The following errata report has been rejected for RFC5340, "OSPF for IPv6".
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7649 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> Date Reported: 2023-09-19 Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG) Section: A.3.3 (in part) Original 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 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. --VERIFIER NOTES-- See discussion at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/mrmkQt9ETTYemukBzl6K_FmgHps/ It seems as though there is not clear consensus for the proposed change or even to make a similar change; as such the normal WG process (internet draft, WG consensus) is a better way to pursue the goal. -------------------------------------- RFC5340 (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-23) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF for IPv6 Publication Date : July 2008 Author(s) : R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, A. Lindem Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
