Hello, Rommel Laranjo:
my test result for 1.6 part D:
Rommel Laranjo ping6 -I eth0 -c 3 -s 1500 3ffe:501:ffff:104::1 >
1.6.D.RedHat.Cisco.result
PING 3ffe:501:ffff:104::1(3ffe:501:ffff:104::1) from
3ffe:501:ffff:100:210:18ff:fe32:56e2 eth0: 1500 data bytes
From 3ffe:501:ffff:100::1 icmp_seq=0 Packet too big: mtu=1280
1508 bytes from 3ffe:501:ffff:104::1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=2.06 ms
1508 bytes from 3ffe:501:ffff:104::1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=2.13 ms
--- 3ffe:501:ffff:104::1 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 2 received, +1 errors, 33% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.061/2.100/2.139/0.039 ms, pipe 2
[H3CMSR2020]ping ipv6 -s 1500 3ffe:501:ffff:100:210:18ff:fe32:56e2
PING 3ffe:501:ffff:100:210:18ff:fe32:56e2 : 1500 data bytes, press
CTRL_C to break
Reply from 3FFE:501:FFFF:100:210:18FF:FE32:56E2
bytes=1500 Sequence=1 hop limit=62 time = 2 ms
Reply from 3FFE:501:FFFF:100:210:18FF:FE32:56E2
bytes=1500 Sequence=2 hop limit=62 time = 2 ms
Reply from 3FFE:501:FFFF:100:210:18FF:FE32:56E2
bytes=1500 Sequence=3 hop limit=62 time = 3 ms
Reply from 3FFE:501:FFFF:100:210:18FF:FE32:56E2
bytes=1500 Sequence=4 hop limit=62 time = 3 ms
Reply from 3FFE:501:FFFF:100:210:18FF:FE32:56E2
bytes=1500 Sequence=5 hop limit=62 time = 3 ms
--- 3ffe:501:ffff:100:210:18ff:fe32:56e2 ping statistics ---
5 packet(s) transmitted
5 packet(s) received
0.00% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 2/2/3 ms
I hope this can help you.
jiabo
> Hello to all tahi users,
>
> I know this post is not related to using the TAHI script because I'm
> doing manual IPv6 Interoperability Testing.
> But I just hope someone would be kind enough to share their expert
> knowledge about Interoperability Testing.
>
> I am now performing Test IP6Interop.1.6: Path MTU Discovery and
> Fragmentation Part D steps 23 to 27.
> My question is this, is it normal to see packet loss about 90% or
> sometimes 80% when I ping from TAR-Router1 to
> TAR-Host1 ? and from TAR-Host1 to TAR-Router1 ?
>
> If there would be packet loss, how much would be the expected value?
>
> I gladly appreciate your replies.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rommel
>