[Technical Errata Reported] RFC4577 (2264)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 18 May 2010 01:53 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540553A6AF2 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.794, BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 DngPluLFwJb7 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C6C3A6896 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2E9F5E065E; Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: erosen@cisco.com, ppsenak@cisco.com, ppe@cisco.com, stbryant@cisco.com, adrian.farrel@huawei.com, danny@tcb.net, tme@multicasttech.com, benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4577 (2264)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20100518015318.2E9F5E065E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53:18 -0700
Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:53:26 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4577, "OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4577&eid=2264 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: William McCall <william.mccall@gmail.com> Section: 4.2.6 Original Text ------------- [...] If BGP installs a route of one of these types in the VRF, and if that route is selected for redistribution into OSPF, it will be advertised by OSPF in either a type 3 or a type 5 LSA, depending on the domain identifier. Corrected Text -------------- [...]If BGP installs a route of one of these types in the VRF, and if that route is selected for redistribution into OSPF, it will be advertised by OSPF in either a type 3, type 5, or type 7 LSA, depending on the domain identifier and the type of area the PE/CE link belongs to. Notes ----- Suggested because reading 4.2.6 is contradictory with the following: 4.2.8.1. External Routes [...]If the route is advertised, and the PE/CE link belongs to a NSSA area, it is advertised in a type 7 LSA.[...] 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. -------------------------------------- RFC4577 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-06) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) Publication Date : June 2006 Author(s) : E. Rosen, P. Psenak, P. Pillay-Esnault Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4577 (2264) RFC Errata System