RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5331, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", August 2008

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7274

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 3726
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Liu Lin
Date Reported: 2013-09-16
Rejected by: Adrian Farrel
Date Rejected: 2013-09-27

Section 6 says:

In the former case, an LSR distributes an upstream-assigned 
label binding for a FEC F if it is either (a) the ingress LSR 
for FEC F, or (b) if it has already received an upstream label 
binding for that FEC from its adjacent upstream LSR for FEC F, 
or (c) if it has received a request for a downstream label 
binding from its upstream adjacent LSR.

It should say:

In the former case, an LSR distributes an upstream-assigned 
label binding for a FEC F if it is either (a) the ingress LSR 
for FEC F, or (b) if it has already received an upstream label 
binding for that FEC from its adjacent upstream LSR for FEC F, 
or (c) if it has received a request for a upstream label 
binding from its downstream adjacent LSR.

Notes:

if a LSR has received a request for a downstream label binding from its upstream adjacent LSR, it will distributes a downstream-assigned label, not upstream-assigned-label. When a LSR has received a request for a upstream label binding from its downstream adjacent LSR, it may distributs a upstream-assigned label.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The reporter has become confused between the different uses of "upstream" and "downstream" in the text.

The original text may have intended to imply that when an LSR receives a request for a downstream label from its upstream adjacent LSR then it
will use this as a trigger to send an upstream-assigned label to its
downstream adjacent LSR.

Thus the text is correct as it stands.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search