[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-ogawa-forces-ceha) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7121

Network Working Group                                           K. Ogawa
Internet-Draft                                           NTT Corporation
Updates: 5810 (if approved)                                   W. M. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track           Zhejiang Gongshang University
Expires: June 13, 2014                                     E. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                       December 10, 2013


                   ForCES Intra-NE High Availability
                       draft-ietf-forces-ceha-10

Abstract

   This document discusses Control Element High Availability within a
   ForCES Network Element.  Additionally this document updates [RFC5810]
   by providing new normative text for the Cold-Standby High
   availability mechanism.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Document Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Quantifying Problem Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  RFC5810 CE HA Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  RFC 5810 CE HA Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.1.  Cold Standby Interaction with ForCES Protocol . . . .   7
       3.1.2.  Responsibilities for HA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  CE HA Hot Standby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Changes to the FEPO model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  FEPO processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  New FEPO version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   The following definitions are taken from [RFC3654], [RFC3746] and
   [RFC5810].  They are repeated here for convenience as needed, but the
   normative definitions are found in the referenced RFCs:

   o  Logical Functional Block (LFB) -- A template that represents a
      fine-grained, logically separate aspects of FE processing.

   o  Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the
      ForCES Protocol.  FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per-
      packet processing and handling as directed by a CE via the ForCES
      Protocol.

   o  Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
      Protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs on how to process
      packets.  CEs handle functionality such as the execution of
      control and signaling protocols.



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   o  ForCES Network Element (NE) - An entity composed of one or more
      CEs and one or more FEs.  An NE usually hides its internal
      organization from external entities and represents a single point
      of management to entities outside the NE.

   o  FE Manager (FEM) - A logical entity that operates in the pre-
      association phase and is responsible for determining to which
      CE(s) an FE should communicate.  This process is called CE
      discovery and may involve the FE manager learning the capabilities
      of available CEs.

   o  CE Manager - A logical entity that operates in the pre-association
      phase and is responsible for determining to which FE(s) a CE
      should communicate.  This process is called FE discovery and may
      involve the CE manager learning the capabilities of available FEs.

   o  ForCES Protocol -- The protocol used for communication
      communication between CEs and FEs.  This protocol does not apply
      to CE-to-CE communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to
      communication between FE and CE managers.  The ForCES protocol is
      a master-slave protocol in which FEs are slaves and CEs are
      masters.  This protocol includes both the management of the
      communication channel (e.g., connection establishment, heartbeats)
      and the control messages themselves.

   o  ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) -- A layer in the ForCES
      protocol architecture that defines the ForCES protocol messages,
      the protocol state transfer scheme, and the ForCES protocol
      architecture itself (including requirements of ForCES TML as shown
      below).  Specifications of ForCES PL are defined in [RFC5810]

   o  ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) -- A layer in
      ForCES protocol architecture that specifically addresses the
      protocol message transportation issues, such as how the protocol
      messages are mapped to different transport media (like SCTP, IP,
      TCP, UDP, ATM, Ethernet, etc), and how to achieve and implement
      reliability, security, etc.

2.  Introduction

   Figure 1 illustrates a ForCES NE controlled by a set of redundant CEs
   with CE1 being active and CE2 and CEN being a backup.









Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                           -----------------------------------------
                           | ForCES Network Element                |
                           |                        +-----------+  |
                           |                        |  CEn      |  |
                           |                        |  (Backup) |  |
     --------------   Fc   | +------------+      +------------+ |  |
     | CE Manager |--------+-|     CE1    |------|    CE2     |-+  |
     --------------        | |  (Active)  |  Fr  |  (Backup)  |    |
           |               | +-------+--+-+      +---+---+----+    |
           | Fl            |         |  |    Fp      /   |         |
           |               |         |  +---------+ /    |         |
           |               |       Fp|            |/     |Fp       |
           |               |         |            |      |         |
           |               |         |      Fp   /+--+   |         |
           |               |         |  +-------+    |   |         |
           |               |         |  |            |   |         |
     --------------    Ff  | --------+--+--      ----+---+----+    |
     | FE Manager |--------+-|     FE1    |  Fi  |     FE2    |    |
     --------------        | |            |------|            |    |
                           | --------------      --------------    |
                           |   |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |      |
                           ----+--+--+--+----------+--+--+--+-------
                               |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                               |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                                 Fi/f                   Fi/f

          Fp: CE-FE interface
          Fi: FE-FE interface
          Fr: CE-CE interface
          Fc: Interface between the CE Manager and a CE
          Ff: Interface between the FE Manager and an FE
          Fl: Interface between the CE Manager and the FE Manager
          Fi/f: FE external interface

                       Figure 1: ForCES Architecture

   The ForCES architecture allows FEs to be aware of multiple CEs but
   enforces that only one CE be the master controller.  This is known in
   the industry as 1+N redundancy.  The master CE controls the FEs via
   the ForCES protocol operating on the Fp interface.  If the master CE
   becomes faulty, i.e. crashes or loses connectivity, a backup CE takes
   over and NE operation continues.  By definition, the current
   documented setup is known as cold-standby.  The set of CEs
   controlling an FE is static and is passed to the FE by the FE Manager
   (FEM) via the Ff interface and to each CE by the CE Manager (CEM) in
   the Fc interface during the pre-association phase.





Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   From an FE perspective, the knobs of control for a CE set are defined
   by the FEPO LFB in [RFC5810], Appendix B.  In Section 3.1 of this
   document we discuss further details of these knobs.

2.1.  Document Scope

   It is assumed that the reader is aware of the ForCES architecture to
   make sense of the changes being described in this document.  This
   document provides background information to set the context of the
   discussion in Section 4.

   At the time this document is being written, the Fr interface is out
   of scope for the ForCES architecture.  However, it is expected that
   organizations implementing a set of CEs will need to have the CEs
   communicate to each other via the Fr interface in order to achieve
   the synchronization necessary for controlling the FEs.

   The problem scope addressed by this document falls into 2 areas:

   1.  To update the description of [RFC5810] with more clarity on how
       current cold-standby approach operates within the NE cluster.

   2.  To describe how to evolve the [RFC5810] cold-standby setup to a
       hot-standby redundancy setup to improve the failover time and NE
       availability.

2.2.  Quantifying Problem Scope

   The NE recovery and availability is dependent on several time-
   sensitive metrics:

   1.  How fast the CE plane failure is detected by the FE.

   2.  How fast a backup CE becomes operational.

   3.  How fast the FEs associate with the new master CE.

   4.  How fast the FEs recover their state, and become operational.
       Each FE state is the collective state of all its instantiated
       LFBs.

   The design intent of the current [RFC5810] as well as this document
   to meet the above goals are driven by desire for simplicity.

   To quantify the above criteria with the current prescribed ForCES CE
   setup in [RFC5810]:





Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   1.  How fast the FE side detects a CE failure is left undefined.  To
       illustrate an extreme scenario, we could have a human operator
       acting as the monitoring entity to detect faulty CEs.  How fast
       such detection happens could be in the range of seconds to days.
       A more active monitor on the Fp interface could improve this
       detection.  Usually the FE will detect a CE failure either by the
       TML if the Fp interface terminates or by the ForCES Protocol by
       utilizing the ForCES heartbeat mechanism.

   2.  How fast the backup CE becomes operational is also currently out
       of scope.  In the current setup, a backup CE need not be
       operational at all (for example, to save power) and therefore it
       is feasible for a monitoring entity to boot up a backup CE after
       it detects the failure of the master CE.  In this document
       Section 4 we suggest that at least one backup CE be online so as
       to improve this metric.

   3.  How fast an FE associates with new master CE is also currently
       undefined.  The cost of an FE connecting and associating adds to
       the recovery overhead.  As mentioned above we suggest having at
       least one backup CE online.  In Section 4 we propose to zero out
       the connection and association cost on failover by having each FE
       associate with all online backup CEs after associating to an
       active/master CE.  Note that if an FE pre-associates with at
       least one backup CE, then the system will be technically
       operating in hot-standby mode.

   4.  And last: How fast an FE recovers its state depends on how much
       NE state exists.  By ForCES current definition, the new master CE
       assumes zero state on the FE and starts from scratch to update
       the FE.  So the larger the state, the longer the recovery.

3.  RFC5810 CE HA Framework

   To achieve CE High Availability (HA), FEs and CEs MUST inter-operate
   per [RFC5810] definition which is repeated for contextual reasons in
   Section 3.1.  It should be noted that in this default setup, which
   MUST be implemented by CEs and FEs requiring HA, the Fr plane is out
   of scope (and if available is proprietary to an implementation).

3.1.  RFC 5810 CE HA Support

   As mentioned earlier, although there can be multiple redundant CEs,
   only one CE actively controls FEs in a ForCES NE.  In practice there
   may be only one backup CE.  At any moment in time, only one master CE
   can control an FE.  In addition, the FE connects and associates to
   only the master CE.  The FE and the CE are aware of the primary and
   one or more secondary CEs.  This information (primary, secondary CEs)



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   is configured on the FE and the CE during pre-association by the FEM
   and the CEM respectively.

   This section includes a new normative description that updates
   [RFC5810] for the Cold-Standby High Availability mechanism.

   Figure 2 below illustrates the Forces message sequences that the FE
   uses to recover the connection in current defined cold-standby
   scheme.


