[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [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 15, 2011                              NTT Corporation
                                                           E. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                          March 14, 2011


 Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
                                (ForCES)
                      draft-ietf-forces-interop-01

Abstract

   This document captures test results from the second Forwarding and
   control Element Separation (ForCES) interop testing which took place
   on 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 15, 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 15, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.1.  Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.4.2.  Design Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       4.4.3.  Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.1.  LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.2.  TML with IPSec Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.3.  CE High Availability Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.4.  Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   6.  Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


     6.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37










































Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 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
   [FORCES-LFBLIB] and ForCES CE HA specification[FORCES-CEHA].  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 15, 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 15, 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, including RFC3654, RFC3746,
   RFC5810,RFC5811,RFC5812,RFC5812.  Some 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 15, 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 15, 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 referred to as "China" or in some cases "C" in the
   document for the sake of brevity.
   * NTT Corporation, Japan.  This implementation is referred to as
   "Japan" or in some cases "J" in the document for the sake of brevity.
   * The University of Patras, Greece.  This implementation is referred
   to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" 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).

   Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the
   interoperability test.  The errata will be reported to related IETF
   RFCs.

   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 figure 1.  In
   the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the implementor may act
   alternatively.



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 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

   Hardwares and softwares including CEs and FEs from China and Japan
   implementions that were located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang
   Gongshang University, were connected together using ethernet
   switches.  The configuration can be seen in figure 2.




























Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 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 figure 3.
















Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


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

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

   Above configuations can satisfy requirements of all scenarios that
   are mentioned in this document.





























Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 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

   Firstly, 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
   the most is the format of encasulation for PATH-DATA with nested
   PATH-DATAs, 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 Library[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib].  Successful test under this
   scenario means all the implementors have followed the instruction
   given by the ForCES LFB Library document.

4.1.3.  Testing Proccess

   In order to make interoperability more credible,the three
   implementors carried out the test in an alternative way acting as a
   CE or an FE, as shown in figure 4, combined with 6 cases for this
   Scenario.

4.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec






Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 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 designed the scenario to make TML run over IPSec channel
   that was pre-established.  In this scenario, all operations for
   Scenario 1 were just repeated.  In this way, we try to verify whether



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   all interactions between CE and FE can be done correctly under an
   IPSec enviroment.

4.2.3.  Testing Proccess

   In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel.  All the
   implementors joined in this interoperability used 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 (CEHA) was also tested in this interoperability
   test based on the CEHA document [I-D.draft-ietf-forces-ceha].

   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, which are:

   o  Associating with more than one CEs.





Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   o  Switching to backup CE on master CE fail.

4.3.3.  Testing Proccess

   In this scenario one FE would be connected and associated with a
   master CE and a backup CE.  In the pre-association phase, the FE
   would be configured to have China's or Japan's CE as master CE and
   Greece's CE as standby CE.  The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE
   Protocol Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High
   Availability mode (value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-
   association phase or in post-association phase by the master CE.

   Once the FE is associated with the master CE it will move to the
   post-association phase.  Then when the CEFailoverPolicy value is set
   to 2 or 3, then it will then attempt to connect and associate with
   the standby CE.

   When the 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.

   The steps of the CEHA scenario were the following:

   1.  In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and
       backup CE

   2.  FE connecting and associating with master CE.

   3.  When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and
       associate with backup CE.

   4.  Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
       the first Associated backup CE.

   5.  It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
       down and who is now the master CE.

   6.  The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE
       setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
       the switch.






