Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:11:23 +0900
From: otoshi.naoyuki@jp.panasonic.com (大利 直行/Naoyuki Otoshi)
Subject: [users:00612] CORE Protocol's Interop 1.4
To: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <200802270311.AA03584@DEEP_PURPLE.nsc.mci.mei.co.jp>
X-Mail-Count: 00612

Hi, all

I have a guestion about IPv6 CORE Protocol's implementation.

CORE Protocol Interop TEST IP6Interop1.4
 1. Configure TAR-Router1 to transmit Router Advertisements with Router Lifetimes equal to 0 and
    at a normal interval on Network1, and Router Lifetimes greater than the Router Advertisement
    Interval on Network2.
 2. Transmit an ICMPv6 Echo Request from REF-Host2 to the Global Address of TAR-Host1.
 3. Observe the packets sent on Network1 and Netwokk2
 4. .....

Observable Results:
 Step 3: TAR-Host1 MUST not transmit an Echo Reply using TAR-Router1 as its first hop or
   transmit a multicast NS with a target address set to TR1's link-local address.
 and Step 9 is same.

Our test result is differnt. Our result is blow.
 Step 3 and Step 9
 TAR-Host1(Our TARGET) dosen't transmit an Echo Reply using TAR-Router1 as its first hop.
 But TAR-Host1 transmit a multicast NS with a target address set to REF-Host2's Global Address.
                                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 When our target receive RA with Router Lifetime equal to 0
  Step1 : Keep Default Router List empty
  Step7 : Delete Defulat Router List entry which is created in Step4.
          So, Default Router List becomes empty.

  Then Step2 or Step8, when our target receive ICMPv6 Echo Request from REF-Host2,
  our target operate "next-hop determination" to send ICMPv6 Echo Reply.

  Accorging to RFC2461
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   5.2 Conceptual Sending Algorithm
     Next-hop determination for a given unicast destination operates as
     follows.  The sender performs a longest prefix match against the
     Prefix List to determine whether the packet's destination is on- or
     off-link.  If the destination is on-link, the next-hop address is the
     same as the packet's destination address.  Otherwise, the sender
     selects a router from the Default Router List (following the rules
     described in Section 6.3.6).  If the Default Router List is empty,
     the sender assumes that the destination is on-link.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  In Step2 or Step8, Default Router List is empty. So, our target think that the
  destination(REF-Host2) is on-link. Then our target operate "7.2 Address Resolution"
  "7.2.2 Sending Neighor Solicitations".
  So, our target send a multicast NS with a target address set to REF-Host2' Global Address.

 Is such implemantation is correct or not?
 And if our implementation is not correct, where is wrong ?
  ( I don't understand why it is correct to transmit a multicast NS (TR1's link-local address) 
      or not to transmit any packet.)

 Regars,
 Otoshi

[Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:03:49 +0900]

---- 2007/2/13付けで電話番号が変わりました
松下電器産業(株) パナソニック システムソリューションズ社
 先行技術センター 技術3グループ 1チーム
   TEL 050-3686-0617(Pana-VAN 7-373-2737) FAX 045-544-3829
大利 直行  otoshi.naoyuki@jp.panasonic.com