<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hideshi,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks again,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Christy</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#800080 face="sans-serif">----- Forwarded by Christy
L Norman/Rochester/IBM on 02/16/2006 08:23 AM -----</font>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Hideshi Enokihara <Hideshi.Enokihara@jp.yokogawa.com></b>
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">02/15/2006 07:55 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
users@tahi.org</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Christy L Norman/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">users@tahi.org</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[users:00231] Re: Phase 1 Interoperability
Topology</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Hi Christy,<br>
<br>
I think that it is acceptable regarding 1.1 and 1.2.<br>
But, regarding 2.1 and 2.2, I think that it is not acceptable.<br>
Because, Interoperability test scenario says like,<br>
The test topology should be one from 2.1 to 2.3. <br>
That's file name syntax should be "2.VenderB.topology"<br>
<br>
Please refer http://www.tahi.org/ume/IPv6Ready_P1_interop_1-3-2.pdf.<br>
And find section 0.2 B)Toplogy Map.<br>
<br>
I think that section2's test topology should be like this.<br>
<br>
packet capturing node Reference Host<br>
|
|<br>
|
|<br>
--------------------------------------------------------Link1<br>
|<br>
|<br>
router<br>
|<br>
|<br>
--------------------------------------------------------Link0<br>
|
|<br>
|
|<br>
packet capturing node host<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:29:55 -0600<br>
Christy L Norman <cnorman@us.ibm.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I have included a Word document and a JPG (in case someone cannot
read <br>
> .doc files) containing two proposed topologies. Could someone please
tell <br>
> me if these topologies are acceptable for testing a Host?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Thank you,<br>
> <br>
> Christy Norman<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
*************************************<br>
Hideshi Enokihara<br>
IPv6 Business<br>
Network & Software Development Dept.<br>
Yokogawa Electric Corporation<br>
<br>
</font></tt>