GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6053

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Haleplidis Request for Comments: 6053 University of Patras Category: Informational K. Ogawa ISSN: 2070-1721 NTT Corporation

                                                               W. Wang
                                         Zhejiang Gongshang University
                                                         J. Hadi Salim
                                                     Mojatatu Networks
                                                         November 2010
                     Implementation Report for
         Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)

Abstract

 Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an
 architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize
 information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding
 plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE).  RFC 3654 has defined
 the ForCES requirements, and RFC 3746 has defined the ForCES
 framework.
 This document is an implementation report for the ForCES Protocol,
 Model, and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol-based Transport
 Mapping Layer (SCTP TML) documents, and includes a report on
 interoperability testing and the current state of ForCES
 implementations.

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/rfc6053.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.1.  ForCES Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.2.  ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.3.  Transport Mapping Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
 2.  Terminology and Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
 3.  Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 4.  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 5.  Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 6.  Detail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.1.  Implementation Experience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.1.1.  ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       6.1.1.1.  Protocol Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       6.1.1.2.  MainHeader Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       6.1.1.3.  TLV Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       6.1.1.4.  Operation Types Supported  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.1.1.5.  ForCES Protocol Advanced Features  . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.2.  ForCES Model Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.2.1.  Basic Atomic Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.2.2.  Compound Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       6.1.2.3.  LFBs Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.1.3.  ForCES SCTP TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.1.3.1.  TML Priority Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.1.3.2.  Message Handling at Specific Priorities  . . . . . 19
       6.1.3.3.  TML Security Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.2.  Interoperability Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     6.2.1.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.2.1.1.  Scenario 1 - Pre-Association Setup . . . . . . . . 21
       6.2.1.2.  Scenario 2 - TML Priority Channels Connection  . . 22
       6.2.1.3.  Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association
                 Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.2.1.4.  Scenario 4 - CE Query  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.2.1.5.  Scenario 5 - Heartbeat Monitoring  . . . . . . . . 23
       6.2.1.6.  Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command . . . . . . . . 23
       6.2.1.7.  Scenario 7 - Association Teardown  . . . . . . . . 24
     6.2.2.  Tested Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.2.2.1.  ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.2.2.2.  ForCES Model Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       6.2.2.3.  ForCES SCTP TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     6.2.3.  Interoperability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
 8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

1. Introduction

 This document is an implementation report for the ForCES protocol,
 model, and the SCTP TML documents, and includes an interoperability
 report.
 It follows the outline suggested by [RFC5657].
 ForCES defines an architectural framework and associated protocols to
 standardize information exchange between the control plane and the
 forwarding plane in a ForCES network element (ForCES NE).  [RFC3654]
 has defined the ForCES requirements, and [RFC3746] has defined the
 ForCES framework.

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 Functional
 Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status,
 event notifications, etc.  The reader is encouraged to read the
 ForCES Protocol Specification [RFC5810] for further information.

1.2. ForCES Model

 The ForCES Model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE Logical
 Functional Blocks (LFBs) using XML.  LFB configuration components,
 capabilities, and associated events are defined when the LFB is
 formally created.  The LFBs within the FE are accordingly controlled
 in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.

1.3. Transport Mapping Layer

 The TML transports the protocol layer (PL) messages [RFC5810].  The
 TML is where the issues of how to achieve transport-level
 reliability, congestion control, multicast, ordering, etc. are
 handled.  All ForCES protocol layer implementations MUST be portable
 across all TMLs.  Although more than one TML may be standardized for
 the ForCES protocol, all implementations MUST implement SCTP TML
 [RFC5811].

