Partial

RFC 9136 - IP Prefix Advertisement in Ethernet VPN (EVPN)

Every requirement this repository extracted from RFC 9136, 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 ways22.2%2 of 9 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 reason22.2%2 of 9 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 9 binding obligations

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

Proven by a recorded break0.0%0 of 9 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 MUSTs14of 20 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 scope5of 14 gated MUSTs

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

Negative

what Ze owes

No test at all55.6%5 of 9 binding obligations

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

The 4 shares marked as a part above are the whole of the 9 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	bad	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	Partial
Enrolment	Enrolled
Requirements	20
Gated MUST-level	14
Obligations that bind Ze	9
Not applicable, so out of scope	5
Declared gaps	5
Gated with no test	0
Nightly-only evidence	0
Test tags	10
Tagged units	9
Recorded audit verdicts	0
Discrimination records	0
Summary	`rfc/short/rfc9136.md`
Requirement shard	`rfc/requirements/rfc9136.md`
RFC text	`rfc/full/rfc9136.txt`

Enrolment

Enrolled: EVPN IP Prefix / RT-5 (RFC 9136): full RT-5 wire codec; 2 MET (length 34/58, prefix-length bound) + 2 single-polarity positive (same-family, RD/etag) + 5 gap (overlay-index validations) + 5 not-applicable (forwarding/install/Router's-MAC EC)

What the public ledger says

Status: Partial

What the ledger says is covered

RT-5 (IP Prefix) NLRI encode/decode for IPv4 (len 34) and IPv6 (len 58): RD, ESI, Ethernet Tag, prefix-length bounds (<=32/<=128), prefix, gateway, and MPLS label stack, with length-field and prefix-length validation (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go).

What the ledger says remains

Five MUST gaps annotated in rfc/short/rfc9136.md (RFC9136-3.1-4/3.1-6 ESI/GW-IP zero-unless-overlay-index, 3.2-1 ESI/GW mutual exclusion, 3.1-7/3.1-9 zero-label-without-overlay-index treat-as-withdraw): ze models no overlay index. Five further MUSTs (3.1-8, 3.2-2, 3-1, 3.2-3, 3.2-4) bind the ingress-NVE/PE forwarding, IP-VRF install, and EVPN Router's-MAC Extended Community roles ze does not play.

Coverage

Bucket	Count	What it counts
Positive and negative tests	2	one part of the gated population
Annotated instead of tested	12	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	14	every gated MUST falls in exactly one bucket above

Positive and negative tests (2): RFC9136-3.1-1, RFC9136-3.1-5

Annotated instead of tested (12): RFC9136-3.1-2, RFC9136-3.1-3, RFC9136-3.1-4, RFC9136-3.1-6, RFC9136-3.2-1, RFC9136-3.1-7, RFC9136-3.1-8, RFC9136-3.1-9, RFC9136-3.2-2, RFC9136-3-1, RFC9136-3.2-3, RFC9136-3.2-4

Requirements

Requirement	Level	Section	Tests
`RFC9136-3.1-1`	Length field MUST be either 34 (IPv4) or 58 (IPv6) (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5IPv4` positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5IPv6` negative`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5InvalidLength`
`RFC9136-3.1-2`	IP prefix and gateway IP address MUST be from the same IP address family (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5RoundTripIPv4` positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5RoundTripIPv6` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: the single Length field fixes both prefix and gateway to one family on decode and encode, so a cross-family pair is unrepresentable on the wire and has no negative case to reject (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:780-800)
`RFC9136-3.1-3`	Route Distinguisher (RD) and Ethernet Tag ID MUST be used as defined in RFC 7432 and RFC 8365 (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5IPv4` negative`no test`no negative test {single-polarity}: RD (8 octets) and Ethernet Tag (uint32) are decoded, carried, and re-encoded per the RFC 7432/8365 wire layout, and any uint32 tag is valid so there is no malformed-input negative for the field ze handles (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:763-774)
`RFC9136-3.1-4`	ESI MUST be a non-zero 10-octet identifier if used as Overlay Index; MUST be all zeros otherwise (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze decodes and carries the 10-octet ESI but models no overlay-index concept, so it never enforces the zero-unless-used-as-overlay-index constraint (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:770)
`RFC9136-3.1-5`	IP Prefix Length value MUST NOT be greater than 128 (S3.1)
	MUST NOT	3.1	positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5IPv4` positive`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5IPv6` negative`unit/verifyTestEVPNType5PrefixLengthTooLong`
`RFC9136-3.1-6`	GW IP field MUST be all bytes zero if not used as an Overlay Index (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze decodes and re-encodes the gateway field verbatim but has no overlay-index model, so it never enforces gateway-zero-unless-used-as-overlay-index (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:788, :798, :854, :863)
`RFC9136-3.2-1`	ESI and GW IP MUST NOT both be non-zero simultaneously (S3.2)
	MUST NOT	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: parseEVPNType5 reads both ESI and gateway without any mutual-exclusion validation, so it never treats a both-non-zero RT-5 as a withdraw (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:770, :788-800)
`RFC9136-3.1-7`	If received label is zero, route MUST contain an Overlay Index (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: ze parses the label and the overlay-candidate fields but never validates that a zero label is accompanied by an overlay index (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:808-814)
`RFC9136-3.1-8`	If received label is zero, ingress NVE/PE MUST perform recursive resolution (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: recursive resolution to an egress NVE/PE is a forwarding/IP-VRF role ze does not play; ze propagates RT-5 without resolving or installing it (sysrib/fib carry no EVPN handling)
`RFC9136-3.1-9`	If received label is zero and no Overlay Index, MUST treat as withdraw (S3.1)
	MUST	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {gap}: this receive-side content validation could be applied to the parsed NLRI, but ze performs no treat-as-withdraw for a zero-label / no-overlay-index RT-5 (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:754-814)
`RFC9136-3.2-2`	If no IGP or BGP route to BGP next hop of RT-5, MUST NOT install even if Overlay Index resolves (S3.2)
	MUST NOT	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: ze never installs RT-5 into a FIB/IP-VRF, so a next-hop-reachability install gate binds a role it does not play (internal/component/sysrib and internal/plugins/fib carry no EVPN handling)
`RFC9136-3-1`	NVEs attached to different BDs of same tenant MUST support RT-5 for proper inter-subnet forwarding (S3)
	MUST	3	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: the requirement binds NVEs performing inter-subnet forwarding between broadcast domains; ze supports RT-5 on the wire but performs no such forwarding (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:743)
`RFC9136-3.2-3`	MAC address encoding MUST be 6-octet MAC address per IEEE 802.1Q (S3.2, Table 1)
	MUST	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: this constrains the MAC inside the EVPN Router's MAC Extended Community (the optional MAC overlay-index feature), which ze does not implement or interpret
`RFC9136-3.2-4`	Route MUST be treat as withdraw if MAC address is broadcast or multicast (S3.2, Table 1)
	MUST	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test {not-applicable}: detecting a broadcast/multicast MAC requires interpreting the Router's MAC Extended Community, an optional feature ze neither parses nor validates
`RFC9136-3.1-10`	Label value SHOULD be zero if recursive resolution via Overlay Index is used (S3.1)
	SHOULD	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC9136-3.2-5`	Route with non-zero GW IP and non-zero ESI simultaneously SHOULD be treat as withdraw (S3.2)
	SHOULD	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC9136-3.2-6`	Route where ESI, GW IP, MAC, and Label are all zero SHOULD be treat as withdraw (S3.2)
	SHOULD	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC9136-3.2-7`	Advertising NVE/PE SHOULD advertise RT-2 for MAC Overlay Index if receivers use MAC as Overlay Index (S3.2, Table 1)
	SHOULD	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC9136-3.1-11`	IP Prefix route MAY be sent with EVPN Router's MAC Extended Community (S3.1)
	MAY	3.1	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test
`RFC9136-3.2-8`	Support of MAC Overlay Index in IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model is OPTIONAL (S3.2, Table 1)
	OPTIONAL	3.2	positive`no test`no positive test negative`no test`no negative test

