BIND 10 #2607: DHCP Extended Testing
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Sun Feb 10 20:56:19 UTC 2013
#2607: DHCP Extended Testing
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: stephen | Owner:
Type: task | UnAssigned
Priority: medium | Status:
Component: dhcp | reviewing
Keywords: | Milestone:
Sensitive: 0 | Sprint-DHCP-20130214
Sub-Project: DHCP | Resolution:
Estimated Difficulty: 0 | CVSS Scoring:
Total Hours: 0 | Defect Severity: N/A
| Feature Depending on Ticket:
| Add Hours to Ticket: 0
| Internal?: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by tmark):
* owner: tmark => UnAssigned
* status: accepted => reviewing
Comment:
I created a set of manual tests that cover basic stability of both DHCP4
and
DHCPv6 servers:
1. Basic Stability - The ability of the server to process lease
requests
for an extended period of time without crashing or exhaustion of
system resources (memory, cpu).
2. Junk Packet Hanlding - The ability of the server to recoginize and
discard packtes that do not represent valid DHCP-related packets
3. Combined Stability - The ability of the servers (v4 and v6) to
operate
simoultaneously, processing lease requests fro an extended period of
time
The results from the tests are attached as gzip file.
The test descriptions and the configuration files are available in the
dhcp-val repo:
dhcp-val/tests/common These tests are:
v4.junk-reject
v4.stability
v6.junk-reject
v6.stability
both.stability
With respect to the combination test (both.stability), the tar ball
includes
scripts to run the v4 and v6 clients that were based on existing
scripts in
the dhcp-val repo. These have not been added to repo yet.
One issue was discovered during initial runs of v4.stability:
#2697 Dhcp4 process crashes on smart ptr assertion accessing
client_id
An initial correction of this has been tested and is currently being
finalized.
General issue with dchp4 when running the v4.stability test, the server
always
issues a new address rather than renewing the existing one, event though
the
client id is identical. Speculation is that test bed topology may be
playing
a role in this. Shawn R. has some thoughts on this matter.
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2607#comment:3>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list