idnits 2.17.1 draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-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 seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 16, 2012) is 4300 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'LOADng-05' is defined on line 1868, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-00 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-00', was also mentioned in 'LOADng'. == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-03 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-03', was also mentioned in 'LOADng-00'. == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-04 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-04', was also mentioned in 'LOADng-03'. == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-05 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-05', was also mentioned in 'LOADng-04'. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Clausen 3 Internet-Draft A. Camacho 4 Intended status: Informational J. Yi 5 Expires: January 17, 2013 A. Colin de Verdiere 6 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 7 Y. Igarashi 8 SATOH. H. 9 Y. Morii 10 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research 11 Laboratory 12 U. Herberg 13 Fujitsu Laboratories of America 14 C. Lavenu 15 EDF R&D 16 July 16, 2012 18 Experience with the LOADng routing protocol for LLNs 19 draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-02 21 Abstract 23 This document reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, as 24 obtained by way of a number of interoperability tests during the 25 protocol development. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 60 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 61 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 62 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 63 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 64 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 65 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 66 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 67 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 68 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 69 than English. 71 Table of Contents 73 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 3. Interoperability Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 3.1. Scenario 01: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment - 77 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 6 78 3.1.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 3.1.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 3.2. Scenario 02: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment 81 -Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . 7 82 3.2.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 3.2.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 3.3. Scenario 03: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 85 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 8 86 3.3.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 3.3.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 88 3.4. Scenario 04: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 89 Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . . 10 90 3.4.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 91 3.4.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 92 3.5. Scenario 05: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 93 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 94 3.5.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 95 3.5.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 96 3.6. Scenario 06: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 97 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 12 98 3.6.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 99 3.6.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 100 3.7. Scenario 07: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 101 Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . . 14 102 3.7.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 103 3.7.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 104 3.8. Scenario 08: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 105 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 106 3.8.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 107 3.8.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 108 3.9. Scenario 09: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - 109 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 17 110 3.9.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 111 3.9.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 112 3.10. Scenario 10: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - 113 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 114 3.10.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 115 3.10.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 116 3.11. Scenario 11: Establishment of the best bidirectional 117 route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 118 3.11.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 119 3.11.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 120 3.12. Scenario 12: Blacklisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 121 3.12.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 122 3.12.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 123 4. Interop 01: Yokohama, Japan, October 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 27 124 4.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested . . . . . . . . . . 27 125 4.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 28 126 4.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 127 4.4. Scenarios Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 128 4.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . 28 129 4.6. Results For Scenario 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 130 4.7. Results For Scenario 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 131 4.8. Results For Scenario 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 132 4.9. Results For Scenario 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 133 4.10. Results For Scenario 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 134 4.11. Results For Scenario 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 135 4.12. Results For Scenario 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 136 4.13. Results For Scenario 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 137 4.14. Results For Scenario 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 138 4.15. Results For Scenario 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 139 4.16. Results For Scenario 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 140 4.17. Results For Scenario 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 141 4.18. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 142 5. Interop 02: San Jose, USA March 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 143 5.1. LOADng version tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 144 5.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 35 145 5.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 146 5.4. Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 36 147 5.5. Results For Scenario 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 148 5.6. Results For Scenrio 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 149 5.7. Results For Scenario 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 150 6. Interop 03: Los Angeles, USA, June 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 151 6.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested . . . . . . . . . . 37 152 6.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 37 153 6.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 154 6.4. Scenarios Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 155 6.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . 37 156 6.6. Results For Scenario 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 157 6.7. Results For Scenario 03-04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 158 6.8. Results For Scenario 06-07-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 159 6.9. Results For Scenario 09-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 160 6.10. Results For Scenario 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 161 6.11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 162 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 163 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 164 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 165 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 166 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 167 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 168 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 170 1. Introduction 172 This document reports experience with the LOADng [LOADng] routing 173 protocol, as obtained by way of a number of interoperability tests 174 during the protocol development. 176 Interoperability tests between LOADng Routers implemented on the 177 basis of the different versions of the protocol have been undertaken 178 mainly to: 180 o Show evidence that interoperable LOADng implementations do exist. 182 o Clarify and improve the overall quality of the LOADng 183 specification. 185 o Demonstrate that the final LOADng internet draft can be considered 186 as a standalone specification allowing the development of 187 interoperable implementations of LOADng. 