Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

Hi Ben and all,

Some more replies are inline. 

Attached is the up to date sub-version(08v1) of the document and the associated 
diff file with last version 07.  

I have to metion I still have not yet finished to change last pages of the 
document to past tense. I'l continue doing it.

Hope to see more comments and then with more modification, I hope to update to 
IETF with that version. 

thanks a lot.

Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>

Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for which I have 
no further comment.

Thanks!

Ben.

On May 16, 2013, at 10:19 PM, "Wang,Weiming" 
<wmwang2001(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
[...]

> -- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of 
> an incorrect implementation or differing encapsulation formats. Does this 
> suggest that the specifications should be clarified? In particular, in the 
> case of encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger 
> requirements to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the 
> number of options be reduced?
> [Re. by ΕΗ] The protocol provides a number of different approaches 
> [Re. by Weiming] The key issue is still from the deep understanding of the 
> protocol from implementations. I still have not seen need for any urgent 
> change for the protocol. 
I don't have enough knowledge of the protocol to form a specific opinion, but 
it's been my experience in other areas that when implementors interpret things 
differently, there's often room for clarification, even if the text is formally 
correct. I agree it doesn't imply an urgent need, but would it be worth one or 
more errata?

[Re:] We have actually submitted a suggestion to errata of RFC 5810, but was 
denied with the reason that mutual understanding of different encapsulation 
formats are essential to protocol implementations, and need not a specific 
notification.
 
[...]

> -- section 4.4, last paragraph:
>
> The text says that since the mentioned failures were likely the result of 
> bugs, it doesn't indicate an interoperability problem in the specs. I have to 
> point out that, it also doesn't prove interoperability in both directions for 
> the particular test. It would also be worth commenting on whether the 
> probably bugs were programming errors rather than misunderstandings of the 
> specification.
> [Re. by Weiming] to change the whole paragraph to:
>  <t> The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical to 
> the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged. Moreover, test 
> #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked well. Therefore, it can 
> be reasonably inferred that the problem caused the failure was from the 
> implementations, rather than from the ForCES protocol itself or from 
> misunderstanding of implementations on the protocol specification. Although 
> the failure made the OSPF interoperability test incomplete, it did not show 
> interoperability problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF 
> interoperability.</t>
Works for me, thanks!
[Re: ] Thanks too.

[...]


[Re. by Weiming] The section 3.2 para.3 has been changed to: 
> <t>... Because there came unfortunately a problem with the test system in 
> Greece to deploy IPSec over TML during the test process, this test only took 
> place between test systems in China and Japan.</t>
The sentence is still hard to parse. Do you mean the following?

"Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in Greece prevented the 
deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between the test 
systems in China and Japan."
[Re.] Thanks again. I'v just incorparated it. 

[...]

