On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:20:45 -0700
Yinghui Yao <Yinghui.Yao@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> Glad to find someone on the same boat ;) I just hope TAHI guys can
> respond soon when I'm under the gun to get this precious logo :)
From my experience to get the Logo, you guys want to ask things
regarding Logo certification process to the IPv6 Ready Logo committee.
http://www.ipv6ready.org/frames.html
TAHI guys develops the conformance test based on the specification
that the committee specifies. I think TAHI guys will response to your
question, however they also need to consult it to the IPv6 Ready Logo
committee once. There are additional hops.
Best Regards,
----
Mitsuru Chinen <mitch@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Thanks again.
> Yinghui Yao
>
> Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
> > TAHI folks are on this list. I am sure they will respond.
> >
> > Others having this issue? Yes - I am.
> >
> > -regards
> > Subhendu
> >
> > Yinghui Yao wrote:
> >> I really appreciate your help.
> >>
> >> We are making a router which has our customized kernel which is
> >> derived from KAME. Our behavior on RH0 is dropping the packet and
> >> sending back ICMP. The failed tests are "IPv6 Specification: 56, 59,
> >> 60, 63, 64, 65."
> >>
> >> Are TAHI folks on this mailing list? Or is there a separate list? I
> >> want to ask them about the "100% pass policy" on this RFC 5095 case.
> >> Any other guys out there having my problems?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Yinghui Yao
> >> Alcatel-Lucent
> >>
> >> Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
> >>> It doesn't matter which kernel version fails or how it fails.
> >>>
> >>> It is more a question of policy with regards to existing non-beta
> >>> test suite and RFC status.
> >>>
> >>> Self_Test_1_4_9 has been out for a while and RFC5095 has been out
> >>> for a month.
> >>>
> >>> Does an intersection of Self_Test_1_4_9 and RFC5095 satisfy Logo
> >>> requirements?
> >>>
> >>> Does an intersection of Self_Test_1_4_9 and CVE-2007-2242 satisfy
> >>> Logo requirements?
> >>>
> >>> The consensus for the CVE workaround was to drop the RH0 packets
> >>> with no action. RFC 5095 changes that consensus to require a ICMP
> >>> parameter problem message.
> >>>
> >>> According to the statements from the TAHI folks after the CVE was
> >>> issued, it seemed to indicate that Self_Test_1_4_9 as shipped had to
> >>> be passed 100% unmodified for Logo requirements.
> >>>
> >>> -regards
> >>> Subhendu Ghosh
> >>>
> >>> Karsten Keil wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:56:30AM -0700, Yinghui Yao wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can anyone please give me an answer for this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Which kernel do you use and which test do fail ?
> >>>> Afaik here was a wrong securety fix in some kernel versions which
> >>>> did disable RH0 handling completely, instead to send correct ICMP
> >>>> messages.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Yinghui Yao
> >>>>> Alcatel-Lucent
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yinghui Yao wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's not talk about the beta program. I need to pass
> >>>>>> Self_Test_1_4_9
> >>>>>> and now our NUT is dropping the RH0 packet. Is that acceptable in
> >>>>>> your
> >>>>>> evaluation process or we have to modify our program to pass
> >>>>>> "100%" of
> >>>>>> your tests.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Yinghui Yao
> >>>>>> Alcatel-Lucent
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hiroshi MIYATA wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You know IPv6 Logo Program is planing to update the IPv6 core test
> >>>>>>> specification.
> >>>>>>> It was under public review.(until 3rd, Jan.)
> >>>>>>> And RH0 is covered in the latest version under public review.
> >>>>>>> Please visit here.
> >>>>>>> http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20071204_p2core.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And the test tool is compliant to this test test specification.
> >>>>>>> http://www.tahi.org/logo/release/Self_Test_1-5-0b1.tgz
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Disabling RH0 is not mandated at this moment, but it is selectable.
> >>>>>>> We may need some discussion on this.
> >>>>>>> Although, the public review is over, if you have some comments
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> this, v6LC welcome your comments.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ....miyata
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2008/01/02, at 12:22, sghosh@redhat.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Self Test 1.5.0-b2 (beta)
> >>>>>>>> Includes the some of the bits to see if Type0 should be
> >>>>>>>> supported or
> >>>>>>>> not.
> >>>>>>>> See config.txt in the testsuite. RFC5095 was just published on
> >>>>>>>> Standards Track
> >>>>>>>> deprecating RH0 and specifying the required behavior. ICMP
> >>>>>>>> Parameter
> >>>>>>>> Problem is
> >>>>>>>> now required. The testsuite could not be changed until the RFC was
> >>>>>>>> published.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The original fix for the CVE in some distributions like RHEL
> >>>>>>>> was to
> >>>>>>>> silently
> >>>>>>>> drop the packet. That behavior needs to be updated.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -regards
> >>>>>>>> Subhendu Ghosh
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Quoting Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Who knows? :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Gui Jianfeng 写道:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>> IPV6 routing header with type 0 doesn't support by latest linux
> >>>>>>>>>> kernel any more,
> >>>>>>>>>> but some of the IPV6 ct test cases are still based on routing
> >>>>>>>>>> header of type 0.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to know, whether this kind of test cases will be
> >>>>>>>>>> removed
> >>>>>>>>>> or updated?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>> Gui Jianfeng
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> Gui Jianfeng
> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> Gui Jianfeng
> >>>>>>>>> Development Dept.I
> >>>>>>>>> Nanjing Fujitsu Nanda Software Tech. Co., Ltd.(FNST)
> >>>>>>>>> 8/F., Civil Defense Building, No.189 Guangzhou Road,
> >>>>>>>>> Nanjing, 210029, China
> >>>>>>>>> TEL: +86+25-86630566-838
> >>>>>>>>> COINS: 79955-838
> >>>>>>>>> FAX: +86+25-83317685
> >>>>>>>>> MAIL:guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com
> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>