idnits 2.17.1 draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-03.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 (October 22, 2012) is 4204 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'LOADng-05' is defined on line 1872, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-00 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-00', was also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 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-03 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-03', was also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 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-04 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-04', was also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 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-clausen-lln-loadng-05 -- Duplicate reference: draft-clausen-lln-loadng, mentioned in 'LOADng-05', was also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: April 25, 2013 A. Colin de Verdiere 6 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 7 Y. Igarashi 8 H. Satoh 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 October 22, 2012 18 Interoperability Report of the Lightweight On-demand Ad hoc Distance- 19 vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng) 20 draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report-03 22 Abstract 24 This document reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, as 25 obtained by way of a number of interoperability tests during the 26 protocol development. 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 April 25, 2013. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2012 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 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 61 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 62 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 63 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 64 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 65 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 66 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 67 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 68 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 69 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 70 than English. 72 Table of Contents 74 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3. Interoperability Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 3.1. Scenario 01: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment - 78 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 6 79 3.1.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 3.1.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 3.2. Scenario 02: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment 82 -Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . 7 83 3.2.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 3.2.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 85 3.3. Scenario 03: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 86 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 8 87 3.3.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 88 3.3.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 89 3.4. Scenario 04: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 90 Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . . 10 91 3.4.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 92 3.4.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 93 3.5. Scenario 05: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - 94 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 95 3.5.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 96 3.5.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 97 3.6. Scenario 06: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 98 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 12 99 3.6.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 100 3.6.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 101 3.7. Scenario 07: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 102 Forward Route and Reverse Route updating . . . . . . . . . 14 103 3.7.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 104 3.7.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 105 3.8. Scenario 08: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - 106 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 107 3.8.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 108 3.8.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 109 3.9. Scenario 09: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - 110 Forward Route and Reverse Route initial installation . . . 17 111 3.9.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 112 3.9.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 113 3.10. Scenario 10: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - 114 Link breakage handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 115 3.10.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 116 3.10.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 117 3.11. Scenario 11: Establishment of the best bidirectional 118 route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 119 3.11.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 120 3.11.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 121 3.12. Scenario 12: Blacklisting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 122 3.12.1. Scenario Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 123 3.12.2. Expected Message Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 124 4. Interop 01: Yokohama, Japan, October 2011 . . . . . . . . . . 27 125 4.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested . . . . . . . . . . 27 126 4.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 28 127 4.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 128 4.4. Scenarios Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 129 4.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . 28 130 4.6. Results For Scenario 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 131 4.7. Results For Scenario 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 132 4.8. Results For Scenario 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 133 4.9. Results For Scenario 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 134 4.10. Results For Scenario 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 135 4.11. Results For Scenario 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 136 4.12. Results For Scenario 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 137 4.13. Results For Scenario 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 138 4.14. Results For Scenario 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 139 4.15. Results For Scenario 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 140 4.16. Results For Scenario 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 141 4.17. Results For Scenario 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 142 4.18. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 143 5. Interop 02: San Jose, USA March 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 144 5.1. LOADng version tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 145 5.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 35 146 5.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 147 5.4. Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 36 148 5.5. Results For Scenario 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 149 5.6. Results For Scenrio 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 150 5.7. Results For Scenario 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 151 6. Interop 03: Los Angeles, USA, June 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . 37 152 6.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested . . . . . . . . . . 37 153 6.