Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa
Expires: September 15, 2011 NTT Corporation
E. Haleplidis
University of Patras
M. Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
March 14, 2011
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-01
Abstract
This document captures test results from the second Forwarding and
control Element Separation (ForCES) interop testing which took place
on March 24-25, 2011 at the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
Gongshang University in China.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. CE HA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Local Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Distributed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
1. Introduction
This document captures the results of the second interoperability
test of the Forwarding and control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework which took place March 24-25, 2011 in the Internet
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
tests involved several documents namely: ForCES protocol [RFC5810],
ForCES FE model [RFC5812], ForCES TML [RFC5811], ForCES LFB Library
[FORCES-LFBLIB] and ForCES CE HA specification[FORCES-CEHA]. Three
independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.
Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High
Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
results are achieved. Extended Wireshark and extended tcpdump are
used to verify the results.
The first interop test held in July 2008 at the University of Patras,
Greece, focussed on validating the basic semantics of the protocol
and model[RFC6053].
1.1. 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 [RFC5810] for further information.
1.2. ForCES Model
The FE-MODEL [RFC5811] presents a formal way to define FE Logical
Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration components,
capabilities, and associated events are defined when the LFB is
formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly controlled
in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer
The 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. It is expected that more than
one TML will be standardized. The various possible TMLs could vary
their implementations based on the capabilities of underlying media
and transport. However, since each TML is standardized,
interoperability is guaranteed as long as both endpoints support the
same TML. All ForCES Protocol Layer implementations MUST be portable
across all TMLs. Although more than one TML may be standardized for
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
the ForCES Protocol, for the purposes of the interoperability test,
the mandated MUST IMPLEMENT SCTP TML [RFC5811] will be used.
1.4. CE HA
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
2. Terminology and Conventions
2.1. 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].
2.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
documents, including RFC3654, RFC3746,
RFC5810,RFC5811,RFC5812,RFC5812. Some definitions 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 Functional 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 the 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.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
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 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.
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.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
3. Overview
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants
The ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF ForCES
working group on March 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by Jamal Hadi
Salim, the current ForCES working group co-chair. Three independent
ForCES implementations participated in the test:
* Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Networks, China. This
implementation is referred to as "China" or in some cases "C" in the
document for the sake of brevity.
* NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
"Japan" or in some cases "J" in the document for the sake of brevity.
* The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred
to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" in the document for the sake of
brevity.
During the interoperability test, protocol analyzers Wireshark and
tcpdump were used to verify the validity of ForCES protocol messages
and in some cases semantics.
Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were
discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.
The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation
for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 6).
Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the
interoperability test. The errata will be reported to related IETF
RFCs.
At times, interoperability testing was exercised between 2 instead of
all three representative implementations due to the third one lacking
a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all implementors
mentioned they will be implementing any missing features in the
future.
3.2. Testbed Configuration
3.2.1. Access
Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The
chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
teamviewer tool [ref XXX]. The approach is as shown in figure 1. In
the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the implementor may act
alternatively.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
| FE/CE | | | +---|TeamViewer|
| China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | | Canada |
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | +----------+
|LAN |----/ \--|
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| Japan | | | +---| Greece |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
Figure 1: The Approach for all Participants
For interoperability test items, all CEs and FEs SHALL implement
IPSEC security in the TML. For security, firewalls MUST be used that
will allow only the specific IPs and the SCTP ports defined in the
ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811].
3.2.2. Local Configuration
Hardwares and softwares including CEs and FEs from China and Japan
implementions that were located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang
Gongshang University, were connected together using ethernet
switches. The configuration can be seen in figure 2.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
|China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|----------|China| +---------+
+---------| | | | | |-------+
| .2 +-----+ ^ +-----+ ^ +-----+ .2 |
| .12|192.168.20.0/24 192.168.30.0/24 |.12 |
| | | |
192.168.50.0/24 | | 192.168.50.0/24
| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |
.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+
|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+
Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China
3.2.3. Distributed Configuration
Hardware/Software (CE and FE) of Greece that were located within the
University of Patras premises,were connected together using LAN as
shown in figure 3.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|150.140.254.110(VPN)
|
+------------------------------------+
| LAN |
+------------------------------------+
| | |
| | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+
| FE | |Protocol| | CE |
|Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece|
+------+ +--------+ +------+
Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
Patras,Greece
Above configuations can satisfy requirements of all scenarios that
are mentioned in this document.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4. Scenarios
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
4.1.1. Connection Diagram
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
4.1.2. Design Considerations
Firstly, the scenario of LFB Operation shown in Figure 4 is designed
to verify all kinds of messages which are defined in RFC 5810.
Different implementor may have different choices on implemeting RFC
5810 using cases in the protocol messages. However as long as it
complies with the RFC 5810, the interoperating peer must have the
ability to decode and handle it. Specially, what we want to verify
the most is the format of encasulation for PATH-DATA with nested
PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET,DEL) of array, as well as
array with nested array. (This case can be seen in ARP LFB's
component of PortV4AddrInfoTable).
Second,the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
LFB Library[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib]. Successful test under this
scenario means all the implementors have followed the instruction
given by the ForCES LFB Library document.
4.1.3. Testing Proccess
In order to make interoperability more credible,the three
implementors carried out the test in an alternative way acting as a
CE or an FE, as shown in figure 4, combined with 6 cases for this
Scenario.
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4.2.1. Connection Diagram
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China |
+------+ +------+
(a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |China |
+------+ +------+
(b)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+
(c)
Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec
4.2.2. Design Considerations
This scenario is designed to implement the requirement that stated in
the section "7. Security Considerations" in RFC 5811. For this
reason, we designed the scenario to make TML run over IPSec channel
that was pre-established. In this scenario, all operations for
Scenario 1 were just repeated. In this way, we try to verify whether
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
all interactions between CE and FE can be done correctly under an
IPSec enviroment.
4.2.3. Testing Proccess
In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel. All the
implementors joined in this interoperability used the same third-
party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. By this
tool, China and Japan had a successful test, and the following items
have been realized:
o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
authentication.
o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96
[RFC2404] for message integrity protection.
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability
4.3.1. Connection Diagram
master standby master standby
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
+----------+ +-----------+
| |
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
4.3.2. Design Considerations
CE High Availability (CEHA) was also tested in this interoperability
test based on the CEHA document [I-D.draft-ietf-forces-ceha].
The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA are as simple
as possible to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which are:
o Associating with more than one CEs.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
o Switching to backup CE on master CE fail.
4.3.3. Testing Proccess
In this scenario one FE would be connected and associated with a
master CE and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE
would be configured to have China's or Japan's CE as master CE and
Greece's CE as standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE
Protocol Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High
Availability mode (value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-
association phase or in post-association phase by the master CE.
Once the FE is associated with the master CE it will move to the
post-association phase. Then when the CEFailoverPolicy value is set
to 2 or 3, then it will then attempt to connect and associate with
the standby CE.
When the master CE is considered disconnected, either by TearDown,
Loss of Heartbeats or Disconnected, FE would assume that the standby
CE is now the master CE. FE will then send an Event Notification,
Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby CE in this
case with the value of the new master CEID. The standby CE will then
respond by setting with a configuration message the CEID of the FE
Protocol Object with it's own ID, the same value, to confirm that the
CE considers itself as the master as well.
The steps of the CEHA scenario were the following:
1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and
backup CE
2. FE connecting and associating with master CE.
3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and
associate with backup CE.
4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
the first Associated backup CE.
5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
down and who is now the master CE.
