Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:16:59 +0900
From: otoshi.naoyuki@jp.panasonic.com (大利 直行/Naoyuki Otoshi)
Subject: [users:00617] Re: CORE Protocol's Interop 1.4
To: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <200802280416.AA03594@DEEP_PURPLE.nsc.mci.mei.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20080228124330.1d6aaf3a.akisada@tahi.org>
References: <20080228124330.1d6aaf3a.akisada@tahi.org>
X-Mail-Count: 00617

Hi, Akisada-san.

Thank you for your reply.
Because my English reading comprehension was so poor, it misunderstood it. 

 must not A or B meens "must not A + must not B"

Thanks.
 
Yukiyo Akisada wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:43:30 +0900

> Hi, Otoshi-san.
> 
> Observable Results allows following 2 behavior.
>     - TAR-Host1 MUST not transmit an Echo Reply using TAR-Router1 as its first hop.
>     - TAR-Host1 MUST ***not*** transmit a multicast NS with a target address set to TR1's link-local address.
> 
> You need to read 'or transmit' as 'TAR-Host1 MUST not transmit'.
> Even me, it is confusable,
> But the original text was written by American, so the English must be correct. :-)
> 
> Furthermore, you must refer to RFC 4861.
> You know, it was revised in the past.
> 
> On-link assumption has been removed.
> Your behavior is still valid, but it isn't required any more.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:11:23 +0900
> otoshi.naoyuki@jp.panasonic.com (大利 直行/Naoyuki Otoshi) wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
> 

[Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:09:37 +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