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

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


4.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding

4.4.1.  Connection Diagram

                              +------+
                              |  CE  |
                              | Japan|
                              +------+
                                 |  ^
                                 |  | OSPF
                                 |  +------->
                              +------+       +------+
              +--------+      |  FE  |       | OSPF |      +--------+
              |Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
              +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+

                <-------------------------------------------->
                            Packet Forwarding

                                   (a)


                                     +------+
                                     |  CE  |
                                     | China|
                                     +------+
                                      ^  |  ^
                                 OSPF |  |  | OSPF
                                <-----+  |  +----->
                        +-------+    +------+     +------+
          +--------+    | OSPF  |    |  FE  |     | OSPF |    +--------+
          |Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|----|Terminal|
          +--------+    +-------+    +------+     +------+    +--------+

                  <-------------------------------------------->
                            Packet Forwarding

                                   (b)


                              +------+       +------+
                              |  CE  |       |  CE  |
                              | Japan|       | China|
                              +------+       +------+
                                 |  ^          ^ |
                                 |  |   OSPF   | |
                                 |  +----------+ |
                              +------+       +------+



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


              +--------+      |  FE  |       |  FE  |      +--------+
              |Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
              +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+

                <-------------------------------------------->
                             Packet Forwarding

                                   (c)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding

4.4.2.  Design Considerations

   This Scenario is used to verify some LFBs such as RedirectIn,
   RedirectOut, IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by ForCES LFB
   library[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib].  Cases of (a) and (b) in Figure 7
   both need a RedirectIn LFB to send CE generated OSPF packets to FE by
   packet redirect messages.  The OSPF packets are futher sent to an
   outside OSPF Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs like IPv4NextHop,
   IPv4UcastLPM.  A RedirectOut LFB in the FE sends OSPF packets
   received from the outside OSPF Router to CE by packet redirect
   messages also.  In this process, meta-data that are included in
   packet redirect messages as defined by ForCES LFB library document
   should be coded and decoded by either CE or FE.

   If above test process can be done, then this whole NE including FE
   and CE actually work like an OSPF router which exchanges OSPF
   protocol information with other OSPF routers.  By running OSPF
   protocol, the CE can generate new routes and be loaded to FE.  In the
   process, IPv4NextHop and Ipv4UcastLPM LFBs must be working to support
   operations.

   By sending packet to the destination through the FE, FE should
   forward packet according to the route generated 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.




Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


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

   Sixth, Send packets between terminals.
















































Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


5.  Test Results

5.1.  LFB Operation Test

   For the convinience sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C'
   means implementation from China,'J'Japan implementaion, and 'G'
   Greece implemenation.  Testing results of this scenario are listed in
   the following figure.

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



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   | 6  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |PATH-DATA,   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |J use the    |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |case of      |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminLink  |Success |PATH-DATA in |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Speed    |Success |PATH-DATA,C  |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |uses         |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |only one     |
   | 7  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |PATH-DATA with
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |mutiple IDs. |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |G uses ...   |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop| OperLink  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Speed    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 8  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminDuplex|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Speed   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |The side of  |
   | 9  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |C thinks that|
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |CE SHOULD get|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |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  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherPHYCop|  Carrier  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Status   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 11 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| EtherMACIn|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 12 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACIn | LocalMac  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | Addresses |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


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



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 20 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|   TxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |  Control  |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 21 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|   TxFlow  |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Control |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 22 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|EtherMACOut|MACOutStats|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 23 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | GET|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | InfoTable |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 24 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | InfoTable |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 25 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |C's misunder-|
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |standing of  |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |the PATHDATA |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    ARP    |PortV4Addr |Success |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  |    |           |           |Success |in testing   |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|EtherMACIn |  LocalMAC |Success |with J.      |



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    | J  |  G  |    |           | Addresses |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 27 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | 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  |    |           |           |Success |network,route|
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|Success |entry can be |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Table   |Success |added into   |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |system.      |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 29 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |   LPM     |  Table    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 30 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |Corresponding|
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |nexthop entry|
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|Success |MUST delete  |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |   Table   |Success |before prefix|
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |entry.       |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 31 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |   LPM     |   Table   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 32 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 33 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 23]

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  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    Ether  | VlanInput |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 35 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|   Ether   |VlanOutput |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |Encapsulato|  Table    |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |     r     |           |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 36 | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|   Ether   |VlanOutput |Success |             |
   |    | 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.

   Although some problems still remains in the connection with Greece,
   the TML with IPSec test is considered as success.  The goal was to
   verify whether the interaction between CE and FE can be done normally
   under such IPSec environment.  Since Japan's and China's
   implementation worked it is assumed that Greece's would as well, as
   the problem was on the setup and configuration of the IPSec
   connection and not on the ForCES protocol perse.