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test . . . . . . . . . 37 154 6.3. Participating Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 155 6.4. Scenarios Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 156 6.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations . . . . . 37 157 6.6. Results For Scenario 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 158 6.7. Results For Scenario 03-04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 159 6.8. Results For Scenario 06-07-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 160 6.9. Results For Scenario 09-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 161 6.10. Results For Scenario 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 162 6.11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 163 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 164 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 165 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 166 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 167 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 168 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 169 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 171 1. Introduction 173 This document reports experience with the LOADng [LOADng] routing 174 protocol, as obtained by way of a number of interoperability tests 175 during the protocol development. 177 Interoperability tests between LOADng Routers implemented on the 178 basis of the different versions of the protocol have been undertaken 179 mainly to: 181 o Show evidence that interoperable LOADng implementations do exist. 183 o Clarify and improve the overall quality of the LOADng 184 specification. 186 o Demonstrate that the final LOADng internet draft can be considered 187 as a standalone specification allowing the development of 188 interoperable implementations of LOADng. 190 2. Terminology 192 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 193 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 194 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 195 [RFC2119]. 197 Additionally, this document uses the following terminology: 199 LOADng Router - A router which implements this routing protocol. 201 Destination - The address of a router or host, to which a route is 202 sought discovered and maintained. 204 Originator - The address of a router, which seeks to discover and 205 maintain a route to a Destination. 207 Forward Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the 208 Originator to the Destination. The Forward Route is set up when a 209 LOADng Router forwards Route Reply (RREP) messages. 211 Reverse Route - A route set up so as to send data packets from the 212 Destination to the Originator. The Reverse Route is set up when a 213 LOADng Router forwards Route Request (RREQ) messages. It is used 214 for forwarding RREP messages, as well as for forwarding data 215 packets. 217 Route Cost - The sum of the Link Costs for the links that a RREQ or 218 RREP has crossed. 220 Weak Link - A link which is marginally usable, i.e., MAY be used if 221 no other links are available, but SHOULD be avoided if at all 222 possible - even if it entails an ultimately longer path. As an 223 example, a Weak Link might be defined as a link with a significant 224 loss-rate. 226 3. Interoperability Scenarios 228 This section describes the various tests and scenarios carried out 229 between the implementations involved in the various interoperability 230 tests. 232 The testbed required is composed of up to five LOADng Routers, 233 connected according to the specific topology described for each test 234 scenario below. The LOADng routing protocol was run over UDP and 235 IPv4. Either Ethernet or 802.11 wireless network was used in the 236 test. 238 3.1. Scenario 01: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment - Forward 239 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 241 For each implementation, this test aims to verify the initial 242 installation of a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse 243 Route from A to B) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing 244 Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng 245 control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). 247 3.1.1. Scenario Topology 249 The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers: 251 +-------+ +-------+ 252 | A |________| B | 253 | | | | 254 +-------+ +-------+ 256 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 257 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B. 259 3.1.2. Expected Message Sequencing 261 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 263 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 264 Router B. 266 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 267 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 268 Router B to LOADng Router A) and sends an unicast RREP message 269 intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 271 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 272 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 273 Router A to LOADng Router B) and sends an unicast RREP-ACK message 274 to LOADng Router B. 276 A B 277 | RREQ | 278 --------------------> 279 | RREP | 280 <-------------------- 281 | RREP-ACK | 282 --------------------> 283 | | 285 3.2. Scenario 02: 1-hop Bidirectional Route Establishment -Forward 286 Route and Reverse Route updating 288 For each implementation, this test aims to verify the refreshment of 289 a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to B) 290 already installed within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing 291 Sets) through the effective generation and processing of LOADng 292 control messages (RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK). 294 3.2.1. Scenario Topology 296 The testbed is composed of two LOADng Routers: 298 +-------+ +-------+ 299 | A |________| B | 300 | | | | 301 +-------+ +-------+ 303 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 304 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router B. 306 3.2.2. Expected Message Sequencing 308 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 310 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 311 Router B. 313 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 314 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 315 already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast RREP 316 message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 317 message. 319 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 320 route (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B) 321 already installed within its Routing Set and sends an unicast 322 RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router B. 324 A B 325 | RREQ | 326 --------------------> 327 | RREP | 328 <-------------------- 329 | RREP-ACK | 330 --------------------> 331 | | 333 3.3. Scenario 03: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 334 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 336 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 337 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) within the LOADng 338 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 339 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B which is located between 340 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. It is also verified that RREP- 341 ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng Routers these messages 342 are intended for. 344 3.3.1. Scenario Topology 346 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 347 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 348 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 349 B: 351 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 352 | A |________| B |________| C | 353 | | | | | | 354 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 356 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 357 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 359 3.3.2. Expected Message Sequencing 361 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 363 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 364 Router C. 366 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 367 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 368 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 370 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 371 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 372 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 373 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The 374 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 375 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 376 message. 