Found 6 records.
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted byRFC 8415
Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 6603, RFC 7550
Source of RFC: dhc (int)Errata ID:2468
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ole Troan
Date Reported: 2010-08-17
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-09
Section 12.1 / 12.2 says:
Section 12.1: Upon the receipt of a valid Reply message, for each IA_PD the requesting router assigns a subnet from each of the delegated prefixes to each of the links to which the associated interfaces are attached, with the following exception: the requesting router MUST NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated prefix(es) to the link through which it received the DHCP message from the delegating router.
It should say:
Section 12.1: Upon the receipt of a valid Reply message, for each IA_PD the requesting router assigns a subnet from each of the delegated prefixes to each of the links to which the associated interfaces are attached.New last paragraph of 12.2: When the DR delegates prefixes to a Requesting Router, the Requesting Router has sole authority for assignment of those prefixes, and the Delegating Router MUST NOT assign any prefixes from that delegated prefix to any of its own links.
Notes:
This change clarifies that the authority over the address space is delegated to the RR (Requesting Router). Moving the use restriction for the address space from the DR (Delegating Router) to the RR (Requesting Router).
2011-08-02: Notes updated per request from Ole Troan and Leaf Yeh.
Errata ID:2469
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ole Troan
Date Reported: 2010-08-17
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-09
Section 11.1 says:
The requesting router MUST ignore any Advertise message that includesa Status Code option containing the value NoPrefixAvail, with theexception that the requesting router MAY display the associatedstatus message to the user.
It should say:
The requesting router MUST ignore any IA_PDs in an Advertise messagethat includes a Status Code option containing the value NoPrefixAvail, with the exception that the requesting router MAY display the associated status message to the user.
Errata ID:2470
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ole Troan
Date Reported: 2010-08-17
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-09
Section 11.2 says:
If the delegating router will not assign any prefixes to any IA_PDsin a subsequent Request from the requesting router, the delegatingrouter MUST send an Advertise message to the requesting router thatincludes the IA_PD with no prefixes in the IA_PD and a Status Codeoption in the IA_PD containing status code NoPrefixAvail and a statusmessage for the user, a Server Identifier option with the delegatingrouter's DUID and a Client Identifier option with the requestingrouter's DUID.
It should say:
If the delegating router will not assign any prefixes to an IA_PDin a subsequent Request from the requesting router, the delegatingrouter MUST send an Advertise message to the requesting router thatincludes the IA_PD with no prefixes in the IA_PD and a Status Codeoption in the IA_PD containing status code NoPrefixAvail and a statusmessage for the user, a Server Identifier option with the delegatingrouter's DUID and a Client Identifier option with the requestingrouter's DUID. The server SHOULD include other stateful IA options(like IA_NA) and other configuration options in the Advertise message.
Notes:
Edited by Ralph Droms on 2010-08-20 to correct reference to IA_NA (was IA_PD) in last line.
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted byRFC 8415
Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 6603, RFC 7550
Source of RFC: dhc (int)Errata ID:248
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Hideshi Enokihara
Date Reported: 2006-06-15
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 9 says:
If a requesting router receives an IA_PD with T1 greater than T2, and both T1 and T2 are greater than 0, the client discards the IA_PD option and processes the remainder of the message as though the delegating router had not included the IA_PD option.
It should say:
If a requesting router receives an IA_PD with T1 greater than T2, and both T1 and T2 are greater than 0, the requesting router discards the IA_PD option and processes the remainder of the message as though the delegating router had not included the IA_PD option.
Notes:
Errata ID:1880
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Yukiyo Akisada
Date Reported: 2009-09-15
Held for Document Update by: Brian Haberman
Section 9 says:
If a delegating router receives an IA_PD with T1 greater than T2, and both T1 and T2 are greater than 0, the delegating router ignores the invalid values of T1 and T2 and processes the IA_PD as though the delegating router had set T1 and T2 to 0.
It should say:
If a delegating router receives an IA_PD with T1 greater than T2, and both T1 and T2 are greater than 0, the delegating router ignores the invalid values of T1 and T2 and processes the IA_PD as though the requesting router had set T1 and T2 to 0.
Errata ID:3736
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alexandru Petrescu (w/ text from R. Droms)
Date Reported: 2013-09-25
Held for Document Update by: Ted Lemon
Date Held: 2013-09-25
Section 14 says:
If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router througha relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or otherout-of-band communication to add routing information for delegatedprefixes into the provider edge router.
It should say:
If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router througha relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or otherout-of-band communication to configure routing information for delegatedprefixes on any router through which the requesting router may forwardtraffic.
Notes:
This is a terminology correction. See discussion on the email list DHCWG of the DHC WG of IETF, 24 September 2013, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14709.html