Re: [OSPF] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767)
Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com> Mon, 15 August 2016 08:57 UTC
Return-Path: <chao.fu@ericsson.com>
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 671BB12B035 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 01:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5QMl92g9MWRQ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 01:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A91C126FDC for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 01:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-c91fe700000009bd-00-57b183f56480
Received: from ESGSCHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [146.11.116.83]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 65.C5.02493.6F381B75; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:57:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESGSCMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.143]) by ESGSCHC006.ericsson.se ([146.11.116.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:57:24 +0800
From: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "pmurphy@noc.usgs.net" <pmurphy@noc.usgs.net>, "akatlas@gmail.com" <akatlas@gmail.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <akr@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767)
Thread-Index: AQHR8Sf+AZYezQpouE+uJcwZ+yNoIaA+Y6sAgAUMP0CAAAdugIABoo6w
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:57:24 +0000
Message-ID: <06F6F5EBB94E6043A805319DFE5B3E0B788216B3@ESGSCMB109.ericsson.se>
References: <20160808035016.6B4C1B80C59@rfc-editor.org> <D3CDE054.762DF%acee@cisco.com> <06F6F5EBB94E6043A805319DFE5B3E0B78817B19@ESGSCMB109.ericsson.se> <D3D22387.78312%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3D22387.78312%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [146.11.116.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyibskWPdb88Zwg6U9uhaT385jtvj08BKz xeGDs9gs/v7cymhxuaub3aLl3j12i8/3kiya9n9lc+DweNk/h9Fjyu+NrB47Z91l91iy5CeT x5LZq5g9GtqOsQawRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlbN7/kL3gg3vF7X/H2BoYW9y6GDk5JARMJL7d WMbexcjFISSwnlHiw9d2VghnCaPE5XUHgRwODjYBFYmFCw1B4iICa5kkOhddZAbpZhZQlnjc tZoNxBYWMJe4uf8zmC0iYCGx9fcsVgjbTeLf5F1gcRYBVYnHU96CzeQV8JX4uzIOYtd+Rol5 p3+CzeQU0JHYt2MGE4jNKCArMe3RfSaIXeISt57MZ4K4WkBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/9YIWwFiekb 7jGCzGcW0JRYv0sfolVRYkr3Q3YQm1dAUOLkzCcsExhFZyGZOguhYxaSjllIOhYwsqxiFC1O LS7OTTcy0kstykwuLs7P08tLLdnECIzDg1t+W+1gPPjc8RCjAAejEg/vgo0bwoVYE8uKK3MP MUpwMCuJ8C5u3BguxJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnNf/pWK4kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJ g1OqgVH+xqTOTY4iEi+Xeh3hiJXScBSJWug9g/HrJZbDezecWuVx/4nREbXpPkZzrzj5KV2q 6TrmEZkZbbfYysLvzZ/CmWHH36hZFeV+r445uHF27KV7KWbvtCV9D9z/bca6g/n/xPj+tK2P qw13TXkrpr3o7+X5J16oP7pUv3vGwlZX/v+9U//HFRcrsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAC2SR7L8CAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/S3tg-6mHEdTbiALT9DAd4Ec3Yec>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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, 15 Aug 2016 08:57:31 -0000
Hi Acee, Thank you very much for the clarification. If so, does it mean 2.5.(3) could be more exact to remove " Type-5 capable area" from following words? " For a Type-5 LSA the matching routing table entry must specify an intra-area or inter-area path through a Type-5 capable area " IMO a Type-5 capable area does not include NSSA area nor stub area from the definition in RFC 3101 Section 1.3, the second paragraph. " The OSPF specification defines two general classes of area configuration. The first allows Type-5 LSAs to be flooded throughout the area. In this configuration, Type-5 LSAs may be originated by routers internal to the area or flooded into the area by area border routers. These areas, referred to herein as Type-5 capable areas (or just plain areas in the OSPF specification) " Regards, Chao Fu -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 00:46 To: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; pmurphy@noc.usgs.net; akatlas@gmail.com; db3546@att.com; Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>; Abhay Roy (akr) <akr@cisco.com> Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767) Hi Chao, On 8/11/16, 5:22 AM, "Chao Fu" <chao.fu@ericsson.com> wrote: >Hi Acee, > >If my understanding is correct, you said there is the topology that an >ABR receives one NSSA LSA and one ASE LSA with the same destination, >cost and non-zero forwarding address. It is right but when doing >external route calculation, one of it would be rejected according to 2.5.(3): > If the forwarding address is non-zero look up the forwarding > address in the routing table. For a Type-5 LSA the matching > routing table entry must specify an intra-area or inter-area > path through a Type-5 capable area. For a Type-7 LSA the > matching routing table entry must specify an intra-area path > through the LSA's originating NSSA. >Then the path to the forwarding address cannot be through a Type-5 >capable area and an NSSA area at the same time, which means one of them >would be ignored here and no chance to match rule (e). With this respect to this reasoning, your understanding is incorrect. If the FA path is via a intra-area NSSA route (which it would be for an NSSA ABR), then it would be pass the reachability test for both the NSSA-LSA and the AS-External LSA. Thanks, Acee > >At the same time, rule (e) is not only defined to check the mixture of >an ASE LSA and an NSSA LSA, and then it is possible to compare two ASE >LSAs or two NSSA LSAs. But the referenced text describes that no such >two NSSA LSAs exist because one of them should be flushed. >Consequently, the condition of rule (e) will never be matched and then >it is a redundant rule. > >If rule (e) is not valid, I guess it is better to record it somewhere, >otherwise some conformance testers always want to verify it, that is >the reason why I would like to report the errata. If my understanding >on rule >(e) is wrong, please correct me and I will appreciate it very much. > >Thanks & best Regards, >Chao Fu > >-----Original Message----- >From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 19:15 >To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; >pmurphy@noc.usgs.net; akatlas@gmail.com; db3546@att.com; Alvaro Retana >(aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>; Abhay Roy (akr) <akr@cisco.com> >Cc: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>; ospf@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3101 (4767) > >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" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> >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 <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