idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 27, 2010) is 5023 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'N' is mentioned on line 519, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force E. Haleplidis 3 Internet-Draft University of Patras 4 Intended status: Informational K. Ogawa 5 Expires: December 29, 2010 NTT Corporation 6 W. Wang 7 Zhejiang Gongshang University 8 J. Hadi Salim 9 Mojatatu Networks 10 June 27, 2010 12 Implementation Report for ForCES 13 draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02 15 Abstract 17 Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an 18 architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize 19 information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding 20 plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). RFC3654 has defined 21 the ForCES requirements, and RFC3746 has defined the ForCES 22 framework. 24 This document is an implementation report of the ForCES Protocol, 25 Model and SCTP-TML, including the report on interoperability testing 26 and the current state of ForCES implementations. 28 Status of this Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2010. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.1. ForCES Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.2. ForCES Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.3. Transport mapping layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 5. Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 6. Detail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 6.1. Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 6.1.1.3. TLV Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features . . . . . . . . 15 80 6.1.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 83 6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 84 6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 85 6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities . . . . . 21 87 6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 88 6.2. Interoperability Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 89 6.2.1. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 90 6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-association Setup . . . . . . . . 23 91 6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection . . 24 92 6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association 93 Complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 94 6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 95 6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring . . . . . . . . 25 96 6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command . . . . . . . . 25 97 6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown . . . . . . . . 26 98 6.2.2. Tested Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 99 6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 100 6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 101 6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 102 6.2.3. Interoperability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 103 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 104 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 105 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 106 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 107 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 108 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 109 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 111 1. Terminology and Conventions 113 1.1. Requirements Language 115 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 116 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 117 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 119 1.2. Definitions 121 This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES 122 Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746]. 123 The definitions below are repeated below for clarity. 125 Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES 126 protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs on how to process 127 packets. CEs handle functionality such as the execution of 128 control and signaling protocols. 130 Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the 131 ForCES protocol. FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per- 132 packet processing and handling as directed/controlled by one or 133 more CEs via the ForCES protocol. 135 LFB (Logical Function Block) - The basic building block that is 136 operated on by the ForCES protocol. The LFB is a well defined, 137 logically separable functional block that resides in an FE and is 138 controlled by the CE via ForCES protocol. The LFB may reside at 139 the FE's datapath and process packets or may be purely an FE 140 control or configuration entity that is operated on by the CE. 141 Note that the LFB is a functionally accurate abstraction of the 142 FE's processing capabilities, but not a hardware-accurate 143 representation of the FE implementation. 145 LFB Class and LFB Instance - LFBs are categorized by LFB Classes. 146 An LFB Instance represents an LFB Class (or Type) existence. 147 There may be multiple instances of the same LFB Class (or Type) in 148 an FE. An LFB Class is represented by an LFB Class ID, and an LFB 149 Instance is represented by an LFB Instance ID. As a result, an 150 LFB Class ID associated with an LFB Instance ID uniquely specifies 151 an LFB existence. 153 LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state 154 from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The 155 FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced and 156 consumed by the LFBs. It defines the functionality but not how 157 metadata is encoded within an implementation. 159 LFB Components - Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be 160 visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB 161 components. The LFB components include, for example, flags, 162 single parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the 163 CE can read and/or Components write via the ForCES protocol (see 164 below). 