draft-ietf-forces-interop-06.txt   draft-ietf-forces-interop-07.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa
Expires: August 10, 2013 NTT Corporation Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation
E. Haleplidis Expires: October 17, 2013 E. Haleplidis
University of Patras University of Patras
M. Gao M. Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks Hangzhou BAUD Networks
J. Hadi Salim J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks Mojatatu Networks
February 6, 2013 April 15, 2013
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-06 draft-ietf-forces-interop-07
Abstract Abstract
This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on
February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
Gongshang University, China. The document is an update to RFC 6053, Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 reported the results of the
which captured the results of the first ForCES interoperability test. first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC
6053 by providing further interoperability results.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document captures results of the second interoperability test of This document captures results of the second interoperability test of
the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took
place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of
Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved several Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved protocol
documents namely: ForCES protocol [RFC5810] , ForCES FE model elements described in several documents namely:
[RFC5812] , ForCES TML [RFC5811] , ForCES LFB Library
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib] and ForCES CE HA specification - ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]
[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha]. Three independent ForCES implementations - ForCES Forwarding Element Model [RFC5812]
participated in the test. - ForCES Transport Mapping Layer [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].
Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.
Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High
Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
results are achieved. Popular packet analyzers Ethereal/ results are achieved. Popular packet analyzers Ethereal/
Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] are used to verify the wire Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] are used to verify the wire
results. results.
This document is an update to [RFC6053], which captured the results This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of
of the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was
was held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. The test held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. That test
focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and
ForCES FE model. The test results were captured by [RFC6053] . ForCES FE model.
1.1. ForCES Protocol 1.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for
transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information, transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader
is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for
further information. further information.
1.2. ForCES FE Model 1.2. ForCES FE Model
The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE
The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE
Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration
components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the
LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly
controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol. controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer 1.3. Transport Mapping Layer
The ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES The ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES
Protocol Layer (PL) messages. The TML is where the issues of how to Protocol Layer (PL) messages. The TML is where the issues of how to
achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast, achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast,
ordering, etc are handled. It is expected that more than one TML ordering, etc are handled. It is expected that more than one TML
will be standardized. The various possible TMLs could vary their will be standardized. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
implementations based on the capabilities of underlying media and Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
transport. However, since each TML is standardized, interoperability ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details.
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 the ForCES
Protocol, for the purposes of the interoperability test, the mandated
MUST IMPLEMENT SCTP TML [RFC5811] was be used.
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 1.4. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
documents, including RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810, RFC5811, RFC5812, documents, including RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810, RFC5811, RFC5812,
RFC5813, etc. Some definitions are repeated below for clarity. RFC5813, etc.
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.
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.
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.
3. Overview 2. Overview
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants 2.1. Date, Location, and Participants
The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF
ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by
Jamal Hadi Salim. Three independent ForCES implementations Jamal Hadi Salim. Three independent ForCES implementations
participated in the test: participated in the test:
* Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of
Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks), China. Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),
This implementation is referred to as "China" or in some cases "C" in China. This implementation is referred to as "China" or in some
the document for the sake of brevity. 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. o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
* The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred "Japan" or in some cases "J" in the document for the sake of
to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" in the document for the sake of brevity.
brevity.
o 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.
Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Corporation, which independently extended two different well known Corporation, which independently extended two different well known
public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the
interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify
the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics. the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics.
Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were
discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test. discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.
The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation
for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 6.1 ). for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 5.1 ).
Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the
interoperability test. The errata has been reported to related IETF interoperability test. The errata has been reported to related IETF
RFCs. RFCs.
At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead
of all three representative implementations due to a third one of all three representative implementations due to a third one
lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all
implementers mentioned they will be implementing any missing features implementers mentioned they will be implementing any missing features
in the future. in the future.
3.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2. Testbed Configuration
3.2.1. Participants Access 2.2.1. Participants Access
Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The
chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
Teamviewer as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as 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 shown in Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
implementer may act alternatively. implementer may act alternatively.
