Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
RFC 6053
| Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(November 2010; No errata)
Updated by RFC 6984
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Weiming Wang , Kentaro Ogawa , Evangelos Haleplidis , Jamal Hadi Salim | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6053 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | jmh@joelhalpern.com | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Haleplidis
Request for Comments: 6053 University of Patras
Category: Informational K. Ogawa
ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT Corporation
W. Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
November 2010
Implementation Report for
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE). RFC 3654 has defined
the ForCES requirements, and RFC 3746 has defined the ForCES
framework.
This document is an implementation report for the ForCES Protocol,
Model, and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol-based Transport
Mapping Layer (SCTP TML) documents, and includes a report on
interoperability testing and the current state of ForCES
implementations.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6053.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Detail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at Specific Priorities . . . . . 19
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Interoperability Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-Association Setup . . . . . . . . 21
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML Priority Channels Connection . . 22
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association
Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat Monitoring . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.2. Tested Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2.3. Interoperability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
1. Introduction
This document is an implementation report for the ForCES protocol,
model, and the SCTP TML documents, and includes an interoperability
report.
It follows the outline suggested by [RFC5657].
ForCES defines an architectural framework and associated protocols to
standardize information exchange between the control plane and the
forwarding plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE). [RFC3654]
has defined the ForCES requirements, and [RFC3746] has defined the
ForCES framework.
1.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which forwarding
elements (FEs) are slaves and control elements (CEs) are masters.
The protocol includes commands for transport of Logical Functional
Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status,
event notifications, etc. The reader is encouraged to read the
ForCES Protocol Specification [RFC5810] for further information.
1.2. ForCES Model
The ForCES Model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE Logical
Functional 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 protocol layer (PL) messages [RFC5810]. The
TML is where the issues of how to achieve transport-level
reliability, congestion control, multicast, ordering, etc. are
handled. All ForCES protocol layer implementations MUST be portable
across all TMLs. Although more than one TML may be standardized for
the ForCES protocol, all implementations MUST implement SCTP TML
[RFC5811].
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].
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
2.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
The 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.
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).
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
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.
3. Summary
Three independent implementations, NTT Japan, the University of
Patras, and Zhejiang Gongshang University, were surveyed and found to
already implement all the major features. All implementors mentioned
they will be implementing all missing features in the future.
An interop test was conducted in July 2009 for all three
implementations. Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and
Hangzhou Baud Information and Networks Technology Corporation, which
independently extended two different well known public domain
protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark and tcpdump, also participated
in the interop for a total of five independent organizations
implementing. The two protocol analyzers were used to verify the
validity of ForCES protocol messages (and in some cases semantics).
There were no notable difficulties in the interoperability test, and
almost all issues were code bugs that were dealt with mostly on site;
tests repeated successfully, as stated in Section 6.2.3.
4. Methodology
This report describes an implementation experience survey as well as
the results of the interoperability test.
The survey information was gathered after implementors answered a
brief questionnaire regarding all ForCES Protocol, Model, and SCTP
TML features. The results can be seen in Section 6.1.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
The interoperability results were part of the interoperability test.
Extended Ethereal and extended tcpdump were used to verify the
results. The results can be seen in Section 6.2.
5. Exceptions
The core features of the ForCES Protocol, Model, and SCTP TML were
implemented and assessed in an interop test in July 2009. The
intention of the interop testing was to validate that all the main
features of the three core documents were interoperable amongst
different implementations. The tested features can be seen in
Section 6.2.2.
Different organizations surveyed have implemented certain features
but not others. This approach is driven by the presence of different
LFBs that the different organizations currently implement. All
organizations surveyed have indicated their intention to implement
all outstanding features in due time. The implemented features can
be seen in Section 6.1.
The mandated TML security requirement, IP security (IPsec), was not
validated during the interop and is not discussed in this document.
Since IPsec is well known and widely deployed, not testing in the
presence of IPsec does not invalidate the tests done. Note that
Section 6.1.3.3 indicates that none of the implementations reporting
included support for IPsec, but all indicated their intention to
implement it.
