Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-forces-interop
draft-ietf-forces-interop
Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa
Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation
Expires: December 04, 2013 E.H. Haleplidis
University of Patras
M. Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
J. Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
June 02, 2013
Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
(ForCES)
draft-ietf-forces-interop-09
Abstract
This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on
February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 reported the results of the
first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC
6053 by providing further interoperability results.
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 December 04, 2013.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. TML with IPsec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
1. Introduction
This document captures results of the second interoperability test of
the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took
place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of
Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved protocol
elements described in several documents namely:
- ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]
- ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) Model [RFC5812]
- ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) [RFC5811]
The test also involved protocol elements described in the then-
current versions of two Internet-Drafts. Although these documents
have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to
understand which versions of the work were used during this test.
The then-current Internet-Drafts are:
- ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03].
- ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00].
The 'ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library' document has
advanced and been published by IETF as RFC 6956.
Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.
Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPsec, CE High
Availability, and Packet Forwarding were constructed. Series of
testing items for every scenario were carried out and
interoperability results were achieved. Popular packet analyzers
Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify
the wire results.
This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of
the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was
held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. That test
focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and
ForCES FE model.
1.1. ForCES Protocol
The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which Forwarding
Elements (FEs) are slaves and Control Elements (CEs) are masters.
The protocol includes commands for transport of Logical Function
Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status, and
event notifications, etc. The reader is encouraged to read the
ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for further information.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
1.2. ForCES FE Model
The ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812] 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 ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES
Protocol Layer (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. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details.
1.4. Definitions
This document follows the terminology defined by ForCES related
documents, including RFC3654, RFC3746, RFC5810, RFC5811, RFC5812,
RFC5813, etc.
2. Overview
2.1. Date, Location, and Participants
The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF
ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by
Jamal Hadi Salim. Three independent ForCES implementations
participated in the test:
o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of
Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),
China. This implementation is referred to as "ZJSU" or in some
cases "Z" in the document for the sake of brevity.
o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
"NTT" or in some cases "N" in the document for the sake of
brevity.
o The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred
to as "UoP" or in some cases "P" in the document for the sake of
brevity.
Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Corporation, which independently extended two different well known
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the
interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers 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 5.1 ).
Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the
interoperability test. The errata has been reported to related IETF
RFCs.
At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead
of all three representative implementations due to a third one
lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all
implementers mentioned they would be implementing any missing
features in the future.
2.2. Testbed Configuration
2.2.1. Participants Access
NTT and ZJSU 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
as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as shown in
Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
implementer may act alternatively.
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
| FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring|
| ZJSU |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)
+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Mojatatu |
|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+
+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
| NTT | | | +---| UoP |
+---------+ +----+ +----------+
Figure 1: Access for Participants
As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPsec
security in the TML.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPsec, SCTP
protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .
2.2.2. Testbed Configuration
CEs and FEs from ZJSU and NTT implementations were physically located
within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and connected
together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be seen in
Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party routing
protocol testing machine, which acts as a router running OSPF and RIP
and exchanged routing protocol messages with ForCES routers in the
network. Connection to the Internet was via an ADSL channel.
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|(ADSL)
|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
|ZJSU | | NTT | | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
+-----+ +-----+ |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+
+---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+
| .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 |
| .12| |.12 |
| | | |
192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24
| 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
CE and FE from the UoP implementation were located within the
University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN
as shown in Figure 3. Connection to the Internet was via a VPN
channel.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
/\/\/\/\/\
\Internet/
/ \
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|(VPN)
|
+------------------------------------+
| LAN |
+------------------------------------+
| | |
| | |
+------+ +--------+ +------+
| FE | |Protocol| | CE |
| UoP | |Analyzer| | UoP |
+------+ +--------+ +------+
Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
Patras,Greece
The testbeds above were then able to satisfy requirements of all
interoperability test scenarios in this document.
3. Scenarios
3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
This scenario was to test the interoperability on LFB operations
among the participants. The connection diagram for the participants
is as shown in Figure 4.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
| NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
implementers were required to carry out the test in a way acting as
CE or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation was
combined with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
The test scenario was designed with the following purposes:
Firstly, the scenario was designed to verify all kinds of protocol
messages with their complex data formats, which were defined in RFC
5810. Specially, we tried to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA
with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array
or an array with a nested array.
Secondly, the scenario was designed to verify the definition of
ForCES LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defined a base
set of ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful
test under this scenario would help the validity of the LFB
definitions.