	< draft-ietf-forces-interop-08v1.txt		draft-ietf-forces-interop-07.txt >
	Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang		Internet Engineering Task Force W. Wang
	Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University		Internet-Draft Zhejiang Gongshang University
	Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa		Updates: 6053 (if approved) K. Ogawa
	Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation		Intended status: Informational NTT Corporation
	Expires: November 23, 2013 E. Haleplidis		Expires: October 17, 2013 E. Haleplidis
	University of Patras		University of Patras
	M. Gao		M. Gao
	Hangzhou BAUD Networks		Hangzhou BAUD Networks
	J. Hadi Salim		J. Hadi Salim
	Mojatatu Networks		Mojatatu Networks
	May 22, 2013		April 15, 2013
	Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation		Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation
	(ForCES)		(ForCES)
	draft-ietf-forces-interop-08		draft-ietf-forces-interop-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document captured results of the second Forwarding and Control		This document captures results of the second Forwarding and Control
	Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on		Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test which took place on
	February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang		February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang
	Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 had reported the results of		Gongshang University, China. RFC 6053 reported the results of the
	the first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC		first ForCES interoperability test, and this document updates RFC
	6053 by providing further interoperability results.		6053 by providing further interoperability results.
	Status of this Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. ForCES FE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.3. Transport Mapping Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.1. Date, Location, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.2.1. Participants Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.2.2. Testbed Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4. Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.1. LFB Operation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		4.2. TML with IPSec Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		4.3. CE High Availability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		4.4. Packet Forwarding Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		5. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28		6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document captured results of the second interoperability test of		This document captures results of the second interoperability test of
	the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took		the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) which took
	place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of		place February 24-25, 2011 in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL) of
	Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved protocol		Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. The test involved protocol
	elements described in several documents namely:		elements described in several documents namely:
	- ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]		- ForCES Protocol [RFC5810]
	- ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) Model [RFC5812]		- ForCES Forwarding Element Model [RFC5812]
	- ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) [RFC5811]		- ForCES Transport Mapping Layer [RFC5811]
	The test also involved protocol elements described in the then-		The test also involved protocol elements described in the then-
	current versions of two Internet-Drafts. Although these documents		current versions of two Internet-Drafts. Although these documents
	have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to		have subsequently been revised and advanced, it is important to
	understand which versions of the work were used during this test.		understand which versions of the work were used during this test.
	The then-current Internet-Drafts were:		The then-current Internet-Drafts are:
	- ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library		- ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library
	[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03].		[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03].
	- ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00].		- ForCES Intra-NE High Availability [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00].
	Up to date, the 'ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library'
	document has been publilshed by IETF as RFC 6956.
	Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.		Three independent ForCES implementations participated in the test.
	Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High		Scenarios of ForCES LFB Operation, TML with IPSec, CE High
	Availability, and Packet Forwarding were constructed. Series of		Availability, and Packet Forwarding are constructed. Series of
	testing items for every scenario were carried out and		testing items for every scenario are carried out and interoperability
	interoperability results were achieved. Popular packet analyzers		results are achieved. Popular packet analyzers Ethereal/
	Ethereal/Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] were used to verify		Wireshark[Ethereal] and Tcpdump[Tcpdump] are used to verify the wire
	the wire results.		results.
	This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of		This document is an update to RFC 6053, which captured the results of
	the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was		the first ForCES interoperability test. The first test on ForCES was
	held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. That test		held in July 2008 at the University of Patras, Greece. That test
	focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and		focused on validating the basic semantics of the ForCES protocol and
	ForCES FE model.		ForCES FE model.
	1.1. ForCES Protocol		1.1. ForCES Protocol
	The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which Forwarding		The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are
	Elements (FEs) are slaves and Control Elements (CEs) are masters.		slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for
	The protocol includes commands for transport of Logical Function		transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information,
	Block (LFB) configuration information, association setup, status, and		association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader
	event notifications, etc. The reader is encouraged to read the		is encouraged to read the ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for
	ForCES protocol specification [RFC5810] for further information.		further information.
	1.2. ForCES FE Model		1.2. ForCES FE Model
			The ForCES FE model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE
	The ForCES Forwarding Element (FE) model [RFC5812] presents a formal		Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration
	way to define FE Logical Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB		components, capabilities, and associated events are defined when the
	configuration components, capabilities, and associated events are		LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly
	defined when the LFB is formally created. The LFBs within the FE are		controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
	accordingly controlled in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol.
	1.3. Transport Mapping Layer		1.3. Transport Mapping Layer
	The ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES		The ForCES Transport Mapping Layer (TML) transports the ForCES
	Protocol Layer (PL) messages. The TML is where the issues of how to		Protocol Layer (PL) messages. The TML is where the issues of how to
	achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast,		achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast,
	ordering, etc are handled. It is expected that more than one TML		ordering, etc are handled. It is expected that more than one TML
	will be standardized. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport		will be standardized. RFC 5811 specifies an SCTP-Based Transport
	Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for		Mapping Layer (TML) for ForCES protocol, which is a mandated TML for
	ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details.		ForCES. See RFC 5811 for more details.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 16		skipping to change at page 4, line 37
	2.1. Date, Location, and Participants		2.1. Date, Location, and Participants
	The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF		The second ForCES interoperability test meeting was held by IETF
	ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by		ForCES Working Group on February 24-25, 2011, and was chaired by
	Jamal Hadi Salim. Three independent ForCES implementations		Jamal Hadi Salim. Three independent ForCES implementations
	participated in the test:		participated in the test:
	o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of		o Zhejiang Gongshang University/Hangzhou BAUD Corporation of
	Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),		Information and Networks Technology (Hangzhou BAUD Networks),
	China. This implementation is referred to as "ZJSU" or in some		China. This implementation is referred to as "China" or in some
