Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:56:09 +0000
From: "S, Sreenath" <sreenath.s@hp.com>
Subject: [users:00764] Re: Self_Test v4.0.1 ICMPv6 test v6LC.5.1.2 Part F
To: "users@tahi.org" <users@tahi.org>
Message-Id: <E230C7241C9FCF45951E65304AEAB1EC7D65E55E@GVW1103EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080612120433.GA25632@pingi.kke.suse.de>
References: <20080612120433.GA25632@pingi.kke.suse.de>
X-Mail-Count: 00764

Hi Karsten -
  This is not an official answer, but since I'm working on 4443 I can
answer this question. It is a requirement for RFC 4291 that packets received
with destination address as ::1 be dropped and that is what this test case
ensures. Here's the relevant section from 4291:

----
2.5.3.  The Loopback Address

   The unicast address 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is called the loopback address.
   It may be used by a node to send an IPv6 packet to itself.  It must
   not be assigned to any physical interface.  It is treated as having
   Link-Local scope, and may be thought of as the Link-Local unicast
   address of a virtual interface (typically called the "loopback
   interface") to an imaginary link that goes nowhere.

   The loopback address must not be used as the source address in IPv6
   packets that are sent outside of a single node.  An IPv6 packet with
   a destination address of loopback must never be sent outside of a
   single node and must never be forwarded by an IPv6 router.  A packet
   received on an interface with a destination address of loopback must
   be dropped.
----

 However, I cannot answer the question about why some tests from RFC 4291
got implemented in a section that is marked as RFC 4443. Akisada-san would
be the right person to answer that question.

Hope that helps,
Sreenath S
Hewlett-Packard

-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Keil [mailto:kkeil@suse.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:35 PM
To: users@tahi.org
Subject: [users:00762] Self_Test v4.0.1 ICMPv6 test v6LC.5.1.2 Part F

Hello,

Self_Test v4.0.1 ICMPv6 test v6LC.5.1.2 Part F
Testing that the NUT does not answer to a echo reply to the loopback address
(::1).

Note: Test description in the 4.0.1 test file do not match the test it
contains the description of Part A  (same for Part E)

Why does the test forbit a answer to a echo request to ::1, I agree in real
environment it should never be happen that a paket with destination ::1 hit
a real interface, but loopback. But I see no paragraph in RFC 4443 which
forbit an echo reply here.

--
Karsten Keil
SuSE Labs
ISDN and VOIP development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr.5 90409 Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)