166 ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used 167 within the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol" 168 and "protocol" refer to the Fp reference points in the ForCES 169 Framework in [RFC3746]. This protocol does not apply to CE-to-CE 170 communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication between 171 FE and CE managers. Basically, the ForCES protocol works in a 172 master- slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters. 173 This document defines the specifications for this ForCES protocol. 175 ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in 176 ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of 177 existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol 178 message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages 179 are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM, 180 Ethernet, etc), and how to achieve and implement reliability, 181 multicast, ordering, etc. The ForCES TML specifications are 182 detailed in separate ForCES documents, one for each TML. 184 2. Introduction 186 This is an implementation report for the ForCES protocol, model and 187 SCTP-TML documents and includes an interoperability report. 189 It follows the outline suggested by [RFC5657]. 191 Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) defines an 192 architectural framework and associated protocols to standardize 193 information exchange between the control plane and the forwarding 194 plane in a ForCES Network Element (ForCES NE). [RFC3654] has defined 195 the ForCES requirements, and [RFC3746] has defined the ForCES 196 framework. 198 2.1. ForCES Protocol 200 The ForCES protocol works in a master-slave mode in which FEs are 201 slaves and CEs are masters. The protocol includes commands for 202 transport of Logical Function Block (LFB) configuration information, 203 association setup, status, and event notifications, etc. The reader 204 is encouraged to read the ForCES Protocol [RFC5810] for further 205 information. 207 2.2. ForCES Model 209 The ForCES Model [RFC5812] presents a formal way to define FE Logical 210 Function Blocks (LFBs) using XML. LFB configuration components, 211 capabilities, and associated events are defined when the LFB is 212 formally created. The LFBs within the FE are accordingly controlled 213 in a standardized way by the ForCES protocol. 215 2.3. Transport mapping layer 217 The TML transports the PL messages. The TML is where the issues of 218 how to achieve transport level reliability, congestion control, 219 multicast, ordering, etc. are handled. All ForCES Protocol Layer 220 implementations MUST be portable across all TMLs. Although more than 221 one TML may be standardized for the ForCES Protocol, all 222 implementations MUST implement the SCTP-TML [RFC5811]. 224 3. Summary 226 The authors attest that the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML meet 227 the requirements for Draft Standard. 229 Three independent implementations, NTT Japan, University of Patras 230 and Zhejiang Gongshang University, were surveyed and found to already 231 implement all the major features. All implementors mentioned they 232 will be implementing all missing features in the future. 234 An interop test was conducted in July, 2009 for all three 235 implementations. Two other organizations, Mojatatu Networks and 236 Hangzhou Baud Information and Networks Technology Corporation, which 237 independently extended two different well known public domain 238 protocol analyzers, Ethereal/Wireshark and tcpdump, also participated 239 in the interop for a total of five independent organizations 240 implementing. The two protocol analyzers were used to verify 241 validity of ForCEs protocol messages (and in some cases semantics). 243 There were no notable difficulties in the interoperability test and 244 almost all issues were code bugs that were dealt with mostly on site 245 and tests repeated successfully as stated in Section 6.2.3. 247 4. Methodology 249 This report has both an implementation experience survey as well as 250 the results of the interoperability test. 252 The survey information was gathered after implementors answered a 253 brief questionnaire with all ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML 254 features. The results can be seen in Section 6.1 256 The interoperability results were part of the interoperability test. 257 Extended Ethereal and extended Tcpdump were used to verify the 258 results. The results can be seen in Section 6.2 260 5. Exceptions 262 The core features of the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML have 263 been implemented and tested in an interop in July, 2009. The 264 intention of the interop testing was to validate that all the main 265 features of the 3 core documents were inter-operable amongst 266 different implementations. The tested features can be seen in 267 Section 6.2.2. 269 Different organizations surveyed have implemented certain features 270 but not others. This approach is driven by presence of different 271 LFBs the different organizations have currently implemented. All 272 organizations surveyed have indicated intention to implement all 273 outstanding features in due time. The implemented features can be 274 seen in Section 6.1. 276 The mandated TML security requirement, IPSec, was not validated 277 during the interop and is not discussed in this document. Since 278 IPSec is well known and widely deployed not testing in presence of 279 IPSec does not invalidate the tests done. Note that Section 6.1.3.3 280 indicates that none of the implementations reporting included support 281 for IPSec, but all indicated their intention to implement. 283 Although the SCTP priority ports have been changed since the 284 interoperability test with the latest SCTP-TML draft, the change has 285 no impact in the validity of the interoperability test. 287 6. Detail Section 289 6.1. Implementation Experience 291 Three different organizations have implemented the ForCES Protocol, 292 Model and SCTP-TML and answered a questionnaire. These are: 294 o NTT Japan. 