RFC Errata
RFC 2328, "OSPF Version 2", April 1998
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5709, RFC 6549, RFC 6845, RFC 6860, RFC 7474, RFC 8042, RFC 9355, RFC 9454
Source of RFC: ospf (rtg)
Errata ID: 2951
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Joel Gannett
Date Reported: 2011-08-31
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2011-09-02
Section 3.4 says:
Destination RT3 adv. RT4 adv. _________________________________ Ia,Ib 20 27 N6 16 15 N7 20 19 N8 18 18 N9-N11,H1 29 36 _________________________________ RT5 14 8 RT7 20 14 Table 6: Destinations advertised into Area 1 by Routers RT3 and RT4.
It should say:
Destination RT3 adv. RT4 adv. _________________________________ Ia,Ib 20 27 N6 16 15 N7 20 19 N8 18 18 N9-N11,H1 29 29 _________________________________ RT5 14 8 RT7 20 14 Table 6: Destinations advertised into Area 1 by Routers RT3 and RT4.
Notes:
The distance from RT4 to N9-N11,H1 should be changed from 36 to 29 to be consistent with the row above that, which shows the distance from RT3 to N8 and RT4 to N8 as the same value, 18. The length 18 path from RT3 to N8 is RT3-RT6-RT10-N8, while the length 18 path from RT4 to N8 is RT4-RT5-RT7-RT10-N8. The summarized N9-N11,H1 network is a distance 11 beyond that, or 29 in both cases. The length 29 path from RT3 to N9-N11,H1 is RT3-RT6-RT10-RT11-(N9-N11,H1), and the length 29 path from RT4 to N9-N11,H1 is RT4-RT5-RT7-RT10-RT11-(N9-N11,H1).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Joel made an error in posting this erratum. He posted a corrected erratum (2953) to which the reader is referred.