RFC Errata
Found 15 records.
Status: Verified (5)
RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", September 2007
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5942, RFC 6980, RFC 7048, RFC 7527, RFC 7559, RFC 8028, RFC 8319, RFC 8425, RFC 9131
Source of RFC: ipv6 (int)
Errata ID: 1595
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Teco Boot
Date Reported: 2008-11-11
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-06-01
Section 2.2 says:
asymmetric reachability
- a link where non-reflexive and/or non-transitive
reachability is part of normal operation. (Non-
reflexive reachability means packets from A reach B,
but packets from B don't reach A. Non-transitive
reachability means packets from A reach B, and
packets from B reach C, but packets from A don't
reach C.) Many radio links exhibit these
properties.
It should say:
asymmetric reachability
- a link where uni-directional and/or non-transitive
reachability is part of normal operation. (Uni-
directional reachability means packets from A reach B,
but packets from B don't reach A. Non-transitive
reachability means packets from A reach B, and
packets from B reach C, but packets from A don't
reach C.) Many radio links exhibit these
properties.
Notes:
Discussed on Autoconf ML:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg01119.html
Term non-reflexive link is "link to itself". To be replaced with either asymmetric, non-symmetric or uni-directional. Asymmetric and Non-symmetric are confusing as those are often used for asymmetric link metrics (e.g. ADSL, UMTS/HSPDA).
Errata ID: 2709
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jan Kramer
Date Reported: 2011-02-09
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-10-03
Section Appendix C says:
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=1, - REACHABLE
Override=0
Same link-layer
address as cached.
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=any, Update content of unchanged
Override=any, No IsRouter flag.
link-layer address
It should say:
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=1, - REACHABLE
Override=0
Same link-layer
address as cached.
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=1, Update content of REACHABLE
Override=any, No IsRouter flag.
link-layer address
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=0, Update content of unchanged
Override=any, No IsRouter flag.
link-layer address
or
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=1, - REACHABLE
Override=0
Same link-layer
address as cached
or no link-layer
address
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=any, Update content of unchanged
Override=any, No IsRouter flag.
link-layer address
Notes:
Section 7.2.4. says:
"If the solicitation's IP Destination Address is
not a multicast address, the Target Link-Layer Address option MAY be
omitted; the neighboring node's cached value must already be current
in order for the solicitation to have been received."
Consider host A has a Neighbor Cache Entry for a unicast address of host B with the state PROBE. If it sends an NS to that address, B will answer with a NA.
If the Target Link-Layer Address is actually omitted, the host which sent the solicitation would only update the IsRouter flag of the Neighbor Cache Entry and leave the state unchanged.
At retransmit timeout host A would send another NS, since the state is still PROBE. After some retransmissions the entry would be discarded, although it was obviously reachable.
With one of the above suggestions, the Neighbor Cache Entry will be marked as REACHABLE, even if no Target Link-Layer Option is included in the NA.
Errata ID: 3154
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ladislav Lhotka
Date Reported: 2012-03-11
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-12-12
Section 6.2.1 says:
Default: 0.33 * MaxRtrAdvInterval If MaxRtrAdvInterval >= 9 seconds; otherwise, the Default is MaxRtrAdvInterval.
It should say:
Default: 0.33 * MaxRtrAdvInterval If MaxRtrAdvInterval >= 9 seconds; otherwise, the Default is 0.75 * MaxRtrAdvInterval.
Notes:
The original text contradicts the previous paragraph in the definition of MinRtrAdvInterval, which says: "MUST be no less than 3 seconds and no greater than .75 * MaxRtrAdvInterval."
Errata ID: 6983
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ramakrishna Rao DTV
Date Reported: 2022-05-30
Verifier Name: Eric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2023-08-03
Section 11.1 says:
Redirect attacks can also be achieved by any host in order to flood a victim or steal its traffic. A host can send a Neighbor Advertisement (in response to a solicitation) that contains its IP address and a victim's link-layer address in order to flood the victim with unwanted traffic. Alternatively, the host can send a Neighbor Advertisement that includes a victim's IP address and its own link-layer address to overwrite an existing entry in the sender's destination cache, thereby forcing the sender to forward all of the victim's traffic to itself.
