Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:55:30 +0900
From: Hideshi Enokihara <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com>
Subject: [users:00231] Re: Phase 1 Interoperability Topology
To: cnorman@us.ibm.com
Cc: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <20060216105530.089548a7.Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF618D1394.186EFF70-ON86257116.007074E4-86257116.00709AB6@us.ibm.com>
References: <OF618D1394.186EFF70-ON86257116.007074E4-86257116.00709AB6@us.ibm.com>
X-Mail-Count: 00231

Hi Christy,

I think that it is acceptable regarding 1.1 and 1.2.
But, regarding 2.1 and 2.2, I think that it is not acceptable.
Because, Interoperability test scenario says like,
The test topology should be one from 2.1 to 2.3. 
That's file name syntax should be "2.VenderB.topology"

Please refer http://www.tahi.org/ume/IPv6Ready_P1_interop_1-3-2.pdf.
And find section 0.2 B)Toplogy Map.

I think that section2's test topology should be like this.

       packet capturing node     Reference Host
               |                     |
               |                     |
     --------------------------------------------------------Link1
               |
               |
             router
               |
               |
     --------------------------------------------------------Link0
               |                      |
               |                      |
       packet capturing node        host

Best Regards,

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:29:55 -0600
Christy L Norman <cnorman@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I have included a Word document and a JPG (in case someone cannot read 
> .doc files) containing two proposed topologies. Could someone please tell 
> me if these topologies are acceptable for testing a Host?
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Christy Norman
> 
> 
>  


-- 
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation