[openbeosnetteam] Re: Tests plan?
- From: "Waldemar Kornewald" <Waldemar.Kornewald@xxxxxx>
- To: <openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:34 +0100
Hi,
> > It seems we may be able to formalize a testing group as well. Scott
> > and I for sure, and perhaps Waldemar. If we have a definite set of
> > testers, we can work together to create the test plans and so on.
I would like to help you testing the netstack, but I also have my own task that
will hopefully be finished soon (at least the basic stuff).
> Based on what's been posted in the past I think that Waldemar is the
> only one who can exercise the PPP stuff (?). I, for one, cannot test
> this because I have an ADSL connection with a static IP address.
You mean that you do not dial-in with username and password. It is like an
ethernet connection, right?
> I also think we should capture a core dump on Philippe's and Waldemar's
> brain. You and I are coming into this cold (which has its advantages),
> but a quick proverbial "state of the union address" definitely couldn't
> hurt.
Hey, just ask and we will try to answer (if we can ;).
> > I personally am testing the stack initially by running through each
> > of our available network applications:
> >
> > arp
> > ifconfig
> > ping
> > route
> > traceroute
Yes, that is a good starting point. You will soon see what has to be done.
> How about more abusive things like nmap (or the Be equivalent), ping
> floods, and multicast?
>
> Do we have a way to test things like IGMP or PIM? What about UDP?
I cannot say anything about it.
> In this age where "internet security" seems to be the buzzword du jour,
> Be lacks anything even remotely resembling stateful packet filtering.
> Sorry, that's the security freak in me rearing its ugly head. Is this
> applicable to R5, or GE stuff? Nathan, do you have anything to add
> here?
The next generation netstack will have such features, but not the current one.
> > I am not testing pppconfig, but I think Waldemar is. I am writing up
Right. ;)
> > Once we get past this first stage, I am will to right up formal test
> > plans so we can dig further into the issues and start changing code...
>
> Hmmmm... Seems to me that the "first stage" you propose is an
> artificial milestone. After all, the stack and its kith and kin, have
> been under development for some time now. I'd rather step back and
> take in the bigger picture, fix what's broken, and evolve the product
> (pardon the corporate-speak).
Do not implement new features. Just fix the beast.
If you really want to replace some parts we should design it with a future
stack in mind.
But the main task is getting the stack working.
> > but what do you all think of this so far?
Sounds okay to me.
Waldemar
Other related posts:
