draft-ietf-forces-interop-07.txt   draft-ietf-forces-interop-08.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation
Expires: October 17, 2013 E. Haleplidis Expires: November 24, 2013 E.H. 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
April 15, 2013 May 23, 2013
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 draft-ietf-forces-interop-08
Abstract Abstract
This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control This document captured 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. RFC 6053 reported the results of the Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 has reported the results of
first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC the first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC
6053 by providing further interoperability results. 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 October 17, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
skipping to change at page 2, line 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document captures results of the second interoperability test of This document captured 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 protocol Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved protocol
elements described in several documents namely: elements described in several documents namely:
- ForCES Protocol [RFC5810] - ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]
- ForCES Forwarding Element Model [RFC5812] - ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) Model [RFC5812]
- ForCES Transport Mapping Layer [RFC5811] - ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) [RFC5811]
The test also involved protocol elements described in the then- The test also involved protocol elements described in the then-
current versions of two Internet-Drafts. Although these documents current versions of two Internet-Drafts. Although these documents
have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to
understand which versions of the work were used during this test. understand which versions of the work were used during this test.
The then-current Internet-Drafts are: The then-current Internet-Drafts are:
- ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library - ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]. [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03].
- ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]. - ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00].
Up to date, the 'ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library'
document has been publilshed by IETF as RFC 6956.
Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test. 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 were constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability testing items for every scenario were carried out and
results are achieved. Popular packet analyzers Ethereal/ interoperability results were achieved. Popular packet analyzers
Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] are used to verify the wire Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify
results. the wire results.
This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of
the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was
held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. That 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. 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 Forwarding
slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for Elements (FEs) are slaves and Control Elements (CEs) are masters.
transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information, The protocol includes commands for transport of Logical Function
association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status, and
is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for event notifications, etc. The reader is encouraged to read the
further information. ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for further information.
1.2. ForCES FE Model 1.2. ForCES FE Model
The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE
Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration The ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812] presents a formal
components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the way to define FE Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB
LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly configuration components, capabilities, and associated events are
controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol. 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 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. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport will be standardized. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details. ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details.
skipping to change at page 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
2.1. 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:
o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of
Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks), Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),
China. This implementation is referred to as "China" or in some China. This implementation is referred to as "ZJSU" or in some
cases "C" in the document for the sake of brevity. cases "Z" in the document for the sake of brevity.
o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
"Japan" or in some cases "J" in the document for the sake of "NTT" or in some cases "N" in the document for the sake of
brevity. brevity.
o The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred o The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred
to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" in the document for the sake to as "UoP" or in some cases "P" in the document for the sake of
of brevity. 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 5.1 ). 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 would be implementing any missing
in the future. features in the future.
2.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2. Testbed Configuration
2.2.1. Participants Access 2.2.1. Participants Access
Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet NTT and ZJSU physically attended on site at the Internet Technology
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The University
University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The chair,
chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the Teamviewer
Teamviewer as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as shown in
shown in Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
implementer may act alternatively. implementer may act alternatively.
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
| FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring| | FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring|
| China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer) | ZJSU |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Canada | +---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Mojatatu |
|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+ |LAN |----/ \--| +----------+
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+ +---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE | | FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| Japan | | | +---| Greece | | NTT | | | +---| UoP |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
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] .
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration
CEs and FEs from China and Japan implementations were physically CEs and FEs from ZJSU and NTT implementations were physically located
located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and connected
connected together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be seen in
seen in Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits was a third-party routing
supplied routing protocol testing machine, which acts as a router protocol testing machine, which acted as a router running OSPF and
running OSPF and RIP and exchanges routing protocol messages with RIP and exchanged routing protocol messages with ForCES routers in
ForCES routers in the network. The Internet is connected via an ADSL the network. Connection to the Internet was via an ADSL channel.
channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|124.90.146.218 (ADSL) |(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| |ZJSU | | NTT | | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|---------|China| +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+
+---------| |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 CE and FE from the UoP implementation were located within the
the University of Patras, Greece, were connected together using LAN University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN
as shown in Figure 3. The Internet is connected via a VPN channel. as shown in Figure 3. Connection to the Internet was via a VPN
channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|150.140.254.110(VPN) |(VPN)
| |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| LAN | | LAN |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
| FE | |Protocol| | CE | | FE | |Protocol| | CE |
|Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece| | UoP | |Analyzer| | UoP |
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
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 The testbeds above were then able to satisfy requirements of all
the interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this interoperability test scenarios in this document.
document.