3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPsec
This scenario was designed to implement a TML with IPsec, which was
the requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPsec was not implemented and
tested in the first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC
6053. For this reason, in this interoperability test, we
specifically designed the test scenario to verify the TML over IPsec
channel.
In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were
repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPsec. This
setup scenario allowed us to verify whether all interactions between
CE and FE could be made correctly under an IPsec TML environment.
The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5.
Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in UoP prevented
the deployment of IPsec over TML, this test only took place between
the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | NTT |
+------+ +------+
| |
|TML over IPsec |TML over IPsec
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
| NTT | | ZJSU |
+------+ +------+
Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPsec
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPsec channel.
Implementers joined in this interoperability used the same third-
party software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish the IPsec channel.
The Racoon in NetBSD is an IKE daemon performing the IPsec Key
Exchange (IKE) with the peers. Both IKE v1 and v2 are supported by
Racoon in linux 2.6, and the v2 was adopted in the interop test. SAD
and SPD were necessary for the test, setups of which were in the
Racoon configuration file. ESP was specified in SAD and SPD in the
Racoon configuration file.
ZJSU and NTT made a successful test with the scenario, and the
following items were realized:
o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
authentication.
o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), HMAC-SHA1-96
for message integrity protection.
3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability
CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA
document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA were simplified
so as to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which were:
o Associating with more than one CE.
o Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.
The connection diagram for the scenario is as shown in Figure 6.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
master standby master standby
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
| ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | |
+----------+ +-----------+
| |
+------+ +------+
| FE | | FE |
| UoP | | UoP |
+------+ +------+
(a) (b)
Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
In this scenario one FE was connected and associated to a master CE
and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be
configured to have ZJSU's or NTT's CE as master CE and UoP's CE as
standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object
LFB that specified whether the FE was in High Availability mode
(value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by
the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.
If the CEFailoverPolicy value was set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post-
association phase) would attempt to connect and associate with the
standby CE.
When the master CE was deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown,
Loss of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume
that the standby CE was now the master CE. The FE would 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 would then respond by sending a configuration message to
the CEID component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to
confirm that the CE considered itself as the master as well.
The steps of the CEHA test scenario were as follows:
1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and
backup CE
2. FE connecting and associating with master CE.
3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and
associate with backup CE.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
the first Associated backup CE.
5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
down and who is now the master CE.
6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE
setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
the switch.
3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
This test scenario was to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], and more importantly, to verify the
combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.
The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.
+------+
| CE |
| NTT |
+------+
| ^
| | OSPF
| +------->
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(a)
+------+
| CE |
| ZJSU |
+------+
^ | ^
OSPF | | | OSPF
<-----+ | +----->
+-------+ +------+ +------+
+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
|Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(b)
+------+ +------+
| CE | | CE |
| NTT | | ZJSU |
+------+ +------+
| ^ ^ |
| | OSPF | |
| +----------+ |
+------+ +------+
+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------| NTT |------|Terminal|
+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
<-------------------------------------------->
Packet Forwarding
(c)
Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding
In case (a), a CE by NTT was connected to an FE by ZJSU to form a
ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol
software were used to simulate an OSPF router and were connected with
the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA
packets among them. Terminals were simulated by Smartbits to send
and receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need
to be configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.
In case (b), a CE by ZJSU was connected to an FE by NTT to form a
ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF were simulated and connected
to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router could support OSPF
protocol and support packet forwarding.
In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed. One was with CE by
NTT and FE by ZJSU and the other was opposite. OSPF and packet
forwarding were tested in the environment.
Testing process for this scenario is as below:
1. Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
interfaces.
2. Boot CE and FE.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
3. Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of
FEs interfaces.
4. Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.
5. Send packets between terminals.
4. Test Results
4.1. LFB Operation Test
The test result is as reported by Figure 8. For the convenience
sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'Z' in the table means
implementation from ZJSU ,'N' implementation from NTT, and
'P'implementation from UoP.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |
| | | | | | /Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
| 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 3 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 4 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 5 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 6 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 7 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 8 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 9 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 10 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 11 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| 12 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 13 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success |
| | N | Z | | | PathEnable | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 14 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 15 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 16 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 17 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 18 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| | | | | | | |
| 19 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 20 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 21 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 22 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 23 | Z | N | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 24 | Z | N | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 25 | Z | N | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 26 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 27 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 28 | Z | N | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 29 | Z | N | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 30 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 31 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 32 | Z | N | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 33 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 34 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 35 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 36 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |
| | Z | P | | | | Success |
| | P | Z | | | | Success |
| | N | P | | | | Success |
| | P | N | | | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results
Note on test #1 and #2:
On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of
FULLDATA vs SPARSEDATA was tested.
