Network Working Group T. Clausen Internet-Draft A. Camacho Intended status: Informational J. Yi Expires: April 29, 2012 A. Colin de Verdiere LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Y. Igarashi SATOH. H. Y. Morii Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory October 27, 2011 Experience with the LOADng routing protocol for LLNs draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-01 Abstract This document reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol for LLNs which is specified in the draft-clausen-lln-loadng internet draft. This report is providing information resulting from interoperability testing performed at Hitachi YRL facilities in Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to october 19th 2011. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2012. 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 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Interoperability Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Testbed configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. 1-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 8 4.2.4. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. 2-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 11 4.3.4. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.5. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . 15 4.4.4. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.5. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5.3. Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.5.4. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.6. Establishment of the best bidirectional route . . . . . . 23 4.6.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.6.2. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.6.3. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.7. Blacklisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.7.1. Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.7.2. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.7.3. Obtained results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 1. Introduction This document reports about the interoperability tests carried out at Hitachi YRL facilities in Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to october 19th 2011 for different implementations of the LOADng (LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector - Next Generation) routing protocol. Interoperability tests between LOADng Routers implemented on the basis of the draft-clausen-lln-loadng internet draft have been run mainly for the following purposes : o Show evidence that interoperable LOADng implementations do exist. o Clarify and improve the overall quality of the LOADng specification. o Demonstrate that the final LOADng internet draft can be considered as a standalone specification allowing the development of interoperable implementations of LOADng. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Additionally, this document uses the following terminology: LOADng Router - A router which implements this routing protocol. Destination - The address of a router or host, to which a route is sought discovered and maintained. Originator - The address of a router, which seeks to discover and maintain a route to a Destination. Forward Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the Originator to the Destination. The Forward Route is set up when a LOADng Router forwards Route Reply (RREP) messages. Reverse Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the Destination to the Originator. The Reverse Route is set up when a LOADng Router forwards Route Request (RREQ) messages. It is used for forwarding RREP messages, as well as for forwarding data packets. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Route Cost - The sum of the Link Costs for the links that a RREQ or RREP has crossed. Weak Link - A link which is marginally usable, i.e., MAY be used if no other links are available, but SHOULD be avoided if at all possible - even if it entails an ultimately longer path. As an example, a Weak Link might be defined as a link with a significant loss-rate. This document employs the same notational conventions as in [RFC5444]. 3. Implementations Several LOADng implementations are currently available. This section is listing the implementations that have been used to perform the interoperability tests this document is reporting about (listed in alphabetical order) : Ecole Polytechnique : "LIX" - This implementation was jointly developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. Hitachi YRL 1 : "Hitachi 1" - This implementation was fully developed by Yuichi Igarashi of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1589 lines of C code running in the Hitachi proprietary micro OS environment embedded in a 16MHz H8 micro processor. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. Hitachi YRL 2 : "Hitachi 2" - This implementation was jointly developed by Nobukatsu Inomata of Hitachi ULSI Systems and Yoko Morii of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1987 lines of C++ code running in a Mac OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK generation, processing, forwarding and transmission, and RERR processing. 4. Interoperability Testing This section is describing all the tests carried out between the implementations that are previously considered in this document. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 4.1. Testbed configuration The testbed was composed of up to five LOADng Routers put together according to the different topologies described hereunder. The LOADng routing protocol were run over UDP, IPv4 and Ethernet. Wireshark packet sniffers, that have been modified to interpret LOADng control traffic, were used to monitor each single underlying link. For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of unidirectional links. 4.2. 1-hop bidirectional route establishment 4.2.1. Topology The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers : +-------+ +-------+ | A |________| B | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ Routers A and B are embedding a different implementation of LOADng. This test was performed between all previously considered implementations. This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B. 4.2.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation For each implementation, this test aims to verifiy the initial installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to B) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and sends an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) and sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router B. A B | RREQ | --------------------> | RREP | <-------------------- | RREP-ACK | --------------------> | | 4.2.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating For each implementation, this test aims to verifiy the refreshment of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to B) already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router B. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding route (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B | RREQ | --------------------> | RREP | <-------------------- | RREP-ACK | --------------------> | | 4.2.4. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation) was performed : +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ Table 1 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse Route updating) was performed : +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ Table 2 4.3. 