189 2. Terminology 191 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 192 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 193 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 194 [RFC2119]. 196 Additionally, this document uses the following terminology: 198 LOADng Router - A router which implements this routing protocol. 200 Destination - The address of a router or host, to which a route is 201 sought discovered and maintained. 203 Originator - The address of a router, which seeks to discover and 204 maintain a route to a Destination. 206 Forward Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the 207 Originator to the Destination. The Forward Route is set up when a 208 LOADng Router forwards Route Reply (RREP) messages. 210 Reverse Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the 211 Destination to the Originator. The Reverse Route is set up when a 212 LOADng Router forwards Route Request (RREQ) messages. It is used 213 for forwarding RREP messages, as well as for forwarding data 214 packets. 216 Route Cost - The sum of the Link Costs for the links that a RREQ or 217 RREP has crossed. 219 Weak Link - A link which is marginally usable, i.e., MAY be used if 220 no other links are available, but SHOULD be avoided if at all 221 possible - even if it entails an ultimately longer path. As an 222 example, a Weak Link might be defined as a link with a significant 223 loss-rate. 225 3. Interoperability Scenarios 227 This section describes the various tests and scenarios carried out 228 between the implementations involved in the various interoperability 229 tests. 231 The testbed required is composed of up to five LOADng Routers, 232 connected according to the specific topology described for each test 233 scenario below. The LOADng routing protocol was run over UDP and 234 IPv4. Either Ethernet or 802.11 wireless network was used in the 235 test. 237 3.1. Scenario 01: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment - Forward 238 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 240 For each implementation, this test aims to verify the initial 241 installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse 242 Route from A to B) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing 243 Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng 244 control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). 246 3.1.1. Scenario Topology 248 The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers: 250 +-------+ +-------+ 251 | A |________| B | 252 | | | | 253 +-------+ +-------+ 255 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 256 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B. 258 3.1.2. Expected Message Sequencing 260 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 262 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 263 Router B. 265 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 266 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 267 Router B to LOADng Router A) and sends an unicast RREP message 268 intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 270 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 271 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 272 Router A to LOADng Router B) and sends an unicast RREP-ACK message 273 to LOADng Router B. 275 A B 276 | RREQ | 277 --------------------> 278 | RREP | 279 <-------------------- 280 | RREP-ACK | 281 --------------------> 282 | | 284 3.2. Scenario 02: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment -Forward 285 Route and Reverse Route updating 287 For each implementation, this test aims to verify the refreshment of 288 a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to B) 289 already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing 290 Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng 291 control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). 293 3.2.1. Scenario Topology 295 The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers: 297 +-------+ +-------+ 298 | A |________| B | 299 | | | | 300 +-------+ +-------+ 302 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 303 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B. 305 3.2.2. Expected Message Sequencing 307 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 309 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 310 Router B. 312 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 313 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 314 already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast RREP 315 message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 316 message. 318 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 319 route (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) 320 already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast 321 RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router B. 323 A B 324 | RREQ | 325 --------------------> 326 | RREP | 327 <-------------------- 328 | RREP-ACK | 329 --------------------> 330 | | 332 3.3. Scenario 03: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 333 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 335 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 336 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) within the LOADng 337 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 338 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B which is located between 339 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. It is also verified that RREP- 340 ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages 341 are intended for. 343 3.3.1. Scenario Topology 345 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 346 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 347 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 348 B: 350 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 351 | A |________| B |________| C | 352 | | | | | | 353 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 355 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 356 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 358 3.3.2. Expected Message Sequencing 360 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 362 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 363 Router C. 365 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 366 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 367 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 369 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 370 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 371 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 372 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The 373 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 374 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 375 message. 377 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 378 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng 379 Router B to LOADng Router C), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 380 LOADng Router C and forwards the RREP received previously. 382 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 383 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 384 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 385 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The 386 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 387 intended for LOADng Router B. 389 A B C 390 | RREQ | | 391 --------------------> | 392 | | RREQ | 393 | --------------------> 394 | | RREP | 395 | <-------------------- 396 | | RREP-ACK | 397 | --------------------> 398 | RREP | | 399 <-------------------- | 400 | RREP-ACK | | 401 --------------------> | 402 | | | 404 3.4. Scenario 04: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 405 Route and Reverse Route updating 407 This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route 408 (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) already installed 409 within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the 410 effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B 411 which is located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 413 3.4.1. Scenario Topology 415 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 416 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 417 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 418 B: 420 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 421 | A |________| B |________| C | 422 | | | | | | 423 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 425 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 426 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 428 3.4.2. Expected Message Sequencing 430 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 432 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 433 Router C. 435 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 436 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 437 already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received 438 RREQ. 440 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 441 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 442 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The reception of the 443 RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message 444 intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 446 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 447 route (Forward route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C), 448 sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router C and forwards 449 the RREP received previously. 