Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:44:23 -0700
From: Yinghui Yao <Yinghui.Yao@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: [users:00548] Self 1.4.9 ND # 8 and # 9
To: Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
Cc: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <47A8A077.1010509@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080205085846.4a43a119.akisada@tahi.org>
References: <47A3944E.2000501@alcatel-lucent.com>	<47A39BD2.7050808@alcatel-lucent.com>	<20080204164635.d5741fb8.akisada@tahi.org>	<47A794E3.6010802@alcatel-lucent.com> <20080205085846.4a43a119.akisada@tahi.org>
X-Mail-Count: 00548

Hi Yukiyo,

I disagree to the "judgment"s TAHI uses in these two tests (V6LC.2.1.6).

I assume the test is based on the statement in RFC 4861, section 7.2.2

"
   While awaiting a response, the sender SHOULD retransmit Neighbor
   Solicitation messages *approximately* every RetransTimer milliseconds,
   even in the absence of additional traffic to the neighbor.
   Retransmissions MUST be rate-limited to at most one solicitation per
   neighbor every RetransTimer milliseconds.

"

Could you let me know how TAHI defines "approximately" in your tests? We
observe 1.3 second between NS will pass and 1.6 would fail.

Our router has to handle large number of NDs, so our ND timer only runs
every 1 second. Depending on when the echo request comes into the NUT,
the time gap between our first and second NS can be anywhere between 1-2
seconds. However the time gap between 2nd NS and 3rd NS is always 1
second. So we could have

NS(at 0 second) - NS (at 1.6 second) - NS (at 2.6 second) (retrans = 1s)

NS(at 0 second) - NS (at 5.5 second) - NS (at 10.5 second) (retrans = 5s)
We think these two packet sequences do satisfy the above RFC requirement
and should pass. However TAHI are failing both. We think it's wrong.

Could you let me know if my argument is valid and if you are willing to
make changes to accommodate our scenarios in TAHI code?

Thanks,
Yinghui Yao
Alcatel-Lucent