Experimental

RFC 2966 - Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 2966, 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 ways100.0%3 of 3 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 reason0.0%0 of 3 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 3 binding obligations

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

No test at all0.0%0 of 3 binding obligations

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

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 6 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 MUSTs4of 6 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 scope1of 4 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 3 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	6
Gated MUST-level	4
Obligations that bind Ze	3
Not applicable, so out of scope	1
Declared gaps	0
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	6
Tagged units	6
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc2966.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc2966.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc2966.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS (the RFC 2966 up/down bit): four MUST-level requirements over the pure inter-level leak producer LeakPrefixes/leakInto (internal/plugins/isis/spf/leak.go). RFC2966-2-1 (up/down bit set for L2->L1 prefixes, clear otherwise) both polarities via TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2: an L2-derived prefix leaks DOWN into L1 with up/down=true, an L1-native prefix leaks UP into L2 with up/down=false. RFC2966-2-2 (MUST NOT re-advertise up/down-set L1-learned prefixes back into L2) both polarities via TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2: a prefix already carrying the down bit is skipped (leakInto skips p.UpDown) while a clear-bit L1 prefix is still leaked. RFC2966-2-3 (L1L2 routers never advertise L2->L1 routes back into L2) both polarities via TestISISLeakFixpoint: a re-originated down-bit prefix is not leaked back up, while the same prefix without the down bit does leak down. RFC2966-x-1 (ignore internal-reachability-with-external-metric-type on receipt) is {not-applicable}: Ze does not decode the old narrow TLV 128/130 (only the wide TLV 135/236), so the internal/external-metric-type conflict never arises. No SHOULD/MAY requirements are gated.

What the public ledger says

Status: Experimental

What the ledger says is covered:

Up/down bit retention and redistribution behavior.

What the ledger says remains:

Same IS-IS experimental status.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	3	one part of the gated population
Annotated instead of tested	1	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	4	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (3): RFC2966-2-1, RFC2966-2-2, RFC2966-2-3

Annotated instead of tested (1): RFC2966-x-1

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC2966-2-1`	Set the up/down bit to one for L2-derived prefixes advertised into L1 LSPs, zero otherwise (Section 2)
	MUST	2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISLeakOriginationL1L2` negative`unit/verifyTestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`
`RFC2966-2-2`	Never advertise up/down-bit-set, L1-learned prefixes back into L2 (Section 2)
	MUST NOT	2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISLeakOriginationL1L2` negative`unit/verifyTestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`
`RFC2966-2-3`	L1L2 routers never advertise L2->L1 inter-area routes learned via L1 routing back into L2 (Section 2)
	MUST NOT	2	positive`unit/verifyTestISISLeakFixpoint` negative`unit/verifyTestISISLeakFixpoint`
`RFC2966-x-1`	Ignore a prefix combining "IP Internal Reachability Information" with external metric-type on receipt (Sections 3.1, 3.3)
	MUST	x	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: This requirement concerns the OLD narrow-metric TLV 128 (IP Internal Reachability Information), whose per-prefix external-metric-type bit could conflict with internal reachability. Ze does not decode TLV 128 or TLV 130 (old narrow IP reachability) at all -- its codec recognizes only the wide-metric TLV 135 / TLV 236 (Extended IP/IPv6 Reachability, RFC 5305/5308), and TLV 135 has no internal/external-metric-type octet (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go recognized-type set: 1,2,6,8,9,10,22,129,132,135,137,232,236,240). A received TLV 128 is an unrecognized TLV, retained opaquely for re-flood but never interpreted for routing, so the internal-reachability-with-external-metric prefix RFC 2966 warns against is never acted upon in Ze.
`RFC2966-3.3-1`	Ignore the up/down bit in L2 LSPs and accept the prefixes regardless of its setting (Section 3.3)
	SHOULD	3.3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC2966-x-2`	Default configuration does not advertise L2 routes into L1; require manual configuration to do so (Sections 3.3, 4)
	SHOULD	x	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC2966-x-1` Ignore a prefix combining "IP Internal Reachability Information" with external metric-type on receipt (Sections 3.1, 3.3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: This requirement concerns the OLD narrow-metric TLV 128 (IP Internal Reachability Information), whose per-prefix external-metric-type bit could conflict with internal reachability. Ze does not decode TLV 128 or TLV 130 (old narrow IP reachability) at all -- its codec recognizes only the wide-metric TLV 135 / TLV 236 (Extended IP/IPv6 Reachability, RFC 5305/5308), and TLV 135 has no internal/external-metric-type octet (internal/plugins/isis/packet/tlv.go recognized-type set: 1,2,6,8,9,10,22,129,132,135,137,232,236,240). A received TLV 128 is an unrecognized TLV, retained opaquely for re-flood but never interpreted for routing, so the internal-reachability-with-external-metric prefix RFC 2966 warns against is never acted upon in Ze.

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.

`RFC2966-2-1`

Set the up/down bit to one for L2-derived prefixes advertised into L1 LSPs, zero otherwise (Section 2)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

Polarity	Test	Kind and tier	Proof state
negative	`TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`	unit/verify	unproven
positive	`TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`	unit/verify	unproven

`RFC2966-2-2`

Never advertise up/down-bit-set, L1-learned prefixes back into L2 (Section 2)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

Polarity	Test	Kind and tier	Proof state
negative	`TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`	unit/verify	unproven
positive	`TestISISLeakOriginationL1L2`	unit/verify	unproven

`RFC2966-2-3`

L1L2 routers never advertise L2->L1 inter-area routes learned via L1 routing back into L2 (Section 2)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

Polarity	Test	Kind and tier	Proof state
negative	`TestISISLeakFixpoint`	unit/verify	unproven
positive	`TestISISLeakFixpoint`	unit/verify	unproven

`RFC2966-x-1`

Ignore a prefix combining "IP Internal Reachability Information" with external metric-type on receipt (Sections 3.1, 3.3)

Audit verdict: not audited: no reader has judged these tests

No test carries RFC2966-x-1, so no unit is bound to it.

Extraction sign-off

No extraction sign-off exists for RFC 2966, so no reviewer has walked its text sentence by sentence.

Superseded

No document obsoletes RFC 2966, so its obligations are stated where they were written.