[Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 10 May 2022 22:06 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489C3C157B47 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2022 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NByQZLhO79fE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2022 15:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781ABC147921 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2022 15:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 4F768133111; Tue, 10 May 2022 15:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: dthaler@microsoft.com, richdr@microsoft.com, arifumi@nttv6.net, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, ek.ietf@gmail.com, evyncke@cisco.com, bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org, furry13@gmail.com
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971)
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220510220633.4F768133111@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 15:06:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O3wuw-Nsdgwb2_t0OMEnPtBTkeU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 22:06:37 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6724, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6971 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Section: 2.2 Original Text ------------- We define the common prefix length CommonPrefixLen(S, D) of a source address S and a destination address D as the length of the longest prefix (looking at the most significant, or leftmost, bits) that the two addresses have in common, up to the length of S's prefix (i.e., the portion of the address not including the interface ID). For example, CommonPrefixLen(fe80::1, fe80::2) is 64. Corrected Text -------------- We define the common prefix length CommonPrefixLen(S, D) of a source address S and a destination address D as the length of the longest prefix (looking at the most significant, or leftmost, bits) that the two addresses have in common, up to the length of S's prefix (i.e., for most IPv6 addresses, the portion of the address not including the interface ID). For example, CommonPrefixLen(fe80::1, fe80::2) is 64. For two IPv4-mapped addresses in ::ffff:0:0/96, CommonPrefixLen() may be up to 128. Notes ----- 1) Not all IPv6 address formats have a well-defined interface index. 2) In particular, the original text is inapplicable to IPv4-mapped addresses. 3) N.B.: In practice it seems that some implementations simply do a longest match up to /128 and that works fine. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6724 (draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06) -------------------------------------- Title : Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Publication Date : September 2012 Author(s) : D. Thaler, Ed., R. Draves, A. Matsumoto, T. Chown Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : IPv6 Maintenance Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) RFC Errata System
- RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Philip Homburg
- RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Philip Homburg
- RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Philip Homburg
- RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) David Farmer
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971) David Farmer