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 5, line 46
| China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer) | China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Canada | +---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Canada |
|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+ |LAN |----/ \--| +----------+
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+ +---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE | | FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| Japan | | | +---| Greece | | Japan | | | +---| Greece |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
Figure 1: Access for Participants Figure 1: Access for Participants
As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs SHALL implement IPSec As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPSec
security in the TML. security in the TML.
On the internet boundary, gateways used MUST allow for IPSec, SCTP On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPSec, SCTP
protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] . protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .
3.2.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration
CEs and FEs from China and Japan implementations were physically CEs and FEs from China and Japan implementations were physically
located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and
connected together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be connected together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be
seen in Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party seen in Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party
supplied routing protocol testing machine, which acts as a router supplied routing protocol testing machine, which acts as a router
running OSPF and RIP and exchanges routing protocol messages with running OSPF and RIP and exchanges routing protocol messages with
ForCES routers in the network. The Internet is connected via an ADSL ForCES routers in the network. The Internet is connected via an ADSL
channel. channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|124.90.146.218 (ADSL) |124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) | | LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220 |.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol| | CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
|China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer| |China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|----------|China| +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|---------|China| +---------+
+---------| |192.169. | | 192.168. | |-------+ +---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+
| .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24 +-----+ .2 | | .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 |
| .12| |.12 | | .12| |.12 |
| | | | | | | |
192.168.50.0/24 | | 192.168.60.0/24 192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24
| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 | | 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |
.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1 .1 | |.11 |.11 |.1
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal| |Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China
Hardware and Software (CE and FE) of Greece those were located within Hardware and Software (CE and FE) of Greece those were located within
the University of Patras, Greece, were connected together using LAN the University of Patras, Greece, were connected together using LAN
as shown in Figure 3. The Internet is connected via a VPN channel. as shown in Figure 3. The Internet is connected via a VPN channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|150.140.254.110(VPN) |150.140.254.110(VPN)
| |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| LAN | | LAN |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
| FE | |Protocol| | CE | | FE | |Protocol| | CE |
|Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece| |Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece|
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
Patras,Greece Patras,Greece
All above testbed configurations can then satisfy requirements of all All above testbed configurations can then satisfy requirements of all
the interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this the interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this
document. document.
4. Scenarios 3. Scenarios
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation 3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
This scenario is to test the interoperability on LFB operations among This scenario is to test the interoperability on LFB operations among
the participants. The connection diagram for the participants is as the participants. The connection diagram for the participants is as
shown in Figure 4. shown in Figure 4.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece| | China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan | |Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
In order to make interoperability more credible, the three In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
implementers are required to carry out the test in a way acting as CE implementers are required to carry out the test in a way acting as CE
or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation is combined or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation is combined
with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4. with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.
The test scenario is designed with the following purposes: The test scenario is designed with the following purposes:
Firstly, the scenario is designed to verify all kinds of protocol Firstly, the scenario is designed to verify all kinds of protocol
messages with their complex data formats, which are defined in RFC messages with their complex data formats, which are defined in RFC
5810. Specially, we try to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA 5810. Specially, we try to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA
with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array
or an array with a nested array. or an array with a nested array.
Secondly, the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES Secondly, the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
LFB Library[FORCES-LFBLIB], which defines a base set of ForCES LFB LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defines a base set of
classes for typical router functions. Successful test under this ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful test
scenario also means the validity of the LFB definitions. under this scenario also means the validity of the LFB definitions.
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec 3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec
This scenario is designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is the This scenario is designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is the
requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in the requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in the
first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For this first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For this
reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically designed reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically designed
the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel. the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel.
In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were
repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This
setup scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between setup scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between
CE and FE can be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment. CE and FE can be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment.
The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5. The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5.
Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over TML in Greece, the Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over TML in Greece, the
text only took place between China and Japan. text only took place between China and Japan.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan| | China| | Japan|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | |Japan | |China |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec
In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel. In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel.
Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same
third-party software 'racoon' to have established the IPSec channel. third-party software 'racoon' to have established the IPSec channel.