It is very common for CE to get information of FEobject LFB in FE so
as to know status on all active LFBs in the FE. Hence, the two tests
were specifically designed.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
4.2. TML with IPsec Test
In this scenario, the ForCES TML was run over IPsec. Implementers
joined this interoperability test used the same third-party tool
software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish IPsec channel. Typical LFB
operation tests as in Scenario 1 were repeated with the IPsec enabled
TML.
As mentioned, this scenario only took place between implementers of
ZJSU and NTT.
The TML with IPsec test results are reported by Figure 9.
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component/ | Result |
| | | | | | Capability | |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
| 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success |
| | N | Z | | | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 3 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
| | | | | | | |
| 4 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |
+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
Figure 9: TML with IPsec Test Results
4.3. CE High Availability Test
In this scenario, one FE connected and associated with a master CE
and a backup CE. When the master CE was deemed disconnected, the FE
would attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.
The CEHA scenario as was described by Scenario 3 was completed
successfully for both setups.
Due to a bug in one of the FEs, an interesting issue was caught: it
was observed that the buggy FE took up to a second to failover. It
was eventually found that the issue was due to the FE's
prioritization of the different CEs. All messages from the backup CE
were being ignored unless the master CE was disconnected.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
While the bug was fixed and the CEHA scenario was completed
successfully, the authors felt it was important to capture the
implementation issue in this document. The recommended approach is
the following:
o The FE should receive and handle messages first from the master CE
on all priority channels to maintain proper functionality and then
receive and handle messages from the backup CEs.
o Only when the FE is attempting to associate with the backup CEs,
then the FE should receive and handle messages per priority
channel from all CEs. When all backup CEs are associated with or
deemed unreachable, then the FE should return to receiving and
handling messages first from the master CE.
4.4. Packet Forwarding Test
As described in the ForCES LFB library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03],
packet forwarding is implemented by a set of LFB classes that compose
a processing path for packets. In this test scenario, as shown in
Figure 7, a ForCES router running OSPF protocol was constructed. In
addition, a set of LFBs including RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
IPv4UcastLPM, and IPv4NextHop LFBs were used. RedirectIn and
RedirectOut LFBs redirected OSPF hello and LSA packets from and to
CE. A Smartbits test machine was used to simulate an OSPF router and
exchange the OSPF hello and LSA packets with CE in ForCES router.
In Figure 7, case (a) and case (b) both need a RedirectIn LFB to send
OSPF packets generated by CE to FE by use of ForCES packet redirect
messages. The OSPF packets were further sent to an outside OSPF
Router by the FE via forwarding LFBs including IPv4NextHop and
IPv4UcastLPM LFBs. A RedirectOut LFB in the FE was used to send OSPF
packets received from outside OSPF Router to CE by ForCES packet
redirect messages.
By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router could generate new
routes and load them to routing table in FE. The FE was then able to
forward packets according to the routing table.
The test results are as shown in Figure 10
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
|Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result |
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
| 1 | N | Z | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | |
| 2 | N | Z | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
| | | | | | |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| 3 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to SmartBits | | |
| | | | | | |
| 4 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | SmartBits to CE | | |
| | | | | | |
| 5 | N | Z | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | |
| 6 | N | Z | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | |
| 7 | N | Z | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | |
| 8 | N | Z | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | |
| 9 | N | Z | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
| | | | | | |
| 10 | Z | N | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
| | | | | | |
| 11 | Z | N | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
| | | | | | |
| 12 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
| | | | CE to other OSPF router | | |
| | | | | | |
| 13 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
| | | |other OSPF router to CE | | |
| | | | | | |
| 14 | Z | N | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | |
| 15 | Z | N |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | | |
| 16 | Z | N | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | | |
| 17 | Z | N | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
| | | | | RedirectIn | |
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results
Note on test #1 and #2:
The implementer found a multicast route pointing to localhost had to
be manually set before a redirect channel could work normally.
