[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
Updates: 6053 (if approved)                                     K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational                           NTT Corporation
Expires: December 04, 2013                               E.H. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                           June 02, 2013


 Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
                                (ForCES)
                      draft-ietf-forces-interop-09

Abstract

   This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control
   Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on
   February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
   Gongshang University, China.  RFC 6053 reported the results of the
   first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC
   6053 by providing further interoperability results.

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 December 04, 2013.









Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Test Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  LFB Operation Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  TML with IPsec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.3.  CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.4.  Packet Forwarding Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   5.  Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28




Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document captures results of the second interoperability test of
   the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took
   place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of
   Zhejiang Gongshang University, China.  The test involved protocol
   elements described in several documents namely:

      - ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]
      - ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) Model [RFC5812]
      - ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) [RFC5811]

   The test also involved protocol elements described in the then-
   current versions of two Internet-Drafts.  Although these documents
   have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to
   understand which versions of the work were used during this test.
   The then-current Internet-Drafts are:

      - ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library
      [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03].
      - ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00].

   The 'ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library' document has
   advanced and been published by IETF as RFC 6956.

   Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.

   Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPsec, CE High
   Availability, and Packet Forwarding were constructed.  Series of
   testing items for every scenario were carried out and
   interoperability results were achieved.  Popular packet analyzers
   Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify
   the wire results.

   This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of
   the first ForCES interoperability test.  The first test on ForCES was
   held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece.  That test
   focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and
   ForCES FE model.

1.1.  ForCES Protocol

   The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which Forwarding
   Elements (FEs) are slaves and Control Elements (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 the
   ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for further information.



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


1.2.  ForCES FE Model

   The ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812]  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 ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES
   Protocol Layer (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.  RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
   Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
   ForCES.  See RFC 5811 for more details.

1.4.  Definitions

   This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
   documents, including RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810, RFC5811, RFC5812,
   RFC5813, etc.

2.  Overview

2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants

   The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF
   ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by
   Jamal Hadi Salim.  Three independent ForCES implementations
   participated in the test:

   o  Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of
      Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),
      China.  This implementation is referred to as "ZJSU" or in some
      cases "Z" in the document for the sake of brevity.

   o  NTT Corporation, Japan.  This implementation is referred to as
      "NTT" or in some cases "N" in the document for the sake of
      brevity.

   o  The University of Patras, Greece.  This implementation is referred
      to as "UoP" or in some cases "P" in the document for the sake of
      brevity.

   Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
   Corporation, which independently extended two different well known



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
   Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test.  During the
   interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers 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 5.1 ).

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

   At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead
   of all three representative implementations due to a third one
   lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all
   implementers mentioned they would be implementing any missing
   features in the future.

2.2.  Testbed Configuration

2.2.1.  Participants Access

   NTT and ZJSU 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
   as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer].  The approach is as shown in
   Figure 1.  In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
   implementer may act alternatively.


        +---------+     +----+                    +----------+
        |  FE/CE  |     |    |                +---|Monitoring|
        |  ZJSU   |-----|    |    /\/\/\/\/\  |   |(TeamViewer)
        +---------+     |    |    \Internet/  |   | Mojatatu |
                        |LAN |----/        \--|   +----------+
        +---------+     |    |    \/\/\/\/\/  |   +----------+
        |  FE/CE  |-----|    |                |   |  FE/CE   |
        |   NTT   |     |    |                +---|   UoP    |
        +---------+     +----+                    +----------+

                     Figure 1: Access for Participants

   As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPsec
   security in the TML.




Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPsec, SCTP
   protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .

2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration

   CEs and FEs from ZJSU and NTT implementations were physically located
   within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and connected
   together using Ethernet switches.  The configuration can be seen in
   Figure 2.  In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party routing
   protocol testing machine, which acts as a router running OSPF and RIP
   and exchanged routing protocol messages with ForCES routers in the
   network.  Connection to the Internet was via an ADSL channel.

