|
|
|
|
Found 9 records.
Errata ID: 2953
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Joel Gannett
Date Reported: 2011-08-31
Verifier Name: Stewart Bryant
Date Verified: 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 25
N9-N11,H1 29 36
_________________________________
RT5 14 8
RT7 20 14
Table 6: Destinations advertised into Area 1
by Routers RT3 and RT4.
Notes:
The distance from RT4 to N8 should be changed from 18 to 25. Unless there is a virtual link between RT7 and RT10, the shortest path from RT4 to N8 is 25, not 18. Although a virtual link from RT7 and RT10 is discussed in the last paragraph of Section 3.4, it is not assume part of the network design. Moreover, this change is needed to make the N9-N11,H1 row consistent with the N8 row, as each entry in the N9-N11,H1 row must be 11 greater than the same-column entry in the N8 row.
Errata ID: 2394
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Andrea Ceschia
Date Reported: 2010-07-29
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2012-10-26
Section 3.4. says:
Table 5: Backbone distances calculated by Routers RT3 and RT4
dist from dist from
RT3 RT4
to Ia 20 27
to Ib 15 22
It should say:
Table 5: Backbone distances calculated by Routers RT3 and RT4.
dist from dist from
RT3 RT4
to Ia 15 22
to Ib 20 27
Notes:
From RT3 and RT4 perspective the Ia is the nearest interface while Ib is at the remote side of the link connecting RT6 to RT10.
Errata ID: 1420
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
Date Reported: 2008-05-11
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Section 11.3 says:
The routing table entries changes that would be caused by the addition of this virtual link are shown in Table 14.
It should say:
N/A
Notes:
But Table 14 is exiled in another section, section 12, where it has nothing to do. I assume some processor tried to avoid splitting the table and displaced it too far.
Errata ID: 1833
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Dande Rajasekhar
Date Reported: 2009-08-19
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Section 2.1.1 says:
Figure 1b illustrates the link-state database representation of a Point-to-MultiPoint network. On the left side of the figure, a Point-to-MultiPoint network is pictured. It is assumed that all routers can communicate directly, except for routers RT4 and RT5. I3 though I6 indicate the routers'
It should say:
Figure 1b illustrates the link-state database representation of a Point-to-MultiPoint network. On the left side of the figure, a Point-to-MultiPoint network is pictured. It is assumed that all routers can communicate directly, except for routers RT4 and RT5. I3 through I6 indicate the routers'
Notes:
Should be I3 *through* I6
Errata ID: 1745
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Reported By: Wenhu Lu
Date Reported: 2009-03-27
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2012-10-26
Section Appendix E says:
In the paragraph that starts with: "The above algorithm assumes that all"
The algorithm also assumes that no
network exists having an address equal to another network's
broadcast address.
It should say:
The algorithm also assumes that if
one of the conflicting networks is of IP host mask, its LSA
origination is suppressed. The choice of the suppressing algorithm
again is a local decision. However, the suppressed LSA MUST be
originated if the conflicting network becomes withdrawn.
Notes:
The current algorithm will derive an unchanged ID
if one of the conflicting networks is of IP host mask.
This will cause problems that the algorithm try to solve.
On the other hand, the perfect algorithm for
LSID collision resolution does not exist in
that a flat address space cannot accommodate
all of the overlaid supernet/subnet IDs.
For example,
route1 - 10.0.0.0/32
route2 - 10.0.0.1/32
route3 - 10.0.0.0/31
There is no way to originate 3 LSAs with distinct LSIDs.
Thus though in majority cases, LSID collision even
with host route is resolvable, the suppressing
mechanism is still inevitable.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This text is a change that should be taken through the working group process, as it seems to modify functionality.
Errata ID: 2951
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
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.
Errata ID: 2632
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Dave Cowley
Date Reported: 2010-11-13
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2013-01-07
Section 11. says:
Cost
The link state cost of the path to the destination. For all
paths except type 2 external paths this describes the entire
path's cost. For Type 2 external paths, this field describes
the cost of the portion of the path internal to the AS.
It should say:
Cost
The link state cost of the path to the destination. For all
paths except type 2 external paths this describes the entire
path's cost. For Type 1 external paths, this field describes
the cost of the portion of the path both internal and external
to the AS.
Notes:
'Type 2 cost' is listed in the subsequent 'field' description for section 11 (The Routing Table Structure).
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The text is correct as written in the RFC.
Errata ID: 2952
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Joel Gannett
Date Reported: 2011-08-31
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2013-01-07
Section 14.1 says:
Premature aging is also be used when unexpectedly receiving self-originated LSAs during the flooding procedure (see Section 13.4).
It should say:
Premature aging might also be used when unexpectedly receiving self-originated LSAs during the flooding procedure (see Section 13.4).
Notes:
Change "is also be used" to "might also be used."
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The text in section 13.4 that is referenced is a case where premature aging is used.
Errata ID: 3452
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Reported By: David Jet
Date Reported: 2013-01-12
Rejected by: Stewart Bryant
Date Rejected: 2013-01-28
Section 11 says:
Multiple LSAs may reference the destination, however a tie-breaking scheme always reduces the choice to a single LSA.
It should say:
Multiple LSAs may reference the same destination, however a tie-breaking scheme always reduces the choice to a single LSA.
Notes:
I think should add the "same" to describe it more clearly.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Section 11 is written in terms of "the destination", and this is clearly a single destination, thus there should be no confusion with the original text.