         FE                       CE Primary         CE Secondary
         |                           |                     |
         | Association Establishment |                     |
         |   Capabilities Exchange   |                     |
       1 |<------------------------->|                     |
         |                           |                     |
         |       State Update        |                     |
       2 |<------------------------->|                     |
         |                           |                     |
         |                           |                     |
         |                        FAILURE                  |
         |                                                 |
         | Association Estbalishment,Capabilities Exchange |
       3 |<----------------------------------------------->|
         |                                                 |
         |         Event Report (primary CE down)          |
       4 |------------------------------------------------>|
         |                                                 |
         |                  State Update                   |
       5 |<----------------------------------------------->|

                  Figure 2: CE Failover for Cold Standby

3.1.1.  Cold Standby Interaction with ForCES Protocol

   HA parameterization in an FE is driven by configuring the FE Protocol
   Object (FEPO) LFB.

   The FEPO CEID component identifies the current master CE and the
   component table BackupCEs identifies the configured backup CEs.  The
   FEPO FE Heartbeat Interval, CE Heartbeat Dead Interval, and CE
   Heartbeat policy help in detecting connectivity problems between an
   FE and CE.  The CE Failover policy defines how the FE should react on
   a detected failure.  The FEObject FEState component [RFC5812] defines
   the operational forwarding status and control.  The CE can turn off
   the FE's forwarding operations by setting the FEState to AdminDisable
   and can turn it on by setting it to OperEnable.  Note: [RFC5812]



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   section 5.1 has an errata which describes the FEState as read-only
   when it should be read-write.

   Figure 3 illustrates the defined state machine that facilitates the
   recovery of connection state.

   The FE connects to the CE specified on FEPO CEID component.  If it
   fails to connect to the defined CE, it moves it to the bottom of
   table BackupCEs and sets its CEID component to be the first CE
   retrieved from table BackupCEs.  The FE then attempts to associate
   with the CE designated as the new primary CE.  The FE continues
   through this procedure until it successfully connects to one of the
   CEs or until the CE Failover Timeout Interval (CEFTI) expires.






































Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                             FE tries to associate
                                   +-->-----+
                                   |        |
      (CE changes master ||        |        |
      CE issues Teardown ||    +---+--------v----+
        Lost association) &&   | Pre-Association |
       CE failover policy = 0  | (Association    |
           +------------>-->-->|   in            +<----+
           |                   | progress)       |     |
           |                   |                 |     |
           |                   +--------+--------+     |
           |  CE Association        |                  | CEFTI
           |       Response         V                  | timer
           |     +------------------+                  | expires
           |     |FE issue CEPrimaryDown               ^
           |     V                                     |
         +-+-----------+                        +------+-----+
         |             |  (CE changes master || |  Not       |
         |             |  CE issues Teardown || | Associated |
         |             |  Lost association) &&  |            +->---+
         | Associated  | CE Failover Policy = 1 |(May        | FE  |
         |             |                        | Continue   | try v
         |             |-------->------->------>| Forwarding)| assn|
         |             |   Start CEFTI timer    |            |-<---+
         |             |                        |            |
         +-------------+                        +-------+-----+
              ^                                         |
              |            Successful                   V
              |            Association                  |
              |            Setup                        |
              |            (Cancel CEFTI Timer)         |
              +_________________________________________+
                        FE issue CEPrimaryDown event

                 Figure 3: FE State Machine considering HA

   There are several events that trigger mastership changes: The master
   CE may issue a mastership change (by changing the CEID component), or
   teardown an existing association; and last, connectivity may be lost
   between the CE and FE.

   When communication fails between the FE and CE (which can be caused
   by either the CE or link failure but not FE related), either the TML
   on the FE will trigger the FE PL regarding this failure or it will be
   detected using the heartbeat messages between FEs and CEs.  The
   communication failure, regardless of how it is detected, MUST be
   considered as a loss of association between the CE and corresponding
   FE.



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   If the FE's FEPO CE Failover Policy is configured to mode 0 (the
   default), it will immediately transition to the pre-association
   phase.  This means that if association is later re-established with a
   CE, all FE state will need to be re-created.

   If the FE's FEPO CE Failover Policy is configured to mode 1, it
   indicates that the FE will run in HA restart recovery.  In such a
   case, the FE transitions to the Not Associated state and the CEFTI
   timer [RFC5810] is started.  The FE may continue to forward packets
   during this state depending upon the value of the CEFailoverPolicy
   component of the FEPO LFB.  The FE recycles through any configured
   backup CEs in a round-robin fashion.  It first adds its primary CE to
   the bottom of table BackupCEs and sets its CEID component to be the
   first secondary retrieved from table BackupCEs.  The FE then attempts
   to associate with the CE designated as the new primary CE.  If it
   fails to re-associate with any CE and the CEFTI expires, the FE then
   transitions to the pre-association state and FE will operationally
   bring down its forwarding path (and set the [RFC5812] FEObject
   FEState component to OperDisable).