296 o University of Patras. 298 o Zhejiang Gongshang University. 300 Also, not actual implementations, but extensions on protocol 301 analyzers capable of understanding ForCES protocol messages, also are 302 considered part of an implementation as they can offer validation of 303 exchanged protocol messages. Two such extensions have been created: 305 o Extension to Ethereal/Wireshark [ethereal]. 307 o Extension to Tcpdump [tcpdump]. 309 All implementors were asked regarding the ForCES features they have 310 implemented. For every item listed the respondents indicated whether 311 they had implemented, will implement, or won't implement at all. 313 6.1.1. ForCES Protocol Features 314 6.1.1.1. Protocol Messages 316 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 317 | Protocol Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang | 318 | | | Patras | Gongshang | 319 | | | | University | 320 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 321 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 322 | Setup | | | | 323 | | | | | 324 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 325 | Setup Response | | | | 326 | | | | | 327 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 328 | TearDown | | | | 329 | | | | | 330 | Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 331 | | | | | 332 | Configuration | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 333 | Response | | | | 334 | | | | | 335 | Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 336 | | | | | 337 | Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 338 | | | | | 339 | Event | Implemented | Will | Implemented | 340 | Notification | | Implement | | 341 | | | | | 342 | Packet Redirect | Implemented | Will | Implemented | 343 | | | Implement | | 344 | | | | | 345 | HeartBeat | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 346 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 348 ForCES Protocol Message 350 6.1.1.2. MainHeader Handling 352 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 353 | Header Field | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 354 | | | Patras | University | 355 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 356 | Correlator | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 357 | | | | | 358 | Acknowledge | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 359 | Flag | | | | 360 | | | | | 361 | Priority Flag | Will | Implemented | Implemented | 362 | | Implement | | | 363 | | | | | 364 | Execution | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 365 | Mode Flag | Implement | | | 366 | | | | | 367 | Atomic Flag | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 368 | | Implement | | | 369 | | | | | 370 | Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 371 | Flag | Implement | | | 372 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 374 MainHeader Handling 376 6.1.1.3. TLV Handling 378 +------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+ 379 | TLV | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang | 380 | | | of Patras | Gongshang | 381 | | | | University | 382 +------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+ 383 | Redirect TLV | Implemented | Will | Implemented | 384 | | | Implement | | 385 | | | | | 386 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 387 | Setup Result TLV | | | | 388 | | | | | 389 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 390 | TearDown Reason | | | | 391 | TLV | | | | 392 | | | | | 393 | LFBSelector TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 394 | | | | | 395 | Operation TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 396 | | | | | 397 | PathData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 398 | | | | | 399 | KeyInfo TLV | Will | Will | Implemented | 400 | | Implement | Implement | | 401 | | | | | 402 | FullData TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 403 | | | | | 404 | SparseData TLV | Will | Will | Implemented | 405 | | Implement | Implement | | 406 | | | | | 407 | ILV | Will | Will | Implemented | 408 | | Implement | Implement | | 409 | | | | | 410 | Metadata TLV | Will | Will | Implemented | 411 | | Implement | Implement | | 412 | | | | | 413 | Result TLV | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 414 | | | | | 415 | Redirect Data | Implemented | Will | Implemented | 416 | TLV | | Implement | | 417 +------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+ 419 TLVs Supported 421 6.1.1.4. Operation Types Supported 423 +--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 424 | Operation | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 425 | | | Patras | University | 426 +--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 427 | Set | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 428 | | | | | 429 | Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 430 | | Implement | | | 431 | | | | | 432 | Set Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 433 | | | | | 434 | Set Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 435 | Response | Implement | | | 436 | | | | | 437 | Del | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented | 438 | | | | | 439 | Del Response | Implemented | Will Implement | Implemented | 440 | | | | | 441 | Get | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 442 | | | | | 443 | Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 444 | | Implement | | | 445 | | | | | 446 | Get Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 447 | | | | | 448 | Get Prop | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 449 | Response | Implement | | | 450 | | | | | 451 | Report | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 452 | | | | | 453 | Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 454 | | Implement | | | 455 | | | | | 456 | Commit | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 457 | Response | Implement | | | 458 | | | | | 459 | TRComp | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 460 | | Implement | | | 461 +--------------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------+ 463 Operation Type Supported 465 6.1.