2. Terminology and Conventions

2.1. Requirements Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

2.2. Definitions

 This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
 requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
 The definitions are repeated below for clarity.
    Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
    protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs on how to process
    packets.  CEs handle functionality such as the execution of
    control and signaling protocols.
    Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the
    ForCES protocol.  FEs use the underlying hardware to provide
    per-packet processing and handling as directed/controlled by one
    or more CEs via the ForCES protocol.
    LFB (Logical Functional Block) - The basic building block that is
    operated on by the ForCES protocol.  The LFB is a well defined,
    logically separable functional block that resides in an FE and is
    controlled by the CE via the ForCES protocol.  The LFB may reside
    at the FE's datapath and process packets or may be purely an FE
    control or configuration entity that is operated on by the CE.
    Note that the LFB is a functionally accurate abstraction of the
    FE's processing capabilities, but not a hardware-accurate
    representation of the FE implementation.
    LFB Class and LFB Instance - LFBs are categorized by LFB Classes.
    An LFB Instance represents an LFB Class (or Type) existence.
    There may be multiple instances of the same LFB Class (or Type) in
    an FE.  An LFB Class is represented by an LFB Class ID, and an LFB
    Instance is represented by an LFB Instance ID.  As a result, an
    LFB Class ID associated with an LFB Instance ID uniquely specifies
    an LFB existence.
    LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
    from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network.  The
    FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and
    consumed by the LFBs.  It defines the functionality but not how
    metadata is encoded within an implementation.
    LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
    visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
    components.  The LFB components include, for example, flags,
    single-parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the
    CE can read and/or write via the ForCES protocol (see below).

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

    ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used
    within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol"
    and "protocol" refer to the "Fp" reference points in the ForCES
    framework in [RFC3746].  This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE
    communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between
    FE and CE managers.  Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a
    master-slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.
    ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
    ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
    existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
    message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
    are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
    Ethernet, etc.), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
    multicast, ordering, etc.  The ForCES TML specifications are
    detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML.

3. Summary

 Three independent implementations, NTT Japan, the University of
 Patras, and Zhejiang Gongshang University, were surveyed and found to
 already implement all the major features.  All implementors mentioned
 they will be implementing all missing features in the future.
 An interop test was conducted in July 2009 for all three
 implementations.  Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and
 Hangzhou Baud Information and Networks Technology Corporation, which
 independently extended two different well known public domain
 protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark and tcpdump, also participated
 in the interop for a total of five independent organizations
 implementing.  The two protocol analyzers were used to verify the
 validity of ForCES protocol messages (and in some cases semantics).
 There were no notable difficulties in the interoperability test, and
 almost all issues were code bugs that were dealt with mostly on site;
 tests repeated successfully, as stated in Section 6.2.3.

4. Methodology

 This report describes an implementation experience survey as well as
 the results of the interoperability test.
 The survey information was gathered after implementors answered a
 brief questionnaire regarding all ForCES Protocol, Model, and SCTP
 TML features.  The results can be seen in Section 6.1.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 The interoperability results were part of the interoperability test.
 Extended Ethereal and extended tcpdump were used to verify the
 results.  The results can be seen in Section 6.2.

5. Exceptions

 The core features of the ForCES Protocol, Model, and SCTP TML were
 implemented and assessed in an interop test in July 2009.  The
 intention of the interop testing was to validate that all the main
 features of the three core documents were interoperable amongst
 different implementations.  The tested features can be seen in
 Section 6.2.2.
 Different organizations surveyed have implemented certain features
 but not others.  This approach is driven by the presence of different
 LFBs that the different organizations currently implement.  All
 organizations surveyed have indicated their intention to implement
 all outstanding features in due time.  The implemented features can
 be seen in Section 6.1.
 The mandated TML security requirement, IP security (IPsec), was not
 validated during the interop and is not discussed in this document.
 Since IPsec is well known and widely deployed, not testing in the
 presence of IPsec does not invalidate the tests done.  Note that
 Section 6.1.3.3 indicates that none of the implementations reporting
 included support for IPsec, but all indicated their intention to
 implement it.
 Although the SCTP priority ports have changed since the
 interoperability test with the version of the SCTP TML draft
 available prior to the publication of RFC 5811, the change has no
 impact on the validity of the interoperability test.

6. Detail Section

6.1. Implementation Experience

 Three different organizations have implemented the ForCES Protocol,
 Model, and SCTP TML and answered a questionnaire.  These are:
 o  NTT Japan
 o  University of Patras
 o  Zhejiang Gongshang University

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 Extensions to protocol analyzers capable of understanding ForCES
 protocol messages are considered part of an implementation, since
 these analyzers can now understand and validate ForCES protocol
 message that have been exchanged.  Two such extensions have been
 created:
 o  Extension to Ethereal/Wireshark [ethereal].
 o  Extension to tcpdump [tcpdump].
 All implementors were asked about the ForCES features they have
 implemented.  For every item listed, the respondents indicated
 whether they had implemented, will implement, or won't implement at
 all.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features

