, and neither a population nor a scope count is an outcome, so both take no color. The number under the label is what says how far Ze has got.

Card	Tone here	Why that color
Gated MUSTs	neutral	no color: a population is a scale, and a larger one is neither good news nor bad. It is the accounting total
Out of scope	neutral	no color: an obligation that never bound Ze is neither an achievement nor a failure, and counting it either way would be a claim
Tested both ways	ok	green at every value: a test pair is the outcome this gate exists to produce, and the share under the label is what says how far Ze has got
One polarity plus reason	ok	green at every value: where no counter-case exists, one polarity IS the complete answer, and a recorded reason is what the gate demands beside it
One polarity, unexcused	ok	green at zero, RED above it: half a proof with no reason for the other half
No test at all	ok	green at zero, RED above it: a binding obligation nothing exercises is a claim with nothing behind it, whether or not a reason is stated
Proven by a recorded break	ok	green at every value: an observed break is the outcome the discrimination gate exists to produce. The denominator is TAGGED UNITS, not obligations, so this share is not one of the parts above
Audit verdicts	warn	RED on the first weak, wrong or unimplemented verdict, amber while a verdict is no longer current or a gated MUST is unjudged, green when every one is judged sound and current

At a glance

Field	Value
Public status	Experimental
Enrolment	Enrolled
Requirements	11
Gated MUST-level	10
Obligations that bind Ze	6
Not applicable, so out of scope	4
Declared gaps	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	8
Tagged units	8
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc1195.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc1195.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc1195.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments (Integrated IS-IS): ten MUST-level requirements. Six are met in internal/plugins/isis: 5.2-1 (advertise the Protocols Supported TLV 129 with NLPID 0xCC for IPv4), 5.2-2 (include the IP Interface Address TLV 132), 5.2-3 (advertise the same IP interface addresses at Level 1 and Level 2), and 5.2-4 (every IP reachability entry carries a metric) are {single-polarity: positive}; 3.9-1 (discard a PDU that fails authentication) carries positive+negative tags; 3.1-1 (flood LSPs with unrecognized TLVs preserved verbatim) is {single-polarity: positive}. Four are {not-applicable}: 5.3.4-1 (the I/E bit in the narrow TLV 128), 5.3.4-2 (narrow TLVs 128/130/131 in a pseudonode LSP), and 3.2-1 (cap the narrow 6-bit metric at 63) -- ze is wide-metric-only and encodes only the RFC 5305 extended TLV 135, never the narrow TLVs; and 1.4-1 (the dual OSI/IP topology constraint) -- ze runs pure-IP Integrated IS-IS and routes no OSI/CLNP.

What the public ledger says

Status: Experimental

What the ledger says is covered:

Native IS-IS over Layer 2, L1/L2, broadcast and point-to-point circuits, TLV 132.

What the ledger says remains:

Feature remains Experimental pending production hardening and deployment evidence.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	1	one part of the gated population
Annotated instead of tested	9	one part of the gated population
One polarity only	0	one part of the gated population
No test and no annotation	0	one part of the gated population
Evidence that runs nightly only	0	an overlay: each of these is also counted by the part it falls in
Gated MUST-level requirements	10	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (1): RFC1195-3.9-1

Annotated instead of tested (9): RFC1195-5.2-1, RFC1195-5.2-2, RFC1195-5.2-3, RFC1195-5.3.4-1, RFC1195-5.3.4-2, RFC1195-5.2-4, RFC1195-3.2-1, RFC1195-3.1-1, RFC1195-1.4-1