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features 467 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 468 | Feature | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 469 | | | Patras | University | 470 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 471 | Execute Mode | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 472 | | Implement | | | 473 | | | | | 474 | Transaction | Will | Will Implement | Implemented | 475 | | Implement | | | 476 | | | | | 477 | Batching | Will | Implemented | Implemented | 478 | | Implement | | | 479 | | | | | 480 | Command | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement | 481 | Pipelining | Implement | | | 482 | | | | | 483 | HeartBeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 484 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 486 ForCES Protocol Advanced Features 488 6.1.2. ForCES Model Features 489 6.1.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported 491 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 492 | Atomic Type | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 493 | | | Patras | University | 494 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 495 | char | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 496 | | | | | 497 | uchar | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 498 | | | | | 499 | int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 500 | | | | | 501 | uint16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 502 | | | | | 503 | int32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 504 | | | | | 505 | uint32 | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 506 | | | | | 507 | int16 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 508 | | | | | 509 | uint64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 510 | | | | | 511 | boolean | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 512 | | | | | 513 | string[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 514 | | | | | 515 | string | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 516 | | | | | 517 | byte[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 518 | | | | | 519 | octetstring[N] | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 520 | | | | | 521 | float32 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 522 | | | | | 523 | float64 | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 524 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 526 Basic Atomic Types Supported 528 6.1.2.2. Compound Types Supported 530 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+ 531 | Compound | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 532 | Type | | Patras | University | 533 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+ 534 | structs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 535 | | | | | 536 | arrays | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 537 +------------+-------------+-----------------+----------------------+ 539 Compound Types Supported 541 6.1.2.3. LFBs Supported 543 6.1.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB 545 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+ 546 | Protocol | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang | 547 | DataTypes | | Patras | Gongshang | 548 | | | | University | 549 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+ 550 | CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 551 | | | | | 552 | FEHIBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 553 | | | | | 554 | FERestarPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 555 | | | | | 556 | CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 557 | | | | | 558 | FEHACapab | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 559 +------------------+-------------+----------------+-----------------+ 561 FE Protocol LFB Datatypes 563 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 564 | Protocol Components | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang | 565 | | | of Patras | Gongshang | 566 | | | | University | 567 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 568 | CurrentRunningVersion | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 569 | | | | | 570 | FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 571 | | | | | 572 | MulticastFEIDs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 573 | | | | | 574 | CEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 575 | | | | | 576 | CEHDI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 577 | | | | | 578 | FEHBPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 579 | | | | | 580 | FEHI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 581 | | | | | 582 | CEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 583 | | | | | 584 | BackupCEs | Implemented | Will | Will | 585 | | | Implement | Implement | 586 | | | | | 587 | CEFailoverPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 588 | | | | | 589 | CEFTI | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 590 | | | | | 591 | FERestartPolicy | Implemented | Implemented | Will | 592 | | | | Implement | 593 | | | | | 594 | LastCEID | Implemented | Implemented | Will | 595 | | | | Implement | 596 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 598 FE Protocol LFB Components 600 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+ 601 | Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang | 602 | | | of Patras | Gongshang | 603 | | | | University | 604 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+ 605 | SupportableVersions | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 606 | | | | | 607 | HACapabilities | Implemented | Implemented | Will Implement | 608 +---------------------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+ 610 Capabilities Supported 612 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+ 613 | Events | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 614 | | | Patras | University | 615 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+ 