	cases "Z" in the document for the sake of brevity.		cases "C" in the document for the sake of brevity.
	o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as		o NTT Corporation, Japan. This implementation is referred to as
	"NTT" or in some cases "N" in the document for the sake of		"Japan" or in some cases "J" in the document for the sake of
	brevity.		brevity.
	o The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred		o The University of Patras, Greece. This implementation is referred
	to as "UoP" or in some cases "P" in the document for the sake of		to as "Greece" or in some cases "G" in the document for the sake
	brevity.		of brevity.
	Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks		Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and Hangzhou BAUD Networks
	Corporation, which independently extended two different well known		Corporation, which independently extended two different well known
	public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and		public domain protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark [Ethereal] and
	Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the		Tcpdump [Tcpdump], also participated in the interop test. During the
	interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify		interoperability test, the two protocol analyzers were used to verify
	the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics.		the validity of ForCES protocol messages and in some cases semantics.
	Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were		Some issues related to interoperability among implementations were
	discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.		discovered. Most of the issues were solved on site during the test.
	The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation		The most contentious issue found was on the format of encapsulation
	for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 5.1 ).		for protocol TLV (Refer to Section 5.1 ).
	Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the		Some errata related to ForCES document were found by the
	interoperability test. The errata has been reported to related IETF		interoperability test. The errata has been reported to related IETF
	RFCs.		RFCs.
	At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead		At times, interoperability testing was exercised between two instead
	of all three representative implementations due to a third one		of all three representative implementations due to a third one
	lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all		lacking a specific feature; however, in ensuing discussions, all
	implementers mentioned they would be implementing any missing		implementers mentioned they will be implementing any missing features
	features in the future.		in the future.
	2.2. Testbed Configuration		2.2. Testbed Configuration
	2.2.1. Participants Access		2.2.1. Participants Access
	NTT and ZJSU physically attended on site at the Internet Technology		Japan and China physically attended on site at the Internet
	Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The University		Technology Lab (ITL) of Zhejiang Gongshang University in China. The
	of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The chair,		University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece. The
	Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the Teamviewer		chair, Jamal Hadi Salim, joined remotely from Canada by using the
	as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as shown in		Teamviewer as the monitoring tool[Teamviewer]. The approach is as
	Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the		shown in Figure 1. In the figure, FE/CE refers to FE or CE that the
	implementer may act alternatively.		implementer may act alternatively.
	+---------+ +----+ +----------+		+---------+ +----+ +----------+
	| FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring|		| FE/CE | | | +---|Monitoring|
	| ZJSU |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)		| China |-----| | /\/\/\/\/\ | |(TeamViewer)
	+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Mojatatu |		+---------+ | | \Internet/ | | Canada |
	|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+		|LAN |----/ \--| +----------+
	+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+		+---------+ | | \/\/\/\/\/ | +----------+
	| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |		| FE/CE |-----| | | | FE/CE |
	| NTT | | | +---| UoP |		| Japan | | | +---| Greece |
	+---------+ +----+ +----------+		+---------+ +----+ +----------+
	Figure 1: Access for Participants		Figure 1: Access for Participants
	As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPSec		As specified in RFC 5811, all CEs and FEs shall implement IPSec
	security in the TML.		security in the TML.
	On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPSec, SCTP		On the internet boundary, gateways used must allow for IPSec, SCTP
	protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .		protocol and SCTP ports as defined in the ForCES SCTP-TML [RFC5811] .
	2.2.2. Testbed Configuration		2.2.2. Testbed Configuration
	CEs and FEs from ZJSU and NTT implementations were physically located		CEs and FEs from China and Japan implementations were physically
	within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and connected		located within the ITL Lab of Zhejiang Gongshang University and
	together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be seen in		connected together using Ethernet switches. The configuration can be
	Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits was a third-party supplied		seen in Figure 2. In the figure, the SmartBits is a third-party
	routing protocol testing machine, which acted as a router running		supplied routing protocol testing machine, which acts as a router
	OSPF and RIP and exchanged routing protocol messages with ForCES		running OSPF and RIP and exchanges routing protocol messages with
	routers in the network. Connection to the Internet was via an ADSL		ForCES routers in the network. The Internet is connected via an ADSL
	channel.		channel.
	/\/\/\/\/\		/\/\/\/\/\
	\Internet/		\Internet/
	/ \		/ \
	\/\/\/\/\/		\/\/\/\/\/
	|		|
	|(ADSL)		|124.90.146.218 (ADSL)
	|		|
	+------------------------------------------------------------------+		+------------------------------------------------------------------+
	| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |		| LAN (10.20.0.0/24) |
	+------------------------------------------------------------------+		+------------------------------------------------------------------+
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220		|.222 |.230 |.221 |.179 |.231 |.220
	+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+		+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
	| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|		| CE | | CE | | | | | | | | Protocol|
	|ZJSU | | NTT | | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|		|China| |Japan| | FE1 |.1 .2| FE |.1 .2| FE2 | | Analyzer|
	+-----+ +-----+ |ZJSU |---------| NTT |---------|ZJSU | +---------+		+-----+ +-----+ |China|---------|Japan|---------|China| +---------+
	+---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+		+---------| |192.169. | | 192.168.| |------+
	| .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 |		| .2 +-----+ 20.0.24 +-----+ 30.0/24+-----+ .2 |
	| .12| |.12 |		| .12| |.12 |
	| | | |		| | | |
	192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24		192.168.50.0/24 | |192.168.60.0/24
	| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |		| 192.168.10.0/24 192.168.40.0/24 |
	.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1		.1 | |.11 |.11 |.1
	+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+		+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
	|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|		|Terminal| | Smartbits | |Terminal|
	+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+		+--------+ +--------------------------------------+ +--------+
	Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China		Figure 2: Testbed Configuration Located in ITL Lab,China
	CE and FE from the UoP implementation were located within the		Hardware and Software (CE and FE) of Greece those were located within
	University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN		the University of Patras, Greece, were connected together using LAN
	as shown in Figure 3. Connection to the Internet was via a VPN		as shown in Figure 3. The Internet is connected via a VPN channel.
	channel.
	/\/\/\/\/\		/\/\/\/\/\
	\Internet/		\Internet/
	/ \		/ \
	\/\/\/\/\/		\/\/\/\/\/
	|		|
	|(VPN)		|150.140.254.110(VPN)
	|		|
	+------------------------------------+		+------------------------------------+
	| LAN |		| LAN |
	+------------------------------------+		+------------------------------------+
	| | |		| | |
	| | |		| | |
	+------+ +--------+ +------+		+------+ +--------+ +------+
	| FE | |Protocol| | CE |		| FE | |Protocol| | CE |
	| UoP | |Analyzer| | UoP |		|Greece| |Analyzer| |Greece|
	+------+ +--------+ +------+		+------+ +--------+ +------+
	Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of		Figure 3: Testbed Configuration Located in the University of
	Patras,Greece		Patras,Greece
	All above testbed configurations were then able to satisfy		All above testbed configurations can then satisfy requirements of all
	requirements of all the interoperability test scenarios that were		the interoperability test scenarios that are mentioned in this
	mentioned in this document.		document.
	3. Scenarios		3. Scenarios