2-hop bidirectional route establishment 4.3.1. Topology The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router B : Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | A |________| B |________| C | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 4.3.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B which is located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. It is also verified that RREP- ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages are intended for. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router C. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router C and forwards the RREP received previously. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B C | RREQ | | --------------------> | | | RREQ | | --------------------> | | RREP | | <-------------------- | | RREP-ACK | | --------------------> | RREP | | <-------------------- | | RREP-ACK | | --------------------> | | | | 4.3.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B which is located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router C. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding route (Forward route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router C and forwards the RREP received previously. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding routes (Forward routes from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. A B C | RREQ | | --------------------> | | | RREQ | | --------------------> | | RREP | | <-------------------- | | RREP-ACK | | --------------------> | RREP | | <-------------------- | | RREP-ACK | | --------------------> | | | | 4.3.4. Link breakage handling This test aims to verify the proper generation and processing of a RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng Routers A and C. o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router B. Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is transmitted. Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by LOADng Router B is triggered manually (normally, this would be triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng Router C). o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B C | | | | | B-C link breakage | | | X | RERR | X <-------------------- X | | X 4.3.5. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse Route updating) were performed : +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ | A | B | C | Test 1 | Test 2 | +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ | Hitahci 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ Table 3 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage handling) was performed : +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ | A | B | C | Test 3 | +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ Table 4 4.4. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment 4.4.1. Topology The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Routers B and C : +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 4.4.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B and C, which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. It is also verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages are intended for. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router D. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received previously is forwarded. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. A B C D | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | | | | | 4.4.3. Forward Route and Reverse Route updating This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B and C which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router D. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the corresponding routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A and from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) already installed within its Routing Set. The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK- REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding route (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D and from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received previously is forwarded. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B C D | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | --------------------> | | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | RREP | | | <-------------------- | | | RREP-ACK | | | --------------------> | | | | | | 4.4.4. Link breakage handling This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng Routers A and D. o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router C. Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is transmitted to LOADng Router B according to the Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by LOADng Router C is triggered manually (normally, this would be triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng Router D). o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 LOADng Router A. o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D. A B C D | | | | | | | C-D link breakage X | | | X | | RERR | X | <-------------------- X | RERR | | X <-------------------- | X | | | X 4.4.5. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse Route updating) were performed : +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ | A | B | C | D | Test 1 | Test 2 | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+--------+ Table 5 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage handling) was performed : +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ | A | B | C | D | Test 3 | +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ Table 6 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 4.5. 4-hop bidirectional route establishment 4.5.1. Topology The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Routers B, C and D : +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. 4.5.2. Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to E) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B, C and D, which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. It is also verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages are intended for. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router E. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) and forwards the received RREQ. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router E installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router E to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router D (Reverse route from LOADng Router E to LOADng Router D). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router E), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router E and forwards the RREP received previously. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router E) and a new entry towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D). An unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router D and the RREP received previously is forwarded. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router E) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received previously is forwarded. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new entry towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router E). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B C D E | RREQ | | | | ---------------> | | | | | RREQ | | | | ---------------> | | | | | RREQ | | | | ---------------> | | | | | RREQ | | | | ---------------> | | | | RREP | | | | <--------------- | | | | RREP-ACK | | | | ---------------> | | | RREP | | | | <--------------- | | | | RREP-ACK | | | | ---------------> | | | RREP | | | | <--------------- | | | | RREP-ACK | | | | ---------------> | | | RREP | | | | <--------------- | | | | RREP-ACK | | | | ---------------> | | | | | | | | 4.5.3. Link breakage handling This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. The expected message sequencing is as follows : o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng Routers A and E. o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router D. Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is transmitted to LOADng Router C according to the Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. Note : link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by LOADng Router D is triggered manually (normally, this would be triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Router E). o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router C updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A. o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A. o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router E. A B C D E | | | | | | | | D-E link breakage | | | | X | | | RERR | X | | <--------------- X | | RERR | | X | <--------------- | X | RERR | | | X <--------------- | | X | | | | X 4.5.4. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Link breakage handling) were performed : +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+ | A | B | C | D | E | Test 1 | Test 2 | +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+ | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+--------+ Table 7 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 4.6. Establishment of the best bidirectional route 4.6.1. Topology The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng Router C towards LOADng Router A can be forwarded by LOADng Router B or transmitted via the direct link between LOADng Routers A and C : +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | A |________| B |________| C | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |_________________________________| This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 4.6.2. Description This test aims to verify the processing of multiple RREQs when installing a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets). The expected message sequencing is as follows : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message intended for LOADng Router C. According to RREQ transmission rules, the generated RREQ message is transmitted to all neighbor LOADng Routers. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct link with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the same RREQ via LOADng Router B, LOADng Router C compares the Route Cost and Weak Link information carried by the RREQ with the already existing entry within its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) according to the comparison operator specified by the metric used (the "hop count while avoiding Weak Links" metric was used). No Weak Links are emulated. Thus, the best route is chosen considering the Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Route Cost information only : Already existing entry : = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 1) Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ : = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 2) According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used : (0, 1) < (0,2) Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP message. o Upon receiving the RREP via its direct link with LOADng Router C, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router C. A B C | RREQ | | --------------------> RREQ | ----------------------------------------> | | RREQ | | --------------------> | | RREP | <---------------------------------------- | | RREP-ACK | ----------------------------------------> | | | Note : the RREQ forwarded by LOADng Router B towards C is not necessarily received before LOADng Router C generates the RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. Indeed, the order in which those messages are transmitted is dependent on the transmission delays of each single link between LOADng Routers A, B and C. 4.6.3. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which this test was performed : Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ | A | B | C | Result | +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ Table 8 4.7. Blacklisting 4.7.1. Topology The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers with a unidirectional link between LOADng Routers A and D (direct communication from D towards A is impossible). +-------+ +-------+ | A |_________| B | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ | | V | +-------+ +-------+ | D |_________| C | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 4.7.2. Description This test aims to verify the effectiveness of avoiding unidirectional links using blacklisting. First attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng Routers A and D : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message ( = 0, = A) intended for LOADng Router D. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct (unidirectional) link with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new entry towards LOADng Router B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the same RREQ ( = 0, = A) again via LOADng Router C, LOADng Router D compares the Route Cost and Weak Link information carried by the RREQ with the already existing entry within its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A) according to the comparison operator specified by the metric used (the "hop count while avoiding Weak Links" metric was used). No Weak Links are emulated. Thus, the best route is chosen considering the Route Cost information only : Already existing entry : = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 1) Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ : = (Weak Link, Route Cost) = (0, 2) According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used : (0, 1) < (0,2) Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP message. o Due to the unidirectional nature of the existing link between LOADng Routers A and D, the RREP message previously sent by LOADng Router D intended for LOADng Router A did not reach its destination. After an elapsed time equaling ack_timeout, LOADng Router D is not expecting an RREP-ACK message anymore. This results in recording LOADng Router A neighbor in LOADng Router D's Blacklist. Second attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Routers A and D : o LOADng Router A generates a RREQ message ( = 1, = A) intended for LOADng Router D. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its blacklisted neighbor LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D discards the message. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received RREQ. o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the already installed route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) and installs a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The field of the sent RREP message is set to "ACK-REQUIRED". o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received previously is forwarded. o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new entry in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D) and a new entry towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B). The reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng Router B. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 A B C D | | | | First attempt ///////////////////////////////////////// | RREQ | | | ------------------> RREQ | | ------------------------------------------------------> | | RREP | | |XXXXX <----------------------------------------------- | | RREQ | | | ------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | ----------------->X RREQ | | | | Discarded Second attempt //////////////////////////////////////// | RREQ | | | ------------------> RREQ | | ----------------------------------------------------->X RREQ | | RREQ | | Discarded | ------------------> | | | | RREQ | | | ------------------> | | | RREP | | | <------------------ | | | RREP-ACK | | | ------------------> | | RREP | | | <------------------ | | | RREP-ACK | | | ------------------> | | RREP | | | <------------------ | | | RREP-ACK | | | ------------------> | | 4.7.3. Obtained results The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the different combinations for which this test was performed : +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ | A | B | C | D | Result | +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | | Hitachi 2 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ Table 9 Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 4.8. Conclusions The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to completely cover the LOADng specification by checking each technical feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this process permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy of the LOADng specification (draft-clausen-lln-loadng). +------+----------------+-----------------------+-----------+ | | | | Scenario | |Chap. | Item | Technical feature +-----------+ | | | |1|2|3|4|5|6| +------+----------------+------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |6.1 | | |Originator|X|X|X| |X|X| +------+ Information |Routing Set +----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |6.1 | Base | |Previous | |X|X|X| |X| +------+ +------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |6.2 | |Blacklist Neighbor set | | | | | |X| +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8.1 | |TLV |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8.2.1 | Packet |Route Request Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Format +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8.2.1 | |Route Reply Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8.2.2 | |Route Reply Ack Message|X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |8.2.3 | |Route Error Message | |X|X|X| | | +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |10.1 | Unidirectional |Blacklist | | | | | |X| | | link handling | | | | | | | | +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |11.1 | |Invalid RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Common rules +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |11.2 | for RREQ, RREP |RREQ, RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Message +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |11.3 | |Updating RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |12.1 | |RREQ Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |12.2 | Route |RREQ Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Requests +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |12.3 | (RREQs) |RREQ Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |12.4 | |RREQ Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |13.1 | |RREP Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |13.2 | Route |RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Replies +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |13.3 | (RREPs) |RREP Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |13.4 | |RREP Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |14.1 | |RERR Generation | |X|X|X| | | +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |14.2 | Route |RERR Processing | |X|X|X| | | +------+ Errors +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |14.3 | (RERRs) |RERR Forwarding | | |X|X| | | +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |14.4 | |RERR Transmission | |X|X|X| | | +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |15.1 | |RREP-ACK Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |15.2 | Route |RREQ-ACK Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ Reply +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |15.3 | Acknowledgement|RREQ-ACK Forwarding |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+ (RREP-ACKs) +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |15.4 | |RREQ-ACK Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |16 | Metrics |Hop Count While |X|X|X|X|X|X| | | |Avoiding Weak Links | | | | | | | +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Scenario 1: 1-hop bidirectional route establishment Scenario 2: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment Scenario 3: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment Scenario 4: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment Scenario 5: Establishment of the best bidirectional route Scenario 6: Blacklisting 5. Security Considerations This document does currently not specify any security considerations. 6. IANA Considerations This document has no actions for IANA. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 7. Contributors This specification is the result of the joint efforts of the following contributors -- listed alphabetically. o Thomas Heide Clausen, LIX, France, o Alberto Camacho, LIX, France, o Axel Colin de Verdiere, LIX, France, o Yuichi Igarashi, HITACHI YRL, Japan, o Nobukatsu Inomata, HITACHI ULSI Systems, Japan, o Yoko Morii, HITACHI YRL, Japan, o SATOH, Hiroki, HITACHI YRL, Japan, o Jiazi Yi, LIX, France, 8. Acknowledgments TBD 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. 9.2. Informative References [RFC5444] Clausen, T., Dearlove, C., Dean, J., and C. Adjih, "Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format", RFC 5444, February 2009. Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 Authors' Addresses Thomas Heide Clausen LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/ Alberto Camacho LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Phone: +34 636 309 835 EMail: alberto@albertocamacho.com URI: http://www.albertocamacho.com/ Jiazi Yi LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Phone: +33 1 6933 4031 EMail: jiazi@jiaziyi.com URI: http://www.jiaziyi.com/ Axel Colin de Verdiere LIX, Ecole Polytechnique Phone: +33 6 1264 7119 EMail: axel@axelcdv.com URI: http://www.axelcdv.com/ Yuichi Igarashi Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory Phone: +81 45 860 3083 EMail: yuichi.igarashi.hb@hitachi.com URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Experience with LOADng October 2011 SATOH, Hiroki Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory Phone: +81 44 959 0205 EMail: hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html Yoko Morii Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory Phone: +81 45 860 3083 EMail: yoko.morii.cs@hitachi.com URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html Clausen, et al. Expires April 29, 2012 [Page 33]