I think that when the topology(using link0 and link1) is made once
you don't need any change of topology from 2.1 to 2.3.
As you say, the Reference host is unnecessary in 2.1 and 2.2.
But Reference host is necessary in 2.3.
I think that this is a reason.
Best Regards,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:30:15 -0600
Christy L Norman <cnorman@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
*************************************
Hideshi Enokihara
IPv6 Business
Network & Software Development Dept.
Yokogawa Electric Corporation