   During the test following results as shown in figure occured.








Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 24]

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  |    |           |           |Failure |configuration|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBTopology|Failure |with racoon, |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |           |Failure |Greece still |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Failure |need some    |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |time to fix  |
   | 2  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |the issue.   |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |So,this      |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Failure |scenario only|
   |    | G  |  C  | GET| FEObject  |LFBSelector|Failure |took place   |
   |    | J  |  G  |    |           |    s      |Failure |between C and|
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Failure |J.           |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 3  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Failure |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | SET|    Ether  | VlanInput |Failure |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |Failure |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Failure |             |
   |    |    |     |    |           |           |        |             |
   | 4  | C  |  J  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | J  |  C  |    |           |           |Success |             |
   |    | C  |  G  |    |           |           |Failure |             |
   |    | G  |  C  | DEL|    Ether  | VlanInput |Failure |             |
   |    | J  |  G  |    | Classifier|   Table   |Failure |             |
   |    | G  |  J  |    |           |           |Failure |             |
   +----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+

5.3.  CE High Availability Test

   In this scenario one FE will connect and associate with a master CE
   and a backup CE.  When the master CE is considered disconnected the
   FE would attempt to find another associated CE to become the master
   CE.

   The CEHA scenario as is described in Scenario 3 was completed
   successfully for both setups.

   Due to a bug in the FE, a possible issue was caught.  The bug in the
   FE introduced a delay in message handling of 1 second.  The master CE
   was sending Heartbeats at a rate of one in 500milliseconds (2 per
   second).  As heartbeats are of very low priority, the FE was working
   fine with associated only with the master CE.  However when the FE



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   attempted to associate with the backup CE the following issue
   occured.

   The FE was checking first for messages from all priorities from the
   master CE and if the master CE hasn't sent any messages then it would
   check the backup CE.  So, when the FE was ordered to begin
   associating with the backup CE , it sent the Association setup
   message, the backup CE received it, responded back with an
   Association Setup result, but the FE never processed managed to
   process it.

   While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
   successfully, the issue still remains.  This is actually an
   implementation issue of how the FE prioritizes incoming messages from
   multiple CEs.  The recommended approach is the following:

   o  The FE SHOULD receive and handle messages first from the master CE
      on all priority channels to maintain proper functionality and then
      receive and handle messages from the backup CEs.

   o  Only when the FE is attempting to associate with the backup CEs,
      then the FE SHOULD receive and handle messages per priority
      channel from all CEs.  When all backup CEs are associated with or
      deemed unreachable, then the FE SHOULD return to receiving and
      handling messages first from the master CE.

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 15, 2011              [Page 26]

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 |Success |   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 |Success |received from|
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |CE have an   |
   |    |    |     |                |RedirectOut|        |error with   |
   |    |    |     |    OSPF DD     |RedirectIn |        |checksum,so  |
   | 7  | J  |  C  |    exchange    |IPv4NextHop|Success |smartBits    |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |will drop it |
   |    |    |     |                |   LPM     |        |with no      |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |neighborhood |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |discovered.  |
   | 8  | J  |  C  |    OSPF LSA    |RedirectOut|        |             |
   |    |    |     |    exchange    |RedirectIn |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |                |IPv4NextHop|        |             |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |   LPM     |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |RedirectOut|        |             |
   | 9  | J  |  C  |Data Forwarding |RedirectIn |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |IPv4NextHop|Success |             |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |    LPM    |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   | 10 | C  |  J  |IPv4NextHopTable|IPv4NextHop|Success |             |
   |    |    |     |      SET       |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   | 11 | C  |  J  |IPv4PrefixTable | IPv4Ucast |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |      SET       |     LPM   |        |             |



