Network Working Group C. Lavenu
Internet-Draft EDF R&D
Intended status: Informational T. Clausen
Expires: April 26, 2012 A. Camacho
J. Yi
A. Colin de Verdiere
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Y. Igarashi
SATOH. H.
Y. Morii
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research
Laboratory
October 24, 2011
Experience with the LOADng routing protocol for LLNs
draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-00
Abstract
This document reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol for
LLNs which is specified in the draft-clausen-lln-loadng internet
draft. This report is providing information resulting from
interoperability testing performed at Hitachi YRL facilities in
Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to october 19th 2011.
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 April 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Interoperability Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Testbed configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. 1-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial
installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. 2-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial
installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 11
4.3.4. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.5. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial
installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 15
4.4.4. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.5. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial
installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.3. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.4. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6. Establishment of the best bidirectional route . . . . . . 23
4.6.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.6.2. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.6.3. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7. Blacklisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.7.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.7.2. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.7.3. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
1. Introduction
This document reports about the interoperability tests carried out at
Hitachi YRL facilities in Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to
october 19th 2011 for different implementations of the LOADng (LLN
On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector - Next Generation) routing protocol.
Interoperability tests between LOADng Routers implemented on the
basis of the draft-clausen-lln-loadng internet draft have been run
mainly for the following purposes :
o Show evidence that interoperable LOADng implementations do exist.
o Clarify and improve the overall quality of the LOADng
specification.
o Demonstrate that the final LOADng internet draft can be considered
as a standalone specification allowing the development of
interoperable implementations of LOADng.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
Additionally, this document uses the following terminology:
LOADng Router - A router which implements this routing protocol.
Destination - The address of a router or host, to which a route is
sought discovered and maintained.
Originator - The address of a router, which seeks to discover and
maintain a route to a Destination.
Forward Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the
Originator to the Destination. The Forward Route is set up when a
LOADng Router forwards Route Reply (RREP) messages.
Reverse Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the
Destination to the Originator. The Reverse Route is set up when a
LOADng Router forwards Route Request (RREQ) messages. It is used
for forwarding RREP messages, as well as for forwarding data
packets.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Route Cost - The sum of the Link Costs for the links that a RREQ or
RREP has crossed.
Weak Link - A link which is marginally usable, i.e., MAY be used if
no other links are available, but SHOULD be avoided if at all
possible - even if it entails an ultimately longer path. As an
example, a Weak Link might be defined as a link with a significant
loss-rate.
This document employs the same notational conventions as in
[RFC5444].
3. Implementations
Several LOADng implementations are currently available. This section
is listing the implementations that have been used to perform the
interoperability tests this document is reporting about (listed in
alphabetical order) :
Ecole Polytechnique : "LIX" - This implementation was jointly
developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and
Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It
consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac
OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR
generation, processing, forwarding and transmission.
Hitachi YRL 1 : "Hitachi 1" - This implementation was fully
developed by Yuichi Igarashi of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1589
lines of C code running in the Hitachi proprietary micro OS
environment embedded in a 16MHz H8 micro processor. It supports
RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR generation, processing, forwarding
and transmission.
Hitachi YRL 2 : "Hitachi 2" - This implementation was jointly
developed by Nobukatsu Inomata of Hitachi ULSI Systems and Yoko
Morii of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1987 lines of C++ code
running in a Mac OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK
generation, processing, forwarding and transmission, and RERR
processing.
4. Interoperability Testing
This section is describing all the tests carried out between the
implementations that are previously considered in this document.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
4.1. Testbed configuration
The testbed was composed of up to five LOADng Routers put together
according to the different topologies described hereunder. The
LOADng routing protocol were run over UDP, IPv4 and Ethernet.
Wireshark packet sniffers, that have been modified to interpret
LOADng control traffic, were used to monitor each single underlying
link.
For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the
generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always
triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages
were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception
of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of
unidirectional links.
4.2. 1-hop bidirectional route establishment
4.2.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers :
+-------+ +-------+
| A |________| B |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
Routers A and B are embedding a different implementation of LOADng.
This test was performed between all previously considered
implementations.
This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route
between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B.
4.2.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation
For each implementation, this test aims to verifiy the initial
installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse
Route from A to B) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing
Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng
control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK).
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and sends an unicast RREP message
intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of the sent RREP
message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng
Router A to LOADng Router B) and sends an unicast RREP-ACK message
to LOADng Router B.
