RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 6164, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links", April 2011

Source of RFC: 6man (int)

Errata ID: 5080
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: toerless Eckert
Date Reported: 2017-08-08

Throughout the document, when it says:

Request for Comments: 6164
Category: Standards Track

It should say:

Request for Comments: 6164
Category: Standards Track
Updates: RFC4291


The solution described in RFC6164 updates RFC4291 because it violates the requirement of RFC4291 section 2.5.1 for the IIDs to be 64-bit long and be constructed from EUI-64 format.

Please feel free to reconfirm with 6man WG. In Prague, the suggestion was made that all documents introducing solutions that are not compliant with this requirement must be tracked as updated to RFC6164. When i asked on the list recently, i was given the suggestion to file an Errata as i am doing right now.

Note that i think that i do not think that "just wait for rfc4291bis" would be a good answer to this errata because rfc6164 of course predates it, and even more so, correct proedural tracking of rfc4291 updates can potentially help the process of getting to rfc4291bis.

Report New Errata

Advanced Search