I already responded to Ramakrishna on the OSPF list that he is correct and this 
is an omission from RFC 2328. 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/msg06720.html

This errata should be accepted. 

Thanks,
Acee
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:29 AM, 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=3746
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Ramakrishna DTV <[email protected]>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> *. Section 3.3. (Classification of routers) says:
> 
>        AS boundary routers
>            A router that exchanges routing information with routers
>            belonging to other Autonomous Systems.  Such a router
>            advertises AS external routing information throughout the
>            Autonomous System.  The paths to each AS boundary router are
>            known by every router in the AS.  This classification is
>            completely independent of the previous classifications: AS
>            boundary routers may be internal or area border routers, and
>            may or may not participate in the backbone.
> 
> *. Section 10.6 (Receiving Database Description Packets) says:
> 
>             When the router accepts a received Database Description Packet
>        as the next in sequence the packet contents are processed as
>        follows.  For each LSA listed, the LSA's LS type is checked for
>        validity.  If the LS type is unknown (e.g., not one of the LS
>        types 1-5 defined by this specification), or if this is an AS-
>        external-LSA (LS type = 5) and the neighbor is associated with a
>        stub area, generate the neighbor event SeqNumberMismatch and
>        stop processing the packet.
> 
> *. Section 13. (The Flooding Procedure) says:
> 
>    (3) Else if this is an AS-external-LSA (LS type = 5), and the area
>        has been configured as a stub area, discard the LSA and get the
>        next one from the Link State Update Packet.  AS-external-LSAs
>        are not flooded into/throughout stub areas (see Section 3.6).
> 
>    (4) Else if the LSA's LS age is equal to MaxAge, and there is
>        currently no instance of the LSA in the router's link state
>        database, and none of router's neighbors are in states Exchange
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> *. Section 3.3. (Classification of routers) should say:
> 
>        AS boundary routers
>            A router that exchanges routing information with routers
>            belonging to other Autonomous Systems.  Such a router
>            advertises AS external routing information throughout the
>            Autonomous System.  The paths to each AS boundary router are
>            known by every router in the AS (except stub areas).  This
>            classification is
>            completely independent of the previous classifications: AS
>            boundary routers may be internal or area border routers, and
>            may or may not participate in the backbone.
> 
> *. Section 10.6 (Receiving Database Description Packets) should say:
> 
>             When the router accepts a received Database Description Packet
>        as the next in sequence the packet contents are processed as
>        follows.  For each LSA listed, the LSA's LS type is checked for
>        validity.  If the LS type is unknown (e.g., not one of the LS
>        types 1-5 defined by this specification), or if this is an AS-
>        external-LSA (LS type = 5) and the neighbor is associated with a
>        stub area, or if this is a type-4 summary LSA and the neighbor
>               is associated with a stub area, generate the neighbor event
>        SeqNumberMismatch and stop processing the packet.
> 
> *. Section 13. (The Flooding Procedure) should say:
> 
> There should be an additional step in between steps 3 and 4  in
> Section 13. The additional step below is denoted 3.5:
> 
>    (3) Else if this is an AS-external-LSA (LS type = 5), and the area
>        has been configured as a stub area, discard the LSA and get the
>        next one from the Link State Update Packet.  AS-external-LSAs
>        are not flooded into/throughout stub areas (see Section 3.6).
> 
>    (3.5) Else if this is a type-4 Summary LSA (LS type = 4), and the
>        area has been configured as a stub area, discard the LSA and get
>        the next one from the Link State Update Packet.  Type-4 Summary
>        LSAs are not flooded into/throughout stub areas.
> 
>    (4) Else if the LSA's LS age is equal to MaxAge, and there is
>        currently no instance of the LSA in the router's link state
>        database, and none of router's neighbors are in states Exchange
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> This whole note is regarding stub areas.
> 
> RFC 2328 is already consistent with respect to AS-external-LSAs
> (LS type =5). The RFC explicitly indicates that they should be neither
> sent nor received in stub areas.
> 
> But RFC 2328 seems to have some omissions with respect to type-4
> Summary LSA (LS type = 4). The RFC explicitly indicates that these
> LSAs should never be sent in stub areas. But it does not mention what
> should be done if these LSAs are received in stub areas.
> 
> The above updates try to remedy this omission.
> 
> If the neighbor is associated with a stub area, then we should never
> receive a type-4 summary LSA from that neighbor. Here are the relevant
> quotes from the RFC:
> 
> Section 12.4.3.1.(Originating summary-LSAs into stub areas):
> 
>              "As specified in Section 12.4.3, Type 4 summary-LSAs
>               (ASBR-summary-LSAs) are never originated into stub
>               areas."
> 
> Section 4.2. (AS external routes):
> 
>        "To utilize external routing information, the path to all routers
>        advertising external information must be known throughout the AS
>        (excepting the stub areas).  For that reason, the locations of
>        these AS boundary routers are summarized by the (non-stub) area
>        border routers."
> 
> 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            : INTERNET STANDARD
> Source              : Open Shortest Path First IGP
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

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

Reply via email to