   If the FE, while in the not associated state, manages to reconnect to
   a new primary CE before CEFTI expires it transitions to the
   Associated state.  Once re-associated, the CE may try to synchronize
   any state that the FE may have lost during disconnection.  How the CE
   re-synchronizes such state is out of scope for the current ForCES
   architecture but would typically constitute the issuing of new
   configs and queries.

   An explicit message (a Config message setting Primary CE component in
   ForCES Protocol object) from the primary CE, can also be used to
   change the Primary CE for an FE during normal protocol operation.  In
   this case, the FE transitions to the Not Associated State and
   attempts to Associate with the new CE.

3.1.2.  Responsibilities for HA

   TML Level:

   1.  The TML controls logical connection availability and failover.

   2.  The TML also controls peer HA management.

   At this level, control of all lower layers, for example transport
   level (such as IP addresses, MAC addresses etc) and associated links
   going down are the role of the TML.

   PL Level:




Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   All other functionality, including configuring the HA behavior during
   setup, the Control Element IDs (CE IDs) used to identify primary and
   secondary CEs, protocol messages used to report CE failure (Event
   Report), Heartbeat messages used to detect association failure,
   messages to change the primary CE (Config), and other HA related
   operations described in Section 3.1, are the PL's responsibility.

   To put the two together, if a path to a primary CE is down, the TML
   would help recover from a failure by switching over to a backup path,
   if one is available.  If the CE is totally unreachable then the PL
   would be informed and it would take the appropriate actions described
   before.

4.  CE HA Hot Standby

   In this section we describe small extensions to the existing scheme
   to enable hot standby HA.  To achieve hot standby HA, we target to
   improve the specific goals defined in Section 2.2, namely:

   o  How fast a backup CE becomes operational.

   o  How fast the FEs associate with the new master CE.

   As described in Section 3.1, in the pre-association phase the FEM
   configures the FE to make it aware of all the CEs in the NE.  The FEM
   MUST configure the FE to make it aware which CE is the master and MAY
   specify any backup CE(s).

4.1.  Changes to the FEPO model

   In order for the above to be achievable there is a need to make a few
   changes in the FEPO model.  Appendix A contains the xml definition of
   the new version 1.1 of the FEPO LFB.

   Changes from the version 1 of FEPO are:

   1.  Added four new datatypes:

       1.  CEStatusType an unsigned char to specify status of a
           connection with a CE.  Special values are:

           +  0 (Disconnected) represents that no connection attempt has
              been made with the CE yet

           +  1 (Connected) represents that the FE connection with the
              CE at the TML has completed successfully





Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


           +  2 (Associated) represents that the FE has successfully
              associated with the CE

           +  3 (IsMaster) represents that the FE has associated with
              the CE and is the master of the FE

           +  4 (LostConnection) represents that the FE was associated
              with the CE at one point but lost the connection

           +  5 (Unreachable) represents the FE deems this CE
              unreachable. i.e., the FE has tried over a period to
              connect to it but has failed.

       2.  HAModeValues an unsigned char to specify selected HA mode.
           Special values are:

           +  0 (No HA Mode) represents that the FE is not running in HA
              mode

           +  1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in HA
              mode cold Standby

           +  2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in HA
              mode hot Standby

       3.  Statistics, a complex structure, representing the
           communication statistics between the FE and CE.  The
           components are:

           +  RecvPackets representing the packet count received from
              the CE

           +  RecvBytes representing the byte count received from the CE

           +  RecvErrPackets representing the erroneous packets received
              from the CE.  This component logs badly formatted packets
              as well as good packets sent to the FE by the CE to set
              components whilst that CE is not the master.  Erroneous
              packets are dropped(i.e. not responded to).

           +  RecvErrBytes representing the RecvErrPackets byte count
              received from the CE

           +  TxmitPackets representing the packet count transmitted to
              the CE






Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


           +  TxmitErrPackets representing the error packet count
              transmitted to the CE.  Typically these would be failures
              due to communication.

           +  TxmitBytes representing the byte count transmitted to the
              CE

           +  TxmitErrBytes representing the byte count of errors from
              transmit to the CE

       4.  AllCEType, a complex structure constituting the CE IDs,
           Statistics and CEStatusType to reflect connection information
           for one CE.  Used in the AllCEs component array.