Although the SCTP priority ports have changed since the
interoperability test with the version of the SCTP TML draft
available prior to the publication of RFC 5811, the change has no
impact on the validity of the interoperability test.
6. Detail Section
6.1. Implementation Experience
Three different organizations have implemented the ForCES Protocol,
Model, and SCTP TML and answered a questionnaire. These are:
o NTT Japan
o University of Patras
o Zhejiang Gongshang University
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
Extensions to protocol analyzers capable of understanding ForCES
protocol messages are considered part of an implementation, since
these analyzers can now understand and validate ForCES protocol
message that have been exchanged. Two such extensions have been
created:
o Extension to Ethereal/Wireshark [ethereal].
o Extension to tcpdump [tcpdump].
All implementors were asked about the ForCES features they have
implemented. For every item listed, the respondents indicated
whether they had implemented, will implement, or won't implement at
all.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Protocol Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Teardown | | | |
| | | | |
| Config | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Config Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Event | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| Notification | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Packet Redirect | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Heartbeat | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
ForCES Protocol Messages
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
| Header Field | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
| Correlator | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| ACK Indicator | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Flag | | | |
| | | | |
| Priority Flag | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Execution Mode | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Flag | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Atomic | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Transaction | Implement | | |
| Flag | | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Phase Flag | Implement | | |
+-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
MainHeader Handling
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| TLV | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| REDIRECT-TLV | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| ASResult-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| ASTReason-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelect-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| OPER-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PATH-DATA-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| KEYINFO-TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| FULLDATA-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SPARSEDATA-TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| ILV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| METADATA-TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| RESULT-TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| REDIRECTDATA-TLV | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
TLVs Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Operation | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| SET | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SET-PROP | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| SET-RESPONSE | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SET-PROP-RESPONSE | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| DEL | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| DEL-RESPONSE | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| GET | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| GET-PROP | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| GET-RESPONSE | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| GET-PROP-RESPONSE | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| REPORT | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| COMMIT | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| COMMIT-RESPONSE | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| TRCOMP | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
+-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
Operation Types Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Feature | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Execute Mode | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Batching | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Command | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| Pipelining | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Heartbeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Atomic Type | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| char | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uchar | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| int32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| uint32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| boolean | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| byte[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| octetstring[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float32 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Compound | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Type | | Patras | University |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| structs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| arrays | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
Compound Types Supported
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported
6.1.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Protocol | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| Datatypes | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestartPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHACapab | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Protocol Components | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| CurrentRunningVersion | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| MulticastFEIDs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHDI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| BackupCEs | Implemented | Will | Will |
| | | Implement | Implement |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFTI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestartPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
| | | | |
| LastCEID | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| SupportableVersions | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| HACapabilities | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
Capabilities Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Events | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| PrimaryCEDown | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
Events Supported
6.1.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Object Datatypes | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| LFBAdjacencyLimitType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PortGroupLimitType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEStateValues | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEConfiguredNeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectorType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBLinkType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Object | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Components | | Patras | University |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| LFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEName | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEVendor | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEModel | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEState | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FENeighbors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| ModifiableLFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
Capabilities Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Port | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| High priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6700) | | | |
| | | | |
| Medium | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| priority | | | |
| (6701) | | | |
| | | | |
| Low priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6702) | | | |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Priority Ports
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at Specific Priorities
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| ForCES Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Teardown | | | |
| | | | |
| Config | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Config Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
Message Handling at High-Priority (6700) Port
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Event | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Notification | | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
Message Handling at Medium-Priority (6701) Port
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Packet | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Redirect | | | |
| | | | |
| Heartbeat | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Message Handling at Low-Priority (6702) Port
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Security | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Feature | | Patras | University |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IPsec | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Security Feature Support
6.2. Interoperability Report
The interoperability test took place at the University of Patras, in
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
There were two options for participation in the interoperability
test.
