Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa
Expires: September 8, 2011 NTT Corporation
E. Haleplidis
University of Patras
M. Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
March 7, 2011
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-00
Abstract
This document captures test results from the second Forwarding and
control Element Separation (ForCES) interop testing which took place
March 24-25, 2011 at the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
Gongshang University in China.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. CE HA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Testbed configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Local Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Distributed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4.1. Connection Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.3. Testing Proccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2. On ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
1. Introduction
This document captures the results of the second interoperability
test of the Forwarding and control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework which took place March 24-25, 2011 in the Internet
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
tests involved several documents namely: ForCES protocol [RFC5810],
ForCES FE model [RFC5812], ForCES TML [RFC5811], ForCES LFB Library [
] and ForCES CE HA specification[]. Three independent ForCES
implementations participated in the test.
Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High
Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
results are achieved. Extended Wireshark and extended tcpdump are
used to verify the results.
The first interop test held in July 2008 at the University of Patras,
Greece, focussed on validating the basic semantics of the protocol
and model[RFC6053].
1.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for
transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader
is encouraged to read FE-protocol [RFC5810] for further information.
1.2. ForCES Model
The FE-MODEL [RFC5811] presents a formal way to define FE Logical
Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration components,
capabilities, and associated events are defined when the LFB is
formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly controlled
in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer
The TML transports the PL messages. The TML is where the issues of
how to achieve transport level reliability, congestion control,
multicast, ordering, etc. are handled. It is expected that more than
one TML will be standardized. The various possible TMLs could vary
their implementations based on the capabilities of underlying media
and transport. However, since each TML is standardized,
interoperability is guaranteed as long as both endpoints support the
same TML. All ForCES Protocol Layer implementations MUST be portable
across all TMLs. Although more than one TML may be standardized for
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
the ForCES Protocol, for the purposes of the interoperability test,
the mandated MUST IMPLEMENT SCTP TML [RFC5811] will be used.
1.4. CE HA
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
2. Terminology and Conventions
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
documents of RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810,RFC5811,RFC5812,RFC5812. 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.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
components. The LFB components include, for example, flags,
single-parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the
CE can read and/or write via the ForCES protocol (see below).
ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used
within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol"
and "protocol" refer to the "Fp" reference points in the ForCES
framework in [RFC3746]. This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE
communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between
FE and CE managers. Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a
master-slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
Ethernet, etc.), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
multicast, ordering, etc. The ForCES TML specifications are
detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
3. Overview
3.1. Date, Location, and Participants
The ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF ForCES
working group on March 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by Jamal Hadi
Salim, the current ForCES working group co-chair. Three independent
ForCES implementations participated in the test:
* Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Networks, China. This
implementation is reffered to as "China" in the document for the sake
of brevity.
* NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
"Japan" in the document for the sake of brevity.
* The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred
to as "Greece" in the document for the sake of brevity.
During the interoperability test, protocol analyzers Wireshark and
tcpdump were used to verify the validity of ForCES protocol messages
and in some cases semantics. Some issues related to interoperability
among implementations were discovered. Most of the issues were
solved on site during the test. The most contentious issue found was
on the format of encapsulation for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 6).
At times, interoperability testing was exercised between 2 instead of
all three representative implementations due to the third one lacking
a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all implementors
mentioned they will be implementing any missing features in the
future.
3.2. Testbed configuration
3.2.1. Access
Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The
chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
teamviewer tool [ref XXX]. The approach is as shown in the following
figure.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
| FE/CE | | | +---|TeamViewer|
| China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | | Canada |
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | +----------+
|LAN |----/ \--|
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| Japan | | | +---| Greece |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
Figure 1: The Approach for all Participants
For interoperability test items, all CEs and FEs SHALL implement
IPSEC security in the TML. For security, firewalls MUST be used that
will allow only the specific IPs and the SCTP ports defined in the
ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811].
3.2.2. Local Configuration
Hardware/Software (CEs and FEs) of China and Japan that were located
within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University, were connected
together using ethernet switches.The detailed configuration can be
seen in the following figure.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
|China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|----------|China| +---------+
+---------| | | | | |-------+
| .2 +-----+ ^ +-----+ ^ +-----+ .2 |
| .12|192.168.20.0/24 192.168.30.0/24 |.12 |
| | | |
192.168.50.0/24 | | 192.168.50.0/24
| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |
.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+
|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|
+--------+ +---------------------------------------+ +--------+
Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China
3.2.3. Distributed Configuration
Hardware/Software (CE and FE) of Greece that were located within the
University of Patras premises,were connected together using LAN as
shown in the following figure.
Such configuation can satisfy all scenarios that are mentioned in
this document. Specially for the scenario of CE High Availability,in
which CE of Greece will be the backup one.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|150.140.254.110(VPN)
|
+------------------------------------+
| LAN |
+------------------------------------+
| | |
| | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+
| CE | |Protocol| | CE |
|Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece|
+------+ +--------+ +------+
Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
Patras,Greece
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4. Scenarios
4.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
4.1.1. Connection Diagram
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
4.1.2. Design Considerations
First, the scenario of LFB Operation shown in Figure 4 is designed to
verify all kinds of messages which are defined in RFC 5810.
Different implementor may have different choices on implemeting RFC
5810 using cases in the protocol messages. However as long as it
complies with the RFC 5810, the interoperating peer must have the
ability to decode and handle it. Specially, what we want to verify
th most is the format of encasulation for PATHDATA with nested
PATHDATA and the operation(SET, GET,DEL) of array, as well as array
with nested array(This case can be seen in ARP LFB's component of
PortV4AddrInfoTable).
Second,the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
LFB Lib[ ]. A succeeded operation in this scenario means all the
meeting joining implementor follow the instruction given by the
ForCES LFB Lib.
4.1.3. Testing Proccess
In order to make interoperability more credible,these three
implementors carry out the test alternately. As shown in figure 4,
every side's CE or FE must connect with the other two sides's FE or
CE. So that, we shall have 6 cases in this Scenario.
4.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4.2.1. Connection Diagram
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| | Japan|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Japan | |China |
+------+ +------+
(a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| China| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |China |
+------+ +------+
(b)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Japan |
+------+ +------+
(c)
Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec
4.2.2. Design Considerations
This scenario is designed to implement the requirement that stated in
the section "7. Security Considerations" in RFC 5811. For this
reason, we design the scenario to make TML to run over the IPSec
channel that is pre-established. In this scenario all operations for
Scenario 1 will be repeated. In this way, we try to verify whether
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
the interaction between CE and FE can be done normally under such
IPSec enviroment.
4.2.3. Testing Proccess
In this scenario, ForCES TML will run over IPSec channel. All the
implementors who joined in this interoperability testing use the same
third-party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. By
this tool, China and Japan had a successful test, and the following
items have been realized:
o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
authentication.
o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96
[RFC2404] for message integrity protection
4.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability
4.3.1. Connection Diagram
master standby master standby
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece|
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
+----------+ +-----------+
| |
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
|Greece| |Greece|
+------+ +------+
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
4.3.2. Design Considerations
CE High Availability was also tested in this interoperability test
based on the the CEHA draft [draft-ietf-forces-ceha-01].
The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA are as simple
as possible to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4.3.3. Testing Proccess
In this scenario one FE would be connected with two CEs. In pre-
association setup, the FE would be configured to have CE1 as master
CE and CE2 as standby CE and CEFailoverPolicy to High Availability (2
or 3). The FE once associated with the master CE it would then
attempt to connect and associate with the standby CE.
When master CE is considered disconnected, either by TearDown, Loss
of Heartbeats or Disconnected, FE would assume that the standby CE is
now the master CE. FE will then send an Event Notification, Primary
CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby CE in this case with
the value of the new master CEID. The standby CE will then respond
by setting with a configuration message the CEID of the FE Protocol
Object with it's own ID, the same value, to confirm that the CE
considers itself as the master as well.
4.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
4.4.1. Connection Diagram
+------+
| CE |
| Japan|
+------+
| ^
| | OSPF
| +------->
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(a)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| Japan| | China|
+------+ +------+
| ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | |
| +----------+ |
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(b)
Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding
4.4.2. Design Considerations
This Scenario can be used to verify some LFBs such as RedirectIn,
RedirectOut, IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM.Cases of (a) and (b) in Figure
7 both need RedirectIn LFB send CE's OSPF packet to FE futher to the
outside OSPF Router as Packet Redirect Message, RedirectOut LFB send
OSPF packet received from the outside OSPF Router to CE as well as
Packet Redirect Message.In such procedure, META DATA that included in
Packet Redirect Message should be coded and decoded for both CE and
FE.
If the above can be done with no issue, then the whole NE including
FE and CE will work like an OSPF router exchanging OSPF protocol
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
information with other OSPF router. As for CE, after finishing OSPF
exchanging, some routes maybe generated by OSPF and need to be added
to FE. So, IPv4NextHop and Ipv4UcastLPM must be working to support
such operation.
By sending packet to the destination through the FE, FE should
forward packet according to the route generate by OSPF. so, the data
path in FE can be tested and LFBs such as EtherPHYCop, EtherMacIn,
IPv4Classifier, IPv4Validator, EtherEncasulator, EtherMacOut also be
verified.
4.4.3. Testing Proccess
First,Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
interfaces.
Second, Boot CE and FE.
Third, Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses
of FE__s interfaces.
Fifth, Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.
Sixth, Send packets between terminals.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
5. Test Results
5.1. LFB Operation Test
For the convinience of stating,abbreviation is used here.So 'C' means
China ,'J' - Japan,'G'Greece and all testing results of this scenario
are listed in the following figure as well.(Note: other Scenarios
will follow the definition)
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
|Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper| LFB |Component/ | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | |Capability | | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | C | J | | | |Success |As for the |
| | J | C | | | |Success | format of |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |encapsulation|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBTopology|Success |about array |
| | J | G | | | |Success |Only the case|
| | G | J | | | |Success |of FULLDATA- |
| | | | | | | |-in-FULLDATA |
| 2 | C | J | | | |Success |is spupported|
| | J | C | | | |Success |for everyone.|
| | C | G | | | |TBD |Howerver more|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBSelector|Success |types such as|
| | J | G | | | s |Success |SPARSEDATA |
| | G | J | | | |Success |should be |
| | | | | | | |supported for|
| 3 | C | J | | | |Success |every party. |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|PHYPortID |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 5 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperStatus |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success |As for the |
| | | | | | | |format of |
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| 6 | C | J | | | |Success |PATHDATA, |
| | J | C | | | |Success |J use the |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |case of |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminLink |Success |PATHDATA in |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success |PATHDATA,C |
| | G | J | | | |Success |uses |
| | | | | | | |only one |
| 7 | C | J | | | |Success |PATHDATA with|
| | J | C | | | |Success |mutiple IDs. |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |G uses ... |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop| OperLink |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 8 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|AdminDuplex|Success | |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | |The side of |
| 9 | C | J | | | |Success |C think that |
| | J | C | | | |Success |CE SHOULD get|
| | C | G | | | |TBD |LFB instance |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop|OperDuplex |Success |data |
| | J | G | | | Speed |Success |according to |
| | G | J | | | |Success |LFBSelectors.|
| | | | | | | | |
| 10 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherPHYCop| Carrier |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Status |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 11 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET| EtherMACIn|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 12 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | LocalMac |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Addresses |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | | | | | | | |
| 13 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |L2Bridging |Success | |
| | J | G | | |PathEnable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 14 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |Promiscuous|Success | |
| | J | G | | | Mode |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 15 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 16 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn | RxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 17 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACIn |MACInStats |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 18 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 19 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| MTU |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 20 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 21 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut| TxFlow |Success | |
| | J | G | | | Control |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 22 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET|EtherMACOut|MACOutStats|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 23 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | GET| ARP |PortV4Addr |Success | |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 24 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET| ARP |PortV4Addr |TBD | |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 25 | C | J | | | |Success |C's misunder-|
| | J | C | | | |Success |standing of |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |the PATHDATA |
| | G | C | DEL| ARP |PortV4Addr |Failure |in DEL |
| | J | G | | | InfoTable |Success |Operation. |