6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages

 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 | Protocol Message |  NTT Japan  | University of |     Zhejiang     |
 |                  |             |     Patras    |     Gongshang    |
 |                  |             |               |    University    |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |       Setup      |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |  Setup Response  |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |     Teardown     |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |      Config      | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  Config Response | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |       Query      | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  Query Response  | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |       Event      | Implemented |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |   Notification   |             |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  Packet Redirect | Implemented |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |     Heartbeat    | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
                       ForCES Protocol Messages

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling

 +-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
 |   Header Field  |  NTT Japan  |  University of |     Zhejiang     |
 |                 |             |     Patras     |     Gongshang    |
 |                 |             |                |    University    |
 +-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
 |    Correlator   | Implemented |   Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                 |             |                |                  |
 |  ACK Indicator  | Implemented |   Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |       Flag      |             |                |                  |
 |                 |             |                |                  |
 |  Priority Flag  |     Will    |   Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                 |  Implement  |                |                  |
 |                 |             |                |                  |
 |  Execution Mode |     Will    | Will Implement |    Implemented   |
 |       Flag      |  Implement  |                |                  |
 |                 |             |                |                  |
 |      Atomic     |     Will    | Will Implement |    Implemented   |
 |   Transaction   |  Implement  |                |                  |
 |       Flag      |             |                |                  |
 |                 |             |                |                  |
 |   Transaction   |     Will    | Will Implement |    Implemented   |
 |    Phase Flag   |  Implement  |                |                  |
 +-----------------+-------------+----------------+------------------+
                          MainHeader Handling

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.1.3. TLV Handling

 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 |        TLV       |  NTT Japan  | University of |     Zhejiang     |
 |                  |             |     Patras    |     Gongshang    |
 |                  |             |               |    University    |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 |   REDIRECT-TLV   | Implemented |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   ASResult-TLV   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   ASTReason-TLV  | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   LFBSelect-TLV  | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |     OPER-TLV     | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   PATH-DATA-TLV  | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    KEYINFO-TLV   |     Will    |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |  Implement  |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   FULLDATA-TLV   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  SPARSEDATA-TLV  |     Will    |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |  Implement  |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |        ILV       |     Will    |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |  Implement  |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |   METADATA-TLV   |     Will    |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |  Implement  |   Implement   |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    RESULT-TLV    | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 | REDIRECTDATA-TLV | Implemented |      Will     |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |   Implement   |                  |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
                            TLVs Supported

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported

 +-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
 |     Operation     |  NTT Japan  | University of |     Zhejiang    |
 |                   |             |     Patras    |    Gongshang    |
 |                   |             |               |    University   |
 +-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
 |        SET        | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |      SET-PROP     |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |    SET-RESPONSE   | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 | SET-PROP-RESPONSE |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |        DEL        | Implemented |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |    DEL-RESPONSE   | Implemented |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |        GET        | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |      GET-PROP     |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |    GET-RESPONSE   | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 | GET-PROP-RESPONSE |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |       REPORT      | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |       COMMIT      |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |  COMMIT-RESPONSE  |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 |                   |             |               |                 |
 |       TRCOMP      |     Will    |      Will     |   Implemented   |
 |                   |  Implement  |   Implement   |                 |
 +-------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
                       Operation Types Supported

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features

 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
 |    Feature    |  NTT Japan  |  University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |               |             |     Patras     |     University     |
 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
 |  Execute Mode |     Will    | Will Implement |     Implemented    |
 |               |  Implement  |                |                    |
 |               |             |                |                    |
 |  Transaction  |     Will    | Will Implement |     Implemented    |
 |               |  Implement  |                |                    |
 |               |             |                |                    |
 |    Batching   |     Will    |   Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |               |  Implement  |                |                    |
 |               |             |                |                    |
 |    Command    |     Will    | Will Implement |   Will Implement   |
 |   Pipelining  |  Implement  |                |                    |
 |               |             |                |                    |
 |   Heartbeats  | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
                   ForCES Protocol Advanced Features