3. Scenarios 3. Scenarios
3.1. 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| | ZJSU | | NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan | | NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
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 were required to carry out the test in a way acting as
or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation is combined CE or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation was
with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4. combined 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 [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defines a base set of LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which define a base set of
ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful test ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful test
under this scenario also means the validity of the LFB definitions. under this scenario will help the validity of the LFB definitions.
3.2. 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 and
first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For this tested in the first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC
reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically designed 6053. For this reason, in this interoperability test, we
the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel. specifically designed 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 are repeated
repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This with the difference that TML is secured via IPSec. This setup
setup scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between CE and
CE and FE can be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment. 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 an unfortunate problem with the test system in UoP prevented
text only took place between China and Japan. the deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between
the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan| | ZJSU | | NTT |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | | NTT | | ZJSU |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
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 is run over the IPSec channel.
Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same Implementers joined in this interoperability used the same third-
third-party software 'racoon' to have established the IPSec channel. 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.
China and Japan have made a successful test with the scenario, and ZJSU and NTT made a successful test with the scenario, and the
the following items have been realized: following items were 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
for message integrity protection. for message integrity protection.
3.3. 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) is tested based on the ForCES CEHA
document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00] 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 are 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| | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+
| | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Greece| | UoP | | UoP |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
(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 will be
configured to have China's or Japan's CE as master CE and Greece's CE configured to have ZJSU's or NTT's CE as master CE and UoP's CE as
as standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object
Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode (value
(value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by 2 or 3) will either be set in the pre-association phase by the FEM
the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE. interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.
If the CEFailoverPolicy value is set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post- If the CEFailoverPolicy value is set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post-
association phase) will attempt to connect and associate with the association phase) will attempt to connect and associate with the
standby CE. standby CE.
When the master CE is deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown, Loss When the master CE is deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown, Loss
of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume that of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE will assume that the
the standby CE is now the master CE. The FE will then send an Event standby CE is now the master CE. The FE will then send an Event
Notification, Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby Notification, Primary CE Down, to all associated CEs, only the
CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The standby standby CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The
CE will then respond by sending a configuration message to the CEID standby CE will then respond by sending a configuration message to
component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to confirm that the CEID component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to
the CE considers itself as the master as well. confirm that the CE considers itself as the master as well.
The steps of the CEHA test scenario are as follows: The steps of the CEHA test scenario are as follows:
1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and 1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and
backup CE backup CE
2. FE connecting and associating with master CE. 2. FE connecting and associating with master CE.
3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and 3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and
associate with backup CE. associate with backup CE.
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
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 document IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], 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| | NTT |
+------+ +------+
| ^ | ^
| | OSPF | | OSPF
| +-------> | +------->
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal| |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(a) (a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| | ZJSU |
+------+ +------+
^ | ^ ^ | ^
OSPF | | | OSPF OSPF | | | OSPF
<-----+ | +-----> <-----+ | +----->
+-------+ +------+ +------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|--|Terminal| |Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(b) (b)
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| Japan| | China| | NTT | | ZJSU |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | | | | OSPF | |
| +----------+ | | +----------+ |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+ +--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal| |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------| NTT |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(c) (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 NTT was connected to an FE by ZJSU 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 were used to simulate an OSPF router and were 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 were simulated by Smartbits to send
receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need to be and receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need
configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol. to be configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.
In case (b), a CE by China is connected to an FE by Japan to form a In case (b), a CE by ZJSU was connected to an FE by NTT to form a
ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF are simulated and connected ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF were simulated and connected
to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router can support OSPF to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router could support OSPF
protocol and support packet forwarding. protocol and support packet forwarding.
In case (c), two ForCES routers are constructed. One is with CE by In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed. One was with CE by
Japan and FE by China and the other is opposite. OSPF and packet NTT and FE by ZJSU and the other was opposite. OSPF and packet
forwarding are tested in the environment. forwarding were tested in the environment.
Testing process for this scenario is as below: Testing process for this scenario is as below:
1. Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their 1. Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
interfaces. interfaces.
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.
4. Test Results 4. Test Results
4.1. 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 'Z' in the table means
implementation from China,'J'Japan implementation, and 'G' Greece implementation from ZJSU ,'N' implementation from NTT, and
implementation. 'P'implementation from UoP.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |
| | | | | | /Capability | | | | | | | | /Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
| 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success | | 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success | | 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success | | 3 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success | | 4 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success | | 5 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success | | 6 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 7 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success | | 7 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 8 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success | | 8 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success | | 9 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 10 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success | | 10 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 11 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success | | 11 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 12 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success | | 12 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 13 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success | | 13 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success |
| | J | C | | | PathEnable | Success | | | N | Z | | | PathEnable | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success | | 14 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success | | 15 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 16 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success | | 16 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 17 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success | | 17 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 18 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success | | 18 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 19 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success | | 19 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 20 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success | | 20 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 21 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success | | 21 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 22 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success | | 22 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 23 | C | J | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 23 | Z | N | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 24 | C | J | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 24 | Z | N | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 25 | C | J | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 25 | Z | N | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 26 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success | | 26 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 27 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success | | 27 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 28 | C | J | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success | | 28 | Z | N | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 29 | C | J | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success | | 29 | Z | N | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 30 | C | J | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success | | 30 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 31 | C | J | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success | | 31 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 32 | C | J | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success | | 32 | Z | N | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 33 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 33 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 34 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 34 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 35 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success | | 35 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success | | | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 36 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success | | 36 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success | | | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | C | G | | | | Success | | | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | G | C | | | | Success | | | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | J | G | | | | Success | | | N | P | | | | Success |
| | G | J | | | | Success | | | P | N | | | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results
Note on test 1#: Note on test #1 and #2:
On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of
FULLDATA-in-FULLDATA was tested. FULLDATA vs SPARSEDATA was tested.
In China's implementation, after test 2# CE have to get all LFBs'
instance data actively according to the queried component of
LFBSelectors.
Note on test 28# and 29#:
Only had new reachable network destination been set, can route entry
be added into system.
Note on test 30# and 31#:
Corresponding nexthop entry must be deleted before prefix entry which It is very common for CE to get information of FEobject LFB in FE so
is decided by FE's routing management. as to know status on all active LFBs in the FE. Hence, the two tests
were specifically designed.
4.2. 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 was run over IPSec. Implementers
joined this interoperability test use the same third-party tool joined this interoperability test used the same third-party tool
software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish IPSec channel. Typical LFB
operation tests as in Scenario 1 are repeated with the IPSec enabled operation tests as in Scenario 1 were repeated with the IPSec enabled
TML. TML.
A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement As mentioned, this scenario only took place between implementers of
IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test. Therefore, this ZJSU and NTT.
scenario only took place between C and J.
The TML with IPSec test results are reported by Figure 9. The TML with IPSec test results are reported by Figure 9.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component/ | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component/ | Result |
| | | | | | Capability | | | | | | | | Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
| 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success | | 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success | | 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success |
| | J | C | | | | Success | | | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 3 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 4 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success | | | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results
4.3. 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 connected and associated with a master CE
a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would and a backup CE. When the master CE was deemed disconnected, the FE
attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE. would 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 was described by 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, an 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 was 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 felt 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.
4.4. Packet Forwarding Test 4.4. Packet Forwarding Test
As described in the ForCES LFB library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], 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 were used. RedirectIn and
RedirectOut LFBs redirect OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to CE. RedirectOut LFBs redirected OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to
A Smartbits test machine is used to simulate an OSPF router and 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. 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 In Figure 7, case (a) and case (b) both needed a RedirectIn LFB to
packets generated by CE to FE by use of ForCES packet redirect send OSPF packets generated by CE to FE by use of ForCES packet
messages. The OSPF packets are further sent to an outside OSPF redirect messages. The OSPF packets were further sent to an outside
Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs including IPv4NextHop and OSPF Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs including IPv4NextHop and
IPv4UcastLPM LFBs. A RedirectOut LFB in the FE is used to send OSPF IPv4UcastLPM LFBs. A RedirectOut LFB in the FE was used to send OSPF
packets received from outside OSPF Router to CE by ForCES packet packets received from outside OSPF Router to CE by ForCES packet
redirect messages. redirect messages.
