path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6984.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           W. Wang
Request for Comments: 6984                 Zhejiang Gongshang University
Updates: 6053                                                   K. Ogawa
Category: Informational                                  NTT Corporation
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            E. Haleplidis
                                                    University of Patras
                                                                  M. Gao
                                                  Hangzhou BAUD Networks
                                                           J. Hadi Salim
                                                       Mojatatu Networks
                                                             August 2013


                        Interoperability Report
         for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)

Abstract

   This document captures the results of the second Forwarding and
   Control Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test that took
   place on February 24-25, 2011, in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL)
   at Zhejiang Gongshang University, China.  The results of the first
   ForCES interoperability test were reported in RFC 6053, and this
   document updates RFC 6053 by providing further interoperability
   results.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6984.










Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  Test of LFB Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.  Test of TML with IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.3.  Test of CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.4.  Test of Packet Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Appendix B.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28






Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


1.  Introduction

   This document captures the results of the second interoperability
   test of the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) that
   took place on February 24-25, 2011, in the Internet Technology Lab
   (ITL) at 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" (December 2010)
      [LFB-LIB]

   -  "ForCES Intra-NE High Availability" (October 2010) [CEHA]

   Note: The ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library document was
   published as [RFC6956].

   Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.

   Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPsec, Control Element
   High Availability (CEHA), and Packet Forwarding were constructed.
   Series of testing items for every scenario were carried out and
   interoperability results were achieved.  The popular packet analyzers
   Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and Tcpdump [Tcpdump] were used to
   verify the wire results.

   This document is an update to [RFC6053], 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 Forwarding Element (FE) model.

1.1.  ForCES Protocol

   The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
   slaves and Control Elements (CEs) are masters.  The protocol includes
   commands for transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration



Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   information, association setup, status, event notifications, etc.
   The reader is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification
   [RFC5810] for further information.

1.2.  ForCES FE Model

   The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE 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 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 a TML that is based on the
   Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and 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 the 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 "Z" in
      this document for the sake of brevity.

   o  NTT Corporation, Japan.  This implementation is referred to as
      "NTT" or "N" in this document for the sake of brevity.

   o  The University of Patras, Greece.  This implementation is referred
      to as "UoP" or "P" in this document for the sake of brevity.




Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
   Corporation, which independently extended two different well-known
   public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
   Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interoperability test.
   During the test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify the
   validity (and in some cases, the semantics) of ForCES protocol
   messages.

   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 the protocol TLVs (refer to Section 5.1).

   Some errata related to the ForCES document were found by the
   interoperability test.  The errata found in related RFCs have also
   been reported.

   At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead
   of all three representative implementations because the third one
   lacked 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 were physically present for the testing at the Internet
   Technology Lab (ITL) at Zhejiang Gongshang University in China.  The
   implementation team from the University of Patras joined remotely
   from Greece.  The chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from
   Canada by using TeamViewer as the monitoring tool [TeamViewer].  The
   approach was as shown in Figure 1.  In the figure, FE/CE refers to
   the FE or CE that the implementer may act as alternatively.

        +---------+     +----+                    +------------+
        |  FE/CE  |     |    |                +---| Monitoring |
        |  ZJSU   |-----|    |    /\/\/\/\/\  |   |(TeamViewer)|
        +---------+     |    |    \Internet/  |   |  Mojatatu  |
                        |LAN |----/        \--|   +------------+
        +---------+     |    |    \/\/\/\/\/  |   +------------+
        |  FE/CE  |-----|    |                |   |    FE/CE   |
        |   NTT   |     |    |                +---|     UoP    |
        +---------+     +----+                    +------------+

                     Figure 1: Access for Participants





Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   As specified in [RFC5811], all CEs and FEs implemented IPsec in the
   TML.

   On the Internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPsec, the
   SCTP protocol, and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-based TML
   document [RFC5811].

2.2.2.  Testbed Configuration

   The CEs and FEs from ZJSU's and NTT's implementations were physically
   located within the ITL Lab at Zhejiang Gongshang University and
   connected together using Ethernet switches.  The configuration can be
   seen in Figure 2.  In the figure, SmartBits [SmartBits] is a third-
   party routing protocol testing machine that acts as a router running
   Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and RIP, and exchanges routing
   protocol messages with ForCES routers in the network.  Connection to
   the Internet was via an Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (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 the ITL Lab, China



Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   The 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.

                               /\/\/\/\/\
                               \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 the requirements of all
   interoperability test scenarios in this document.

