RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 8299, "YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", January 2018

Area Assignment: rtg

Errata ID: 5721
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ivan Frolov
Date Reported: 2019-05-01
Held for Document Update by: John Scudder
Date Held: 2022-05-14

Section 6.2.1. says:

Hub_Site ------- (VRF_Hub)  PE1
                                  /  |
  Spoke_Site1 -------------------+   |
  Spoke_Site2 -----------------------+

It should say:

Hub_Site ------- (VRF_Hub)  PE1
                             (VRF_Spoke1) (VRF_Spoke2)
                                  /            |
  Spoke_Site1 -------------------+             |
  Spoke_Site2 ---------------------------------+


Submitter's comment:

On the picture, two spoke sites (“Spoke_Site1”, “Spoke_Site2”) are using the same VRF (“VRF_Spoke”) in PE1 router. For Hub and Spoke topology, it seems confusing. The spoke sites must not have a common routing table in the device and each spoke site must have its own VRF if there are more than one site using the same physical router.

Verifier's comment:

Subsequent discussion with the authors came to the conclusion that while the diagram is not technically wrong (for example, a single VRF could be used with policies to control inter-site communication), it would represent a very unusual configuration and therefore isn't a great choice as an example. The proposed replacement text represents the common deployment model and would be a better example.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search