RFC 5123, "Considerations in Validating the Path in BGP", February 2008

Errata ID: 1370
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05

Section 2.2, pg. 6 says:

a)  first bullet:

   o  Is the AS Path valid?  The AS Path the receiving BGP speaker in
|     AS65000 receives from its peer in AS65001, {65004, 65002, 65001),
      does exist, and is valid.

b)  third bullet:
 
   o  Is the AS Path consistent with the forwarding path (does
      forwarding consistency exist)?  No, the advertised AS Path is
|     {65004, 65002, 65001}, while the actual path is {65004, 65003,
|     65001}.

It should say:

a)  first bullet:

   o  Is the AS Path valid?  The AS Path the receiving BGP speaker in
|     AS65000 receives from its peer in AS65001, {65001, 65002, 65004),
      does exist, and is valid.

b)  third bullet:
 
   o  Is the AS Path consistent with the forwarding path (does
      forwarding consistency exist)?  No, the advertised AS Path is
|     {65001, 65002, 65004}, while the actual path is {65001, 65003,
|     65004}.

Notes:

For rationale, see Errata Note for Section 1, Errata ID: 1366

Report New Errata