	3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation		3.1. Scenario 1 - LFB Operation
	This scenario was to test the interoperability on LFB operations		This scenario is to test the interoperability on LFB operations among
	among the participants. The connection diagram for the participants		the participants. The connection diagram for the participants is as
	is as shown in Figure 4.		shown in Figure 4.
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |		| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
	| ZJSU | | NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |		| China| | Japan| | China| |Greece| | Japan| |Greece|
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	| | | | | |		| | | | | |
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |		| FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE | | FE |
	| NTT | | ZJSU | | UoP | | ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT |		|Japan | |China | |Greece| |China | |Greece| |Japan |
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation		Figure 4: Scenario for LFB Operation
	In order to make interoperability more credible, the three		In order to make interoperability more credible, the three
	implementers were required to carry out the test in a way acting as		implementers are required to carry out the test in a way acting as CE
	CE or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation was		or FE alternatively. As a result, every LFB operation is combined
	combined with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.		with 6 scenarios, as shown by Figure 4.
	The test scenario was designed with the following purposes:		The test scenario is designed with the following purposes:
	Firstly, the scenario was designed to verify all kinds of protocol		Firstly, the scenario is designed to verify all kinds of protocol
	messages with their complex data formats, which are defined in RFC		messages with their complex data formats, which are defined in RFC
	5810. Specially, we tried to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA		5810. Specially, we try to verify the data format of a PATH-DATA
	with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array		with nested PATH-DATAs, and the operation(SET, GET, DEL) of an array
	or an array with a nested array.		or an array with a nested array.
	Secondly, the scenario was designed to verify the definition of		Secondly, the scenario is designed to verify the definition of ForCES
	ForCES LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defined a base		LFB Library [I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], which defines a base set of
	set of ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful		ForCES LFB classes for typical router functions. Successful test
	test under this scenario may help the validity of the LFB		under this scenario also means the validity of the LFB definitions.
	definitions.
	3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec		3.2. Scenario 2 - TML with IPSec
	This scenario was designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is		This scenario is designed to implement a TML with IPSec, which is the
	the requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in		requirement by RFC 5811. TML with IPSec was not implemented in the
	the first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For		first ForCES interoperability test as reported by RFC 6053. For this
	this reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically		reason, in the second interoperability test, we specifically designed
	designed the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel.		the test scenario to verify the TML over IPSec channel.
	In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were		In this scenario, tests on LFB operations for Scenario 1 were
	repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This		repeated with the difference that TML was secured via IPSec. This
	setup scenario allowed us to verify whether all interactions between		setup scenario allows us to verify whether all interactions between
	CE and FE could be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment.		CE and FE can be made correctly under an IPSec TML environment.
	The connection diagram for this scenario was shown as Figure 5.		The connection diagram for this scenario is shown as Figure 5.
	Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in UoP prevented		Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over TML in Greece, the
	the deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between		text only took place between China and Japan.
	the test systems in ZJSU and NTT.
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| CE | | CE |		| CE | | CE |
	| ZJSU | | NTT |		| China| | Japan|
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| |		| |
	|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec		|TML over IPSec |TML over IPSec
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| FE | | FE |		| FE | | FE |
	| NTT | | ZJSU |		|Japan | |China |
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec		Figure 5: Scenario for LFB Operation with TML over IPSec
	In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over the IPSec channel.		In this scenario, ForCES TML was run over IPSec channel.
	Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same		Implementers joined in this interoperability have used the same
	third-party software 'racoon' to establish the IPSec channel. The		third-party software 'racoon' to have established the IPSec channel.
	'racoon' in NetBSD is a well-known IKE daemon performing the IPsec
	Key Exchange (IKE) with the peers.
	ZJSU and NTT made a successful test with the scenario, and the		China and Japan have made a successful test with the scenario, and
	following items were realized:		the following items have been realized:
	o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint		o Internet Key Exchange (IKE) with certificates for endpoint
	authentication.		authentication.
	o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96		o Transport Mode Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP). HMAC-SHA1-96
	for message integrity protection.		for message integrity protection.
	3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability		3.3. Scenario 3 - CE High Availability
	CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA		CE High Availability (CEHA) was tested based on the ForCES CEHA
	document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]		document [I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
	The design of the setup and the scenario for the CEHA were simplified		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:		so as to focus mostly on the mechanics of the CEHA, which are:
	o Associating with more than one CE.		o Associating with more than one CE.
	o Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.		o Switching to backup CE on master CE failure.
	The connection diagram for the scenario was as shown in Figure 6.		The connection diagram for the scenario is as shown in Figure 6.
	master standby master standby		master standby master standby
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |		| CE | | CE | | CE | | CE |
	| ZJSU | | UoP | | NTT | | UoP |		| China| |Greece| |Japan | |Greece|
	+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+		+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
	| | | |		| | | |
	+----------+ +-----------+		+----------+ +-----------+
	| |		| |
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| FE | | FE |		| FE | | FE |
	| UoP | | UoP |		|Greece| |Greece|
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	(a) (b)		(a) (b)
	Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability		Figure 6: Scenario for CE High Availability
	In this scenario one FE was connected and associated to a master CE		In this scenario one FE is connected and associated to a master CE
	and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be		and a backup CE. In the pre-association phase, the FE would be
	configured to have ZJSU's or NTT's CE as master CE and UoP's CE as		configured to have China's or Japan's CE as master CE and Greece's CE
	standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol Object		as standby CE. The CEFailoverPolicy component of the FE Protocol
	LFB that specified whether the FE was in High Availability mode		Object LFB that specifies whether the FE is in High Availability mode
	(value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by		(value 2 or 3) would either be set in the pre-association phase by
	the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.		the FEM interface or in post-association phase by the master CE.
	If the CEFailoverPolicy value was set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post-		If the CEFailoverPolicy value is set to 2 or 3, the FE (in the post-
	association phase) would attempt to connect and associate with the		association phase) will attempt to connect and associate with the
	standby CE.		standby CE.
	When the master CE was deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown,		When the master CE is deemed disconnected, either by a TearDown, Loss
	Loss of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume		of Heartbeats or physically disconnected, the FE would assume that
	that the standby CE was now the master CE. The FE would then send an		the standby CE is now the master CE. The FE will then send an Event
	Event Notification, Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the		Notification, Primary CE Down,to all associated CEs, only the standby
