RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (4)

RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", September 2007

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: 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.

Report New Errata