RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC5575, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", August 2009

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 4482

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Wesley Eddy
Date Reported: 2015-09-25

Section 4 (page 11) says:

   An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
   10.0.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".

   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | destination      | source   | port                    |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | 0x01 18 0a 01 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+

It should say:

   An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
   10.1.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".

   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | destination      | source   | port                    |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | 0x01 18 0a 01 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+

OR:

   An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
   10.0.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".

   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | destination      | source   | port                    |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+
   | 0x01 18 0a 00 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
   +------------------+----------+-------------------------+

Notes:

The prefix stated in the text, does not match the one encoded in the example.

10.0.1/24 should be 10.1.1/24 to match the example, or alternatively the example should change from:
0x01 18 0a 01 01
to:
0x01 18 0a 00 01

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC5575, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", August 2009

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 3610

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Sergey Antipov
Date Reported: 2013-04-30
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2013-09-17

Section 4 says:

   If a given component type within a prefix in unknown, the prefix in
   question cannot be used for traffic filtering purposes by the
   receiver.  Since a flow specification has the semantics of a logical
   AND of all components, if a component is FALSE, by definition it
   cannot be applied.  However, for the purposes of BGP route
   propagation, this prefix should still be transmitted since BGP route
   distribution is independent on NLRI semantics.

It should say:

   If a given component type within a prefix is unknown, the prefix in
   question cannot be used for traffic filtering purposes by the
   receiver.  Since a flow specification has the semantics of a logical
   AND of all components, if a component is FALSE, by definition it
   cannot be applied.  However, for the purposes of BGP route
   propagation, this prefix should still be transmitted since BGP route
   distribution is independent of NLRI semantics.

Notes:

Two minor typos:
- If a given component type within a prefix _in_ unknown
- independent _on_

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×