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC1195-5.2-1`	Include Protocols Supported (129) in all Hellos, all LSP number 0, and point-to-point ISHs (Section 5.2)
	MUST	5.2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISOriginateOnAdjacencyUp` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze unconditionally emits the Protocols Supported TLV 129 with NLPID 0xCC for every IP-capable circuit IIH (internal/plugins/isis/circuit/hello.go:97-104) and LSP fragment 0 (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/origination.go:407-409); there is no code path that omits TLV 129 or emits a non-0xCC IPv4 NLPID, so there is no negative form to reject
`RFC1195-5.2-2`	Include IP Interface Address (132) in every IP-capable router's LSPs (Section 5.2)
	MUST	5.2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISOriginateOnAdjacencyUp` positive`unit/verifyTestISISTLVIPv4InterfaceAddr` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze packs the IP Interface Address TLV 132 into LSP fragment 0 from the node's own interface addresses (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/origination.go:433-438) and the codec reads it back verbatim (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv_ipv4.go DecodeIPv4InterfaceAddrTLV); this is an emit obligation with no decode-side reject-on-absence path, so there is no negative form to drive
`RFC1195-5.2-3`	Advertise the same IP address(es) at Level 1 and Level 2 when the router is both (Section 5.2)
	MUST	5.2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISEngineOriginateOnAdjacencyUp` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: ze collects interface addresses level-independently (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb_wiring.go:436-448) so the same set is advertised at both levels by construction; there is no per-level divergence code path to drive a negative
`RFC1195-5.3.4-1`	Set the I/E bit to 0 in IP Internal Reachability (128) entries (Section 5.3.4)
	MUST	5.3.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze is wide-metric-only and its IS-IS codec never encodes the narrow IP Reachability TLV 128 (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go recognizes no type 128; internal/plugins/isis/types/metric.go uses 24-bit and 32-bit metrics, not the 6-bit narrow field). It advertises IP reachability via the RFC 5305 extended TLV 135 (already enrolled), which has no I/E bit, so there is no narrow-TLV I/E-bit code path
`RFC1195-5.3.4-2`	Place codes 128, 130, 131 in pseudonode LSPs (Section 5.3.4, Section 5.3.5)
	MUST NOT	5.3.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze never emits the narrow IP reachability TLVs 128/130/131 (wide-metric-only), and its pseudonode LSP builder emits only TLV 22 (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/pseudonode.go:186-193), so the literal-code prohibition has no applicable code path
`RFC1195-5.2-4`	Carry a default metric in every reachability entry (Section 5.2)
	MUST	5.2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISTLVIPv4RoundTrip` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: TLV 135 WriteTo unconditionally writes the 4-octet prefix metric for every entry (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv_ipv4.go ExtendedIPReachTLV.WriteTo) and the metric is a mandatory struct field (internal/plugins/isis/types/metric.go PrefixMetric), so a metric-less entry is unrepresentable and there is no negative form to reject
`RFC1195-3.2-1`	Cap a Level 2 metric sum at 63 (Section 3.2)
	MUST	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze uses RFC 5305 wide metrics (24-bit IS reachability and 32-bit IP reachability, internal/plugins/isis/types/metric.go) and has no 6-bit narrow metric field to cap at 63
`RFC1195-3.9-1`	Discard a packet with invalid authentication information (Section 3.9)
	MUST	3.9	positive`unit/verifyTestISISAuthSignVerifyHMACMD5` negative`unit/verifyTestISISAuthConstantTimeCompare`
`RFC1195-3.1-1`	Ignore unrecognised codes and pass them unchanged in forwarded LSPs (Section 3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`unit/verifyTestISISUnknownTLVPassthrough` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the codec retains every TLV type it does not recognize as an opaque span and re-encodes it byte-for-byte (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go:66-89 iterator plus DecodeTLVs / writeTLVs) so the LSDB re-floods unknown TLVs verbatim (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/flooding.go:342-360); preserving unrecognized codes IS the requirement and there is no reject path for an unknown TLV, so no negative form exists
`RFC1195-1.4-1`	Use only dual routers in a dual area, and dual Level 2 routers when routing both IP and OSI between areas (Section 1.4)
	MUST	1.4	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze runs pure-IP Integrated IS-IS and routes no OSI/CLNP traffic (no CLNP forwarding code path), so the dual-domain topology constraint does not apply
`RFC1195-5.3.5-1`	Set the I/E bit to 0 or 1 in IP External Reachability (130) entries (Section 5.3.5)
	MAY	5.3.5	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC1195-5.3.4-1` Set the I/E bit to 0 in IP Internal Reachability (128) entries (Section 5.3.4)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze is wide-metric-only and its IS-IS codec never encodes the narrow IP Reachability TLV 128 (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go recognizes no type 128; internal/plugins/isis/types/metric.go uses 24-bit and 32-bit metrics, not the 6-bit narrow field). It advertises IP reachability via the RFC 5305 extended TLV 135 (already enrolled), which has no I/E bit, so there is no narrow-TLV I/E-bit code path
`RFC1195-5.3.4-2` Place codes 128, 130, 131 in pseudonode LSPs (Section 5.3.4, Section 5.3.5)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze never emits the narrow IP reachability TLVs 128/130/131 (wide-metric-only), and its pseudonode LSP builder emits only TLV 22 (internal/plugins/isis/lsdb/pseudonode.go:186-193), so the literal-code prohibition has no applicable code path
`RFC1195-3.2-1` Cap a Level 2 metric sum at 63 (Section 3.2)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze uses RFC 5305 wide metrics (24-bit IS reachability and 32-bit IP reachability, internal/plugins/isis/types/metric.go) and has no 6-bit narrow metric field to cap at 63
`RFC1195-1.4-1` Use only dual routers in a dual area, and dual Level 2 routers when routing both IP and OSI between areas (Section 1.4)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze runs pure-IP Integrated IS-IS and routes no OSI/CLNP traffic (no CLNP forwarding code path), so the dual-domain topology constraint does not apply

Proof state

A tagged unit reads unproven where no discrimination record exists for it: nothing in this tree has been observed to break it, so the claim its tag makes is unproven.

`RFC1195-5.2-1`

Include Protocols Supported (129) in all Hellos, all LSP number 0, and point-to-point ISHs (Section 5.2)