errata logo graphic

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", June 2009

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 1940

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Matthew Bocci
Date Reported: 2009-11-03
Verifier Name: Adrian Farrel
Date Verified: 2009-12-02

Section 10 says:

In order to support this
requirement, IANA has changed the code point allocation scheme for
the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows:

   0 - 32751 : IETF Review
   32760 - 32767 : Experimental


It should say:

In order to support this
requirement, IANA has changed the code point allocation scheme for
the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows:

   0 - 32759 : IETF Review
   32760 - 32767 : Experimental
   32768 - 65535 : IETF Review


Notes:

There are some gaps in the specified allocation policy for some parts of the ACH channel type range (32752 to 32759 and 32768 to 65535). The channel type is a 16-bit value, and the IANA considerations section of RFC5586 should be updated to reflect this.

The correction should be to clarify that the allocation policy for the code points that have been left out of RFC5586 is IETF review (which reflects the WG consensus at the time of publication), and to leave the Experimental range where it is to avoid impacting current implementations.

This also requires an update by IANA to the PW ACH Channel Type registry.


Status: Rejected (1)

RFC5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", June 2009

Source of RFC: mpls (rtg)

Errata ID: 4364

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alexander ("Sasha") Vainshtein
Date Reported: 2015-05-12
Rejected by: Deborah Brungard
Date Rejected: 2015-05-18

Section 4.2.1 says:

   The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains the GAL follows
   the definition and processing rules specified in [RFC3443].

It should say:

The value of the  Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains the 
GAL follows is irrelevant as long as it exceeds 1. (Setting this value 
to 0 or 1 SHOULD be avoided because it could result in trapping the OAM 
packets in with wrong reason: "TTL expiration" instead of "GAL  
encountered").  

Notes:

The processing rules specific in RFC 3443 deal with handling TTL in the LSE of a labeled packets that are forwarded based on this LSE, or with setting the TTL value by a LER pushing a label stack on an unlabeled packet.
As per the last para in Section 4.2, LSRs and LERs MUST NOT forward packets based on the LSE that contains GAL, hence these rules are mainly not applicable.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This proposes a change to the RFC which needs to be agreed via working group consensus.


Report New Errata