RFC Errata
RFC 4577, "OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", June 2006
Source of RFC: l3vpn (int)
Errata ID: 3110
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-02-07
(1) [typo?] Section 4.2.1 of RFC 4577, in the last paragraph on page 9, says: Generally, though not necessarily, if the PE attaches to several CEs in the same OSPF domain, it will associate the interfaces to those PEs with a single VRF. I strongly suspect that the final "PEs" is a typo, and should be replaced by "CEs". Thus, the RFC should say: Generally, though not necessarily, if the PE attaches to several CEs in the same OSPF domain, it will associate the interfaces to those | CEs with a single VRF. (3) [typo: punctuation] Section 4.2.7 of RFC 4577, on page 16, says: This section describes the protocol and procedures necessary for the | support of "Sham Links," as defined herein. Support for sham links is an OPTIONAL feature of this specification. It should say: This section describes the protocol and procedures necessary for the | support of "Sham Links", as defined herein. Support for sham links is an OPTIONAL feature of this specification. (4) [typo: grammar] In Section 4.2.7.1, the last paragraph on page 16 says: If it is desired to have OSPF prefer the routes through the backbone over the routes through the backdoor link, then the routes through | the backbone must be appear to be intra-area routes. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It should say: If it is desired to have OSPF prefer the routes through the backbone over the routes through the backdoor link, then the routes through | the backbone must appear to be intra-area routes. [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^ (5) [typo: inconsistent spelling/capitalization] In Section 4.2.7.1, the second paragraph on page 17 contains the sentence: vvvvvvvvv [...]. If the VRF is associated with only | a single OSPF instance, and if the PE's router id in that OSPF instance is an IP address, then the Sham Link Endpoint Address MAY default to that Router ID. [...] Consistently with all other occurrences of the term, "Router ID" in this memo, it should say: [...]. If the VRF is associated with only | a single OSPF instance, and if the PE's Router ID in that OSPF instance is an IP address, then the Sham Link Endpoint Address MAY default to that Router ID. [...] (6) [word omission] The 4th paragraph of Section 4.2.7.2, near the bottom of page 17, says: A sham link connecting two VRFs is considered up if and only if a route to the 32-bit remote endpoint address of the sham link has been | installed in VRF. It should say: A sham link connecting two VRFs is considered up if and only if a route to the 32-bit remote endpoint address of the sham link has been | installed in the VRF.
Notes:
from pending