378 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 379 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router C (Forward Route from LOADng 380 Router B to LOADng Router C), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 381 LOADng Router C and forwards the RREP received previously. 383 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 384 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 385 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 386 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The 387 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 388 intended for LOADng Router B. 390 A B C 391 | RREQ | | 392 --------------------> | 393 | | RREQ | 394 | --------------------> 395 | | RREP | 396 | <-------------------- 397 | | RREP-ACK | 398 | --------------------> 399 | RREP | | 400 <-------------------- | 401 | RREP-ACK | | 402 --------------------> | 403 | | | 405 3.4. Scenario 04: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 406 Route and Reverse Route updating 408 This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route 409 (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to C) already installed 410 within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the 411 effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Router B 412 which is located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 414 3.4.1. Scenario Topology 416 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 417 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 418 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 419 B: 421 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 422 | A |________| B |________| C | 423 | | | | | | 424 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 426 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 427 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. 429 3.4.2. Expected Message Sequencing 431 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 433 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 434 Router C. 436 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 437 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 438 already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received 439 RREQ. 441 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 442 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 443 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B). The reception of the 444 RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast RREP message 445 intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 447 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 448 route (Forward route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C), 449 sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router C and forwards 450 the RREP received previously. 452 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 453 routes (Forward routes from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and 454 from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of the 455 RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng 456 Router B. 458 A B C 459 | RREQ | | 460 --------------------> | 461 | | RREQ | 462 | --------------------> 463 | | RREP | 464 | <-------------------- 465 | | RREP-ACK | 466 | --------------------> 467 | RREP | | 468 <-------------------- | 469 | RREP-ACK | | 470 --------------------> | 471 | | | 473 3.5. Scenario 05: 2-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 474 breakage handling 476 This test aims to verify the proper generation and processing of an 477 RERR message after an artificially created link breakage on an 478 previously established bidirectional route. 480 3.5.1. Scenario Topology 482 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 483 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 484 Router C towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng Router 485 B: 487 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 488 | A |________| B |________| C | 489 | | | | | | 490 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 492 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between routers. 494 3.5.2. Expected Message Sequencing 496 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 498 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 499 Routers A and C. 501 o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router B. 502 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 503 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 504 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 505 transmitted. 507 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 508 LOADng Router B is triggered manually (normally, this would be 509 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 510 Router C). 512 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 513 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 514 LOADng Router C. 516 A B C 517 | | | 518 | | B-C link breakage | 519 | | X 520 | RERR | X 521 <-------------------- X 522 | | X 524 3.6. Scenario 06: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 525 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 527 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 528 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) within the LOADng 529 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 530 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B and C, which are 531 located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. It is also 532 verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng 533 Routers these messages are intended for. 535 3.6.1. Scenario Topology 537 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 538 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 539 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 540 Routers B and C: 542 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 543 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 544 | | | | | | | | 545 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 547 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 548 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 550 3.6.2. Expected Message Sequencing 552 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 554 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 555 Router D. 557 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 558 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 559 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 561 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 562 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 563 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 564 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 565 forwards the received RREQ. 567 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 568 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 569 Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 570 C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The 571 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 572 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 573 message. 