RFC Errata
RFC 4762, "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", January 2007
Source of RFC: l2vpn (int)See Also: RFC 4762 w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 4144
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein
Date Reported: 2014-10-23
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2014-11-20
Section Appendix A says:
In a VPLS, we use a VCID (which, when using the PWid FEC, has been substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), to address extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment. Note that the VCID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier, identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit. In a VPLS, the VCID is a single service identifier, so it has global significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.
It should say:
In a VPLS, we use a PWID (which, when using the Generalized PW ID FEC, has been substituted with a more general identifier (AGI), to address extending the scope of a VPLS) to identify an emulated LAN segment. Note that the PWID as specified in [RFC4447] is a service identifier, identifying a service emulating a point-to-point virtual circuit. In a VPLS, the PWID is a single service identifier, so it has global significance across all PEs involved in the VPLS instance.
Notes:
1. The problematic text follows a diagram depicting the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128) as it appears in RFC 4447. This diagram includes a 32-bit PWID field, but there is no VCID field. Nor is VCID mentioned anywhere in RFC 4447 - it has been used in the original Martini drafts but has then been replaced by PWID.
2. According to RFC 4447, AGI is used only in the Generalized PW ID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-129) but not in the PWID FEC (a.k.a. FEC-128).