[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6984

Internet Engineering Task Force                                  W. Wang
Internet-Draft                             Zhejiang Gongshang University
Intended status: Informational                                  K. Ogawa
Expires: September 8, 2011                               NTT Corporation
                                                           E. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                           March 7, 2011


 Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
                                (ForCES)
                      draft-ietf-forces-interop-00

Abstract

   This document captures test results from the second Forwarding and
   control Element Separation (ForCES) interop testing which took place
   March 24-25, 2011 at the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
   Gongshang University in China.

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 September 8, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   (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
   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.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  ForCES Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.4.  CE HA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology and Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Testbed configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.1.  Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.2.  Local Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.3.  Distributed Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.1.  Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.2.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.3.  Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.1.  Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.2.2.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.2.3.  Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.3.1.  Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.3.2.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.3.3.  Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.4.1.  Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.2.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.3.  Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.1.  LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.2.  TML with IPSec Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.3.  CE High Availability Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.4.  Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   6.  Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


     6.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     6.2.  On ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34









































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document captures the results of the second interoperability
   test of the Forwarding and control Element Separation (ForCES)
   Framework which took place March 24-25, 2011 in the Internet
   Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China.  The
   tests involved several documents namely: ForCES protocol [RFC5810],
   ForCES FE model [RFC5812], ForCES TML [RFC5811], ForCES LFB Library [
   ] and ForCES CE HA specification[].  Three independent ForCES
   implementations participated in the test.

   Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High
   Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed.  Series of
   testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
   results are achieved.  Extended Wireshark and extended tcpdump are
   used to verify the results.

   The first interop test held in July 2008 at the University of Patras,
   Greece, focussed on validating the basic semantics of the protocol
   and model[RFC6053].

1.1.  ForCES Protocol

   The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
   slaves and CEs are masters.  The protocol includes commands for
   transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
   association setup, status, and event notifications, etc.  The reader
   is encouraged to read FE-protocol [RFC5810] for further information.

1.2.  ForCES Model

   The FE-MODEL [RFC5811] presents a formal way to define FE Logical
   Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML.  LFB configuration components,
   capabilities, and associated events are defined when the LFB is
   formally created.  The LFBs within the FE are accordingly controlled
   in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.

1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer

   The TML transports the PL messages.  The TML is where the issues of
   how to achieve transport level reliability, congestion control,
   multicast, ordering, etc. are handled.  It is expected that more than
   one TML will be standardized.  The various possible TMLs could vary
   their implementations based on the capabilities of underlying media
   and transport.  However, since each TML is standardized,
   interoperability is guaranteed as long as both endpoints support the
   same TML.  All ForCES Protocol Layer implementations MUST be portable
   across all TMLs.  Although more than one TML may be standardized for



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   the ForCES Protocol, for the purposes of the interoperability test,
   the mandated MUST IMPLEMENT SCTP TML [RFC5811] will be used.

1.4.  CE HA















































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


2.  Terminology and Conventions

2.1.  Requirements Language

   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].

2.2.  Definitions

   This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
   documents of RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810,RFC5811,RFC5812,RFC5812.  The
   definitions are repeated below for clarity.

      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.

      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/controlled by one or
      more CEs via the ForCES protocol.

      LFB (Logical Functional Block) - The basic building block that is
      operated on by the ForCES protocol.  The LFB is a well defined,
      logically separable functional block that resides in an FE and is
      controlled by the CE via the ForCES protocol.  The LFB may reside
      at the FE's datapath and process packets or may be purely an FE
      control or configuration entity that is operated on by the CE.
      Note that the LFB is a functionally accurate abstraction of the
      FE's processing capabilities, but not a hardware-accurate
      representation of the FE implementation.

      LFB Class and LFB Instance - LFBs are categorized by LFB Classes.
      An LFB Instance represents an LFB Class (or Type) existence.
      There may be multiple instances of the same LFB Class (or Type) in
      an FE.  An LFB Class is represented by an LFB Class ID, and an LFB
      Instance is represented by an LFB Instance ID.  As a result, an
      LFB Class ID associated with an LFB Instance ID uniquely specifies
      an LFB existence.

      LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
      from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network.  The
      FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and
      consumed by the LFBs.  It defines the functionality but not how
      metadata is encoded within an implementation.




Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


      LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
      visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
      components.  The LFB components include, for example, flags,
      single-parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the
      CE can read and/or write via the ForCES protocol (see below).

      ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used
      within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol"
      and "protocol" refer to the "Fp" reference points in the ForCES
      framework in [RFC3746].  This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE
      communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between
      FE and CE managers.  Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a
      master-slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.

      ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
      ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
      existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
      message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
      are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
      Ethernet, etc.), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
      multicast, ordering, etc.  The ForCES TML specifications are
      detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML.





























Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


3.  Overview

3.1.  Date, Location, and Participants

   The ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF ForCES
   working group on March 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by Jamal Hadi
   Salim, the current ForCES working group co-chair.  Three independent
   ForCES implementations participated in the test:

   * Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Networks, China.  This
   implementation is reffered to as "China" in the document for the sake
   of brevity.
   * NTT Corporation, Japan.  This implementation is referred to as
   "Japan" in the document for the sake of brevity.
   * The University of Patras, Greece.  This implementation is referred
   to as "Greece" in the document for the sake of brevity.

   During the interoperability test, protocol analyzers Wireshark and
   tcpdump were used to verify the validity of ForCES protocol messages
   and in some cases semantics.  Some issues related to interoperability
   among implementations were discovered.  Most of the issues were
   solved on site during the test.  The most contentious issue found was
   on the format of encapsulation for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 6).
   At times, interoperability testing was exercised between 2 instead of
   all three representative implementations due to the third one lacking
   a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all implementors
   mentioned they will be implementing any missing features in the
   future.

3.2.  Testbed configuration

3.2.1.  Access

   Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
   Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China.  The
   University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece.  The
   chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
   teamviewer tool [ref XXX].  The approach is as shown in the following
   figure.












Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


        +---------+     +----+                    +----------+
        |  FE/CE  |     |    |                +---|TeamViewer|
        |  China  |-----|    |    /\/\/\/\/\  |   |  Canada  |
        +---------+     |    |    \Internet/  |   +----------+
                        |LAN |----/        \--|
        +---------+     |    |    \/\/\/\/\/  |   +----------+
        |  FE/CE  |-----|    |                |   |  FE/CE   |
        |  Japan  |     |    |                +---|  Greece  |
        +---------+     +----+                    +----------+

                Figure 1: The Approach for all Participants

   For interoperability test items, all CEs and FEs SHALL implement
   IPSEC security in the TML.  For security, firewalls MUST be used that
   will allow only the specific IPs and the SCTP ports defined in the
   ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811].

3.2.2.  Local Configuration

   Hardware/Software (CEs and FEs) of China and Japan that were located
   within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University, were connected
   together using ethernet switches.The detailed configuration can be
   seen in the following figure.




























Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


                           /\/\/\/\/\
                           \Internet/
                           /        \
                           \/\/\/\/\/
                               |
                               |124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
                               |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                      LAN  (10.20.0.0/24)                         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |        |        |               |                |          |
   |        |        |               |                |          |
   |.222    |.230    |.221           |.179            |.231      |.220
+-----+  +-----+  +-----+         +-----+          +-----+  +---------+
| CE  |  | CE  |  |     |         |     |          |     |  | Protocol|
|China|  |Japan|  | FE1 |.1     .2| FE  |.1      .2| FE2 |  | Analyzer|
+-----+  +-----+  |China|---------|Japan|----------|China|  +---------+
        +---------|     |         |     |          |     |-------+
        |      .2 +-----+    ^    +-----+    ^     +-----+ .2    |
        |         .12|192.168.20.0/24  192.168.30.0/24 |.12      |
        |            |                                 |         |
  192.168.50.0/24    |                                 | 192.168.50.0/24
        |       192.168.10.0/24                192.168.40.0/24   |
     .1 |            |.11                              |.11      |.1
   +--------+     +---------------------------------------+ +--------+
   |Terminal|     |               Smartbits               | |Terminal|
   +--------+     +---------------------------------------+ +--------+

         Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China

3.2.3.  Distributed Configuration

   Hardware/Software (CE and FE) of Greece that were located within the
   University of Patras premises,were connected together using LAN as
   shown in the following figure.

   Such configuation can satisfy all scenarios that are mentioned in
   this document.  Specially for the scenario of CE High Availability,in
   which CE of Greece will be the backup one.












Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


                               /\/\/\/\/\
                               \Internet/
                               /        \
                               \/\/\/\/\/
                                   |
                                   |150.140.254.110(VPN)
                                   |
                +------------------------------------+
                |                LAN                 |
                +------------------------------------+
                     |           |             |
                     |           |             |
                 +------+    +--------+     +------+
                 |  CE  |    |Protocol|     |  CE  |
                 |Greece|    |Analyzer|     |Greece|
                 +------+    +--------+     +------+

       Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
                               Patras,Greece
































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


4.  Scenarios

4.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation

4.1.1.  Connection Diagram

    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |
    | China|    | Japan|    | China|    |Greece|    | Japan|    |Greece|
    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
       |           |           |           |           |           |
       |           |           |           |           |           |
    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |
    |Japan |    |China |    |Greece|    |China |    |Greece|    |Japan |
    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+

                   Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation

4.1.2.  Design Considerations

   First, the scenario of LFB Operation shown in Figure 4 is designed to
   verify all kinds of messages which are defined in RFC 5810.
   Different implementor may have different choices on implemeting RFC
   5810 using cases in the protocol messages.  However as long as it
   complies with the RFC 5810, the interoperating peer must have the
   ability to decode and handle it.  Specially, what we want to verify
   th most is the format of encasulation for PATHDATA with nested
   PATHDATA and the operation(SET, GET,DEL) of array, as well as array
   with nested array(This case can be seen in ARP LFB's component of
   PortV4AddrInfoTable).

   Second,the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
   LFB Lib[ ].  A succeeded operation in this scenario means all the
   meeting joining implementor follow the instruction given by the
   ForCES LFB Lib.

4.1.3.  Testing Proccess

   In order to make interoperability more credible,these three
   implementors carry out the test alternately.  As shown in figure 4,
   every side's CE or FE must connect with the other two sides's FE or
   CE.  So that, we shall have 6 cases in this Scenario.

4.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec






Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


4.2.1.  Connection Diagram

                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
                 | China|                 | Japan|
                 +------+                 +------+
                    |                        |
                    |TML over IPSec          |TML over IPSec
                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
                 |Japan |                 |China |
                 +------+                 +------+
                               (a)


                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
                 | China|                 |Greece|
                 +------+                 +------+
                    |                        |
                    |TML over IPSec          |TML over IPSec
                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
                 |Greece|                 |China |
                 +------+                 +------+
                               (b)

                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
                 | Japan|                 |Greece|
                 +------+                 +------+
                    |                        |
                    |TML over IPSec          |TML over IPSec
                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
                 |Greece|                 |Japan |
                 +------+                 +------+
                               (c)

         Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec

4.2.2.  Design Considerations

   This scenario is designed to implement the requirement that stated in
   the section "7.  Security Considerations" in RFC 5811.  For this
   reason, we design the scenario to make TML to run over the IPSec
   channel that is pre-established.  In this scenario all operations for
   Scenario 1 will be repeated.  In this way, we try to verify whether



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   the interaction between CE and FE can be done normally under such
   IPSec enviroment.

4.2.3.  Testing Proccess

   In this scenario, ForCES TML will run over IPSec channel.  All the
   implementors who joined in this interoperability testing use the same
   third-party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel.  By
   this tool, China and Japan had a successful test, and the following
   items have been realized:

   o  Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
      authentication.

   o  Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP).  HMAC-SHA1-96
      [RFC2404] for message integrity protection

4.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability

4.3.1.  Connection Diagram

            master     standby            master     standby
            +------+    +------+          +------+    +------+
            |  CE  |    |  CE  |          |  CE  |    |  CE  |
            | China|    |Greece|          |Japan |    |Greece|
            +------+    +------+          +------+    +------+
               |          |                  |           |
               +----------+                  +-----------+
               |                             |
            +------+                      +------+
            |  FE  |                      |  FE  |
            |Greece|                      |Greece|
            +------+                      +------+
                   (a)                           (b)

                Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability

4.3.2.  Design Considerations

   CE High Availability was also tested in this interoperability test
   based on the the CEHA draft [draft-ietf-forces-ceha-01].

   The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA are as simple
   as possible to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA.







Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


4.3.3.  Testing Proccess

   In this scenario one FE would be connected with two CEs.  In pre-
   association setup, the FE would be configured to have CE1 as master
   CE and CE2 as standby CE and CEFailoverPolicy to High Availability (2
   or 3).  The FE once associated with the master CE it would then
   attempt to connect and associate with the standby CE.

   When master CE is considered disconnected, either by TearDown, Loss
   of Heartbeats or Disconnected, FE would assume that the standby CE is
   now the master CE.  FE will then send an Event Notification, Primary
   CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby CE in this case with
   the value of the new master CEID.  The standby CE will then respond
   by setting with a configuration message the CEID of the FE Protocol
   Object with it's own ID, the same value, to confirm that the CE
   considers itself as the master as well.

