Internet Engineering Task Force E. Haleplidis
Internet-Draft University of Patras
Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa
Expires: March 11, 2010 NTT Corporation
W. Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
September 7, 2009
Implementation Report for ForCES
draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-00
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 11, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
Abstract
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). RFC3654 has defined
the ForCES requirements, and RFC3746 has defined the ForCES
framework.
This document is an implementation report of the ForCES Protocol,
Model and SCTP-TML, including the report on interoperability testing
and the current state of ForCES implementations.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Transport mapping layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Detail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities . . . . . 21
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2. Interoperability Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-association Setup . . . . . . . . 23
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection . . 24
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association
Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown . . . . . . . . 25
6.2.2. Tested Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
The definitions below are repeated below for clarity.
Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs on how to process
packets. CEs handle functionality such as the execution of
control and signaling protocols.
Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the
ForCES protocol. FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per-
packet processing and handling as directed/controlled by one or
more CEs via the ForCES protocol.
LFB (Logical Function Block) - The basic building block that is
operated on by the ForCES protocol. The LFB is a well defined,
logically separable functional block that resides in an FE and is
controlled by the CE via ForCES protocol. The LFB may reside at
the FE's datapath and process packets or may be purely an FE
control or configuration entity that is operated on by the CE.
Note that the LFB is a functionally accurate abstraction of the
FE's processing capabilities, but not a hardware-accurate
representation of the FE implementation.
LFB Class and LFB Instance - LFBs are categorized by LFB Classes.
An LFB Instance represents an LFB Class (or Type) existence.
There may be multiple instances of the same LFB Class (or Type) in
an FE. An LFB Class is represented by an LFB Class ID, and an LFB
Instance is represented by an LFB Instance ID. As a result, an
LFB Class ID associated with an LFB Instance ID uniquely specifies
an LFB existence.
LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced and
consumed by the LFBs. It defines the functionality but not how
metadata is encoded within an implementation.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
components. The LFB components include, for example, flags,
single parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the
CE can read and/or Components write via the ForCES protocol (see
below).
ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used
within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol"
and "protocol" refer to the Fp reference points in the ForCES
Framework in [RFC3746]. This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE
communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between
FE and CE managers. Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a
master- slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.
This document defines the specifications for this ForCES protocol.
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
Ethernet, etc), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
multicast, ordering, etc. The ForCES TML specifications are
detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
2. Introduction
This is an implementation report for the ForCES protocol, model and
SCTP-TML documents and includes an interoperability report.
It follows the outline suggested by [I-D.dusseault-impl-reports].
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). [RFC3654] has defined
the ForCES requirements, and [RFC3746] has defined the ForCES
framework.
2.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for
transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader
is encouraged to read FE-protocol [I-D.ietf-forces-protocol] for
further information.
2.2. ForCES Model
The FE-MODEL [I-D.ietf-forces-model] presents a formal way to define
FE Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration
components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the
LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly
controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
2.3. Transport mapping layer
The TML transports the PL messages. The TML is where the issues of
how to achieve transport level reliability, congestion control,
multicast, ordering, etc. are handled. All ForCES Protocol Layer
implementations MUST be portable across all TMLs. Although more than
one TML may be standardized for the ForCES Protocol, all
implementations MUST IMPLEMENT the SCTP TML
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml].
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
3. Summary
The authors attest that the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML meet
the requirements for Draft Standard.
Three independent implementations 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, which independently
extended two different well known public domain protocol analyzers,
also participated in the interop for a total of five independent
organizations implementing. The two protocol analyzers were used to
verify validity of ForCEs protocol messages (and in some cases
semantics).
There were no notable difficulty in the interoperability test and
almost all issues were code bugs that were dealt with mostly on site
and tests repeated successfully.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
4. Methodology
This report has both an implementation experience survey as well as
the results of the interoperability test.
The survey information was gathered after implementors answered a
brief questionnaire with all ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML
features. The results can be seen in Section 6.1
The interoperability results were part of the interoperability test.
Extended Ethereal and extended Tcpdump were used to verify the
results. The results can be seen in Section 6.2
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
5. Exceptions
The core features of the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML have
been implemented and tested in an interop in July, 2009. The
intention of the interop testing was to validate that all the main
features of the 3 core documents were inter-operable amongst
different implementations. The tested features can be seen in
Section 6.2.2.
Different organizations surveyed have implemented certain features
but not others. This approach is driven by presence of different
LFBs the different organizations have currently implemented. All
organizations surveyed have indicated intention to implement all
outstanding features in due time. The implemented features can be
seen in Section 6.1.
