Re: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5969 (3049)

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <> Sun, 11 December 2011 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656AF21F845B for <>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.518
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6iadHfQHo+V for <>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E16721F8457 for <>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:13:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3008; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1323623627; x=1324833227; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=6b1STtg7EABIzniVj/HJlUjKmcEEceTExGFVkwd/lBY=; b=FM346EIJ2bSri0l1tnuw3QQOCTqW2TwtlDYogCFx2WacN2Is9JtaYOeG m3Y+uqIwSQKSeLT3IdeFZySks7rn62qeGW9b3v8Op/pE8UEEvzQk+faAR xO9p15CK5fFnCQ4OL0cKuj4rV4A6vgaEm5sotFTPbRWM3xkKfhBbGquiq k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,335,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="42976465"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2011 17:13:47 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBBHDlpB008088; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:13:47 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:13:47 -0600
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:13:45 -0600
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5969 (3049)
Thread-Index: Acy4F5Lp+hAJiv9VTYykrK4sfNY87wADrQRQ
References: <>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: RFC Errata System <>,,,,,,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2011 17:13:47.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E4CB980:01CCB828]
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5969 (3049)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:13:48 -0000

While we are on the subject of Errata in RFC 5969, aren't the following
two pieces of text from RFC 5969 inconsistent?

[In 6rd, all CEs and BRs can be considered as connected to the same
virtual link and therefore neighbors to each other.]

[with all 6rd CEs and BRs defined as off-link neighbors from one other.]

There is no such thing as an off-link neighbor - a neighbor, by
definition is on the same link.  Maybe I have a nitpick, but certainly
some better text could be uses because off-link vs. on-link has specific
rules for when to issues an NS or not.  


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of RFC Errata System
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:14 AM
Subject: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5969 (3049)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5969,
"IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Technical
Reported by: Alessandro Cortiana <>

Section: 12

Original Text
By restricting the 6rd domain to within a provider
network, a CE only needs to accept packets from a single or small set
of known 6rd BR IPv4 addresses.

Corrected Text
By restricting the 6rd domain to within a provider
network, a CE only needs to accept packets from a single or small set
of known 6rd BR IPv4 addresses and from other CEs within the 6rd domain.

A CE also needs to accept packets from other CEs within the 6rd domain.
This happens when, within a 6rd domain, two customer sites want to
Reference: RFC5569 section 3

This errata 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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

RFC5969 (draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-10)
Title               : IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures
(6rd) -- Protocol Specification
Publication Date    : August 2010
Author(s)           : W. Townsley, O. Troan
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Softwires
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG
Softwires mailing list