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |Redirect  ospf  |           |        |             |
   | 12 | C  |  J  |packet from CE  |RedirectIn |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |to other OSPF   |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |    router      |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |Redirect ospf   |           |        |             |
   | 12 | C  |  J  |packet from     |RedirectOut|Success |             |
   |    |    |     |other OSPF      |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |router to CE    |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |Metadata in     |RedirectOut|        |             |
   | 13 | C  |  J  |redirect message|RedirectIn |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |OSPF neiborhood |RedirectOut|        |             |
   | 14 | C  |  J  |   discovery    |RedirectIn |Success |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |RedirectOut|        |             |
   |    |    |     |    OSPF DD     |RedirectIn |        |             |
   | 15 | C  |  J  |    exchange    |IPv4NextHop|Failure |FE connected |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |by 2 OSPF    |
   |    |    |     |                |   LPM     |        |router,only  |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |1 OSPF can be|
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |discovered by|
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |CE,so DD     |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |exchanging   |
   | 16 | C  |  J  |    OSPF LSA    |RedirectOut|        |stopped.     |
   |    |    |     |    exchange    |RedirectIn |Failure |             |
   |    |    |     |                |IPv4NextHop|        |             |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |   LPM     |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |           |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |RedirectOut|        |             |
   | 17 | J  |  C  |Data Forwarding |RedirectIn |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |IPv4NextHop|TBD     |             |
   |    |    |     |                | IPv4Ucast |        |             |
   |    |    |     |                |    LPM    |        |             |
   +----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+












Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 28]

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:

   Assuming that an LFB has two components, one a struct with ID 1 and
   an array with ID 2 with two components of u32 both per row.

   struct1: type struct, ID=1
           components are:
           a, type u32, ID=1
           b, type u32, ID=2

   table1: type array, ID=2
           components for each row are (a struct of):
           x, type u32, ID=1
           y, type u32, ID=2

   1.  On response of PATH-DATA format

   When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
   a different implementor, the CE probably receives response from the
   FE with different PATH-DATA encaplation format.  For example, if a CE
   sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to
   manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
   response with two different PATH-DATA encaplation format: one is the
   value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
   parallel PATH-DATA TLV and nested PATH-DATA TLV, as below:

   format 1:
       OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           PATH-DATA-TLV:
               IDs=1
               FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a),valueof(b)
   format 2:
       OPER = GET-RESPONSS-TLV
           PATH-DATA-TLV:
               IDs=1
               PATH-DATA-TLV:
                   IDs=1
                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)
               PATH-DATA-TLV:
                   IDs=2
                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   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) is preferable to accept and process information (requests
   and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
   ForCES documents.  While in the case an ForCES element is free to
   choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
   the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was
   made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
   looks forward to receive.

   2.  On operation to array

   An array operation may also have several different data encaplation
   formats.  For instance, if a CE sends a config message to table 1
   with a path of (2.1), which refers to component with ID=2, which is
   an array, and the second ID is the row, so row 1, it may be
   encapsulated with three formats as below:

   format 1:
       OPER = SET-TLV
           PATH-DATA-TLV:
               IDs=2.1
               FULLDATA-TLV conaining valueof(x),valueof(y)
   format 2:
       OPER = SET-TLV
           PATH-DATA-TLV:
               IDs=2.1
               PATH-DATA-TLV:
                   IDs=1
                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(x)
               PATH-DATA-TLV
                   IDs=2
                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(y)

   Moreover, if CE is targeting the whole array, for example if the
   array is empty and CE wants to add the first row to the table, it
   could also adopt another format:

   format 3:
       OPER = SET-TLV
           PATH-DATA-TLV:
               IDs=2
               FULLDATA-TLV containing rowindex=1,valueof(x),valueof(y)


   The interoperability test experience shows that format 1 and format
   3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements description in



Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


   one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although format 2 can
   also get the same operating goal.

















































Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 31]

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 15, 2011              [Page 32]

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 15, 2011              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.
















































Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


10.  Security Considerations

   TBD
















































Wang, et al.           Expires September 15, 2011              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report               March 2011


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha]
              Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
              Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-01
              (work in progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib]
              Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
              Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
              draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress),
              December 2010.

   [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 15, 2011              [Page 36]

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 15, 2011              [Page 37]


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