	standby CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The		CE in this case, with the value of the new master CEID. The standby
	standby CE would then respond by sending a configuration message to		CE will then respond by sending a configuration message to the CEID
	the CEID component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to		component of the FE Protocol Object with its own ID to confirm that
	confirm that the CE considered itself as the master as well.		the CE considers itself as the master as well.
	The steps of the CEHA test scenario were as follows:		The steps of the CEHA test scenario are as follows:
	1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and		1. In the pre-association phase, setup of FE with master CE and
	backup CE		backup CE
	2. FE connecting and associating with master CE.		2. FE connecting and associating with master CE.
	3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and		3. When CEFailoverPolicy is set to 2 or 3, the FE will connect and
	associate with backup CE.		associate with backup CE.
	4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses		4. Once the master CE is considered disconnected then the FE chooses
	skipping to change at page 12, line 22		skipping to change at page 10, line 40
	5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is		5. It sends an Event Notification specifying that the master CE is
	down and who is now the master CE.		down and who is now the master CE.
	6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE		6. The new master CE sends a SET Configuration message to the FE
	setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing		setting the CEID value to who is now the new master CE completing
	the switch.		the switch.
	3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding		3.4. Scenario 4 - Packet forwarding
	This test scenario was to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut,		This test scenario is to verify LFBs like RedirectIn, RedirectOut,
	IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document		IPv4NextHop, IPv4UcastLPM defined by the ForCES LFB library document
	[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], and more importantly, to verify the		[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03], and more importantly, to verify the
	combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.		combination of the LFBs to implement IP packet forwarding.
	The connection diagram for this scenario was as Figure 7.		The connection diagram for this scenario is as Figure 7.
	+------+		+------+
	| CE |		| CE |
	| NTT |		| Japan|
	+------+		+------+
	| ^		| ^
	| | OSPF		| | OSPF
	| +------->		| +------->
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+		+--------+ | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
	|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------|Router|------|Terminal|		|Terminal|------|China |-------|Router|------|Terminal|
	+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+		+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
	<-------------------------------------------->		<-------------------------------------------->
	Packet Forwarding		Packet Forwarding
	(a)		(a)
	+------+		+------+
	| CE |		| CE |
	| ZJSU |		| China|
	+------+		+------+
	^ | ^		^ | ^
	OSPF | | | OSPF		OSPF | | | OSPF
	<-----+ | +----->		<-----+ | +----->
	+-------+ +------+ +------+		+-------+ +------+ +------+
	+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+		+--------+ | OSPF | | FE | | OSPF | +--------+
	|Terminal|----|Router |----| NTT |-----|Router|--|Terminal|		|Terminal|----|Router |----|Japan |-----|Router|--|Terminal|
	+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+		+--------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
	<-------------------------------------------->		<-------------------------------------------->
	Packet Forwarding		Packet Forwarding
	(b)		(b)
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| CE | | CE |		| CE | | CE |
	| NTT | | ZJSU |		| Japan| | China|
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	| ^ ^ |		| ^ ^ |
	| | OSPF | |		| | OSPF | |
	| +----------+ |		| +----------+ |
	+------+ +------+		+------+ +------+
	+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+		+--------+ | FE | | FE | +--------+
	|Terminal|------| ZJSU |-------| NTT |------|Terminal|		|Terminal|------|China |-------|Japan |------|Terminal|
	+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+		+--------+ +------+ +------+ +--------+
	<-------------------------------------------->		<-------------------------------------------->
	Packet Forwarding		Packet Forwarding
	(c)		(c)
	Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding		Figure 7: Scenario for IP Packet forwarding
	In case (a), a CE by NTT was connected to an FE by ZJSU to form a		In case (a), a CE by Japan is connected to an FE by China to form a
	ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol		ForCES router. A Smartbits test machine with its routing protocol
	software were used to simulate an OSPF router and were connected with		software are used to simulate an OSPF router and are connected with
	the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA		the ForCES router to try to exchange OSPF hello packets and LSA
	packets among them. Terminals were simulated by Smartbits to send		packets among them. Terminals are simulated by Smartbits to send and
	and receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router needed		receive packets. As a result, the CE in the ForCES router need to be
	to be configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.		configured to run and support OSPF routing protocol.
	In case (b), a CE by ZJSU was connected to an FE by NTT to form a		In case (b), a CE by China is connected to an FE by Japan to form a
	ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF were simulated and connected		ForCES router. Two routers running OSPF are simulated and connected
	to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router could support OSPF		to the ForCES router to test if the ForCES router can support OSPF
	protocol and support packet forwarding.		protocol and support packet forwarding.
	In case (c), two ForCES routers were constructed. One was with CE by		In case (c), two ForCES routers are constructed. One is with CE by
	NTT and FE by ZJSU and the other was opposite. OSPF and packet		Japan and FE by China and the other is opposite. OSPF and packet
	forwarding were tested in the environment.		forwarding are tested in the environment.
	Testing process for this scenario was as below:		Testing process for this scenario is as below:
	1. Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their		1. Boot terminals and routers, and set IP addresses of their
	interfaces.		interfaces.
	2. Boot CE and FE.		2. Boot CE and FE.
	3. Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of		3. Establish association between CE and FE, and set IP addresses of
	FEs interfaces.		FEs interfaces.
	4. Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.		4. Start OSPF among CE and routers, and set FIB on FE.
	5. Send packets between terminals.		5. Send packets between terminals.
	4. Test Results		4. Test Results
	4.1. LFB Operation Test		4.1. LFB Operation Test
	The test result was as reported by Figure 8. For the convenience		The test result is as reported by Figure 8. For the convenience
	sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'Z' in the table means		sake, as mentioned earlier, abbreviations of 'C' in the table means
	implementation from ZJSU ,'N' NTT implementation, and 'P' UoP		implementation from China,'J'Japan implementation, and 'G' Greece
	implementation.		implementation.
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |		|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component | Result |
	| | | | | | /Capability | |		| | | | | | /Capability | |
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	| 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |		| 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success |		| 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelector | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 3 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success |		| 3 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | PHYPortID | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 4 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |		| 4 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 5 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success |		| 5 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 6 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success |		| 6 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminLinkSpeed | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 7 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success |		| 7 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperLinkSpeed | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 8 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |		| 8 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | AdminDuplexSpeed | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 9 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success |		| 9 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | OperDuplexSpeed | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 10 | Z | N | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success |		| 10 | C | J | GET | EtherPHYCop | CarrierStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 11 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success |		| 11 