Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Hi Ben and all,

Some more replies are inline. 

Attached is the up to date sub-version(08v1) of the document and the associated diff file with last version 07.  

I have to metion I still have not yet finished to change last pages of the document to past tense. I'l continue doing it.

Hope to see more comments and then with more modification, I hope to update to IETF with that version. 

thanks a lot.

Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for which I have no further comment.

Thanks!

Ben.

On May 16, 2013, at 10:19 PM, "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 

[...]

> -- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of an incorrect implementation or differing encapsulation formats. Does this suggest that the specifications should be clarified? In particular, in the case of encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger requirements to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the number of options be reduced?
> [Re. by ΕΗ] The protocol provides a number of different approaches 
> [Re. by Weiming] The key issue is still from the deep understanding of the protocol from implementations. I still have not seen need for any urgent change for the protocol. 

I don't have enough knowledge of the protocol to form a specific opinion, but it's been my experience in other areas that when implementors interpret things differently, there's often room for clarification, even if the text is formally correct. I agree it doesn't imply an urgent need, but would it be worth one or more errata?

[Re:] We have actually submitted a suggestion to errata of RFC 5810, but was denied with the reason that mutual understanding of different encapsulation formats are essential to protocol implementations, and need not a specific notification.
 
[...]

> -- section 4.4, last paragraph:
> 
> The text says that since the mentioned failures were likely the result of bugs, it doesn't indicate an interoperability problem in the specs. I have to point out that, it also doesn't prove interoperability in both directions for the particular test. It would also be worth commenting on whether the probably bugs were programming errors rather than misunderstandings of the specification.
> [Re. by Weiming] to change the whole paragraph to:
>  <t> The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical to the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged. Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on the protocol specification. Although the failure made the OSPF interoperability test incomplete, it did not show interoperability problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF interoperability.</t>

Works for me, thanks!
[Re: ] Thanks too.

[...]


[Re. by Weiming] The section 3.2 para.3 has been changed to: 
> <t>... Because there came unfortunately a problem with the test system in Greece to deploy IPSec over TML during the test process, this test only took place between test systems in China and Japan.</t>

The sentence is still hard to parse. Do you mean the following?

"Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in Greece prevented the deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between the test systems in China and Japan."
[Re.] Thanks again. I'v just incorparated it. 

