IPv6 test fail

IPv6 test fail

[Levente]

Dear list,


We are testing IPv6 again against the test specification of ipv6forum.

https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=ipv6-core-protocols

The test house state that some certain packages doesn't arrive to the
device under test. We fail test cases

V6LC.1.2.2: No Next Header After Extension Header
V6LC.1.2.3: Unreacognized Next Header in Extension Header - End Node
V6LC.1.2.4: Extension Header Processing Order
V6LC.1.2.5: Option Processing Order
V6LC.1.2.8: Option Processing Destination Options Header

The question is that is it possible that the this is the intended way
of operation? I.e. the kernel swallows those malformed packages? We
use tcpdump to log the traffic.


Thank you for your help.

Levente

Re: IPv6 test fail

[Stephen Suryaputra]

I am curious: what kernel version are you testing?
I recall that several months ago there is a thread on TAHI IPv6.
Including the person who started the thread.

Stephen.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:43 AM Levente <leventelist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
>
> We are testing IPv6 again against the test specification of ipv6forum.
>
> https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=ipv6-core-protocols
>
> The test house state that some certain packages doesn't arrive to the
> device under test. We fail test cases
>
> V6LC.1.2.2: No Next Header After Extension Header
> V6LC.1.2.3: Unreacognized Next Header in Extension Header - End Node
> V6LC.1.2.4: Extension Header Processing Order
> V6LC.1.2.5: Option Processing Order
> V6LC.1.2.8: Option Processing Destination Options Header
>
> The question is that is it possible that the this is the intended way
> of operation? I.e. the kernel swallows those malformed packages? We
> use tcpdump to log the traffic.
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Levente

Re: IPv6 test fail

[Captain Wiggum]

(resending without html.:)
I started the thread.
We are using 4.19.x and 4.9.x, but for reference I also tested then current 5.x.
I believe we got it all worked out at the time.
--John Masinter


On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am curious: what kernel version are you testing?
> I recall that several months ago there is a thread on TAHI IPv6.
> Including the person who started the thread.
>
> Stephen.
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:43 AM Levente <leventelist@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear list,
> >
> >
> > We are testing IPv6 again against the test specification of ipv6forum.
> >
> > https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=ipv6-core-protocols
> >
> > The test house state that some certain packages doesn't arrive to the
> > device under test. We fail test cases
> >
> > V6LC.1.2.2: No Next Header After Extension Header
> > V6LC.1.2.3: Unreacognized Next Header in Extension Header - End Node
> > V6LC.1.2.4: Extension Header Processing Order
> > V6LC.1.2.5: Option Processing Order
> > V6LC.1.2.8: Option Processing Destination Options Header
> >
> > The question is that is it possible that the this is the intended way
> > of operation? I.e. the kernel swallows those malformed packages? We
> > use tcpdump to log the traffic.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your help.
> >
> > Levente

Re: IPv6 test fail

[Alarig Le Lay]

Hello,

It seems that I’m not here for enough time, I can’t find your thread.
What were your issues on IPv6? I hit some from migrating to 4.19 (from
4.4) on routers, so I’m still on 4.4 for now.

We discussed it a bit on bird ML:
https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-June/013509.html
https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-November/013992.html
https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-December/014011.html

(sorry for the multiple links, it seems that the archive is split by
months)

By chances, are we hitting the same bug?

Regards,
Alarig Le Lay

On mer. 29 janv. 15:31:20 2020, Captain Wiggum wrote:
> (resending without html.:)
> I started the thread.
> We are using 4.19.x and 4.9.x, but for reference I also tested then current 5.x.
> I believe we got it all worked out at the time.
> --John Masinter
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am curious: what kernel version are you testing?
> > I recall that several months ago there is a thread on TAHI IPv6.
> > Including the person who started the thread.
> >
> > Stephen.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:43 AM Levente <leventelist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear list,
> > >
> > >
> > > We are testing IPv6 again against the test specification of ipv6forum.
> > >
> > > https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=ipv6-core-protocols
> > >
> > > The test house state that some certain packages doesn't arrive to the
> > > device under test. We fail test cases
> > >
> > > V6LC.1.2.2: No Next Header After Extension Header
> > > V6LC.1.2.3: Unreacognized Next Header in Extension Header - End Node
> > > V6LC.1.2.4: Extension Header Processing Order
> > > V6LC.1.2.5: Option Processing Order
> > > V6LC.1.2.8: Option Processing Destination Options Header
> > >
> > > The question is that is it possible that the this is the intended way
> > > of operation? I.e. the kernel swallows those malformed packages? We
> > > use tcpdump to log the traffic.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for your help.
> > >
> > > Levente

Re: IPv6 test fail

[Levente]

Dear All,


We fixed this issue. It seems that the connecting 3G modem had a bug.


Thanks for your help.


Bests,
Levente

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:10 PM Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> It seems that I’m not here for enough time, I can’t find your thread.
> What were your issues on IPv6? I hit some from migrating to 4.19 (from
> 4.4) on routers, so I’m still on 4.4 for now.
>
> We discussed it a bit on bird ML:
> https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-June/013509.html
> https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-November/013992.html
> https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2019-December/014011.html
>
> (sorry for the multiple links, it seems that the archive is split by
> months)
>
> By chances, are we hitting the same bug?
>
> Regards,
> Alarig Le Lay
>
> On mer. 29 janv. 15:31:20 2020, Captain Wiggum wrote:
> > (resending without html.:)
> > I started the thread.
> > We are using 4.19.x and 4.9.x, but for reference I also tested then current 5.x.
> > I believe we got it all worked out at the time.
> > --John Masinter
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:00 PM Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am curious: what kernel version are you testing?
> > > I recall that several months ago there is a thread on TAHI IPv6.
> > > Including the person who started the thread.
> > >
> > > Stephen.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:43 AM Levente <leventelist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear list,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are testing IPv6 again against the test specification of ipv6forum.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=ipv6-core-protocols
> > > >
> > > > The test house state that some certain packages doesn't arrive to the
> > > > device under test. We fail test cases
> > > >
> > > > V6LC.1.2.2: No Next Header After Extension Header
> > > > V6LC.1.2.3: Unreacognized Next Header in Extension Header - End Node
> > > > V6LC.1.2.4: Extension Header Processing Order
> > > > V6LC.1.2.5: Option Processing Order
> > > > V6LC.1.2.8: Option Processing Destination Options Header
> > > >
> > > > The question is that is it possible that the this is the intended way
> > > > of operation? I.e. the kernel swallows those malformed packages? We
> > > > use tcpdump to log the traffic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your help.
> > > >
> > > > Levente