                              /\/\/\/\/\
                              \Internet/
                              /        \
                              \/\/\/\/\/
                                  |
                                  |(ADSL)
                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                      LAN  (10.20.0.0/24)                         |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
      |        |        |               |               |         |
      |        |        |               |               |         |
      |.222    |.230    |.221           |.179           |.231     |.220
   +-----+  +-----+  +-----+         +-----+         +-----+ +---------+
   | CE  |  | CE  |  |     |         |     |         |     | | Protocol|
   |ZJSU |  | NTT |  | FE1 |.1     .2| FE  |.1     .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
   +-----+  +-----+  |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+
           +---------|     |192.169. |     | 192.168.|     |------+
           |      .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+  30.0/24+-----+ .2   |
           |         .12|                               |.12      |
           |            |                               |         |
     192.168.50.0/24    |                               |192.168.60.0/24
           |       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

   CE and FE from the UoP implementation were located within the
   University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN
   as shown in Figure 3.  Connection to the Internet was via a VPN
   channel.




Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


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

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

   The testbeds above were then able to satisfy requirements of all
   interoperability test scenarios in this document.

3.  Scenarios

3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation

   This scenario was to test the interoperability on LFB operations
   among the participants.  The connection diagram for the participants
   is as shown in Figure 4.

   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
   |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |
   | ZJSU |    | NTT  |    | ZJSU |    |  UoP |    |  NTT |    |  UoP |
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
      |           |           |           |           |           |
      |           |           |           |           |           |
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
   |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |
   | NTT  |    | ZJSU |    | UoP  |    | ZJSU |    |  UoP |    |  NTT |
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+

                   Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation

   In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
   implementers were required to carry out the test in a way acting as
   CE or FE alternatively.  As a result, every LFB operation was
   combined with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   The test scenario was designed with the following purposes:

   Firstly, the scenario was designed to verify all kinds of protocol
   messages with their complex data formats, which were defined in RFC
   5810.  Specially, we tried to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA
   with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array
   or an array with a nested array.

   Secondly, the scenario was designed to verify the definition of
   ForCES LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defined a base
   set of ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions.  Successful
   test under this scenario would help the validity of the LFB
   definitions.

3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPsec

   This scenario was designed to implement a TML with IPsec, which was
   the requirement by RFC 5811.  TML with IPsec was not implemented and
   tested in the first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC
   6053.  For this reason, in this interoperability test, we
   specifically designed the test scenario to verify the TML over IPsec
   channel.

   In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were
   repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPsec.  This
   setup scenario allowed us to verify whether all interactions between
   CE and FE could be made correctly under an IPsec TML environment.

   The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5.
   Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in UoP prevented
   the deployment of IPsec over TML, this test only took place between
   the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.

              +------+                 +------+
              |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
              | ZJSU |                 |  NTT |
              +------+                 +------+
                 |                        |
                 |TML over IPsec          |TML over IPsec
              +------+                 +------+
              |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
              | NTT  |                 | ZJSU |
              +------+                 +------+

         Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPsec






Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPsec channel.
   Implementers joined in this interoperability used the same third-
   party software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish the IPsec channel.

   The Racoon in NetBSD is an IKE daemon performing the IPsec Key
   Exchange (IKE) with the peers.  Both IKE v1 and v2 are supported by
   Racoon in linux 2.6, and the v2 was adopted in the interop test.  SAD
   and SPD were necessary for the test, setups of which were in the
   Racoon configuration file.  ESP was specified in SAD and SPD in the
   Racoon configuration file.

   ZJSU and NTT made a successful test with the scenario, and the
   following items were realized:

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

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

3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability

   CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA
   document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]

   The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA were simplified
   so as to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which were:

   o  Associating with more than one CE.

   o  Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.

   The connection diagram for the scenario is as shown in Figure 6.


















Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


         master     standby            master     standby
         +------+    +------+          +------+    +------+
         |  CE  |    |  CE  |          |  CE  |    |  CE  |
         | ZJSU |    |  UoP |          | NTT  |    |  UoP |
         +------+    +------+          +------+    +------+
            |          |                  |           |
            +----------+                  +-----------+
            |                             |
         +------+                      +------+
         |  FE  |                      |  FE  |
         | UoP  |                      | UoP  |
         +------+                      +------+
                (a)                           (b)

                Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability

   In this scenario one FE was connected and associated to a master CE
   and a backup CE.  In the pre-association phase, the FE would be
   configured to have ZJSU's or NTT's CE as master CE and UoP's CE as
   standby CE.  The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object
   LFB that specified whether the FE was in High Availability mode
   (value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by
   the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.

   If the CEFailoverPolicy value was set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post-
   association phase) would attempt to connect and associate with the
   standby CE.

   When the master CE was deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown,
   Loss of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume
   that the standby CE was now the master CE.  The FE would 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 would then respond by sending a configuration message to
   the CEID component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to
   confirm that the CE considered itself as the master as well.

   The steps of the CEHA test scenario were as follows:

   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.





Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   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.

3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding

   This test scenario was to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
   IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document
   [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], and more importantly, to verify the
   combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.

   The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.

                               +------+
                               |  CE  |
                               |  NTT |
                               +------+
                                  |  ^
                                  |  | OSPF
                                  |  +------->
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       | OSPF |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+

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

                                    (a)


                                      +------+
                                      |  CE  |
                                      | ZJSU |
                                      +------+
                                       ^  |  ^
                                  OSPF |  |  | OSPF
                                 <-----+  |  +----->
                         +-------+    +------+     +------+
           +--------+    | OSPF  |    |  FE  |     | OSPF |  +--------+
           |Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT  |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
           +--------+    +-------+    +------+     +------+  +--------+



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


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

                                    (b)


                               +------+       +------+
                               |  CE  |       |  CE  |
                               | NTT  |       | ZJSU |
                               +------+       +------+
                                  |  ^          ^ |
                                  |  |   OSPF   | |
                                  |  +----------+ |
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       |  FE  |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|  NTT |------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+

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

                                    (c)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding

   In case (a), a CE by NTT was connected to an FE by ZJSU to form a
   ForCES router.  A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol
   software were used to simulate an OSPF router and were connected with
   the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA
   packets among them.  Terminals were simulated by Smartbits to send
   and receive packets.  As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need
   to be configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.

   In case (b), a CE by ZJSU was connected to an FE by NTT to form a
   ForCES router.  Two routers running OSPF were simulated and connected
   to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router could support OSPF
   protocol and support packet forwarding.

   In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed.  One was with CE by
   NTT and FE by ZJSU and the other was opposite.  OSPF and packet
   forwarding were tested in the environment.

   Testing process for this scenario is as below:

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

   2.  Boot CE and FE.



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   3.  Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of
       FEs interfaces.

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

   5.  Send packets between terminals.

4.  Test Results

4.1.  LFB Operation Test

   The test result is as reported by Figure 8.  For the convenience
   sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'Z' in the table means
   implementation from ZJSU ,'N' implementation from NTT, and
   'P'implementation from UoP.

   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper |      LFB     |     Component     | Result  |
   |     |    |     |     |              |    /Capability    |         |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |  1  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBTopology    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  2  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBSelector    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  3  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     PHYPortID     | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  4  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  5  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     OperStatus    | Success |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  6  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminLinkSpeed   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  7  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   OperLinkSpeed   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  8  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  9  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  OperDuplexSpeed  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  10 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   CarrierStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  11 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |  12 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  13 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    L2Bridging     | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |   PathEnable      | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  14 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |  PromiscuousMode  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  15 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   TxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  16 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   RxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  17 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |     MACInStats    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 18  | Z  |  N  | GET | EtherMACOut  |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 19  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  20 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  21 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  22 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |     MACOutStats   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  23 | Z  |  N  | GET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  24 | Z  |  N  | SET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  25 | Z  |  N  | DEL |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  26 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  27 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  28 | Z  |  N  | SET |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  29 | Z  |  N  | SET | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  30 | Z  |  N  | DEL |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  31 | Z  |  N  | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  32 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherPHYCop |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  33 | Z  |  N  | SET |     Ether    |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |  Classifier  |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  34 | Z  |  N  | DEL |     Ether    |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |  Classifier  |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  35 | Z  |  N  | SET |   Ether      |  VlanOutputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     | Encapsulator |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  36 | Z  |  N  | DEL |    Ether     |   VlanOutputTable | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     | Encapsulator |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+

