Hi,For V6LC.2.2.19:From the test specification observable results, "The HUT should transmit an= Echo Reply to TN1's global address on-link"But the test case fails as it was expecting the NS packet. According to the= release notes and the observed results the same, but the test case fails.So please find the attached logs and let us know your findings.Thanks and Regards,Praveen Kumar Gunia ChandrasekaranIPG R&D HSL, Hewlett Packard ISO,30, Cunningham Road, Bengalooru - 560 052.Karnataka, India.Phone: +91 80 2205 1791E-mail: gcpraveen@hp.com-----Original Message-----From: Vladimir Kuk [mailto:vkuk@marvell.com]Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:21 AMTo: Yukiyo AkisadaCc: users@tahi.orgSubject: [users:00781] Re: Self_Test v4.0.1 NDP test v6LC.2.2.19Hi, Akisada-san.I can see from the test specification that I was right about the test purpo=se. And so my problem still stays the same. Although RFC 4861 expects that =the prefix will be on-link, RFC 4862 permits invalidating this prefix becau=se of invalid prefix length.Please correct me if I'm wrong.Thank you for your time.Best regards,Marvell Software Solutions Israel Ltd.Atidim Technological Park Bldg #4Tel Aviv, 61581, IsraelEmail: vkuk@marvell.comOffice: +972-3-645-8955Web site: http://www.marvell.com-----Original Message-----From: Yukiyo Akisada [mailto:akisada@tahi.org]Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:33 AMTo: Vladimir KukCc: users@tahi.orgSubject: Re: [users:00777] Self_Test v4.0.1 NDP test v6LC.2.2.19Hi, Vladimir.The official test specification can be downloaded from <http://www.ipv6read=y.org/about_phase2_test.html>.<http://www.ipv6ready.org/pdf/IPv6_Ready_Test_Specification_Core_Protocolsv4_0_0.pdf> is the newest.The documents in the test script have differences from it because of my loo=se.Please refer to the official specification in this moment.If you still have questions after checking the official document, please le=t me know again.Thanks,On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:00:04 +0300"Vladimir Kuk" <vkuk@marvell.com> wrote:> Hello.>> I'm running Self Tests for phase 2 host part and ran into some problem> with NDP test 2.2.19.>> In it a little problematic to understand the test since thedescription> in it, is for another test (2.2.12.A).>> As far as I can it tests for discarding the invalid prefix forpurposes> of autoconfiguration but expects this prefix to be accepted for onlink> determination.>> If I understood the test correctly, then there is a problem since RFC> 4892 states:>> 5.5.3. Router Advertisement Processing p.19:>> If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length does> not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be ignored. An> implementation MAY wish to log a system management error in this case.> The length of the interface identifier is defined in a separate> link-type specific document, which should also be consistent with the> address architecture [RFC4291] (see Section 2).>> Also, in same section:> It should be noted, however, that this does not mean the advertised> prefix length is meaningless. In fact, the advertised length has> non-trivial meaning for on-link determination in [RFC4861] where the> sum of the prefix length and the interface identifier length may not> be equal to 128. Thus, it should be safe to validate the advertised> prefix length here, in order to detect and avoid a configuration error> specifying an invalid prefix length in the context of address> autoconfiguration.>>> Can anyone shed a light on the matter?>>> Thank you.>> Best regards,>> Vladimir Kuk>> Marvell Software Solutions Israel Ltd.> Atidim Technological Park Bldg #4> Tel Aviv, 61581, Israel> Email: vkuk@marvell.com> Office: +972-3-645-8955> Web site: http://www.marvell.com>>>>>>--Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>
783_2.zip