3.  Scenarios

3.1.  Scenario 1 - LFB Operation

   This scenario was designed to test the interoperability of LFB
   operations among the participants.  The connection diagram for the
   participants is 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



Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
   implementers were required to carry out the test acting as a CE or FE
   alternatively.  As a result, every LFB operation was combined with
   six scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.

   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
   [RFC5810].  Specifically, we tried to verify the data format of a
   PATH-DATA-TLV with nested PATH-DATA-TLVs, and the operation (SET,
   GET, and DEL) of an array or an array with a nested array.

   Secondly, the scenario was designed to verify the definition of
   ForCES LFB Library [LFB-LIB], which defined a base set of ForCES LFB
   classes for typical router functions.  Successful tests 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 defined by RFC 5811.  TML with IPsec was not
   implemented and tested in the first ForCES interoperability test, as
   reported in 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
   the CE and FE could be made correctly under an IPsec TML environment.

   The connection diagram for this scenario is shown in Figure 5.
   Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in the UoP
   prevented the deployment of IPsec over TML, this test only took place
   between the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.















Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  CE  |                 |  CE  |
                 | ZJSU |                 |  NTT |
                 +------+                 +------+
                    |                        |
                    |TML over IPsec          |TML over IPsec
                 +------+                 +------+
                 |  FE  |                 |  FE  |
                 | NTT  |                 | ZJSU |
                 +------+                 +------+

         Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPsec

   In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPsec channel.
   Implementers joined in this interoperability test using the same
   third-party software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish the IPsec
   channel.

   The Racoon in NetBSD is an Internet Key Exchange (IKE) daemon that
   performs the key exchange with the peers.  Both IKEv1 and IKEv2 are
   supported by Racoon in Linux 2.6, and IKEv2 was adopted in the
   interop test.  The Security Association Database (SAD) and Security
   Policy Database (SPD) were necessary for the test, setups of which
   were in the Racoon configuration file.  The Encapsulating Security
   Payload (ESP) was specified in the SAD and SPD in the Racoon
   configuration file.

   ZJSU and NTT conducted a successful test with the scenario, and the
   IPsec requirement items in [RFC5812] were realized.

3.3.  Scenario 3 - CE High Availability

   CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA
   document [CEHA].

   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 a backup CE on a master CE failure.

   The connection diagram for the scenario is shown in Figure 6.








Wang, et al.                  Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 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 the master CE and the UoP's
   CE as the 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 be set either in the pre-
   association phase by the FE interface or in the 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 Control
   Element ID (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 the master
   as well.

   The steps of the CEHA test scenario were as follows:

   1.  In the pre-association phase, the FE is set up with the master CE
       and the backup CE.

   2.  The FE connects and associates with the master CE.

   3.  When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE connects and
       associates with the backup CE.



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   4.  Once the master CE is considered disconnected, then the FE
       chooses the first associated backup CE.

   5.  It sends an Event Notification that specifies the master CE is
       down and identifies the new master CE.

   6.  The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE;
       the FE then sets the CEID value to the new master CE completing
       the switch.

3.4.  Scenario 4 - Packet Forwarding

   This test scenario was conducted to verify LFBs like RedirectIn,
   RedirectOut, IPv4NextHop, and IPv4UcastLPM, which were defined by the
   ForCES LFB library document [LFB-LIB], and more importantly, to
   verify the combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.

   The connection diagram for this scenario is shown in Figure 7.

































Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


                               +------+
                               |  CE  |
                               |  NTT |
                               +------+
                                  |  ^
                                  |  | OSPF
                                  |  +------->
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       | OSPF |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+
                 <-------------------------------------------->
                             Packet Forwarding
                                    (a)


                                      +------+
                                      |  CE  |
                                      | ZJSU |
                                      +------+
                                       ^  |  ^
                                  OSPF |  |  | OSPF
                                 <-----+  |  +----->
                         +-------+    +------+     +------+
           +--------+    | OSPF  |    |  FE  |     | OSPF |  +--------+
           |Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT  |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
           +--------+    +-------+    +------+     +------+  +--------+
                 <-------------------------------------------->
                             Packet Forwarding
                                    (b)


                               +------+       +------+
                               |  CE  |       |  CE  |
                               | NTT  |       | ZJSU |
                               +------+       +------+
                                  |  ^          ^ |
                                  |  |   OSPF   | |
                                  |  +----------+ |
                               +------+       +------+
               +--------+      |  FE  |       |  FE  |      +--------+
               |Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|  NTT |------|Terminal|
               +--------+      +------+       +------+      +--------+
                 <-------------------------------------------->
                             Packet Forwarding
                                    (c)

                Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet Forwarding



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   In case (a), NTT's CE was connected to ZJSU's FE to form a ForCES
   router.  A SmartBits [SmartBits] test machine equipped with routing
   protocol software was used to simulate an OSPF router and was
   connected with the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF Hello
   packets and Link State Advertisement (LSA) packets among them.
   Terminals were simulated by SmartBits to send and receive packets.
   As a result, the CE in the ForCES router needed to be configured to
   run and support the OSPF routing protocol.