Gaps and untested MUSTs

Requirement	State	Reason
`RFC9136-3.1-4` ESI MUST be a non-zero 10-octet identifier if used as Overlay Index; MUST be all zeros otherwise (S3.1)	{gap}, no test	ze decodes and carries the 10-octet ESI but models no overlay-index concept, so it never enforces the zero-unless-used-as-overlay-index constraint (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:770)
`RFC9136-3.1-6` GW IP field MUST be all bytes zero if not used as an Overlay Index (S3.1)	{gap}, no test	ze decodes and re-encodes the gateway field verbatim but has no overlay-index model, so it never enforces gateway-zero-unless-used-as-overlay-index (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:788, :798, :854, :863)
`RFC9136-3.2-1` ESI and GW IP MUST NOT both be non-zero simultaneously (S3.2)	{gap}, no test	parseEVPNType5 reads both ESI and gateway without any mutual-exclusion validation, so it never treats a both-non-zero RT-5 as a withdraw (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:770, :788-800)
`RFC9136-3.1-7` If received label is zero, route MUST contain an Overlay Index (S3.1)	{gap}, no test	ze parses the label and the overlay-candidate fields but never validates that a zero label is accompanied by an overlay index (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:808-814)
`RFC9136-3.1-8` If received label is zero, ingress NVE/PE MUST perform recursive resolution (S3.1)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: recursive resolution to an egress NVE/PE is a forwarding/IP-VRF role ze does not play; ze propagates RT-5 without resolving or installing it (sysrib/fib carry no EVPN handling)
`RFC9136-3.1-9` If received label is zero and no Overlay Index, MUST treat as withdraw (S3.1)	{gap}, no test	this receive-side content validation could be applied to the parsed NLRI, but ze performs no treat-as-withdraw for a zero-label / no-overlay-index RT-5 (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:754-814)
`RFC9136-3.2-2` If no IGP or BGP route to BGP next hop of RT-5, MUST NOT install even if Overlay Index resolves (S3.2)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: ze never installs RT-5 into a FIB/IP-VRF, so a next-hop-reachability install gate binds a role it does not play (internal/component/sysrib and internal/plugins/fib carry no EVPN handling)
`RFC9136-3-1` NVEs attached to different BDs of same tenant MUST support RT-5 for proper inter-subnet forwarding (S3)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: the requirement binds NVEs performing inter-subnet forwarding between broadcast domains; ze supports RT-5 on the wire but performs no such forwarding (internal/component/bgp/plugins/nlri/evpn/types.go:743)
`RFC9136-3.2-3` MAC address encoding MUST be 6-octet MAC address per IEEE 802.1Q (S3.2, Table 1)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: this constrains the MAC inside the EVPN Router's MAC Extended Community (the optional MAC overlay-index feature), which ze does not implement or interpret
`RFC9136-3.2-4` Route MUST be treat as withdraw if MAC address is broadcast or multicast (S3.2, Table 1)	no test	no test carries this requirement id; annotated {not-applicable}: detecting a broadcast/multicast MAC requires interpreting the Router's MAC Extended Community, an optional feature ze neither parses nor validates

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.