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | AdminStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 12 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success |		| 12 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | LocalMacAddresses | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 13 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success |		| 13 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | L2Bridging | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | PathEnable | Success |		| | J | C | | | PathEnable | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 14 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success |		| 14 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | PromiscuousMode | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 15 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success |		| 15 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | TxFlowControl | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 16 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success |		| 16 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | RxFlowControl | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 17 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success |		| 17 | C | J | GET | EtherMACIn | MACInStats | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 18 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success |		| 18 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | AdminStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 19 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success |		| 19 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MTU | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 20 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |		| 20 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 21 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |		| 21 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | TxFlowControl | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 22 | Z | N | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success |		| 22 | C | J | GET | EtherMACOut | MACOutStats | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 23 | Z | N | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |		| 23 | C | J | GET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 24 | Z | N | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |		| 24 | C | J | SET | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 25 | Z | N | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |		| 25 | C | J | DEL | ARP |PortV4AddrInfoTable| Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 26 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success |		| 26 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | LocalMACAddresses | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 27 | Z | N | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success |		| 27 | C | J | SET | EtherMACIn | MTU | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 28 | Z | N | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |		| 28 | C | J | SET | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 29 | Z | N | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |		| 29 | C | J | SET | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 30 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |		| 30 | C | J | DEL | IPv4NextHop | IPv4NextHopTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 31 | Z | N | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |		| 31 | C | J | DEL | IPv4UcastLPM | IPv4PrefixTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 32 | Z | N | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |		| 32 | C | J | SET | EtherPHYCop | AdminStatus | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 33 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |		| 33 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |		| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 34 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |		| 34 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |		| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 35 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |		| 35 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |		| | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 36 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |		| 36 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanOutputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Encapsulator | | Success |		| | J | C | | Encapsulator | | Success |
	| | Z | P | | | | Success |		| | C | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | Z | | | | Success |		| | G | C | | | | Success |
	| | N | P | | | | Success |		| | J | G | | | | Success |
	| | P | N | | | | Success |		| | G | J | | | | Success |
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results		Figure 8: LFB Operation Test Results
	Note on test #1:		Note on test 1#:
	On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of		On the wire format of encapsulation on array, only the case of
	FULLDATA-in-FULLDATA was tested.		FULLDATA-in-FULLDATA was tested.
	In ZJSU's implementation, after test #2 CE have to get all LFBs'		In China's implementation, after test 2# CE have to get all LFBs'
	instance data actively according to the queried component of		instance data actively according to the queried component of
	LFBSelectors.		LFBSelectors.
			Note on test 28# and 29#:
			Only had new reachable network destination been set, can route entry
			be added into system.
			Note on test 30# and 31#:
			Corresponding nexthop entry must be deleted before prefix entry which
			is decided by FE's routing management.
	4.2. TML with IPSec Test		4.2. TML with IPSec Test
	In this scenario, the ForCES TML was run over IPSec. Implementers		In this scenario, the ForCES TML is run over IPSec. Implementers
	joined this interoperability test used the same third-party tool		joined this interoperability test use the same third-party tool
	software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB		software 'racoon' to establish IPSec channel. Some typical LFB
	operation tests as in Scenario 1 were repeated with the IPSec enabled		operation tests as in Scenario 1 are repeated with the IPSec enabled
	TML.		TML.
	As mentioned, this scenario only took place between implementers of		A note on this test is, because of the system difficulty to implement
	ZJSU and NTT.		IPSec over TML, Greece did not join in the test. Therefore, this
			scenario only took place between C and J.
	The TML with IPSec test results are reported by Figure 9.		The TML with IPSec test results are reported by Figure 9.
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component/ | Result |		|Test#| CE |FE(s)|Oper | LFB | Component/ | Result |
	| | | | | | Capability | |		| | | | | | Capability | |
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	| 1 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |		| 1 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBTopology | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 2 | Z | N | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success |		| 2 | C | J | GET | FEObject | LFBSelectors | Success |
	| | N | Z | | | | Success |		| | J | C | | | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 3 | Z | N | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |		| 3 | C | J | SET | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |		| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| 4 | Z | N | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |		| 4 | C | J | DEL | Ether | VlanInputTable | Success |
	| | N | Z | | Classifier | | Success |		| | J | C | | Classifier | | Success |
	+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-----+--------------+-------------------+---------+
	Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results		Figure 9: TML with IPSec Test Results
	4.3. CE High Availability Test		4.3. CE High Availability Test
	In this scenario one FE connects and associates with a master CE and		In this scenario one FE connects and associates with a master CE and
	a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would		a backup CE. When the master CE is deemed disconnected the FE would
	attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.		attempt to find another associated CE to become the master CE.
	skipping to change at page 22, line 34		skipping to change at page 20, line 29
	By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router can generate new routes		By running OSPF, the CE in the ForCES router can generate new routes
	and load them to routing table in FE. The FE is then able to forward		and load them to routing table in FE. The FE is then able to forward
	packets according to the routing table.		packets according to the routing table.
	The test is reported with the results in Figure 10		The test is reported with the results in Figure 10
	+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
	|Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result |		|Test#| CE |FE(s)| Item | LFBs Related | Result |
	+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
	| 1 | N | Z | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |		| 1 | J | C | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 2 | N | Z | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |		| 2 | J | C | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM | Success |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 3 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |		| 3 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
	| | | | CE to SmartBits | | |		| | | | CE to SmartBits | | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 4 | N | Z |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |		| 4 | J | C |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | SmartBits to CE | | |		| | | | SmartBits to CE | | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 5 | N | Z | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |		| 5 | J | C | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |		| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 6 | N | Z | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |		| 6 | J | C | OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 7 | N | Z | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success |		| 7 | J | C | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |		| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 8 | N | Z | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success |		| 8 | J | C | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |		| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
	| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |		| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 9 | N | Z | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success |		| 9 | J | C | Data Forwarding | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |		| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
	| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |		| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 10 | Z | N | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |		| 10 | C | J | IPv4NextHopTable SET | IPv4NextHop | Success |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 11 | Z | N | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success |		| 11 | C | J | IPv4PrefixTable SET | IPv4UcastLPM| Success |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 12 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |		| 12 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectIn | Success |
	| | | | CE to other OSPF router | | |		| | | | CE to other OSPF router | | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 13 | Z | N |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |		| 13 | C | J |Redirect OSPF packet from| RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | |other OSPF router to CE | | |		| | | |other OSPF router to CE | | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 14 | Z | N | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |		| 14 | C | J | Metadata in | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |		| | | | redirect message | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 15 | Z | N |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |		| 15 | C | J |OSPF neighbor discovery | RedirectOut | Success |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 16 | Z | N | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |		| 16 | C | J | OSPF DD exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |		| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
	| | | | | | |		| | | | | | |
	| 17 | Z | N | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |		| 17 | C | J | OSPF LSA exchange | RedirectOut | Failure |
	| | | | | RedirectIn | |		| | | | | RedirectIn | |
	| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |		| | | | | IPv4NextHop | |
	| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |		| | | | | IPv4UcastLPM| |
	+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+		+-----+----+-----+-------------------------+--------------+---------+
	Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results		Figure 10: Packet Forwarding Test Results
	Note on test #1 and #2:		Note on test 1# and 2#:
	A multicast route pointed to localhost was manually set before		A multicast route pointed to localhost was manually set before
	redirect channel could work normally.		redirect channel could work normally.
	Note on test #3 to #9:		Note on test 3# to 9#:
	During the tests, OSPF packets received from CE were found by		During the tests, OSPF packets received from CE were found by
	Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors. ZJSU's FE corrected the		Ethereal/Wireshark with checksum errors. China's FE corrected the
	checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and		checksum in FE so that the Smartbits would not drop the packets and
	the neighbor discovery can continue. Such correcting action does not		the neighbor discovery can continue. Such correcting action does not
	affect the test scenarios and the results.		affect the test scenarios and the results.
	Comment on Test #16 and #17:		Comment on Test #16 and #17:
	The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical		The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 are exactly the
	to the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged.		same as these tests, only with CE and FE implementers are exchanged,
	Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked		and Test #12 and #13 show the redirect channel works well. As a
	well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem		result, it can be inferred that the problem caused the test failure
	caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the		was almost certainly from the implementation of the related LFBs
	ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on		rather than from the ForCES protocol design problem, therefore the
	the protocol specification. Although the failure made the OSPF		failure does not lead to the interoperability problem on ForCES.
	interoperability test incomplete, it did not show interoperability
	problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF
	interoperability.
	5. Discussions		5. Discussions
	5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format		5.1. On Data Encapsulation Format
	In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-		In the first day of the test, it was found that the LFB inter-
	operations about tables all failed. The reason is found to be the		operations about tables all failed. The reason is found to be the
	different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different		different ForCES protocol data encapsulation method among different
	implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:		implementations. The encapsulation issues are detailed as below:
	Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1		Assuming that an LFB has two components, one is a struct with ID 1
	and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32		and the other an array with ID 2, further with two components of u32
	both inside, as below:		both inside, as below:
	struct1: type struct, ID=1		struct1: type struct, ID=1
	components are:		components are:
	a, type u32, ID=1		a, type u32, ID=1
	b, type u32, ID=2		b, type u32, ID=2
	table1: type array, ID=2		table1: type array, ID=2
	components for each row are (a struct of):		components for each row are (a struct of):
	x, type u32, ID=1		x, type u32, ID=1
	y, type u32, ID=2		y, type u32, ID=2
	1. On response of PATH-DATA format		1. On response of PATH-DATA format
	When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from		When a CE sends a config/query ForCES protocol message to an FE from
	a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the		a different implementer, the CE probably receives response from the
	FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a		FE with different PATH-DATA encapsulation format. For example, if a
	CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to		CE sends a query message with a path of 1 to a third party FE to
	manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate		manipulate struct 1 as defined above, the FE is probable to generate
	response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is		response with two different PATH-DATA encapsulation format: one is
	the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many		the value with FULL/SPARSE-DATA and the other is the value with many
	skipping to change at page 26, line 6		skipping to change at page 23, line 18
	OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV		OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
	PATH-DATA-TLV:		PATH-DATA-TLV:
	IDs=1		IDs=1
	PATH-DATA-TLV:		PATH-DATA-TLV:
	IDs=1		IDs=1
	FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)		FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(a)
	PATH-DATA-TLV:		PATH-DATA-TLV:
	IDs=2		IDs=2
	FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)		FULLDATA-TLV containing valueof(b)
	The interoperability testers witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or		The interoperability test witnessed that a ForCES element (CE or FE)
	FE) sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES		sender is free to choose whatever data structure that IETF ForCES
	documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element		documents define and best suits the element, while a ForCES element
	(CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests		(CE or FE) should be able to accept and process information (requests
	and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF		and responses) that use any legitimate structure defined by IETF
	ForCES documents. While in the case a ForCES element is free to		ForCES documents. While in the case a ForCES element is free to
	choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred		choose any legitimate data structure as a response, it is preferred
	the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was		the ForCES element responds in the same format that the request was