616 | PrimaryCEDown | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement | 617 | | Implement | | | 618 +---------------+------------+----------------+---------------------+ 620 Events Supported 622 6.1.2.3.2. FE Object LFB 624 +-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 625 | Object DataTypes | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang | 626 | | | of Patras | Gongshang | 627 | | | | University | 628 +-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 629 | LFBAdjacencyLimit | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 630 | | | | | 631 | PortGroupLimitType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 632 | | | | | 633 | SupportedLFBType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 634 | | | | | 635 | FEStateValues | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 636 | | | | | 637 | FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 638 | | | | | 639 | FEConfiguredeighborType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 640 | | | | | 641 | LFBSelectorType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 642 | | | | | 643 | LFBLinkType | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 644 +-------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 646 FE Object LFB Datatypes 648 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+ 649 | Object | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 650 | Components | | Patras | University | 651 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+ 652 | LFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 653 | | | | | 654 | LFBSelectors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 655 | | | | | 656 | FEName | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 657 | | | | | 658 | FEID | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 659 | | | | | 660 | FEVendor | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 661 | | | | | 662 | FEModel | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 663 | | | | | 664 | FEState | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 665 | | | | | 666 | FENeighbors | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 667 +--------------+-------------+----------------+---------------------+ 669 FE Object LFB Components 671 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 672 | Capabilities | NTT Japan | University | Zhejiang | 673 | | | of Patras | Gongshang | 674 | | | | University | 675 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 676 | ModifiableLFBTopology | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 677 | | | | | 678 | SupportedLFBs | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 679 +-----------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------+ 681 Capabilities Supported 683 6.1.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features 685 6.1.3.1. TML Priority Ports 687 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 688 | Port | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 689 | | | Patras | University | 690 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 691 | High priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 692 | (6700) | | | | 693 | | | | | 694 | Medium | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 695 | priority | | | | 696 | (6701) | | | | 697 | | | | | 698 | Low priority | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 699 | (6702) | | | | 700 +----------------+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ 702 Priority Ports 704 6.1.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities 706 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 707 | ForCES Message | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang | 708 | | | Patras | Gongshang | 709 | | | | University | 710 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 711 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 712 | Setup | | | | 713 | | | | | 714 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 715 | Setup Response | | | | 716 | | | | | 717 | Association | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 718 | Teardown | | | | 719 | | | | | 720 | Config | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 721 | | | | | 722 | Config Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 723 | | | | | 724 | Query | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 725 | | | | | 726 | Query Response | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 727 +------------------+-------------+---------------+------------------+ 729 Message Handling at High priority (6700) Port 731 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 732 | ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 733 | Message | | Patras | University | 734 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 735 | Event | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 736 | Notification | | | | 737 +---------------+-------------+----------------+--------------------+ 739 Message Handling at Medium priority (6701) Port 741 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 742 | ForCES | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 743 | Message | | Patras | University | 744 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 745 | Packet | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 746 | Redirect | | | | 747 | | | | | 748 | Heartbeats | Implemented | Implemented | Implemented | 749 +-------------+-------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 751 Message Handling at Low priority (6702) Port 753 6.1.3.3. TML Security Feature 755 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 756 | Security | NTT Japan | University of | Zhejiang Gongshang | 757 | Feature | | Patras | University | 758 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 759 | IPSec | Will | Will Implement | Will Implement | 760 | | Implement | | | 761 +--------------+------------+-----------------+---------------------+ 763 Security Feature Support 765 6.2. Interoperability Report 767 The interoperability test took place at the University of Patras, in 768 the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. 