A B
| RREQ |
-------------------->
| RREP |
<--------------------
| RREP-ACK |
-------------------->
| |
4.2.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating
For each implementation, this test aims to verifiy the refreshment of
a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to B)
already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing
Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng
control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK).
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router B.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding
route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A)
already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast RREP
message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of the
sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding
route (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B)
already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast
RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B
| RREQ |
-------------------->
| RREP |
<--------------------
| RREP-ACK |
-------------------->
| |
4.2.4. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse
Route initial installation) was performed :
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
| | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 |
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
| LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R |
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
Table 1
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse
Route updating) was performed :
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
| | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 |
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
| LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R |
+-----------+------+-----------+-----------+
Table 2
4.3. 2-hop bidirectional route establishment
4.3.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic
generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng
Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router
B :
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| A |________| B |________| C |
| | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route
between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C.
4.3.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation
This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional
route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) within the LOADng
Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding
of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B which is located between
LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. It is also verified that RREP-
ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages
are intended for.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router C.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The
reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast
RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of
the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router C), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to
LOADng Router C and forwards the RREP received previously.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng
Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The
reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message
intended for LOADng Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B C
| RREQ | |
--------------------> |
| | RREQ |
| -------------------->
| | RREP |
| <--------------------
| | RREP-ACK |
| -------------------->
| RREP | |
<-------------------- |
| RREP-ACK | |
--------------------> |
| | |
4.3.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating
This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route
(Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) already installed
within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the
effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B
which is located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router C.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding
route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A)
already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received
RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding
routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and
from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The reception of the
RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message
intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of the sent RREP
message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding
route (Forward route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C),
sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router C and forwards
the RREP received previously.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding
routes (Forward routes from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and
from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng
Router B.
A B C
| RREQ | |
--------------------> |
| | RREQ |
| -------------------->
| | RREP |
| <--------------------
| | RREP-ACK |
| -------------------->
| RREP | |
<-------------------- |
| RREP-ACK | |
--------------------> |
| | |
4.3.4. Link breakage handling
This test aims to verify the proper generation and processing of a
RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an
previously established bidirectional route.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng
Routers A and C.
o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router B.
Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A
(here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data
traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is
transmitted.
Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by
LOADng Router B is triggered manually (normally, this would be
triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng
Router C).
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to
LOADng Router C.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B C
| | |
| | B-C link breakage |
| | X
| RERR | X
<-------------------- X
| | X
4.3.5. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and
Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and
Reverse Route updating) were performed :
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
| A | B | C | Test 1 | Test 2 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
| Hitahci 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
Table 3
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage
handling) was performed :
+-----------+-----------+-----+--------+
| A | B | C | Test 3 |
+-----------+-----------+-----+--------+
| Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----+--------+
Table 4
4.4. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment
4.4.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic
generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng
Routers B and C :
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| A |________| B |________| C |________| D |
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route
between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D.
4.4.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation
This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional
route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) within the LOADng
Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding
of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B and C, which are
located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. It is also
verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng
Routers these messages are intended for.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router D.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and
forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The
reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast
RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of
the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to
LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An
unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the
RREP received previously is forwarded.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng
Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
D (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The
reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message
intended for LOADng Router B.
A B C D
| RREQ | | |
--------------------> | |
| | RREQ | |
| --------------------> |
| | | RREQ |
| | -------------------->
| | | RREP |
| | <--------------------
| | | RREP-ACK |
| | -------------------->
| | RREP | |
| <-------------------- |
| | RREP-ACK | |
| --------------------> |
| RREP | | |
<-------------------- | |
| RREP-ACK | | |
--------------------> | |
| | | |
4.4.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating
This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route
(Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) already installed
within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the
effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B
and C which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router D.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding
route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A)
already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received
RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding
routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and
from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) already installed within
its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the corresponding
routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A and
from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) already installed within
its Routing Set. The reception of the RREQ also triggers the
generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router
A. The <flags> field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-
REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding
route (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D),
sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards
the RREP received previously.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding
routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D and
from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK
message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received
previously is forwarded.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding
routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and
from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The reception of the
RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng
Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B C D
| RREQ | | |
--------------------> | |
| | RREQ | |
| --------------------> |
| | | RREQ |
| | -------------------->
| | | RREP |
| | <--------------------
| | | RREP-ACK |
| | -------------------->
| | RREP | |
| <-------------------- |
| | RREP-ACK | |
| --------------------> |
| RREP | | |
<-------------------- | |
| RREP-ACK | | |
--------------------> | |
| | | |
4.4.4. Link breakage handling
This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and
forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link
breakage on an previously established bidirectional route.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng
Routers A and D.
o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router C.
Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A
(here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data
traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is
transmitted to LOADng Router B according to the Reverse Route from
LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously.
Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by
LOADng Router C is triggered manually (normally, this would be
triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng
Router D).
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to
LOADng Router D. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded
according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
LOADng Router A.
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to
LOADng Router D.
A B C D
| | | |
| | | C-D link breakage X
| | | X
| | RERR | X
| <-------------------- X
| RERR | | X
<-------------------- | X
| | | X
4.4.5. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and
Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and
Reverse Route updating) were performed :
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
| A | B | C | D | Test 1 | Test 2 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
| Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass |
| Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+
Table 5
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage
handling) was performed :
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+
| A | B | C | D | Test 3 |
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+
| Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+
Table 6
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
4.5. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment
4.5.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic
generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng
Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng
Routers B, C and D :
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E |
| | | | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route
between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E.
4.5.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation
This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional
route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to E) within the LOADng
Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding
of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B, C and D, which are
located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. It is also
verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng
Routers these messages are intended for.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router E.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and
forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) and
forwards the received RREQ.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router E installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router E to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
D (Reverse route from LOADng Router E to LOADng Router D). The
reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast
RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of
the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng
Router D to LOADng Router E), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to
LOADng Router E and forwards the RREP received previously.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router E) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D). An
unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router D and the
RREP received previously is forwarded.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router E) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An
unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the
RREP received previously is forwarded.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng
Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
E (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router E). The
reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message
intended for LOADng Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B C D E
| RREQ | | | |
---------------> | | |
| | RREQ | | |
| ---------------> | |
| | | RREQ | |
| | ---------------> |
| | | | RREQ |
| | | --------------->
| | | | RREP |
| | | <---------------
| | | | RREP-ACK |
| | | --------------->
| | | RREP | |
| | <--------------- |
| | | RREP-ACK | |
| | ---------------> |
| | RREP | | |
| <--------------- | |
| | RREP-ACK | | |
| ---------------> | |
| RREP | | | |
<--------------- | | |
| RREP-ACK | | | |
---------------> | | |
| | | | |
4.5.3. Link breakage handling
This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and
forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link
breakage on an previously established bidirectional route.
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng
Routers A and E.
o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router D.
Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A
(here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data
traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is
transmitted to LOADng Router C according to the Reverse Route from
LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously.
Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by
LOADng Router D is triggered manually (normally, this would be
triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Router E).
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router C updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router C to
LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded
according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to
LOADng Router A.
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to
LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded
according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to
LOADng Router A.
o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set
by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to
LOADng Router E.
A B C D E
| | | | |
| | | D-E link breakage
| | | | X
| | | RERR | X
| | <--------------- X
| | RERR | | X
| <--------------- | X
| RERR | | | X
<--------------- | | X
| | | | X
4.5.4. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse
Route initial installation) and test 2 (Link breakage handling) were
performed :
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+
| A | B | C | D | E | Test 1 | Test 2 |
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+
| Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+
Table 7
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
4.6. Establishment of the best bidirectional route
4.6.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic
generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng
Router C towards LOADng Router A can be forwarded by LOADng Router B
or transmitted via the direct link between LOADng Routers A and C :
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| A |________| B |________| C |
| | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|_________________________________|
This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between
LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C.
4.6.2. Description
This test aims to verify the processing of multiple RREQs when
installing a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route
from A to C) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets).
The expected message sequencing is as follows :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng
Router C. According to RREQ transmission rules, the generated RREQ
message is transmitted to all neighbor LOADng Routers.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct link
with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its
Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router
A). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an
unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags>
field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the same RREQ via LOADng Router B, LOADng Router C
compares the Route Cost and Weak Link information carried by the
RREQ with the already existing entry within its Routing Set
(Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) according
to the comparison operator specified by the metric used (the "hop
count while avoiding Weak Links" metric was used). No Weak Links
are emulated. Thus, the best route is chosen considering the
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Route Cost information only :
Already existing entry :
<R_dist> = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 1)
Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ :
<R_dist> = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 2)
According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used :
(0, 1) < (0,2)
Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without
affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP
message.
o Upon receiving the RREP via its direct link with LOADng Router C,
LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set (Forward
Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of
the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for
LOADng Router C.