China and Japan have made a successful test with the scenario, and China and Japan have made a successful test with the scenario, and
the following items have been realized: the following items have been realized:
o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
authentication. authentication.
o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96 o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96
[RFC2404] for message integrity protection. for message integrity protection.
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability 3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability
CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA
document [ForCES-CEHA]. document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA were simplified 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 are: so as to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which are:
o Associating with more than one CE. o Associating with more than one CE.
o Switching to backup CE on master CE failure. o Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.
The connection diagram for the scenario is as shown in Figure 6. The connection diagram for the scenario is as shown in Figure 6.
master standby master standby master standby master standby
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece| | China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+
| | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Greece| |Greece| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
In this scenario one FE is connected and associated to a master CE In this scenario one FE is connected and associated to a master CE
and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be 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 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 as standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol
Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode 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 by (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. the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses 4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
the first Associated backup CE. the first Associated backup CE.
5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is 5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
down and who is now the master CE. down and who is now the master CE.
6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE 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 setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
the switch. the switch.
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding 3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
This test scenario is to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut, This test scenario is to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document
document[ForCES-LFBLIB], and more importantly, to verify the [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], and more importantly, to verify the
combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding. combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.
The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7. The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| | Japan|
+------+ +------+
| ^ | ^
| | OSPF | | OSPF
| +-------> | +------->
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal| |Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(a) (a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| | China|
+------+ +------+
^ | ^ ^ | ^
OSPF | | | OSPF OSPF | | | OSPF
<-----+ | +-----> <-----+ | +----->
+-------+ +------+ +------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|----|Terminal| |Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(b) <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
+------+ +------+ (b)
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| | China|
+------+ +------+
| ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | |
| +----------+ |
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> +------+ +------+
Packet Forwarding | CE | | CE |
| Japan| | China|
+------+ +------+
| ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | |
| +----------+ |
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
(c) <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(c)
Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding
In case (a), a CE by Japan is connected to an FE by China to form a In case (a), a CE by Japan is connected to an FE by China to form a
ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol
software are used to simulate an OSPF router and are connected with software are used to simulate an OSPF router and are connected with
the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA
packets among them. Terminals are simulated by Smartbits to send and packets among them. Terminals are simulated by Smartbits to send and
receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need to be receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need to be
configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol. configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 36
2. Boot CE and FE. 2. Boot CE and FE.
3. Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of 3. Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of
FEs interfaces. FEs interfaces.
4. Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE. 4. Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.
5. Send packets between terminals. 5. Send packets between terminals.
5. Test Results 4. Test Results
5.1. LFB Operation Test 4.1. LFB Operation Test
The test result is as reported by Figure 8. For the convenience The test result is as reported by Figure 8. For the convenience
sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C' in the table means sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C' in the table means
implementation from China,'J'Japan implementation, and 'G' Greece implementation from China,'J'Japan implementation, and 'G' Greece
implementation. implementation.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |
| | | | | | /Capability | | | | | | | | /Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
skipping to change at page 23, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 33
Note on test 28# and 29#: Note on test 28# and 29#:
Only had new reachable network destination been set, can route entry Only had new reachable network destination been set, can route entry
be added into system. be added into system.
Note on test 30# and 31#: Note on test 30# and 31#:
Corresponding nexthop entry must be deleted before prefix entry which Corresponding nexthop entry must be deleted before prefix entry which
is decided by FE's routing management. is decided by FE's routing management.
5.2. TML with IPSec Test 4.2. TML with IPSec Test
In this scenario, the ForCES TML is run over IPSec. Implementers In this scenario, the ForCES TML is run over IPSec. Implementers
joined this interoperability test use the same third-party tool joined this interoperability test use the same third-party tool
software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB
operation tests as in Scenario 1 are repeated with the IPSec enabled operation tests as in Scenario 1 are repeated with the IPSec enabled
TML. TML.