Regarding the security feature of TML, IPSec, the fact that is not
currently implemented does not affect the validity of this
implementation report, since IPSec is a well-known and widely
implemented protocol and does not affect the actual ForCES protocol
and model in any way.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6. Detail Section
6.1. Implementation Experience
Three different organizations have implemented the ForCES Protocol,
Model and SCTP-TML and answered a questionnaire. These are:
o NTT Japan.
o University of Patras.
o Zhejiang Gongshang University.
Also, not actual implementations, but extensions on protocol
analyzers capable of understanding ForCES protocol messages, also are
considered part of an implementation as they can offer validation of
exchanged protocol messages. Two such extensions have been created:
o Extension to Ethereal/Wireshark [ethereal].
o Extension to Tcpdump [tcpdump].
All implementors were asked regarding the ForCES features they have
implemented. For every item listed the respondents indicated whether
they had implemented it, will implement it, or won't implement it at
all.
6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Protocol Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| TearDown | | | |
| | | | |
| Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Event | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| Notification | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Packet Redirect | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| HeartBeat | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
ForCES Protocol Message
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Header Field | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Correlator | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Acknowledge | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Flag | | | |
| | | | |
| Priority Flag | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Execution | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Mode Flag | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Atomic Flag | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Flag | Implement | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
MainHeader Handling
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.1.3. TLV Handling
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
| TLV | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
| Redirect TLV | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| | | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Result TLV | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| TearDown Reason | | | |
| TLV | | | |
| | | | |
| LFBSelector TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Operation TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PathData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| KeyInfo TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| FullData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SparseData TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| ILV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Metadata TLV | Will | Will | Implemented |
| | Implement | Implement | |
| | | | |
| Result TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Redirect Data | Implemented | Will | Implemented |
| TLV | | Implement | |
+------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+
TLVs Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| Operation | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
| Set | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Set Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Del | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Del Response | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Get Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Report | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| Response | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| TRComp | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
+--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+
Operation Type Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Feature | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Execute Mode | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Batching | Will | Implemented | Implemented |
| | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| Command | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| Pipelining | Implement | | |
| | | | |
| HeartBeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
6.1.2. ForCES Model Features
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Atomic Type | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| char | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uchar | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| int32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| uint32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| uint64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| boolean | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| string | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| byte[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| octetstring[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float32 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
| | | | |
| float64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| Compound | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Type | | Patras | University |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
| structs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| arrays | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
Compound Types Supported
6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported
6.1.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Protocol | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| DataTypes | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHIBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestarPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHACapab | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Protocol Components | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| CurrentRunningVersion | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| MulticastFEIDs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEHDI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEHI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| BackupCEs | Implemented | Will | Will |
| | | Implement | Implement |
| | | | |
| CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| CEFTI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FERestartPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
| | | | |
| LastCEID | Implemented | Implemented | Will |
| | | | Implement |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| SupportableVersions | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| HACapabilities | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement |
+---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
Capabilities Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Events | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
| PrimaryCEDown | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
Events Supported
6.1.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Object DataTypes | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| LFBAdjacencyLimit | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| PortGroupLimitType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEStateValues | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectorType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBLinkType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| Object | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Components | | Patras | University |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
| LFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| LFBSelectors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEName | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEVendor | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEModel | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FEState | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| FENeighbors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang |
| | | of Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| ModifiableLFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| SupportedLFBs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
Capabilities Supported
6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features
6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| Port | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| | | Patras | University |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
| High priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6700) | | | |
| | | | |
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
| Medium | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| priority | | | |
| (6701) | | | |
| | | | |
| Low priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| (6702) | | | |
+----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
Priority Ports
6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| ForCES Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang |
| | | Patras | Gongshang |
| | | | University |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Setup Response | | | |
| | | | |
| Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Teardown | | | |
| | | | |
| Config | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Config Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| | | | |
| Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
Message Handling at High priority (6700) Port
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Event | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Notification | | | |
+---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
Message Handling at Medium priority (6701) Port
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Message | | Patras | University |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Packet | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
| Redirect | | | |
| | | | |
| Heartbeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Message Handling at Low priority (6702) Port
6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| Security | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
| Feature | | Patras | University |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
| IPSec | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement |
| | Implement | | |
+--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
Security Feature Support
6.2. Interoperability Report
The interoperability test was performed at the University of Patras,
in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
There were two options to participate in the interoperability test.
1. Locally at the University of Patras premises.
2. Remotely via internet.
Implementations from NTT and University of Patras, were present
locally at the premises, while the implementation from Zhejiang
Gongshang University were connected remotely.
The interoperability test, tested the basic functionality of the
ForCES protocol, mainly message passing and handling.
The following scenarios were tested.
6.2.1. Scenarios
Since the main goal of this interoperability test is to test the
basic protocol functionality, the test parameters are limited.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
1. In the Association Setup Message, all report messages will be
ignored.