A B C
| RREQ | |
--------------------> RREQ |
---------------------------------------->
| | RREQ |
| -------------------->
| | RREP |
<----------------------------------------
| | RREP-ACK |
---------------------------------------->
| | |
Note : the RREQ forwarded by LOADng Router B towards C is not
necessarily received before LOADng Router C generates the RREP
message intended for LOADng Router A. Indeed, the order in which
those messages are transmitted is dependent on the transmission
delays of each single link between LOADng Routers A, B and C.
4.6.3. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which this test was performed :
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| A | B | C | Result |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass |
| LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass |
| Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
Table 8
4.7. Blacklisting
4.7.1. Topology
The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers with a unidirectional
link between LOADng Routers A and D (direct communication from D
towards A is impossible).
+-------+ +-------+
| A |_________| B |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
| |
V |
+-------+ +-------+
| D |_________| C |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between
LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D.
4.7.2. Description
This test aims to verify the effectiveness of avoiding unidirectional
links using blacklisting.
First attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng
Routers A and D :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message (<seq-num> = 0,
<originator> = A) intended for LOADng Router D.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct
(unidirectional) link with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D
installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A
(Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A). The
reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast
RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of
the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and
forwards the received RREQ.
o Upon receiving the same RREQ (<seq-num> = 0, <originator> = A)
again via LOADng Router C, LOADng Router D compares the Route Cost
and Weak Link information carried by the RREQ with the already
existing entry within its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router D to LOADng Router A) according to the comparison operator
specified by the metric used (the "hop count while avoiding Weak
Links" metric was used). No Weak Links are emulated. Thus, the
best route is chosen considering the Route Cost information only :
Already existing entry :
<R_dist> = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 1)
Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ :
<R_dist> = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 2)
According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used :
(0, 1) < (0,2)
Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without
affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP
message.
o Due to the unidirectional nature of the existing link between
LOADng Routers A and D, the RREP message previously sent by LOADng
Router D intended for LOADng Router A did not reach its
destination. After an elapsed time equaling ack_timeout, LOADng
Router D is not expecting an RREP-ACK message anymore. This
results in recording LOADng Router A neighbor in LOADng Router D's
Blacklist.
Second attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Routers A and D :
o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message (<seq-num> = 1,
<originator> = A) intended for LOADng Router D.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ.
At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its blacklisted
neighbor LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D discards the message.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding
routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and
from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received
RREQ.
o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the already
installed route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng
Router A) and installs a new entry towards LOADng Router C
(Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The
reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast
RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The <flags> field of
the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED".
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng
Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to
LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng
Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An
unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the
RREP received previously is forwarded.
o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in
its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng
Router A to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router
B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B). The
reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message
intended for LOADng Router B.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
A B C D
| | | |
First attempt /////////////////////////////////////////
| RREQ | | |
------------------> RREQ | |
------------------------------------------------------>
| | RREP | |
|XXXXX <-----------------------------------------------
| | RREQ | |
| ------------------> |
| | | RREQ |
| | ----------------->X RREQ
| | | | Discarded
Second attempt ////////////////////////////////////////
| RREQ | | |
------------------> RREQ | |
----------------------------------------------------->X RREQ
| | RREQ | | Discarded
| ------------------> |
| | | RREQ |
| | ------------------>
| | | RREP |
| | <------------------
| | | RREP-ACK |
| | ------------------>
| | RREP | |
| <------------------ |
| | RREP-ACK | |
| ------------------> |
| RREP | | |
<------------------ | |
| RREP-ACK | | |
------------------> | |
4.7.3. Obtained results
The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the
different combinations for which this test was performed :
+-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+
| A | B | C | D | Result |
+-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass |
| LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass |
| Hitachi 2 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass |
+-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+
Table 9
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
4.8. Conclusions
The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for
different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to
completely cover the LOADng specification by checking each technical
feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this process
permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy of the
LOADng specification (draft-clausen-lln-loadng).