| | G | J | | | |Success |Later C fixed|
| | | | | | | |the problem |
| 26 | C | J | | | |Success |and make it |
| | J | C | | | |Success |successful |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |in testing |
| | G | C | SET|EtherMACIn | LocalMAC |Success |with J. |
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | J | G | | | Addresses |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 27 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET|EtherMACIn | MTU |Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 28 | C | J | | | |Success |By setting |
| | J | C | | | |Success |new reachable|
| | C | G | | | |TBD |network,Route|
| | G | C | SET|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|TBD |entry can be |
| | J | G | | | Table |Success |add into |
| | G | J | | | |Success |system. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 29 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |TBD | |
| | J | G | | LPM | Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 30 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success |Corresponding|
| | C | G | | | |TBD |nexthop entry|
| | G | C | DEL|IPv4NextHop|IPv4NextHop|TBD |MUST delete |
| | J | G | | | Table |Success |before prefix|
| | G | J | | | |Success |entry. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 31 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | DEL| IPv4Ucast |IPv4Prefix |TBD | |
| | J | G | | LPM | Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 32 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET|EtherPHYCop|AdminStatus|Success | |
| | J | G | | | |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 33 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
| | G | C | SET| Ether | VlanInput |Success | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 34 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether | VlanInput |Failure | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 35 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET| Ether |VlanOutput |Success | |
| | J | G | |Encapsulato| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | r | |Success | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 36 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether |VlanOutput |Failure | |
| | J | G | |Encapsulato| Table |Success | |
| | G | J | | r | |Success | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
5.2. TML with IPSec Test
In this scenario, ForCES TML will run over IPSec channel.All the
implementors who joined this interoperability test use the same
third-party tool software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel.To be
mentioned is that we have not repeat all the operations listed in
Scenario 1,only some typical operations have been done. During the
test following results as shown in figure occured.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
|Test| CE |FE(s)|Oper| LFB |Component/ | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | |Capability | | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | C | J | | | |Success |For unkown |
| | J | C | | | |Success |error in |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |configuration|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBTopology|TBD |with racoon, |
| | J | G | | | |TBD |Greece still |
| | G | J | | | |TBD |need some |
| | | | | | | |time to fix |
| 2 | C | J | | | |Success |the issue. |
| | J | C | | | |Success |So,this |
| | C | G | | | |TBD |scenario only|
| | G | C | GET| FEObject |LFBSelector|TBD |took place |
| | J | G | | | s |TBD |between C and|
| | G | J | | | |TBD |J. |
| | | | | | | | |
| 3 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | SET| Ether | VlanInput |TBD | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |TBD | |
| | G | J | | | |TBD | |
| | | | | | | | |
| 4 | C | J | | | |Success | |
| | J | C | | | |Success | |
| | C | G | | | |TBD | |
| | G | C | DEL| Ether | VlanInput |TBD | |
| | J | G | | Classifier| Table |TBD | |
| | G | J | | | |TBD | |
+----+----+-----+----+-----------+-----------+--------+-------------+
5.3. CE High Availability Test
In this scenario one FE would be connected with two CEs. In pre-
association setup, the FE would be configured to have CE1 as master
CE and CE2 as standby CE and CEFailoverPolicy to High Availability (2
or 3). The FE once associated with the master CE it would then
attempt to connect and associate with the standby CE.
When master CE is considered disconnected, either by TearDown, Loss
of Heartbeats or Disconnected, FE would assume that the standby CE is
now the master CE. FE will then send an Event Notification, Primary
CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby CE in this case with
the value of the new master CEID. The standby CE will then respond
by setting with a configuration message the CEID of the FE Protocol
Object with it's own ID, the same value, to confirm that the CE
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
considers itself as the master as well.
5.4. Packet Forwarding Test
The Scenario of packet forwading is the most complex one because it
need the Scenario 1 must be completed.In this scenario testing,the
pattern of J-CE C-FE was carried out. Smartbits's 2 testing ports
connect to FE's 2 data-forwarding ports,meanwhile smartbits simulate
ospf router and try to exchange the OSPF hello packet and LSA packet
with CE,because CE also has an OSPF process in it so that the whole
NE including FE and CE looks like an OSPF router.
In this scenario,RedirectIn,RedirectOut,IPv4NextHop,IPv4UcastLPM LFB
should join the data path.First, it must be sured that IPv4NextHop
and IPv4UcastLPM can work normally so that route entry can be added
to FE.Second,RedirectIn and RedirectOut LFB MUST work,only that can
FE redirect out OSPF hello and LSA packets to CE received from
smartBits,FE redirect in OSPF hello and LSA packets to smartBits
received from CE's OSPF process.