451 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 452 routes (Forward routes from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and 453 from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the 454 RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng 455 Router B. 457 A B C 458 | RREQ | | 459 --------------------> | 460 | | RREQ | 461 | --------------------> 462 | | RREP | 463 | <-------------------- 464 | | RREP-ACK | 465 | --------------------> 466 | RREP | | 467 <-------------------- | 468 | RREP-ACK | | 469 --------------------> | 470 | | | 472 3.5. Scenario 05: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 473 breakage handling 475 This test aims to verify the proper generation and processing of an 476 RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an 477 previously established bidirectional route. 479 3.5.1. Scenario Topology 481 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 482 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 483 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 484 B: 486 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 487 | A |________| B |________| C | 488 | | | | | | 489 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 491 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between routers. 493 3.5.2. Expected Message Sequencing 495 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 497 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 498 Routers A and C. 500 o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router B. 501 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 502 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 503 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 504 transmitted. 506 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 507 LOADng Router B is triggered manually (normally, this would be 508 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 509 Router C). 511 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 512 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 513 LOADng Router C. 515 A B C 516 | | | 517 | | B-C link breakage | 518 | | X 519 | RERR | X 520 <-------------------- X 521 | | X 523 3.6. Scenario 06: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 524 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 526 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 527 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) within the LOADng 528 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 529 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B and C, which are 530 located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. It is also 531 verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng 532 Routers these messages are intended for. 534 3.6.1. Scenario Topology 536 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 537 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 538 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 539 Routers B and C: 541 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 542 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 543 | | | | | | | | 544 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 546 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 547 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 549 3.6.2. Expected Message Sequencing 551 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 553 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 554 Router D. 556 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 557 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 558 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 560 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 561 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 562 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 563 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 564 forwards the received RREQ. 566 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 567 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 568 Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 569 C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The 570 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 571 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 572 message. 574 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 575 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 576 Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 577 LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. 579 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 580 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 581 Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 582 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 583 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 584 RREP received previously is forwarded. 586 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 587 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 588 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 589 D (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The 590 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 591 intended for LOADng Router B. 593 A B C D 594 | RREQ | | | 595 --------------------> | | 596 | | RREQ | | 597 | --------------------> | 598 | | | RREQ | 599 | | --------------------> 600 | | | RREP | 601 | | <-------------------- 602 | | | RREP-ACK | 603 | | --------------------> 604 | | RREP | | 605 | <-------------------- | 606 | | RREP-ACK | | 607 | --------------------> | 608 | RREP | | | 609 <-------------------- | | 610 | RREP-ACK | | | 611 --------------------> | | 612 | | | | 614 3.7. Scenario 07: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 615 Route and Reverse Route updating 617 This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route 618 (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) already installed 619 within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the 620 effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B 621 and C which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 623 3.7.1. Scenario Topology 625 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 626 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 627 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 628 Routers B and C: 630 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 631 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 632 | | | | | | | | 633 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 635 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 636 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 638 3.7.2. Expected Message Sequencing 640 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 642 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 643 Router D. 645 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 646 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 647 already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received 648 RREQ. 650 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 651 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 652 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) already installed within 653 its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ. 655 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the corresponding 656 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A and 657 from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) already installed within 658 its Routing Set. The reception of the RREQ also triggers the 659 generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router 660 A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 662 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 663 route (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D), 664 sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards 665 the RREP received previously. 667 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 668 routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D and 669 from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK 670 message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received 671 previously is forwarded. 673 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 674 routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and 675 from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The reception of the 676 RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng 677 Router B. 679 A B C D 680 | RREQ | | | 681 --------------------> | | 682 | | RREQ | | 683 | --------------------> | 684 | | | RREQ | 685 | | --------------------> 686 | | | RREP | 687 | | <-------------------- 688 | | | RREP-ACK | 689 | | --------------------> 690 | | RREP | | 691 | <-------------------- | 692 | | RREP-ACK | | 693 | --------------------> | 694 | RREP | | | 695 <-------------------- | | 696 | RREP-ACK | | | 697 --------------------> | | 698 | | | | 700 3.8. Scenario 08: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 701 breakage handling 703 This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and 704 forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link 705 breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. 707 3.8.1. Scenario Topology 709 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 710 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 711 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 712 Routers B and C: 714 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 715 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 716 | | | | | | | | 717 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 719 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between LOADng 720 Routers. 