770 There were two options to participate in the interoperability test. 772 1. Locally at the University of Patras premises. 774 2. Remotely via internet. 776 Implementations from NTT and University of Patras, were present 777 locally at the University of Patras premises in Greece, while the 778 implementation from Zhejiang Gongshang University, which was behind a 779 NAT, connected remotely from China. 781 The interoperability test, tested the basic functionality of the 782 ForCES protocol, mainly message exchanging and handling. 784 The following scenarios were tested. 786 6.2.1. Scenarios 788 The main goal of the interoperability test was to test the basic 789 protocol functionality, the test parameters were limited. 791 1. In the Association Setup Message, all report messages were 792 ignored. 794 2. In the Association Setup Phase, the messages, FEO OperEnable 795 Event (FE to CE), Config FEO Adminup (CE to FE) and FEO Config- 796 Resp (FE to CE) were ignored. The CEs assumed that the FEs were 797 enabled once the LFBSelectors had been queried. 799 3. Only FullDataTLVs were used and not SparseData TLVs. 801 4. There were no transaction operations. 803 5. Each message had only one LFBSelector TLV, one Operation TLV and 804 one PathDataTLV per message when these were used. 806 6.2.1.1. Scenario 1 - Pre-association Setup 808 While the Pre-association setup is not in the ForCES current scope it 809 is an essential step before CEs and FEs communicate. As the first 810 part in a successful CE-FE connection the participating CEs and FEs 811 had to be able to be configured. 813 In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items were 814 setup regarding the CEs: 816 o The CE ID. 818 o The FE IDs that were connected to this CE 820 o The IP of the FEs that connected 822 o The TML priority ports. 824 In the Pre-association Phase the following configuration items were 825 setup regarding the FEs: 827 o The FE ID. 829 o The CE ID that this FE were connecting to. 831 o The IP of the CE that connected to 832 o The TML priority ports. 834 6.2.1.2. Scenario 2 - TML priority channels connection 836 For the interoperability test, the SCTP was used as TML. The TML 837 connection with the associating element was needed for the scenario 2 838 to be successful. 840 Although SCTP-TML [RFC5811] defines 3 priority channels, with 841 specific ports: 843 o High priority - Port number: 6704 845 o Medium priority - Port number: 6705 847 o Lower priority - Port number: 6706 849 At the time of the interoperability test, the sctp ports of the three 850 priority channels were the following: 852 o High priority - Port number: 6700 854 o Medium priority - Port number: 6701 856 o Lower priority - Port number: 6702 858 As specified in the exceptions section, this does not invalidate the 859 results of the interoperability test. 861 6.2.1.3. Scenario 3 - Association Setup - Association Complete 863 Once the Pre-association phase had been complete in the previous 2 864 scenarios, CEs and FEs would be ready to communicate using the ForCES 865 protocol, and enter the Association Setup stage. In this stage the 866 FEs would attempt to join the NE. The following ForCES protocol 867 messages would be exchanged for each CE-FE pair in the specified 868 order: 870 o Association Setup Message (from FE to CE) 872 o Association Setup Response Message (from CE to FE) 874 o Query Message: FEO LFBSelectors(from CE to FE) 876 o Query Response: FEO LFBSelectors response (from FE to CE) 878 6.2.1.4. Scenario 4 - CE query 880 Once the Association Phase stage has been complete, the FEs and CEs 881 would enter the Established stage. In this stage the FE will be 882 continuously updated or queried. The CE should query the FE a 883 specific value from the FE Object LFB and from the FE Protocol LFB. 884 An example from the FE Protocol LFB is the HeartBeat Timer (FEHI) and 885 from the FE Object LFB is the State of the LFB (FEState) 887 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged: 889 o Query Message 891 o Query Response Message 893 6.2.1.5. Scenario 5 - Heartbeat monitoring 895 The Heartbeat (HB) Message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE) 896 to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the 897 same ForCES NE on its liveness. The default configuration of the 898 Heartbeat Policy of the FE is set to 0 which means, that the FE 899 should not generate any Heartbeat messages. the CE is responsible for 900 checking FE liveness by setting the PL header ACK flag of the message 901 it sends to AlwaysACK. In this Scenario the CE will send a Heartbeat 902 message with the ACK flag set to AlwaysACK and the FE should respond. 904 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged: 906 o Heartbeat Message 908 6.2.1.6. Scenario 6 - Simple Config Command 910 A config message is sent by the CE to the FE to configure LFB 911 components in the FE. A simple config command easily visible and 912 metered would be to change the Heartbeat configuration. This was 913 done in two steps: 915 1. Change the FE Heartbeat Policy (FEHBPolicy) to value 1, to force 916 the FE to send heartbeats. 918 2. After some heartbeats from the FE, the FE Heartbeat Interval 919 (FEHI) was changed. 