Hi, Karsten.
I'm sorry for making you confused.
I didn't update The HTML files attached in test script,
so please don't trust them.
The official test specification can be downloaded from <http://www.ipv6ready.org/about_phase2_test.html>.
And <http://www.ipv6ready.org/pdf/IPv6_Ready_Test_Specification_Core_Protocolsv4_0_0.pdf> is the newest.
Thanks,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:04:51 +0200
Karsten Keil <kkeil@suse.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:56:09PM +0000, S, Sreenath wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK with this I think the test is OK and makes sense, the test description
> should be updated (needed ayway,since it refers to link local address and
> not to loopback address) and the description should also refer to this RFC
> to avoid such questions.
>
> > ----
> >
> > 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.
>
> For me this is OK, as long there is no seperate section for this RFC.
>
> >
> > Hope that helps,
>
> Yes thanks a lot.
>
>
> --
> Karsten Keil
> SuSE Labs
> ISDN and VOIP development
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr.5 90409 Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
>
>
--
Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>