4.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding

































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


4.4.1.  Connection Diagram

                               +------+
                               |  CE  |
                               | Japan|
                               +------+
                                  |  ^
                                  |  | OSPF
                                  |  +------->
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       | OSPF |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+
                 <-------------------------------------------->
                             Packet Forwarding
                                    (a)


                               +------+       +------+
                               |  CE  |       |  CE  |
                               | Japan|       | China|
                               +------+       +------+
                                  |  ^          ^ |
                                  |  |   OSPF   | |
                                  |  +----------+ |
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       |  FE  |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+
                 <-------------------------------------------->
                              Packet Forwarding
                                    (b)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding

4.4.2.  Design Considerations

   This Scenario can be used to verify some LFBs such as RedirectIn,
   RedirectOut, IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM.Cases of (a) and (b) in Figure
   7 both need RedirectIn LFB send CE's OSPF packet to FE futher to the
   outside OSPF Router as Packet Redirect Message, RedirectOut LFB send
   OSPF packet received from the outside OSPF Router to CE as well as
   Packet Redirect Message.In such procedure, META DATA that included in
   Packet Redirect Message should be coded and decoded for both CE and
   FE.

   If the above can be done with no issue, then the whole NE including
   FE and CE will work like an OSPF router exchanging OSPF protocol



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   information with other OSPF router.  As for CE, after finishing OSPF
   exchanging, some routes maybe generated by OSPF and need to be added
   to FE.  So, IPv4NextHop and Ipv4UcastLPM must be working to support
   such operation.

   By sending packet to the destination through the FE, FE should
   forward packet according to the route generate by OSPF. so, the data
   path in FE can be tested and LFBs such as EtherPHYCop, EtherMacIn,
   IPv4Classifier, IPv4Validator, EtherEncasulator, EtherMacOut also be
   verified.

4.4.3.  Testing Proccess

   First,Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
   interfaces.

   Second, Boot CE and FE.

   Third, Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses
   of FE__s interfaces.

   Fifth, Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.

   Sixth, Send packets between terminals.



























Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


5.  Test Results

5.1.  LFB Operation Test

   For the convinience of stating,abbreviation is used here.So 'C' means
   China ,'J' - Japan,'G'Greece and all testing results of this scenario
   are listed in the following figure as well.(Note: other Scenarios
   will follow the definition)

   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   |Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper|     LFB   |Component/ | Result |   Comment   |
   |#   |    |     |    |           |Capability |        |             |
   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   | 1  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |As for the   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success | format of   |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |encapsulation|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBTopology|Success |about array  |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |Only the case|
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |of FULLDATA- |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |-in-FULLDATA |
   | 2  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |is spupported|
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |for everyone.|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |Howerver more|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBSelector|Success |types such as|
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |    s      |Success |SPARSEDATA   |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |should be    |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |supported for|
   | 3  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |every party. |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|PHYPortID  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 4  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 5  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperStatus |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |As for the   |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |format of    |



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   | 6  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |PATHDATA,    |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |J use the    |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |case of      |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminLink  |Success |PATHDATA in  |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Speed    |Success |PATHDATA,C   |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |uses         |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |only one     |
   | 7  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |PATHDATA with|
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |mutiple IDs. |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |G uses ...   |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop| OperLink  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Speed    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 8  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminDuplex|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Speed   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |The side of  |
   | 9  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |C think that |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |CE SHOULD get|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |LFB instance |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperDuplex |Success |data         |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Speed   |Success |according to |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |LFBSelectors.|
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 10 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|  Carrier  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Status   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 11 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| EtherMACIn|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 12 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn | LocalMac  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | Addresses |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 13 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn |L2Bridging |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |PathEnable |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 14 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn |Promiscuous|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Mode    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 15 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn |   TxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Control  |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 16 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn |   RxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Control |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 17 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn |MACInStats |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 18 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 19 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|    MTU    |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 20 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|   TxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Control  |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 21 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|   TxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Control |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 22 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|MACOutStats|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 23 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | InfoTable |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 24 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |TBD     |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | InfoTable |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 25 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |C's misunder-|
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |standing of  |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |the PATHDATA |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |Failure |in DEL       |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | InfoTable |Success |Operation.   |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |Later C fixed|
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |the problem  |
   | 26 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |and make it  |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |successful   |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |in testing   |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|EtherMACIn |  LocalMAC |Success |with J.      |



