Hi Rommel,
> Now, MC1 and MC4 knows it PMTU, the last ping has to 0 % packet loss
> right?
>
I think you're right. The last ping has to be 0% loss.
Well, which OSs are you using on MC1 and MC4?
I'd ever observed a similar problem w/ FreeBSD and NetBSD.
I resolved my case and posted the information to this list.
It may help your case, as well.
http://www.tahi.org/users/mail-list/200807.month/827.html
Regards,
-toyo
Rommel Laranjo wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM, TCP IP <tcp.ip.ip6@gmail.com
> <mailto:tcp.ip.ip6@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Even when i test i got 33% of packet loss., but i think that is worng.
> becuse the n/w topology looks as follows.
>
> MC1
> |
> ----------+------------+--------------------- N/W1 MTU 1500
> |
> MC2
> |
> ---------+----------------+-------------------- N/W2 MTU 1280
> |
> MC3
> |
> -----+-------------------+----------------------- N/W3 MTU 1500
> |
> MC4
>
> In script we ping 3 time from MC4 to MC1 as follows.
> Ping -c 1 -c 1452 MC1 ( 100% packet loss)
> Ping -c 1 -c 1452 MC1 ( 100% packet loss)
> Ping -c 3-c 1452 MC1 ( 33% packet loss)
>
> Yes, 1st ping will get too big messge from MC3 and MC4 will reduce its PMTU to 1280.
> and 2nd ping will reach MC1. The MC1 will try to reply with MTU
> 1500, so it also will get Too big message from MC2.( 2packet lost )
>
> Now, MC1 and MC4 knows it PMTU, the last ping has to 0 % packet loss
> right?
>
> Am i missiing anything here?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/17/08, *Rommel Laranjo* <rslaranjo@gmail.com
> <mailto:rslaranjo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thank you so much wang_jiabo for your reply.
> So now I think there is something wrong with my setup cause I
> experience huge percentage of packet drop.
> From my packet sniff on Network1, I've seen several ICMPv6 Echo
> reply but only few were received by TAR-Router1.
>
> Thanks alot,
>
> Rommel
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM, wang_jiabo
> <jiabwang@redhat.com <mailto:jiabwang@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>