It should say:
Redirect attacks can also be achieved by any host in order to flood a victim or steal its traffic. A host can send a Neighbor Advertisement (in response to a solicitation) that contains its IP address and a victim's link-layer address in order to flood the victim with unwanted traffic. Alternatively, the host can send a Neighbor Advertisement that includes a victim's IP address and its own link-layer address to overwrite an existing entry in the sender's neighbor cache, thereby forcing the sender to forward all of the victim's traffic to itself.
Notes:
s/destination cache/neighbor cache/
Neighbor advertisement affects neighbor cache and not destination cache.
Errata ID: 4461
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Zhou Yangchao
Date Reported: 2015-08-30
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2015-09-14
Section 6.2.3 says:
- In the Cur Hop Limit field: the interface's configured
CurHopLimit.
It should say:
- In the Cur Hop Limit field: the interface's configured
AdvCurHopLimit.
Notes:
The interface 's configured name of Cur Hop Limit is AdvCurHopLimit in the Section 6.2.1.
Status: Reported (6)
RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", September 2007
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5942, RFC 6980, RFC 7048, RFC 7527, RFC 7559, RFC 8028, RFC 8319, RFC 8425, RFC 9131
Source of RFC: ipv6 (int)
Errata ID: 7939
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeremy Duncan
Date Reported: 2024-05-17
Section 7.1.1 says:
- ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 24 or more octets.
It should say:
- IPv6 Payload Length is 24 or more octets.
Notes:
this can be confusing as the ICMPv6 Option Length is a different field and there is no specific ICMPv6 Length field in the ICMPv6 Extension Header. This clearly means the IPv6 Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header - not ICMPv6 Extension Header.
Errata ID: 7940
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeremy Duncan
Date Reported: 2024-05-17
Section 7.1.2 says:
- ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 24 or more octets.
It should say:
- IPv6 Payload Length is 24 or more octets.
Notes:
same as sec 7.1.1. This can be confusing as the ICMPv6 Option Length is a different field and there is no specific ICMPv6 Length field in the ICMPv6 Extension Header. This clearly means the IPv6 Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header - not ICMPv6 Extension Header.
Errata ID: 7941
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeremy Duncan
Date Reported: 2024-05-17
Section 6.1.1 says:
- ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 8 or more octets.
It should say:
- IPv6 Payload Length is 8 or more octets.
Notes:
same as sec 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. This can be confusing as the ICMPv6 Option Length is a different field and there is no specific ICMPv6 Length field in the ICMPv6 Extension Header. This clearly means the IPv6 Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header - not ICMPv6 Extension Header.
Errata ID: 7942
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeremy Duncan
Date Reported: 2024-05-17
Section 6.1.2 says:
- ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 16 or more octets.
It should say:
- IPv6 Payload Length is 16 or more octets.
Notes:
same as sec 6.1.1, 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. This can be confusing as the ICMPv6 Option Length is a different field and there is no specific ICMPv6 Length field in the ICMPv6 Extension Header. This clearly means the IPv6 Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header - not ICMPv6 Extension Header.
Errata ID: 7943
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeremy Duncan
Date Reported: 2024-05-17
Section 8.1 says:
- ICMP length (derived from the IP length) is 40 or more octets.
It should say:
- IPv6 Payload Length is 40 or more octets.
Notes:
same as sec 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 7.1.1 and 7.1.2. This can be confusing as the ICMPv6 Option Length is a different field and there is no specific ICMPv6 Length field in the ICMPv6 Extension Header. This clearly means the IPv6 Payload Length field in the IPv6 Header - not ICMPv6 Extension Header.
Errata ID: 8055
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Richard Patterson
Date Reported: 2024-07-29
Section 4.2 says:
Note: If neither M nor O flags are set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6.
It should say:
Note: If neither M nor O flags are set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware of.
Notes:
M=0 does not prevent a node from attempting DHCPv6.
The router cannot definitively know that no other DHCPv6 servers exist.
RFC 8415 does not require M=1, with §18 providing other examples that may trigger a DHCP exchange.
Status: Held for Document Update (3)
RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", September 2007
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5942, RFC 6980, RFC 7048, RFC 7527, RFC 7559, RFC 8028, RFC 8319, RFC 8425, RFC 9131
Source of RFC: ipv6 (int)
Errata ID: 2797
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alin Năstac
Date Reported: 2011-05-05
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section Appendix C says:
!INCOMPLETE NA, Solicited=1, - REACHABLE
Override=0
Same link-layer
address as cached
or no link-layer
address
It should say:
PROBE NA, Solicited=1, - REACHABLE
Override=0
Same link-layer
address as cached
or no link-layer
address
Notes:
NA having Solicited=1 are supposed to confirm two-way connectivity. In order to prove that, NA transmission has to be triggered by an NS sent by local host. Since {REACHABLE,STALE,DELAY} states deny that local host has sent a NS (they're sent only in INCOMPLETE or PROBE states), receiving a NA with Solicited=1 cannot verify 2-way connectivity, therefore it should be ignored.
