[OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 08 August 2016 03:50 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 05E1E12D7DE for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 20:50:19 -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 ZeRspE6qp88b for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 20:50:16 -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 8AC5D12D7DD for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 20:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6B4C1B80C59; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 20:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: pmurphy@noc.usgs.net, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, akr@cisco.com, acee@cisco.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20160808035016.6B4C1B80C59@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 20:50:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/A2F4qZiWkNDEiu1-vIB91AaqVOE>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, chao.fu@ericsson.com
Subject: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] 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 03:50:19 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted 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 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com> 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. Instructions: ------------- This erratum 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. -------------------------------------- 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
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Chao Fu
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Chao Fu
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Acee Lindem (acee)
- [OSPF] [Errata Rejected] RFC3101 (4767) RFC Errata System
- [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767) RFC Errata System
- Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4… Chao Fu