RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 5884, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", June 2010

Source of RFC: bfd (rtg)

Errata ID: 5085

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Balaji Rajagopalan
Date Reported: 2017-08-11

Section 6 says:

The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo
reply message that carries the local discriminator assigned by it for
the BFD session.

It should say:

The egress LSR MUST respond with an LSP Ping Echo reply message that
MAY carry the local discriminator assigned by it for the BFD session.

Notes:

It is not clear from the original text which of the following is optional:
- The egress MUST send a reply, but the discriminator in the reply is optional
- The reply itself is optional

Technically, the reply cannot be optional, because the egress needs to report LSP-Ping verification status to the ingress.

The proposed text recommends to include BFD discriminator in the reply. This was the intent of the original text.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 5884, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", June 2010

Source of RFC: bfd (rtg)

Errata ID: 5087

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Carlos Pignataro
Date Reported: 2017-08-16
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-11-06

Section 7 says:

7.  Encapsulation

[...]

   The BFD Control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
   with a well-known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
   assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP].  The source
   IP address is a routable address of the sender.  The destination IP
   address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and
   from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6 with the following
   exception.  If the FEC is an LDP IP FEC, the ingress LSR may discover
   multiple alternate paths to the egress LSR for this FEC using LSP
   Ping traceroute.  In this case, the destination IP address, used in a
   BFD session established for one such alternate path, is the address
   in the 127/8 range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6
   discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC4379] to exercise that
   particular alternate path.

[...]

   Or the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR to the ingress LSR
   MAY be encapsulated in an MPLS label stack.  In this case, the
   presence of the fault detection message is indicated as described
   above.  This may be the case if the FEC for which the fault detection
   is being performed corresponds to a bidirectional LSP or an MPLS PW.
   This may also be the case when there is a return LSP from the egress
   LSR to the ingress LSR.  In this case, the destination IP address
   MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the
   0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6.

It should say:

7.  Encapsulation

[...]

   The BFD Control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
   with a well-known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
   assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP].  The source
   IP address is a routable address of the sender.  The destination IP
   address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and
   from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 with the following
   exception.  If the FEC is an LDP IP FEC, the ingress LSR may discover
   multiple alternate paths to the egress LSR for this FEC using LSP
   Ping traceroute.  In this case, the destination IP address, used in a
   BFD session established for one such alternate path, is the address
   in the 127/8 range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for 
   IPv6 discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC4379] to exercise that
   particular alternate path.

[...]

   Or the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR to the ingress LSR
   MAY be encapsulated in an MPLS label stack.  In this case, the
   presence of the fault detection message is indicated as described
   above.  This may be the case if the FEC for which the fault detection
   is being performed corresponds to a bidirectional LSP or an MPLS PW.
   This may also be the case when there is a return LSP from the egress
   LSR to the ingress LSR.  In this case, the destination IP address
   MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the
   0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6.

Notes:

There are three instances of the IPv4-mapped IPv6 prefix for the IPv4 loopback range 127.0.0.0/8 written as 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104, and it should instead be written as 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104.

s/0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/g (3 replacements)

Same rationale as https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/DqH_LFCEyUqCLQhffEb7_jU24uQ

Errata ID: 5088

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Carlos Pignataro
Date Reported: 2017-08-17
Held for Document Update by: Alvaro Retana
Date Held: 2017-11-06

Section 3.1,4,7,11.2 says:

[5085]

It should say:

[5885]

Notes:

RFC 5884 refers to RFC 5085, when in fact it should refer to RFC 5885 (or at the very least to both RFCs 5085 and 5885 consecutively).

Historically, RFC 5085 and RFC 5885 come from the same Internet-Draft, which was Referenced from RFC 5884. It included general VCCV as well as BFD for VCCV. Subsequently, that document was split into two I-Ds that resulted in RFCs 5085 and 5885. BFD for Pseudowires is actually covered by RFC 5885 (not 5085).

In Section 3.1. BFD for MPLS LSPs: Motivation

e) Pseudowires based on PWid FEC and Generalized PWid FEC
[RFC4447]

e) is covered by RFC 5885 as BFD single-hop for PWs. And not as per the more complex RFC 5884.

A better technical normalization of BFD for PWs versus BFD for other MPLS LSPs is needed to adequately cover the subject matter of RFC 5884.

Note, RFC 5884 and 5885 were part of the same RFC-Editor cluster.

Report New Errata