RFC Errata
Found 6 records.
Status: Verified (6)
RFC 5123, "Considerations in Validating the Path in BGP", February 2008
Source of RFC: INDEPENDENT
Errata ID: 1366
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 1.,last para says:
Assume a BGP speaker in AS65002 has received an advertisement for
| 10.1.1.0/24 from a BGP speaker in AS65001, with an AS Path of {65000,
| 65001}.
It should say:
Assume a BGP speaker in AS65002 has received an advertisement for
| 10.1.1.0/24 from a BGP speaker in AS65001, with an AS Path of {65001,
| 65000}.
Notes:
Rationale:
AS Path presentation should consistently follow the common
practice for BGP-4.
RFC 5123 mixes standard and reversed AS Path notation.
To avoid confusion, all reversed AS Path notations should
be corrected.
For clarity, further instances of this issue in Sections 1.2,
1.4, and 2.2 are addressed in separate Errata Notes.
Errata ID: 1367
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 1.2,2nd para says:
Path validation, in the context of this small internetwork, asserts
that when a BGP speaker in AS65002 receives an advertisement from a
| BGP speaker in AS65001 with the AS Path {65000, 65001}, the speaker
can assume that AS65001 is attached to the local AS, and that AS65001
is also attached to AS65000.
It should say:
Path validation, in the context of this small internetwork, asserts
that when a BGP speaker in AS65002 receives an advertisement from a
| BGP speaker in AS65001 with the AS Path {65001, 65000}, the speaker
can assume that AS65001 is attached to the local AS, and that AS65001
is also attached to AS65000.
Notes:
For rationale, see previous Errata Note.
Errata ID: 1368
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 1.4,2nd para says:
In terms of the small example internetwork, if a BGP speaker in
AS65002 receives an advertisement from a peer in AS65001 for the
| destination 10.1.1.0/24, with an AS Path {65000, 65001}, will traffic
forwarded to the BGP speaker in AS65001 actually be forwarded through
routers within AS65001, then AS65000, to reach its destination?
It should say:
In terms of the small example internetwork, if a BGP speaker in
AS65002 receives an advertisement from a peer in AS65001 for the
| destination 10.1.1.0/24, with an AS Path {65001, 65000}, will traffic
forwarded to the BGP speaker in AS65001 actually be forwarded through
routers within AS65001, then AS65000, to reach its destination?
Notes:
For rationale, see Errata Note for Section 1
Errata ID: 1369
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 2.2, pg. 5 says:
A BGP speaker in AS65000 may receive an advertisement from a peer
| that 10.1.1.0/24 is reachable along the path {65004, 65002, 65001}.
[...]
It should say:
A BGP speaker in AS65000 may receive an advertisement from a peer
| that 10.1.1.0/24 is reachable along the path {65001, 65002, 65004}.
[...]
Notes:
For rationale, see Errata Note for Section 1.
Errata ID: 1370
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2008-03-13
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 2.2, pg. 6 says:
a) first bullet:
o Is the AS Path valid? The AS Path the receiving BGP speaker in
| AS65000 receives from its peer in AS65001, {65004, 65002, 65001),
does exist, and is valid.
b) third bullet:
o Is the AS Path consistent with the forwarding path (does
forwarding consistency exist)? No, the advertised AS Path is
| {65004, 65002, 65001}, while the actual path is {65004, 65003,
| 65001}.
It should say:
a) first bullet:
o Is the AS Path valid? The AS Path the receiving BGP speaker in
| AS65000 receives from its peer in AS65001, {65001, 65002, 65004),
does exist, and is valid.
b) third bullet:
o Is the AS Path consistent with the forwarding path (does
forwarding consistency exist)? No, the advertised AS Path is
| {65001, 65002, 65004}, while the actual path is {65001, 65003,
| 65004}.
Notes:
For rationale, see Errata Note for Section 1, Errata ID: 1366
Errata ID: 1396
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
Date Reported: 2008-03-30
Verifier Name: Nevil Brownlee
Date Verified: 2012-11-05
Section 2.1 says:
While Dijkstra's Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and the Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL) both base their loop-free path calculations on the cost of a path
It should say:
While Dijkstra's Shortest Path First (SPF) and the Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL) both base their loop-free path calculations on the cost of a path
Notes:
This confusion with RFC 4408 is funny :-)