   2.  Appended two new components:

       1.  Read-only AllCEs to hold status for all CEs.  AllCEs is an
           Array of the AllCEType.

       2.  Read-write HAMode of type HAModeValues to carry the HA mode
           used by the FE.

   3.  Added one additional Event, PrimaryCEChanged, reporting the new
       master CE ID when there is a mastership change.

   Since no component from the FEPO v1 has been changed FEPO v1.1
   retains backwards compatibility with CEs that know only version 1.0.
   These CEs however cannot make use of the HA options that the new FEPO
   provides.

4.2.  FEPO processing

   The FE's FEPO LFB version 1.1 AllCEs table contains all the CE IDs
   that the FE may connect and associate with.  The ordering of the CE
   IDs in this table defines the priority order in which an FE will
   connect to the CEs.  This table is provisioned initially from the
   configuration plane (FEM).  In the pre-association phase, the first
   CE (lowest table index) in the AllCEs table MUST be the first CE that
   the FE will attempt to connect and associate with.  If the FE fails
   to connect and associate with the first listed CE, it will attempt to
   connect to the second CE and so forth, and cycles back to the
   beginning of the list until there is a successful association.  The
   FE MUST associate with at least one CE.  Upon a successful
   association, a component of the FEPO LFB, specifically the CEID
   component, identifies the current associated master CE.

   While it would be much simpler to have the FE not respond to any
   messages from a CE other than the master, in practice it has been



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   found to be useful to respond to queries and heartbeats from backup
   CEs.  For this reason, we allow backup CEs to issues queries to the
   FE.  Configuration messages (SET/DEL) from backup CEs MUST be dropped
   by the FE and logged as received errors.

   Asynchronous events that the master CE has subscribed to, as well as
   heartbeats are sent to all associated-to CEs.  Packet redirects
   continue to be sent only to the master CE.  The Heartbeat Interval,
   the CE Heartbeat Policy (CEHB) and the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHB) are
   global for all CEs(and changed only by the master CE).

   Figure 4 illustrates the state machine that facilitates connection
   recovery with HA enabled.






































Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                           FE tries to associate
                                +-->-----+
                                |        |
   (CE changes master ||        |        |
   CE issues Teardown ||    +---+--------v----+
     Lost association) &&   | Pre-Association |
    CE failover policy = 0  | (Association    |
        +------------>-->-->|   in            +<----+
        |                   | progress)       |     |
        |                   |                 |     |
        |                   +--------+--------+     |
        |  CE Association        |                  | CEFTI
        |       Response         V                  | timer
        |     +------------------+                  | expires
        |     |FE issue CEPrimaryDown               ^
        |     |FE issue PrimaryCEChanged            ^
        |     V                                     |
      +-+-----------+                        +------+-----+
      |             |  (CE changes master || |  Not       |
      |             |  CE issues Teardown || | Associated |
      |             |  Lost association) &&  |            +->----------+
      | Associated  | CE Failover Policy = 1 |(May        | find first |
      |             |                        | Continue   | associated v
      |             |-------->------->------>| Forwarding)| CE or retry|
      |             |   Start CEFTI timer    |            | associating|
      |             |                        |            |-<----------+
      |             |                        |            |
      +----+--------+                        +-------+----+
           |                                         |
           ^                                   Found | associated CE
           |                                or newly | associated CE
           |                                         V
           |            (Cancel CEFTI Timer)         |
           +_________________________________________+
                     FE issue CEPrimaryDown event
                     FE issue PrimaryCEChanged event

                 Figure 4: FE State Machine considering HA

   Once the FE has associated with a master CE it moves to the post-
   association phase (Associated state).  It is assumed that the master
   CE will communicate with other CEs within the NE for the purpose of
   synchronization via the CE-CE interface.  The CE-CE interface is out
   of scope for this document.  An election result amongst CEs may
   result in desire to change mastership to a different associated CE;
   at which point current assumed master CE will instruct the FE to use
   a different master CE.




Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


         FE                         CE#1         CE#2 ... CE#N
         |                           |            |        |
         | Association Establishment |            |        |
         |   Capabilities Exchange   |            |        |
       1 |<------------------------->|            |        |
         |                           |            |        |
         |      State Update         |            |        |
       2 |<------------------------->|            |        |
         |                           |            |        |
         |      Association Establishment         |        |
         |        Capabilities Exchange           |        |
       3I|<-------------------------------------->|        |
        ...                         ...          ...      ...
         | Association Estbalishment,Capabilities Exchange |
       3N|<----------------------------------------------->|
         |                           |            |        |
       4 |<------------------------->|            |        |
         .                           .            .        .
       4x|<------------------------->|            |        |
         |                        FAILURE         |        |
         |                           |            |        |
         |    Event Report (LastCEID changed)     |        |
       5 |--------------------------------------->|------->|
         |    Event Report (CE#2 is new master)   |        |
       6 |--------------------------------------->|------->|
         |                                        |        |
       7 |<-------------------------------------->|        |
         .                           .            .        .
       7x|<-------------------------------------->|        |
         .                           .            .        .