575 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 576 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 577 Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 578 LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. 580 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 581 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 582 Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 583 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 584 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 585 RREP received previously is forwarded. 587 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 588 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 589 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 590 D (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The 591 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 592 intended for LOADng Router B. 594 A B C D 595 | RREQ | | | 596 --------------------> | | 597 | | RREQ | | 598 | --------------------> | 599 | | | RREQ | 600 | | --------------------> 601 | | | RREP | 602 | | <-------------------- 603 | | | RREP-ACK | 604 | | --------------------> 605 | | RREP | | 606 | <-------------------- | 607 | | RREP-ACK | | 608 | --------------------> | 609 | RREP | | | 610 <-------------------- | | 611 | RREP-ACK | | | 612 --------------------> | | 613 | | | | 615 3.7. Scenario 07: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 616 Route and Reverse Route updating 618 This test aims to verify the refreshment of a bidirectional route 619 (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to D) already installed 620 within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the 621 effective forwarding of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B 622 and C which are located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 624 3.7.1. Scenario Topology 626 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 627 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 628 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 629 Routers B and C: 631 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 632 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 633 | | | | | | | | 634 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 636 This test suite consists in updating a bidirectional route between 637 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 639 3.7.2. Expected Message Sequencing 641 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 643 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 644 Router D. 646 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 647 route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router A) 648 already installed within its Routing Set and forwards the received 649 RREQ. 651 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 652 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 653 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) already installed within 654 its Routing Set and forwards the received RREQ. 656 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the corresponding 657 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A and 658 from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) already installed within 659 its Routing Set. The reception of the RREQ also triggers the 660 generation of an unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router 661 A, soliciting an RREP-ACK message. 663 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 664 route (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D), 665 sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to LOADng Router D and forwards 666 the RREP received previously. 668 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B updates the corresponding 669 routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router D and 670 from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An unicast RREP-ACK 671 message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the RREP received 672 previously is forwarded. 674 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A updates the corresponding 675 routes (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B and 676 from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router D). The reception of the 677 RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for LOADng 678 Router B. 680 A B C D 681 | RREQ | | | 682 --------------------> | | 683 | | RREQ | | 684 | --------------------> | 685 | | | RREQ | 686 | | --------------------> 687 | | | RREP | 688 | | <-------------------- 689 | | | RREP-ACK | 690 | | --------------------> 691 | | RREP | | 692 | <-------------------- | 693 | | RREP-ACK | | 694 | --------------------> | 695 | RREP | | | 696 <-------------------- | | 697 | RREP-ACK | | | 698 --------------------> | | 699 | | | | 701 3.8. Scenario 08: 3-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 702 breakage handling 704 This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and 705 forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link 706 breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. 708 3.8.1. Scenario Topology 710 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers. Control traffic 711 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router D or LOADng 712 Router D towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 713 Routers B and C: 715 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 716 | A |________| B |________| C |________| D | 717 | | | | | | | | 718 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 720 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between LOADng 721 Routers. 723 3.8.2. Expected Message Sequencing 725 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 727 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 728 Routers A and D. 730 o At some time, link breakage is detected by LOADng Router C. 731 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 732 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 733 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 734 transmitted to LOADng Router B according to the Reverse Route from 735 LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. 737 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 738 LOADng Router C is triggered manually (normally, this would be 739 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 740 Router D). 742 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set 743 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to 744 LOADng Router D. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 745 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to 746 LOADng Router A. 748 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 749 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 750 LOADng Router D. 752 A B C D 753 | | | | 754 | | | C-D link breakage X 755 | | | X 756 | | RERR | X 757 | <-------------------- X 758 | RERR | | X 759 <-------------------- | X 760 | | | X 762 3.9. Scenario 09: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - Forward 763 Route and Reverse Route initial installation 765 This test aims to verify the initial installation of a bidirectional 766 route (Forward Route and Reverse Route from A to E) within the LOADng 767 Router routing tables (Routing Sets) through the effective forwarding 768 of LOADng control traffic by LOADng Routers B, C and D, which are 769 located between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. It is also 770 verified that RREP-ACK messages are not forwarded by the LOADng 771 Routers these messages are intended for. 773 3.9.1. Scenario Topology 775 The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic 776 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng 777 Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 778 Routers B, C and D: 780 