• Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 98 subscribers
  • Views 346 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

NDK on DM643x fails Compliance Testing

Ayus
Intellectual 825 points

Hello,



We are using Network Developers Kit (NDK 2.0) with DM643x.
Our custom board with DM643x is connected to the PC through a LAN cable.

The PC and the custom board(DM643x using NDK) belongs to different
networks and hence a ping from PC to the custom board should fail.

In our case the behaviour is different, a ping from PC to the custom board
gets a reply!
and as you know this behaviour doesn't satisfy the EtherNet/IP Specification
and hence the Ethernet Compliance Testing fails.

PC's Network settings (IP:10.5.6.2,Subnet Mask:255.255.0.0,Default Gateway:10.5.6.100)
DM643x Network settings (IP:10.5.5.1,Subnet Mask:255.255.255.0,Default Gateway:10.5.5.100)

Even though PC and the board belongs to a different network
we wonder why doesn't the ping fails?
Are we missing anyting in the Network NDK settings?

Please let me know if there is any advice on this issue.


Regards.

  • TI__Mastermind 45025 points

    Ayus,

    Can you please provide some more information about your setup?  For example, is your PC and or EVM board hooked up to a router?

    Thanks,

    Steve

  • in reply to Steven Connell
    Intellectual 825 points 
    Hello Steven,


    Thank you so much for considering this issue.

    There is no router or anything between PC and the Custom board(DM643x),
    the PC and the board are connected directly through a LAN Cable.

    We need to solve this issue in order to pass the compliance test.


    Regards.
  • in reply to Ayus
    Intellectual 825 points

    Any comments?

  • in reply to Ayus
    TI__Mastermind 45025 points

    Ayus,

    So you are using a crossover cable to connect the PC to the board?

    I'm not sure that this is an issue ...  but maybe I don't understand the problem?  For example, I'm able to ping from a Linux machine to www.ti.com and they are on different networks:


    1388 % /sbin/ifconfig
    eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0C:29:9F:EA:6C
              inet addr:146.252.160.81  Bcast:146.252.161.255  Mask:255.255.254.0
              UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
              RX packets:1996409348 errors:145 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
              TX packets:1894015017 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
              collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
              RX bytes:2952004920 (2.7 GiB)  TX bytes:1780491045 (1.6 GiB)
              Interrupt:177 Base address:0x1424

    eth0:1    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0C:29:9F:EA:6C
              inet addr:146.252.160.114  Bcast:146.252.161.255  Mask:255.255.254.0
              UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
              Interrupt:177 Base address:0x1424

    lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
              inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
              UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
              RX packets:1945658 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
              TX packets:1945658 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
              collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
              RX bytes:662100238 (631.4 MiB)  TX bytes:662100238 (631.4 MiB)

    1389 %
    1389 % ping www.ti.com
    PING www.ti.com (10.4.1.14) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from www.ext.ti.com (10.4.1.14): icmp_seq=0 ttl=121 time=123 ms
    64 bytes from www.ext.ti.com (10.4.1.14): icmp_seq=1 ttl=121 time=113 ms
    64 bytes from www.ext.ti.com (10.4.1.14): icmp_seq=2 ttl=121 time=115 ms
    64 bytes from www.ext.ti.com (10.4.1.14): icmp_seq=3 ttl=121 time=117 ms

    --- www.ti.com ping statistics ---
    4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3016ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 113.628/117.425/123.099/3.592 ms, pipe 2
    1390 %

    Can you provide some more details on the compliance test that is failing?  (specifically the part of it that says this shouldn't work and why?)

    Thanks,

    Steve