[magma] Mldv2 router conformance test (tahi)

Balaji Sankaran <sankaran.balaji@hp.com> Thu, 24 June 2010 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sankaran.balaji@hp.com>
X-Original-To: magma@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: magma@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6383A6936 for <magma@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y+H4ow9BeSR0 for <magma@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g1t0029.austin.hp.com (g1t0029.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2813A6A39 for <magma@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g1t0039.austin.hp.com (g1t0039.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.45]) by g1t0029.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EE438091 for <magma@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:43:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [16.180.154.163] (unknown [16.180.154.163]) by g1t0039.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A8F34019 for <magma@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4C22F08A.9040608@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:13:38 +0530
From: Balaji Sankaran <sankaran.balaji@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: magma@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010400070200010606080302"
Subject: [magma] Mldv2 router conformance test (tahi)
X-BeenThere: magma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast and Anycast Group Membership <magma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma>, <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/magma>
List-Post: <mailto:magma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma>, <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:45:20 -0000

Hello,

Note: This is not Mldv2 protocol related query and it is related to tahi 
router
conformance test case on Mldv2 snooping devices. I have send this query to
tahi users mailing list to get their suggestion. Posting this here to 
get the
view of implementers on this test case.



I need some clarifications on an MLDv2 router conformance test case and how
the configuration on the switch should be to pass this test case.

Test case I am referring can be found in the below link
http://cert.v6pc.jp/mldv2/doc/mldv2-router-1.0.4/mldv2-router_2in1/mldv2-router_1_8.html

The above test case tests the following section of RFC 3810:-

<rfc 3810 >

 From RFC 3810 section 7 it states:

....

A multicast router performs the protocol described in this section

over each of its directly attached links. If a multicast router has

more than one interface to the same link, it only needs to operate

this protocol over one of those interfaces.

For each interface over which the router operates the MLD protocol,

the router must configure that interface to listen to all link-layer

multicast addresses that can be generated by IPv6 multicasts.
</rfc 3810>

I am trying to figure out how the configuration on the switch
or router would  look like to perform this test.

There are switches which acts as MLD snooping querier and in these
MLD is enabled and disabled on Vlan basis.   To test the MLDv2
conformance test cases on these switches,  we can consider vlan interface as
an router interface and I think all the test cases can be run (except 
MLD.1.8
test case) on a Mld Enabled vlan interface. However the test case MLD.1.8,
seems to be invalid on these devices.

Whether anybody tried  this test case on a MLD snooping device/switches and
routers and share their thoughts/experience. It will be of great help.

Please let me know if  I need to add any further information.

regards,
Balaji