	made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender		made, as it is most probably the data structure is the request sender
	looks forward to receive.		looks forward to receive.
	2. On operation to array		2. On operation to array
	skipping to change at page 31, line 8		skipping to change at page 25, line 40
	The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern		The authors also thank very much to Adrian Farrel and Joel Halpern
	for their important help in the document publication process.		for their important help in the document publication process.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	This memo includes no request to IANA.		This memo includes no request to IANA.
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security		Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security
	considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES		considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES
	Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security		Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security
	considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol		considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol
	[RFC5811], the transport-level security has to be ensured by IPsec.		[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 of the document.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,		[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
	W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and		W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
	Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol		Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
	Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.		Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
	[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping		[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
	Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element		Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
	Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.		Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
	skipping to change at page 32, line 19		skipping to change at page 26, line 16
	[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,		[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
	W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and		W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
	Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol		Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
	Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.		Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
	[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping		[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
	Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element		Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
	Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.		Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
	[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control		[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
	Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",		Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC
	RFC 5812, March 2010.		5812, March 2010.
	[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation		[RFC5813] Haas, R., "Forwarding and Control Element Separation
	(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.		(ForCES) MIB", RFC 5813, March 2010.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[Ethereal]		[Ethereal]
	"Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.		, "Ethereal, also named Wireshark, is a protocol analyzer.
	The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated		The specific Ethereal that was used is an updated
	Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the		Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that can analyze and decode the
	ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/		ForCES protocol messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-
	mail-archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html .		archive/web/forces/current/msg03687.html , .
	[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]		[I-D.ietf-forces-ceha-00]
	Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES		Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Salim, "ForCES
	Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00		Intra-NE High Availability", draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00
	(work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is		(work in progress) [RFC Editor Note: This reference is
	intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet-		intended to indicate a specific version of an Internet-
	Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT		Draft that was used during interop testing. Please Do NOT
	update this reference to a more recent version of the		update this reference to a more recent version of the
	draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before		draft or to an RFC. Please remove this note before
	publication] , October 2010.		publication] , October 2010.
	[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]		[I-D.ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03]
	Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.		Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Li, C., and J.
	Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",		Halpern, "ForCES Logical Function Block (LFB) Library",
	draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC		draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib-03 (work in progress) [RFC
	Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a		Editor Note: This reference is intended to indicate a
	specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during		specific version of an Internet-Draft that was used during
	interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a		interop testing. Please Do NOT update this reference to a
	more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please		more recent version of the draft or to an RFC. Please
	remove this note before publication] , December 2010.		remove this note before publication] , December 2010.
	[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation		[RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
	of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.		of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.
	[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,		[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
	"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)		"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
	Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.		Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
	[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,		[RFC6053] Haleplidis, E., Ogawa, K., Wang, W., and J. Hadi Salim,
	"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element		"Implementation Report for Forwarding and Control Element
	Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.		Separation (ForCES)", RFC 6053, November 2010.
	[Tcpdump] "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific		[Tcpdump] , "Tcpdump is a Linux protocol analyzer. The specific
	tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi		tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi
	Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol		Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol
	messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/		messages", http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces/
	current/msg03811.html .		current/msg03811.html , .
	[Teamviewer]		[Teamviewer]
	"TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the world		, "TeamViewer connects to any PC or server around the
	within a few seconds.", http://www.teamviewer.com/ .		world within a few seconds. ", http://www.teamviewer.com/
			, .
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Weiming Wang		Weiming Wang
	Zhejiang Gongshang University		Zhejiang Gongshang University
	18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town		18 Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town
	Hangzhou, 310018		Hangzhou 310018
	P.R.China		P.R.China
	Phone: +86-571-28877721		Phone: +86-571-28877721
	Email: wmwang(_at_)zjsu(_dot_)edu(_dot_)cn		Email: wmwang(_at_)zjsu(_dot_)edu(_dot_)cn
	Kentaro Ogawa		Kentaro Ogawa
	NTT Corporation		NTT Corporation
	Tokyo,		Tokyo
	Japan		Japan
	Email: ogawa(_dot_)kentaro(_at_)lab(_dot_)ntt(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp		Email: ogawa(_dot_)kentaro(_at_)lab(_dot_)ntt(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp
	Evangelos Haleplidis		Evangelos Haleplidis
	University of Patras		University of Patras
	Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering		Patras
	Patras, 26500
	Greece		Greece
	Email: ehalep(_at_)ece(_dot_)upatras(_dot_)gr		Email: ehalep(_at_)ece(_dot_)upatras(_dot_)gr
	Ming Gao		Ming Gao
	Hangzhou BAUD Networks		Hangzhou BAUD Networks
	408 Wen-San Road		408 Wen-San Road
	Hangzhou, 310012		Hangzhou 310012
	P.R.China		P.R.China
	Email: gmyyqno1(_at_)zjsu(_dot_)edu(_dot_)cn		Email: gmyyqno1(_at_)zjsu(_dot_)edu(_dot_)cn
	Jamal Hadi Salim		Jamal Hadi Salim
	Mojatatu Networks		Mojatatu Networks
	Ottawa		Ottawa
	Canada		Canada
	Email: hadi(_at_)mojatatu(_dot_)com		Email: hadi(_at_)mojatatu(_dot_)com
End of changes. 155 change blocks.
	494 lines changed or deleted		489 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/

draft-ietf-forces-interop-08v1.txt
Description: Text document