Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

In message <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161444230.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se>, Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Timothy Winters wrote:
> 
> > I looked thru the IPv6 Ready Logo Test Specification for this, we test 
> > this for NAs and NSs but not RSs/RAs.  I've filed a bug to update the 
> > Test Specification to check this in the next release.
> 
> Great takeaway from this discussion. I have personally run into problems 
> with an implementation that did not ignore MBZ bits but instead required 
> them to be 0. Since the sender of the packet had a bug and didn't zero 
> them, this caused things not to work.
> 
> The sender of the packet which didn't zero the bits immediately understood 
> what the problem was and offered to correct things, however the vendor of 
> the device that didn't ignore the bits took a lot longer to convince that 
> they were doing something wrong.
>
> This was OSPFv3 and it had a 24 bit field in there with the remaining 8 
> bits being MBZ and ignored. The vendor put this into a 32 bit field and 
> compared meaning that when the other end messed up their zeroing the 
> reserved bits, the compare failed. I'd imagine this is not too uncommon 
> problem.

It's not just the protocol implementers that get this wrong.  Firewall
vendors also get this wrong by blocking packets with reserved bits
set.  It then takes years longer to deploy extensions that use the
reserved bits.

> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org