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 781 | A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E | 782 | | | | | | | | | | 783 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 785 This test suite consists in establishing a bidirectional route 786 between LOADng Router A and LOADng Router E. 788 3.9.2. Expected Message Sequencing 790 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 792 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 793 Router E. 795 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 796 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 797 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 799 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 800 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 801 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 802 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 803 forwards the received RREQ. 805 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 806 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 807 Router D to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 808 C (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C) and 809 forwards the received RREQ. 811 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router E installs a new tuple in 812 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 813 Router E to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 814 D (Reverse route from LOADng Router E to LOADng Router D). The 815 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 816 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, soliciting an RREP-ACK 817 message. 819 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router D installs a new tuple in 820 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 821 Router D to LOADng Router E), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 822 LOADng Router E and forwards the RREP received previously. 824 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 825 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 826 Router C to LOADng Router E) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 827 D (Forward Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router D). An 828 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router D and the 829 RREP received previously is forwarded. 831 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 832 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router E (Forward Route from LOADng 833 Router B to LOADng Router E) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 834 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 835 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 836 RREP received previously is forwarded. 838 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 839 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router B (Forward Route from LOADng 840 Router A to LOADng Router B) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 841 E (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router E). The 842 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 843 intended for LOADng Router B. 845 A B C D E 846 | RREQ | | | | 847 ---------------> | | | 848 | | RREQ | | | 849 | ---------------> | | 850 | | | RREQ | | 851 | | ---------------> | 852 | | | | RREQ | 853 | | | ---------------> 854 | | | | RREP | 855 | | | <--------------- 856 | | | | RREP-ACK | 857 | | | ---------------> 858 | | | RREP | | 859 | | <--------------- | 860 | | | RREP-ACK | | 861 | | ---------------> | 862 | | RREP | | | 863 | <--------------- | | 864 | | RREP-ACK | | | 865 | ---------------> | | 866 | RREP | | | | 867 <--------------- | | | 868 | RREP-ACK | | | | 869 ---------------> | | | 870 | | | | | 872 3.10. Scenario 10: 4-hop bidirectional route establishment - Link 873 breakage handling 875 This test aims to verify the proper generation, processing and 876 forwarding of a RERR message after an artificially created link 877 breakage on an previously established bidirectional route. 879 3.10.1. Scenario Topology 881 The testbed is composed of five LOADng Routers. Control traffic 882 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router E or LOADng 883 Router E towards LOADng Router A has to be forwarded by LOADng 884 Routers B, C and D: 886 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 887 | A |______| B |______| C |______| D |______| E | 888 | | | | | | | | | | 889 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 891 This test suite consists in handling link breakages between routers. 893 3.10.2. Expected Message Sequencing 895 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 897 o A bidirectional route is already established between LOADng 898 Routers A and E. 900 o At some time, a link breakage to E is detected by LOADng Router D. 901 Consequently, an unicast RERR message intended for LOADng Router A 902 (here the assumption is made that the unsuccessful delivered data 903 traffic would have been generated by LOADng Router A) is 904 transmitted to LOADng Router C according to the Reverse Route from 905 LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A computed previously. 907 Note: link breakage is provoked artificially and its detection by 908 LOADng Router D is triggered manually (normally, this would be 909 triggered by failure in sending data traffic intended for LOADng 910 Router E). 912 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router C updates its Routing Set 913 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router C to 914 LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 915 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to 916 LOADng Router A. 918 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router B updates its Routing Set 919 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router B to 920 LOADng Router E. Afterwards, the RERR message is forwarded 921 according to the existing Reverse Route from LOADng Router B to 922 LOADng Router A. 924 o Upon receiving the RERR, LOADng Router A updates its Routing Set 925 by invalidating the existing Forward Route from LOADng Router A to 926 LOADng Router E. 928 A B C D E 929 | | | | | 930 | | | D-E link breakage 931 | | | | X 932 | | | RERR | X 933 | | <--------------- X 934 | | RERR | | X 935 | <--------------- | X 936 | RERR | | | X 937 <--------------- | | X 938 | | | | X 940 3.11. Scenario 11: Establishment of the best bidirectional route 942 This test aims to verify the processing of multiple RREQs when 943 installing a bidirectional route (Forward Route and Reverse Route 944 from A to C) within the LOADng Router routing tables (Routing Sets). 946 3.11.1. Scenario Topology 948 The testbed is composed of three LOADng Routers. Control traffic 949 generated by either LOADng Router A towards LOADng Router C or LOADng 950 Router C towards LOADng Router A can be forwarded by LOADng Router B 951 or transmitted via the direct link between LOADng Routers A and C: 953 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 954 | A |________| B |________| C | 955 | | | | | | 956 +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ 957 |_________________________________| 959 This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between 960 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router C. Hop count metric is used for 961 measuring differet routes. 963 3.11.2. Expected Message Sequencing 965 The expected message sequencing is as follows: 967 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message intended for LOADng 968 Router C. According to RREQ transmission rules, the generated RREQ 969 message is transmitted to all neighbor LOADng Routers. 