RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 1 record.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC6793, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", December 2012

Source of RFC: idr (rtg)

Errata ID: 4538

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Warren Kumari
Date Reported: 2015-11-19
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2015-11-23

Section 8 says:

If the BGP4-MIB [RFC4273] is supported, there are no additional
manageability concerns that arise from the use of four-octet AS
numbers, since the InetAutonomousSystemNumber textual convention
[RFC4001] is defined as Unsigned32.

It should say:

If the BGP4-MIBv2 [draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2] is supported, there are 
no additional manageability concerns that arise from the use of 
four-octet AS numbers, since the InetAutonomousSystemNumber 
textual convention [RFC4001] is defined as Unsigned32.

Notes:

I do not have corrected text. RFC4273 does not use InetAutonomousSystemNumber for AS numbers:
bgpPeerRemoteAs OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Integer32 (0..65535)
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The remote autonomous system number received in
the BGP OPEN message."
REFERENCE
"RFC 4271, Section 4.2."
::= { bgpPeerEntry 9 }

This uses "Integer32 (0...65535)" (note, Integer, not Unsigned Int).
It is unclear to me how to fix this, I know some folk are simply treating it as a UInt32.

=====
The report is correct, rfc4273 can't support 4-byte ASNs.

After consulting with the authors and the WG, it seems like the correct reference should have been
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2 (BGP4 MIBv2). Besides the corrected text above, an Informative Reference should be added to draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2.

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×