[...]
Title: Diff: draft-ietf-forces-interop-08v1.txt - draft-ietf-forces-interop-07.txt
< draft-ietf-forces-interop-08v1.txt   draft-ietf-forces-interop-07.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation
Expires: November 23, 2013 E. Haleplidis Expires: October 17, 2013 E. Haleplidis
University of Patras University of Patras
M. Gao M. Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks Hangzhou BAUD Networks
J. Hadi Salim J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks Mojatatu Networks
May 22, 2013 April 15, 2013
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) (ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-08 draft-ietf-forces-interop-07
Abstract Abstract
This document captured results of the second Forwarding and Control This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on
February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 had reported the results of Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 reported the results of the
the first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC 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 November 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document captured results of the second interoperability test of This document captures results of the second interoperability test of
the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took
place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of
Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved 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 (FE) Model [RFC5812] - ForCES Forwarding Element Model [RFC5812]
- ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) [RFC5811] - ForCES Transport Mapping Layer [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 were: 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 were constructed. Series of Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario were carried out and testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
interoperability results were achieved. Popular packet analyzers results are achieved. Popular packet analyzers Ethereal/
Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] are used to verify the wire
the wire results. 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 Forwarding The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
Elements (FEs) are slaves and Control Elements (CEs) are masters. slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for
The protocol includes commands for transport of Logical Function transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status, and association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader
event notifications, etc. The reader is encouraged to read the is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for
ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for further information. further information.
1.2. ForCES FE Model 1.2. ForCES FE Model
The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE
The ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812] presents a formal Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration
way to define FE Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the
configuration components, capabilities, and associated events are LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly
defined when the LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
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 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 37
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 "ZJSU" or in some China. This implementation is referred to as "China" or in some
cases "Z" in the document for the sake of brevity. cases "C" 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
"NTT" or in some cases "N" in the document for the sake of "Japan" or in some cases "J" 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 "UoP" or in some cases "P" in the document for the sake of to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" in the document for the sake
brevity. of brevity.
Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Corporation, which independently extended two different well known Corporation, which independently extended two different well known
public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the
interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify
the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics. the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics.
Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were
discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test. discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.
The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation
for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 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 would be implementing any missing implementers mentioned they will be implementing any missing features
features in the future. in the future.
2.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2. Testbed Configuration
2.2.1. Participants Access 2.2.1. Participants Access
NTT and ZJSU physically attended on site at the Internet Technology Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The University Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The chair, University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The
Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the Teamviewer chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as shown in Teamviewer as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as
Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the shown in Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
implementer may act alternatively. implementer may act alternatively.
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
| FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring| | FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring|
| ZJSU |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer) | China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Mojatatu | +---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Canada |
|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+ |LAN |----/ \--| +----------+
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+ +---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE | | FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| NTT | | | +---| UoP | | Japan | | | +---| Greece |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+ +---------+ +----+ +----------+
Figure 1: Access for Participants Figure 1: Access for Participants
As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPSec As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPSec
security in the TML. security in the TML.
On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPSec, SCTP On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPSec, SCTP
protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] . protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration 2.2.2. Testbed Configuration
CEs and FEs from ZJSU and NTT implementations were physically located CEs and FEs from China and Japan implementations were physically
within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and connected located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and
together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be seen in connected together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be
Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits was a third-party supplied seen in Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party
routing protocol testing machine, which acted as a router running supplied routing protocol testing machine, which acts as a router
OSPF and RIP and exchanged routing protocol messages with ForCES running OSPF and RIP and exchanges routing protocol messages with
routers in the network. Connection to the Internet was via an ADSL ForCES routers in the network. The Internet is connected via an ADSL
channel. channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|(ADSL) |124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) | | LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220 |.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol| | CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
|ZJSU | | NTT | | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer| |China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+ +-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|---------|China| +---------+
+---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+ +---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+
| .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 | | .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 |
| .12| |.12 | | .12| |.12 |
| | | | | | | |
192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24 192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24
| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 | | 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |
.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1 .1 | |.11 |.11 |.1
+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal| |Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|
+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China
CE and FE from the UoP implementation were located within the Hardware and Software (CE and FE) of Greece those were located within
University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN the University of Patras, Greece, were connected together using LAN
as shown in Figure 3. Connection to the Internet was via a VPN as shown in Figure 3. The Internet is connected via a VPN channel.
channel.
/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/ \Internet/
/ \ / \
\/\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/
| |
|(VPN) |150.140.254.110(VPN)
| |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| LAN | | LAN |
+------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
| FE | |Protocol| | CE | | FE | |Protocol| | CE |
| UoP | |Analyzer| | UoP | |Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece|
+------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +------+
Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
Patras,Greece Patras,Greece
All above testbed configurations were then able to satisfy All above testbed configurations can then satisfy requirements of all
requirements of all the interoperability test scenarios that were the interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this
mentioned in this document. document.
3. Scenarios 3. Scenarios
3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation 3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
This scenario was to test the interoperability on LFB operations This scenario is to test the interoperability on LFB operations among
among the participants. The connection diagram for the participants the participants. The connection diagram for the participants is as
is as shown in Figure 4. shown in Figure 4.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP | | China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
| NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | |Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
In order to make interoperability more credible, the three In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
implementers were required to carry out the test in a way acting as implementers are required to carry out the test in a way acting as CE
CE or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation was or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation is combined
combined with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4. with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.
The test scenario was designed with the following purposes: The test scenario is designed with the following purposes:
Firstly, the scenario was 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 tried 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 was designed to verify the definition of Secondly, the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
ForCES LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defined a base LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defines a base set of
set of ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful test
test under this scenario may help the validity of the LFB under this scenario also means the validity of the LFB definitions.
definitions.
3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec 3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec
This scenario was designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is This scenario is designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is the
the requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in the
the first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For this
this reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically designed
designed the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel. the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel.
In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were
repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This
setup scenario allowed us to verify whether all interactions between setup scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between