971 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 972 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 973 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 975 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct link 976 with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in its 977 Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router 978 A). The reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an 979 unicast RREP message intended for LOADng Router A, requiring RREP- 980 ACK message. 982 o Upon receiving the same RREQ via LOADng Router B, LOADng Router C 983 compares the RREQ.route-metric information carried by the RREQ 984 with the already existing tuple within its Routing Set (Reverse 985 Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A) according to the 986 comparison operator specified by the metric used (the "hop count" 987 metric was used). Thus, the best route is chosen considering only 988 the hop count: 990 Already existing tuple: 992 = 1 994 Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ: 996 = 2 998 According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used: 1000 1 < 2 1002 Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without 1003 affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP 1004 message. 1006 o Upon receiving the RREP via its direct link with LOADng Router C, 1007 LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in its Routing Set (Forward 1008 Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router C). The reception of 1009 the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message intended for 1010 LOADng Router C. 1012 A B C 1013 | RREQ | | 1014 --------------------> RREQ | 1015 ----------------------------------------> 1016 | | RREQ | 1017 | --------------------> 1018 | | RREP | 1019 <---------------------------------------- 1020 | | RREP-ACK | 1021 ----------------------------------------> 1022 | | | 1024 Note: the RREQ forwarded by LOADng Router B towards C is not 1025 necessarily received before LOADng Router C generates the RREP 1026 message intended for LOADng Router A. Indeed, the order in which 1027 those messages are transmitted is dependent on the transmission 1028 delays of each single link between LOADng Routers A, B and C. 1030 3.12. Scenario 12: Blacklisting 1032 This test aims to verify the effectiveness of avoiding unidirectional 1033 links using blacklisting. 1035 3.12.1. Scenario Topology 1037 The testbed is composed of four LOADng Routers with a unidirectional 1038 link between LOADng Routers A and D (direct communication from D 1039 towards A is impossible). 1041 +-------+ +-------+ 1042 | A |_________| B | 1043 | | | | 1044 +-------+ +-------+ 1045 | | 1046 V | 1047 +-------+ +-------+ 1048 | D |_________| C | 1049 | | | | 1050 +-------+ +-------+ 1052 This test consists in establishing a bidirectional route between 1053 LOADng Router A and LOADng Router D. 1055 3.12.2. Expected Message Sequencing 1057 First attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng 1058 Routers A and D: 1060 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message (RREQ.seq-num = 0, 1061 RREQ.originator = A) intended for LOADng Router D. 1063 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1064 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1065 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 1067 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its direct 1068 (unidirectional) link with LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D 1069 installs a new tuple in its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A 1070 (Reverse Route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router A). The 1071 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 1072 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The RREP.ackrequired 1073 the sent RREP message is set ('1'). 1075 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 1076 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1077 Router C to LOADng Router A) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1078 B (Reverse route from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and 1079 forwards the received RREQ. 1081 o Upon receiving the same RREQ (RREQ.seq-num = 0, RREQ.originator = 1082 A) again via LOADng Router C, LOADng Router D compares the 1083 RREQ.route-metric information carried by the RREQ with the already 1084 existing tuple within its Routing Set (Reverse Route from LOADng 1085 Router D to LOADng Router A) according to the comparison operator 1086 specified by the metric used (hop count): 1088 Already existing tuple: 1090 = 1 1092 Tuple corresponding to the newly received RREQ: 1094 = 2 1096 According to the comparison operator specified by the metric used: 1098 1 < 2 1100 Consequently, the newly received RREQ message is discarded without 1101 affecting the Routing Set or triggering the generation of any RREP 1102 message. 1104 o Due to the unidirectional nature of the existing link between 1105 LOADng Routers A and D, the RREP message previously sent by LOADng 1106 Router D intended for LOADng Router A did not reach its 1107 destination. After an elapsed time equaling RREP_ACK_TIMEOUT, 1108 LOADng Router D is not expecting an RREP-ACK message anymore. 1109 This results in recording LOADng Router A neighbor in LOADng 1110 Router D's Blacklist. 1112 Second attempt to establish a bidirectional route between LOADng 1113 Routers A and D: 1115 o LOADng Router A generates an RREQ message (RREQ.seq-num = 1, 1116 RREQ.originator = A) intended for LOADng Router D. 1118 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1119 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router A (Reverse Route from LOADng 1120 Router B to LOADng Router A) and forwards the received RREQ. 1122 At the same time, upon receiving the same RREQ via its blacklisted 1123 neighbor LOADng Router A, LOADng Router D discards the message. 1125 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router C updates the corresponding 1126 routes (Reverse Routes from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router A and 1127 from LOADng Router C to LOADng Router B) and forwards the received 1128 RREQ. 1130 o Upon receiving the RREQ, LOADng Router D updates the already 1131 installed route (Reverse Route from LOADng Router C to LOADng 1132 Router A) and installs a new tuple towards LOADng Router C 1133 (Reverse route from LOADng Router D to LOADng Router C). The 1134 reception of the RREQ also triggers the generation of an unicast 1135 RREP message intended for LOADng Router A. The RREP.ackrequired of 1136 the sent RREP message is set ('1'). 1138 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router C installs a new tuple in 1139 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1140 Router C to LOADng Router D), sends an unicast RREP-ACK message to 1141 LOADng Router D and forwards the RREP received previously. 1143 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router B installs a new tuple in 1144 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1145 Router B to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1146 C (Forward Route from LOADng Router B to LOADng Router C). An 1147 unicast RREP-ACK message is also sent to LOADng Router C and the 1148 RREP received previously is forwarded. 1150 o Upon receiving the RREP, LOADng Router A installs a new tuple in 1151 its Routing Set towards LOADng Router D (Forward Route from LOADng 1152 Router A to LOADng Router D) and a new tuple towards LOADng Router 1153 B (Forward Route from LOADng Router A to LOADng Router B). The 1154 reception of the RREP also triggers an unicast RREP-ACK message 1155 intended for LOADng Router B. 1157 A B C D 1158 | | | | 1159 First attempt ///////////////////////////////////////// 1160 | RREQ | | | 1161 ------------------> RREQ | | 1162 ------------------------------------------------------> 1163 | | RREP | | 1164 |XXXXX <----------------------------------------------- 1165 | | RREQ | | 1166 | ------------------> | 1167 | | | RREQ | 1168 | | ----------------->X RREQ 1169 | | | | Discarded 1170 Second attempt //////////////////////////////////////// 1171 | RREQ | | | 1172 ------------------> RREQ | | 1173 ----------------------------------------------------->X RREQ 1174 | | RREQ | | Discarded 1175 | ------------------> | 1176 | | | RREQ | 1177 | | ------------------> 1178 | | | RREP | 1179 | | <------------------ 1180 | | | RREP-ACK | 1181 | | ------------------> 1182 | | RREP | | 1183 | <------------------ | 1184 | | RREP-ACK | | 1185 | ------------------> | 1186 | RREP | | | 1187 <------------------ | | 1188 | RREP-ACK | | | 1189 ------------------> | | 1191 4. Interop 01: Yokohama, Japan, October 2011 1193 4.