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.2. ForCES Model Features

6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported

 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
 |   Atomic Type  |  NTT Japan  | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |                |             |     Patras    |     University     |
 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
 |      char      | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |      uchar     | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |      int16     | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     uint16     | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |      int32     | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     uint32     | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |      int64     | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     uint64     | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     boolean    | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |    string[N]   | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     string     | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     byte[N]    | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 | octetstring[N] | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     float32    | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     float64    | Implemented |  Implemented  |   Will Implement   |
 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
                     Basic Atomic Types Supported

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported

 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
 |  Compound  |  NTT Japan  |  University of  |  Zhejiang Gongshang  |
 |    Type    |             |      Patras     |      University      |
 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
 |   structs  | Implemented |   Implemented   |      Implemented     |
 |            |             |                 |                      |
 |   arrays   | Implemented |   Implemented   |      Implemented     |
 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+
                       Compound Types Supported

6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported

6.1.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB

 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
 |     Protocol     |  NTT Japan  |  University of |     Zhejiang    |
 |     Datatypes    |             |     Patras     |    Gongshang    |
 |                  |             |                |    University   |
 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
 |    CEHBPolicy    | Implemented |   Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                  |             |                |                 |
 |    FEHBPolicy    | Implemented |   Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                  |             |                |                 |
 |  FERestartPolicy | Implemented |   Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                  |             |                |                 |
 | CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented |   Implemented  |   Implemented   |
 |                  |             |                |                 |
 |     FEHACapab    | Implemented |   Implemented  |  Will Implement |
 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+
                       FE Protocol LFB Datatypes

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
 |  Protocol Components  |  NTT Japan  |  University |    Zhejiang   |
 |                       |             |  of Patras  |   Gongshang   |
 |                       |             |             |   University  |
 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
 | CurrentRunningVersion | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |          FEID         | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |     MulticastFEIDs    | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |       CEHBPolicy      | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |         CEHDI         | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |       FEHBPolicy      | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |          FEHI         | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |          CEID         | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |       BackupCEs       | Implemented |     Will    |      Will     |
 |                       |             |  Implement  |   Implement   |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |    CEFailoverPolicy   | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |         CEFTI         | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |    FERestartPolicy    | Implemented | Implemented |      Will     |
 |                       |             |             |   Implement   |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |        LastCEID       | Implemented | Implemented |      Will     |
 |                       |             |             |   Implement   |
 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
                      FE Protocol LFB Components
 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
 |     Capabilities    |  NTT Japan  |  University |     Zhejiang    |
 |                     |             |  of Patras  |    Gongshang    |
 |                     |             |             |    University   |
 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
 | SupportableVersions | Implemented | Implemented |   Implemented   |
 |                     |             |             |                 |
 |    HACapabilities   | Implemented | Implemented |  Will Implement |
 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
                        Capabilities Supported

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
 |     Events    |  NTT Japan |  University of |  Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |               |            |     Patras     |      University     |
 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
 | PrimaryCEDown |    Will    | Will Implement |    Will Implement   |
 |               |  Implement |                |                     |
 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+
                           Events Supported

6.1.2.3.2. FE Object LFB

+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     Object Datatypes     |  NTT Japan  |  University |   Zhejiang  |
|                          |             |  of Patras  |  Gongshang  |
|                          |             |             |  University |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|  LFBAdjacencyLimitType   | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
|    PortGroupLimitType    | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
|     SupportedLFBType     | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
|      FEStateValues       | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
| FEConfiguredNeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
|     LFBSelectorType      | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
|                          |             |             |             |
|       LFBLinkType        | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented |
+--------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
                        FE Object LFB Datatypes

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
 |    Object    |  NTT Japan  |  University of |  Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |  Components  |             |     Patras     |      University     |
 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
 |  LFBTopology | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 | LFBSelectors | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |    FEName    | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |     FEID     | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |   FEVendor   | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |    FEModel   | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |    FEState   | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 |              |             |                |                     |
 |  FENeighbors | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented     |
 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+
                       FE Object LFB Components
 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
 |      Capabilities     |  NTT Japan  |  University |    Zhejiang   |
 |                       |             |  of Patras  |   Gongshang   |
 |                       |             |             |   University  |
 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
 | ModifiableLFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 |                       |             |             |               |
 |     SupportedLFBs     | Implemented | Implemented |  Implemented  |
 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
                        Capabilities Supported

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.1.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features