CE and FE could be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment. CE and FE can be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment.
The connection diagram for this scenario was shown as Figure 5. The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5.
Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in UoP prevented Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over TML in Greece, the
the deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between text only took place between China and Japan.
the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | NTT | | China| | Japan|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
| NTT | | ZJSU | |Japan | |China |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec
In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPSec channel. In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel.
Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same
third-party software 'racoon' to establish the IPSec channel. The third-party software 'racoon' to have established the IPSec channel.
'racoon' in NetBSD is a well-known IKE daemon performing the IPsec
Key Exchange (IKE) with the peers.
ZJSU and NTT made a successful test with the scenario, and the China and Japan have made a successful test with the scenario, and
following items were realized: the following items have been realized:
o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
authentication. authentication.
o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96 o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96
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) was 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 were simplified
so as to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which were: 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 was 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 |
| ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP | | China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+
| | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
| UoP | | UoP | |Greece| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
In this scenario one FE was connected and associated to a master CE In this scenario one FE is connected and associated to a master CE
and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be
configured to have ZJSU's or NTT's CE as master CE and UoP's CE as configured to have China's or Japan's CE as master CE and Greece's CE
standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object as standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol
LFB that specified whether the FE was in High Availability mode Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode
(value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by (value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by
the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE. the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.
If the CEFailoverPolicy value was 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) would 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 was deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown, When the master CE is deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown, Loss
Loss of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume that
that the standby CE was now the master CE. The FE would then send an the standby CE is now the master CE. The FE will then send an Event
Event Notification, Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the Notification, Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby
standby CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The standby
standby CE would then respond by sending a configuration message to CE will then respond by sending a configuration message to the CEID
the CEID component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to confirm that
confirm that the CE considered itself as the master as well. the CE considers itself as the master as well.
The steps of the CEHA test scenario were 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.
4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses 4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
skipping to change at page 12, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is 5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
down and who is now the master CE. down and who is now the master CE.
6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE 6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE
setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
the switch. the switch.
3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding 3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
This test scenario was 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 was as Figure 7. The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| NTT | | Japan|
+------+ +------+
| ^ | ^
| | OSPF | | OSPF
| +-------> | +------->
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal| |Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(a) (a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | China|
+------+ +------+
^ | ^ ^ | ^
OSPF | | | OSPF OSPF | | | OSPF
<-----+ | +-----> <-----+ | +----->
+-------+ +------+ +------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+ +--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT |-----|Router|--|Terminal| |Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<--------------------------------------------> <-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding Packet Forwarding
(b) (b)
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| NTT | | ZJSU | | Japan| | China|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | | | | OSPF | |
| +----------+ | | +----------+ |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+ +--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------| NTT |------|Terminal| |Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|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 NTT was connected to an FE by ZJSU to form a In case (a), a CE by Japan is connected to an FE by China to form a
ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol
software were used to simulate an OSPF router and were connected with software are used to simulate an OSPF router and are connected with
the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA
packets among them. Terminals were simulated by Smartbits to send packets among them. Terminals are simulated by Smartbits to send and
and receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router needed receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need to be
to be configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol. configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.
In case (b), a CE by ZJSU was connected to an FE by NTT to form a In case (b), a CE by China is connected to an FE by Japan to form a
ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF were simulated and connected ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF are simulated and connected
to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router could support OSPF to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router can support OSPF
protocol and support packet forwarding. protocol and support packet forwarding.
In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed. One was with CE by In case (c), two ForCES routers are constructed. One is with CE by
NTT and FE by ZJSU and the other was opposite. OSPF and packet Japan and FE by China and the other is opposite. OSPF and packet
forwarding were tested in the environment. forwarding are tested in the environment.
Testing process for this scenario was 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 was 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 'Z' in the table means sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C' in the table means
implementation from ZJSU ,'N' NTT implementation, and 'P' UoP implementation from China,'J'Japan implementation, and 'G' Greece
implementation. implementation.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |
| | | | | | /Capability | | | | | | | | /Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
| 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success | | 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success | | 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success | | 3 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success | | 4 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success | | 5 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success | | 6 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 7 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success | | 7 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 8 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success | | 8 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success | | 9 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 10 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success | | 10 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 11 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success | | 11 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 12 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success | | 12 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 13 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success | | 13 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success |
| | N | Z | | | PathEnable | Success | | | J | C | | | PathEnable | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success | | 14 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success | | 15 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 16 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success | | 16 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 17 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success | | 17 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 18 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success | | 18 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 19 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success | | 19 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 20 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success | | 20 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 21 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success | | 21 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 22 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success | | 22 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 23 | Z | N | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 23 | C | J | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 24 | Z | N | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 24 | C | J | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 25 | Z | N | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success | | 25 | C | J | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 26 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success | | 26 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 27 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success | | 27 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 28 | Z | N | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success | | 28 | C | J | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 29 | Z | N | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success | | 29 | C | J | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 30 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success | | 30 | C | J | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 31 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success | | 31 | C | J | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 32 | Z | N | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success | | 32 | C | J | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 33 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 33 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 34 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 34 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 35 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success | | 35 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success | | | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 36 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success | | 36 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success | | | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success | | | C | G | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success | | | G | C | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success | | | J | G | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success | | | G | J | | | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results
Note on test #1: Note on test 1#:
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-in-FULLDATA was tested.
In ZJSU's implementation, after test #2 CE have to get all LFBs' In China's implementation, after test 2# CE have to get all LFBs'
instance data actively according to the queried component of instance data actively according to the queried component of
LFBSelectors. 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
is decided by FE's routing management.
4.2. TML with IPSec Test 4.2. TML with IPSec Test
In this scenario, the ForCES TML was run over IPSec. Implementers In this scenario, the ForCES TML is run over IPSec. Implementers
joined this interoperability test used the same third-party tool joined this interoperability test use the same third-party tool
software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB
operation tests as in Scenario 1 were repeated with the IPSec enabled operation tests as in Scenario 1 are repeated with the IPSec enabled
TML. TML.
As mentioned, this scenario only took place between implementers of A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement
ZJSU and NTT. IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test. Therefore, this
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 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success | | 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success | | 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success | | | J | C | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 3 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success | | 4 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success | | | J | C | | 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 connects and associates with a master CE and
a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would
attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE. attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.
skipping to change at page 22, line 34 skipping to change at page 20, line 29
By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router can generate new routes By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router can generate new routes
and load them to routing table in FE. The FE is then able to forward and load them to routing table in FE. The FE is then able to forward
packets according to the routing table. packets according to the routing table.
The test is reported with the results in Figure 10 The test is reported with the results in Figure 10
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result | |Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result |
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+ +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
| 1 | N | Z | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success | | 1 | J | C | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 2 | N | Z | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success | | 2 | J | C | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success | | 3 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to SmartBits | | | | | | | CE to SmartBits | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success | | 4 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | SmartBits to CE | | | | | | | SmartBits to CE | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 5 | N | Z | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success | | 5 | J | C | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | | | | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6 | N | Z | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success | | 6 | J | C | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 7 | N | Z | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success | | 7 | J | C | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 8 | N | Z | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success | | 8 | J | C | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| | | | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9 | N | Z | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success | | 9 | J | C | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| | | | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 10 | Z | N | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success | | 10 | C | J | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 11 | Z | N | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success | | 11 | C | J | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 12 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success | | 12 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to other OSPF router | | | | | | | CE to other OSPF router | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 13 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success | | 13 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | |other OSPF router to CE | | | | | | |other OSPF router to CE | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14 | Z | N | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success | | 14 | C | J | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | | | | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15 | Z | N |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success | | 15 | C | J |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 16 | Z | N | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure | | 16 | C | J | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
| | | | | RedirectIn | | | | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | | | | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 17 | Z | N | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure | | 17 | C | J | 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 A multicast route pointed to localhost was manually set before
redirect channel could work normally. 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 tests, OSPF packets received from CE were found by
Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors. ZJSU's FE corrected the Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors. China's FE corrected the
checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and
the neighbor discovery can continue. Such correcting action does not the neighbor discovery can continue. Such correcting action does not
affect the test scenarios and the results. affect the test scenarios and the results.
Comment on Test #16 and #17: Comment on Test #16 and #17:
The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 are exactly the
to the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged. same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged,
Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked and Test #12 and #13 show the redirect channel works well. As a
well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem result, it can be inferred that the problem caused the test failure
caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs
ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on rather than from the ForCES protocol design problem, therefore the
the protocol specification. Although the failure made the OSPF failure does not lead to the interoperability problem on ForCES.
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. The reason is found to be the
different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below: implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:
Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1 Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1
and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32 and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32
both inside, as below: both inside, as below:
struct1: type struct, ID=1 struct1: type struct, ID=1
components are: components are:
a, type u32, ID=1 a, type u32, ID=1
b, type u32, ID=2 b, type u32, ID=2
table1: type array, ID=2 table1: type array, ID=2
components for each row are (a struct of): components for each row are (a struct of):
x, type u32, ID=1 x, type u32, ID=1
y, type u32, ID=2 y, type u32, ID=2
1. On response of PATH-DATA format 1. On response of PATH-DATA format
When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the
FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a
CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to
manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is
the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
skipping to change at page 26, line 6 skipping to change at page 23, line 18
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 testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or The interoperability test witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or FE)
FE) sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
(CE or FE) 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 31, line 8 skipping to change at page 25, line 40
The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern
for their important help in the document publication process. 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 of the 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 32, line 19 skipping to change at page 26, line 16
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang, [RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010. Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping [RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010. Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control [RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC
RFC 5812, March 2010. 5812, March 2010.
[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation [RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010. (ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[Ethereal] [Ethereal]
"Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer. , "Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.
The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated
Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the
ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/ ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-
mail-archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html . archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html , .
[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00] [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00 Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00
(work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is (work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is
intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet- intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet-
Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT
update this reference to a more recent version of the update this reference to a more recent version of the
draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before
publication] , October 2010. publication] , October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03] [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J. Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library", Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC
Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please
remove this note before publication] , December 2010. remove this note before publication] , December 2010.
[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation [RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003. of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal, [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004. Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim, [RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element "Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010. Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
[Tcpdump] "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific [Tcpdump] , "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi
Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/ messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
current/msg03811.html . current/msg03811.html , .
[Teamviewer] [Teamviewer]
"TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the world , "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
within a few seconds.", http://www.teamviewer.com/ . world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
, .
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Weiming Wang Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University Zhejiang Gongshang University
18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town 18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018 Hangzhou 310018
P.R.China P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721 Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@xxxxxxxxxxx Email: wmwang@xxxxxxxxxxx
Kentaro Ogawa Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
Tokyo, Tokyo
Japan Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Email: ogawa.kentaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Evangelos Haleplidis Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras University of Patras
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Patras
Patras, 26500
Greece Greece
Email: ehalep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Email: ehalep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxx Email: gmyyqno1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Jamal Hadi Salim Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa Ottawa
Canada Canada
Email: hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxx Email: hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxx
 End of changes. 155 change blocks. 
494 lines changed or deleted 489 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/ 


Internet Engineering Task Force                                  W. Wang
Internet-Draft                             Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053 (if approved)                                     K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational                           NTT Corporation
Expires: November 23, 2013                                 E. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                            May 22, 2013


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

Abstract

   This document 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 had 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 November 23, 2013.

Copyright Notice

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




Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  ForCES Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  ForCES FE Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.4.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Testbed Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.1.  Participants Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.1.  LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.2.  TML with IPSec Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.3.  CE High Availability Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     4.4.  Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.  Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   6.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34








Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document 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 were:

      - 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 were constructed.  Series of
   testing items for every scenario were carried out and
   interoperability results were achieved.  Popular packet analyzers
   Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify
   the wire results.

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

1.1.  ForCES Protocol

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



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


1.2.  ForCES FE Model

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

1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer

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

1.4.  Definitions

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




























Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


2.  Overview

2.1.  Date, Location, and Participants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.  Testbed Configuration






Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


2.2.1.  Participants Access

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


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

                     Figure 1: Access for Participants

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

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

2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration

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












Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

         Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China

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

















Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

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

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




























Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


3.  Scenarios

3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation

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

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

                   Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation

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

   The test scenario was designed with the following purposes:

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

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

3.2.  Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec

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




Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

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

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

         Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec

   In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPSec channel.
   Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same
   third-party software 'racoon' to establish the IPSec channel.  The
   'racoon' in NetBSD is a well-known IKE daemon performing the IPsec
   Key Exchange (IKE) with the peers.

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

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

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

3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability

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

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






Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   o  Associating with more than one CE.

   o  Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.

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

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

                Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability

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

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

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

   The steps of the CEHA test scenario were as follows:

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




Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

   The connection diagram for this scenario was as Figure 7.

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

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

                                    (a)


                                      +------+
                                      |  CE  |
                                      | ZJSU |
                                      +------+
                                       ^  |  ^
                                  OSPF |  |  | OSPF



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


                                 <-----+  |  +----->
                         +-------+    +------+     +------+
           +--------+    | OSPF  |    |  FE  |     | OSPF |  +--------+
           |Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT  |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
           +--------+    +-------+    +------+     +------+  +--------+

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

                                    (b)


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

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

                                    (c)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding

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

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

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




Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   Testing process for this scenario was 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.






































