Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 2 records.

Status:Verified (1)

RFC 5969, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", August 2010

Errata ID:3049
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alessandro Cortiana
Date Reported: 2011-12-11
Verifier Name: Ralph Droms
Date Verified: 2013-03-10

Section 12 says:

By restricting the 6rd domain to within a providernetwork, a CE only needs to accept packets from a single or small setof known 6rd BR IPv4 addresses.

It should say:

By restricting the 6rd domain to within a providernetwork, a CE only needs to accept packets from a single or small setof known 6rd BR IPv4 addresses and from other CEs within the 6rd domain.

Notes:

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 communicate.
Reference: RFC5569 section 3

Status:Rejected (1)

RFC 5969, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", August 2010

Errata ID:3869
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Fernando Gont
Date Reported: 2014-01-20
Rejected by: Ted Lemon
Date Rejected: 2014-01-21

Section 9.2 says:

In order to prevent spoofing of IPv6 addresses, the 6rd BR and CEMUST validate the embedded IPv4 source address of the encapsulatedIPv6 packet with the IPv4 source address it is encapsulated byaccording to the configured parameters of the 6rd domain.

It should say:

In order to prevent spoofing of IPv6 addresses, the 6rd BR and CEMUST validate the embedded IPv6 source address of the encapsulatedIPv6 packet with the IPv4 source address it is encapsulated byaccording to the configured parameters of the 6rd domain.

Notes:

Authors have verified that the text as written in the RFC is correct, and the proposed change is incorrect.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Authors have verified that the text as written in the RFC is correct, and the proposed change is incorrect.

Report New Errata