Internet Engineering Task Force                                  W. Wang
Internet-Draft                             Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053 (if approved)                                     K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational                           NTT Corporation
Expires: October 17, November 24, 2013                                  E.                               E.H. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                          April 15,
                                                            May 23, 2013

 Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
                                (ForCES)
                      draft-ietf-forces-interop-07
                      draft-ietf-forces-interop-08

Abstract

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

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, November 24, 2013.

Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3   4
     1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Test Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  LFB Operation Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.4.  Packet Forwarding Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26  25
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

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

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

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

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

   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.

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

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

1.1.  ForCES Protocol

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

1.2.  ForCES FE Model

   The ForCES FE Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812]  presents a formal
   way to define FE Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML.  LFB
   configuration components, capabilities, and associated events are
   defined when the LFB is formally created.  The LFBs within the FE are
   accordingly controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.

1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer

   The ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES
   Protocol Layer (PL) messages.  The TML is where the issues of how to
   achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast,
   ordering, etc are handled.  It is expected that more than one TML
   will be standardized.  RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
   Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
   ForCES.  See RFC 5811 for more details.

1.4.  Definitions

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

2.  Overview

2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants

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

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

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

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

   Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
   Corporation, which independently extended two different well known
   public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
   Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test.  During the
   interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify
   the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics.

   Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were
   discovered.  Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.
   The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation
   for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 5.1 ).

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

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

2.2.  Testbed Configuration

2.2.1.  Participants Access

   Japan

   NTT and China ZJSU physically attended on site at the Internet Technology
   Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China.  The University
   of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece.  The chair,
   Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the Teamviewer
   as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer].  The approach is as shown in
   Figure 1.  In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
   implementer may act alternatively.

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

                     Figure 1: Access for Participants

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

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

2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration

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

                              /\/\/\/\/\
                              \Internet/
                              /        \
                              \/\/\/\/\/
                                  |
                                  |124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
                                  |(ADSL)
                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                      LAN  (10.20.0.0/24)                         |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
      |        |        |               |               |         |
      |        |        |               |               |         |
      |.222    |.230    |.221           |.179           |.231     |.220
   +-----+  +-----+  +-----+         +-----+         +-----+ +---------+
   | CE  |  | CE  |  |     |         |     |         |     | | Protocol|
   |China|  |Japan|
   |ZJSU |  | NTT |  | FE1 |.1     .2| FE  |.1     .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
   +-----+  +-----+  |China|---------|Japan|---------|China|  |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+
           +---------|     |192.169. |     | 192.168.|     |------+
           |      .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+  30.0/24+-----+ .2   |
           |         .12|                               |.12      |
           |            |                               |         |
     192.168.50.0/24    |                               |192.168.60.0/24
           |       192.168.10.0/24              192.168.40.0/24   |
        .1 |            |.11                            |.11      |.1
      +--------+     +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
      |Terminal|     |               Smartbits              | |Terminal|
      +--------+     +--------------------------------------+ +--------+

         Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China

   Hardware and Software (CE Lab, China

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

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

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

   All

   The testbeds above testbed configurations can were then able to satisfy requirements of all
   the
   interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this document.

3.  Scenarios

3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation

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

   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
   |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |    |  CE  |
   | China| ZJSU |    | NTT  |    | ZJSU | Japan|    | China|    |Greece|  UoP |    |  NTT |    |  UoP | Japan|    |Greece|
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
      |           |           |           |           |           |
      |           |           |           |           |           |
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+
   |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |    |  FE  |
   |Japan
   |    |China NTT  |    | ZJSU |    |Greece|    |China    |    |Greece|    |Japan UoP  |    | ZJSU |    |  UoP |    |  NTT |
   +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+    +------+

                   Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation

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

   The test scenario is designed with the following purposes:

   Firstly, the scenario is designed to verify all kinds of protocol
   messages with their complex data formats, which are defined in RFC
   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
   or an array with a nested array.

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

3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec

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

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

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

              +------+                 +------+
              |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
              | China| ZJSU |                 |  NTT | Japan|
              +------+                 +------+
                 |                        |
                 |TML over IPSec          |TML over IPSec
              +------+                 +------+
              |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
              |Japan
              |                 |China NTT  |                 | ZJSU |
              +------+                 +------+

         Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec

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

   China  The
   'Racoon' in NetBSD is an IKE daemon performing the IPsec Key Exchange
   (IKE) with the peers.

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

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

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

3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability

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

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

   o  Associating with more than one CE.

   o  Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.

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

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

                Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability

   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 will be
   configured to have China's ZJSU's or Japan's NTT's CE as master CE and Greece's UoP's CE as
   standby CE.  The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object
   LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode (value
   2 or 3) would will either be set in the pre-association phase by the FEM
   interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.

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

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

   The steps of the CEHA test scenario are as follows:

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

   2.  FE connecting and associating with master CE.

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

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

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

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

3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding

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

   The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.

