RFC 6325, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification", July 2011

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6327, RFC 6439, RFC 7172, RFC 7177, RFC 7357, RFC 7179, RFC 7180, RFC 7455, RFC 7780, RFC 7783, RFC 8139, RFC 8249, RFC 8361, RFC 8377

Errata ID: 3002
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
Date Reported: 2011-10-25
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-09

Section 3.7.3 says:

                                   If RB1 chooses nickname x, and RB1
      discovers, through receipt of an LSP for RB2 at any later time,
      that RB2 has also chosen x, then the RBridge or pseudonode with
      the numerically higher IS-IS ID (LAN ID) keeps the nickname, or if
      there is a tie in priority, the RBridge with the numerically
      higher IS-IS System ID keeps the nickname, and the other RBridge
      MUST select a new nickname.

It should say:

If RB1
chooses nickname x, and RB1 discovers, through receipt of an LSP for
RB2 at any later time, that RB2 has also chosen x, then the RBridge or
pseudonode with the numerically higher priority keeps the nickname, or
if there is a tie in priority, the RBridge with the numerically higher
seven-byte IS-IS ID (LAN ID) keeps the nickname, and the other RBridge
MUST select a new nickname.

Notes:

Comparison is primarily by priority and then by IS-IS ID. Since pseudonodes can hold nicknames, the comparison must be by seven-byte IS-IS ID, not six-byte System ID.

Report New Errata