                   Figure 5: CE Failover for Hot Standby

   While in the post-association phase, if the CE Failover Policy is set
   to 1 and HAMode set to 2 (HotStandby) then the FE, after successfully
   associating with the master CE, MUST attempt to connect and associate
   with all the CEs that it is aware of.  Figure 5 steps #1 and #2
   illustrates the FE associating with CE#1 as the master and then
   proceeding to steps #3I to #3N the association with backup CEs CE#2
   to CE#N.  If the FE fails to connect or associate with some CEs, the
   FE MAY flag them as unreachable to avoid continuous attempts to
   connect.  The FE MAY retry to reassociate with unreachable CEs when
   possible.

   When the master CE for any reason is considered to be down, then the
   FE MUST try to find the first associated CE from the list of all CEs
   in a round-robin fashion.




Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   If the FE is unable to find an associated FE in its list of CEs, then
   it MUST attempt to connect and associate with the first from the list
   of all CEs and continue in a round-robin fashion until it connects
   and associates with a CE or the CEFTI timer expires.

   Once the FE selects an associated CE to use as the new master, the FE
   issues a PrimaryCEDown Event Notification to all associated CEs to
   notify them that the last primary CE went down (and what its identity
   was); a second event PrimaryCEChanged identifying the new master CE
   is sent as well to identify which CE the reporting FE considers to be
   the new master.

   In most HA architectures there exists the possibility of split-brain.
   However, since in our setup the FE will never accept any
   configuration messages from any other than the master CE, we consider
   the FE as fenced against data corruption from the other CEs that
   consider themselves as the master.  The split-brain issue becomes
   mostly a CE-CE communication problem which is considered to be out of
   scope.

   By virtue of having multiple CE connections, the FE switchover to a
   new master CE will be relatively much faster.  The overall effect is
   improving the NE recovery time in case of communication failure or
   faults of the master CE.  This satisfies the requirement we set to
   achieve.

5.  IANA Considerations

   Following the policies outlined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
   Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], the Logical Functional
   Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers namespaces is updated.

   A new column, LFB version, is added to the table after the LFB Class
   Name.  The table now reads as follows:

   +----------------+------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
   |   LFB Class    | LFB Class  |    LFB    | Description | Reference |
   |   Identifier   |    Name    |  Version  |             |           |
   +----------------+------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+
   +----------------+------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+

     Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers

   The same rules applies as defined in [RFC5812] with the addition that
   entries must provide the LFB version as a string.

   Upon publication of this document, all current entries are assigned a
   value of 1.0.



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   New versions of already defined LFB, MUST NOT remove the previous
   version entries.

   It would make sense to have LFB versions to appear in sequence in the
   registry.  The table SHOULD be sorted, and the shorting should be
   done by Class ID first and then by version.

   This document introduces the FE Protocol Object version 1.1 as
   follows:

   +------------+-----------+---------+--------------------+-----------+
   | LFB Class  | LFB Class |   LFB   |    Description     | Reference |
   | Identifier |    Name   | Version |                    |           |
   +------------+-----------+---------+--------------------+-----------+
   |     2      |     FE    |   1.1   | Defines parameters |    This   |
   |            |  Protocol |         |   for the ForCES   |  document |
   |            |   Object  |         | protocol operation |           |
   +------------+-----------+---------+--------------------+-----------+

     Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers

6.  Security Considerations

   Security consideration as defined in section 9 of [RFC5810] applies
   securing each CE-FE communication.  Multiple CEs associated with the
   same FE still require the same procedure to be followed on a per-
   association basis.

   It should be noted that since the FE is initiating the association
   with a CE, a CE cannot initiate association with the FE and such
   messages will be dropped.  Thus the FE is secured from rogue CEs that
   are attempting to associate with it.

   CE implementers should have in mind that once associated the FE
   cannot distinguish whether the CE has been compromised or
   malfunctioning while not losing connectivity.  Securing the CE is out
   of scope of this document.

   While CE-CE plane is outside current scope of ForCES, we recognize
   that it may be subjected to attacks which may affect the CE-FE
   communication.

   The following considerations should be made:

   1.  CEs should use secure communication channels between for
       coordination and keeping of state at least to avoid connection of
       malicious CEs.




Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


   2.  The master CE should take into account DoS and DDoS attacks from
       malicious or malfunctioning CEs.

   3.  CEs should take into account the split-brain issue.  There are
       currently two fail-safes in the FE, firstly the FE has the CEID
       component that denotes which CE is the master and secondly the FE
       does not allow BackupCEs to configure the FE.  However backup CEs
       that consider that the master CE has dropped and themselves as
       master should first do a sanity check and query the FE CEID
       component.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
              W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
              Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.

   [RFC5812]  Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
              Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC
              5812, March 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3654]  Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
              of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.

   [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
              "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
              Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.

Appendix A.  New FEPO version

   The xml has been validated against the schema defined in [RFC5812].

   <LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
      xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO">
      <!-- XXX -->



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


      <dataTypeDefs>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>CEHBPolicyValues</name>
            <synopsis>
               The possible values of CE heartbeat policy
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>CEHBPolicy0</name>
                     <synopsis>
                 The CE will send heartbeats to the FE
                 every CEHDI timeout if no other messages
                 have been sent since.
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>CEHBPolicy1</name>
                     <synopsis>
                 The CE will not send heartbeats to the FE
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>
            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>FEHBPolicyValues</name>
            <synopsis>
               The possible values of FE heartbeat policy
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>FEHBPolicy0</name>
                     <synopsis>
           The FE will not generate any heartbeats to the CE
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>FEHBPolicy1</name>
                     <synopsis>
           The FE generates heartbeats to the CE every FEHI
           if no other messages have been sent to the CE.
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>FERestartPolicyValues</name>
            <synopsis>
               The possible values of FE restart policy
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>FERestartPolicy0</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE restarts its state from scratch
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>
            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>HAModeValues</name>
            <synopsis>
               The possible values of HA modes
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>NoHA</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE is not running in HA mode
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>ColdStandby</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE is running in HA mode cold Standby
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="2">
                     <name>HotStandby</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE is running in HA mode hot Standby
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>
            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>CEFailoverPolicyValues</name>
            <synopsis>
               The possible values of CE failover policy
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>CEFailoverPolicy0</name>
                     <synopsis>
           The FE should stop functioning immediate and
           transition to the FE OperDisable state
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>CEFailoverPolicy1</name>
                     <synopsis>
           The FE should continue forwarding even without an
           associated CE for CEFTI. The FE goes to FE
           OperDisable when the CEFTI expires and no
           association. Requires graceful restart support.
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>
            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>FEHACapab</name>
            <synopsis>
               The supported HA features
            </synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>GracefullRestart</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE supports Graceful Restart
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>HA</name>
                     <synopsis>
                        The FE supports HA
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>CEStatusType</name>
            <synopsis>Status values. Status for each CE</synopsis>
            <atomic>
               <baseType>uchar</baseType>
               <specialValues>
                  <specialValue value="0">
                     <name>Disconnected</name>
                     <synopsis>No connection attempt with the CE yet
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="1">
                     <name>Connected</name>
                     <synopsis>The FE connection with the CE at the TML
                        has been completed
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="2">
                     <name>Associated</name>
                     <synopsis>The FE has associated with the CE
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="3">
                     <name>IsMaster</name>
                     <synopsis>The CE is the master (and associated)
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="4">
                     <name>LostConnection</name>
                     <synopsis>The FE was associated with the CE but
                        lost the connection
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
                  <specialValue value="5">
                     <name>Unreachable</name>
                     <synopsis>The CE is deemed as unreachable by the FE
                     </synopsis>
                  </specialValue>
               </specialValues>
            </atomic>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>StatisticsType</name>
            <synopsis>Statistics Definition</synopsis>
            <struct>
               <component componentID="1">



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                  <name>RecvPackets</name>
                  <synopsis>Packets Received</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="2">
                  <name>RecvErrPackets</name>
                  <synopsis>Packets Received from CE with errors
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="3">
                  <name>RecvBytes</name>
                  <synopsis>Bytes Received from CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="4">
                  <name>RecvErrBytes</name>
                  <synopsis>Bytes Received from CE in Error</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="5">
                  <name>TxmitPackets</name>
                  <synopsis>Packets Transmitted to CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="6">
                  <name>TxmitErrPackets</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     Packets Transmitted to CE that incurred
                     errors
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="7">
                  <name>TxmitBytes</name>
                  <synopsis>Bytes Transmitted to CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="8">
                  <name>TxmitErrBytes</name>
                  <synopsis>Bytes Transmitted to CE incurring errors
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint64</typeRef>
               </component>
            </struct>
         </dataTypeDef>
         <dataTypeDef>
            <name>AllCEType</name>