6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports

 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
 |      Port      |  NTT Japan  | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |                |             |     Patras    |     University     |
 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
 |  High priority | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |     (6700)     |             |               |                    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |     Medium     | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |    priority    |             |               |                    |
 |     (6701)     |             |               |                    |
 |                |             |               |                    |
 |  Low priority  | Implemented |  Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |     (6702)     |             |               |                    |
 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+
                            Priority Ports

6.1.3.2. Message Handling at Specific Priorities

 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 |  ForCES Message  |  NTT Japan  | University of |     Zhejiang     |
 |                  |             |     Patras    |     Gongshang    |
 |                  |             |               |    University    |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |       Setup      |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |  Setup Response  |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |    Association   | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |     Teardown     |             |               |                  |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |      Config      | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  Config Response | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |       Query      | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 |                  |             |               |                  |
 |  Query Response  | Implemented |  Implemented  |    Implemented   |
 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+
             Message Handling at High-Priority (6700) Port

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
 |     ForCES    |  NTT Japan  |  University of | Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |    Message    |             |     Patras     |     University     |
 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
 |     Event     | Implemented |   Implemented  |     Implemented    |
 |  Notification |             |                |                    |
 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+
            Message Handling at Medium-Priority (6701) Port
 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
 |    ForCES   |  NTT Japan  |  University of  |  Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |   Message   |             |      Patras     |      University     |
 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
 |    Packet   | Implemented |   Implemented   |     Implemented     |
 |   Redirect  |             |                 |                     |
 |             |             |                 |                     |
 |  Heartbeat  | Implemented |   Implemented   |     Implemented     |
 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+
             Message Handling at Low-Priority (6702) Port

6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature

 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
 |   Security   |  NTT Japan |  University of  |  Zhejiang Gongshang |
 |    Feature   |            |      Patras     |      University     |
 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
 |     IPsec    |    Will    |  Will Implement |    Will Implement   |
 |              |  Implement |                 |                     |
 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+
                       Security Feature Support

6.2. Interoperability Report

 The interoperability test took place at the University of Patras, in
 the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
 There were two options for participation in the interoperability
 test.
 1.  Locally, on the University of Patras premises.
 2.  Remotely, via Internet.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 Implementations from NTT and the University of Patras were present
 locally on the University of Patras premises in Greece, while the
 implementation from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which was behind a
 NAT, connected remotely from China.
 The interoperability test validated the basic functionality of the
 ForCES protocol, mainly message exchanging and handling.
 The following scenarios were tested.

6.2.1. Scenarios

 The main goal of the interoperability test was to validate the basic
 protocol functionality; the test parameters were limited.
 1.  In the Association Setup message, all report messages were
     ignored.
 2.  In the Association Setup stage, the FEO OperEnable Event (FE to
     CE), Config FEO Adminup (CE to FE), and FEO Config-Resp (FE to
     CE) messages were ignored.  The CEs assumed that the FEs were
     enabled once the LFB selectors had been queried.
 3.  Only FULLDATA-TLVs were used and not SPARSEDATA-TLVs.
 4.  There were no transaction operations.
 5.  Each message had only one LFBSelect-TLV, one OPER-TLV, and one
     PATH-DATA-TLV per message when these were used.

6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-Association Setup

 While the pre-association setup is not in the ForCES current scope,
 it is an essential step before CEs and FEs communicate.  As the first
 part in a successful CE-FE connection, the participating CEs and FEs
 had to be configurable.
 In the pre-association phase, the following configuration items were
 set up regarding the CEs:
 o  The CE ID.
 o  The FE IDs that were connected to this CE.
 o  The IP addresses of the FEs that connected to the CE.
 o  The TML priority ports.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 In the pre-association phase, the following configuration items were
 set up regarding the FEs:
 o  The FE ID.
 o  The CE ID to which this FE was connecting.
 o  The IP address of the CE to which this FE was connecting.
 o  The TML priority ports.

6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML Priority Channels Connection

 For the interoperability test, the SCTP was used as TML.  The TML
 connection with the associating element was needed for Scenario 2 to
 be successful.
 SCTP TML [RFC5811] defines three priority channels, with specific
 ports:
 o  High priority - Port number: 6704
 o  Medium priority - Port number: 6705
 o  Lower priority - Port number: 6706
 However, at the time of the interoperability test, the SCTP ports of
 the three priority channels were the following:
 o  High priority - Port number: 6700
 o  Medium priority - Port number: 6701
 o  Lower priority - Port number: 6702
 As specified in Section 5, "Exceptions", this does not invalidate the
 results of the interoperability test.

