RFC 2544, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", March 1999

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6201, RFC 6815, RFC 9004

Errata ID: 5207
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Benoît Monin
Date Reported: 2017-12-14
Held for Document Update by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD)
Date Held: 2017-12-31

Section 25 says:

The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests sent
by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.

It should say:

The DUT and tester SHOULD both be able to respond to address
resolution requests wherever the protocol requires such a
process.

Notes:

DUT responding to its own address resolution requests does not make sense.

[Original corrected text was "The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests sent by the tester wherever the protocol requires such a process." - after discussions with the BMWG I edited the corrected text as above - the tester also needs to respond, as otherwise the DUT will age out its resolution -- WK ]

Report New Errata