722 3.8.2. Expected Message Sequencing 724 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 726 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 727 Routers A and D. 729 o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router C. 730 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 731 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 732 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 733 transmitted to LOADng Router B according to the Reverse Route from 734 LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. 736 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 737 LOADng Router C is triggered manually (normally, this would be 738 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 739 Router D). 741 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set 742 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to 743 LOADng Router D. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 744 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to 745 LOADng Router A. 747 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 748 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 749 LOADng Router D. 751 A B C D 752 | | | | 753 | | | C-D link breakage X 754 | | | X 755 | | RERR | X 756 | <-------------------- X 757 | RERR | | X 758 <-------------------- | X 759 | | | X 761 3.9. Scenario 09: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 762 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 764 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 765 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to E) within the LOADng 766 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 767 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B, C and D, which are 768 located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. It is also 769 verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng 770 Routers these messages are intended for. 772 3.9.1. Scenario Topology 774 The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic 775 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng 776 Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 777 Routers B, C and D: 779 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 780 | A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E | 781 | | | | | | | | | | 782 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 784 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 785 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. 787 3.9.2. Expected Message Sequencing 789 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 791 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 792 Router E. 794 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 795 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 796 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 798 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 799 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 800 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 801 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 802 forwards the received RREQ. 804 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 805 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 806 Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 807 C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) and 808 forwards the received RREQ. 810 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router E installs a new tuple in 811 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 812 Router E to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 813 D (Reverse route from LOADng Router E to LOADng Router D). The 814 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 815 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 816 message. 818 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 819 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 820 Router D to LOADng Router E), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 821 LOADng Router E and forwards the RREP received previously. 823 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 824 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 825 Router C to LOADng Router E) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 826 D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D). An 827 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router D and the 828 RREP received previously is forwarded. 830 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 831 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 832 Router B to LOADng Router E) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 833 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 834 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 835 RREP received previously is forwarded. 837 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 838 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 839 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 840 E (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router E). The 841 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 842 intended for LOADng Router B. 844 A B C D E 845 | RREQ | | | | 846 ---------------> | | | 847 | | RREQ | | | 848 | ---------------> | | 849 | | | RREQ | | 850 | | ---------------> | 851 | | | | RREQ | 852 | | | ---------------> 853 | | | | RREP | 854 | | | <--------------- 855 | | | | RREP-ACK | 856 | | | ---------------> 857 | | | RREP | | 858 | | <--------------- | 859 | | | RREP-ACK | | 860 | | ---------------> | 861 | | RREP | | | 862 | <--------------- | | 863 | | RREP-ACK | | | 864 | ---------------> | | 865 | RREP | | | | 866 <--------------- | | | 867 | RREP-ACK | | | | 868 ---------------> | | | 869 | | | | | 871 3.10. Scenario 10: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 872 breakage handling 874 This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and 875 forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link 876 breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. 878 3.10.1. Scenario Topology 880 The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic 881 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng 882 Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 883 Routers B, C and D: 885 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 886 | A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E | 887 | | | | | | | | | | 888 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 890 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between routers. 892 3.10.2. Expected Message Sequencing 894 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 896 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 897 Routers A and E. 899 o At some time, a link breakage to E is detected by LOADng Router D. 900 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 901 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 902 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 903 transmitted to LOADng Router C according to the Reverse Route from 904 LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. 906 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 907 LOADng Router D is triggered manually (normally, this would be 908 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 909 Router E). 911 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router C updates its Routing Set 912 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router C to 913 LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 914 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to 915 LOADng Router A. 917 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set 918 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to 919 LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 920 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to 921 LOADng Router A. 923 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 924 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 925 LOADng Router E. 927 A B C D E 928 | | | | | 929 | | | D-E link breakage 930 | | | | X 931 | | | RERR | X 932 | | <--------------- X 933 | | RERR | | X 934 | <--------------- | X 935 | RERR | | | X 936 <--------------- | | X 937 | | | | X 939 3.11. Scenario 11: Establishment of the best bidirectional route 941 This test aims to verify the processing of multiple RREQs when 942 installing a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route 943 from A to C) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets). 945 3.11.1. Scenario Topology 947 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 948 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 949 Router C towards LOADng Router A can be forwarded by LOADng Router B 950 or transmitted via the direct link between LOADng Routers A and C: 952 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 953 | A |________| B |________| C | 954 | | | | | | 955 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 956 |_________________________________| 958 This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between 959 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. Hop count metric is used for 960 measuring differet routes. 962 3.11.2. Expected Message Sequencing 964 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 966 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 967 Router C. According to RREQ transmission rules, the generated RREQ 968 message is transmitted to all neighbor LOADng Routers. 