Internet Engineering Task Force E. Haleplidis
Internet-Draft University of Patras
Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa
Expires: August 29, 2010 NTT Corporation
W. Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
February 25, 2010
Implementation Report for ForCES
draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-01
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). RFC3654 has defined
the ForCES requirements, and RFC3746 has defined the ForCES
framework.
This document is an implementation report of the ForCES Protocol,
Model and SCTP-TML, including the report on interoperability testing
and the current state of ForCES implementations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
Table of Contents
1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Transport mapping layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Detail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities . . . . . 22
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Interoperability Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-association Setup . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection . . 25
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association
Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown . . . . . . . . 27
6.2.2. Tested Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2.3. Interoperability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
The definitions below are repeated below for clarity.
Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs on how to process
packets. CEs handle functionality such as the execution of
control and signaling protocols.
Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the
ForCES protocol. FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per-
packet processing and handling as directed/controlled by one or
more CEs via the ForCES protocol.
LFB (Logical Function Block) - The basic building block that is
operated on by the ForCES protocol. The LFB is a well defined,
logically separable functional block that resides in an FE and is
controlled by the CE via ForCES protocol. The LFB may reside at
the FE's datapath and process packets or may be purely an FE
control or configuration entity that is operated on by the CE.
Note that the LFB is a functionally accurate abstraction of the
FE's processing capabilities, but not a hardware-accurate
representation of the FE implementation.
LFB Class and LFB Instance - LFBs are categorized by LFB Classes.
An LFB Instance represents an LFB Class (or Type) existence.
There may be multiple instances of the same LFB Class (or Type) in
an FE. An LFB Class is represented by an LFB Class ID, and an LFB
Instance is represented by an LFB Instance ID. As a result, an
LFB Class ID associated with an LFB Instance ID uniquely specifies
an LFB existence.
LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced and
consumed by the LFBs. It defines the functionality but not how
metadata is encoded within an implementation.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
components. The LFB components include, for example, flags,
single parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the
CE can read and/or Components write via the ForCES protocol (see
below).
ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used
within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol"
and "protocol" refer to the Fp reference points in the ForCES
Framework in [RFC3746]. This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE
communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between
FE and CE managers. Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a
master- slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.
This document defines the specifications for this ForCES protocol.
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
Ethernet, etc), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
multicast, ordering, etc. The ForCES TML specifications are
detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
2. Introduction
This is an implementation report for the ForCES protocol, model and
SCTP-TML documents and includes an interoperability report.
It follows the outline suggested by [RFC5657].
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). [RFC3654] has defined
the ForCES requirements, and [RFC3746] has defined the ForCES
framework.
2.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
slaves and 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 FE-protocol [I-D.ietf-forces-protocol] for
further information.
2.2. ForCES Model
The FE-MODEL [I-D.ietf-forces-model] 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.
2.3. Transport mapping layer
The TML transports the PL messages. The TML is where the issues of
how to achieve transport level reliability, congestion control,
multicast, ordering, etc. are handled. All ForCES Protocol Layer
implementations MUST be portable across all TMLs. Although more than
one TML may be standardized for the ForCES Protocol, all
implementations MUST IMPLEMENT the SCTP TML
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml].
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
3. Summary
The authors attest that the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML meet
the requirements for Draft Standard.
Three independent implementations, NTT Japan, University of Patras
and Zhejiang Gongshang University, were surveyed and found to already
implement all the major features. All implementors mentioned they
will be implementing all missing features in the future.
An interop test was conducted in July/2009 for all three
implementations. Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and
Hangzhou Baud Information and Networks Technology Corporation, which
independently extended two different well known public domain
protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark and tcpdump, also participated
in the interop for a total of five independent organizations
implementing. The two protocol analyzers were used to verify
validity of ForCEs protocol messages (and in some cases semantics).
There were no notable difficulties in the interoperability test and
almost all issues were code bugs that were dealt with mostly on site
and tests repeated successfully.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
4. Methodology
This report has both an implementation experience survey as well as
the results of the interoperability test.
