On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
BTL). It's not that I don't care about IPv6, it's just that I care
more about multi TCP BTL working in the way it is supposed to work.
There'd be less trouble if we all had automatic testing, so nobody
breaks stuff somebody else relies on.
We
On 5/1/07 7:43 AM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
>>> BTL). It's not that I don't care about IPv6, it's just that I care
>>> more about multi TCP BTL working in the way it is supposed to work.
>>
>> There'd be less trouble if we all had automatic t
On May 1, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that the MTT testing would (a) detect whether
or not
multiple TCP BTL paths were working (as opposed to only one); or
They should...?
I'll have to check our Cisco rig to ensure that we're again testing
multi-TCP BTL (w
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:39:07AM -0700, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > (b) that
> > IPv6 was correctly operating...which were the two issues in this
> > discussion.
> We currently do not have any IPv6 setup in our MPI testing equipment
We automatically check every trunk commit against our IPv6 tes
