[Softwires] [Errata Verified] RFC7599 (7160)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 13 October 2022 06:22 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92064C1524D5; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 dHNWLPLY4kcK; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:22:22 -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 C2006C1524D7; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 5CDDD11D816; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: michael.overcash@cox.com, xing@cernet.edu.cn, congxiao@cernet.edu.cn, wdec@cisco.com, ot@cisco.com, satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp, tetsuya@ipinfusion.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: evyncke@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221013062222.5CDDD11D816@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:22:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/e4_zTFqnZQi79yZfWnU0UK6tt0E>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 06:54:22 -0700
Subject: [Softwires] [Errata Verified] RFC7599 (7160)
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 06:22:26 -0000
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7599, "Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7160 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Michael Overcash <michael.overcash@cox.com> Date Reported: 2022-10-12 Verified by: Eric Vyncke (IESG) Section: 10.1 Original Text ------------- Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will increase its size (typically by 20 bytes). Corrected Text -------------- Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will increase its size (typically either 20 or 28 bytes with fragmentation). Notes ----- In the context of MTU, it is important to account for packet fragmentation. If an IPv4 packet is fragmented, the size will increase by 28 bytes during translation. The IPv6 header is 20 bytes larger than the IPv4 header, and in addition the 8 byte IPv6 Fragmentation Header must be added. ---- Verifier note ========== with help of Yong Cui: fragmentation indeed needs to be taken into account. -------------------------------------- RFC7599 (draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08) -------------------------------------- Title : Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) Publication Date : July 2015 Author(s) : X. Li, C. Bao, W. Dec, Ed., O. Troan, S. Matsushima, T. Murakami Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Softwires Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Softwires] [Errata Verified] RFC7599 (7160) RFC Errata System