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | Addresses |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 27 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|EtherMACIn |    MTU    |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 28 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |By setting   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |new reachable|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |network,Route|
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|TBD     |entry can be |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Table   |Success |add into     |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |system.      |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 29 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |TBD     |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |   LPM     |  Table    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 30 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |Corresponding|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |nexthop entry|
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|TBD     |MUST delete  |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Table   |Success |before prefix|
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |entry.       |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 31 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |TBD     |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |   LPM     |   Table   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 32 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 33 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    | G  |  C  | SET|    Ether  | VlanInput |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 34 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    Ether  | VlanInput |Failure |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 35 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|   Ether   |VlanOutput |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |Encapsulato|  Table    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |     r     |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 36 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|   Ether   |VlanOutput |Failure |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |Encapsulato|  Table    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |     r     |           |Success |             |
   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+

5.2.  TML with IPSec Test

   In this scenario, ForCES TML will run over IPSec channel.All the
   implementors who joined this interoperability test use the same
   third-party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel.To be
   mentioned is that we have not repeat all the operations listed in
   Scenario 1,only some typical operations have been done.  During the
   test following results as shown in figure occured.

















Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   |Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper|     LFB   |Component/ | Result |   Comment   |
   |#   |    |     |    |           |Capability |        |             |
   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   | 1  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |For unkown   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |error in     |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |configuration|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBTopology|TBD     |with racoon, |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |Greece still |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |TBD     |need some    |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |time to fix  |
   | 2  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |the issue.   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |So,this      |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |scenario only|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBSelector|TBD     |took place   |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |    s      |TBD     |between C and|
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |TBD     |J.           |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 3  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|    Ether  | VlanInput |TBD     |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 4  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    Ether  | VlanInput |TBD     |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |TBD     |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |TBD     |             |
   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+

5.3.  CE High Availability Test

   In this scenario one FE would be connected with two CEs.  In pre-
   association setup, the FE would be configured to have CE1 as master
   CE and CE2 as standby CE and CEFailoverPolicy to High Availability (2
   or 3).  The FE once associated with the master CE it would then
   attempt to connect and associate with the standby CE.

   When master CE is considered disconnected, either by TearDown, Loss
   of Heartbeats or Disconnected, FE would assume that the standby CE is
   now the master CE.  FE will then send an Event Notification, Primary
   CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby CE in this case with
   the value of the new master CEID.  The standby CE will then respond
   by setting with a configuration message the CEID of the FE Protocol
   Object with it's own ID, the same value, to confirm that the CE



Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   considers itself as the master as well.

5.4.  Packet Forwarding Test

   The Scenario of packet forwading is the most complex one because it
   need the Scenario 1 must be completed.In this scenario testing,the
   pattern of J-CE C-FE was carried out.  Smartbits's 2 testing ports
   connect to FE's 2 data-forwarding ports,meanwhile smartbits simulate
   ospf router and try to exchange the OSPF hello packet and LSA packet
   with CE,because CE also has an OSPF process in it so that the whole
   NE including FE and CE looks like an OSPF router.

   In this scenario,RedirectIn,RedirectOut,IPv4NextHop,IPv4UcastLPM LFB
   should join the data path.First, it must be sured that IPv4NextHop
   and IPv4UcastLPM can work normally so that route entry can be added
   to FE.Second,RedirectIn and RedirectOut LFB MUST work,only that can
   FE redirect out OSPF hello and LSA packets to CE received from
   smartBits,FE redirect in OSPF hello and LSA packets to smartBits
   received from CE's OSPF process.

   During the test, results as shown in the following figure are
   recorded.





























Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   +----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   |Test| CE |FE(s)|      Item      |     LFB   | Result |   Comment   |
   |#   |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   +----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
   | 1  | J  |  C  |IPv4NextHopTable|IPv4NextHop|success |  Muticast   |
   |    |    |     |      SET       |           |        |  route is   |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |  added by   |
   | 2  | J  |  C  |IPv4PrefixTable | IPv4Ucast |success |manual,this  |
   |    |    |     |      SET       |     LPM   |        |problem still|
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |need to be   |
   |    |    |     |Redirect  ospf  |           |        |fixed in the |
   | 3  | J  |  C  |packet from CE  |RedirectIn |failure |   future.   |
   |    |    |     |to SmartBits    |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |    As for   |
   |    |    |     |Redirect ospf   |           |        |   redirect  |
   | 4  | J  |  C  |packet from     |RedirectOut|success |   message,  |
   |    |    |     |SmartBits to CE |           |        |ospf hello   |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |packet in 2  |
   |    |    |     |Metadata in     |RedirectOut|        |direction can|
   | 5  | J  |  C  |redirect message|RedirectIn |success |be wathed by |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        | wireshark.  |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |however ospf |
   |    |    |     |OSPF neiborhood |RedirectOut|        |   packet    |
   | 6  | J  |  C  |   discovery    |RedirectIn |failure |received from|
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |CE have an   |
   |    |    |     |                |RedirectOut|        |error with   |
   |    |    |     |    OSPF LSA    |RedirectIn |        |checksum,so  |
   | 6  | J  |  C  |    exchange    |IPv4NextHop|TBD     |smartBits    |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |will drop it |
   |    |    |     |                |   LPM     |        |with no      |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |neighborhood |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |discovered.  |
   +----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+


















Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


6.  Discussions

6.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format

   In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
   operations about tables all failed.  The reason is found to be the
   different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
   implementations.  The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:

   1.  On response of PATH-DATA format When a CE sends a config/query
   ForCES protocol message to an FE with a different implementor, the CE
   is probable to receive response from the FE with different PATH-DATA
   encaplation format.  For example, if a CE sends a query message with
   a path (1.1.1) to a third party FE, the FE is probable to generate
   response with two different PATH-DATA encaplation format: the value
   with FULL/SPARSE-DATA, and the format of many parallel PATHDATA TLV
   and nested PATHDATA TLV, as below:

   format 1:
       GET-RESPONSE:
        PATH DATA (id:1.2)
            FULL DATA(a,b)

   format 2:
       GET-RESPONSE:
        PATH DATA
            PATH DATA
               FULL DATA
            PATH DATA
               FULL DATA
      ......

   The interoperability test shows that an ForCES element (CE or FE)
   sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
   documents define and best suits the element, while an ForCES element
   (CE or FE) MUST be prepared to accept and process information
   (requests and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by
   IETF ForCES documents.

   2.  On operation to array

   An array operation may also have several different data encaplation
   formats.  For example, a component of array with two elements (a and
   b) in one entry, CE may encapsulate a SET message in two format:







Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   format 1:
       SET:
         PATH DATA (id:1.2)
             FULL DATA(a,b)
   format 2:
       SET:
       PATH DATA
         PATH DATA (id:1)
            FULL DATA (a)
         PATH DATA (id:2)
            FULL DATA (b)

   Via the interoperability test experience, this document recommends
   that format 1 be used for all array data format encapsulations.  It
   is purely because format 1 can achieve the best efficiency.

6.2.  On ...

   TBD
































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


7.  Contributors

   Contributors who have made major contributions to the
   interoperability test are as below:

      Hirofumi Yamazaki
      NTT Corporation
      Tokyo
      Japan
      Email: yamazaki.horofumi@lab.ntt.co.jp

      Rong Jin
      Zhejiang Gongshang University
      Hangzhou
      P.R.China
      Email: jinrong@zjgsu.edu.cn

      Yuta Watanabe
      NTT Corporation
      Tokyo
      Japan
      Email: yuta.watanabe@ntt-at.co.jp

      Xiaochun Wu
      Zhejiang Gongshang University
      Hangzhou
      P.R.China
      Email: spring-403@zjgsu.edu.cn























Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would also like thank the following test participants:

      Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
      Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University
      Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang Unviersity
      Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
      Kelei Jin,Hangzhou BAUD Networks










































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


9.  IANA Considerations

   (TBD)
















































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


10.  Security Considerations

   TBD
















































Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


11.  References

11.1.  Normative 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.

   [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.

   [RFC5811]  Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
              Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
              Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.

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

   [RFC5813]  Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
              (ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.

   [RFC6053]  Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
              "Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
              Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.
















Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Weiming Wang
   Zhejiang Gongshang University
   18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
   Hangzhou,   310018
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-571-28877721
   Email: wmwang@zjgsu.edu.cn


   Kentaro Ogawa
   NTT Corporation
   Tokyo,
   Japan

   Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Evangelos Haleplidis
   University of Patras
   Patras,
   Greece

   Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr


   Ming Gao
   Hangzhou BAUD Networks
   408 Wen-San Road
   Hangzhou,   310012
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-571-28877751
   Email: gmyyqno1@pop.zjgsu.edu.cn


   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: hadi@mojatatu.com







Wang, et al.            Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 34]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/