Hi, Tammy.
I heard that it is related to the translator.
To know more detail,
I think that asking IETF is the better way.
Regards,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:10:04 -0700
"Leino, Tammy" <tammy_leino@mentor.com> wrote:
> Thank you Yukiyo.
>
> I have read this section many times trying to make it fit into test #9,
> but I still cannot make sense of it. It doesn't make sense that the
> extra 8 bytes is a fragment header, because I cannot see why the packet
> needs to be fragmented. Can you please explain why the packet needs to
> be fragmented.
>
> Best Regards,
> Tammy Leino
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yukiyo Akisada [mailto:akisada@tahi.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:42 PM
> To: Leino, Tammy
> Cc: users@tahi.org
> Subject: Re: [users:00436] Re: Release 1.5.0b1 Phase-2 PMTU - Test #9
> Host Test
>
>
> Hi, Tammy.
>
> Please check RFC 1981, Chapter 4.
>
> 241 Note: A node may receive a Packet Too Big message
> reporting a
> 242 next-hop MTU that is less than the IPv6 minimum link MTU.
> In that
> 243 case, the node is not required to reduce the size of
> subsequent
> 244 packets sent on the path to less than the IPv6 minimun
> link MTU,
> 245 but rather must include a Fragment header in those packets
> [IPv6-
> 246 SPEC].
>
> In this case, extra 8 bytes mean Fragment header.
>
> And actual test specification is
> <http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20071204_p2core.html
> >.
>
> Perldoc isn't the master.
> We are trying to follow the update of master specification,
> but sometimes perldoc contains old information.
>
> Please use the specification located at ipv6ready.org.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:18:23 -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 4:42 PM
> > To: users@tahi.org
> > Subject: [users:00426] Release 1.5.0b1 Phase-2 PMTU - Test #9 Host
> Test
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > There is a discrepancy in the test procedure diagram and description
> for this test. The MTU in the Packet Too Big message is actually 56 for
> this test, and not zero as shown in the procedure diagram.
> >
> > TN2 TR1 NUT
> > | | |
> > |-------------------------------------------->|
> > | 1.Echo Request | |
> > | (1280 octets) | |
> > | | |
> > |<--------------------------------------------|
> > | 2.Echo Reply | |
> > | (1280 octets) | |
> > | | |
> > | +--------------------->|
> > | | 3.Packet Too Big |
> > | | (MTU 0) |
> > | | |
> > |-------------------------------------------->|
> > | 4.Echo Request | |
> > | (1280 octets) | |
> > | | |
> > |<--------------------------------------------|
> > | 5.Echo Reply | |
> > | (1288 octets) | |
> > | | |
> > v v v
> >
> > Also, can someone please explain to me why the NUT would echo 1288
> bytes when it receives only 1280 bytes? I am referring to #4 and #5 of
> the above diagram.
> >
> > I am having trouble understanding why this test expects the NUT to
> fragment the echo reply when the packet size is equal to the IPv6
> minimum link MTU. We do not fragment until we reach the link MTU of
> 1500. Even if we set the link MTU to 1280, the IPv6 minimum link MTU,
> we should not fragment a 1280 byte echo reply packet. I'm sure I am
> overlooking something here. Your advice is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Tammy Leino
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>