RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 3122, "Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse Discovery Specification", June 2001
Source of RFC: ipngwg (int)
Errata ID: 3696
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Arnold Plankl
Date Reported: 2013-08-14
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2013-09-10
Section 2.2 says:
The sender node MUST send the following options in the Advertisement
message:
Source Link-Layer Address The link-layer address of the sender.
Target Link-Layer Address
The link-layer address of the target, that is, the sender of
the advertisement.
It should say:
The sender node MUST send the following options in the Advertisement
message:
Source Link-Layer Address
The link-layer address of the node transmitting the
Advertisement message
Target Link-Layer Address
The link-layer address of the node that transmitted the
Solicitation message
Notes:
There is an ambiguity with the Source Link-Layer and Target Link-Layer Address option in the Inverse Neighbor Discovery Advertisement Message. It is unclear if SLLA is set to sender of the Advertisement or of the Solicitation, the same with TLLA. The RFC-text as it is would lead to SLL=TLL=sender of advertisement.
Here is an example for clarification of the problem (with 2 Ethernet-nodes, no FR):
Eth Node A - Eth Node B:
1. A sends IND S with SLLA=A, TLLA=B
2. B takes the address pair from SLLA and source-IP in ND cache
3. B answers with IND A with TAL(identified by TLLA in solicitation), SLLA=B,TLLA=B <- problem is here (SLLA=TLLA=B). Is that acceptable?
Or modify to: SLLA=A or TLLA=A? Or omit TLLA?
4. A takes the address pair from SLLA and the TAL in ND cache
Solution 1: B answers with IND A with TAL, SLLA=B, and TLLA=A => Then carries TLLA the address of the requesting node (is that acceptable as “target” address?)
Solution 2: B answers with IND A with TAL, SLLA=A, and TLLA=B => Then A could not take the address pair from SLLA and the TAL in ND cache.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
RFC 3122, "Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse Discovery Specification", June 2001
Source of RFC: ipngwg (int)
Errata ID: 2819
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Luis MG
Date Reported: 2011-06-02
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 3.1 says:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - +
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It should say:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - - - +
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Notes:
The length field is 8 bits long, not 7. The diagram is wrong as the field should end in the 16th bit of the word.
Errata ID: 3695
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Arnold Plankl
Date Reported: 2013-08-14
Held for Document Update by: Ted Lemon
Section 2.2 says:
The sender node MUST send the following options in the Advertisement message: Source Link-Layer Address The link-layer address of the sender.
It should say:
The sender node MUST send the following options in the Advertisement
message:
Source Link-Layer Address
The link-layer address of the sender.
Notes:
The same format for the source link-layer address option as for the target link-layer address option (insert tab).