1. Locally, on the University of Patras premises.
2. Remotely, via Internet.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
Implementations from NTT and the University of Patras were present
locally on the University of Patras premises in Greece, while the
implementation from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which was behind a
NAT, connected remotely from China.
The interoperability test validated the basic functionality of the
ForCES protocol, mainly message exchanging and handling.
The following scenarios were tested.
6.2.1. Scenarios
The main goal of the interoperability test was to validate the basic
protocol functionality; the test parameters were limited.
1. In the Association Setup message, all report messages were
ignored.
2. In the Association Setup stage, the FEO OperEnable Event (FE to
CE), Config FEO Adminup (CE to FE), and FEO Config-Resp (FE to
CE) messages were ignored. The CEs assumed that the FEs were
enabled once the LFB selectors had been queried.
3. Only FULLDATA-TLVs were used and not SPARSEDATA-TLVs.
4. There were no transaction operations.
5. Each message had only one LFBSelect-TLV, one OPER-TLV, and one
PATH-DATA-TLV per message when these were used.
6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-Association Setup
While the pre-association setup is not in the ForCES current scope,
it is an essential step before CEs and FEs communicate. As the first
part in a successful CE-FE connection, the participating CEs and FEs
had to be configurable.
In the pre-association phase, the following configuration items were
set up regarding the CEs:
o The CE ID.
o The FE IDs that were connected to this CE.
o The IP addresses of the FEs that connected to the CE.
o The TML priority ports.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
In the pre-association phase, the following configuration items were
set up regarding the FEs:
o The FE ID.
o The CE ID to which this FE was connecting.
o The IP address of the CE to which this FE was connecting.
o The TML priority ports.
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML Priority Channels Connection
For the interoperability test, the SCTP was used as TML. The TML
connection with the associating element was needed for Scenario 2 to
be successful.
SCTP TML [RFC5811] defines three priority channels, with specific
ports:
o High priority - Port number: 6704
o Medium priority - Port number: 6705
o Lower priority - Port number: 6706
However, at the time of the interoperability test, the SCTP ports of
the three priority channels were the following:
o High priority - Port number: 6700
o Medium priority - Port number: 6701
o Lower priority - Port number: 6702
As specified in Section 5, "Exceptions", this does not invalidate the
results of the interoperability test.
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association Complete
Once the pre-association phase in the previous two scenarios had
completed, CEs and FEs would be ready to communicate using the ForCES
protocol and enter the Association Setup stage. In this stage, the
FEs would attempt to join the NE. The following ForCES protocol
messages would be exchanged for each CE-FE pair in the specified
order:
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
o Association Setup message (from FE to CE)
o Association Setup Response message (from CE to FE)
o Query message: FEO LFB selectors (from CE to FE)
o Query Response: FEO LFB selectors response (from FE to CE)
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE Query
Once the Association Setup stage had completed, the FEs and CEs would
enter the Established stage. In this stage, the FE will be
continuously updated or queried. The CE should query the FE for a
specific value from the FE Object LFB and from the FE Protocol LFB.
An example from the FE Protocol LFB is the FE Heartbeat Interval
(FEHI), and an example from the FE Object LFB is the state of the LFB
(FEState).
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Query message
o Query Response message
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat Monitoring
The Heartbeat (HB) message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE)
to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the
same ForCES NE of its liveness. The default configuration of the
Heartbeat Policy of the FE is set to 0, which means that the FE
should not generate any Heartbeat messages. The CE is responsible
for checking FE liveness by setting the PL header ACK flag of the
message it sends to AlwaysACK. In this scenario, the CE will send a
Heartbeat message with the ACK flag set to AlwaysACK, and the FE
should respond.
The following type of ForCES protocol message was exchanged:
o Heartbeat message
6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command
A Config message is sent by the CE to the FE to configure LFB
components in the FE. A simple Config command, easily visible and
metered, would be to change the Heartbeat configuration. This was
done in two steps:
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
1. Change the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHBPolicy) to value 1, to force
the FE to send heartbeats.