Note on test #3 to #9:
During the test, OSPF packets received from CE were found by Ethereal
/Wireshark with checksum errors in FE. Because the test time was
quite limited, implementer of the CE did not try to make efforts to
find and solve the checksum error, instead, the FE had tried to
correct the checksum in order not to let the Smartbits drop the
packets. Note that such solution does not affect the test results.
Comment on Test #16 and #17:
The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical
to the two tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged.
Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked
well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem
caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the
ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on
the protocol specification. Although the failure made the OSPF
interoperability test incomplete, it did not show interoperability
problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF
interoperability.
5. Discussions
5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format
In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
operations about tables all failed. It was eventually found the
failure was because that different data encapsulation methods for
ForCES protocol messages were taken by different implementations.
The issue is described in detail as below:
Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1
and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32
both inside, as below:
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
struct1: type struct, ID=1
components are:
a, type u32, ID=1
b, type u32, ID=2
table1: type array, ID=2
components for each row are (a struct of):
x, type u32, ID=1
y, type u32, ID=2
1. On response of PATH-DATA format
When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the
FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a
CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to
manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is
the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
parallel PATH-DATA TLV and nested PATH-DATA TLV, as below:
format 1:
OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a),valueof(b)
format 2:
OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
The interoperability testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or
FE) sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
(CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests
and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
ForCES documents. While in the case a ForCES element is free to
choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was
made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
looks forward to receive.
2. On operation to array
An array operation may also have several different data encapsulation
formats. For instance, if a CE sends a config message to table 1
with a path of (2.1), which refers to component with ID=2, which is
an array, and the second ID is the row, so row 1, it may be
encapsulated with three formats as below:
format 1:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2.1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(x),valueof(y)
format 2:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2.1
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=1
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(x)
PATH-DATA-TLV
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(y)
Moreover, if CE is targeting the whole array, for example if the
array is empty and CE wants to add the first row to the table, it
could also adopt another format:
format 3:
OPER = SET-TLV
PATH-DATA-TLV:
IDs=2
FULLDATA-TLV containing rowindex=1,valueof(x),valueof(y)
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
The interoperability test experience has shown that format 1 and
format 3, which take full advantage of multiple data elements
description in one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, get more efficiency, although
format 2 can also get the same operating goal.
6. 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@zjsu.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@zjsu.edu.cn
7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following test participants:
Chuanhuang Li, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Ligang Dong, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Bin Zhuge, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Jingjing Zhou, Zhejiang Gongshang University
Liaoyuan Ke, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
Kelei Jin, Hangzhou BAUD Networks
The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Ben
Campbell, Nevil Brownlee, and Sean Turner for their important help in
the document publication process.
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security
considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES
Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security
considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol
[RFC5811], the transport-level security has to be ensured by IPsec.
Test results of TML with IPsec supported have been shown in
Section 4.2 in this document.
The tests described in this document used only simple password
security mode. Testing using more sophisticated security is for
future study.
Further testing using key agility is encouraged. The tests reported
here used SCTP TML running over an IPsec tunnel which was established
by Racoon. Key negotiation formed part of this process, but we
believe that the SCTP TML used does not include key agility or
renegotiation.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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.
10.2. Informative References
[Ethereal]
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
, "Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.
The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated
Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the
ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html , .
[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00
(work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is
intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet-
Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT
update this reference to a more recent version of the
draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before
publication] , October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC
Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please
remove this note before publication] , December 2010.
[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.
[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
[Racoon] , "Racoon in NetBSD is a well-known IKE daemon performing
the IPsec Key Exchange (IKE) with the peers",
http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipsec/rasvpn.html , .
[Tcpdump] , "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi
Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
current/msg03811.html , .
[Teamviewer]
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
, "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
, .
Authors' Addresses
Weiming Wang
Zhejiang Gongshang University
18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
Hangzhou 310018
P.R.China
Phone: +86-571-28877721
Email: wmwang@zjsu.edu.cn
Kentaro Ogawa
NTT Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Evangelos Haleplidis
University of Patras
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Patras 26500
Greece
Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
Ming Gao
Hangzhou BAUD Networks
408 Wen-San Road
Hangzhou 310012
P.R.China
Email: gmyyqno1@zjsu.edu.cn
Jamal Hadi Salim
Mojatatu Networks
Ottawa
Canada
Email: hadi@mojatatu.com
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ForCES Interop Report June 2013
Wang, et al. Expires December 04, 2013 [Page 29]
