Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 2 records.

Status:Verified (2)

RFC 4944, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", September 2007

Note: This RFC has been updated byRFC 6282, RFC 6775, RFC 8025, RFC 8066, RFC 8931

Errata ID:4359
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Gabriel Montenegro
Date Reported: 2015-05-07
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2015-09-14

Section 5.1 says:

   ESC:  Specifies that the following header is a single 8-bit field for      the Dispatch value.  It allows support for Dispatch values larger      than 127.

It should say:

   ESC:  Specifies that the following header is a single 8-bit field for      the Dispatch value.  It allows support for Dispatch values larger      than 63.

Notes:

The (non-ESCaped) Dispatch value is a 6-bit selector. However, it used to be a 7-bit selector, which has a value at most 127. When the field became a 6-bit selector, this maximum became 63, but the referring text was never updated.

For historical reference, see an early version from IETF 67 proposing the Dispatch value within the Dispatch header as a 7-bit field:

http://6lowpan.tzi.org/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=tentative-draft2-ietf-6lowpan-format-07.txt

The dispatch type is defined by a zero-bit as the first bit. The
dispatch type and header is shown here:

1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Dispatch | type-specific header
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Dispatch 7-bit selector. Identifies the type of header
immediately following the Dispatch type.

The relevant slides also show this (slide 8): http://6lowpan.tzi.org/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=6lowpan-header-proposal-2.ppt

Errata ID:6194
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Tommaso Pecorella
Date Reported: 2020-05-30
Verifier Name: Éric Vyncke
Date Verified: 2025-06-27

Section 6 says:

However, in the   resultant interface identifier, the "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit SHALL   be set to zero in keeping with the fact that this is not a globally   unique value.

It should say:

However, in the   resultant interface identifier, the "Universal/Local" (U/L) bit SHALL   be set to one in keeping with the fact that this is not a globally   unique value.

Notes:

IEEE (see https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/tutorials/eui.pdf) states that:
"the second least significant bit of Octet 0 (the U/L bit) indicates universal (U/L=0) or local (U/L=1) administration of the address."

Thus, the U/L bit in the "pseudo 48-bit address" shall have its U/L bit set to one, not to zero.

Report New Errata