On Friday 06 July 2007 04:25, JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: > At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400, > > "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you tested BSD by sending it an RA with no > > PIO and M and O bits set so that BSD initiates > > DHCPv6 ? Once BSD host is online with DHCPv6 > > completed, issue a ping from BSD machine to > > another IPv6 machine on the same link. BSD should > > send this ping to the default router and NOT issue > > any NS to try and resolve the ping destination. > > Since RA did not advertise any PIO, BSD host has > > no means to make an on-link determination and thus > > not issue any NS because issuing an NS just told > > us BSD assumed the ping destination in on-link - > > that is wrong behavior. > > > > Do also test the converse thing. A host could be > > incorrectly implemented by always sending all > > traffic to default router and not issuing any NS. > > Send an RA with PIO to BSD DHCPv6 host advertising > > a prefix as on-link. Then issue a ping to another > > host on the same link for which the prefix was > > advertised as on-link. If BSD sent the ping to > > default router that is wrong. BSD has to issue an > > NS to resolve the destination of the ping. > > I previously tested these scenarios. I've not done > that recently, but I'm pretty sure that BSDs would > still show the conforming behavior in both of the > test cases (i.e., send the packet to the default > router in the first scenario; send NS in the second > scenario).
FWIW, tested both of these 3 months ago for NETLMM related work and it did work fine! -- julien -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