970 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 971 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 972 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 974 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct link 975 with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in its 976 Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router 977 A). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an 978 unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, requiring RREP- 979 ACK message. 981 o Upon receiving the same RREQ via LOADng Router B, LOADng Router C 982 compares the RREQ.route-metric information carried by the RREQ 983 with the already existing tuple within its Routing Set (Reverse 984 Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) according to the 985 comparison operator specified by the metric used (the "hop count" 986 metric was used). Thus, the best route is chosen considering only 987 the hop count: 989 Already existing tuple: 991 = 1 993 Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ: 995 = 2 997 According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used: 999 1 < 2 1001 Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without 1002 affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP 1003 message. 1005 o Upon receiving the RREP via its direct link with LOADng Router C, 1006 LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in its Routing Set (Forward 1007 Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of 1008 the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for 1009 LOADng Router C. 1011 A B C 1012 | RREQ | | 1013 --------------------> RREQ | 1014 ----------------------------------------> 1015 | | RREQ | 1016 | --------------------> 1017 | | RREP | 1018 <---------------------------------------- 1019 | | RREP-ACK | 1020 ----------------------------------------> 1021 | | | 1023 Note: the RREQ forwarded by LOADng Router B towards C is not 1024 necessarily received before LOADng Router C generates the RREP 1025 message intended for LOADng Router A. Indeed, the order in which 1026 those messages are transmitted is dependent on the transmission 1027 delays of each single link between LOADng Routers A, B and C. 1029 3.12. Scenario 12: Blacklisting 1031 This test aims to verify the effectiveness of avoiding unidirectional 1032 links using blacklisting. 1034 3.12.1. Scenario Topology 1036 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers with a unidirectional 1037 link between LOADng Routers A and D (direct communication from D 1038 towards A is impossible). 1040 +-------+ +-------+ 1041 | A |_________| B | 1042 | | | | 1043 +-------+ +-------+ 1044 | | 1045 V | 1046 +-------+ +-------+ 1047 | D |_________| C | 1048 | | | | 1049 +-------+ +-------+ 1051 This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between 1052 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 1054 3.12.2. Expected Message Sequencing 1056 First attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng 1057 Routers A and D: 1059 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message (RREQ.seq-num = 0, 1060 RREQ.originator = A) intended for LOADng Router D. 1062 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1063 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1064 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 1066 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct 1067 (unidirectional) link with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D 1068 installs a new tuple in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A 1069 (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A). The 1070 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 1071 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The RREP.ackrequired 1072 the sent RREP message is set ('1'). 1074 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 1075 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1076 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1077 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 1078 forwards the received RREQ. 1080 o Upon receiving the same RREQ (RREQ.seq-num = 0, RREQ.originator = 1081 A) again via LOADng Router C, LOADng Router D compares the 1082 RREQ.route-metric information carried by the RREQ with the already 1083 existing tuple within its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng 1084 Router D to LOADng Router A) according to the comparison operator 1085 specified by the metric used (hop count): 1087 Already existing tuple: 1089 = 1 1091 Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ: 1093 = 2 1095 According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used: 1097 1 < 2 1099 Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without 1100 affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP 1101 message. 1103 o Due to the unidirectional nature of the existing link between 1104 LOADng Routers A and D, the RREP message previously sent by LOADng 1105 Router D intended for LOADng Router A did not reach its 1106 destination. After an elapsed time equaling RREP_ACK_TIMEOUT, 1107 LOADng Router D is not expecting an RREP-ACK message anymore. 1108 This results in recording LOADng Router A neighbor in LOADng 1109 Router D's Blacklist. 1111 Second attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng 1112 Routers A and D: 1114 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message (RREQ.seq-num = 1, 1115 RREQ.originator = A) intended for LOADng Router D. 1117 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1118 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1119 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 1121 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its blacklisted 1122 neighbor LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D discards the message. 1124 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 1125 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 1126 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received 1127 RREQ. 1129 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the already 1130 installed route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng 1131 Router A) and installs a new tuple towards LOADng Router C 1132 (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The 1133 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 1134 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The RREP.ackrequired of 1135 the sent RREP message is set ('1'). 1137 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 1138 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1139 Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 1140 LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. 1142 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1143 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1144 Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1145 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 1146 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 1147 RREP received previously is forwarded. 1149 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 1150 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1151 Router A to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1152 B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B). The 1153 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 1154 intended for LOADng Router B. 1156 A B C D 1157 | | | | 1158 First attempt ///////////////////////////////////////// 1159 | RREQ | | | 1160 ------------------> RREQ | | 1161 ------------------------------------------------------> 1162 | | RREP | | 1163 |XXXXX <----------------------------------------------- 1164 | | RREQ | | 1165 | ------------------> | 1166 | | | RREQ | 1167 | | ----------------->X RREQ 1168 | | | | Discarded 1169 Second attempt //////////////////////////////////////// 1170 | RREQ | | | 1171 ------------------> RREQ | | 1172 ----------------------------------------------------->X RREQ 1173 | | RREQ | | Discarded 1174 | ------------------> | 1175 | | | RREQ | 1176 | | ------------------> 1177 | | | RREP | 1178 | | <------------------ 1179 | | | RREP-ACK | 1180 | | ------------------> 1181 | | RREP | | 1182 | <------------------ | 1183 | | RREP-ACK | | 1184 | ------------------> | 1185 | RREP | | | 1186 <------------------ | | 1187 | RREP-ACK | | | 1188 ------------------> | | 1190 4. Interop 01: Yokohama, Japan, October 2011 1192 4.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested 1194 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1195 specification in [LOADng-00]. 1197 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, ome of the 1198 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1199 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-00]. 1201 4.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1203 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1204 resulting from interoperability testing performed at Hitachi YRL in 1205 Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to october 19th 2011. 