2. In the Association Setup Phase, the messages, FEO OperEnable
Event (FE to CE), Config FEO Adminup (CE to FE) and FEO Config-
Resp (FE to CE) will be ignored. The CE will assume that the FE
is enabled once the LFBSelectors has been queried.
3. Only FullDataTLVs are going to be used and not SparseData TLV's.
4. There will be no transaction operations.
5. Each message shall have only one LFBSelector TLV, one Operation
TLV and one PathDataTLV per message when these are 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
should be able to be configured.
In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items MUST
be setup regarding the CEs:
o The CE ID.
o The FE IDs that will be connected to this CE
o The IP of the FEs that will connect
o The TML priority ports.
In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items MUST
be setup regarding the FEs:
o The FE ID.
o The CE ID that this FE will be connecting to.
o The IP of the CE that will connect to
o The TML priority ports.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection
For the current interoperability test, the SCTP will be used as TML.
The TML connection with the associating element is needed for the
scenario 2 to be successful.
The SCTP-TML document [I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml] defines 3 priority
channels, with specific ports:
o High priority - Port number: 6700
o Medium priority - Port number: 6701
o Lower priority - Port number: 6702
6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association Complete
Once the Pre-association phase has been complete in the previous 2
scenarios, CEs and FEs are ready to communicate using the ForCES
protocol, and enter the Association Setup stage. In this stage the
FEs attempts to join the NE. The following ForCES protocol messages
will be exchanged for each CE-FE pair in the specified order:
o Association Setup Message (from FE to CE)
o Association Setup Response Message (from CE to FE)
o Query Message: FEO LFBSelectors(from CE to FE)
o Query Response: FEO LFBSelectors response (from FE to CE)
6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query
Once the Association Phase stage has been complete, the FEs and CEs
will enter the Established stage. In this stage the FE is
continuously updated or queried. The CE should query the FE a
specific value from the FE Object LFB and from the FE Protocol LFB.
An example from the FE Protocol LFB is the HeartBeat Timer (FEHI) and
from the FE Object LFB is the State of the LFB (FEState)
The following ForCES protocol messages will be exchanged:
o Query Message
o Query Response Message
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring
The Heartbeat (HB) Message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE)
to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the
same ForCES NE on its liveness. The default configuration of the
Heartbeat Policy of the FE is set to 0 which means, that the FE
should not generate any Heartbeat messages. the CE is responsible for
checking FE liveness by setting the PL header ACK flag of the message
it sends to AlwaysACK. In this Scenario the CE should send a
Heartbeat message with the ACK flag set to AlwaysACK and the FE
should respond.
The following ForCES protocol messages will be 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 will be
done in two steps:
1. Change the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHBPolicy) to value 1, to force
the FE to send heartbeats.
2. After some heartbeats from the FE, the FE Heartbeat Interval
(FEHI) will be changed.
The following ForCES protocol messages will be 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 are two
scenarios by which the association maybe terminated:
1. Normal tear down by exchanging Association Teardown Message
2. Irregular tear down by stopping heartbeats from a FE or a CE.
3. Irregular tear down by externally shutting down/rebooting a FE or
a CE.
All scenarios may be tested in the interoperability test.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
The following ForCES protocol messages will be exchanged:
o Association Teardown Message
6.2.2. Tested Features
The features that were tested are:
6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features
6.2.2.1.1. Protocol Messages
+----------------------------+
| Protocol Message |
+----------------------------+
| Association Setup |
| |
| Association Setup Response |
| |
| Association TearDown |
| |
| Configuration |
| |
| Configuration Response |
| |
| Query |
| |
| Query Response |
| |
| HeartBeat |
+----------------------------+
ForCES Protocol Message
6.2.2.1.2. MainHeader Handling
+------------------+
| Header Field |
+------------------+
| Correlator |
| |
| Acknowledge Flag |
| |
| Priority Flag |
+------------------+
MainHeader Handling
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.2.1.3. TLV Handling
+---------------------------------+
| TLV |
+---------------------------------+
| Association Setup Result TLV |
| |
| Association TearDown Reason TLV |
| |
| LFBSelector TLV |
| |
| Operation TLV |
| |
| PathData TLV |
| |
| FullData TLV |
| |
| Result TLV |
+---------------------------------+
TLVs Supported
6.2.2.1.4. Operation Types Supported
+--------------+
| Operation |
+--------------+
| Set |
| |
| Set Response |
| |
| Get |
| |
| Get Response |
| |
| Report |
+--------------+
Operation Type Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.2.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
+------------+
| Feature |
+------------+
| Batching |
| |
| HeartBeats |
+------------+
ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
Although Batching was not initially designed to be tested, it was
tested during the interoperability test.
