Hi, Vladimir.
Your understanding is the correct.
The Prefix Length is invalid by address configuration,
but it is valid by on-link determination.
The address configuration and the on-link determination works individually.
Thanks,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:51:27 +0300
"Vladimir Kuk" <vkuk@marvell.com> wrote:
> Hi, Akisada-san.
>
> I can see from the test specification that I was right about the test
> purpose. 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 because 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 #4
> Tel Aviv, 61581, Israel
> Email: vkuk@marvell.com
> Office: +972-3-645-8955
> Web site: http://www.marvell.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yukiyo Akisada [mailto:akisada@tahi.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:33 AM
> To: Vladimir Kuk
> Cc: users@tahi.org
> Subject: Re: [users:00777] Self_Test v4.0.1 NDP test v6LC.2.2.19
>
>
> Hi, Vladimir.
>
> The official test specification can be downloaded from
> <http://www.ipv6ready.org/about_phase2_test.html>.
>
> <http://www.ipv6ready.org/pdf/IPv6_Ready_Test_Specification_Core_Protoco
> lsv4_0_0.pdf> is the newest.
>
> The documents in the test script have differences from it
> because of my loose.
> Please refer to the official specification in this moment.
>
> If you still have questions after checking the official document,
> please let 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 the
> description
> > in it, is for another test (2.2.12.A).
> >
> > As far as I can it tests for discarding the invalid prefix for
> purposes
> > 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>
>
>
>
--
Yukiyo Akisada <akisada@tahi.org>