The survey information was gathered after implementors answered a
brief questionnaire with all ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML
features. The results can be seen in ForCES Features (Section 6.1)
The interoperability results were part of the interoperability test.
Extended Ethereal and extended Tcpdump were used to verify the
results. The results can be seen in Interoperability Report
(Section 6.2)
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
5. Exceptions
The core features of the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML have
been implemented and tested in an interop in July, 2009. The
intention of the interop testing was to validate that all the main
features of the 3 core documents were inter-operable amongst
different implementations. The tested features can be seen in Tested
Features (Section 6.2.2).
Different organizations surveyed have implemented certain features
but not others. This approach is driven by presence of different
LFBs the different organizations have currently implemented. All
organizations surveyed have indicated intention to implement all
outstanding features in due time. The implemented features can be
seen in Section 6.1.
The mandated TML security requirement, IPSec, was not validated
during the interop and is not discussed in this document. Since
IPSec is well known and is widely deployed not testing in presence of
IPSec does not invalidate the tests done.
Although the SCTP priority ports have been changed since the
interoperability test with the latest SCTP-TML draft, the change has
no impact in the validity of the interoperability test.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6. Detail Section
6.1. Implementation Experience
Three different organizations have implemented the ForCES Protocol,
Model and SCTP-TML and answered a questionnaire. These are:
o NTT Japan.
o University of Patras.
o Zhejiang Gongshang University.
Also, not actual implementations, but extensions on protocol
analyzers capable of understanding ForCES protocol messages, also are
considered part of an implementation as they can offer validation of
exchanged protocol messages. Two such extensions have been created:
o Extension to Ethereal/Wireshark [ethereal].
o Extension to Tcpdump [tcpdump].
All implementors were asked regarding the ForCES features they have
implemented. For every item listed the respondents indicated whether
they had implemented, will implement, or won't implement at all.
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Protocol Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| TearDown | | | |
| | | | |
| Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Event | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| Notification | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Packet Redirect | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| HeartBeat | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
ForCES Protocol Message
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Header Field | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Correlator | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Acknowledge | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Flag | | | |
| | | | |
| Priority Flag | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Execution | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Mode Flag | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Atomic Flag | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Flag | Implement | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
MainHeader Handling
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
| TLV | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
| Redirect TLV | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Result TLV | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| TearDown Reason | | | |
| TLV | | | |
| | | | |
| LFBSelector TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Operation TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PathData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| KeyInfo TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| FullData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SparseData TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| ILV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Metadata TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Result TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Redirect Data | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| TLV | | Implement | |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
TLVs Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| Operation | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| Set | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Set Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Del | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Del Response | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Get Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Report | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| TRComp | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
Operation Type Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Feature | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Execute Mode | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Batching | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Command | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| Pipelining | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| HeartBeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Atomic Type | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| char | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uchar | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| int32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| uint32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| boolean | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| byte[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| octetstring[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float32 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Compound | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Type | | Patras | University |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| structs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| arrays | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
Compound Types Supported
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported
6.1.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Protocol | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| DataTypes | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHIBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestarPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHACapab | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Protocol Components | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| CurrentRunningVersion | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| MulticastFEIDs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHDI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| BackupCEs | Implemented | Will | Will |
| | | Implement | Implement |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFTI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestartPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
| | | | |
| LastCEID | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| SupportableVersions | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| HACapabilities | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
Capabilities Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Events | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| PrimaryCEDown | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
Events Supported
6.1.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Object DataTypes | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| LFBAdjacencyLimit | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PortGroupLimitType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEStateValues | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectorType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBLinkType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Object | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Components | | Patras | University |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| LFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEName | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEVendor | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEModel | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEState | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FENeighbors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| ModifiableLFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
Capabilities Supported
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Port | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| High priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6700) | | | |
| | | | |
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
| Medium | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| priority | | | |
| (6701) | | | |
| | | | |
| Low priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6702) | | | |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Priority Ports
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| ForCES Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Teardown | | | |
| | | | |
| Config | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Config Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
Message Handling at High priority (6700) Port
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Event | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Notification | | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
Message Handling at Medium priority (6701) Port
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Packet | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Redirect | | | |
| | | | |
| Heartbeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Message Handling at Low priority (6702) Port
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Security | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Feature | | Patras | University |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IPSec | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Security Feature Support
6.2. Interoperability Report
The interoperability test took place at the University of Patras, in
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
There were two options to participate in the interoperability test.