6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association Complete

 Once the pre-association phase in the previous two scenarios had
 completed, CEs and FEs would be ready to communicate using the ForCES
 protocol and enter the Association Setup stage.  In this stage, the
 FEs would attempt to join the NE.  The following ForCES protocol
 messages would be exchanged for each CE-FE pair in the specified
 order:

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 o  Association Setup message (from FE to CE)
 o  Association Setup Response message (from CE to FE)
 o  Query message: FEO LFB selectors (from CE to FE)
 o  Query Response: FEO LFB selectors response (from FE to CE)

6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE Query

 Once the Association Setup stage had completed, the FEs and CEs would
 enter the Established stage.  In this stage, the FE will be
 continuously updated or queried.  The CE should query the FE for a
 specific value from the FE Object LFB and from the FE Protocol LFB.
 An example from the FE Protocol LFB is the FE Heartbeat Interval
 (FEHI), and an example from the FE Object LFB is the state of the LFB
 (FEState).
 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
 o  Query message
 o  Query Response message

6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat Monitoring

 The Heartbeat (HB) message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE)
 to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the
 same ForCES NE of its liveness.  The default configuration of the
 Heartbeat Policy of the FE is set to 0, which means that the FE
 should not generate any Heartbeat messages.  The CE is responsible
 for checking FE liveness by setting the PL header ACK flag of the
 message it sends to AlwaysACK.  In this scenario, the CE will send a
 Heartbeat message with the ACK flag set to AlwaysACK, and the FE
 should respond.
 The following type of ForCES protocol message was exchanged:
 o  Heartbeat message

6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command

 A Config message is sent by the CE to the FE to configure LFB
 components in the FE.  A simple Config command, easily visible and
 metered, would be to change the Heartbeat configuration.  This was
 done in two steps:

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 1.  Change the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHBPolicy) to value 1, to force
     the FE to send heartbeats.
 2.  After some heartbeats from the FE, the FE Heartbeat Interval
     (FEHI) was changed.
 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged:
 o  Config message
 o  Config Response message

6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown

 In the end, the association must be terminated.  There were three
 scenarios by which the association was terminated:
 1.  Normal teardown, by exchanging an Association Teardown message.
 2.  Irregular teardown, by stopping heartbeats from an FE or a CE.
 3.  Irregular teardown, by externally shutting down/rebooting an FE
     or a CE.
 All scenarios were investigated in the interoperability test.
 The following type of ForCES protocol message was exchanged:
 o  Association Teardown message

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.2.2. Tested Features

 The features that were tested are:

6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features

6.2.2.1.1. Protocol Messages

                    +----------------------------+
                    |      Protocol Message      |
                    +----------------------------+
                    |      Association Setup     |
                    |                            |
                    | Association Setup Response |
                    |                            |
                    |    Association Teardown    |
                    |                            |
                    |           Config           |
                    |                            |
                    |       Config Response      |
                    |                            |
                    |            Query           |
                    |                            |
                    |       Query Response       |
                    |                            |
                    |          Heartbeat         |
                    +----------------------------+
                       ForCES Protocol Messages
 o  PASS: All implementations handled the protocol messages, and all
    protocol analyzers captured them.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.2.2.1.2. MainHeader Handling

                        +--------------------+
                        |    Header Field    |
                        +--------------------+
                        |     Correlator     |
                        |                    |
                        | ACK Indicator Flag |
                        |                    |
                        |    Priority Flag   |
                        +--------------------+
                          MainHeader Handling
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these main header flags, and all
    protocol analyzers captured them.

6.2.2.1.3. TLV Handling

                           +---------------+
                           |      TLV      |
                           +---------------+
                           |  ASResult-TLV |
                           |               |
                           | ASTReason-TLV |
                           |               |
                           | LFBSelect-TLV |
                           |               |
                           |    OPER-TLV   |
                           |               |
                           | PATH-DATA-TLV |
                           |               |
                           |  FULLDATA-TLV |
                           |               |
                           |   RESULT-TLV  |
                           +---------------+
                            TLVs Supported
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these TLVs, and all protocol
    analyzers captured them.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.2.2.1.4. Operation Types Supported

                           +--------------+
                           |   Operation  |
                           +--------------+
                           |      SET     |
                           |              |
                           | SET-RESPONSE |
                           |              |
                           |      GET     |
                           |              |
                           | GET-RESPONSE |
                           |              |
                           |    REPORT    |
                           +--------------+
                       Operation Types Supported
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these operations, and all
    protocol analyzers captured them.

6.2.2.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features

                            +------------+
                            |   Feature  |
                            +------------+
                            |  Batching  |
                            |            |
                            | Heartbeats |
                            +------------+
                   ForCES Protocol Advanced Features
 Although batching was not initially intended to be tested, it was
 assessed during the interoperability test.
 o  PASS: Two implementations handled batching, and all handled
    heartbeats.  The protocol analyzers captured both.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features

6.2.2.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported

                            +-------------+
                            | Atomic Type |
                            +-------------+
                            |    uchar    |
                            |             |
                            |    uint32   |
                            +-------------+
                     Basic Atomic Types Supported
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these basic atomic types.

6.2.2.2.2. Compound Types Supported

                           +---------------+
                           | Compound Type |
                           +---------------+
                           |    structs    |
                           |               |
                           |     arrays    |
                           +---------------+
                       Compound Types Supported
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these compound types.

6.2.2.2.3. LFBs Supported

6.2.2.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB

                        +--------------------+
                        | Protocol Datatypes |
                        +--------------------+
                        |     CEHBPolicy     |
                        |                    |
                        |     FEHBPolicy     |
                        +--------------------+
                       FE Protocol LFB Datatypes
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB datatypes.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 28] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

                        +---------------------+
                        | Protocol Components |
                        +---------------------+
                        |         FEID        |
                        |                     |
                        |      CEHBPolicy     |
                        |                     |
                        |        CEHDI        |
                        |                     |
                        |      FEHBPolicy     |
                        |                     |
                        |         FEHI        |
                        |                     |
                        |         CEID        |
                        +---------------------+
                      FE Protocol LFB Components
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB
    components.

6.2.2.2.3.2. FE Object LFB

                         +------------------+
                         | Object Datatypes |
                         +------------------+
                         |   FEStateValues  |
                         |                  |
                         |  LFBSelectorType |
                         +------------------+
                        FE Object LFB Datatypes
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB datatypes.
                         +-------------------+
                         | Object Components |
                         +-------------------+
                         |    LFBSelectors   |
                         |                   |
                         |      FEState      |
                         +-------------------+
                       FE Object LFB Components
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB components.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 29] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP TML Features

6.2.2.3.1. TML Priority Ports

                      +------------------------+
                      |          Port          |
                      +------------------------+
                      |  High priority (6700)  |
                      |                        |
                      | Medium priority (6701) |
                      |                        |
                      |   Low priority (6702)  |
                      +------------------------+
                            Priority Ports
 o  PASS: All implementations opened and connected to all the SCTP
    priority ports.  The protocol analyzers captured all ports and
    their corresponding priority.

6.2.2.3.2. Message Handling at Specific Priorities

                    +----------------------------+
                    |       ForCES Message       |
                    +----------------------------+
                    |      Association Setup     |
                    |                            |
                    | Association Setup Response |
                    |                            |
                    |    Association Teardown    |
                    |                            |
                    |           Config           |
                    |                            |
                    |       Config Response      |
                    |                            |
                    |            Query           |
                    |                            |
                    |       Query Response       |
                    +----------------------------+
             Message Handling at High-Priority (6700) Port
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
    priority port.  The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
    this priority port.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 30] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

                          +----------------+
                          | ForCES Message |
                          +----------------+
                          |   Heartbeats   |
                          +----------------+
             Message Handling at Low-Priority (6702) Port
 o  PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP
    priority port.  The protocol analyzers captured these messages at
    this priority port.