During the test, results as shown in the following figure are
recorded.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
|Test| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFB | Result | Comment |
|# | | | | | | |
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
| 1 | J | C |IPv4NextHopTable|IPv4NextHop|success | Muticast |
| | | | SET | | | route is |
| | | | | | | added by |
| 2 | J | C |IPv4PrefixTable | IPv4Ucast |success |manual,this |
| | | | SET | LPM | |problem still|
| | | | | | |need to be |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | |fixed in the |
| 3 | J | C |packet from CE |RedirectIn |failure | future. |
| | | |to SmartBits | | | |
| | | | | | | As for |
| | | |Redirect ospf | | | redirect |
| 4 | J | C |packet from |RedirectOut|success | message, |
| | | |SmartBits to CE | | |ospf hello |
| | | | | | |packet in 2 |
| | | |Metadata in |RedirectOut| |direction can|
| 5 | J | C |redirect message|RedirectIn |success |be wathed by |
| | | | | | | wireshark. |
| | | | | | |however ospf |
| | | |OSPF neiborhood |RedirectOut| | packet |
| 6 | J | C | discovery |RedirectIn |failure |received from|
| | | | | | |CE have an |
| | | | |RedirectOut| |error with |
| | | | OSPF LSA |RedirectIn | |checksum,so |
| 6 | J | C | exchange |IPv4NextHop|TBD |smartBits |
| | | | | IPv4Ucast | |will drop it |
| | | | | LPM | |with no |
| | | | | | |neighborhood |
| | | | | | |discovered. |
+----+----+-----+----------------+-----------+--------+-------------+
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
6. Discussions
6.1. On Data Encapsulation Format
In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
operations about tables all failed. The reason is found to be the
different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:
1. On response of PATH-DATA format When a CE sends a config/query
ForCES protocol message to an FE with a different implementor, the CE
is probable to receive response from the FE with different PATH-DATA
encaplation format. For example, if a CE sends a query message with
a path (1.1.1) to a third party FE, the FE is probable to generate
response with two different PATH-DATA encaplation format: the value
with FULL/SPARSE-DATA, and the format of many parallel PATHDATA TLV
and nested PATHDATA TLV, as below:
format 1:
GET-RESPONSE:
PATH DATA (id:1.2)
FULL DATA(a,b)
format 2:
GET-RESPONSE:
PATH DATA
PATH DATA
FULL DATA
PATH DATA
FULL DATA
......
The interoperability test shows that an ForCES element (CE or FE)
sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
documents define and best suits the element, while an ForCES element
(CE or FE) MUST be prepared to accept and process information
(requests and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by
IETF ForCES documents.
2. On operation to array
An array operation may also have several different data encaplation
formats. For example, a component of array with two elements (a and
b) in one entry, CE may encapsulate a SET message in two format:
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
format 1:
SET:
PATH DATA (id:1.2)
FULL DATA(a,b)
format 2:
SET:
PATH DATA
PATH DATA (id:1)
FULL DATA (a)
PATH DATA (id:2)
FULL DATA (b)
Via the interoperability test experience, this document recommends
that format 1 be used for all array data format encapsulations. It
is purely because format 1 can achieve the best efficiency.
6.2. On ...
TBD
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
7. Contributors
Contributors who have made major contributions to the
interoperability test are as below:
Hirofumi Yamazaki
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Email: yamazaki.horofumi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Rong Jin
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou
P.R.China
Email: jinrong@zjgsu.edu.cn
Yuta Watanabe
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Email: yuta.watanabe@ntt-at.co.jp
Xiaochun Wu
Zhejiang Gongshang University
Hangzhou
P.R.China
Email: spring-403@zjgsu.edu.cn
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would also like thank the following test participants:
Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang Unviersity
Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Kelei Jin,Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
9. IANA Considerations
(TBD)
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
10. Security Considerations
TBD
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
11. References
11.1. Normative 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.
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010.
[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.
[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou, 310018
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@zjgsu.edu.cn
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo,
Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Patras,
Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Ming Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
408 Wen-San Road
Hangzhou, 310012
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877751
Email: gmyyqno1@pop.zjgsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Wang, et al. Expires September 8, 2011 [Page 34]