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


            <synopsis>Table Type for AllCE component</synopsis>
            <struct>
               <component componentID="1">
                  <name>CEID</name>
                  <synopsis>ID of the CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="2">
                  <name>Statistics</name>
                  <synopsis>Statistics per CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>StatisticsType</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="3">
                  <name>CEStatus</name>
                  <synopsis>Status of the CE</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>CEStatusType</typeRef>
               </component>
            </struct>
         </dataTypeDef>
      </dataTypeDefs>
      <LFBClassDefs>
         <LFBClassDef LFBClassID="2">
            <name>FEPO</name>
            <synopsis>
               The FE Protocol Object, with new CEHA
            </synopsis>
            <version>1.1</version>
            <components>
               <component componentID="1" access="read-only">
                  <name>CurrentRunningVersion</name>
                  <synopsis>Currently running ForCES version</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uchar</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="2" access="read-only">
                  <name>FEID</name>
                  <synopsis>Unicast FEID</synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="3" access="read-write">
                  <name>MulticastFEIDs</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     the table of all multicast IDs
                  </synopsis>
                  <array type="variable-size">
                     <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
                  </array>
               </component>
               <component componentID="4" access="read-write">



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                  <name>CEHBPolicy</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The CE Heartbeat Policy
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>CEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="5" access="read-write">
                  <name>CEHDI</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The CE Heartbeat Dead Interval in millisecs
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="6" access="read-write">
                  <name>FEHBPolicy</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The FE Heartbeat Policy
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>FEHBPolicyValues</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="7" access="read-write">
                  <name>FEHI</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The FE Heartbeat Interval in millisecs
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="8" access="read-write">
                  <name>CEID</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The Primary CE this FE is associated with
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="9" access="read-write">
                  <name>BackupCEs</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The table of all backup CEs other than the
                     primary
                  </synopsis>
                  <array type="variable-size">
                     <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
                  </array>
               </component>
               <component componentID="10" access="read-write">
                  <name>CEFailoverPolicy</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The CE Failover Policy



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>CEFailoverPolicyValues</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="11" access="read-write">
                  <name>CEFTI</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The CE Failover Timeout Interval in millisecs
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="12" access="read-write">
                  <name>FERestartPolicy</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The FE Restart Policy
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>FERestartPolicyValues</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="13" access="read-write">
                  <name>LastCEID</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The Primary CE this FE was last associated
                     with
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="14" access="read-write">
                  <name>HAMode</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The HA mode used
                  </synopsis>
                  <typeRef>HAModeValues</typeRef>
               </component>
               <component componentID="15" access="read-only">
                  <name>AllCEs</name>
                  <synopsis>The table of all CEs</synopsis>
                  <array type="variable-size">
                     <typeRef>AllCEType</typeRef>
                  </array>
               </component>
            </components>
            <capabilities>
               <capability componentID="30">
                  <name>SupportableVersions</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     the table of ForCES versions that FE supports
                  </synopsis>
                  <array type="variable-size">
                     <typeRef>uchar</typeRef>



Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


                  </array>
               </capability>
               <capability componentID="31">
                  <name>HACapabilities</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     the table of HA capabilities the FE supports
                  </synopsis>
                  <array type="variable-size">
                     <typeRef>FEHACapab</typeRef>
                  </array>
               </capability>
            </capabilities>
            <events baseID="61">
               <event eventID="1">
                  <name>PrimaryCEDown</name>
                  <synopsis>
                     The primary CE has changed
                  </synopsis>
                  <eventTarget>
                     <eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
                  </eventTarget>
                  <eventChanged/>
                  <eventReports>
                     <eventReport>
                        <eventField>LastCEID</eventField>
                     </eventReport>
                  </eventReports>
               </event>
               <event eventID="2">
                  <name>PrimaryCEChanged</name>
                  <synopsis>A New primary CE has been selected
                  </synopsis>
                  <eventTarget>
                     <eventField>CEID</eventField>
                  </eventTarget>
                  <eventChanged/>
                  <eventReports>
                     <eventReport>
                        <eventField>CEID</eventField>
                     </eventReport>
                  </eventReports>
               </event>
            </events>
         </LFBClassDef>
      </LFBClassDefs>
   </LFBLibrary>





Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      ForCES Intra-NE High Availability      December 2013


Authors' Addresses

   Kentaro Ogawa
   NTT Corporation
   3-9-11 Midori-cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Email: k.ogawa@ntt.com


   Weiming Wang
   Zhejiang Gongshang University
   149 Jiaogong Road
   Hangzhou  310035
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-571-88057712
   Email: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn


   Evangelos Haleplidis
   University of Patras
   Panepistimioupoli Patron
   Patras  26504
   Greece

   Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr


   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Suite 400, 303 Moodie Dr.
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2H 9R4
   Canada

   Email: hadi@mojatatu.com














Ogawa, et al.             Expires June 13, 2014                [Page 29]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/