   In case (b), ZJSU'S CE was connected to NTT'S FE 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 the OSPF
   protocol and support packet forwarding.

   In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed; one was with NTT's
   CE and ZJSU's FE, and the other was with NTT's FE and ZJSU's CE.
   OSPF and packet forwarding were tested in the environment.

   The testing process for this scenario is shown below:

   1.  Boot terminals and routers, and set the IP addresses of their
       interfaces.

   2.  Boot the CE and FE.

   3.  Establish an association between the CE and FE, and set the IP
       addresses of the FE interfaces.

   4.  Start OSPF among the CE and routers, and set the Forwarding
       Information Base (FIB) on the FE.

   5.  Send packets between terminals.



















Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


4.  Test Results

4.1.  Test of LFB Operation

   The test results are reported in Figure 8.  As mentioned earlier, for
   convenience, the following abbreviations are used in the table: "Z"
   for the implementation from ZJSU, "N" for the implementation from
   NTT, and "P" for the implementation from the 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 |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |




Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   |  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 |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  12 | Z  |  N  | GET |  EtherMACIn  | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | N  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  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.                  Informational                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 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 |
   |     | P  |  N  |     |              |                   | Success |



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |
   |  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 |
   |     |    |     |     |              |                   |         |








Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   |  32 | Z  |  N  | SET |  EtherPHYCop |     AdminStatus   | Success |
   |     | N  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | Z  |  P  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | P  |  Z  |     |              |                   | Success |
   |     | 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: Test Results for LFB Operation

   Note on tests #1 and #2:

   On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of
   FULLDATA-TLV vs. SPARSEDATA-TLV was tested.

   When we use the ForCES protocol, it is very common for the CE to use
   the FEobject LFB to get information on LFBs and their topology in the
   FE.  Hence, the two tests were specifically made.





Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


4.2.  Test of TML with IPsec

   In this scenario, the ForCES TML was run over IPsec.  Implementers
   joined this interoperability test and used the same third-party tool
   software 'Racoon' [Racoon] to establish the 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 from
   ZJSU and NTT.

   The TML with IPsec test results are reported in 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: Test Results for TML with IPsec

4.3.  Test of CE High Availability

   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
   attempted to find another associated CE to become the master CE.

   The CEHA scenario, as described in 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.                  Informational                    [Page 20]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 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
      should the FE 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.  Test of Packet Forwarding

   As described in the ForCES LFB library [LFB-LIB], 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 the OSPF protocol was constructed.  In addition, a set
   of LFBs including RedirectIn, RedirectOut, IPv4UcastLPM, and
   IPv4NextHop were used.  RedirectIn and RedirectOut LFBs redirected
   OSPF Hello and LSA packets from and to the CE.  A SmartBits
   [SmartBits] test machine was used to simulate an OSPF router and
   exchange the OSPF Hello and LSA packets with the CE in the ForCES
   router.

   In Figure 7, cases (a) and (b) both need a RedirectIn LFB to send
   OSPF packets generated by the CE to the 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.  A RedirectOut LFB in the FE was used to send OSPF
   packets received from outside the OSPF router to the CE by ForCES
   packet redirect messages.

   By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router could generate new
   routes and load them to the routing table in the FE.  The FE was then
   able to forward packets according to the routing table.

   The test results are shown in Figure 10.










Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |Test#| CE |FE(s)|           Item          | LFBs Related | Result  |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
   |  1  | N  |  Z  |  IPv4NextHopTable SET   | IPv4NextHop  | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  2  | N  |  Z  |   IPv4PrefixTable SET   | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  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  |         |



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  16 | Z  |  N  |    OSPF DD exchange     |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |              |         |
   |  17 | Z  |  N  |    OSPF LSA exchange    |  RedirectOut | Failure |
   |     |    |     |                         |  RedirectIn  |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4NextHop |         |
   |     |    |     |                         |  IPv4UcastLPM|         |
   +-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+

               Figure 10: Test Results for Packet Forwarding

   Note on tests #3 to #9:

   During the test, OSPF packets received from the CE were found by
   Ethereal/Wireshark to have checksum errors in the FE.  Because the
   test time was quite limited, the implementer of the CE did not make
   an effort to find and solve the checksum error; instead, the FE had
   tried to correct the checksum in order to not let the SmartBits drop
   the packets.  Note that such a solution does not affect the test
   results.

