[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5087)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 16 August 2017 14:29 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86783132198 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MdHvWdkjeLcT for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8601241FC for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A66A1B8139E; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: rahul@juniper.net, kireeti@juniper.net, tom.nadeau@bt.com, swallow@cisco.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, jhaas@pfrc.org, rrahman@cisco.com
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5087)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: cpignata@cisco.com, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20170816142934.A66A1B8139E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 07:29:34 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/gp_sFzBNGnLTEHoFGgrWXU-Arik>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:01:54 -0700
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:29:57 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5884, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5087 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> Section: 7 Original Text ------------- 7. Encapsulation [...] The BFD Control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet with a well-known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6 with the following exception. If the FEC is an LDP IP FEC, the ingress LSR may discover multiple alternate paths to the egress LSR for this FEC using LSP Ping traceroute. In this case, the destination IP address, used in a BFD session established for one such alternate path, is the address in the 127/8 range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6 discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC4379] to exercise that particular alternate path. [...] Or the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR to the ingress LSR MAY be encapsulated in an MPLS label stack. In this case, the presence of the fault detection message is indicated as described above. This may be the case if the FEC for which the fault detection is being performed corresponds to a bidirectional LSP or an MPLS PW. This may also be the case when there is a return LSP from the egress LSR to the ingress LSR. In this case, the destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6. Corrected Text -------------- 7. Encapsulation [...] The BFD Control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet with a well-known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 with the following exception. If the FEC is an LDP IP FEC, the ingress LSR may discover multiple alternate paths to the egress LSR for this FEC using LSP Ping traceroute. In this case, the destination IP address, used in a BFD session established for one such alternate path, is the address in the 127/8 range for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 discovered by LSP Ping traceroute [RFC4379] to exercise that particular alternate path. [...] Or the BFD Control packet sent by the egress LSR to the ingress LSR MAY be encapsulated in an MPLS label stack. In this case, the presence of the fault detection message is indicated as described above. This may be the case if the FEC for which the fault detection is being performed corresponds to a bidirectional LSP or an MPLS PW. This may also be the case when there is a return LSP from the egress LSR to the ingress LSR. In this case, the destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6. Notes ----- There are three instances of the IPv4-mapped IPv6 prefix for the IPv4 loopback range 127.0.0.0/8 written as 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104, and it should instead be written as 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104. s/0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/g (3 replacements) Same rationale as https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/DqH_LFCEyUqCLQhffEb7_jU24uQ 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. -------------------------------------- RFC5884 (draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07) -------------------------------------- Title : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Publication Date : June 2010 Author(s) : R. Aggarwal, K. Kompella, T. Nadeau, G. Swallow Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5884 (5087) RFC Errata System