Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

This Errata should be rejected as 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.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 8/7/16, 11:50 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>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 <[e-mail]>
>
>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
>