The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released. If the error was corrected in a later version or reprint the date of the correction will be displayed in the column titled "Date Corrected".
The following errata were submitted by our customers and approved as valid errors by the author or editor.
| Version |
Location |
Description |
Submitted By |
Date submitted |
Date corrected |
| Printed, PDF, ePub, Mobi, |
Page 2
Last paragraph after "Global ISPs" line |
Original sentence:
101.230The domestic ISP's...
Corrected sentence:
The domestic ISP's...
Basically, the initial "101.230" numbers should not be there and should be removed.
|
Antonio Sanchez-Monge
|
Jan 25, 2016 |
|
| Printed, PDF, ePub, Mobi, |
Page 3
Last paragraph (first sentence) |
Original sentence:
And this is the Internet some bricks (ASs), links, and a protocol (eBGP) that distributes
routing information worldwide.
Correct sentence:
And this is the Internet: some bricks (ASs), links, and a protocol (eBGP) that distributes
routing information worldwide.
Note the difference: there is a missing colon on the original sentence, and this affects understanding of readers (a reader submitted it).
|
Antonio Sanchez-Monge
|
Jan 25, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 5
The diagram |
The link between CE2 and PE1 has the subnet 10.1.0.6/30 assigned to it. This should be 10.1.0.6/31
Note from the Author or Editor:
The link between CE2 and PE1 has the subnet 10.1.0.6/30 assigned to it. This should be 10.1.0.6/31 |
David Bell |
Nov 28, 2018 |
|
| Printed, PDF |
Page 8
3rd paragraph |
Current text:
"On the other hand, PE3, PE4, BR1, and BR2 are ASBRs…."
Correct text:
"On the other hand, PE3, PE4, BR3, and BR4 are ASBRs…."
|
Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz
|
Jan 24, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 56
4th paragraph after “LDP and Equal cost multipath” |
Text states “different 127/8 destination”. Should be “different 172/8 destination”
Note from the Author or Editor:
On page 56 “different 127/8 destination” should be changed to “different 172/8 destination” |
David Bell |
Nov 26, 2018 |
|
| Printed, PDF, ePub |
Page 132
Example 3-9 |
Reported by Vitaly Venglovsky.
Example 3-9 starts like this:
RP/0/0/CPU0:PE4# show bgp ipv6 unicast fc00::10:2:34:0/112
There is a missing keyword "brief" at the end of the command.
This is the correct line:
RP/0/0/CPU0:PE4# show bgp ipv6 unicast fc00::10:2:34:0/112 brief
|
Antonio Sanchez-Monge
|
Jul 29, 2016 |
|
| Printed, PDF |
Page 135
In the second half, on a paragraph that is headlined by Per-CE |
Original sentence: "This is the default mode in Junos."
It should say "This is the default mode in Junos for routes learned from (or pointing to) CEs."
|
Antonio Sanchez-Monge
|
Feb 06, 2016 |
|
| Printed, PDF |
Page 136
In the note where the bird is. |
After the sentence "It is possible to have an interoperable network with PEs using different
modes." and still part of the note that is next to the bird, please add this sentence:
"That said, it is better to configure explicit null in Junos 6PE. Indeed, Junos 6PE advertises local routes (for example, a local loopback at the PE) with the implicit null label by default, and this can cause interop issues. "
|
Antonio Sanchez-Monge
|
Feb 06, 2016 |
|
| Printed, PDF |
Page 160
Middle of the page, After the bird pic, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line after community |
The Standard community which is learned by CE should be 65001:1234 and not 65000:1234.
This is because Example 3-35, (2nd half bottom of the page CLI), Line 15 it's members are 65001:1234 and also on page 161, first line from top it's 65001:1234 which is the standard community learned as per CE's loopback.
Note from the Author or Editor:
Original sentence:
Let's assume that the CEs are advertising their own loopbacks to the PEs with standard community 65000:1234.
Corrected sentence:
Let's assume that the CEs are advertising their own loopbacks to the PEs with standard community 65001:1234.
Change summary: 65000:1234 has to be changed into 65001:1234 |
Chinar |
Mar 25, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 171
Example 3-46 |
The title of the example is "Example 3-46. Multiple global loopback address - PE4 (Junos)".
I assume this should read "Example 3-46. Multiple global loopback addresses - PE4 (IOS-XR)".