                   Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results

   Note on test #1 and #2:

   On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of
   FULLDATA vs SPARSEDATA was tested.

   It is very common for CE to get information of FEobject LFB in FE so
   as to know status on all active LFBs in the FE.  Hence, the two tests
   were specifically designed.









Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


4.2.  TML with IPsec Test

   In this scenario, the ForCES TML was run over IPsec.  Implementers
   joined this interoperability test used the same third-party tool
   software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish IPsec channel.  Typical LFB
   operation tests as in Scenario 1 were repeated with the IPsec enabled
   TML.

   As mentioned, this scenario only took place between implementers of
   ZJSU and NTT.

   The TML with IPsec test results are reported by Figure 9.

   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper |       LFB    |     Component/    | Result  |
   |     |    |     |     |              |     Capability    |         |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |  1  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |   LFBTopology     | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  2  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |   LFBSelectors    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  3  | Z  |  N  | SET |   Ether      |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     | Classifier   |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  4  | Z  |  N  | DEL |   Ether      |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     | Classifier   |                   | Success |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+

                   Figure 9: TML with IPsec Test Results

4.3.  CE High Availability Test

   In this scenario, one FE connected and associated with a master CE
   and a backup CE.  When the master CE was deemed disconnected, the FE
   would attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.

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

   Due to a bug in one of the FEs, an interesting issue was caught: it
   was observed that the buggy FE took up to a second to failover.  It
   was eventually found that the issue was due to the FE's
   prioritization of the different CEs.  All messages from the backup CE
   were being ignored unless the master CE was disconnected.





Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
   successfully, the authors felt it was important to capture the
   implementation issue in this document.  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.

4.4.  Packet Forwarding Test

   As described in the ForCES LFB library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03],
   packet forwarding is implemented by a set of LFB classes that compose
   a processing path for packets.  In this test scenario, as shown in
   Figure 7, a ForCES router running OSPF protocol was constructed.  In
   addition, a set of LFBs including RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
   IPv4UcastLPM, and IPv4NextHop LFBs were used.  RedirectIn and
   RedirectOut LFBs redirected OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to
   CE.  A Smartbits test machine was used to simulate an OSPF router and
   exchange the OSPF hello and LSA packets with CE in ForCES router.

   In Figure 7, case (a) and case (b) both need a RedirectIn LFB to send
   OSPF packets generated by CE to FE by use of ForCES packet redirect
   messages.  The OSPF packets were further sent to an outside OSPF
   Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs including IPv4NextHop and
   IPv4UcastLPM LFBs.  A RedirectOut LFB in the FE was used to send OSPF
   packets received from outside OSPF Router to CE by ForCES packet
   redirect messages.

   By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router could generate new
   routes and load them to routing table in FE.  The FE was then able to
   forward packets according to the routing table.

   The test results are as shown in Figure 10

   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|           Item          | LFBs Related | Result  |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |  1  | N  |  Z  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   | IPv4NextHop  | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  2  | N  |  Z  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |  3  | N  |  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectIn  | Success |
   |     |    |     |     CE to SmartBits     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  4  | N  |  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     SmartBits to CE     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  5  | N  |  Z  |       Metadata in       |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     redirect message    |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  6  | N  |  Z  | OSPF neighbor discovery |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  7  | N  |  Z  |     OSPF DD exchange    |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  8  | N  |  Z  |    OSPF LSA exchange    |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  9  | N  |  Z  |     Data Forwarding     |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  10 | Z  |  N  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   |  IPv4NextHop | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  11 | Z  |  N  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   |  IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  12 | Z  |  N  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectIn  | Success |
   |     |    |     | CE to other OSPF router |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  13 | Z  |  N  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |other OSPF router to CE  |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  14 | Z  |  N  |       Metadata in       |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     redirect message    |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  15 | Z  |  N  |OSPF neighbor discovery  |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  16 | Z  |  N  |    OSPF DD exchange     |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  17 | Z  |  N  |    OSPF LSA exchange    |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+

