Subject: Re: Call for RFC 3041 Implementation Reports

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:36:48 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 05:20:25 -0400, 
>>>>> Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> said:

>       As mentioned during the IPv6 WG meeting, the chairs are soliciting
> implementation reports for IPv6 Privacy Addresses in support of moving  
> the spec
> to Draft Standard.  The following template should be used for submitting
> these implementation reports.  The reports can be sent to the chairs  
> and/or
> the mailing list.

I'm not really sure if the following report is something expected (due
to some unclear points about interoperability testing), but I'll give
it a try:

      Implementation Report for RFC 3041 (IPv6 Privacy Addresses)
     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      1. Implementation Name: FreeBSD
      2. Submitter Name: JINMEI, Tatuya
      3. Submitter E-mail: [email-masked]
      4. Code Origin: by ourselves from the scratch
      5. Features Implemented: A and B below
      6. Tested Interoperability by Feature:

           A. Lifetime Management (Section 3.4)
           B. DAD Operation (Section 3.3)

We are (still) not really sure what kind of 'interoperability' we are
expected to confirm here.  I once asked the question and got the
following answer from the chairs:

> I was envisioning a validation that the node using RFC 3041 addresses
> perform DAD for those addresses and peers cannot detect any
> differences in messaging/processing.

This was still not very clear to us.  If this means checking whether
creating a temporary address (which is to be unique on the link) and
performing DAD on that address was confirmed as unique as expected
without disrupting other implementations, I've confirmed that with
various implementations from different origins including Linux and
Solaris 10.  (But this check is actually not specific to a temporary
address...)

Feature A is not very clear to us, either.  But if this means checking
whether the Lifetime Management is performed as described in Section
3.4 with some router implementations advertising RAs, I've confirmed
that at least with routers developed by Cisco and Juniper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------