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested 1195 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1196 specification in [LOADng-00]. 1198 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, ome of the 1199 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1200 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-00]. 1202 4.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1204 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1205 resulting from interoperability testing performed at Hitachi YRL in 1206 Yokohama, Japan, from october 17th to october 19th 2011. 1208 4.3. Participating Implementations 1210 The following implementations were used to perform the 1211 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1213 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1214 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1215 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1216 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1217 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1218 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1220 Hitachi YRL 1: "Hitachi 1" - This implementation was fully developed 1221 by Yuichi Igarashi of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1589 lines of C 1222 code running in the Hitachi proprietary micro OS environment 1223 embedded in a 16MHz H8 micro processor. It supports RREQ, RREP, 1224 RREP-ACK and RERR generation, processing, forwarding and 1225 transmission. 1227 Hitachi YRL 2: "Hitachi 2" - This implementation was jointly 1228 developed by Nobukatsu Inomata of Hitachi ULSI Systems and Yoko 1229 Morii of Hitachi YRL. It consists of 1987 lines of C++ code 1230 running in a Mac OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK 1231 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission, and RERR 1232 processing. 1234 4.4. Scenarios Tested 1236 This interoperability test includes all scenarios 01-12 (inclusive). 1238 4.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations 1240 Wireshark packet sniffers, modified to interpret LOADng control 1241 traffic, were used to monitor each link, so as to verify propper 1242 message sequencing. 1244 For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the 1245 generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always 1246 triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages 1247 were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception 1248 of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of 1249 unidirectional links. 1251 4.6. Results For Scenario 01 1253 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1254 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1255 Route initial installation test was performed: 1257 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1258 | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | 1259 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1260 | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | 1261 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | 1262 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | 1263 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1265 Table 1 1267 4.7. Results For Scenario 02 1269 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1270 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1271 Route updating test was performed: 1273 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1274 | | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | 1275 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1276 | LIX | N/R | Pass | Pass | 1277 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | N/R | Pass | 1278 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | Pass | N/R | 1279 +-----------+------+-----------+-----------+ 1281 Table 2 1283 4.8. Results For Scenario 03 1285 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1286 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1287 Route initial installation test was performed: 1289 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1290 | A | B | C | Result | 1291 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1292 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1293 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1294 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1295 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1296 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1297 | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1298 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1300 Table 3 1302 4.9. Results For Scenario 04 1304 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1305 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1306 Route updating test was performed: 1308 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1309 | A | B | C | Result | 1310 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1311 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1312 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1313 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1314 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1315 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1316 | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1317 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1319 Table 4 1321 4.10. Results For Scenario 05 1323 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1324 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1325 performed: 1327 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1328 | A | B | C | Result | 1329 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1330 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1331 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1332 +-----------+-----------+-----+--------+ 1334 Table 5 1336 4.11. Results For Scenario 06 1338 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1339 different combinations for which a 3-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1340 Route initial installation test was performed: 1342 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1343 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1344 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1345 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1346 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1347 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1348 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1350 Table 6 1352 4.12. Results For Scenario 07 1354 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1355 different combinations for which a 3-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1356 Route updating test was performed: 1358 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1359 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1360 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1361 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1362 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Pass | 1363 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1364 +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1366 Table 7 1368 4.13. Results For Scenario 08 1370 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1371 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1372 