It states "Junos" but provides XR config and states "address" singular but multiple addresses (plural) are configured.
Note from the Author or Editor:
The title of the example is "Example 3-46. Multiple global loopback address - PE4 (Junos)".
This should read "Example 3-46. Multiple global loopback addresses - PE4 (IOS-XR)". |
jwbensley |
Sep 05, 2018 |
|
| Printed |
Page 181
Last paragraph on the page. |
Original text: "H1 and H2 are actively generate traffic", I assume this should be "generating".
Note from the Author or Editor:
Original text:
"H1 and H2 are actively generate traffic"
should be changed to:
"H1 and H2 are actively generating traffic" |
jwbensley |
Sep 05, 2018 |
|
| Printed |
Page 197
First Sentence Paragraph: Direct Inter-PE Model -- PE-PE PIM Adj. over MPLS |
I think this model should be classified as C1 (PIM) instead of C2 (LDP), because C-PIM is transported over P plane using MP2MP as bidirectional MDT tree.
Note from the Author or Editor:
The reviewer is right, In this page where it says C2 it should say C1. |
Manfred Lindner |
Feb 03, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 203
4th paragraph |
Letl’s should be let’s
Note from the Author or Editor:
There is a typo on page 203, 4th paragraph.
Current text:
"Letl’s see how this"
Corrected text:
"Let’s see how this" |
David Bell |
Nov 30, 2018 |
|
| Printed |
Page 210
2nd paragraph |
“For example, AS 65000 may buy multipoint L2VPN services to an external SP”
I assume this should be something like
“For example, AS 65000 may buy multipoint L2VPN services from an external SP”
Note from the Author or Editor:
On page 210, 2nd paragraph,
Current text:
“For example, AS 65000 may buy multipoint L2VPN services to an external SP”
corrected text:
“For example, AS 65000 may buy multipoint L2VPN services from an external SP”
|
David Bell |
Nov 30, 2018 |
|
| Printed |
Page 221
Table 5-1 |
The Table 5-1. MCAST-MVPN ( SAFI=5) route types
the entries 6 and 7 are reversed.
this was noted due to the mention of it on page: 232
"MVPN Source Tree Join routes
OK, let’s get back to multicast. PE3 converts its downstream C-PIM Join state into a BGP route called (C-S, C-G) Source Tree Join. This is the Type 7 route of the
MCAST-VPN NLRI, and it is the BGP equivalent of a (C-S, C-G) PIM Join; see
Example 5-16."
the table lists as type 6 in error.
Note from the Author or Editor:
The reviewer is right.
The two last rows should look as follows on Table 5-1.
6 C-Multicast (*, C-G) Shared Tree Join (*, G) Join Yes
7 C-Multicast (C-S, C-G) Source Tree Join (S, G) Join Yes
So basically I got wrong the numbering between 6 and 7. |
William Jackson |
Jul 26, 2016 |
|
| PDF |
Page 282-283
Example 6-3. and 6-4. |
In example 6-3. for JunOS line 16 states "encapsulation-type ethernet" and in example 6-4. for IOS-XR line 11 states "l2-encapsulation vlan".
Despite "ignore-encapsulation-mismatch" statement in JunOS this PW won't come up as IOS-XR indicates Encap Mismatch and there's no ignore-encapsulation knob a-la JunOS.
Changing config to "l2-encapsulation ethernet" on IOS-XR solves this problem.
RP/0/0/CPU0:PE-4(config)#do sh l2vpn xconnect group VPWS detail
Mon Apr 3 13:18:55.318 UTC
Group VPWS, XC VPWS-1.4:1, state is unresolved; Interworking none
Local CE ID: 4, Remote CE ID: 1, Discovery State: Not Advertised
Not provisioned reason(s):
AC L2-Encapsulation Mismatch
Note from the Author or Editor:
Yes. Indeed, in example 6-4 on page 283 in line 11, 'l2-encapsulation vlan' must be changed to 'l2-encapsulation ethernet'. |
Vitaly Venglovsky |
Apr 03, 2017 |
|
| Printed |
Page 286
Paragraph right below Figure 6-4, Line 5 |
In this case, you can connect (CE- ID 1, interface A) to remote CE-ID 3 (it should NOT be 3, it should be 4).
