Hello Scott,
> Should the test case fail because my device first sent a Renew and a
Rebind message before sending the Solicit?
Yes, I believe that the test case should be fail.
RFC3315 18.1.8 says,
------------------
When the client receives a NotOnLink status from the server in
response to a Request, the client can either re-issue the Request
without specifying any addresses or restart the DHCP server discovery
process (see section 17).
------------------
I think that this means the Client should send a Request without
IA_Address or send Solicit.
Best regards,
________________________________
From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:56 AM
To: dhcptest@tahi.org
Subject: [dhcptest:00165] Re: DHCPv6 Client Test 3315 #70
Hi Hideshi,
Unfortunately, I didn't preserve the run of that test case I
emailed you about. Sorry.
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.
Anyway, this time the test case passes with these values:
NUT TN
| |
| |Initialize NUT(as a DHCPv6 client)
| |
| ----> |Solicit
| <---- |Advertise
| ----> |Request
| <---- |Reply w/Status code/NotOnLink
/////////////////////
| ----> |Renew (still with the address specified in the
IA_NA option)
| ----> |Rebind
/////////////////////
| ----> |Solicit
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?
Thanks.
Scott Langley
slangley@tadboise.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Hideshi Enokihara
[mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com]
Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 2:22 AM
To: Scott Langley
Cc: dhcptest@tahi.org
Subject: Re: [dhcptest:00163] Re: DHCPv6 Client Test 3315 #70
Hello again Scott,
How about attached script?
I have fixed the issue.
Could you use this script instead of original script, please?
Thanks,
...Hideshi
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:41:57 +0900
<Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Thankyou for your report.
>
> >The reason it shouldn't have passed was that the Client's
REPLY message
> still specified an address in its IA_NA option when the test
case says
> it shouldn't do so after receiving a NotOnLink from the
server.
>
> "Client's REPLY message"should be "Client's Request message",
right?
>
> Anyway, I couldn't understand the reason why the issue
occurred.
> Could you send us (dhcptest@thai.org or contact@tahi.org) the
> Logs(70.html and 70.html.Link0.dump)
>
> Best regards,
> ...Hideshi
> ________________________________
>
> From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 4:18 AM
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org
> Subject: [dhcptest:00162] DHCPv6 Client Test 3315 #70
>
>
>
> Here's a bit of feedback ...
>
> With the Release-1.0.0B1 of DHCPv6 Test Suite, I got a
pass on
> test #70 of section 3315 when I should not have.
>
> #70 Part C: Reply message contains NotOnLink in response
to a
> Request message.
>
> The reason it shouldn't have passed was that the
Client's REPLY
> message still specified an address in its IA_NA option when
the test
> case says it shouldn't do so after receiving a NotOnLink from
the
> server.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Langley
> slangley@tadboise.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation