AAA Working Group V. Fajardo
Internet-Draft TARI
Expires: July 5, 2007 A. McNamee
Openet-Telecom
H. Tschofenig
NokiaSiemens
J. Bournelle
GET/INT
January 2007
Diameter Applications Interoperability Test Suite
draft-fajardo-dime-misc-app-test-suite-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Abstract
This document describes a collection of test cases to be used for
Diameter applications interoperability testing.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Diameter SIP Test Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. User Profile Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.3. Proxy Service Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.4. Location Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.5. Soft Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. 3GPP Interface Test Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Diameter Cx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Diameter Sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. Diameter Rf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.2. Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. Diameter EAP Test Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1. Non-Roaming case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2. Roaming scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. Optional Authorization/Accounting Tests . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Diameter NASREQ Test Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1. Auth Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.2. Diameter/RADIUS Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.3. Multi-domain Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.1. Auth Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Diameter MIP Test Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.1. Generic MIP Test Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.2. Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2.1. Co-located Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2.2. Intra-Domain Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2.3. Inter-Domain Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2.4. Allocation of HA in Foreign Network . . . . . . . . . 34
7.3. Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3.1. Co-located Registration via Redirect Indication . . . 35
7.3.2. Inter-Domain Registration with Redirect . . . . . . . 36
7.3.3. Inter-Domain Registration with Proxy/Relay . . . . . . 37
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
1. Introduction
The document is a companion document to the Diameter Base Protocol
Interoperability Test Suite. The document is meant to aid in the
identifying the functional test cases of a Diameter implementation.
The Diameter interoperability test suites are categorized by
different applications or extensions. Each category is further
subdivided into required and optional functionality. The required
functionality is the baseline capability that an implementation must
support to allow basic interoperability dor that category. Optional
functionality covers features that not all implementations support or
may wish to test. The following is a list of Diameter applications
that are currently categorized in this document:
1. Diameter SIP
2. 3GPP Interfaces
3. Diameter EAP
4. Diameter NASREQ
5. Diameter MIP
Note that some of the test cases can overlap. For example, a NASREQ
test case would normally encompass base protocol routing. In such
cases, it is implied that multiple test scenario can be covered by
some test.
The Diameter Credit Control applications is not included in this
document but is published in a separate document (Diameter Credit
Control Interoperability Test Suite) to cover a wider set of test.
At its current state, this document provides only a collection of
test cases designed for interoperability. Test plans may be included
in future revisions of this work or maybe provided in some other
document.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Within this document the terms defined in [RFC2119] refers to the
functionality that have to be provided by an implementation for the
usage within this interoperability test event.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
3. Diameter SIP Test Suite
Implementations that deploy SIP [RFC3261] services and use Diameter
for authentication, authorization, signaling, profile distribution,
location services etc must conform to
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. For the purpose of Diameter SIP,
each test nodes exercises only a specific set of functionality
depending on their role in the SIP architecture. Since this SIP
architecture is synonymous to Diameter Cx [TS29.228], the scenarios
enumerated in this section applies there as well. Therefore, there
can be a multitude of deployment scenarios. The test topology
follows the general architecture in Figure 1 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app] in order to exercise the majority of
Diameter SIP features. For testing Diameter Cx, the mapping of the
test entities against this figure is described in Section 4.1.
Configuration of SIP user agents and SIP servers in all test cases
are implementation specific and it is left to the tester to verify
their correctness.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+--------+
UAR/UAA +--->|Diameter|<----+ PPR/PPA
LIR/LIA | | server | | MAR/MAA
MAR/MAA | |Vendor B| | SAR/SAA
| +--------+ | RTR/RTA
| |
(realmB) | | (realmA)
v v
+------+ SIP +--------+ SIP +--------+ SIP +------+
| SIP |<--------->| SIP |<-------->| SIP |<--------->| SIP |
| UA1 | |server 1| |server 2| | UA2 |
+------+ |Vendor A| |Vendor D| +------+
+--------+ +--------+
Caller=user1@realmB ^ ^ Callee:user2@reamlA
| |
UAR/UAA | |
LIR/LIA | | MAR/MAA
| +--------+ | SAR/SAA
+--->|Diameter|<----+
| SL |
|Vendor C|
+--------+
Legend:
SIP UA's - SIP User Agents making/receiving calls
SIP server 1 - Vendor A acting as SIP proxy for reamlA
Diameter server - Vendor B acting as SIP auth server
Diameter SL - Vendor C acting as location server
SIP server 2 - Vendor D acting as SIP proxy for realmB
Figure 1: Diameter SIP Test Topology
3.1. Required
3.1.1. Authentication
Implementations must conform to Section 6.3 and 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. All test entities should be present
to perform these test. The test scenarios check proper auth of
user1@realmB during SIP registration (SIP REGISTER) to SIP server 2.
Vendor A should be configured as proxy for UA1 and vendor D will be
the assigned SIP server for user1@realmB. Figure 2 and 3 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app] can be used as a reference for these
test. All test scenario must follow the message flows described in
these figures. These test can be integrated with Section 3.1.4. For
simplicity, it is assumed that vendor A has knowledge of vendor B as
the Diameter server through static configuration or through the
location service.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Positive test with Diameter server performing authentication.
Assuming proper configuration of all test entities, SIP REGISTER
request for user1@realmB should succeed with vendor D as the
allocated SIP server for the registration. The resulting message
flows should follow Figure 2 of [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app].
For Diameter Cx, Section A.4.1 of [TS29.228] describes a similar
scenario. UAR/UAA exchanges must indicate to vendor A that D is
the preferred SIP server to handle user1@realmB registration.
Verify that DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH is followed by vendor A and
D and that vendor A generates SIP unauthorized response
accordingly. Verify that user1@realmB credentials and challenge
response is validated by vendor B in subsequent MAR/MAA exchanges.
o Positive test with SIP server performing authentication. Assuming
proper configuration of all test entities, SIP REGISTER request
for user1@realmB should succeed and the resulting message flows
should follow Figure 3 of [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. This
test scenarios is identical to the previous scenario except that
that nonces must be transferred from vendor B to D (Digest-HA1
avp). All verification procedure in the previous test applies.
o Positive test for server assignment. Assuming successful
authentication of user1@realmB, verify that vendor D is properly
allocated as the designated SIP server for this user. Verify that
this is a consequence of the previous positive tests and vendor B
is notified using SAR/SAA exchanges. Additional verification of
this scenario can be done with subsequent SIP request such as in
Section 3.1.3.
o Positive test for different settings of SIP-user-authorization-
type. Using the same scheme as previous positive test, verify
that registration can succeed with authorizations types
* REGISTRATION
* REGISTRATION_AND_CAPABILITIES
Additional configuration on vendor B maybe required to perform the
test.
o Positive test for registering an already registered user. Verify
that user1@realmB can properly re-register with vendor D and that
the re-registration triggers a SAR/SAA exchange between D and B to
update server assignments. Verify that the MAR/MAA exchanges are
skipped. The message flow should be as follows.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| SIP | |Diameter| | SIP |
|server 1| | server | |server 2|
|Vendor A| |Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | |
1. SIP REGISTER | | |
-------------------->| 2. UAR | |
|------------------>| |
| 3. UAA | |
|<------------------| |
| 4. SIP REGISTER |
|-------------------------------------->|
| | 5. SAR |
| |<------------------|
| | 6. SAA |
| |------------------>|
| 7. SIP 200 (OK) |
8. SIP 200 (OK) |<--------------------------------------|
<--------------------| | |
| | |
Figure 2: Message Flow for Registration of Currently Registered
User
Note that the message flow is synonymous to Figure A.4.2.1 of
[TS29.228]. Therefore, the test scenario should apply to
Section 4.1 as well.
o Positive test for user initiated deregistration. Verify that
user1@realmB can properly de-register with vendor D and that the
de-registration triggers a SAR/SAA exchange between D and B to
remove server assignments. Must conform with Section 10.2.2 of
[RFC3261]. Soft state termination also apply as described in
Section 3.1.5. The message flow should be as follows.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| SIP | |Diameter| | SIP |
|server 1| | server | |server 2|
|Vendor A| |Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | |
1. SIP REGISTER | | |
-------------------->| 2. UAR | |
|------------------>| |
| 3. UAA | |
|<------------------| |
| 4. SIP REGISTER |
|-------------------------------------->|
| | 5. SAR |
| |<------------------|
| | 6. SAA |
| |------------------>|
| 7. SIP 200 (OK) |
8. SIP 200 (OK) |<--------------------------------------|
<--------------------| | |
| | |
Figure 3: Message Flow for User Initiated De-registration
Note that the message flow is synonymous to Figure A.4.3.1 of
[TS29.228]. Therefore, the test scenario should apply to
Section 4.1 as well.
o Positive test for Diameter server initiated de-registration using
registration timeout. Verify that the server assignments are
remove from vendor D when vendor B decides to end the
registration. De-registration on vendor B can be simulated by
configuring a registration timeout for user1@realmB. Verify that
SAR/SAA exchanges are triggered by this event. The message flow
should be as follows.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| SIP | |Diameter| | SIP |
|server 1| | server | |server 2|
|Vendor A| |Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | |
1. Timer Expires | 1. Timer Expires
| | |
| | 2. SAR |
| |<------------------|
| | 3. SAA |
| |------------------>|
| | |
Figure 4: Message Flow for Registration Timeouts
Note that the message flow is synonymous to Figure A.4.4.1 of
[TS29.228]. Therefore, the test scenario should apply to
Section 4.1 as well.
o Positive test for Diameter server initiated de-registration using
administrative means. Verify that the any soft states are removed
from vendor B. Administrative de-registration is implementation
specific and is left up to the tester to simulate. Note that soft
state termination also applies as described in Section 3.1.5. The
message flow should be as follows.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| SIP | |Diameter| | SIP |
|server 1| | server | |server 2|
|Vendor A| |Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | |
| | 1. RTR |
| |------------------>|
| 2. De-REGISTER | |
|<--------------------------------------|
3. Inform | | |
<--------------------| 4. SIP 200 (0K) | |
5a. SIP 200 (0K) |-------------------------------------->|
-------------------->| | 5. RTA |
| |<------------------|
| | |
Figure 5: Message Flow for Administrative De-registration
Note that the message flow is synonymous to Figure A.4.4.2 of
[TS29.228]. Therefore, the test scenario should apply to
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Section 4.1 as well.
o Negative test for auth when user-name avp is required by the
Diameter server. Verify that vendor A sends a SIP unauthorized
response back to UA1 if MAA is set to DIAMETER_USER_NAME_REQUIRED.
The result of the authentication/authorization may or may not be
successful in this context. Vendor B can be configured to require
a user-name in the UAR. This may not be applicable to all
implementations.
o Negative test for failed authorization. Verify the behavior of
vendor A and B when the criteria for the following errors are
meet. Verify that vendor A can terminate the call with UA1. Note
that for Diameter Cx, these codes may be present in the
experimental-result-code avp instead.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_UNKNOWN. Simulation requires users
identity to be removed from vendor B.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_IDENTITIES_DONT_MATCH. Simulation may require
mis-configuration.
* DIAMETER_AUTHORIZATION_REJECTED. Simulate restrictions to user
access in the network.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_AUTH_SCHEME_NOT_SUPPORTED.
3.1.2. User Profile Update
Implementations must conform to Section 6.8 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. These test should be performed as a
consequence of Section 3.1.1. Updating of user profile in the
Diameter server is out of scope and it is left to the tester to
perform. The test scenario is also applicable to Section 6.6 of
[TS29.228] and synonymous to the message flow described in Figure
A.4.7.1 of the same document.
Positive test for updating user profile. Verify that a change in
the profile of user1@realmB can trigger a PPR/PPA exchange between
vendor B and D.
Negative test for failed authorization. Verify the behavior of
vendor B and D when the criteria for the following errors are
meet.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_TOO_MUCH_DATA. Simulation may require some mis-
configuration.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
* DIAMETER_ERROR_NOT_SUPPORTED_USER_DATA.
* DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY.
3.1.3. Proxy Service Authentication
Implementations must conform to Section 6.5 and 6.6 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. The test topology in Figure 1 can
be used to perform these test. Vendor A can be configured as the
outbound proxy for UA1 and vendor D for UA2. Note that the tests
performed on vendor A is symmetrical to vendor D. For simplicity,
only vendor A is noted here. These test can also be performed as a
consequence of positive tests in Section 3.1.1. The test scenarios
below use a call by user1@realmB to trigger authorization of SIP
INVITE request.
Positive test for proxy service authorization with nonces
generated by the Diameter server. Verify that at the least,
user1@realmB can make a call to user2@realmA with SIP requests
from vendor A authorized by vendor B. Verify that the SIP INVITEs
triggers a MAR/MAA exchange between vendor A and B and that user
credentials properly validated by vendor B. Note that vendor D
should route SIP request normally to simplify the test. The
message flow should follow Figure 4 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app].
Positive test for proxy service authorization with nonces
generated by the outbound SIP proxy. Verify that at the least,
user1@realmB can make a call to user2@realmA and that the user
credentials are validated by vendor B only after the challenge is
validated by vendor A. Verify that a valid challenge initiates a
MAR/MAA exchange between vendor A and B. Note that vendor D should
route SIP request normally to simplify the test. The message flow
should follow Figure 5 of [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app].
Negative test for authorizing proxy service when user-name avp is
missing. Verify that vendor A sends a SIP unauthorized or SIP
authorization required messages back to UA1 if MAA is set to
DIAMETER_USER_NAME_REQUIRED. The result of the authorization may
or may not be successful in this context. Vendor B can be
configured to require a user-name in the UAR. This may not be
applicable to all implementations.
3.1.4. Location Service
Implementations must conform to Section 6.7 and 6.10 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app] and Section 6.1.4 of [TS29.228]. All
test entities should be present to perform this test. The message
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
flow being tested is Figure 8. of [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app].
This is also synonymous to Section A.4.5 of [TS29.228]. The test
topology in Figure 1 can be used to perform these test. The location
service test can be triggered by initiating a call to user2@realmA
from UA1. The presence of SIP and/or SIPS URI for user2@realmA in
vendor B can be done via SIP registration in Section 3.1.1 or some
other means. The test scenarios below assumes vendor D is the
allocated/assigned SIP server for user2@realmA.
o Positive test for location query using Diameter server. Vendor B
is pre-provision in vendor A as location server. for realmA.
Verify that a call (SIP INVITE) from UA1 to user2@realmA triggers
vendor A to send an LIR towards vendor B. Verify that vendor B
forwards the INVITE to vendor D upon receipt of LIA.
o Positive test for location query using Diameter SL. Vendor C is
pre-provisioned in vendor A as the location server. Verify that
the INVITE from UA1 to user2@realmA triggers vendor A to send an
LIR towards vendor C. Verify LIA redirection from vendor C causes
an LIR to be forwarded to vendor B.
o Negative test for failed authorization. Verify the behavior of
vendor B and D when the criteria for the following errors are
meet.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_UNKNOWN. Simulation may require mis-
configuration.
* DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY. Simulation may require mis-
configuration.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_IDENTITY_NOT_REGISTERED.
3.1.5. Soft Termination
Implementations must conform to Section 6.9 of
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app] and 6.5.2.2 of [TS29.228]. These
test should be performed as a consequence of Section 3.1.1. In the
enumerated test scenarios, vendor A request removal of user bindings
in vendor B. This maybe a consequence of user1@reamlB logging off on
UA1 (Section 10.2.2 in [RFC3261]) or an expiration of usage timer in
vendor B. It is left to the implementation to configure such
scenario.
o Positive test for soft termination when session is stateless and
Diameter client initiates termination. Verify that at the least,
vendor D can send a SAR to vendor B when user1@realmB de-
registers. Note the appropriate result-codes are enumerated in
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Section 6.9 of [I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]. This scenario is
synonymous to Figure 3.
o Positive test for soft termination when session is stateless and
Diameter server initiates termination. Verify that at the least,
vendor B can send an RTR to vendor D to AOR(s) for user1@realmB.
Testers can also simulate multiple AORs for the user and verify
that RTR can selectively remove specific AORs. It is left to the
testers to simulate a SIP-deregistration-reason from the Diameter
server. This scenario is synonymous to Figure 5.
o Positive test for soft termination when session is stateful and
Diameter client initiates termination. Verify that at the least,
vendor D can send an STR to vendor B when user1@realmB de-
registers. Verify application id value carried by the STR/STA
message is that of the target application.
o Positive test for soft termination when session is stateful and
Diameter server initiates termination. Verify that at the least,
vendor B can send an ASR to vendor B. Verify application id value
carried by the STR/STA message is that of the target application.
It is left to the testers to simulate session termination on the
Diameter server, i.e., session-timeout or registration timeout.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
4. 3GPP Interface Test Suite
The test suite in this section only covers the following IMS
interfaces. Future revisions will attempt to cover the remaining
interfaces.
o Diameter Cx, [TS29.228] and [TS29.229].
o Diameter Sh, [TS29.328] and [TS29.329].
o Diameter Rf, [TS32.260].
Because of the complexity in IMS deployment, a lot of assumptions
have been made in terms of the test topology. Since recreating an
IMS network is not realistic, only entities implementing Diameter
applications will be involved in these test cases. Peripheral
entities that instigate a test event should be simulated.
4.1. Diameter Cx
Implementations must conform to [TS29.228] and [TS29.229]. Since
Diameter Cx describes the same application as Diameter SIP, the test
topology and scenarios in Section 3 is applicable. For brevity, this
section will only provide addendums to the existing test suites in
Section 3 as it applies to Diameter Cx. Authentication schemes
present in the SIP tests may or may not be present for Cx testing.
The topology in Figure 1 will be used with the following mappings.
Diameter Cx Test Topology Vendor
Node Equivalent Assignments
----------------+---------------------+-----------------------
I-CSCF SIP Server 1 Vendor A, I-CSCF
on Home Network
HSS Diameter Server Vendor B, HSS
on Home Network
S-CSCF SIP Server 2 Vendor D, S-CSCF
on Home Network
P-CSCF Optional Use UA1 to simulate
P-CSCF
AS Optional Implementation specific,
maybe simulated
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Figure 6: SIP Test Topology Mapping
All test entities can share the same realm (Home Network). The SIP
proxy P-CSCF may or may not be present for testing the Cx interface.
If it is not available, tests for registration and de-registration
described in Section A.4.2 and A.4.3 of [TS29.228] can use UA1 to
simulate a P-CSCF. S-CSCF functions that rely on other entities such
as AS may also be simulated when service initiated test needs to be
performed. An AS maybe present to facilitate this though it is left
up to the implementation to provide an AS and verify its
configuration.
4.1.1. Required
The following are addendums to Section 3 for testing Diameter Cx.
o Positive test for de-registration initiated by S-CSCF. Verify
that a de-registration initiated by S-CSCF (vendor C) triggers the
removal of server assignments in vendor B. Verify SAR/SAA exchange
occurs. Message flow can be as follows.
+--------+ +--------+
|Diameter| | SIP |
| server | |server 2|
|Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+
| |
| 1. Simulated Service De-registration
2. De-register | |
<--------------------------------------|
| |
3. SIP 200 (OK) | |
------------------------------------->|
| 4. SAR |
|<------------------|
| 5. SAA |
|------------------>|
| |
Figure 7: Message Flow for Service Initiated De-registration
o Positive test for session initiation to a non-registered user.
Verify that a call made by UA1 can initiate a server assignment by
vendor B for that call. Verify that the SIP INVITE also triggers
a location query (LIR/LIA exchange) with vendor B. Message flow
can be as follows.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| SIP | |Diameter| | SIP |
|server 1| | server | |server 2|
|Vendor A| |Vendor B| |Vendor D|
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | |
1. SIP INVITE | | |
-------------------->| 2. LIR | |
|------------------>| |
| 3. LIA | |
|<------------------| |
| | |
| 4. INVITE | |
|-------------------------------------->|
| | 5. SAR |
| |<------------------|
| | 6. SAA |
| |------------------>|
| | |
Figure 8: Message Flow for Session Initiation to a Non-registered
User
Normally, server selection is performed during this process.
Testers can verify if vendor A correctly determine vendor D as the
assigned SIP server. Additional service control functions may
also need to be performed by vendor D. Though those would be out
of scope of this document.
4.2. Diameter Sh
Implementations must conform to [TS29.328] and [TS29.329]. The test
topology for Diameter Sh is Figure 9. Because AS functionality is
implementation and service specific, it is left to the testers to
verify configuration of the provided service. UA registration with
AS services are also left up to the tester to verify. Some
interaction with the test topology for Section 4.1 maybe required in
certain test scenarios.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Home Network
+--------+ +--------+
|Diameter| | AS |
IMS Network <---Cx--->| server |<--------->|Vendor E|
| |Vendor B| UDR/UDA | |
| +--------+ PUR/PUA +--------+
| SNR/SNA |
| PNR/PNA |
| |
-------SIP to S-CSCF and UA1-------
Legend:
IMS Network - Test topology for Diameter SIP.
Network details are not shown
for brevity.
Diameter server - Vendor B acting HSS for Home Network.
Part of the IMS Network.
AS - Vendor E acting as AS
Figure 9: Diameter Sh Test Topology
The test topology shown above is an addendum to Figure 1. The AS
uses Diameter Sh with the HSS and SIP with S-CSCF and UA1 in the IMS
network. For Diameter Sh, the message flow being tested is defined
in Section B.1 of [TS29.328]. It is left to the testers to verify
that the AS is properly configured in the IMS network.
4.2.1. Required
The following are test scenarios to exercise Diameter Sh interface.
o Positive test for data handling. Implementations must conform to
Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of [TS29.328]. Verify that vendor E is
capable of storing and retrieving service related data into vendor
B via PUR/PUA and UDR/UDA. If user1 in UA1 can register for
service to the vendor E, verify that vendor E is able to store
service related data into vendor B. If user1 can then register to
vendor D in the IMS network and trigger a third-party registration
to vendor E, verify that vendor E is able pull service related
data from vendor B. Verify correctness of the following identity-
set when reading data from vendor B.
* IMPLICIT_IDENTITIES
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
* REGISTERED_IDENTITIES
* ALL_IDENTITIES
o Positive test for subscription/notification. Implementations must
conform to Section 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 of [TS29.328]. Verify that
vendor E can successfully subscribe to notification in case of
data changes in vendor B. This test should be performed after the
previous positive test. Simulation of data changes in vendor B is
implementation specific. Verify that vendor B sends a PNR to E
when simulated changes occur.
o Negative test for data update. Verify behavior of both vendor B
and E when the criteria for following experimental result codes
are meet.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_DATA_CANNOT_BE_MODIFIED. Simulate update
restrictions for vendor E in vendor B.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_UNKNOWN.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_OPERATION_NOT_ALLOWED. Simulate restrictions on
vendor B. Configuration of AS permission list maybe necessary.
* DIAMETER_PRIOR_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_TRANSPARENT_DATA_OUT_OF_SYNC. Simulation may
require some invalid configuration.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_TOO_MUCH_DATA. Simulation may require some
invalid configuration.
o Negative test for data read and notification subscriptions.
Verify behavior of both vendor B and E when the criteria for
following experimental result codes are meet during data pull or
subscription.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_DATA_CANNOT_BE_READ. Simulate read
restrictions for vendor E in vendor B.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_USER_UNKNOWN.
* DIAMETER_ERROR_OPERATION_NOT_ALLOWED. Simulate restrictions on
vendor B. Configuration of AS permission list maybe necessary.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
4.3. Diameter Rf
Implementations must conform to [TS32.260]. The test topology for
Diameter Rf is Figure 10. The test cases in this section do not
attempt to cover all accounting scenarios that are possible in an IMS
network. It only exercise accounting functions for test entities
listed in Figure 6. Because the test topology only describes a home
network, the Rf interface is limited to S-CSCF and I-CSCF accounting.
Record co-relation with a visited network is assumed not to be done.
The CDF entity should be reachable to the SIP servers in Figure 1 and
to the AS in Figure 9 if an AS is used. The test scenarios also
makes a lot of assumptions in testing non-Diameter related Rf
requirements such as the CDR formats, operator configuration of the
CDF, SIP based signaling or operator based decision on when to use
offline-charging etc. Since there can be a multitude of
configuration options, verification of actual billing schemes used
and its accuracy is left to the testers.
IMS Network
+----------+
| |
<----ACR/ACA to SIP Server 1 ----->| CDF |
| Vendor F |
<----ACR/ACA to SIP Server 2 ----->| |
+----------+
Legend:
IMS Network - Test topology for Diameter SIP and/or
Diameter Sh. Network details are not
shown for brevity.
CDF - Vendor F acting CDF for Home Network.
Figure 10: Diameter Rf Test Topology
4.3.1. Required
The following are test scenarios to exercise Diameter Rf interface.
o Positive test for SIP session establishment. Implementations must
conform to Table 5.2.1.1 of [TS32.260]. Verify that vendor A or D
generates a START_RECORD on positive acknowledgment of SIP INVITE.
The SIP server involved depends on the UA location. The test
could be performed as part of Section 3.1.3. Note that only the
mandatory triggers are recommended to be tested. The remaining
triggers specified in Table 5.2.1.1 of [TS32.260] is left up to
the test pairs.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Positive test for SIP session updates. Implementations must
conform to Table 5.2.1.1 of [TS32.260]. Verify that vendor A or D
generates an INTERIM_RECORD on a SIP re-INVITE or UPDATE for an
existing SIP session. The test can be performed in sequence with
the previous positive test.
o Positive test for session-unrelated procedures. Implementations
must conform to Section 5.2.2.1.5 of [TS32.260]. Verify that
vendor A or D generates EVENT_RECORD on a SIP SUBSCRIBE signal.
The test can be performed in sequence with the previous positive
test.
o Positive test for SIP session termination. Implementations must
conform to Table 5.2.1.1 of [TS32.260]. Verify that vendor D
generates STOP_RECORD on a SIP BYE signal. The test can be
performed in sequence with the previous positive test.
o Negative test for unsuccessful SIP session establishment. Verify
that if a SIP session establishment fails, that vendor A or D
generates an EVENT_RECORD. The SIP server involved depends on the
location of the UA initiating the session.
o Negative test for error cases. Verify that vendor A and/or D
follows Section 5.2.2.2 of [TS32.260]. The error cases in that
text are general and may overlap with error cases in the Diameter
Base Protocol Test Suite document.
4.3.2. Optional
The following are optional test scenarios to exercise Diameter Rf
interface. Note that details of the tests are skipped for brevity.
o Positive test for multi-party call. Assuming a new UA is
introduced in the home network and S-CSCF is provided by vendor D,
the call flow should follow Section 5.2.2.1.10 of [TS32.260].
o Positive test for AS related procedures. If an AS is used, verify
that vendor E can generate EVENT_RECORDs for services rendered to
the UA. Such services are implementation specific. However,
examples of such service is described in Section 5.2.2.1.11 of
[TS32.260].
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
5. Diameter EAP Test Suite
Access device and AAA servers that support Diameter EAP Application
must conform to [RFC4072]. A typical test for network access
authentication using Diameter EAP is shown in Figure 11. The User
has an EAP Client to be authenticated for network access. The test
cases only cover the NAS and Auth. Servers interoperability. To
perform these tests, one must choose an EAP method. It is
recommended to use an authentication method which derive keying
material to test key transport between Auth. Server and NAS. As an
example, EAP-TLS [RFC2716] can be used.
+--------+ +--------+ +---------------+
| User |<--->| NAS |<--->| Auth Server 1 |
| | |Vendor A| | Vendor B |
+--------+ +--------+ +---------------+
^
|
|
v
+---------------+
| Auth Server 2 |
| Vendor C |
+---------------+
Legend:
User
NAS - Vendor A Diam EAP client
Auth Server 1 - Vendor B Diam EAP server
Auth Server 2 - Vendor C Diam EAP server
Figure 11: Diameter EAP
5.1. Required
Implementation must conform to section 2 of [RFC4072]. NAS and Auth.
Servers advertises Diameter EAP support in their CER/CEA exchange.
5.1.1. Non-Roaming case
In this test, User, NAS and Auth. Server 1 belongs to the same
realm.
o Verify that all Diameter messages for a particular user contains
the same Session-Id AVP.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Positive test for EAP initiation. Verify that the Auth. server
initiates an EAP session while receiving either a DER containing
an EAP-Payload AVP Empty (signifying an EAP-Start) or an EAP-
Payload AVP containing an EAP-Response of Type Identity (cf.
section 2.2 of [RFC4072]).
o Positive test for User-Name AVP. Verify that the User-Name AVP
sent in DER message by the NAS contains the value provided by the
User in the EAP exchange between User and NAS.
o Positive test for user registration. Verify that the Auth. server
1 can authenticate and authorize User given a proper configuration
(e.g. by using EAP-TLS method between the User and the Auth.
Server). Verify that the AAA message flows is correct (cf.
section 2.2 of [RFC4072]).
o Positive test for Key transport and configuration. If the EAP
authentication method derives keys, verify that the Auth. Server
correctly provide keying material to the NAS and that these keys
are correctly used between User and NAS.
o Positive test for session termination: User Disconnection. Verify
that if the User disconnects for the NAS, the NAS sends a STR
message to the Auth. Server. Verify that the Auth. Server
releases all state concerning this User.
o Positive test for session termination: Auth-lifetime expiration.
Verify that if the auth-lifetime expires, the NAS send a STR to
the Auth. server. Verify that the Auth. Server releases all
state concerning this User.
o Negative test for authentication. Verify that the Auth. Server
sends a DEA message containing a DIAMETER_AUTHENTICATION_REJECTED
result-code to the NAS if the User is not correctly authenticated.
5.1.2. Roaming scenario
In this scenario, User and Auth. Server 2 belongs to realmB while
NAS and Auth. Server 1 belongs to realm A. All tests described in
the Non-Roaming scenario must work. As we are in roaming scenario,
the following two tests should also be performed.
o Positive test for Diameter EAP Direct Routing. Verify that if NAS
is properly configured, it can directly send Diameter EAP messages
to Auth. Server 2.
o Positive test for Diameter EAP Proxy Routing. Verify that if NAS
and Auth. Servers are correctly configured, Diameter EAP messages
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
are exchanged between NAS and Auth. Server 2 through Auth.
Server 1.
5.2. Optional Authorization/Accounting Tests
o Positive test for Authorization AVPs. Verify that if some
authorizations are requested, the DEA containing the
DIAMETER_SUCCESS in the Result-Code AVP also contains appropriate
Authorization AVPs (cf. section 5 of [RFC4005]).
o Positive test for Accounting. Verify that NAS initiates
Accounting if authentication is successful and finishes it while
terminating the session.
o Positive test for re-authentication. Verify that the Auth.
Server can reauthenticate the User via the NAS.
o Positive test for Redirection. Verify that the Redirect Scenario
described in section 2.3.2 of [RFC4072] is supported.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
6. Diameter NASREQ Test Suite
Access device that supports Diameter NASREQ extension must conform to
[RFC4005]. Typical test topology for single domain authentication
shown in Figure 12. The User entity typically employs PPP to access
the NAS and is normally implementation dependent. Since the test
cases covers only NAS and Auth Server interoperability, it is left to
the tester to verify correctness of the access method between User
and NAS and that this method is able to trigger creation of a NASREQ
client session in the NAS.
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
| User |<--->| NAS |<--->| Auth Server |
| | |Vendor A| | Vendor B |
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
Legend:
User - Simulated user
NAS - Vendor A Diam NASREQ client
Auth Sever - Vendor B Diam NASREQ server
Figure 12: Diameter NASREQ Test Topology
Another test topology can exist for testing Diameter/RADIUS gateways
as specified in Section 9 of [RFC4005]. This topology is available
for vendors implementing a translation gateway. It should simulate a
common deployment scenario where there is a prevalence of legacy
RADIUS access devices ([RFC2865]). Since the test cases covers
interoperability scenarios, validation must be done between NAS and
Gateway. As with Figure 12, it is left to the tester to verify
correctness of the access method between User and NAS. The test
cases involving Figure 12 is also relevant to validating Gateway and
Auth Server and should be used in this topology as well.
+--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +-------------+
| User |<--->| NAS |<--->| Gateway |<--->| Auth Server |
| | | | |Vendor A | | Vendor B |
+--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +-------------+
Legend:
User - Simulated user
NAS - Simulated or vendor RADIUS client
Gateway - Vendor A Diameter/RADIUS gateway
Auth Sever - Vendor B Diam NASREQ server
Figure 13: Translation Gateway Test Topology
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
6.1. Required
6.1.1. Auth Session
Implementations must conform to Section 2 of [RFC4005]. Test
topology Figure 12 can be used for these cases. These tests
typically involves a myriad of configuration options. At the least
an implementation must be able to grant access to a user with a
reasonable level of security given the test cases below. The minimum
test that should be performed is PPP CHAP and PPP EAP with MD5
method. These tests are heavily dependent on other parameters that
are implementation specific (username, password, medium type,
calling-station-id etc). It is left to the tester to verify
correctness of this process but it must conform to Section 2.1, 3.1
and 3.2 of [RFC4005]. This includes conformance to the use of
transport level security (TLS or IPsec) for signaling sensitive
information, i.e., passwords etc. Verification of test cases can be
done manually.
o Positive test for proper Auth server session establishment with
authorization and authentication. Verify that user can initiate
an access-request via vendor A and that vendor B can respond when
PPP negotiation begins. Vendor A and B can agree on the service-
type. Verify that at the least B can support auth-request-type
AUTHORIZE_AUTHENTICATE.
o Positive test for proper NAS session establishment with
authorization and authentication. Verify that user can initiate
an access-request via vendor A and that vendor B can respond when
PPP negotiation begins. Verify that A is able to support
DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH result-code.
o Positive test for proper NAS session establishment with PPP.
Verify support for PPP CHAP/EAP in auth request/answer exchanges.
Verify that call and session information are exchanged properly to
conform to Section 4.1 of [RFC4005].
o Positive test for proper session termination. Verify that a NAS
can initiate termination upon user disconnection. Verify that the
auth server can abort a session. Must conform to Section 2.3 of
[RFC4005].
o Positive test for installation of NAS-filter-rules. Filter rule
implementation should at least carry the form IPFilterType as
specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC3588]. Verify that the rules sent
by the auth server is installed properly in the NAS for the
specific user. Note that implementation extensions done to the
NAS-filter-rule can affect interoperability between peers. If
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
commonality or agreements among implementations regarding the
definition of NAS-filter-rule can be found and it deviates from
the specification, it should be duly noted and used as a basis for
specifying future NAS-filter-rule extensions.
o Negative test for session failure when service type is
unsupported. Verify that the auth server can terminate the
session with DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_VALUE for an unsupported service
type.
6.1.2. Diameter/RADIUS Gateway
Implementations must conform to Section 9 of [RFC4005]. Test
topology Figure 13 can be used for these cases. Validation of these
tests maybe localized to the Gateway (vendor A) but for the purpose
of interoperability, end-to-end authentication and/or authorization
must succeed between User and Auth Server (vendor B).
o Positive test for forwarding RADIUS request as Diameter request.
Verify that Section 9.1 of [RFC4005] is followed and that
transaction states are maintained by the Gateway on behalf of the
RADIUS client.
o Positive test for forwarding RADIUS response from Diameter
responses. Verify that Section 9.1 of [RFC4005] is followed and
the session generated from the original RADIUS request is
maintained.
o Negative test for terminating a Diameter session upon auth
failure. Conditions for termination is specified in Section 9.1
of [RFC4005].
6.1.3. Multi-domain Scenario
Test cases in this section is synonymous to Section 6.1.1 and all
requirements in that section apply here as well. These scenarios,
however, uses Figure 1 of Diameter Base Protocol Test Suite Document
instead. Vendor A1 can acts as the NAS and B1 or B2 can act as the
auth server. A2 or B1 can act as either a proxy/agent or redirect
agent for A1. As with the routing test in Diameter Base Protocol
Test Suite, these tests are symmetric to both vendors.
o Positive test for multi-domain auth using proxy/relay agent.
Verify that A2 acting as a proxy/relay can reliably forward auth-
request and answers between A1 and B2. All test cases enumerated
in Section 6.1.1 must be performed. Note that this test cases
overlap with the relay testing done in Diameter Base Protocol Test
Suite. It must conform to all requirements of those test.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Positive test for multi-domain auth using redirect agent. Verify
that A2 or B1 acting as a redirect can successfully respond with
redirect information to A1. All test cases enumerated in
Section 6.1.1 must be performed. Note that this test cases
overlap with the relay testing done in Diameter Base Protocol Test
Suite. It must conform to all requirements of those test.
6.2. Optional
Implementations must conform to Section 2 of [RFC4005]. Test
topology uses Figure 12. These are optional test that
implementations can perform.
6.2.1. Auth Session
Implementations must conform to Section 2 of [RFC4005]. These test
cases are in support of Section 6.1.1.
o Positive test for proper NASREQ accounting. Verify that
accounting session is initiated by vendor A if supported by the
implementation. Implementations must conform to Section 8 of
[RFC4005].
o Positive test for session re-authentication if supported. Must
conform to Section 2.2 of [RFC4005]. Behavior maybe dependent on
implementation and policy however auth-lifetime and auth-grace-
period must be utilized. Must conform to 8.3 of [RFC3588].
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
7. Diameter MIP Test Suite
Vendors that support Diameter Mobile IPv4 extension must conform to
[RFC4004]. There are typically several topologies that is possible
when deploying Diameter MIP. Those which are more likely to be
deployed are included in this document. The test cases are also
highly dependent on the topologies themselves hence each test case
provides its own test topology. Configuration of the mobility agents
(Mobile, HA and FA) for all test cases are implementation specific
and it is left up to the tester to verify their correctness. Testers
must also verify that the MIP implementation conforms to Section 4 of
[RFC4004] as it relates to Diameter. Testers must also ensure that
all positive test resulting in successful authentication and/or
authorization must generate appropriate session keys and MSAs as
needed. It should conform to [RFC3957] and [RFC3012] as it applies.
This is implementation and policy dependent but can be as a
consequence of positive test cases so it is worthwhile to verify.
7.1. Generic MIP Test Scenarios
The following are generic test scenarios that can be applied to any
MIP test topology. It is enumerated here for simplicity since it is
common to all topology.
o Positive test for mobile registration. Verify that at the least,
the HA can authenticate and authorize the Mobile given the proper
configuration (MIP authorization extensions. Verify that the AAA
message flows for the specific topology is followed. Verify that
proper key distribution occurs in the process. If accounting is
supported, verify that accounting-sub-session-id is used.
o Positive test for session termination. Verify that the expiration
of auth-lifetime causes an STR to be sent from the HA and that the
message flows are valid. Verify that the AAAH releases all
session state it keeps if any. The AAAH must conform to Section
4.1.3 of [RFC4004].
o Positive test for re-authentication. Verify that the Mobile can
successfully performs re-authentication if policy allows. Verify
that the AMR sent by the FA or Mobile on re-auth and carries the
original session-id, HA NAI and AAAH NAI as appropriate.
Implementations must conform to [RFC3846].
o Negative test for failed registration or authentication. Verify
that a failed authentication or registration causes an STR to be
sent from the HA and that DIAMETER_AUTHENTICATION_REJECTED result-
code is communicated back to the FA or Mobile in the AMA. Verify
that the AAAH releases all session state it keeps if any. AAAH
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
must conform to Section 4.1.3 of [RFC4004].
7.2. Required
7.2.1. Co-located Registration
Implementation must conform to Section 3.3 of [RFC4004]. Test
topology for co-located mobile node deployment is shown below in
Figure 14. Both HA and AAAH share the same realm which can be a home
or foreign realm of the Mobile. Verifying the correctness of the
Mobile to HA registration is out of scope for this document is left
to the tester. However, it must conform to [RFC3344] and its
successor document. Note also that there is a myriad of
configuration options for this test case and it is left to the test
pairs to agree on which and on how many configuration can and should
be tested.
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
| Mobile |<--->| HA |<--->| AAAH |
| | |Vendor A| | Vendor B |
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
HA - Vendor A as a MIP Home Agent
AAAH - Vendor B as a Home AAA server
Figure 14: Test Topology for Co-located Mobile Node
o All test scenarios in Section 7.1 must be performed.
7.2.2. Intra-Domain Registration
Implementation must conform to [RFC4004]. The basic test topology
for single domain registration is shown below in Figure 15. All
entities share the same realm with FA and HA presiding over different
networks. The topology can be a combination of different vendor
implementations. Testers must verify that the AAA message flows in
Figure 15 are followed for the registration process.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+---------+
| AAAH |
|Vendor B |
+---------+
AMR/AMA / \ HAR/HAA
/ \
+---------+ +---------+
| FA | | HA |
|Vendor A | |Vendor C |
+---------+ +---------+
^
| Mobile IP
v
+---------+
| Mobile |
+---------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
FA - Vendor A as a MIP Foreign Agent
AAAH - Vendor B as a Home AAA server
HA - Vendor C as a MIP Home Agent
Figure 15: Test Topology for Intra-Domain MIP
o All test scenarios in Section 7.1 must be performed. If [RFC3846]
is supported, MIP NAIs should be used to route the AMRs towards
the AAAH.
o Positive test for handover. Verify that if Mobile performs a
handover to HA that de-registration occurs properly and subsequent
AMR/AMA exchanges are appropriate. Verify also that the
accounting session is maintained if any.
o Negative test for failed allocation of home agent. Vendor B can
be configured not to provide a home agent for the Mobile. Verify
that DIAMETER_ERROR_HA_NOT_AVAILABLE is sent by vendor B to vendor
A. Verify that the B releases all session state it keeps if any.
Vendor B must conform to Section 4.1.3 of [RFC4004].
7.2.3. Inter-Domain Registration
Implementation must conform to Section 3.1 of [RFC4004]. The basic
test topology for inter-domain registration is shown below in
Figure 16. A1 and A2 reside in realmA and B1 and B2 reside in
realmB. The entities in the topology can be a combination of
different vendor implementations. Verifying the correctness of the
Mobile to FA discovery and registration is implementation specific
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
and out of scope of this document. It is left to the tester to
validate this process but it must conform to requirements [RFC3344]
and its successor document. As with previous test cases in Diameter
MIP, there is a myriad of configuration options for this test case
and it is left to the test pairs to agree on which and on how many
configuration can and should be tested. However, testers must verify
that the AAA message flows in Figure 16 are followed for the
registration process regardless of configuration.
realmA (visited) realmB (home)
+---------+ +---------+
| AAAF | AMR/AMA | AAAH |
|Vendor A2|<----------->|Vendor B2|
+---------+ +---------+
^ ^
AMR/AMA | | HAR/HAA
v v
+---------+ +---------+
| FA | | HA |
|Vendor A1| |Vendor B1|
+---------+ +---------+
^
| Mobile IP
v
+---------+
| Mobile | mn@realmB.com
+---------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
FA - Vendor A1 as a MIP Foreign Agent
AAAF - Vendor A2 as a Foreign AAA server
AAAH - Vendor B2 as a Home AAA server
HA - Vendor B1 as a MIP Home Agent
Figure 16: Test Topology for Inter-Domain MIP
o All test scenarios in Section 7.1 must be performed. If [RFC3846]
is supported, MIP NAIs should be used to route the AMRs towards
the AAAH.
o Positive test for handover. Verify that if Mobile performs a
handover to B1 that de-registration occurs properly and subsequent
AMR/AMA exchanges are appropriate. Verify also that the
accounting session is maintained if any.
o Negative test for failed allocation of home agent. B2 can be
configured not to provide a home agent for the Mobile. Verify
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
that DIAMETER_ERROR_HA_NOT_AVAILABLE sent by B2 is propagated to
FA via the AMA. Verify that the B2 releases all session state it
keeps if any. B2 must conform to Section 4.1.3 of [RFC4004].
7.2.4. Allocation of HA in Foreign Network
Implementation must conform to Section 3.2 of [RFC4004]. The basic
test topology for dynamically allocated HA is shown below in
Figure 17. A1, A2 and A3 reside in realmA and B1 resides in realmB.
The entities in the topology can be a combination of different vendor
implementations. Policies in AAAF and AAAH must support dynamic
allocation of an HA. Testers must verify that the AAA message flows
in Figure 17 are followed for the registration and HA allocation
process.
realmA realmB
+---------+ ------- AMR ------> +---------+
| AAAF | <----- HAR -------- | AAAH |
+--->|Vendor A3| ------- HAA ------> |Vendor B1|
| +---------+ <----- AMA -------- +---------+
| ^ |
| | |
HAR/HAA | AMR | | AMA
v | v
+---------+ +---------+
| HA | | FA |
|Vendor A2| |Vendor A1|
+---------+ +---------+
^
+--------+ Mobile IP|
| Mobile |<----------+
+--------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
FA - Vendor A1 as a MIP Foreign Agent
AAAF - Vendor A3 as a Foreign AAA server
AAAH - Vendor B1 as a Home AAA server
HA - Vendor A2 as a MIP Home Agent
Figure 17: Test Topology for Allocation of HA in Foreign Network
o All test scenarios in Section 7.1 must be performed. If [RFC3846]
is supported, MIP NAIs should be used to route the AMRs towards
the AAAH. For test scenarios resulting in the termination of the
session, verify that the HA allocated in A2 is released if policy
permits.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Negative test for failed allocation of home agent. B1 can be
configured not to provide a home agent for the Mobile. Verify
that DIAMETER_ERROR_HA_NOT_AVAILABLE sent by B1 is propagated to
A1. Verify that the B1 releases all session state it keeps if
any. B1 must conform to Section 4.1.3 of [RFC4004].
7.3. Optional
Vendors that support Diameter Mobile IPv4 extension must conform to
[RFC4004]. The following are optional test cases that can be
performed for Diameter MIP.
7.3.1. Co-located Registration via Redirect Indication
An addendum to the topology shown in Figure 16 is shown in Figure 18.
The redirect agent is introduced if additional transport security is
required between HA and AAAH in the co-located scenario as described
in Section 3.3 of [RFC4004]. Optional IPsec or TLS connectivity can
be established between HA and AAAH. For simplicity Figure 18 differs
from Figure 8 of [RFC4004] by not having an AAA proxy but relying on
the redirect agent directly.
+----------+
| Redirect |
| Vendor B1|
+----------+
|
|
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
| Mobile |<--->| HA |<--->| AAAH |
| | |Vendor A| | Vendor B2 |
+--------+ +--------+ +-------------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
HA - Vendor A as a MIP Home Agent
Redirect - Vendor B1 redirect agent
AAAH - Vendor B2 as a Home AAA server
Figure 18: Test Topology for Co-located Mobile Node with Redirect
o Positive test for mobile registration. Verify that redirection
occurs between HA and Redirect agent. Verify that a secure
transport is established between HA and AAAH. Verify that at the
least, vendor B2 can authenticate and authorized the Mobile given
the proper configuration.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Verify that the all test cases in Section 7.2.1 is be applied in
this test case as well.
7.3.2. Inter-Domain Registration with Redirect
An addendum to the topology shown in Figure 16 is shown in Figure 19.
The redirect agent B3 is introduced if additional transport security
is required and the use of an AAAF can be skipped. In this topology
B3 shares the same realm a B1 and B2. Optional IPsec or TLS
connectivity can be established between A1 and B2 as describe in
Figure 3 of [RFC4004]. However, the secure connectivity can be
omitted to simplify testing.
+---------+
|Redirect |
|Vendor B3|
+---------+
/
realmA (visited) / realmB (home)
+---------+ +---------+
| AAAF | AMR/AMA | AAAH |
|Vendor A2| -------|Vendor B2|
+---------+ / +---------+
^ / ^
AMR/AMA | / | HAR/HAA
v / v
+---------+ / +---------+
| FA | | HA |
|Vendor A1| |Vendor B1|
+---------+ +---------+
^
| Mobile IP
v
+---------+
| Mobile | mn@realmB.com
+---------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
FA - Vendor A1 as a MIP Foreign Agent
AAAF - Vendor A2 as a Foreign AAA server
AAAH - Vendor B2 as a Home AAA server
HA - Vendor B1 as a MIP Home Agent
Redirect - Vendor B3 as a Redirect agent in reamlA
Figure 19: Test Topology for Inter-Domain MIP with Redirect
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
o Positive test for mobile registration. Verify that at the least,
B1 acting as HA can authenticate and authorize the Mobile given
the proper configuration. Verify that a secure transport is
established between A1 and B2 if used. If accounting is
supported, verify that accounting-sub-session-id is used. If
[RFC3846] is supported, MIP NAIs should be used to route the
message towards the HA.
o Positive test for handover. Verify that if Mobile performs a
handover to B1 that de-registration occurs properly and subsequent
AMR/AMA exchanges are appropriate. Verify also that the
accounting session is maintained if any.
o Verify that the all test cases in Section 7.2.3 is be applied in
this test case as well.
7.3.3. Inter-Domain Registration with Proxy/Relay
An addendum to the topology shown in Figure 16 is shown in Figure 20.
The proxy/relay agent B3 exists between A2 and B2. In this topology
B3 shares the same realm as B1 and B2.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
+------------+
|Proxy/Relay |
|Vendor B3 |
+------------+
/ AMR/AMA \
realmA (visited) / \ realmB (home)
+---------+ +---------+
| AAAF | | AAAH |
|Vendor A2| |Vendor B2|
+---------+ +---------+
^ ^
AMR/AMA | | HAR/HAA
v v
+---------+ +---------+
| FA | | HA |
|Vendor A1| |Vendor B1|
+---------+ +---------+
^
| Mobile IP
v
+---------+
| Mobile | mn@realmB.com
+---------+
Legend:
Mobile - Mobile is IPv4 mobile node
FA - Vendor A1 as a MIP Foreign Agent
AAAF - Vendor A2 as a Foreign AAA server
AAAH - Vendor B2 as a Home AAA server
HA - Vendor B1 as a MIP Home Agent
Redirect - Vendor B3 as a Redirect agent in reamlA
Figure 20: Test Topology for Inter-Domain MIP with Proxy/Relay
o Positive test for mobile registration. Verify that at the least,
B1 acting as HA can authenticate and authorize the Mobile given
the proper configuration. Verify that B3 can reliably relay AMR/
AMA exchanges between A1 and A2. If accounting is supported,
verify that accounting-sub-session-id is used. If [RFC3846] is
supported, MIP NAIs should be used to route the message towards
the HA.
o Verify that the all test cases in Section 7.2.3 is be applied in
this test case as well.
o Positive test for handover. Verify that if Mobile performs a
handover to B1 that de-registration occurs properly and subsequent
AMR/AMA exchanges are appropriate. Verify also that the
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
accounting session is maintained if any.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
8. Security Considerations
This document defines test cases and therefore tests various aspects
of the Diameter base specification and various Diameter applications.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
9. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2716] Aboba, B. and D. Simon, "PPP EAP TLS Authentication
Protocol", RFC 2716, October 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC3012] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "Mobile IPv4 Challenge/
Response Extensions", RFC 3012, November 2000.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3344,
August 2002.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC3846] Johansson, F. and T. Johansson, "Mobile IPv4 Extension for
Carrying Network Access Identifiers", RFC 3846, June 2004.
[RFC3957] Perkins, C. and P. Calhoun, "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Registration Keys for
Mobile IPv4", RFC 3957, March 2005.
[RFC4004] Calhoun, P., Johansson, T., Perkins, C., Hiller, T., and
P. McCann, "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application", RFC 4004,
August 2005.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
August 2005.
[RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
August 2005.
[I-D.ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app]
Garcia-Martin, M., "Diameter Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Application", draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-sip-app-12
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
(work in progress), April 2006.
[TS29.228]
3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces : signalling flows and
message contents", 3GPP TS 29.228 Version 7.0.0 2006.
[TS29.229]
3GPP, "IMS Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter
protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.229 Version
7.0.0 2006.
[TS29.328]
3GPP, "IMS Sh interface : signalling flows and message
content", 3GPP TS 29.328 Version 6.8.0 2005.
[TS29.329]
3GPP, "IMS Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
Protocol details", 3GPP TS 29.329 Version 6.6.0 2005.
[TS32.260]
3GPP, "IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Charging", 3GPP TS
32.260 Version 6.4.0 2005.
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Authors' Addresses
Victor Fajardo
Toshiba America Research, Inc.
1 Telcordia Drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
Phone: +1 732 699 5368
Email: vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com
Alan McNamee
Openet Telecom Inc
6 Beckett Way, Park West Business Park
Clondalkin, Dublin 12
Ireland
Phone: +353 1 620 4600
Email: alan.mcnamee@openet-telecom.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Phone:
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
Julien Bournelle
Institut National des Telecommunications
9 rue Charles Fourier
Evry cedex, 91011
France
Phone: +33 1 60 76 44 79
Email: julien.bournelle@int-evry.fr
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Misc Apps Interoperability Test Suite January 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Fajardo, et al. Expires July 5, 2007 [Page 45]