RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 5549, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop", May 2009

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8950

Source of RFC: softwire (int)

Errata ID: 5253
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Shyam Sethuram
Date Reported: 2018-02-02
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2020-08-24

Section 6.2 says: 

Length of Next Hop Network Address = 16 (or 32)

It should say:

Length of Next Hop Network Address = 24 (or 48)

Notes:

The lengths should include the RD length also, right ?

===
This report is being addressed in draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 5549, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop", May 2009

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8950

Source of RFC: softwire (int)

Errata ID: 6786
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mike Dubrovsky
Date Reported: 2021-12-17
Rejected by: Éric Vyncke
Date Rejected: 2023-08-02

Section 4 says: 

   A BGP speaker MUST only advertise to a BGP peer the IPv4 or VPN-IPv4
   NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop if the BGP speaker has first ascertained
   via BGP Capability Advertisement that the BGP peer supports the
   Extended Next Hop Encoding capability for the relevant AFI/SAFI pair.

It should say:

   A BGP speaker MUST only advertise to a BGP peer the IPv4 or VPN-IPv4
   NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop if the BGP speaker has first ascertained
   via BGP Capability Advertisement that the BGP peer supports the
   Extended Next Hop Encoding capability for the relevant AFI/SAFI pair.
   
   IPv4 or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop SHOULD be treated as 
   malformed if it received from a BGP speaker that has not sent BGP 
   Capability Advertisement for the relevant AFI/SAFI pair.

Notes:

The behavior was not explicitly mentioned.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The RFC 5549 has been obsoleted by RFC 8950. Per point 7 of https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/, this errata is rejected.
It appears to me that RFC 8950 may have the same error and may also require a similar errata.
Thanks for the report.

Report New Errata



Advanced Search