6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features
6.2.2.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported
+-------------+
| Atomic Type |
+-------------+
| uchar |
| |
| uint32 |
+-------------+
Basic Atomic Types Supported
6.2.2.2.2. Compound Types Supported
+---------------+
| Compound Type |
+---------------+
| structs |
| |
| arrays |
+---------------+
Compound Types Supported
6.2.2.2.3. LFBs Supported
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
6.2.2.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB
+--------------------+
| Protocol DataTypes |
+--------------------+
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHIBPolicy |
+--------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
+---------------------+
| Protocol Components |
+---------------------+
| FEID |
| |
| CEHBPolicy |
| |
| CEHDI |
| |
| FEHBPolicy |
| |
| FEHI |
| |
| CEID |
+---------------------+
FE Protocol LFB Components
6.2.2.2.3.2. FE Object LFB
+------------------+
| Object DataTypes |
+------------------+
| FEStateValues |
| |
| LFBSelectorType |
+------------------+
FE Object LFB Datatypes
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+-------------------+
| Object Components |
+-------------------+
| LFBSelectors |
| |
| FEState |
+-------------------+
FE Object LFB Components
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
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
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
+----------------+
| ForCES Message |
+----------------+
| Heartbeats |
+----------------+
Message Handling at Low priority (6702) 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 to the wrong priority channels. There
was some ambiguities on the SCTP-TML document that have been
corrected.
2. At some point, a CE sent a TearDown message to the FE. The CE
expected the FE to shut down the connection, and the FE waited
the CE to shut down the connection and were caught in a
deadlock. This was a code bug and was fixed.
3. Sometimes the association setup message, only on the remote
connection test, although sent, was not received by the other
end and made impossible the association. This was caused by
network problems.
4. An implementation did not take into account that the padding in
TLVs MUST NOT be included in the length of the TLV. This was a
code bug and was fixed.
5. EM Flag was set to reserved by a CE and was not ignored by the
FE. This was a code bug and was fixed.
6. After the FEHBPolicy was set to 1 the FE didn't send any
HeartBeats. This was a code bug and was fixed.
7. Some FE's sent HeartBeats with the ACK flag with a value other
than NoACK. The CE responded. This was a code bug and was
fixed.
8. When a cable was disconnected, the TML didn't realize that. The
association was dropped due to heartbeats, this was a success,
but this is an implementation issue implementers should keep in
mind. This is a SCTP options issue. Nothing was needed to be
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
done.
9. A CE crashed due to unknown LFBSelector values. This was a code
bug and was fixed.
10. With the remote connection there were a lot of ForCES packet
retransmittion. The problem is that packets like Heartbeats
were retransmitted. This is a SCTP issue. SCTP-PR is needed to
be used.
The implementers went beyond the call of duty. The test was extended
with another test for batching messages. This test was also done
successfully.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
7. Acknowledgements
The authors like to give thanks to Professors Odysseas Koufopavlou
and Spyros Denazis, and the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering in the University of Patras who hosted the ForCES
interoperability test.
Also the authors would like to give thanks to Chuanhuang Li, Ming
Gao, and other participants from Zhejiang Gongshang University which
connected remotely. This allowed the discovery of a series of issues
that would have been uncaught otherwise.
The authors would like to thank also Hideaki Iwata and Yoshinobu
Morimoto for participating locally at the interoperability test and
also Hiroki Date and Hidefumi Otsuka all part of NTT Japan for
contributing to the interoperability test.
Additionally thanks are given to Xinping Wang for her help in writing
the interoperability draft an Fenggen Jia for exteding the Ethereal
protocol analyzer.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
9. Security Considerations
For Security considerations please see [I-D.ietf-forces-protocol] and
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml]
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-forces-model]
Halpern, J. and J. Salim, "ForCES Forwarding Element
Model", draft-ietf-forces-model-16 (work in progress),
October 2008.
[I-D.ietf-forces-protocol]
Dong, L., Doria, A., Gopal, R., HAAS, R., Salim, J.,
Khosravi, H., and W. Wang, "ForCES Protocol
Specification", draft-ietf-forces-protocol-22 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-forces-sctptml]
Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP based TML (Transport Mapping
Layer) for ForCES protocol", draft-ietf-forces-sctptml-04
(work in progress), June 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.dusseault-impl-reports]
Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", draft-dusseault-impl-reports-04 (work in
progress), July 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
[ethereal]
"Ethereal is a protocol analyzer. The specific ethereal
that will be used is an updated Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia,
that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
messages.", <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/
wa.exe?A2=ind0906&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=1048>.
[tcpdump] "Tcpdump is a linux protocol analyzer. The specific
tcpdump that will be used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal
Hadi Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES
protocol messages.", <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/
wa.exe?A2=ind0906&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=2262>.
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Implementation Report for ForCES September 2009
Authors' Addresses
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Patras,
Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo,
Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18, Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
Phone:
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Haleplidis, et al. Expires March 11, 2010 [Page 38]