1207 4.3. Participating Implementations 1209 The following implementations were used to perform the 1210 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1212 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1213 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1214 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1215 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1216 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1217 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1219 Hitachi YRL 1: "Hitachi 1" - This implementation was fully developed 1220 by Yuichi Igarashi of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1589 lines of C 1221 code running in the Hitachi proprietary micro OS environment 1222 embedded in a 16MHz H8 micro processor. It supports RREQ, RREP, 1223 RREP-ACK and RERR generation, processing, forwarding and 1224 transmission. 1226 Hitachi YRL 2: "Hitachi 2" - This implementation was jointly 1227 developed by Nobukatsu Inomata of Hitachi ULSI Systems and Yoko 1228 Morii of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1987 lines of C++ code 1229 running in a Mac OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK 1230 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission, and RERR 1231 processing. 1233 4.4. Scenarios Tested 1235 This interoperability test includes all scenarios 01-12 (inclusive). 1237 4.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations 1239 Wireshark packet sniffers, modified to interpret LOADng control 1240 traffic, were used to monitor each link, so as to verify propper 1241 message sequencing. 1243 For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the 1244 generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always 1245 triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages 1246 were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception 1247 of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of 1248 unidirectional links. 1250 4.6. Results For Scenario 01 1252 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1253 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1254 Route initial installation test was performed: 1256 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1257 | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | 1258 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1259 | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | 1260 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | 1261 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | 1262 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1264 Table 1 1266 4.7. Results For Scenario 02 1268 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1269 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1270 Route updating test was performed: 1272 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1273 | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | 1274 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1275 | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | 1276 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | 1277 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | 1278 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1280 Table 2 1282 4.8. Results For Scenario 03 1284 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1285 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1286 Route initial installation test was performed: 1288 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1289 | A | B | C | Result | 1290 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1291 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1292 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1293 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1294 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1295 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1296 | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1297 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1299 Table 3 1301 4.9. Results For Scenario 04 1303 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1304 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1305 Route updating test was performed: 1307 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1308 | A | B | C | Result | 1309 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1310 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1311 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1312 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1313 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1314 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1315 | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1316 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1318 Table 4 1320 4.10. Results For Scenario 05 1322 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1323 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1324 performed: 1326 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1327 | A | B | C | Result | 1328 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1329 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1330 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1331 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1333 Table 5 1335 4.11. Results For Scenario 06 1337 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1338 different combinations for which a 3-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1339 Route initial installation test was performed: 1341 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1342 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1343 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1344 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1345 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1346 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1347 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1349 Table 6 1351 4.12. Results For Scenario 07 1353 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1354 different combinations for which a 3-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1355 Route updating test was performed: 1357 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1358 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1359 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1360 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1361 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1362 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1363 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1365 Table 7 1367 4.13. Results For Scenario 08 1369 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1370 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1371 performed: 1373 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1374 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1375 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1376 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1377 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1378 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1380 Table 8 1382 4.14. Results For Scenario 09 1384 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1385 different combinations for which a 4-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1386 Route initial installation test was performed: 1388 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1389 | A | B | C | D | E | Result | 1390 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1391 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1392 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1394 Table 9 1396 4.15. Results For Scenario 10 1398 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1399 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1400 performed: 1402 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1403 | A | B | C | D | E | Result | 1404 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1405 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1406 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1408 Table 10 1410 4.16. Results For Scenario 11 1412 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1413 different combinations for which a test consisting in the 1414 establishment of the best bidirectional route was performed: 1416 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1417 | A | B | C | Result | 1418 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1419 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1420 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1421 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1422 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1423 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1425 Table 11 1427 4.17. Results For Scenario 12 1429 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1430 different combinations for which a Blacklisting test was performed: 1432 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1433 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1434 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1435 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1436 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1437 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1438 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1440 Table 12 1442 4.18. Conclusions 1444 The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for 1445 different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to 1446 completely cover the [LOADng-00] specification by checking each 1447 technical feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this 1448 process permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy 1449 of the [LOADng-00] specification. 