1. Locally at the University of Patras premises.
2. Remotely via internet.
Implementations from NTT and University of Patras, were present
locally at the University of Patras premises in Greece, while the
implementation from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which was behind a
NAT, connected remotely from China.
The interoperability test, tested the basic functionality of the
ForCES protocol, mainly message exchanging and handling.
The following scenarios were tested.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.2.1. Scenarios
The main goal of the interoperability test was to test the basic
protocol functionality, the test parameters were limited.
1. In the Association Setup Message, all report messages were
ignored.
2. In the Association Setup Phase, the messages, FEO OperEnable
Event (FE to CE), Config FEO Adminup (CE to FE) and FEO Config-
Resp (FE to CE) were ignored. The CEs assumed that the FEs were
enabled once the LFBSelectors had been queried.
3. Only FullDataTLVs were used and not SparseData TLVs.
4. There were no transaction operations.
5. Each message had only one LFBSelector TLV, one Operation TLV and
one PathDataTLV per message when these were used.
6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-association Setup
While the Pre-association setup is not in the ForCES current scope it
is an essential step before CEs and FEs communicate. As the first
part in a successful CE-FE connection the participating CEs and FEs
had to be able to be configured.
In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items were
setup regarding the CEs:
o The CE ID.
o The FE IDs that were connected to this CE
o The IP of the FEs that connected
o The TML priority ports.
In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items were
setup regarding the FEs:
o The FE ID.
o The CE ID that this FE were connecting to.
o The IP of the CE that connected to
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
o The TML priority ports.
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection
For the interoperability test, the SCTP was used as TML. The TML
connection with the associating element was needed for the scenario 2
to be successful.
Although the latest SCTP-TML document [I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml]
defines 3 priority channels, with specific ports:
o High priority - Port number: 6704
o Medium priority - Port number: 6705
o Lower priority - Port number: 6706
At the time of the interoperability test, the sctp ports of the three
priority channels were the following:
o High priority - Port number: 6700
o Medium priority - Port number: 6701
o Lower priority - Port number: 6702
As specified in the exceptions section, this does not invalidate the
results of the interoperability test.
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association Complete
Once the Pre-association phase had been complete in the previous 2
scenarios, CEs and FEs would be ready to communicate using the ForCES
protocol, and enter the Association Setup stage. In this stage the
FEs would attempt to join the NE. The following ForCES protocol
messages would be exchanged for each CE-FE pair in the specified
order:
o Association Setup Message (from FE to CE)
o Association Setup Response Message (from CE to FE)
o Query Message: FEO LFBSelectors(from CE to FE)
o Query Response: FEO LFBSelectors response (from FE to CE)
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query
Once the Association Phase stage has been complete, the FEs and CEs
would enter the Established stage. In this stage the FE will be
continuously updated or queried. The CE should query the FE a
specific value from the FE Object LFB and from the FE Protocol LFB.
An example from the FE Protocol LFB is the HeartBeat Timer (FEHI) and
from the FE Object LFB is the State of the LFB (FEState)
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Query Message
o Query Response Message
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring
The Heartbeat (HB) Message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE)
to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the
same ForCES NE on its liveness. The default configuration of the
Heartbeat Policy of the FE is set to 0 which means, that the FE
should not generate any Heartbeat messages. the CE is responsible for
checking FE liveness by setting the PL header ACK flag of the message
it sends to AlwaysACK. In this Scenario the CE will send a Heartbeat
message with the ACK flag set to AlwaysACK and the FE should respond.
