Hello Scott,
Thank you for your report.
Please use attached files instead of original files.
Then, could you let me know that these scripts work well or not, please?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Regards,
...Hideshi
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:48:46 +0900
<Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:44 AM
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS and Domain
> Search Options
>
> Hi Hideshi,
>
> These are probably the test that would fail due to this reason, from the
> results of doing a grep search:
>
> PCBSD# grep '!= 23' *.seq
>
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 23){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode} != 23){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode} != 23){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode} != 23){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSvrOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 23){
>
> PCBSD# grep '!= 24' *.seq
>
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Reb.seq:if($reb{$optionCode} != 24){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Ren.seq:if($ren{$optionCode} != 24){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Req.seq:if($req{$optionCode} != 24){
> C_RFC3646_3_DnsSchLstOpt_Sol.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 24){
> C_RFC3646_4_DnsSchLstOpt.seq:if($sol{$optionCode} != 24){
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com
> [mailto:Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com]
> Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 6:14 PM
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org
> Subject: [dhcptest:00173] Re: Tests that check for DNS and Domain Search
> Options
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> Yes, we have to fix these bugs as soon as possible.
> Could you let me know the numbers (or titles) of the tests, if you have
> time, please?
> It will help us to fix the bugs.
>
> regards,
> ...Hideshi
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:33 AM
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org
> Subject: [dhcptest:00172] Re: Tests that check for DNS and
> Domain Search Options
>
>
> Order of the options should not matter (either in the ORO or in
> the Advertise/Reply). So, if the test code is order dependent, it should
> be fixed.
>
> - Bernie
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Scott Langley [mailto:slangley@tadboise.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: dhcptest@tahi.org
> Subject: [dhcptest:00171] Tests that check for DNS and Domain
> Search Options
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Many of the tests in the RFC 3646 and RFC 3736 sections of the
> DHCPv6 Self Test Suite 1.01 (and earlier) are failing for us for the
> wrong reason.
>
> The way our (client) product is currently behaving it requests
> these options:
>
> 13 OPTION_STATUS_CODE
> 12 OPTION_UNICAST
> 23 OPTION_DNS_SERVERS
> 24 OPTION_DOMAIN_LIST
> 7 OPTION_PREFERENCE
>
> Many tests, for example, RFC 3646 - Test DHCP_CONF.4.1.1: Option
> Request option Format
> PartA: Option request Option Format(DNS Recursive Name Server
> option)
>
> fail because option 13 is not option 23, according to the code:
>
> if($sol($optionCode != 23) {
> # Logging of failure message.
> }
>
> Shouldn't the test be re-written to check whether or not option
> 23 is among the options requested
> rather than whether or not it is the first option requested?
>
> Also, I know our client shouldn't be requesting option 12,
> Server Unicast, as that option should only appear in Reply messages
> coming from a server. I don't think you have any tests yet that check
> for the appearance of options in different message types as described in
> Appendix A of RFC3315.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315#page-98
>
> Thanks.
>
> Scott Langley
> Adecco Technical
> slangley@tadboise.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation
175_2.seq
175_3.seq
175_4.seq
175_5.seq
175_6.seq
175_7.seq
175_8.seq
175_9.seq
175_10.seq
175_11.seq