RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (1)

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: 2264

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: William McCall
Date Reported: 2010-05-17
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-09-12

Section 4.2.6 says:

         [...] If BGP installs
         a route of one of these types in the VRF, and if that route is
         selected for redistribution into OSPF, it will be advertised by
         OSPF in either a type 3 or a type 5 LSA, depending on the
         domain identifier.

It should say:

         [...] If BGP installs
         a route of one of these types in the VRF, and if that route is
         selected for redistribution into OSPF, it will be advertised by
         OSPF in either a type 3, type 5, or type 7 LSA, depending on the
         domain identifier and the type of area the PE/CE link belongs to.

Notes:

Suggested because reading 4.2.6 is contradictory with the following:

4.2.8.1. External Routes

[...]If the route is advertised, and the PE/CE link belongs to a NSSA area, it is advertised in a type 7 LSA.[...]

Status: Reported (1)

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: 4659

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Chao Fu
Date Reported: 2016-04-08

Section 4.1.4 says:

   If a PE attaches to a CE via a link that is in a non-zero area, then
   the PE serves as an ABR for that area.

It should say:

   PE always serves as an ABR if it attaches to a CE.

Notes:

Even the PE attaches to a CE via a link that is in backbone area, it should also be thought as an ABR. Otherwise the CE cannot calculate the type 3 LSAs from PE because there is no ABR.

Section 4.2.3 has the similar description and should also be updated:
"If a PE has a link that belongs to a non-zero area, the PE functions
as an Area Border Router (ABR) for that area."

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

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: 53

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2006-08-12
Held for Document Update by: Ralph Droms
Date Held: 2013-03-12

 

(2)  [orphaned inter-section references]

Section 4.2.4 of RFC 4577 contains three (3) distinct references
to itself.  This cannot have been intended.

Within Section 4.2.2, the last two paragraphs on page 11 say:

                                                           vvvvv
   A Domain Identifier is an eight-byte quantity that is a valid BGP
|  Extended Communities attribute, as specified in Section 4.2.4.  If a
   particular OSPF instance has a non-NULL Domain Identifier, when
   routes from that OSPF instance are distributed by BGP as VPN-IPv4
   routes, the routes MUST carry the Domain Identifier Extended
   Communities attribute that corresponds to the OSPF instance's Primary
   Domain Identifier.  If the OSPF instance's Domain Identifier is NULL,
   the Domain Identifier Extended Communities attribute MAY be omitted
   when routes from that OSPF instance are distributed by BGP;
   alternatively, a value of the Domain Identifier Extended Communities
|  attribute that represents NULL (see Section 4.2.4) MAY be carried
   with the route.
                                               ^^^^^
   If the OSPF instances of an OSPF domain are given one or more non-
   NULL Domain Identifiers, this procedure allows us to determine
   whether a particular OSPF-originated VPN-IPv4 route belongs to the
   same domain as a given OSPF instance.  We can then determine whether
   the route should be redistributed to that OSPF instance as an inter-
   area route or as an OSPF AS-external route.  Details can be found in
|  Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.8.1.
            ^^^^^

I am not sure what really was intended to say.  Perhaps, the
second instance of "4.2.4" should be replaced by "4.2.6".

Please check and supply corrected text.


Notes:

The references to section 4.2.4 should be changed to 4.2.6

Errata ID: 3110

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

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

Report New Errata