6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE
setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
the switch.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
4.4.1. Connection Diagram
+------+
| CE |
| Japan|
+------+
| ^
| | OSPF
| +------->
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(a)
+------+
| CE |
| China|
+------+
^ | ^
OSPF | | | OSPF
<-----+ | +----->
+-------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|----|Terminal|
+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(b)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| | China|
+------+ +------+
| ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | |
| +----------+ |
+------+ +------+
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(c)
Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding
4.4.2. Design Considerations
This Scenario is used to verify some LFBs such as RedirectIn,
RedirectOut, IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by ForCES LFB
library[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib]. Cases of (a) and (b) in Figure 7
both need a RedirectIn LFB to send CE generated OSPF packets to FE by
packet redirect messages. The OSPF packets are futher sent to an
outside OSPF Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs like IPv4NextHop,
IPv4UcastLPM. A RedirectOut LFB in the FE sends OSPF packets
received from the outside OSPF Router to CE by packet redirect
messages also. In this process, meta-data that are included in
packet redirect messages as defined by ForCES LFB library document
should be coded and decoded by either CE or FE.
If above test process can be done, then this whole NE including FE
and CE actually work like an OSPF router which exchanges OSPF
protocol information with other OSPF routers. By running OSPF
protocol, the CE can generate new routes and be loaded to FE. In the
process, IPv4NextHop and Ipv4UcastLPM LFBs must be working to support
operations.
By sending packet to the destination through the FE, FE should
forward packet according to the route generated by OSPF. so, the data
path in FE can be tested and LFBs such as EtherPHYCop, EtherMacIn,
IPv4Classifier, IPv4Validator, EtherEncasulator, EtherMacOut also be
verified.
4.4.3. Testing Proccess
First,Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
interfaces.
Second, Boot CE and FE.
Third, Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses
of FE__s interfaces.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
Fifth, Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.
Sixth, Send packets between terminals.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
5. Test Results
5.1. LFB Operation Test
For the convinience sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C'
means implementation from China,'J'Japan implementaion, and 'G'
Greece implemenation. Testing results of this scenario are listed in
the following figure.
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
|Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper| LFB |Component/ | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | |Capability | | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | C | J | | | |Success |As for the |
| | J | C | | | |Success | format of |
| | C | G | | | |Success |encapsulation|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBTopology|Success |on array, |
| | J | G | | | |Success |only the case|
| | G | J | | | |Success |of FULLDATA- |
| | | | | | | |-in-FULLDATA |
| 2 | C | J | | | |Success |is supported |
| | J | C | | | |Success |for everyone.|
| | C | G | | | |Success |Howerver more|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBSelector|Success |types such as|
| | J | G | | | s |Success |SPARSEDATA |
| | G | J | | | |Success |should be |
| | | | | | | |supported |
| 3 | C | J | | | |Success |in the |
| | J | C | | | |Success |future. |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|PHYPortID |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 5 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperStatus |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success |As for the |
| | | | | | | |format of |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| 6 | C | J | | | |Success |PATH-DATA, |
| | J | C | | | |Success |J use the |
| | C | G | | | |Success |case of |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminLink |Success |PATH-DATA in |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success |PATH-DATA,C |
| | G | J | | | |Success |uses |
| | | | | | | |only one |
| 7 | C | J | | | |Success |PATH-DATA with
| | J | C | | | |Success |mutiple IDs. |
| | C | G | | | |Success |G uses ... |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop| OperLink |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 8 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminDuplex|Success | |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | |The side of |
| 9 | C | J | | | |Success |C thinks that|
| | J | C | | | |Success |CE SHOULD get|
| | C | G | | | |Success |LFB instance |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperDuplex |Success |data |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success |according to |
| | G | J | | | |Success |LFBSelectors.|
| | | | | | | | |
| 10 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop| Carrier |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Status |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 11 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET| EtherMACIn|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 12 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | LocalMac |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Addresses |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | | | | | | | |
| 13 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |L2Bridging |Success | |
| | J | G | | |PathEnable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 14 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |Promiscuous|Success | |