By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router can generate new routes By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router could generate new
and load them to routing table in FE. The FE is then able to forward routes and load them to routing table in FE. The FE was then able to
packets according to the routing table. forward packets according to the routing table.
The test is reported with the results in Figure 10 The test results are as shown in Figure 10
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result |
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
| 1 | J | C | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success | | 1 | N | Z | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | J | C | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success | | 2 | N | Z | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success | | 3 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to SmartBits | | | | | | | CE to SmartBits | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success | | 4 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | SmartBits to CE | | | | | | | SmartBits to CE | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5 | J | C | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success | | 5 | N | Z | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | | | | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6 | J | C | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success | | 6 | N | Z | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 7 | J | C | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success | | 7 | N | Z | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 8 | J | C | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success | | 8 | N | Z | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| | | | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9 | J | C | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success | | 9 | N | Z | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| | | | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 10 | C | J | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success | | 10 | Z | N | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 11 | C | J | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success | | 11 | Z | N | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 12 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success | | 12 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to other OSPF router | | | | | | | CE to other OSPF router | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 13 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success | | 13 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | |other OSPF router to CE | | | | | | |other OSPF router to CE | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14 | C | J | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success | | 14 | Z | N | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | | | | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15 | C | J |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success | | 15 | Z | N |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 16 | C | J | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure | | 16 | Z | N | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 17 | C | J | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure | | 17 | Z | N | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| | | | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results
Note on test 1# and 2#: Note on test #1 and #2:
A multicast route pointed to localhost was manually set before The implementer found a multicast route pointing to localhost had to
redirect channel could work normally. be manually set before a redirect channel could work normally.
Note on test 3# to 9#: Note on test #3 to #9:
During the tests, OSPF packets received from CE were found by During the test, OSPF packets received from CE were found by Ethereal
Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors. China's FE corrected the /Wireshark with checksum errors in FE. Because the test time was
checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and quite limited, implementer of the CE did not try to make efforts to
the neighbor discovery can continue. Such correcting action does not find and solve the checksum error, instead, the FE had tried to
affect the test scenarios and the results. correct the checksum not to let the Smartbits drop the packets. Note
that such solution does not affect the test results for this
scenario.
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 were identical
same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged, to the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged.
and Test #12 and #13 show the redirect channel works well. As a Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked
result, it can be inferred that the problem caused the test failure well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem
was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the
rather than from the ForCES protocol design problem, therefore the ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on
failure does not lead to the interoperability problem on ForCES. 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. Discussions
5.1. 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. It was eventually found the
different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different failure was because that different data encapsulation methods for
implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below: 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 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
skipping to change at page 23, line 18 skipping to change at page 23, line 21
OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV: PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1 IDs=1
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 testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or
sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES FE) 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) should 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
skipping to change at page 24, line 31 skipping to change at page 24, line 19
Moreover, if CE is targeting the whole array, for example if the 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 array is empty and CE wants to add the first row to the table, it
could also adopt another format: could also adopt another format:
format 3: format 3:
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 showed 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.
6. 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
skipping to change at page 25, line 30 skipping to change at page 25, line 18
The authors 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 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
The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Ben
for their important help in the document publication process. Campbell, and Nevil Brownlee for their important help in the document
publication process.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. 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.
Test results of TML with IPsec supported have been shown in
Section 4.2 in this document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative 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.
skipping to change at page 27, line 16 skipping to change at page 26, line 48
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.
[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] , "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 , "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/ world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
, . , .
skipping to change at page 27, line 47 skipping to change at page 27, line 36
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 Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Patras 26500
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
Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.edu.cn Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.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. 146 change blocks. 
434 lines changed or deleted 445 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/