RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 :-)

Report New Errata