[Dibbler] Dibbler 0.8.3 tests with CDRouter

Tomasz Mrugalski thomson at klub.com.pl
Tue Feb 19 22:31:23 CET 2013


On 18.02.2013 09:28, Rapoport, MichaelX wrote:
> Hello Tomek.
> 
> Sorry for my previous mail with the CDRouter tests,- it was a mistake - wrong tests were attached.
> 
> Attached are the failed DHCP v6 Server tests performed on the CDRouter.
> 
> I'd like to receive your opinion.
DHCP-8
Support for UseMulticast is not implemented. See bug #83.

DHCP-14
User class is not supported. Please file a bug.
Fragmentation is not supported. Please file a bug.

DHCP-21
Support for UseMulticast is not implemented. See bug #83.

DHCP-22
Server does not implement this particular text from RFC3315. Please file
a bug.

DHCP-32
See bug #240 and decide if you want to update this bug or create a new one.

DHCP-41
Support for UseMulticast is not implemented. See Bug #83.

DHCP-43
This is somewhat questionable. If the client tries to renew an address
that is not valid, server assigns a valid address and sends it back.
This was my interpretation of the following text (Section 18.2.3, RFC3315):

   If the server finds the addresses in the IA for the client then the
   server sends back the IA to the client with new lifetimes and T1/T2
   times.  The server may choose to change the list of addresses and the
   lifetimes of addresses in IAs that are returned to the client.

This is a convenient behavior, because it is faster. The alternative is
to send REPLY with lifetimes set to 0, then client will restart SOLICIT
phase and will eventually get an address. However, I agree that this
behaviour is not compliant, because the first part of the sentence
("server finds the address...") is not fulfilled. Please file a bug.

DHCP-50
Server behaves correctly. That is confirmed by the following log entry:
PASS(cdr-mp-1349): 16:05:21.039| Test dhcpv6_server_50 (1349) passed

DHCP-71
Support for UseMulticast is not implemented. See Bug #83.

DHCP-80
Server does not include status code. Please file a bug.

DHCP-81
Support for UseMulticast is not implemented. See Bug #83.

DHCP-82
Server shouldn't include preference option. Please file a bug.

DHCP-110
This is test error. Your server is not configured to support PD, so it
assigns only IA_NA (address), but IA_PD contains NoPrefixAvail status
code. This seem to confuse the test. The test sends Solicit couple times
and later gives up and declares a failure. This is not a bug, but server
misconfiguration. Please configure Dibbler server to also serve PD and
this will likely improve the situation.

DHCP-120
This is a configuration error. Did you configure Dibbler server to
support relays? It doesn't appear to be configured to do so, so it
doesn't listen on ff05::1:3. See Dibbler User's Guide, section 4.2.

DHCP-121
This is a configuration error. See DHCP-120. Also, did you configure
Dibbler to use unicast address? See Dibbler User's Guide, section 4.2
and 5.3.4.

DHCP-122
This is a configuration error. See DHCP-120.

It seems there are number of bugs discovered, but most of them are not
serious. Personally I think the issues in DHCP-32 and DHCP-43 are the
most serious. Lack of support for UseMulticast affects biggest number of
tests, but it is harmless in most cases - client gets responses, service
is provided and even traffic is more optimal (unicast rather than
multicast). The only benefit of using multicast is that if you run other
DHCP servers they could receive that traffic as well. I doubt you are
running multiple DHCP servers with some kind of very clever
semi-failover capability between them. If you do, I'd be very interested
to learn the details. Issues in DHCP-80 and DHCP-82 are trivial. Dibbler
server seems to send additional options that are not necessary.

It seems that there are up to 7 separate bugs. Once you fill in those
bugs, we can discuss the best way forward to deal with the situation.
Are you interested in those issues being fixed?

I plan to work on issue that affects DHCP-32 as it requires the most
extensive changes to the code (information about subnets must be
specified in config file, which requires parser changes and code update
in several places).

I know Intel has many skilled engineers that could fix those issues
easily, so I hope you'll be actively participating in the bug fixing.
Please let me know if you decide to work on specific problem and I'll
try to provide you with some tips. Don't be scared - some of the issues
require 1 line fixes. Your patches will be more than welcome :-)

If your goal is to increase pass rate as soon as possible, you should
probably work on UseMulticast problem as it affects the biggest number
of tests. If your goal is to address the most serious bugs first, I
suggest you start looking into problem in DHCP-43.

Good tests in general.

Tomek


More information about the Dibbler mailing list