921 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged: 923 o Config Message 924 o Config Response Message 926 6.2.1.7. Scenario 7 - Association Teardown 928 In the end, the association must be terminated. There were three 929 scenarios by which the association was terminated: 931 1. Normal tear down by exchanging Association Teardown Message 933 2. Irregular tear down by stopping heartbeats from a FE or a CE. 935 3. Irregular tear down by externally shutting down/rebooting a FE or 936 a CE. 938 All scenarios were tested in the interoperability test. 940 The following ForCES protocol messages were exchanged: 942 o Association Teardown Message 944 6.2.2. Tested Features 946 The features that were tested are: 948 6.2.2.1. ForCES Protocol Features 950 6.2.2.1.1. Protocol Messages 952 +----------------------------+ 953 | Protocol Message | 954 +----------------------------+ 955 | Association Setup | 956 | | 957 | Association Setup Response | 958 | | 959 | Association TearDown | 960 | | 961 | Configuration | 962 | | 963 | Configuration Response | 964 | | 965 | Query | 966 | | 967 | Query Response | 968 | | 969 | HeartBeat | 970 +----------------------------+ 971 ForCES Protocol Message 973 o PASS: All implementations handled the protocol messages and all 974 protocol analyzers captured them. 976 6.2.2.1.2. MainHeader Handling 978 +------------------+ 979 | Header Field | 980 +------------------+ 981 | Correlator | 982 | | 983 | Acknowledge Flag | 984 | | 985 | Priority Flag | 986 +------------------+ 988 MainHeader Handling 990 o PASS: All implementations handled these main header flags and all 991 protocol analyzers captured them. 993 6.2.2.1.3. TLV Handling 995 +---------------------------------+ 996 | TLV | 997 +---------------------------------+ 998 | Association Setup Result TLV | 999 | | 1000 | Association TearDown Reason TLV | 1001 | | 1002 | LFBSelector TLV | 1003 | | 1004 | Operation TLV | 1005 | | 1006 | PathData TLV | 1007 | | 1008 | FullData TLV | 1009 | | 1010 | Result TLV | 1011 +---------------------------------+ 1013 TLVs Supported 1015 o PASS: All implementations handled these TLVs and all protocol 1016 analyzers captured them. 1018 6.2.2.1.4. Operation Types Supported 1020 +--------------+ 1021 | Operation | 1022 +--------------+ 1023 | Set | 1024 | | 1025 | Set Response | 1026 | | 1027 | Get | 1028 | | 1029 | Get Response | 1030 | | 1031 | Report | 1032 +--------------+ 1034 Operation Type Supported 1036 o PASS: All implementations handled these Operations and all 1037 protocol analyzers captured them. 1039 6.2.2.1.5. ForCES Protocol Advanced Features 1041 +------------+ 1042 | Feature | 1043 +------------+ 1044 | Batching | 1045 | | 1046 | HeartBeats | 1047 +------------+ 1049 ForCES Protocol Advanced Features 1051 Although Batching was not initially designed to be tested, it was 1052 tested during the interoperability test. 1054 o PASS: Two implementations handled batching and all handled 1055 Heartbeats. The protocol analyzers captured both. 1057 6.2.2.2. ForCES Model Features 1058 6.2.2.2.1. Basic Atomic Types Supported 1060 +-------------+ 1061 | Atomic Type | 1062 +-------------+ 1063 | uchar | 1064 | | 1065 | uint32 | 1066 +-------------+ 1068 Basic Atomic Types Supported 1070 o PASS: All implementations handled these basic atomic types. 1072 6.2.2.2.2. Compound Types Supported 1074 +---------------+ 1075 | Compound Type | 1076 +---------------+ 1077 | structs | 1078 | | 1079 | arrays | 1080 +---------------+ 1082 Compound Types Supported 1084 o PASS: All implementations handled these compound types. 1086 6.2.2.2.3. LFBs Supported 1088 6.2.2.2.3.1. FE Protocol LFB 1090 +--------------------+ 1091 | Protocol DataTypes | 1092 +--------------------+ 1093 | CEHBPolicy | 1094 | | 1095 | FEHIBPolicy | 1096 +--------------------+ 1098 FE Protocol LFB Datatypes 1100 o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB Datatypes. 1102 +---------------------+ 1103 | Protocol Components | 1104 +---------------------+ 1105 | FEID | 1106 | | 1107 | CEHBPolicy | 1108 | | 1109 | CEHDI | 1110 | | 1111 | FEHBPolicy | 1112 | | 1113 | FEHI | 1114 | | 1115 | CEID | 1116 +---------------------+ 1118 FE Protocol LFB Components 1120 o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Protocol LFB 1121 Components. 1123 6.2.2.2.3.2. FE Object LFB 1125 +------------------+ 1126 | Object DataTypes | 1127 +------------------+ 1128 | FEStateValues | 1129 | | 1130 | LFBSelectorType | 1131 +------------------+ 1133 FE Object LFB Datatypes 1135 o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB Datatypes. 1137 +-------------------+ 1138 | Object Components | 1139 +-------------------+ 1140 | LFBSelectors | 1141 | | 1142 | FEState | 1143 +-------------------+ 1145 FE Object LFB Components 1147 o PASS: All implementations handled these FE Object LFB Components. 1149 6.2.2.3. ForCES SCTP-TML Features 1151 6.2.2.3.1. TML Priority Ports 1153 +------------------------+ 1154 | Port | 1155 +------------------------+ 1156 | High priority (6700) | 1157 | | 1158 | Medium priority (6701) | 1159 | | 1160 | Low priority (6702) | 1161 +------------------------+ 1163 Priority Ports 1165 o PASS: All implementations opened and connected to all the SCTP 1166 priority ports. The protocol analyzers captured all ports and 1167 corresponding priority. 1169 6.2.2.3.2. Message Handling at specific priorities 1171 +----------------------------+ 1172 | ForCES Message | 1173 +----------------------------+ 1174 | Association Setup | 1175 | | 1176 | Association Setup Response | 1177 | | 1178 | Association Teardown | 1179 | | 1180 | Config | 1181 | | 1182 | Config Response | 1183 | | 1184 | Query | 1185 | | 1186 | Query Response | 1187 +----------------------------+ 1189 Message Handling at High priority (6700) Port 1191 o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP 1192 priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at 1193 these priority ports. 1195 +----------------+ 1196 | ForCES Message | 1197 +----------------+ 1198 | Heartbeats | 1199 +----------------+ 1201 Message Handling at Low priority (6702) Port 1203 o PASS: All implementations handled these messages at this SCTP 1204 priority port. The protocol analyzers captured these messages at 1205 these priority ports. 1207 6.2.3. Interoperability Results 1209 All implementations were found to be interoperable with each other. 1211 All scenarios were tested successfully. 