[Took the RFC Editor off..and removed Abhay’s e-mail as it is out of date. I’m pretty sure John’s e-mail is also not accurate anymore, I moved that to bcc…. In short, everyone interested should be in the lsr list. :-)]
Hi! I am marking this report as Rejected…both because of Acee’s explanation, but also because the intent of the system is to correct mistakes, not change the specification. In this case, the proposed text would result in a modification of the process to calculate the routing table. A change like that should be discussed in the WG/mailing list instead. Thanks! Alvaro. On January 22, 2019 at 3:50:04 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]) wrote: Hi Anil, This is the case where the transit network vertex corresponding to a network-LSA is newly added to the current intra-area graph and an intra-area route corresponding to the SPF in progress already exists. This implies that there was another network-LSA. So, either the network corresponding to the subnet is partitioned or there is a network configuration error with the same subnet configured for multiple multi-access networks. In either case, I don't really see the benefit of an ECMP route. In fact, it could make trouble-shooting the problem more difficult. Hence, I would advise Alvaro, the responsible AD, to reject this Errata. Thanks, Acee On 1/22/19, 3:09 PM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5611 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Anil Chaitanya Mandru <[email protected]> Section: 16.1 (4) Original Text ------------- In this case, the current routing table entry should be overwritten if and only if the newly found path is just as short and the current routing table entry's Link State Origin has a smaller Link State ID than the newly added vertex' LSA. Corrected Text -------------- In this case, if the newly found path is just as short, then both the paths should be added to the routing table. Notes ----- If the newly found path is just as short then both the paths should be considered for ECMP. Why should the smaller Link State ID path overwrite the current one even if the paths are equi distant? 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 can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Version 2 Publication Date : April 1998 Author(s) : J. Moy Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