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| | | | Scenario |
|Chap. | Item | Technical feature +-----------+
| | | |1|2|3|4|5|6|
+------+----------------+------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|6.1 | | |Originator|X|X|X| |X|X|
+------+ Information |Routing Set +----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|6.1 | Base | |Previous | |X|X|X| |X|
+------+ +------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|6.2 | |Blacklist Neighbor set | | | | | |X|
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8.1 | |TLV |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8.2.1 | Packet |Route Request Message |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Format +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8.2.1 | |Route Reply Message |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8.2.2 | |Route Reply Ack Message|X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8.2.3 | |Route Error Message | |X|X|X| | |
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|10.1 | Unidirectional |Blacklist | | | | | |X|
| | link handling | | | | | | | |
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|11.1 | |Invalid RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Common rules +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|11.2 | for RREQ, RREP |RREQ, RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Message +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|11.3 | |Updating RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|12.1 | |RREQ Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|12.2 | Route |RREQ Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Requests +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|12.3 | (RREQs) |RREQ Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|12.4 | |RREQ Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|13.1 | |RREP Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X|
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|13.2 | Route |RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Replies +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|13.3 | (RREPs) |RREP Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|13.4 | |RREP Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|14.1 | |RERR Generation | |X|X|X| | |
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|14.2 | Route |RERR Processing | |X|X|X| | |
+------+ Errors +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|14.3 | (RERRs) |RERR Forwarding | | |X|X| | |
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|14.4 | |RERR Transmission | |X|X|X| | |
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|15.1 | |RREP-ACK Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|15.2 | Route |RREQ-ACK Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ Reply +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|15.3 | Acknowledgement|RREQ-ACK Forwarding |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+ (RREP-ACKs) +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|15.4 | |RREQ-ACK Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X|
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|16 | Metrics |Hop Count While |X|X|X|X|X|X|
| | |Avoiding Weak Links | | | | | | |
+------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Scenario 1: 1-hop bidirectional route establishment
Scenario 2: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment
Scenario 3: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment
Scenario 4: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment
Scenario 5: Establishment of the best bidirectional route
Scenario 6: Blacklisting
5. Security Considerations
This document does currently not specify any security considerations.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
7. Contributors
This specification is the result of the joint efforts of the
following contributors -- listed alphabetically.
o Thomas Heide Clausen, LIX, France, <T.Clausen@computer.org>
o Alberto Camacho, LIX, France, <alberto@albertocamacho.com>
o Axel Colin de Verdiere, LIX, France, <axel@axelcdv.com>
o Yuichi Igarashi, HITACHI YRL, Japan,
<yuichi.igarashi.hb@hitachi.com>
o Nobukatsu Inomata, HITACHI ULSI Systems, Japan,
<nobukatsu.inomata.rf@hitachi.com>
o Cedric Lavenu, EDF R&D, France, <cedric-2.lavenu@edf.fr>
o Yoko Morii, HITACHI YRL, Japan, <yoko.morii.cs@hitachi.com>
o SATOH, Hiroki, HITACHI YRL, Japan, <hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com>
o Jiazi Yi, LIX, France, <jiazi@jiaziyi.com>
8. Acknowledgments
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih,
"Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444,
February 2009.
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Authors' Addresses
Cedric Lavenu
EDF R&D
Phone: +33 1 4765 2729
EMail: cedric-2.lavenu@edf.fr
URI: http://www.edf.fr/
Thomas Heide Clausen
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Phone: +33 6 6058 9349
EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org
URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/
Alberto Camacho
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Phone: +34 636 309 835
EMail: alberto@albertocamacho.com
URI: http://www.albertocamacho.com/
Jiazi Yi
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Phone: +33 1 6933 4031
EMail: jiazi@jiaziyi.com
URI: http://www.jiaziyi.com/
Axel Colin de Verdiere
LIX, Ecole Polytechnique
Phone: +33 6 1264 7119
EMail: axel@axelcdv.com
URI: http://www.axelcdv.com/
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011
Yuichi Igarashi
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
Phone: +81 45 860 3083
EMail: yuichi.igarashi.hb@hitachi.com
URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html
SATOH, Hiroki
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
Phone: +81 44 959 0205
EMail: hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com
URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html
Yoko Morii
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
Phone: +81 45 860 3083
EMail: yoko.morii.cs@hitachi.com
URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html
Lavenu, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 33]