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Heartbeat Message
6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command
A config message is sent by the CE to the FE to configure LFB
components in the FE. A simple config command easily visible and
metered would be to change the Heartbeat configuration. This was
done in two steps:
1. Change the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHBPolicy) to value 1, to force
the FE to send heartbeats.
2. After some heartbeats from the FE, the FE Heartbeat Interval
(FEHI) was changed.
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Config Message
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
o Config Response Message
6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown
In the end, the association must be terminated. There were three
scenarios by which the association was terminated:
1. Normal tear down by exchanging Association Teardown Message
2. Irregular tear down by stopping heartbeats from a FE or a CE.
3. Irregular tear down by externally shutting down/rebooting a FE or
a CE.
All scenarios were tested in the interoperability test.
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Association Teardown Message
6.2.2. Tested Features
The features that were tested are:
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features
6.2.2.1.1. Protocol Messages
+----------------------------+
| Protocol Message |
+----------------------------+
| Association Setup |
| |
| Association Setup Response |
| |
| Association TearDown |
| |
| Configuration |
| |
| Configuration Response |
| |
| Query |
| |
| Query Response |
| |
| HeartBeat |
+----------------------------+
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
ForCES Protocol Message
o PASS: All implementations handled the protocol messages and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
6.2.2.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+------------------+
| Header Field |
+------------------+
| Correlator |
| |
| Acknowledge Flag |
| |
| Priority Flag |
+------------------+
MainHeader Handling
o PASS: All implementations handled these main header flags and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
6.2.2.1.3. TLV Handling
+---------------------------------+
| TLV |
+---------------------------------+
| Association Setup Result TLV |
| |
| Association TearDown Reason TLV |
| |
| LFBSelector TLV |
| |
| Operation TLV |
| |
| PathData TLV |
| |
| FullData TLV |
| |
| Result TLV |
+---------------------------------+
TLVs Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these TLVs and all protocol
analyzers captured them.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.2.2.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+--------------+
| Operation |
+--------------+
| Set |
| |
| Set Response |
| |
| Get |
| |
| Get Response |
| |
| Report |
+--------------+
Operation Type Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these Operations and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
6.2.2.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+------------+
| Feature |
+------------+
| Batching |
| |
| HeartBeats |
+------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
Although Batching was not initially designed to be tested, it was
tested during the interoperability test.
o PASS: Two implementations handled batching and all handled
Heartbeats. The protocol analyzers captured both.
6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.2.2.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+-------------+
| Atomic Type |
+-------------+
| uchar |
| |
| uint32 |
+-------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these basic atomic types.
6.2.2.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+---------------+
| Compound Type |
+---------------+
| structs |
| |
| arrays |
+---------------+
Compound Types Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these compound types.
6.2.2.2.3. LFBs Supported
6.2.2.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+--------------------+
| Protocol DataTypes |
+--------------------+
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHIBPolicy |
+--------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB Datatypes.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+---------------------+
| Protocol Components |
+---------------------+
| FEID |
| |
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| CEHDI |
| |
| FEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHI |
| |
| CEID |
+---------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB
Components.
6.2.2.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+------------------+
| Object DataTypes |
+------------------+
| FEStateValues |
| |
| LFBSelectorType |
+------------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB Datatypes.
+-------------------+
| Object Components |
+-------------------+
| LFBSelectors |
| |
| FEState |
+-------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB Components.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features
6.2.2.3.1. TML Priority Ports
+------------------------+
| Port |
+------------------------+
| High priority (6700) |
| |
| Medium priority (6701) |
| |
| Low priority (6702) |
+------------------------+
Priority Ports
o PASS: All implementations opened and connected to all the SCTP
priority ports. The protocol analyzers captured all ports and
corresponding priority.