1451 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-----------+ 1452 | | | |Test suites| 1453 |Chap. | Item | Technical feature +-----------+ 1454 | | | |A|B|C|D|E|F| 1455 +------+----------------+------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1456 |6.1 | | |Originator|X|X|X| |X|X| 1457 +------+ Information |Routing Set +----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1458 |6.1 | Base | |Previous | |X|X|X| |X| 1459 +------+ +------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1460 |6.2 | |Blacklist Neighbor set | | | | | |X| 1461 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1462 |8.1 | |TLV |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1463 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1464 |8.2.1 | Packet |Route Request Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1465 +------+ Format +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1466 |8.2.1 | |Route Reply Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1467 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1468 |8.2.2 | |Route Reply Ack Message|X|X|X|X|X|X| 1469 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1470 |8.2.3 | |Route Error Message | |X|X|X| | | 1471 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1472 |10.1 | Unidirectional |Blacklist | | | | | |X| 1473 | | link handling | | | | | | | | 1474 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1475 |11.1 | |Invalid RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1476 +------+ Common rules +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1477 |11.2 | for RREQ, RREP |RREQ, RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1478 +------+ Message +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1479 |11.3 | |Updating RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1480 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1481 |12.1 | |RREQ Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1482 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1483 |12.2 | Route |RREQ Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1484 +------+ Requests +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1485 |12.3 | (RREQs) |RREQ Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| 1486 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1487 |12.4 | |RREQ Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1488 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1489 |13.1 | |RREP Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1490 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1491 |13.2 | Route |RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1492 +------+ Replies +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1493 |13.3 | (RREPs) |RREP Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| 1494 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1495 |13.4 | |RREP Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1496 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1497 |14.1 | |RERR Generation | |X|X|X| | | 1498 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1499 |14.2 | Route |RERR Processing | |X|X|X| | | 1500 +------+ Errors +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1501 |14.3 | (RERRs) |RERR Forwarding | | |X|X| | | 1502 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1503 |14.4 | |RERR Transmission | |X|X|X| | | 1504 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1505 |15.1 | |RREP-ACK Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1506 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1507 |15.2 | Route |RREQ-ACK Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1508 +------+ Reply +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1509 |15.3 | Acknowledgement|RREQ-ACK Forwarding |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1510 +------+ (RREP-ACKs) +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1511 |15.4 | |RREQ-ACK Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1512 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1513 |16 | Metrics |Hop Count While |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1514 | | |Avoiding Weak Links | | | | | | | 1515 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1517 Test suite A : 1-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 01, 1518 02) 1520 Test suite B : 2-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 03, 1521 04, 05) 1522 Test suite C : 3-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 06, 1523 07, 08) 1525 Test suite D : 4-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 09, 1526 10) 1528 Test suite E : Establishment of the best bidirectional route 1529 (scenario 11) 1531 Test suite F : Blacklisting (scenario 12) 1533 5. Interop 02: San Jose, USA March 2012 1535 5.1. LOADng version tested 1537 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1538 specification in [LOADng-03]. 1540 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, ome of the 1541 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1542 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-03]. 1544 5.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1546 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1547 resulting from interoperability testing performed at Fujitsu 1548 Laboratories of America (FLA), San Jose, USA, on April 13, 2012. 1550 5.3. Participating Implementations 1552 The following implementations were used to perform the 1553 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1555 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1556 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1557 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1558 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1559 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1560 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1562 Fujitsu Laboratories of America: "FLA" - This implementation was 1563 developed by Ulrich Herberg from Fujitsu Laboratories of America. 1564 It is a Java implementation, supporting basic features (RREQ, 1565 RREP, RREP-ACK generation, processing, forwarding and 1566 transmision). 1568 5.4. Interoperability Test Considerations 1570 As an intermediate test, only a subset of the scenarios described 1571 were tested (01, 03 and 05), for verifying interoperability bug- 1572 fixing the involved implementations. 1574 5.5. Results For Scenario 01 1576 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1577 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1578 Route initial installation test was performed: 1580 +-----+------+------+ 1581 | | LIX | FLA | 1582 +-----+------+------+ 1583 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1584 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1585 +-----+------+------+ 1587 Table 13 1589 5.6. Results For Scenrio 03 1591 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1592 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1593 Route initial installation test was performed: 1595 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1596 | A | B | C | Result | 1597 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1598 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1599 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1600 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1602 Table 14 1604 5.7. Results For Scenario 05 1606 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1607 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1608 performed: 1610 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1611 | A | B | C | Result | 1612 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1613 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1614 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1615 Table 15 1617 6. Interop 03: Los Angeles, USA, June 2012 1619 6.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested 1621 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1622 specification in [LOADng-04]. 1624 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, ome of the 1625 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1626 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-04]. 1628 6.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1630 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1631 resulting from interoperability testing performed at the Los Angeles 1632 Airport Hilton, USA, on June 6, 2012. 1634 6.3. Participating Implementations 1636 The following implementations were used to perform the 1637 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1639 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1640 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1641 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1642 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1643 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1644 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1646 Fujitsu Laboratories of America: "FLA" - This implementation was 1647 developed by Ulrich Herberg from Fujitsu Laboratories of America. 1648 It is a Java implementation, supporting basic features (RREQ, 1649 RREP, RREP-ACK generation, processing, forwarding and 1650 transmision). 1652 6.4. Scenarios Tested 1654 This interoperability test includes scenarios 01-12 (inclusive). 1656 6.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations 1658 Wireshark packet sniffers, that have been modified to interpret 1659 LOADng control traffic, were used to monitor each single underlying 1660 link. 1662 For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the 1663 generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always 1664 triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages 1665 were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception 1666 of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of 1667 unidirectional links. 