6.2.3. Interoperability Results

 All implementations were found to be interoperable with each other.
 All scenarios were tested successfully.
 The following issues were found and dealt with.
 1.   Some messages were sent on the wrong priority channels.  There
      were some ambiguities in the SCTP TML document regarding how to
      deal with such a situation.  The possibilities were an FE
      response on the same (wrong) channel as a CE query; an FE
      response on the correctly documented channel for the message; or
      simply dropping the packet.  This has been corrected by
      mandating the message-to-channel mapping to be a MUST in the
      SCTP TML document [RFC5811] before it was published as an RFC.
 2.   At some point, a CE sent a Teardown message to the FE.  The CE
      expected the FE to shut down the connection, and the FE waited
      for the CE to shut down the connection; both were then caught in
      a deadlock.  This was a code bug and was fixed.
 3.   Sometimes, only when the CE and FE were remote to each other
      (one being in China and another in Greece), the Association
      Setup message was not received by the CE side, and therefore an
      association never completed.  This was not an implementation
      issue but rather a network issue.  This issue was solved with
      the retransmission of the non-delivered messages.
 4.   An implementation did not take into account that the padding in
      TLVs MUST NOT be included in the length of the TLV.  This was a
      code bug and was fixed.
 5.   The Execution Mode flag was set to Reserved by a CE and was not
      ignored by the FE.  This was a code bug and was fixed.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 31] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 6.   After the FEHBPolicy was set to 1, the FE didn't send any
      heartbeats.  This was a code bug and was fixed.
 7.   Some FEs sent heartbeats with the ACK flag set to a value other
      than NoACK.  The CE responded.  This was a code bug and was
      fixed.
 8.   When a cable was disconnected, none of the TML implementations
      detected it.  The association was eventually dropped due to
      heartbeat detection; this test was a success, but this is an
      implementation issue that implementors should keep in mind.
      This is an SCTP options issue.  Nothing needed to be done.
 9.   A CE crashed due to unknown LFB selector values.  This was a
      code bug and was fixed.
 10.  With the remote connection from China (which was behind a NAT)
      to Greece, there were a lot of ForCES packet retransmissions.
      The problem was that packets like heartbeats were retransmitted.
      This was an implementation issue regarding SCTP usage that
      implementors should keep in mind.  The SCTP-PR option needed to
      be used.  Nothing needed to be done.
 The interoperability test went so well that an additional extended
 test was added to check for batching messages.  This test was also
 done successfully.

7. Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to give thanks to Professors Odysseas
 Koufopavlou and Spyros Denazis, and the Department of Electrical and
 Computer Engineering at the University of Patras, who hosted the
 ForCES interoperability test.
 The authors would also like to give thanks to Chuanhuang Li, Ming
 Gao, and other participants from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which
 connected remotely.  This allowed the discovery of a series of issues
 that would have been uncaught otherwise.
 The authors would also like to thank Hideaki Iwata and Yoshinobu
 Morimoto of NTT Japan for participating locally at the
 interoperability test; as well as Hiroki Date and Hidefumi Otsuka,
 also of NTT Japan, for contributing to the interoperability test.
 Additionally, thanks are given to Xinping Wang for her help in
 writing the interoperability document and to Fenggen Jia for
 extending the Ethereal protocol analyzer.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 32] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

8. Security Considerations

 No security elements of the protocol or the SCTP TML [RFC5811]
 specification were tested.
 The survey indicated that no security elements were implemented, but
 all participants indicated their intention to implement them.
 For security considerations regarding the ForCES protocol and SCTP
 TML, please see [RFC5810] and [RFC5811].

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [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.

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC3654]   Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for
             Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654,
             November 2003.
 [RFC3746]   Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
             "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
             Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
 [RFC5657]   Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
             and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
             Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 33] RFC 6053 Implementation Report for ForCES November 2010

 [ethereal]  "Ethereal 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>.
 [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>.

Authors' Addresses

 Evangelos Haleplidis
 University of Patras
 Patras
 Greece
 EMail: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr
 Kentaro Ogawa
 NTT Corporation
 Tokyo
 Japan
 EMail: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
 Weiming Wang
 Zhejiang Gongshang University
 18, Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
 Hangzhou,   310018
 P.R. China
 Phone: +86-571-28877721
 EMail: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn
 Jamal Hadi Salim
 Mojatatu Networks
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada
 Phone:
 EMail: hadi@mojatatu.com

Haleplidis, et al. Informational [Page 34]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6053.txt · Last modified: 2010/11/08 02:34 (external edit)