[GROW] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4632 (1824)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 05 August 2009 10:24 UTC
Return-Path: <web-usrn@ISI.EDU>
X-Original-To: grow@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BC928C530 for <grow@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_PAIN=2.3, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i+CQ-4-ryQEv for <grow@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D594C3A6B78 for <grow@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n75AMqd1024419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from web-usrn@localhost) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n75AMo3h024409; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:22:50 -0700
Message-Id: <200908051022.n75AMo3h024409@boreas.isi.edu>
To: vaf@cisco.com, tli@tropos.com, dromasca@avaya.com, rbonica@juniper.net, christopher.morrow@gmail.com, pds@lugs.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: web-usrn@boreas.isi.edu
Cc: grow@ietf.org, drajasek@cisco.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [GROW] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4632 (1824)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:24:56 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4632, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4632&eid=1824 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Dande Rajasekhar <drajasek@cisco.com> Section: 6.1 Original Text ------------- To make this example more realistic, assume that C4 and C5 are multi- homed through some other service provider, "PB". Further assume the existence of a site, "C7", that was originally connected to "RB" but that has moved to "PA". For this reason, it has a block of network numbers that are assigned out PB's block of (the next) 2048 x /24. o C7. Assign 10.32.0 through 10.32.15. This block is described by the route 10.32.0.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0). For the multi-homed sites, assume that C4 is advertised as primary via "RA" and secondary via "RB"; and that C5 is primary via "RB" and secondary via "RA". In addition, assume that "RA" and "RB" are both connected to the same transit service provider, "BB". Graphically, this topology looks something like this: 10.24.0.0 -- 10.24.7.0__ __10.32.0.0 - 10.32.15.0 C1: 10.24.0.0/21 \ / C7: 10.32.0.0/20 \ / +----+ +----+ 10.24.16.0 - 10.24.31.0_ | | | | C2: 10.24.16.0/20 \ | | _10.24.12.0 - 10.24.15.0__ | | \| | / C4: 10.24.12.0/20 \ | | | |/ \| | 10.24.8.0 - 10.24.11.0___/| PA |\ | PB | C3: 10.24.8.0/22 | | \__10.24.32.0 - 10.24.33.0___| | | | C5: 10.24.32.0/23 | | | | | | 10.24.34.0 - 10.24.35.0__/| | | | C6: 10.24.34.0/23 | | | | +----+ +----+ || || routing advertisements: || || || || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.32.0.0/20 (C7) || 10.24.32.0/23 (C5) || 10.24.0.0/13 (PA) || 10.32.0.0/13 (PB) || || || VV VV +---------- BACKBONE NETWORK BB ----------+ Corrected Text -------------- To make this example more realistic, assume that C4 and C5 are multi- homed through some other service provider, "PB". Further assume the existence of a site, "C7", that was originally connected to "PB" but that has moved to "PA". For this reason, it has a block of network numbers that are assigned out PB's block of (the next) 2048 x /24. o C7. Assign 10.32.0 through 10.32.15. This block is described by the route 10.32.0.0/20 (mask 255.255.240.0). For the multi-homed sites, assume that C4 is advertised as primary via "PA" and secondary via "PB"; and that C5 is primary via "PB" and secondary via "PA". In addition, assume that "PA" and "PB" are both connected to the same transit service provider, "BB". Graphically, this topology looks something like this: 10.24.0.0 -- 10.24.7.0__ __10.32.0.0 - 10.32.15.0 C1: 10.24.0.0/21 \ / C7: 10.32.0.0/20 \ / +----+ +----+ 10.24.16.0 - 10.24.31.0_ | | | | C2: 10.24.16.0/20 \ | | _10.24.12.0 - 10.24.15.0__ | | \| | / C4: 10.24.12.0/20 \ | | | |/ \| | 10.24.8.0 - 10.24.11.0___/| PA |\ | PB | C3: 10.24.8.0/22 | | \__10.24.32.0 - 10.24.33.0___| | | | C5: 10.24.32.0/23 | | | | | | 10.24.34.0 - 10.24.35.0__/| | | | C6: 10.24.34.0/23 | | | | +----+ +----+ || || routing advertisements: || || || || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.24.12.0/22 (C4) || 10.32.0.0/20 (C7) || 10.24.32.0/23 (C5) || 10.24.0.0/13 (PA) || 10.32.0.0/13 (PB) || || || VV VV +---------- BACKBONE NETWORK BB ----------+ Notes ----- All the reference of "RA" and "RB" to be replaced with "PA" and "PB". Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC4632 (draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-04) -------------------------------------- Title : Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan Publication Date : August 2006 Author(s) : V. Fuller, T. Li Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE Source : Global Routing Operations Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [GROW] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4632 (1824) RFC Errata System
- Re: [GROW] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4632 (1… Tony Li