RFC 5575, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules", August 2009

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8955

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 7674

Errata ID: 5043
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jan Matejka
Date Reported: 2017-06-20
Verifier Name: Alvaro Retana
Date Verified: 2017-11-06

Section 7 says:

        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | 0x8006 | traffic-rate       | 2-byte as#, 4-byte float |
        | 0x8007 | traffic-action     | bitmask                  |
        | 0x8008 | redirect           | 6-byte Route Target      |
        | 0x8009 | traffic-marking    | DSCP value               |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

   Traffic-rate:  The traffic-rate extended community is a non-
      transitive extended community across the autonomous-system
      boundary and uses following extended community encoding:

It should say:

        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | type   | extended community | encoding                 |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+
        | 0x8006 | traffic-rate       | 2-byte as#, 4-byte float |
        | 0x8007 | traffic-action     | bitmask                  |
        | 0x8008 | redirect           | 6-byte Route Target      |
        | 0x8009 | traffic-marking    | DSCP value               |
        +--------+--------------------+--------------------------+

   Traffic-rate:  The traffic-rate extended community
      uses following extended community encoding:

Notes:

The traffic rate type is allocated in the Transitive Experimental Range (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/bgp-extended-communities.xhtml#bgp-extended-communities-10) but the text declares it non-transitive.

=====
[Alvaro Retana]

I am marking this report as Verified knowing that the issue is already being addressed in rfc5575bis.

Report New Errata