Found 2 records.

Status: Rejected (2)

RFC 7084, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", November 2013

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 9096, RFC 9818

Errata ID: 7699
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alin Nastac
Date Reported: 2023-11-14
Rejected by: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Rejected: 2025-05-27

Section 4.3 says:

   L-3:   An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the
          delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
          ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified
          in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191].  This advertisement is
          independent of having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the
          WAN interface.

It should say:

   L-3:   An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the
          delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
          ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified
          in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191], but only when correspondent "Prefix 
          Information Option" is not using the entire prefix delegation or
          its on-link flag is unset. This advertisement is independent of
          having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the WAN interface.

Notes:

When both on-link "Prefix Information Option" and "Route Information Option" will contain the same prefix, hosts that receive such Router Advertisements will have to add 2 almost identical routes in their routing tables:
- PIO route set to "PD/64 dev <incoming_interface>"
- RIO route set to "PD/64 dev <incoming_interface> nexthop <router_ll_address>"

In best case scenario, PIO will take precedence and RIO will have no effect.

In worst case scenario, RIO will take precedence and PIO route will have no effect, which will be equivalent with host ignoring the on-link flag of the PIO.
--VERIFIER NOTES--

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/kEygjVcuk_95fqjpAxmDr1zD2PA/

Errata ID: 7700
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alin Nastac
Date Reported: 2023-11-14
Rejected by: Mohamed Boucadair
Date Rejected: 2025-05-27

Section 4.3 says:

   L-14:  The IPv6 CE router MUST send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
          message, code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy)
          for packets forwarded to it that use an address from a prefix
          that has been invalidated.

It should say:

   L-14:  The IPv6 CE router MUST send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
          message, code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy)
          for packets forwarded to it that use an address from a prefix
          that has been deprecated.

Notes:

The prefix route still need to exist on CPE to allow sending ICMPv6 errors back to the offending host.

Only deprecated prefixes (preferred lifetime=0, valid lifetime > 0) still have such route installed in CPE.
--VERIFIER NOTES--


See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/kEygjVcuk_95fqjpAxmDr1zD2PA/

Report New Errata