Hi, Kishore.
I'm sorry for having kept you waiting.
Test v6LC.2.3.6 Part B has to use link-local scope for source address of Redirect packet
as test specification mentions about it.
Please check http://www.ipv6ready.org/about_phase2_test.html
And we have to fix our document - v6LC_2_3_6_B.html.
This is just a typo.
The source address of Redirect should be link-local scope.
Thanks for letting us know.
Regards,
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:23:04 +0530
kishore mundra <k.mundra@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In Self_Test_p2_1.2.15, in test number 175 of ND,Part B: Redirect Source Address is not the current first-hop router , the first part of test states that a redirect with global source address will be sent and the host must discard the redirect (as also declared in Judgement 2)
>
> [Judgment #1] The HUT should respond to the first Echo Request using TR1 as a first hop.
> [Judgment #2] The HUT should also respond to the second Echo Request using TR1 as a first hop, indicating the HUT did not process the invalid Redirect message.
>
> But as observed from the log, the source address in the redirect is link-local address.
>
> Send Redirect w/ TLL: TR2 (link-local) -> HUT (global) at 18:14:48Frame_Ether (length:102)
> | Hdr_Ether (length:14)
> | | DestinationAddress = 00:0b:cd:3d:fa:96
> | | SourceAddress = 00:00:00:00:a1:a1
> | | Type = 34525
> | Packet_IPv6 (length:88)
> | | Hdr_IPv6 (length:40)
> | | | Version = 6
> | | | TrafficClass = 0
> | | | FlowLabel = 0
> | | | PayloadLength = 48
> | | | NextHeader = 58
> | | | HopLimit = 255
> | | | SourceAddress = fe80::200:ff:fe00:a1a1
> | | | DestinationAddress = 3ffe:501:ffff:100:20b:cdff:fe3d:fa96
> | | ICMPv6_Redirect (length:48)
> | | | Type = 137
> | | | Code = 0
> | | | Checksum = 15055 calc(15055)
> | | | Reserved = 0
> | | | TargetAddress = fe80::200:ff:fe00:a1a1
> | | | DestinationAddress = 3ffe:501:ffff:0:200:ff:fe00:100
> | | | Opt_ICMPv6_TLL (length:8)
> | | | | Type = 2
> | | | | Length = 1
> | | | | LinkLayerAddress = 00:00:00:00:a1:a1
> Kindly do let me know if I have misunderstood or please do the needful correction in the scripts. The CHANGE log of version 1.2.16does not mention that this error has been removed. Regards,Kishore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@64translator.com>