errata logo graphic

Found 1 record.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC6564, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", April 2012

Source of RFC: 6man (int)

Errata ID: 4423

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Fernando Gont
Date Reported: 2015-07-20

Section 5 says:

   Any IPv6 extension headers defined in the future, keeping in mind the
   restrictions specified in Section 3 and also the restrictions
   specified in [RFC2460], MUST use the consistent format defined in
   Figure 1.  This minimizes breakage in intermediate nodes that examine
   these extension headers.

It should say:

There's a bug in the logic of this document. Essentially:

   A key problem with the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers
   [RFC6564] lies in that both IPv6 Extension Headers and Transport
   Protocols share the same namespace ("Next Header" registry/
   namespace).  Thus, given an "unknown Next Header value", it is
   impossible to tell whether the aforementioned value refers to an IPv6
   Extension Header that employs the aforementioned uniform format, or
   an "unknown" upper-layer protocol (e.g. an "unknown" transport
   protocol).  That is, while [RFC6564] specifies the syntax for the
   Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers, but it does not provide a
   mechanism for a node to identify whether the aforementioned format is
   being employed in the first place.

This problem is discussed in: draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis.

Notes:

The problem is not specifically with Section 5, but rather with the logic in the document.


Report New Errata