| | J | G | | | Mode |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 15 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 16 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | RxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 17 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |MACInStats |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 18 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 19 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| MTU |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 20 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 21 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 22 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut|MACOutStats|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 23 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | GET| ARP |PortV4Addr |Success | |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 24 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | SET| ARP |PortV4Addr |Success | |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 25 | C | J | | | |Success |C's misunder-|
| | J | C | | | |Success |standing of |
| | C | G | | | |Success |the PATHDATA |
| | G | C | DEL| ARP |PortV4Addr |Success |in DEL |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success |Operation. |
| | G | J | | | |Success |Later C fixed|
| | | | | | | |the problem |
| 26 | C | J | | | |Success |and make it |
| | J | C | | | |Success |successful |
| | C | G | | | |Success |in testing |
| | G | C | SET|EtherMACIn | LocalMAC |Success |with J. |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | J | G | | | Addresses |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 27 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | SET|EtherMACIn | MTU |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 28 | C | J | | | |Success |By setting |
| | J | C | | | |Success |new reachable|
| | C | G | | | |Success |network,route|
| | G | C | SET|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|Success |entry can be |
| | J | G | | | Table |Success |added into |
| | G | J | | | |Success |system. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 29 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | SET| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |Success | |
| | J | G | | LPM | Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 30 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success |Corresponding|
| | C | G | | | |Success |nexthop entry|
| | G | C | DEL|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|Success |MUST delete |
| | J | G | | | Table |Success |before prefix|
| | G | J | | | |Success |entry. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 31 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | DEL| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |Success | |
| | J | G | | LPM | Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 32 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | SET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 33 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | G | C | SET| Ether | VlanInput |Success | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 34 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether | VlanInput |Success | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 35 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | SET| Ether |VlanOutput |Success | |
| | J | G | |Encapsulato| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | r | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 36 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether |VlanOutput |Success | |
| | J | G | |Encapsulato| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | r | |Success | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
5.2. TML with IPSec Test
In this scenario, ForCES TML will run over IPSec channel.All the
implementors who joined this interoperability test use the same
third-party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel.To be
mentioned is that we have not repeat all the operations listed in
Scenario 1,only some typical operations have been done.
Although some problems still remains in the connection with Greece,
the TML with IPSec test is considered as success. The goal was to
verify whether the interaction between CE and FE can be done normally
under such IPSec environment. Since Japan's and China's
implementation worked it is assumed that Greece's would as well, as
the problem was on the setup and configuration of the IPSec
connection and not on the ForCES protocol perse.
During the test following results as shown in figure occured.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
|Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper| LFB |Component/ | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | |Capability | | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | C | J | | | |Success |For unkown |
| | J | C | | | |Success |error in |
| | C | G | | | |Failure |configuration|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBTopology|Failure |with racoon, |
| | J | G | | | |Failure |Greece still |
| | G | J | | | |Failure |need some |
| | | | | | | |time to fix |
| 2 | C | J | | | |Success |the issue. |
| | J | C | | | |Success |So,this |
| | C | G | | | |Failure |scenario only|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBSelector|Failure |took place |
| | J | G | | | s |Failure |between C and|
| | G | J | | | |Failure |J. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 3 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Failure | |
| | G | C | SET| Ether | VlanInput |Failure | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Failure | |
| | G | J | | | |Failure | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |Failure | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether | VlanInput |Failure | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Failure | |
| | G | J | | | |Failure | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
5.3. CE High Availability Test
In this scenario one FE will connect and associate with a master CE
and a backup CE. When the master CE is considered disconnected the
FE would attempt to find another associated CE to become the master
CE.
The CEHA scenario as is described in Scenario 3 was completed
successfully for both setups.
Due to a bug in the FE, a possible issue was caught. The bug in the
FE introduced a delay in message handling of 1 second. The master CE
was sending Heartbeats at a rate of one in 500milliseconds (2 per
second). As heartbeats are of very low priority, the FE was working
fine with associated only with the master CE. However when the FE
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
attempted to associate with the backup CE the following issue
occured.