6.2.2.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities
+----------------------------+
| ForCES Message |
+----------------------------+
| Association Setup |
| |
| Association Setup Response |
| |
| Association Teardown |
| |
| Config |
| |
| Config Response |
| |
| Query |
| |
| Query Response |
+----------------------------+
Message Handling at High priority (6700) Port
o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
these priority ports.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
+----------------+
| ForCES Message |
+----------------+
| Heartbeats |
+----------------+
Message Handling at Low priority (6702) Port
o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
these priority ports.
6.2.3. Interoperability Results
All implementations were found to be interoperable with each other.
All scenarios were tested successfully.
The following issues were found and dealt with.
1. Some messages were sent to the wrong priority channels. There
was some ambiguities on the SCTP-TML document on what must be
the correct response from the CE and FE. Should it respond in
the same channel, should it respond in the correct channel, or
should it drop the packet? This has been corrected by changing
the word recommended to MUST in the SCTP-TML document regarding
priority channel messaging .
2. At some point, a CE sent a TearDown message to the FE. The CE
expected the FE to shut down the connection, and the FE waited
the CE to shut down the connection and were caught in a
deadlock. This was a code bug and was fixed.
3. Sometimes the association setup message, only on the remote
connection test, although sent, was not received by the other
end and made impossible the association. This was caused by
network problems.
4. An implementation did not take into account that the padding in
TLVs MUST NOT be included in the length of the TLV. This was a
code bug and was fixed.
5. EM Flag was set to reserved by a CE and was not ignored by the
FE. This was a code bug and was fixed.
6. After the FEHBPolicy was set to 1 the FE didn't send any
HeartBeats. This was a code bug and was fixed.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
7. Some FEs sent HeartBeats with the ACK flag with a value other
than NoACK. The CE responded. This was a code bug and was
fixed.
8. When a cable was disconnected, all TML implementation didn't
detect it. The association was eventually dropped due to
heartbeats, this was a success, but this is an implementation
issue implementers should keep in mind. This is a SCTP options
issue. Nothing was needed to be done.
9. A CE crashed due to unknown LFBSelector values. This was a code
bug and was fixed.
10. With the remote connection from China, which was behind a NAT,
to Greece there were a lot of ForCES packet retransmission. The
problem is that packets like Heartbeats were retransmitted.
This was a SCTP issue. SCTP-PR was needed to be used.
The interoperability test went so well that an additional extended
test was added to test for batching messages. This test was also
done successfully.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
7. Acknowledgements
The authors like to give thanks to Professors Odysseas Koufopavlou
and Spyros Denazis, and the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering in the University of Patras who hosted the ForCES
interoperability test.
Also the authors would like to give thanks to Chuanhuang Li, Ming
Gao, and other participants from Zhejiang Gongshang University which
connected remotely. This allowed the discovery of a series of issues
that would have been uncaught otherwise.
The authors would like to thank also Hideaki Iwata and Yoshinobu
Morimoto for participating locally at the interoperability test and
also Hiroki Date and Hidefumi Otsuka all part of NTT Japan for
contributing to the interoperability test.
Additionally thanks are given to Xinping Wang for her help in writing
the interoperability draft an Fenggen Jia for extending the Ethereal
protocol analyzer.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
9. Security Considerations
For Security considerations please see [I-D.ietf-forces-protocol] and
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml]
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-forces-model]
Halpern, J. and J. Salim, "ForCES Forwarding Element
Model", draft-ietf-forces-model-16 (work in progress),
October 2008.
[I-D.ietf-forces-protocol]
Dong, L., Doria, A., Gopal, R., HAAS, R., Salim, J.,
Khosravi, H., and W. Wang, "ForCES Protocol
Specification", draft-ietf-forces-protocol-22 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml]
Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP based TML (Transport Mapping
Layer) for ForCES protocol", draft-ietf-forces-sctptml-08
(work in progress), January 2010.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[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.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
[ethereal]
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
"Ethereal 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.", <ht
tp://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/
wa.exe?A2=ind0906&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=1048>.
[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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/
wa.exe?A2=ind0906&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=2262>.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES February 2010
Authors' Addresses
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Patras,
Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo,
Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18, Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
Phone:
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Haleplidis, et al. Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 40]