1669 6.6. Results For Scenario 01-02 1671 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1672 different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse 1673 Route initial installation) was performed: 1675 +-----+------+------+ 1676 | | LIX | FLA | 1677 +-----+------+------+ 1678 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1679 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1680 +-----+------+------+ 1682 Table 16 1684 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1685 different combinations for which test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse 1686 Route updating) was performed: 1688 +-----+------+------+ 1689 | | LIX | FLA | 1690 +-----+------+------+ 1691 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1692 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1693 +-----+------+------+ 1695 Table 17 1697 6.7. Results For Scenario 03-04-05 1699 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1700 different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and 1701 Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and 1702 Reverse Route updating) were performed: 1704 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1705 | A | B | C | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1706 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1707 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1708 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1709 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1710 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1712 Table 18 1714 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1715 different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage 1716 handling) was performed: 1718 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1719 | A | B | C | Test 3 | 1720 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1721 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1722 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1723 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1725 Table 19 1727 6.8. Results For Scenario 06-07-08 1729 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1730 different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and 1731 Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and 1732 Reverse Route updating) were performed: 1734 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1735 | A | B | C | D | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1736 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1737 | LIX | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1738 | LIX | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1739 | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1740 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1741 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1743 Table 20 1745 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1746 different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage 1747 handling) was performed: 1749 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1750 | A | B | C | D | Test 3 | 1751 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1752 | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1753 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1754 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1756 Table 21 1758 6.9. Results For Scenario 09-10 1760 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1761 different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse 1762 Route initial installation) and test 2 (Link breakage handling) were 1763 performed: 1765 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1766 | A | B | C | D | E | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1767 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1768 | FLA | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1769 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1770 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1772 Table 22 1774 6.10. Results For Scenario 11 1776 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1777 different combinations for which this test was performed: 1779 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1780 | A | B | C | Result | 1781 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1782 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1783 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1784 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1785 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1787 Table 23 1789 6.11. Conclusions 1791 The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for 1792 different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to 1793 cover all major features of the LOADng specification by checking each 1794 technical feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this 1795 process permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy 1796 of the LOADng specification (draft-clausen-lln-loadng). 1798 7. Security Considerations 1800 This document does currently not specify any security considerations. 1802 8. IANA Considerations 1804 This document has no actions for IANA. 1806 9. Contributors 1808 This specification is the result of the joint efforts of the 1809 following contributors -- listed alphabetically. 1811 o Thomas Heide Clausen, LIX, France, 1813 o Alberto Camacho, LIX, France, 1815 o Axel Colin de Verdiere, LIX, France, 1817 o Yuichi Igarashi, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1818 1820 o Nobukatsu Inomata, HITACHI ULSI Systems, Japan, 1821 1823 o Yoko Morii, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1825 o SATOH, Hiroki, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1827 o Jiazi Yi, LIX, France, 1829 10. Acknowledgments 1831 TBD 1833 11. References 1835 11.1. Normative References 1837 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1838 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. 1840 11.2. Informative References 1842 [LOADng] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1843 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, 1844 T., and C. Perkins, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance- 1845 vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1846 draft-clausen-lln-loadng (work in progress), July 2012. 1848 [LOADng-00] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Lavenu, C., 1849 Lys, T., Niktash, A., Igarashi, Y., and H. Satoh, "The 1850 LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing Protocol - 1851 Next Generation (LOADng)", draft-clausen-lln-loadng-00 1852 (work in progress), October 2011. 1854 [LOADng-03] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1855 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., and T. 1856 Lys, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing 1857 Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1858 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-03 (work in progress), 1859 March 2012. 1861 [LOADng-04] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1862 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., and T. 1863 Lys, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing 1864 Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1865 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-04 (work in progress), 1866 April 2012. 1868 [LOADng-05] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1869 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, 1870 T., and C. Perkins, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance- 1871 vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1872 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-05 (work in progress), 1873 July 2012. 1875 Authors' Addresses 1877 Thomas Heide Clausen 1878 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1880 Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 1881 EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org 1882 URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/ 1884 Alberto Camacho 1885 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1887 Phone: +34 636 309 835 1888 EMail: alberto@albertocamacho.com 1889 URI: http://www.albertocamacho.com/ 1890 Jiazi Yi 1891 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1893 Phone: +33 1 6933 4031 1894 EMail: jiazi@jiaziyi.com 1895 URI: http://www.jiaziyi.com/ 1897 Axel Colin de Verdiere 1898 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1900 Phone: +33 6 1264 7119 1901 EMail: axel@axelcdv.com 1902 URI: http://www.axelcdv.com/ 1904 Yuichi Igarashi 1905 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1907 Phone: +81 45 860 3083 1908 EMail: yuichi.igarashi.hb@hitachi.com 1909 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1911 SATOH, Hiroki 1912 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1914 Phone: +81 44 959 0205 1915 EMail: hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com 1916 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1918 Yoko Morii 1919 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1921 Phone: +81 45 860 3083 1922 EMail: yoko.morii.cs@hitachi.com 1923 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1925 Ulrich Herberg 1926 Fujitsu Laboratories of America 1928 Phone: +1 408 530 4528 1929 EMail: ulrich@herberg.name 1930 URI: http://www.herberg.name/ 1931 Cedric Lavenu 1932 EDF R&D 1934 Phone: +33 1 4765 2729 1935 EMail: cedric-2.lavenu@edf.fr 1936 URI: http://www.edf.fr/