The FE was checking first for messages from all priorities from the
master CE and if the master CE hasn't sent any messages then it would
check the backup CE. So, when the FE was ordered to begin
associating with the backup CE , it sent the Association setup
message, the backup CE received it, responded back with an
Association Setup result, but the FE never processed managed to
process it.
While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
successfully, the issue still remains. This is actually an
implementation issue of how the FE prioritizes incoming messages from
multiple CEs. The recommended approach is the following:
o The FE SHOULD receive and handle messages first from the master CE
on all priority channels to maintain proper functionality and then
receive and handle messages from the backup CEs.
o Only when the FE is attempting to associate with the backup CEs,
then the FE SHOULD receive and handle messages per priority
channel from all CEs. When all backup CEs are associated with or
deemed unreachable, then the FE SHOULD return to receiving and
handling messages first from the master CE.
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test
The Scenario of packet forwading is the most complex one because it
need the Scenario 1 must be completed.In this scenario testing,the
pattern of J-CE C-FE was carried out. Smartbits's 2 testing ports
connect to FE's 2 data-forwarding ports,meanwhile smartbits simulate
ospf router and try to exchange the OSPF hello packet and LSA packet
with CE,because CE also has an OSPF process in it so that the whole
NE including FE and CE looks like an OSPF router.
In this scenario,RedirectIn,RedirectOut,IPv4NextHop,IPv4UcastLPM LFB
should join the data path.First, it must be sured that IPv4NextHop
and IPv4UcastLPM can work normally so that route entry can be added
to FE.Second,RedirectIn and RedirectOut LFB MUST work,only that can
FE redirect out OSPF hello and LSA packets to CE received from
smartBits,FE redirect in OSPF hello and LSA packets to smartBits
received from CE's OSPF process.
During the test, results as shown in the following figure are
recorded.
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
|Test| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFB | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | | | |
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | J | C |IPv4NextHopTable|IPv4NextHop|Success | Muticast |
| | | | SET | | | route is |
| | | | | | | added by |
| 2 | J | C |IPv4PrefixTable | IPv4Ucast |Success |manual,this |
| | | | SET | LPM | |problem still|
| | | | | | |need to be |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | |fixed in the |
| 3 | J | C |packet from CE |RedirectIn |Success | future. |
| | | |to SmartBits | | | |
| | | | | | | As for |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | | redirect |
| 4 | J | C |packet from |RedirectOut|Success | message, |
| | | |SmartBits to CE | | |ospf hello |
| | | | | | |packet in 2- |
| | | |Metadata in |RedirectOut| |direction can|
| 5 | J | C |redirect message|RedirectIn |Success |be wathed by |
| | | | | | | wireshark. |
| | | | | | |however ospf |
| | | |OSPF neiborhood |RedirectOut| | packet |
| 6 | J | C | discovery |RedirectIn |Success |received from|
| | | | | | |CE have an |
| | | | |RedirectOut| |error with |
| | | | OSPF DD |RedirectIn | |checksum,so |
| 7 | J | C | exchange |IPv4NextHop|Success |smartBits |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | |will drop it |
| | | | | LPM | |with no |
| | | | | | |neighborhood |
| | | | | | |discovered. |
| 8 | J | C | OSPF LSA |RedirectOut| | |
| | | | exchange |RedirectIn |Success | |
| | | | |IPv4NextHop| | |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | | |
| | | | | LPM | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |RedirectOut| | |
| 9 | J | C |Data Forwarding |RedirectIn | | |
| | | | |IPv4NextHop|Success | |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | | |
| | | | | LPM | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 10 | C | J |IPv4NextHopTable|IPv4NextHop|Success | |
| | | | SET | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 11 | C | J |IPv4PrefixTable | IPv4Ucast |Success | |
| | | | SET | LPM | | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | | | | | | |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | | |
| 12 | C | J |packet from CE |RedirectIn |Success | |
| | | |to other OSPF | | | |
| | | | router | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | | |
| 12 | C | J |packet from |RedirectOut|Success | |
| | | |other OSPF | | | |
| | | |router to CE | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |Metadata in |RedirectOut| | |
| 13 | C | J |redirect message|RedirectIn |Success | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |OSPF neiborhood |RedirectOut| | |
| 14 | C | J | discovery |RedirectIn |Success | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |RedirectOut| | |
| | | | OSPF DD |RedirectIn | | |
| 15 | C | J | exchange |IPv4NextHop|Failure |FE connected |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | |by 2 OSPF |
| | | | | LPM | |router,only |
| | | | | | |1 OSPF can be|
| | | | | | |discovered by|
| | | | | | |CE,so DD |
| | | | | | |exchanging |