A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement
IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test. Therefore, this IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test. Therefore, this
scenario only took place between C and J. scenario only took place between C and J.
skipping to change at page 23, line 38 skipping to change at page 19, line 18
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 3 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 4 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results
5.3. CE High Availability Test 4.3. CE High Availability Test
In this scenario one FE connects and associates with a master CE and In this scenario one FE connects and associates with a master CE and
a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would
attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE. attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.
The CEHA scenario as is described in Scenario 3 was completed The CEHA scenario as is described in Scenario 3 was completed
successfully for both setups. successfully for both setups.
Due to a bug in one of the FEs, a interesting issue was caught: it Due to a bug in one of the FEs, a interesting issue was caught: it
was observed that the buggy FE took up to a second to failover. 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 was eventually found that the issue was due to the FE's
prioritization of the different CEs. All messages from the backup CE prioritization of the different CEs. All messages from the backup CE
were being ignored unless the master CE is disconnected. were being ignored unless the master CE is disconnected.
While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
successfully, the authors feel it was important to capture the successfully, the authors feel it was important to capture the
implementation issue in this document. The recommended approach is implementation issue in this document. The recommended approach is
the following: the following:
o The FE SHOULD receive and handle messages first from the master CE o The FE should receive and handle messages first from the master CE
on all priority channels to maintain proper functionality and then on all priority channels to maintain proper functionality and then
receive and handle messages from the backup CEs. receive and handle messages from the backup CEs.
o Only when the FE is attempting to associate with 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 then the FE should receive and handle messages per priority
channel from all CEs. When all backup CEs are associated with or channel from all CEs. When all backup CEs are associated with or
deemed unreachable, then the FE SHOULD return to receiving and deemed unreachable, then the FE should return to receiving and
handling messages first from the master CE. handling messages first from the master CE.
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test 4.4. Packet Forwarding Test
As described in the ForCES LFB library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib], 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 packet forwarding is implemented by a set of LFB classes that compose
a processing path for packets. In this test scenario, as shown in a processing path for packets. In this test scenario, as shown in
Figure 7, a ForCES router running OSPF protocol was constructed. In Figure 7, a ForCES router running OSPF protocol was constructed. In
addition, a set of LFBs including RedirectIn, RedirectOut, addition, a set of LFBs including RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
IPv4UcastLPM, and IPv4NextHop LFBs are used. RedirectIn and IPv4UcastLPM, and IPv4NextHop LFBs are used. RedirectIn and
RedirectOut LFBs redirect OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to CE. RedirectOut LFBs redirect OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to CE.
A Smartbits test machine is used to simulate an OSPF router and A Smartbits test machine is used to simulate an OSPF router and
exchange the OSPF hello and LSA packets with CE in ForCES router. exchange the OSPF hello and LSA packets with CE in ForCES router.
Cases (a) and (b) in Figure 7 both need a RedirectIn LFB to send OSPF Cases (a) and (b) in Figure 7 both need a RedirectIn LFB to send OSPF
skipping to change at page 27, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 15
Comment on Test #16 and #17: Comment on Test #16 and #17:
The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 are exactly the The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 are exactly the
same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged, same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged,
and Test #12 and #13 show the redirect channel works well. As a and Test #12 and #13 show the redirect channel works well. As a
result, it can be inferred that the problem caused the test failure result, it can be inferred that the problem caused the test failure
was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs
rather than from the ForCES protocol design problem, therefore the rather than from the ForCES protocol design problem, therefore the
failure does not lead to the interoperability problem on ForCES. failure does not lead to the interoperability problem on ForCES.