1213 The following issues were found and dealt with. 1215 1. Some messages were sent on the wrong priority channels. There 1216 were some ambiguities on the SCTP-TML document on how to deal 1217 with such a situation. The possibilities were: an FE response 1218 on the same (wrong) channel as a CE query; on the correctly 1219 documented channel for the message; or to simply drop the 1220 packet. This has been corrected by mandating the message to 1221 channel mapping to be a MUST in the SCTP-TML document [RFC5811] 1222 before it was published as an RFC. 1224 2. At some point, a CE sent a TearDown message to the FE. The CE 1225 expected the FE to shut down the connection, and the FE waited 1226 the CE to shut down the connection and were caught in a 1227 deadlock. This was a code bug and was fixed. 1229 3. Sometimes, only when the CE and FE were remote to each other 1230 (one being in China and another in Greece), the association 1231 setup message was not received by the CE side and therefore an 1232 association never completed. This was not an implementation 1233 issue, rather it was a network issue. This issue is solved with 1234 the retransmission of the non delivered messages. 1236 4. An implementation did not take into account that the padding in 1237 TLVs MUST NOT be included in the length of the TLV. This was a 1238 code bug and was fixed. 1240 5. EM Flag was set to reserved by a CE and was not ignored by the 1241 FE. This was a code bug and was fixed. 1243 6. After the FEHBPolicy was set to 1 the FE didn't send any 1244 HeartBeats. This was a code bug and was fixed. 1246 7. Some FEs sent HeartBeats with the ACK flag with a value other 1247 than NoACK. The CE responded. This was a code bug and was 1248 fixed. 1250 8. When a cable was disconnected, all TML implementation didn't 1251 detect it. The association was eventually dropped due to 1252 heartbeats, this was a success, but this is an implementation 1253 issue implementers should keep in mind. This is a SCTP options 1254 issue. Nothing was needed to be done. 1256 9. A CE crashed due to unknown LFBSelector values. This was a code 1257 bug and was fixed. 1259 10. With the remote connection from China, which was behind a NAT, 1260 to Greece there were a lot of ForCES packet retransmission. The 1261 problem is that packets like Heartbeats were retransmitted. 1262 This was an implementation issue regarding SCTP usage 1263 implementers should keep in mind. SCTP-PR option was needed to 1264 be used. Nothing was needed to be done. 1266 The interoperability test went so well that an additional extended 1267 test was added to test for batching messages. This test was also 1268 done successfully. 1270 7. Acknowledgements 1272 The authors like to give thanks to Professors Odysseas Koufopavlou 1273 and Spyros Denazis, and the Department of Electrical and Computer 1274 Engineering in the University of Patras who hosted the ForCES 1275 interoperability test. 1277 Also the authors would like to give thanks to Chuanhuang Li, Ming 1278 Gao, and other participants from Zhejiang Gongshang University which 1279 connected remotely. This allowed the discovery of a series of issues 1280 that would have been uncaught otherwise. 1282 The authors would like to thank also Hideaki Iwata and Yoshinobu 1283 Morimoto for participating locally at the interoperability test and 1284 also Hiroki Date and Hidefumi Otsuka all part of NTT Japan for 1285 contributing to the interoperability test. 1287 Additionally thanks are given to Xinping Wang for her help in writing 1288 the interoperability draft and Fenggen Jia for extending the Ethereal 1289 protocol analyzer. 1291 8. IANA Considerations 1293 This memo includes no request to IANA. 1295 9. Security Considerations 1297 No security elements of the protocol or the SCTP TML [RFC5811] 1298 specification were tested. 1300 The survey indicated that no security elements were implemented but 1301 all participants indicated their intention to implement 1303 For security considerations regarding the ForCES Protocol and the 1304 SCTP-TML please see [RFC5810] and [RFC5811] 1306 10. References 1308 10.1. Normative References 1310 [RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang, 1311 W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and 1312 Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol 1313 Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010. 1315 [RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping 1316 Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element 1317 Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010. 1319 [RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control 1320 Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", 1321 RFC 5812, March 2010. 1323 10.2. Informative References 1325 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1326 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1328 [RFC3654] Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation 1329 of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003. 1331 [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal, 1332 "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) 1333 Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004. 1335 [RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation 1336 and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft 1337 Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009. 1339 [ethereal] 1340 "Ethereal is a protocol analyzer. The specific ethereal 1341 that was used is an updated Ethereal, by Fenggen Jia, that 1342 can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol messages.", . 1346 [tcpdump] "Tcpdump is a linux protocol analyzer. The specific 1347 tcpdump that was used is a modified tcpdump, by Jamal Hadi 1348 Salim, that can analyze and decode the ForCES protocol 1349 messages.", . 1352 Authors' Addresses 1354 Evangelos Haleplidis 1355 University of Patras 1356 Patras, 1357 Greece 1359 Email: ehalep@ece.upatras.gr 1361 Kentaro Ogawa 1362 NTT Corporation 1363 Tokyo, 1364 Japan 1366 Email: ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp 1368 Weiming Wang 1369 Zhejiang Gongshang University 1370 18, Xuezheng Str., Xiasha University Town 1371 Hangzhou, 310018 1372 P.R.China 1374 Phone: +86-571-28877721 1375 Email: wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn 1377 Jamal Hadi Salim 1378 Mojatatu Networks 1379 Ottawa, Ontario, 1380 Canada 1382 Phone: 1383 Email: hadi@mojatatu.com