<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [dhcptest:00163] Re: DHCPv6 Client Test 3315 #70</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Hideshi,<BR>
<BR>
Unfortunately, I didn't preserve the run of that test case I emailed you =
about. Sorry.<BR>
<BR>
When I ran the modified script you attached, I got a slightly different =
result. However, that may be due to the constantly changing builds =
on my NUT device.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, this time the test case passes with these values:<BR>
<BR>
NUT =
TN<BR>
=
| |<BR>
=
| |Initialize NUT(as a DHCPv6 =
client)<BR>
=
| |<BR>
| ----> |Solicit<BR>
| <---- |Advertise<BR>
| ----> |Request<BR>
| <---- |Reply w/Status =
code/NotOnLink<BR>
///////////////////// <BR>
| ----> |Renew (still with =
the address specified in the IA_NA option)<BR>
| ----> |Rebind<BR>
/////////////////////<BR>
| ----> |Solicit<BR>
<BR>
It does send a Solicit at the end. Should the test case fail =
because my device first sent a Renew and a Rebind message before sending =
the Solicit? Or should it pass because it did the right thing in =
the end, sending the Solicit?<BR>
<BR>
Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
Scott Langley<BR>
slangley@tadboise.com<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Hideshi Enokihara [<A =
HREF="mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com">mailto:Hideshi.Enokihar=
a@jp.yokogawa.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 2:22 AM<BR>
To: Scott Langley<BR>
Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [dhcptest:00163] Re: DHCPv6 Client Test 3315 #70<BR>
<BR>
Hello again Scott,<BR>
<BR>
How about attached script?<BR>
I have fixed the issue.<BR>
<BR>
Could you use this script instead of original script, please?<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
...Hideshi<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:41:57 +0900<BR>
<Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Hello Scott,<BR>
><BR>
> Thankyou for your report.<BR>
> <BR>
> >The reason it shouldn't have passed was that the Client's REPLY =
message<BR>
> still specified an address in its IA_NA option when the test case =
says<BR>
> it shouldn't do so after receiving a NotOnLink from the server.<BR>
><BR>
> "Client's REPLY message"should be "Client's Request =
message", right?<BR>
><BR>
> Anyway, I couldn't understand the reason why the issue =
occurred.<BR>
> Could you send us (dhcptest@thai.org or contact@tahi.org) the<BR>
> Logs(70.html and 70.html.Link0.dump)<BR>
><BR>
> Best regards,<BR>
> ...Hideshi<BR>
> ________________________________<BR>
><BR>
> From: Scott Langley [<A =
HREF="mailto:slangley@tadboise.com">mailto:slangley@tadboise.com</A>]<B=
R>
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:18 =
AM<BR>
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org<BR>
> Subject: [dhcptest:00162] DHCPv6 =
Client Test 3315 #70<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
> Here's a bit of feedback ...<BR>
> <BR>
> With the Release-1.0.0B1 of DHCPv6 =
Test Suite, I got a pass on<BR>
> test #70 of section 3315 when I should not have.<BR>
> <BR>
> #70 Part C: Reply message contains =
NotOnLink in response to a<BR>
> Request message.<BR>
> <BR>
> The reason it shouldn't have passed =
was that the Client's REPLY<BR>
> message still specified an address in its IA_NA option when the =
test<BR>
> case says it shouldn't do so after receiving a NotOnLink from =
the<BR>
> server.<BR>
> <BR>
> Regards,<BR>
> <BR>
> Scott Langley<BR>
> slangley@tadboise.com<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
*************************************<BR>
Hideshi Enokihara<BR>
IPv6 Business<BR>
Network & Software Development Dept.<BR>
Yokogawa Electric Corporation<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>