Index: [Article Count Order] [Thread]

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:58:24 +0800
From: wang_jiabo <jiabwang@redhat.com>
Subject: [users:00899] Re: request for test clarification Self_Test V6LC_2_1_18_L
To: users@tahi.org
Message-Id: <48D05630.2010500@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF222A291F.B762EC25-ON852574C6.004AB276-852574C6.004B9B00@pt.com>
References: <OF222A291F.B762EC25-ON852574C6.004AB276-852574C6.004B9B00@pt.com>
X-Mail-Count: 00899

William Seppeler wrote:
> In this test, the TN sends an (un)soliticted NA with the S bit set with 
> the expectation that the NUT will update it's NCE.  However, based on 
> RFC4861:
>
>       S              Solicited flag.  When set, the S-bit indicates that
>                      the advertisement was sent in response to a
>                      Neighbor Solicitation from the Destination address.
>                      The S-bit is used as a reachability confirmation
>                      for Neighbor Unreachability Detection.  It MUST NOT
>                      be set in multicast advertisements or in
>                      unsolicited unicast advertisements.
>
> So my thoughts are the TN sends a packet that violates the spec (ie: MUST 
> NOT).  Can someone explain to me why the table shown in the test 
> description expects the NUT to update it's NCE.  It would seem that the 
> RFC expects such a packet should get ignored.
>
> Thank you,
>
> ========================================
> William Seppeler
> Test Engineer
> Performance Technologies Inc.
> 205 Indigo Creek Dr.
> Rochester, NY  14626
>
> Phone:  (585) 256-0200, Fax:  (585) 256-0791
> Email:  wrs@pt.com, Web:  www.pt.com
> ========================================
>
>   
Hello, William:

do you test OS for host? if you test OS for host,  I think you should 
check your tn.def  configuration,

the MAC address do need change for tn.def.  that is mean, MAC address 
should not be real MAC address for tn.def

Wang Jiabo