RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
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
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
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.
Status: Held for Document Update (2)
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
Source of RFC: idr (rtg)
Errata ID: 4482
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Wesley Eddy
Date Reported: 2015-09-25
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2016-02-16
Section 4 (page 11) says:
An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
10.0.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| destination | source | port |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| 0x01 18 0a 01 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
It should say:
An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
10.1.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| destination | source | port |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| 0x01 18 0a 01 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
OR:
An example of a flow specification encoding for: "all packets to
10.0.1/24 from 192/8 and port {range [137, 139] or 8080}".
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| destination | source | port |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
| 0x01 18 0a 00 01 | 02 08 c0 | 04 03 89 45 8b 91 1f 90 |
+------------------+----------+-------------------------+
Notes:
The prefix stated in the text, does not match the one encoded in the example.
10.0.1/24 should be 10.1.1/24 to match the example, or alternatively the example should change from:
0x01 18 0a 01 01
to:
0x01 18 0a 00 01
Errata ID: 3610
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Sergey Antipov
Date Reported: 2013-04-30
Held for Document Update by: Stewart Bryant
Date Held: 2013-09-17
Section 4 says:
If a given component type within a prefix in unknown, the prefix in question cannot be used for traffic filtering purposes by the receiver. Since a flow specification has the semantics of a logical AND of all components, if a component is FALSE, by definition it cannot be applied. However, for the purposes of BGP route propagation, this prefix should still be transmitted since BGP route distribution is independent on NLRI semantics.
It should say:
If a given component type within a prefix is unknown, the prefix in question cannot be used for traffic filtering purposes by the receiver. Since a flow specification has the semantics of a logical AND of all components, if a component is FALSE, by definition it cannot be applied. However, for the purposes of BGP route propagation, this prefix should still be transmitted since BGP route distribution is independent of NLRI semantics.
Notes:
Two minor typos:
- If a given component type within a prefix _in_ unknown
- independent _on_