| 16 | C | J | OSPF LSA |RedirectOut| |stopped. |
| | | | exchange |RedirectIn |Failure | |
| | | | |IPv4NextHop| | |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | | |
| | | | | LPM | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |RedirectOut| | |
| 17 | J | C |Data Forwarding |RedirectIn | | |
| | | | |IPv4NextHop|TBD | |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | | |
| | | | | LPM | | |
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
6. Discussions
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format
In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
operations about tables all failed. The reason is found to be the
different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:
Assuming that an LFB has two components, one a struct with ID 1 and
an array with ID 2 with two components of u32 both per row.
struct1: type struct, ID=1
components are:
a, type u32, ID=1
b, type u32, ID=2
table1: type array, ID=2
components for each row are (a struct of):
x, type u32, ID=1
y, type u32, ID=2
1. On response of PATH-DATA format
When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
a different implementor, the CE probably receives response from the
FE with different PATH-DATA encaplation format. For example, if a CE
sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to
manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
response with two different PATH-DATA encaplation format: one is the
value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
parallel PATH-DATA TLV and nested PATH-DATA TLV, as below:
format 1:
OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a),valueof(b)
format 2:
OPER = GET-RESPONSS-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
The interoperability test shows that an ForCES element (CE or FE)
sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
documents define and best suits the element, while an ForCES element
(CE or FE) is preferable to accept and process information (requests
and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
ForCES documents. While in the case an ForCES element is free to
choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was
made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
looks forward to receive.
2. On operation to array
An array operation may also have several different data encaplation
formats. For instance, if a CE sends a config message to table 1
with a path of (2.1), which refers to component with ID=2, which is
an array, and the second ID is the row, so row 1, it may be
encapsulated with three formats as below:
format 1:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2.1
FULLDATA-TLV conaining valueof(x),valueof(y)
format 2:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2.1
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(x)
PATH-DATA-TLV
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(y)
Moreover, if CE is targeting the whole array, for example if the
array is empty and CE wants to add the first row to the table, it
could also adopt another format:
format 3:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing rowindex=1,valueof(x),valueof(y)
The interoperability test experience shows that format 1 and format
3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements description in
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although format 2 can
also get the same operating goal.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
7. Contributors
Contributors who have made major contributions to the
interoperability test are as below:
Hirofumi Yamazaki
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Email: yamazaki.horofumi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Rong Jin
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou
P.R.China
Email: jinrong@zjgsu.edu.cn
Yuta Watanabe
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Email: yuta.watanabe@ntt-at.co.jp
Xiaochun Wu
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou
P.R.China
Email: spring-403@zjgsu.edu.cn
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would also like thank the following test participants:
Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang Unviersity
Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Kelei Jin,Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
10. Security Considerations
TBD
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha]
Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-01
(work in progress), February 2011.
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib]
Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress),
December 2010.
[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010.
[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.
[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@zjgsu.edu.cn
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo,
Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Patras,
Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Ming Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
408 Wen-San Road
Hangzhou, 310012
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877751
Email: gmyyqno1@pop.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Wang, et al. Expires September 15, 2011 [Page 37]
