Logo etsi

ETSI's Bug Tracker
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap | Stop monitoring project
  
Notice: information submitted on the ETSI issue Tracker may be incorporated in ETSI publication(s) and therefore subject to the ETSI IPR policy.

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0000008IPv6 Testing Conformance (TTCN3 + TPs)Test Case (TTCN3)public31-08-2006 15:4324-02-2017 13:59
Reporteruser8 
Assigned ToAlexandre Berge 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityalways
StatusresolvedResolutionduplicate 
PlatformOSOS Version
Summary0000008: TC_COR_1082_01 checksum calculation pb
DescriptionIn the test-case TC_COR_1082_01, function f_TP_twoFragmentsWithSameId sends an Echo Request in two fragments to the IUT. The test-case (and, also the test-purpose) expects no message in reply, and this, the function verifies using the function f_expectNoMessage.

 

I have two comments on this test-case:

 

1) The function sends the first segment, which also includes the ICMPv6 Header, using the function f_sendEchoRequest. The ICMPv6 Checksum value is calculated within this function (f_sendEchoRequest), and thus the calculation considers only the first fragment for calculating the ICMPv6 Checksum, whereas, as per RFC-2460, the whole un-fragmented packet, exclusive of the fragment header, must be used to calculate the ICMPv6 Checksum.

 

2) The test-case expects no message in reply to the sent message, and this it verifies with f_expectNoMessage. It quotes the reason that, because, the fragment id is the same in both segments, so the packet must be discarded. But as per RFC-2460, both the fragments of the IPv6 Packet must contain the same fragment id.

RFC Text : An original packet is reassembled only from fragment packets that have the same Source Address, Destination Address, and Fragment Identification.

 

Thus, if the Checksum field is corrected, the IUT must send an Echo Reply in response to the sent fragmented Echo Request with same fragment
TagsNo tags attached.
Cor - Mob - Sec - Trans
Attached Files

- Relationships
duplicate of 0000112resolvedAlexandre Berge TC_COR_1082_01: Checksum calculation for fragmented packet 

-  Notes
(0000003)
user10
31-08-2006 16:22

 Reply sent Tue 29/08/2006 18:11
Indeed the checksum has to be calculated on the whole packet prior to fragmentation which is not the case in the TC_COR_1082_01 piece of code, then the associated Test Purpose TP_COR_1082_01 is unclear as it ends with "IUT sends 'no message in response' " where it should sent an Echo Reply...
(0014530)
Yann Garcia (reporter)
24-02-2017 13:59

 STF519: Week 0000008
1) I implemented TCs for ENB Direct Information Transfer group, Warning message transmission group, Location Reporting group and Traces group
2) Review part of comments
3) Code was compiled successfully with TTWB, TCT3 and TITAN.
4) Code is committed
5) New version of TSS&TPs document is available on ETSI docbox
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/LibS1AP/LibS1AP_Pixits.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/LibS1AP/LibS1AP_Steps.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/LibS1AP/LibS1AP_Templates.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/LibS1AP/LibS1AP_TypesAndValues.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/S1AP_TCFunctions.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/S1AP_TestCases.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/S1AP_TestConfiguration.ttcn
U http://forge.etsi.org/websvn/filedetails.php?repname=Evolved [^] Packet Core.S1AP&rev=24&path=/trunk/ttcn3/S1AP_TestControl.ttcn

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
31-08-2006 15:43 user8 New Issue
31-08-2006 15:53 user1 Category => Test Case
31-08-2006 16:22 user10 Relationship added related to 0000011
31-08-2006 16:22 user10 Note Added: 0000003
31-08-2006 16:22 user10 Status new => acknowledged
31-08-2006 18:03 user10 Project @2@ => @3@
22-09-2006 14:45 user1 Source (company - Author) => Huawey
07-11-2006 10:37 Alexandre Berge Relationship added duplicate of 0000112
07-11-2006 10:38 Alexandre Berge Duplicate ID 0 => 112
07-11-2006 10:38 Alexandre Berge Status acknowledged => resolved
07-11-2006 10:38 Alexandre Berge Resolution open => duplicate
07-11-2006 10:38 Alexandre Berge Assigned To => Alexandre Berge
07-11-2006 16:22 Alexandre Berge Relationship deleted related to 0000011
12-09-2007 18:48 user10 Project @3@ => IPv6 Testing Conformance (TTCN3 + TPs)
24-02-2017 13:59 Yann Garcia Checkin
24-02-2017 13:59 Yann Garcia Note Added: 0014530

MantisBT 1.2.14 [^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 MantisBT Team
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker