Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:30:15 -0600
From: Christy L Norman <cnorman@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [users:00232] Fw:  Re: Phase 1 Interoperability Topology
To: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <OF98BAB56B.A0F023CE-ON86257117.004F10AD-86257117.004FACB7@us.ibm.com>
X-Mail-Count: 00232

Hideshi,

Thank you for your reply. Your answer is what I thought at first, but then 
I began to wonder why a 2nd link was needed if I was not going to have any 
traffic flowing to it. It is my understanding that since I am testing a 
Host, I will only need to ping a router. As long as my Host's ping packets 
reach the router and the router sends them back to me, all pertinent 
traffic is on one link. I am also unclear as to what function the 
Reference Host performs in this scenario. Maybe you, or someone else, 
wouldn't mind explaining why I need the second link and the Reference 
Host? It would clear up a lot.

Thanks again,

Christy


----- Forwarded by Christy L Norman/Rochester/IBM on 02/16/2006 08:23 AM 
-----

Hideshi Enokihara <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com> 
02/15/2006 07:55 PM
Please respond to
users@tahi.org


To
Christy L Norman/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
cc
users@tahi.org
Subject
[users:00231] Re: Phase 1 Interoperability Topology






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


	
232_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)