RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6145, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", April 2011

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7915

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6791, RFC 7757

Source of RFC: behave (tsv)
See Also: RFC 6145 w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 3059
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Gandhar Gokhale
Date Reported: 2011-12-23
Verifier Name: Wesley Eddy
Date Verified: 2012-06-01

Section 5.1 says: 

<Removed from RFC 2765 where it had existed after Destination Address 
field description>

It should say:

   If any of an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header, Destination Options 
   header, or Routing header with the Segments Left field equal to zero 
   are present in the IPv6 packet, those IPv6 extension headers MUST be 
   ignored (i.e., there is no attempt to translate the extension headers) 
   and the packet translated normally.  However, the Total Length field 
   and the Protocol field are adjusted to "skip" these extension headers.

Notes:

Since the extension headers shall be removed from the packet while translating to IPv4 the translator should deduct from IPv4 Total Length the length of all the extension headers present in the original IPv6 packet except ESP header (in transport mode). AH is not supposed to be translated. RFC 2765 had explicitly stated this and RFC 6145 also should continue to have this stated. Copied the correction text from RFC 2765.


A BEHAVE WG chair said on 1/19/2012:
I believe the filer is correct. Although the intent might be clear from Section 4:
" As with [RFC2765], the translating function specified in this
document does not translate any IPv4 options, and it does not
translate IPv6 extension headers except the Fragment Header."

Although the Length portion of the omitted paragraph is actually covered by
errata ID 3060 above (and we don't need 2 technical errata for the same thing)
the omitted paragraph does contain a statement about how to fill in the
Protocol field when IPv6 extension headers were present, which is nowhere
else in the doc and might not be obvious to an implementer from the
section 4 text.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search