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


4.  Test Results

4.1.  LFB Operation Test

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

   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper |      LFB     |     Component     | Result  |
   |     |    |     |     |              |    /Capability    |         |
   +-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
   |  1  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBTopology    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  2  | Z  |  N  | GET |   FEObject   |    LFBSelector    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  3  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     PHYPortID     | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  4  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  5  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |     OperStatus    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  6  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminLinkSpeed   | Success |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  7  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   OperLinkSpeed   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  8  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  9  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |  OperDuplexSpeed  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  10 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherPHYCop |   CarrierStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  11 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    AdminStatus    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  12 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   |  13 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |    L2Bridging     | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |   PathEnable      | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  14 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |  PromiscuousMode  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  15 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   TxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  16 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |   RxFlowControl   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  17 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  |     MACInStats    | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 18  | Z  |  N  | GET | EtherMACOut  |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   | 19  | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  20 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  21 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |    TxFlowControl  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  22 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACOut |     MACOutStats   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  23 | Z  |  N  | GET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  24 | Z  |  N  | SET |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  25 | Z  |  N  | DEL |      ARP     |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  26 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  27 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherMACIn  |          MTU      | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  28 | Z  |  N  | SET |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  29 | Z  |  N  | SET | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  30 | Z  |  N  | DEL |  IPv4NextHop |  IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  31 | Z  |  N  | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM |  IPv4PrefixTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  32 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherPHYCop |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  33 | Z  |  N  | SET |     Ether    |   VlanInputTable  | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |  Classifier  |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

                   Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results

   Note on test #1:

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

   In ZJSU's implementation, after test #2 CE have to get all LFBs'
   instance data actively according to the queried component of
   LFBSelectors.

4.2.  TML with IPSec Test

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

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

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



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

                   Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results

4.3.  CE High Availability Test

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

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

   Due to a bug in one of the FEs, a interesting issue was caught: it
   was observed that the buggy FE took up to a second to failover.  It
   was 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 disconnected.

   While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
   successfully, the authors feel 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.



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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 used.  RedirectIn and
   RedirectOut LFBs redirect OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to CE.
   A Smartbits test machine is used to simulate an OSPF router and
   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
   packets generated by CE to FE by use of ForCES packet redirect
   messages.  The OSPF packets are 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 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 generate new routes
   and load them to routing table in FE.  The FE is then able to forward
   packets according to the routing table.

   The test is reported with the results in Figure 10

   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|           Item          | LFBs Related | Result  |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |  1  | N  |  Z  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   | IPv4NextHop  | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  2  | N  |  Z  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  3  | N  |  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectIn  | Success |
   |     |    |     |     CE to SmartBits     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  4  | N  |  Z  |Redirect OSPF packet from|  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     SmartBits to CE     |              |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  5  | N  |  Z  |       Metadata in       |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |     redirect message    |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  6  | N  |  Z  | OSPF neighbor discovery |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  7  | N  |  Z  |     OSPF DD exchange    |  RedirectOut | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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

                 Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results

   Note on test #1 and #2:

   A multicast route pointed to localhost was manually set before
   redirect channel could work normally.

   Note on test #3 to #9:

   During the tests, OSPF packets received from CE were found by
   Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors.  ZJSU's FE corrected the



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and
   the neighbor discovery can continue.  Such correcting action does not
   affect the test scenarios and the results.

   Comment on Test #16 and #17:

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



































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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 found to be the
   different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
   implementations.  The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:

   Assuming that an LFB has two components, one 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



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


                   FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)

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

   2.  On operation to array

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

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

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

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





Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   The interoperability test experience shows 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.















































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


6.  Contributors

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

      Hirofumi Yamazaki
      NTT Corporation
      Tokyo
      Japan
      Email: yamazaki.horofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

      Rong Jin
      Zhejiang Gongshang University
      Hangzhou
      P.R.China
      Email: jinrong@xxxxxxxxxxx

      Yuta Watanabe
      NTT Corporation
      Tokyo
      Japan
      Email: yuta.watanabe@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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























Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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 Joel Halpern
   for their important help in the document publication process.






































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.
















































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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 of the document.










































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


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.



Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


   [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.

   [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/ .































Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft            ForCES Interop Report                 May 2013


Authors' Addresses

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

   Phone: +86-571-28877721
   Email: wmwang@xxxxxxxxxxx


   Kentaro Ogawa
   NTT Corporation
   Tokyo,
   Japan

   Email: ogawa.kentaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


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

   Email: ehalep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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

   Email: gmyyqno1@xxxxxxxxxxx


   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Ottawa
   Canada

   Email: hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxx







Wang, et al.            Expires November 23, 2013              [Page 34]
[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]