2. After some heartbeats from the FE, the FE Heartbeat Interval
(FEHI) was changed.
The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
o Config message
o Config Response message
6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown
In the end, the association must be terminated. There were three
scenarios by which the association was terminated:
1. Normal teardown, by exchanging an Association Teardown message.
2. Irregular teardown, by stopping heartbeats from an FE or a CE.
3. Irregular teardown, by externally shutting down/rebooting an FE
or a CE.
All scenarios were investigated in the interoperability test.
The following type of ForCES protocol message was exchanged:
o Association Teardown message
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.2.2. Tested Features
The features that were tested are:
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features
6.2.2.1.1. Protocol Messages
+----------------------------+
| Protocol Message |
+----------------------------+
| Association Setup |
| |
| Association Setup Response |
| |
| Association Teardown |
| |
| Config |
| |
| Config Response |
| |
| Query |
| |
| Query Response |
| |
| Heartbeat |
+----------------------------+
ForCES Protocol Messages
o PASS: All implementations handled the protocol messages, and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.2.2.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+--------------------+
| Header Field |
+--------------------+
| Correlator |
| |
| ACK Indicator Flag |
| |
| Priority Flag |
+--------------------+
MainHeader Handling
o PASS: All implementations handled these main header flags, and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
6.2.2.1.3. TLV Handling
+---------------+
| TLV |
+---------------+
| ASResult-TLV |
| |
| ASTReason-TLV |
| |
| LFBSelect-TLV |
| |
| OPER-TLV |
| |
| PATH-DATA-TLV |
| |
| FULLDATA-TLV |
| |
| RESULT-TLV |
+---------------+
TLVs Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these TLVs, and all protocol
analyzers captured them.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.2.2.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+--------------+
| Operation |
+--------------+
| SET |
| |
| SET-RESPONSE |
| |
| GET |
| |
| GET-RESPONSE |
| |
| REPORT |
+--------------+
Operation Types Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these operations, and all
protocol analyzers captured them.
6.2.2.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+------------+
| Feature |
+------------+
| Batching |
| |
| Heartbeats |
+------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
Although batching was not initially intended to be tested, it was
assessed during the interoperability test.
o PASS: Two implementations handled batching, and all handled
heartbeats. The protocol analyzers captured both.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features
6.2.2.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+-------------+
| Atomic Type |
+-------------+
| uchar |
| |
| uint32 |
+-------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these basic atomic types.
6.2.2.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+---------------+
| Compound Type |
+---------------+
| structs |
| |
| arrays |
+---------------+
Compound Types Supported
o PASS: All implementations handled these compound types.
6.2.2.2.3. LFBs Supported
6.2.2.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+--------------------+
| Protocol Datatypes |
+--------------------+
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHBPolicy |
+--------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB datatypes.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+---------------------+
| Protocol Components |
+---------------------+
| FEID |
| |
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| CEHDI |
| |
| FEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHI |
| |
| CEID |
+---------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB
components.
6.2.2.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+------------------+
| Object Datatypes |
+------------------+
| FEStateValues |
| |
| LFBSelectorType |
+------------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB datatypes.
+-------------------+
| Object Components |
+-------------------+
| LFBSelectors |
| |
| FEState |
+-------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB components.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features
6.2.2.3.1. TML Priority Ports
+------------------------+
| Port |
+------------------------+
| High priority (6700) |
| |
| Medium priority (6701) |
| |
| Low priority (6702) |
+------------------------+
Priority Ports
o PASS: All implementations opened and connected to all the SCTP
priority ports. The protocol analyzers captured all ports and
their corresponding priority.
6.2.2.3.2. Message Handling at Specific Priorities
+----------------------------+
| ForCES Message |
+----------------------------+
| Association Setup |
| |
| Association Setup Response |
| |
| Association Teardown |
| |
| Config |
| |
| Config Response |
| |
| Query |
| |
| Query Response |
+----------------------------+
Message Handling at High-Priority (6700) Port
o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
this priority port.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
+----------------+
| ForCES Message |
+----------------+
| Heartbeats |
+----------------+
Message Handling at Low-Priority (6702) Port
o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
this priority port.
