IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OSPF] [Errata Rejected] RFC3101 (4767)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 08 August 2016 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AACE12D5CC; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nL49qsEMH-Fx; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F95512D83F; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 08321B80CCC; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: chao.fu@ericsson.com, pmurphy@noc.usgs.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160808133442.08321B80CCC@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 06:34:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/70uCGl_s6NTkdngFBTgHCjuNKjk>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org, akatlas@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [OSPF] [Errata Rejected] RFC3101 (4767)
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:35:15 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC3101,
"The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3101&eid=4767

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>
Date Reported: 2016-08-08
Rejected by: Alia Atlas (IESG)

Section: 2.5.(6).(e)

Original Text
-------------
          (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
              installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
              forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in
              deciding which LSA is preferred:

                 1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.

                 2. A Type-5 LSA.

                 3. The LSA with the higher router ID.

              [NSSA]

Corrected Text
--------------
NULL (it should be deleted because no LSAs would be compared here.)

Notes
-----
If one LSA is Type-5 and the other is Type-7, one of them would be rejected at step (2.5.(3) ( please refer to OSPF mail list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/KBoh5T75o-s7n_bL1knrc6uVlTs ). If both of them are Type-7 LSAs, one of them would be flushed according 2.4: 
   If two NSSA routers, both
   reachable from one another over the NSSA, originate functionally
   equivalent Type-7 LSAs (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
   forwarding address), then the router having the least preferred LSA
   should flush its LSA.

As a result, rule (e) would never be applied and should be removed.

 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
It is easy to envision a topology where an ABR for an NSSA receives an NSSA-LSA from an NSSA internal router and an AS-Exernal-LSA from originating routers that do not receive each others equivalent LSAs. Furthermore, even if this were not the case, the  referenced text refers to LSAs that are both NSSA-LSAs as opposed to a
mixture of an NSSA-LSA and an AS-External-LSA.


--------------------------------------
RFC3101 (draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option
Publication Date    : January 2003
Author(s)           : P. Murphy
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email