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

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

                                    (a)

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

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

                                    (b)

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

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

                                    (c)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding

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

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

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

   Testing process for this scenario is as below:

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

   2.  Boot CE and FE.

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

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

   5.  Send packets between terminals.

4.  Test Results

4.1.  LFB Operation Test

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

   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper |      LFB     |     Component     | Result  |
   |     |    |     |     |              |    /Capability    |         |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |  1  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBTopology    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  2  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBSelector    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  3  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     PHYPortID     | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  4  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  5  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     OperStatus    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  6  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminLinkSpeed   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  7  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   OperLinkSpeed   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  8  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  9  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  OperDuplexSpeed  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  10 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   CarrierStatus   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  11 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  12 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  13 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    L2Bridging     | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |   PathEnable      | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  14 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |  PromiscuousMode  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  15 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   TxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  16 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   RxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  17 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |     MACInStats    | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 18  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET | EtherMACOut  |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 19  | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  20 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  21 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  22 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |     MACOutStats   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  23 | C Z  |  J  N  | GET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  24 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  25 | C Z  |  J  N  | DEL |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  26 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  27 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  28 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  29 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  30 | C Z  |  J  N  | DEL |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  31 | C Z  |  J  N  | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  32 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |  EtherPHYCop |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  33 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |     Ether    |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |  Classifier  |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  34 | C Z  |  J  N  | DEL |     Ether    |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     |  Classifier  |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  35 | C Z  |  J  N  | SET |   Ether      |  VlanOutputTable  | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     | Encapsulator |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  36 | C Z  |  J  N  | DEL |    Ether     |   VlanOutputTable | Success |
   |     | J N  |  C  Z  |     | Encapsulator |                   | Success |
   |     | C Z  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  C  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | J N  |  G  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | G P  |  J  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+

                   Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results

   Note on test 1#: #1 and #2:

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

   In China's implementation, after test 2#

   It is very common for CE have to get all LFBs'
   instance data actively according to the queried component information of
   LFBSelectors.

   Note on test 28# and 29#:

   Only had new reachable network destination been set, can route entry
   be added into system.

   Note FEobject LFB in FE so
   as to know status on test 30# and 31#:

   Corresponding nexthop entry must be deleted before prefix entry which
   is decided by FE's routing management. all active LFBs in the FE.  Hence, the two tests
   were specifically designed.

4.2.  TML with IPSec Test

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

   A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement
   IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test.  Therefore,

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

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

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

                   Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results

4.3.  CE High Availability Test

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

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

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

   While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
   successfully, the authors feel felt it was important to capture the
   implementation issue in this document.  The recommended approach is
   the following:

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

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

4.4.  Packet Forwarding Test

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

   Cases

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

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

   The test is reported with the results are as shown in Figure 10

   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|           Item          | LFBs Related | Result  |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |  1  | J N  |  C  Z  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   | IPv4NextHop  | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  2  | J N  |  C  Z  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  3  | J N  |  C  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectIn  | Success |
   |     |    |     |     CE to SmartBits     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  4  | J N  |  C  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     SmartBits to CE     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  5  | J N  |  C  Z  |       Metadata in       |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     redirect message    |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  6  | J N  |  C  Z  | OSPF neighbor discovery |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  7  | J N  |  C  Z  |     OSPF DD exchange    |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  8  | J N  |  C  Z  |    OSPF LSA exchange    |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  9  | J N  |  C  Z  |     Data Forwarding     |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  10 | C Z  |  J  N  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   |  IPv4NextHop | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  11 | C Z  |  J  N  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   |  IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  12 | C Z  |  J  N  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectIn  | Success |
   |     |    |     | CE to other OSPF router |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  13 | C Z  |  J  N  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |other OSPF router to CE  |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  14 | C Z  |  J  N  |       Metadata in       |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     redirect message    |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  15 | C Z  |  J  N  |OSPF neighbor discovery  |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  16 | C Z  |  J  N  |    OSPF DD exchange     |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  17 | C Z  |  J  N  |    OSPF LSA exchange    |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+

                 Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results

   Note on test 1# #1 and 2#:

   A #2:

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

   Note on test 3# #3 to 9#: #9:

   During the tests, test, OSPF packets received from CE were found by
   Ethereal/Wireshark Ethereal
   /Wireshark with checksum errors.  China's FE corrected errors in FE.  Because the test time was
   quite limited, implementer of the CE did not try to make efforts to
   find and solve the checksum in error, instead, the FE so that had tried to
   correct the Smartbits would checksum not drop to let the packets and Smartbits drop the neighbor discovery can continue.  Such correcting action packets.  Note
   that such solution does not affect the test scenarios and the results. results for this
   scenario.

   Comment on Test #16 and #17:

   The two test items failed.  Note that Test #7 and #8 are exactly were identical
   to the
   same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged,
   and Test were exchanged.
   Moreover, test #12 and #13 show showed that the redirect channel works worked
   well.  As a
   result,  Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem
   caused the test failure was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs implementations, rather than from the
   ForCES protocol design problem, therefore itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on
   the protocol specification.  Although the failure does made the OSPF
   interoperability test incomplete, it did not lead show interoperability
   problem.  More test work is needed to verify the interoperability problem on ForCES. OSPF
   interoperability.

5.  Discussions

5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format

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

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

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

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

   1.  On response of PATH-DATA format

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

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

   The interoperability test testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or
   FE) sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
   documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
   (CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests
   and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
   ForCES documents.  While in the case a ForCES element is free to
   choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
   the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was
   made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
   looks forward to receive.

   2.  On operation to array

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

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

               PATH-DATA-TLV
                   IDs=2
                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(y)

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

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

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

6.  Contributors

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

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

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

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

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

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors thank the following test participants:

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

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

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

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

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
              W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
              Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.

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

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

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

10.2.  Informative References

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
              Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
              Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
              draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC
              Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
              specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
              interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
              more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please
              remove this note before publication] , December 2010.

   [RFC3654]  Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
              of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.

   [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
              "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
              Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.

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

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

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

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

Authors' Addresses

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

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

   Kentaro Ogawa
   NTT Corporation
   Tokyo
   Japan

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

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

   Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr

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

   Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.edu.cn
   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: hadi@mojatatu.com