Errata ID: 3440
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jeff Wheeler
Date Reported: 2012-12-28
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 3.1 says:
Unlike in IPv4 Router Discovery, the Router Advertisement messages do not contain a preference field. The preference field is not ...
It should say:
The Router Advertisement preference field is not ...
Notes:
If Errata #3367 is applied to this document, incorporating the Default Router Preference into the base ND specification, then this errata must also be applied to Section 3.1 paragraph 14.
If Errata #3367 is rejected then this errata should also be rejected.
Errata ID: 1317
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fernando Gont
Date Reported: 2008-02-13
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
In Appendix F, it says:
Removed the on-link assumption in Section 5.2 based on RFC 4942, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful".
It should say:
Removed the on-link assumption in Section 5.2 based on RFC 4943, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful".
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", September 2007
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 5942, RFC 6980, RFC 7048, RFC 7527, RFC 7559, RFC 8028, RFC 8319, RFC 8425, RFC 9131
Source of RFC: ipv6 (int)
Errata ID: 3367
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ron Bonica
Date Reported: 2012-09-27
Rejected by: Brian Haberman
Date Rejected: 2013-05-31
Section 4.2 says:
Routers send out Router Advertisement messages periodically, or in
response to Router Solicitations.
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 | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O| Reserved | Router Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reachable Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retrans Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
IP Fields:
Source Address
MUST be the link-local address assigned to the
interface from which this message is sent.
Destination Address
Typically the Source Address of an invoking Router
Solicitation or the all-nodes multicast address.
Hop Limit 255
ICMP Fields:
Type 134
Code 0
Checksum The ICMP checksum. See [ICMPv6].
Cur Hop Limit 8-bit unsigned integer. The default value that
should be placed in the Hop Count field of the IP
header for outgoing IP packets. A value of zero
means unspecified (by this router).
M 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When
set, it indicates that addresses are available via
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and
can be ignored because DHCPv6 will return all
available configuration information.
O 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it
indicates that other configuration information is
available via DHCPv6. Examples of such information
are DNS-related information or information on other
servers within the network.
Note: If neither M nor O flags are set, this indicates that no
information is available via DHCPv6.
It should say:
Routers send out Router Advertisement messages periodically, or in
response to Router Solicitations.
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 | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O|H|Prf|Resvd| Router Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reachable Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retrans Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
IP Fields:
Source Address
MUST be the link-local address assigned to the
interface from which this message is sent.
Destination Address
Typically the Source Address of an invoking Router
Solicitation or the all-nodes multicast address.
Hop Limit 255
ICMP Fields:
Type 134
Code 0
Checksum The ICMP checksum. See [ICMPv6].
Cur Hop Limit 8-bit unsigned integer. The default value that
should be placed in the Hop Count field of the IP
header for outgoing IP packets. A value of zero
means unspecified (by this router).
M 1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When
set, it indicates that addresses are available via
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].
If the M flag is set, the O flag is redundant and
can be ignored because DHCPv6 will return all
available configuration information.
O 1-bit "Other configuration" flag. When set, it
indicates that other configuration information is
available via DHCPv6. Examples of such information
are DNS-related information or information on other
servers within the network.
H
The Home Agent (H) bit is set in a Router Advertisement
to indicate that the router sending this Router
Advertisement is also functioning as a Mobile IPv6
home agent on this link. [RFC3775]
Prf
2-bit default router preference, encoded as follows:
01 High
00 Medium (default)
11 Low
10 Reserved - MUST NOT be sent
Indicates whether to prefer this router over other
default routers. If the Router Lifetime is zero, the
preference value MUST be set to (00) by the
sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. If the
Reserved (10) value is received, the receiver MUST
treat the value as if it were (00). [RFC4191]
Note: If neither M nor O flags are set, this indicates that no
information is available via DHCPv6.
Notes:
Contents of RFC 3775 and 4191 were not brought forward into RFC 4861
--VERIFIER NOTES--
OBE