6. Discussions 5. Discussions
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format 5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format
In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter- 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 operations about tables all failed. The reason is found to be the
different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below: implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:
Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1 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 and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32
both inside, as below: both inside, as below:
struct1: type struct, ID=1 struct1: type struct, ID=1
components are: components are:
a, type u32, ID=1 a, type u32, ID=1
b, type u32, ID=2 b, type u32, ID=2
table1: type array, ID=2 table1: type array, ID=2
components for each row are (a struct of): components for each row are (a struct of):
x, type u32, ID=1 x, type u32, ID=1
y, type u32, ID=2 y, type u32, ID=2
1. On response of PATH-DATA format 1. On response of PATH-DATA format
When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the
FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a 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 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 manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is
the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
skipping to change at page 28, line 9 skipping to change at page 23, line 21
PATH-DATA-TLV: PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1 IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a) FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)
PATH-DATA-TLV: PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2 IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b) FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)
The interoperability test witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or FE) The interoperability test witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or FE)
sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
(CE or FE) MUST be able to accept and process information (requests (CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests
and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
ForCES documents. While in the case a ForCES element is free to ForCES documents. While in the case a ForCES element is free to
choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was 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 made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
looks forward to receive. looks forward to receive.
2. On operation to array 2. On operation to array
An array operation may also have several different data encapsulation An array operation may also have several different data encapsulation
skipping to change at page 30, line 5 skipping to change at page 24, line 36
OPER = SET-TLV OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV: PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2 IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing rowindex=1,valueof(x),valueof(y) FULLDATA-TLV containing rowindex=1,valueof(x),valueof(y)
The interoperability test experience shows that format 1 and format The interoperability test experience shows that format 1 and format
3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements description in 3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements description in
one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although format 2 can one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although format 2 can
also get the same operating goal. also get the same operating goal.
7. Contributors 6. Contributors
Contributors who have made major contributions to the Contributors who have made major contributions to the
interoperability test are as below: interoperability test are as below:
Hirofumi Yamazaki Hirofumi Yamazaki
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
Tokyo Tokyo
Japan Japan
Email: yamazaki.horofumi@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: yamazaki.horofumi@lab.ntt.co.jp
skipping to change at page 31, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 19
Tokyo Tokyo
Japan Japan
Email: yuta.watanabe@ntt-at.co.jp Email: yuta.watanabe@ntt-at.co.jp
Xiaochun Wu Xiaochun Wu
Zhejiang Gongshang University Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou Hangzhou
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: spring-403@zjsu.edu.cn Email: spring-403@zjsu.edu.cn
8. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would also like thank the following test participants: The authors thank the following test participants:
Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Bin Zhuge, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang University Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Kelei Jin, Hangzhou BAUD Networks Kelei Jin, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
9. IANA Considerations The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern
for their important help in the document publication process.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security
considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES
Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security
considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol
[RFC5811] the transport-level security, has to be ensured by IPsec. [RFC5811], the transport-level security has to be ensured by IPsec.
11. References
11.1. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang, [RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010. Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping [RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010. Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control [RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC
RFC 5812, March 2010. 5812, March 2010.
[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation [RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010. (ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.
11.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[Ethereal] [Ethereal]
"Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer. , "Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.
The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated
Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the
ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/ ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-
mail-archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html . archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html , .
[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha] [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-05 Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00
(work in progress), January 2013. (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] [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J. Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library", Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-10 (work in progress), draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC
January 2013. Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
June 1999. 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 [RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003. of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal, [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004. Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim, [RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element "Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010. Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
[Tcpdump] "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific [Tcpdump] , "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi
Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/ messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
current/msg03811.html . current/msg03811.html , .
[Teamviewer] [Teamviewer]
"TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the world , "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
within a few seconds.", http://www.teamviewer.com/ . world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
, .
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Weiming Wang Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University Zhejiang Gongshang University
18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town 18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018 Hangzhou 310018
P.R.China P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721 Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@zjsu.edu.cn Email: wmwang@zjsu.edu.cn
Kentaro Ogawa Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
Tokyo, Tokyo
Japan Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Evangelos Haleplidis Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras University of Patras
Patras, Patras
Greece Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Ming Gao Ming Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks Hangzhou BAUD Networks
408 Wen-San Road 408 Wen-San Road
Hangzhou, 310012 Hangzhou 310012
P.R.China P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877751 Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.edu.cn
Email: gmyyqno1@pop.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa Ottawa
Canada Canada
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
 End of changes. 85 change blocks. 
315 lines changed or deleted 267 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/