   Comment on tests #16 and #17:

   The two test items failed.  Note that tests #7 and #8 were identical
   to tests #16 and #17, only with CE and FE implementers being
   exchanged.  Moreover, tests #12 and #13 showed that the redirect
   channel worked well.  Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that
   the problem caused by the failure was from the implementations,
   rather than from the ForCES protocol itself or the misunderstanding
   of implementations on the protocol specification.  Although the
   failure made the OSPF interoperability test incomplete, it did not
   show an interoperability problem.  More test work is needed to verify
   the OSPF interoperability.

5.  Discussions

5.1.  On Data Encapsulation Format

   On the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB
   interoperations pertaining to tables all failed.  It was eventually
   found that the failure occurred because different data encapsulation
   methods for ForCES protocol messages were used by different
   implementations.  The issue is described in detail below.






Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID=1
   and the other is an array with ID=2; in addition, both have two
   components of u32 inside, as shown below:

   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-TLV Format

   When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
   a different implementer, the CE probably receives a response from the
   FE with a different PATH-DATA-TLV encapsulation format.  For example,
   if a CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third-party FE to
   manipulate struct1 as defined above, it is probable that the FE will
   generate a response with two different PATH-DATA-TLV encapsulation
   formats: one is the value with FULLDATA-TLV/SPARSEDATA-TLV and the
   other is the value with many parallel PATH-DATA-TLVs and nested
   PATH-DATA-TLVs, as shown 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)

   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 where a ForCES element is free



Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 24]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   to choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is
   preferred that the ForCES element responds in the same format that
   the request was made, as it is most likely the data structure that
   the request sender looks 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 table1 with
   a path of (2.1), which refers to the component with ID=2 (an array),
   and the second ID is the row, then row 1 may be encapsulated with
   three formats as shown 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 the CE is targeting the whole array, for example, if the
   array is empty and the 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)


   The interoperability test experience has shown that formats 1 and 3,
   which take full advantage of the multiple data elements description
   in one TLV of FULLDATA-TLV, are more efficient, although format 2 can
   also achieve the same operating goal.







Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 25]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


6.  Security Considerations

   Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security
   considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and ForCES Protocol
   Specification [RFC5810] into account.  Also, as specified in the
   security considerations of 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.

7.  References

7.1.  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.

7.2.  Informative References

   [CEHA]        Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim,
                 "ForCES Intra-NE High Availability", Work in Progress,
                 October 2010.





Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 26]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


   [Ethereal]    Fenggen, J., "Subject: Release of a test version of
                 ForCES dissector based on Ethereal 0.99.0", message to
                 the IETF forces mailing list, 11 June 2009,
                 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/current/
                 msg03687.html>.

   [LFB-LIB]     Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
                 Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
                 Work in Progress, 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.

   [RFC6956]     Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
                 Halpern, "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
                 (ForCES) Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
                 RFC 6956, June 2013.

   [Racoon]      The NetBSD Foundation, "How to build a remote user
                 access VPN with Racoon",
                 <http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipsec/rasvpn.html>.

   [SmartBits]   Spirent Inc., "The Highly-Scalable Router Performance
                 Tester: TeraRouting Tester", 2005,
                 <http://www.spirent.com/~/media/Datasheets/Broadband/
                 Obsolete_SMB-TM/TeraRouting%20Tester.pdf>.

   [Tcpdump]     Hadi Salim, J., "Subject: tcpdump 4.1.1", message to
                 the IETF forces mailing list, 20 May 2010,
                 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/current/
                 msg03811.html>.

   [TeamViewer]  TeamViewer Inc., "TeamViewer - the All-In-One Software
                 for Remote Support and Online Meetings",
                 <http://www.teamviewer.com/>.







Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 27]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


Appendix A.  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 Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Ben
   Campbell, Nevil Brownlee, and Sean Turner for their important help in
   the document publication process.

Appendix B.  Contributors

   Contributors who have made major contributions to the
   interoperability test are listed 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








Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 28]
^L
RFC 6984                  ForCES Interop Report              August 2013


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: gaoming@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn


   Jamal Hadi Salim
   Mojatatu Networks
   Ottawa
   Canada

   EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com







Wang, et al.                  Informational                    [Page 29]
^L