                 Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results

   Note on test #1 and #2:

   The implementer found a multicast route pointing to localhost had to
   be manually set before a redirect channel could work normally.

   Note on test #3 to #9:

   During the test, OSPF packets received from CE were found by Ethereal
   /Wireshark with checksum errors in FE.  Because the test time was
   quite limited, implementer of the CE did not try to make efforts to
   find and solve the checksum error, instead, the FE had tried to
   correct the checksum in order not to let the Smartbits drop the
   packets.  Note that such solution does not affect the test results.

   Comment on Test #16 and #17:

   The two test items failed.  Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical
   to the two tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged.
   Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked
   well.  Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem
   caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the
   ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on
   the protocol specification.  Although the failure made the OSPF
   interoperability test incomplete, it did not show interoperability
   problem.  More test work is needed to verify the OSPF
   interoperability.

5.  Discussions

5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format

   In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
   operations about tables all failed.  It was eventually found the
   failure was because that different data encapsulation methods for
   ForCES protocol messages were taken by different implementations.
   The issue is described in detail as below:

   Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1
   and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32
   both inside, as below:





Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   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 implementer, the CE probably receives response from the
   FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation 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 encapsulation 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-RESPONSE-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 December 04, 2013               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   The interoperability testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or
   FE) sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
   documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
   (CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests
   and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
   ForCES documents.  While in the case a 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 encapsulation
   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 containing 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)






Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


   The interoperability test experience has shown that format 1 and
   format 3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements
   description in one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although
   format 2 can also get the same operating goal.

6.  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@zjsu.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@zjsu.edu.cn

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank the following test participants:

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

   The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Ben
   Campbell, Nevil Brownlee, and Sean Turner for their important help in
   the document publication process.



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security
   considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES
   Protocol [RFC5810] into account.  Also, as specified in the security
   considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol
   [RFC5811], the transport-level security has to be ensured by IPsec.
   Test results of TML with IPsec supported have been shown in
   Section 4.2 in this document.

   The tests described in this document used only simple password
   security mode.  Testing using more sophisticated security is for
   future study.

   Further testing using key agility is encouraged.  The tests reported
   here used SCTP TML running over an IPsec tunnel which was established
   by Racoon.  Key negotiation formed part of this process, but we
   believe that the SCTP TML used does not include key agility or
   renegotiation.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [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.

10.2.  Informative References

   [Ethereal]




Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


              , "Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.
              The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated
              Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the
              ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-
              archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html , .

   [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
              Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
              Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00
              (work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is
              intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet-
              Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT
              update this reference to a more recent version of the
              draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before
              publication] , October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
              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) [RFC
              Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
              specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
              interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
              more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please
              remove this note before publication] , 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.

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

   [Racoon]   , "Racoon in NetBSD is a well-known IKE daemon performing
              the IPsec Key Exchange (IKE) with the peers",
              http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipsec/rasvpn.html , .

   [Tcpdump]  , "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
              tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi
              Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
              messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
              current/msg03811.html , .

   [Teamviewer]



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013


              , "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
              world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
              , .

Authors' Addresses

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

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


   Kentaro Ogawa
   NTT Corporation
   Tokyo
   Japan

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


   Evangelos Haleplidis
   University of Patras
   Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
   Patras  26500
   Greece

   Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr


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

   Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.edu.cn


   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: hadi@mojatatu.com



Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           ForCES Interop Report                 June 2013




















































Wang, et al.           Expires December 04, 2013               [Page 29]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/