Then only the following sentence
"This is still a VPWS service that connects each link from CE1 to only and ONLY ONE REMOTE CE"
will make sense........
Note from the Author or Editor:
This sentence is correct and should remain as it is:
"In this case, you can connect (CE-ID 1, interface A) to remote CE-ID 3, and also connect (CE-ID 1, interface B) to remote CE-ID 4."
This following sentence could be made clearer. Original sentence:
"This is still a VPWS service that connects each link from CE1 to one and only one remote CE."
Proposed sentence:
"This is still a VPWS service that connects each link from CE1 to one and only one (different for each link) remote CE."
Then after this (unmodified) sentence:
"One single label block would be enough to achieve the two parallel VPWS services."
Add the following sentence:
"Beware of L2 loops, though. CE1 should not bridge traffic between its two links!". |
Chinar Trivedi |
Jul 19, 2016 |
|
| PDF |
Page 354
5th paragraph |
It is stated that "Only MAC addresses learned on all-active multihomed CEs have a non-zero ESIvalue.”
However non-zero ESI value is seen on mac addresses learned over single-active multihoming PEs as well.
Note from the Author or Editor:
Several changes (they consist of removing the "all-active" and "single-active" distinction).
1. On Page 354:
Original sentences:
"[...]. PEs map to ESI #0 all the ACs connected to either single-homed CEs or single-active multihomed CEs.
Only MAC addresses learned on all-active multihomed CEs have a non-zero ESI value."
Fixed sentences:
"[...]. PEs map to ESI #0 all the ACs connected to single-homed CEs.
Only MAC addresses learned on multihomed CEs have a non-zero ESI value."
2. On Page 363:
Original sentences:
"[...]. This is fine for single-homed, or single-active multihomed CEs.
To guarantee correct forwarding state, it is essential to assign a unique non-zero ESI to each CE that is all-active multihomed to more than one PE. The ESI is configured on the PE ACs, not on the CE; and its value must be the same on all the ACs connected to a given multihomed CE. An ESI is to an Active-Active multihomed CE in EVPN, as a CE-ID is to any CE (multihomed or not) in VPLS."
Fixed sentences:
"[...]. This is fine for single-homed CEs.
To guarantee correct forwarding state, it is essential to assign a unique non-zero ESI to each CE that is multihomed to more than one PE. The ESI is configured on the PE ACs, not on the CE; and its value must be the same on all the ACs connected to a given multihomed CE. An ESI is to a multihomed CE in EVPN, as a CE-ID is to any CE (multihomed or not) in VPLS."
|
suman krishna dara |
Apr 14, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 557
Middle of the page .. starting Now, let’s configure the PE2→PE6 tunnel, |
Now, let’s configure the PE2→PE6 tunnel, which is requesting 9.4 Mbps bandwidth,
There's a typo here.
Now, let's configure the PE2--> P6 tunnel (It's P6 and not PE6) as there is no PE6 in the Figure 14-2.
One more same typo.
After Results of LSP preemption and resignaling:
Actual Sentence is:
With its new Setup priority, the PE2-->PE6 LSP will be able to.......
Corrected Sentence should be
With its new Setup priority, the PE2--> P6 LSP will be able to......
Note from the Author or Editor:
Indeed, good spot. "PE2-->PE6" should be changed to "PE2-->P6" in both places on this page (page 557). |
Chinar |
Oct 25, 2016 |
|
| Printed |
Page 604
Example 16-7 |
The command used in Example 16-7 is "show ldp database session 172.16.0.6 | match <pattern>" - I assume the actual match pattern used should be shown instead of "<pattern>" to allow the reader to run the same command replicate the same filtered output.
Note from the Author or Editor:
Original text:
show ldp database session 172.16.0.6 | match <pattern>
should be changed to:
show ldp database session 172.16.0.6 | match "database|172.16.0.44" |
jwbensley |
Sep 05, 2018 |
|
| Printed |
Page 608
3rd paragraph |
Original text: "we'll leaving the service stitching concepts for the Chapter 17".
I assume this should be "we'll leave the service stitching concepts for Chapter 17".
Note from the Author or Editor:
Original text:
"we'll leaving the service stitching concepts for the Chapter 17".
Should be changed to:
"we'll leave the service stitching concepts for Chapter 17". |
jwbensley |
Sep 05, 2018 |
|