RFC 4577, "OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", June 2006

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

Report New Errata