The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5343,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID Discovery".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7645

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>

Section: A.3.3

Original Text
-------------
Section A.3.3 (in part) reads:

 Interface MTU
      The size in bytes of the largest IPv6 datagram that can be sent
      out the associated interface without fragmentation.  The MTUs of
      common Internet link types can be found in Table 7-1 of [MTUDISC].
      Interface MTU should be set to 0 in Database Description packets
      sent over virtual links.


Corrected Text
--------------
 Interface MTU
      The size in bytes of the largest IPv6 datagram that can be sent
      out the associated interface without fragmentation.  The MTUs of
      common Internet link types can be found in Table 7-1 of [MTUDISC].
      Interface MTU should be set to 0 in Database Description packets
      sent over OSPF virtual links. This rule should not be applied to tunnel
      or other software interfaces.


Notes
-----
OSPF Virtual links carry only OSPF packets so MTU negotiation is not needed and 
this provision makes sense. For interfaces that have an actual MTU, even though 
they may be "virtual" interfaces, they are not "virtual links" in the intended 
meaning of this paragraph. As such, this change will provide clarification and 
remove ambiguity from the current standard. At least one popular router vendor 
implements this RFC as MTU = 0 sent on all GRE interfaces which results in 
incompatibilities with most other router platforms which expect an actual 
value. The router vendor points to this provision in the RFCs as justification 
for their implementation. It is (arguably) a legitimate, if nonsensical 
interpretation of the existing text.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum 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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5343 (draft-ietf-opsawg-snmp-engineid-discovery-03)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context 
EngineID Discovery
Publication Date    : September 2008
Author(s)           : J. Schoenwaelder
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Operations and Management Area Working Group
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to