RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4762, "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", January 2007

Source of RFC: l2vpn (int)

Errata ID: 4144

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein
Date Reported: 2014-10-23
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-11-20

Section Appendix A says:

   In a VPLS, we use a VCID (which, when using the PWid FEC, has been
   substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), to address
   extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment.
   Note that the VCID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier,
   identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit.  In
   a VPLS, the VCID is a single service identifier, so it has global
   significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.

It should say:

   In a VPLS, we use a PWID (which, when using the Generalized PW ID 
   FEC, has been substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), 
   to address
   extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment.
   Note that the PWID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier,
   identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit.  In
   a VPLS, the PWID is a single service identifier, so it has global
   significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.

Notes:

1. The problematic text follows a diagram depicting the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128) as it appears in RFC 4447. This diagram includes a 32-bit PWID field, but there is no VCID field. Nor is VCID mentioned anywhere in RFC 4447 - it has been used in the original Martini drafts but has then been replaced by PWID.

2. According to RFC 4447, AGI is used only in the Generalized PW ID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-129) but not in the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128).

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4762, "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", January 2007

Source of RFC: l2vpn (int)

Errata ID: 4834

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Prakash Ragunathan
Date Reported: 2016-10-18
Held for Document Update by: Deborah Brungard
Date Held: 2016-11-08

Section 9.1 says:

For
   example, if a customer site A, is shut down, eventually the other PEs
   should unlearn A's MAC address.

It should say:

For example, if a customer site is shut down, eventually the other PEs
should unlearn the MAC address(es) of this site.

Notes:

Prakash noted the customer site name is not mentioned in example. Suggested naming the site (A1) gives clear info than just stating "customer site A".
After discussion with the Chairs and Authors, the above text was agreed.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×