Hi Joel,
There is a problem but actually it is R4's cost to N8 that is wrong in Table 6. 
It should be 25 rather than 18. Can this errata be edited? 
Thanks,
Acee 

On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:20 PM, RFC Errata System 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_search.php?rfc=2328&eid=2951
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Joel Gannett <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: 3.4
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>                   Destination   RT3 adv.   RT4 adv.
>                   _________________________________
>                   Ia,Ib         20         27
>                   N6            16         15
>                   N7            20         19
>                   N8            18         18
>                   N9-N11,H1     29         36
>                   _________________________________
>                   RT5           14         8
>                   RT7           20         14
> 
>              Table 6: Destinations advertised into Area 1
>                        by Routers RT3 and RT4.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>                   Destination   RT3 adv.   RT4 adv.
>                   _________________________________
>                   Ia,Ib         20         27
>                   N6            16         15
>                   N7            20         19
>                   N8            18         18
>                   N9-N11,H1     29         29
>                   _________________________________
>                   RT5           14         8
>                   RT7           20         14
> 
>              Table 6: Destinations advertised into Area 1
>                        by Routers RT3 and RT4.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The distance from RT4 to N9-N11,H1 should be changed from 36 to 29 to be 
> consistent with the row above that, which shows the distance from RT3 to N8 
> and RT4 to N8 as the same value, 18.  The length 18 path from RT3 to N8 is 
> RT3-RT6-RT10-N8, while the length 18 path from RT4 to N8 is 
> RT4-RT5-RT7-RT10-N8.  The summarized N9-N11,H1 network is a distance 11 
> beyond that, or 29 in both cases.  The length 29 path from RT3 to N9-N11,H1 
> is RT3-RT6-RT10-RT11-(N9-N11,H1), and the length 29 path from RT4 to 
> N9-N11,H1 is RT4-RT5-RT7-RT10-RT11-(N9-N11,H1).
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This errata 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC2328 (no draft string recorded)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : OSPF Version 2
> Publication Date    : April 1998
> Author(s)           : J. Moy
> Category            : STANDARD
> Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

Reply via email to