6.2.3. Interoperability Results
All implementations were found to be interoperable with each other.
All scenarios were tested successfully.
The following issues were found and dealt with.
1. Some messages were sent on the wrong priority channels. There
were some ambiguities in the SCTP TML document regarding how to
deal with such a situation. The possibilities were an FE
response on the same (wrong) channel as a CE query; an FE
response on the correctly documented channel for the message; or
simply dropping the packet. This has been corrected by
mandating the message-to-channel mapping to be a MUST in the
SCTP TML document [RFC5811] before it was published as an RFC.
2. At some point, a CE sent a Teardown message to the FE. The CE
expected the FE to shut down the connection, and the FE waited
for the CE to shut down the connection; both were then caught in
a deadlock. This was a code bug and was fixed.
3. Sometimes, only when the CE and FE were remote to each other
(one being in China and another in Greece), the Association
Setup message was not received by the CE side, and therefore an
association never completed. This was not an implementation
issue but rather a network issue. This issue was solved with
the retransmission of the non-delivered messages.
4. An implementation did not take into account that the padding in
TLVs MUST NOT be included in the length of the TLV. This was a
code bug and was fixed.
5. The Execution Mode flag was set to Reserved by a CE and was not
ignored by the FE. This was a code bug and was fixed.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
6. After the FEHBPolicy was set to 1, the FE didn't send any
heartbeats. This was a code bug and was fixed.
7. Some FEs sent heartbeats with the ACK flag set to a value other
than NoACK. The CE responded. This was a code bug and was
fixed.
8. When a cable was disconnected, none of the TML implementations
detected it. The association was eventually dropped due to
heartbeat detection; this test was a success, but this is an
implementation issue that implementors should keep in mind.
This is an SCTP options issue. Nothing needed to be done.
9. A CE crashed due to unknown LFB selector values. This was a
code bug and was fixed.
10. With the remote connection from China (which was behind a NAT)
to Greece, there were a lot of ForCES packet retransmissions.
The problem was that packets like heartbeats were retransmitted.
This was an implementation issue regarding SCTP usage that
implementors should keep in mind. The SCTP-PR option needed to
be used. Nothing needed to be done.
The interoperability test went so well that an additional extended
test was added to check for batching messages. This test was also
done successfully.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to give thanks to Professors Odysseas
Koufopavlou and Spyros Denazis, and the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at the University of Patras, who hosted the
ForCES interoperability test.
The authors would also like to give thanks to Chuanhuang Li, Ming
Gao, and other participants from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which
connected remotely. This allowed the discovery of a series of issues
that would have been uncaught otherwise.
The authors would also like to thank Hideaki Iwata and Yoshinobu
Morimoto of NTT Japan for participating locally at the
interoperability test; as well as Hiroki Date and Hidefumi Otsuka,
also of NTT Japan, for contributing to the interoperability test.
Additionally, thanks are given to Xinping Wang for her help in
writing the interoperability document and to Fenggen Jia for
extending the Ethereal protocol analyzer.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
8. Security Considerations
No security elements of the protocol or the SCTP TML [RFC5811]
specification were tested.
The survey indicated that no security elements were implemented, but
all participants indicated their intention to implement them.
For security considerations regarding the ForCES protocol and SCTP
TML, please see [RFC5810] and [RFC5811].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
9.2. Informative References
[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.
[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010
[ethereal] "Ethereal is a protocol analyzer. The specific Ethereal
that was used is an updated Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia,
that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
messages", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
current/msg03687.html>.
[tcpdump] "tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal
Hadi Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES
protocol messages", <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/
web/forces/current/msg03811.html>.
Authors' Addresses
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Patras
Greece
EMail: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
EMail: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18, Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018
P.R. China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
EMail: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Phone:
EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com
Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 34]