Is there a test case that enforces 4.3.1.4.21.2 Coding of the field IPAddress?

[AlfredoAtSherpa]

Hello:
We came across a PROFINET IO device which we are testing. For this device the ART test cases pass for all the functionalities described in its GSDML file.

However, it is possible, with a DCP client tool such as PRONETA or PROFINET Commander, to set "forbidden" IP addresses as described in specification clause "4.3.1.4.21.2 Coding of the field IPAddress", "Table 112 - IPAddress".

My question is, since the ART does not seem to flag this problem, I want to confirm whether there is any test case in ART that will check if the device allows setting of illegal IP settings through DCP.

Or is there a different test not included in ART, that would flag this problem?

Thanks.

[RFC2324]

Hello Alfredo,

there is currently no specific test for such IP parameters in the Automated RT-Tester. We will add this topic to the backlog of the TSDG to make sure we cover it in the future.

Thanks a lot for reporting and best regards,
Benedikt

Hello:
We came across a PROFINET IO device which we are testing. For this device the ART test cases pass for all the functionalities described in its GSDML file.

However, it is possible, with a DCP client tool such as PRONETA or PROFINET Commander, to set "forbidden" IP addresses as described in specification clause "4.3.1.4.21.2 Coding of the field IPAddress", "Table 112 - IPAddress".

My question is, since the ART does not seem to flag this problem, I want to confirm whether there is any test case in ART that will check if the device allows setting of illegal IP settings through DCP.

Or is there a different test not included in ART, that would flag this problem?

Thanks.

[AlfredoAtSherpa]

Hello Alfredo,

there is currently no specific test for such IP parameters in the Automated RT-Tester. We will add this topic to the backlog of the TSDG to make sure we cover it in the future.

Thanks a lot for reporting and best regards,
Benedikt

Hello:
We came across a PROFINET IO device which we are testing. For this device the ART test cases pass for all the functionalities described in its GSDML file.

However, it is possible, with a DCP client tool such as PRONETA or PROFINET Commander, to set "forbidden" IP addresses as described in specification clause "4.3.1.4.21.2 Coding of the field IPAddress", "Table 112 - IPAddress".

My question is, since the ART does not seem to flag this problem, I want to confirm whether there is any test case in ART that will check if the device allows setting of illegal IP settings through DCP.

Or is there a different test not included in ART, that would flag this problem?

Thanks.

Thanks so much Benedict for this answer.
The PROFINET Community, ourselves included, shall be very grateful when this test case becomes supported. Your prompt answer shows the unflitching and enduring effort that is put towards the contant improvement of PROFINET technology. I am happy in hving contributed on this effort by reporting the issue.