Subject: questionnaire: bind(2) (and IPV6_V6ONLY) behavior

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 08:24:43 +0900

Hello, (sorry for cross-posting).

I'm now looking at how each IPv6 implementation is friendly with
bind9, especially on the bind(2) system call ordering issues.

As the first step, I'd like to collect differences among
implementations using some test scripts.  So, if you have time, could
you spend some time to do the test on your system(s)?

The test tool is freely available at the following URL:

  http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/kame/bindtest/

and the results so far at

  http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20010504/

Here is a step by step instruction of the test:
- compile bindtest (see Makefile)
- run test.sh like this:
	% sh test.sh myplatform.txt
- send myplatform.txt to me, with exact indication of OS name/version
  number/build date/whatever

I hear that some systems have already supported a new IPv6 socket
option "IPV6_V6ONLY".  I'm particularly interested in the results on
such systems (the latest test.sh contains some tests with the option).

We'll basically put the results on the URL above, so that everyone can
refer to it.  If you can do tests but do not want to make the result
open, please explicitly say so when sending the result.

Thanks in advance,

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:46:09 +0900

Hello, again,

>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2001 08:24:43 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[email-masked]> said:

>   http://orange.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/kame/bindtest/

Based on a (personal) comment from Vlad, I realized that I'd need some
more additional test cases...so, if you have still more time, please
grab the latest tool at the URL above, and do the following tests
(note that the procedure changes a bit.)

- make sure to assing an IPv4 address (!= 127.0.0.1) on the test node.
- compile bindtest (see Makefile)
- run test.sh like this:
	% sh test.sh -o ipv4addr myplatform.txt
  where "ipv4addr" is the IPv4 address assigned at the 1st step.
- send myplatform.txt to me, with exact indication of OS name/version
  number/build date/whatever

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: "Dave Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:15:23 -0700

Several people have expressed interest in doing
interop testing (and mobile IPv6 testing in particular)
in conjuction with the interim meeting in Seattle
(http://research.microsoft.com/ietf-ipv6-meeting/)

The interim meetings next week only run until 17:00 each day.
Thursday evening (May 31), the same meeting room
will be available for interop testing.  We plan to have
tables set up, with a couple of mini-hubs.

If you're interested in doing interop testing, please bring
whatever else you will need.  We will supply the
space and the electricity.

-Dave

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 08:40:34 +0900

>space and the electricity.

	which protocol do people want to test specifically?
	i would like to test the following protocols with you guys:
	- draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-00.txt
	- draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-00.txt

	of course, i'm happy to do basic ND/TCP/whatever test as well.

itojun

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:18:25 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2001 08:40:34 +0900, 
>>>>> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]> said:

> 	of course, i'm happy to do basic ND/TCP/whatever test as well.

Our (KAME's) implementation can send RAs with Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes.  But we don't have a host-side implementation,
so I'd like to test if it works correctly with host implementations
(probably with Windows one).

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:25:34 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2001 09:18:25 +0900, 

> (probably with Windows one).

I'm also interested in differences about the bind(2) system call in
terms of IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (see attached).  I'd be glad if we
can run the test on various implementation at the testing event.

					JINMEI, Tatuya

Subject: questionnaire: bind(2) (and IPV6_V6ONLY) behavior
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 08:24:43 +0900

Thanks in advance,

					JINMEI, Tatuya