Hi, Tammy.
You can see it in the master test specification located at ipv6ready.org.
<http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20071204_p2core.html>
Now, it is under the public review.
Regards,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:56:52 -0700
"Leino, Tammy" <tammy_leino@mentor.com> wrote:
> Thank you Yukiyo. I accept this reasoning. I didn't realize 1.5 tested
> RFC 4861. Where can I find a list of RFCs tested by this version of the
> suite?
>
> Best Regards,
> Tammy Leino
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yukiyo Akisada [mailto:akisada@tahi.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: Leino, Tammy
> Cc: users@tahi.org
> Subject: Re: [users:00437] Re: Release 1.5.0b1 Phase-2 ND - Test #167
> Host Test
>
>
> Hi, Tammy.
>
> This test is to verify on-link determination described at RFC 4861
> Section 6.3.4.
>
> 3074
> Similarly,
> 3075 [ADDRCONF] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix
> length for
> 3076 address configuration purposes. Therefore, the prefix might
> be
> 3077 rejected by [ADDRCONF] implementation in the host. However,
> the
>
> 3087 prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when
> combined
> 3088 with other flags in the prefix option.
>
> So, it is invalid in ADDRCONF, but it is valid in ND.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:18:41 -0700
> "Leino, Tammy" <tammy_leino@mentor.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I reported this issue last Thursday and have not yet heard back from
> anyone. Do you require further clarification on any points? If so,
> please let me know.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Tammy Leino
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leino, Tammy
> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:35 PM
> > To: users@tahi.org
> > Subject: [users:00425] Release 1.5.0b1 Phase-2 ND - Test #167 Host
> Test
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I have encountered a bug in the latest version of the test suite, with
> test #167 when running in host mode.
> >
> > RFC 2462 states:
> >
> > If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length
> > does not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be
> > ignored.
> >
> > This test is advertising a prefix length of 96 in the second RA and
> expecting the NUT to add the prefix to its list of on-link prefixes,
> although 96 plus the length of the Ethernet interface ID is longer than
> 128. From the RFC explanation, I believe this test is operating
> incorrectly.
> >
> > Also, the test procedure documentation does not accurately describe
> what is actually happening in the test. The procedure shows just one RA
> being sent, but in the test, two RAs are sent, each with a different
> prefix option.
> >
> > Please advise in this matter.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Tammy Leino
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>