performed: 1374 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1375 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1376 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1377 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1378 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1379 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+--------+ 1381 Table 8 1383 4.14. Results For Scenario 09 1385 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1386 different combinations for which a 4-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1387 Route initial installation test was performed: 1389 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1390 | A | B | C | D | E | Result | 1391 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1392 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1393 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1395 Table 9 1397 4.15. Results For Scenario 10 1399 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1400 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1401 performed: 1403 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1404 | A | B | C | D | E | Result | 1405 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1406 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1407 +-----------+-----------+-----+-----------+-----+--------+ 1409 Table 10 1411 4.16. Results For Scenario 11 1413 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1414 different combinations for which a test consisting in the 1415 establishment of the best bidirectional route was performed: 1417 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1418 | A | B | C | Result | 1419 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1420 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1421 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1422 | Hitachi 2 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1423 | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1424 +-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1426 Table 11 1428 4.17. Results For Scenario 12 1430 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1431 different combinations for which a Blacklisting test was performed: 1433 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1434 | A | B | C | D | Result | 1435 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1436 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | Hitachi 1 | LIX | Pass | 1437 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Hitachi 2 | Pass | 1438 | Hitachi 2 | LIX | LIX | Hitachi 1 | Pass | 1439 +-----------+-----+-----------+-----------+--------+ 1441 Table 12 1443 4.18. Conclusions 1445 The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for 1446 different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to 1447 completely cover the [LOADng-00] specification by checking each 1448 technical feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this 1449 process permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy 1450 of the [LOADng-00] specification. 1452 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-----------+ 1453 | | | |Test suites| 1454 |Chap. | Item | Technical feature +-----------+ 1455 | | | |A|B|C|D|E|F| 1456 +------+----------------+------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1457 |6.1 | | |Originator|X|X|X| |X|X| 1458 +------+ Information |Routing Set +----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1459 |6.1 | Base | |Previous | |X|X|X| |X| 1460 +------+ +------------+----------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1461 |6.2 | |Blacklist Neighbor set | | | | | |X| 1462 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1463 |8.1 | |TLV |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1464 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1465 |8.2.1 | Packet |Route Request Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1466 +------+ Format +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1467 |8.2.1 | |Route Reply Message |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1468 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1469 |8.2.2 | |Route Reply Ack Message|X|X|X|X|X|X| 1470 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1471 |8.2.3 | |Route Error Message | |X|X|X| | | 1472 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1473 |10.1 | Unidirectional |Blacklist | | | | | |X| 1474 | | link handling | | | | | | | | 1475 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1476 |11.1 | |Invalid RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1477 +------+ Common rules +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1478 |11.2 | for RREQ, RREP |RREQ, RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1479 +------+ Message +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1480 |11.3 | |Updating RREQ, RREP |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1481 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1482 |12.1 | |RREQ Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1483 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1484 |12.2 | Route |RREQ Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1485 +------+ Requests +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1486 |12.3 | (RREQs) |RREQ Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| 1487 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1488 |12.4 | |RREQ Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1489 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1490 |13.1 | |RREP Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1491 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1492 |13.2 | Route |RREP Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1493 +------+ Replies +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1494 |13.3 | (RREPs) |RREP Forwarding | |X|X|X|X|X| 1495 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1496 |13.4 | |RREP Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1497 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1498 |14.1 | |RERR Generation | |X|X|X| | | 1499 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1500 |14.2 | Route |RERR Processing | |X|X|X| | | 1501 +------+ Errors +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1502 |14.3 | (RERRs) |RERR Forwarding | | |X|X| | | 1503 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1504 |14.4 | |RERR Transmission | |X|X|X| | | 1505 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1506 |15.1 | |RREP-ACK Generation |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1507 +------+ +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1508 |15.2 | Route |RREQ-ACK Processing |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1509 +------+ Reply +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1510 |15.3 | Acknowledgement|RREQ-ACK Forwarding |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1511 +------+ (RREP-ACKs) +-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1512 |15.4 | |RREQ-ACK Transmission |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1513 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1514 |16 | Metrics |Hop Count While |X|X|X|X|X|X| 1515 | | |Avoiding Weak Links | | | | | | | 1516 +------+----------------+-----------------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1518 Test suite A : 1-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 01, 1519 02) 1521 Test suite B : 2-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 03, 1522 04, 05) 1523 Test suite C : 3-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 06, 1524 07, 08) 1526 Test suite D : 4-hop bidirectional route establishment (scenarios 09, 1527 10) 1529 Test suite E : Establishment of the best bidirectional route 1530 (scenario 11) 1532 Test suite F : Blacklisting (scenario 12) 1534 5. Interop 02: San Jose, USA March 2012 1536 5.1. LOADng version tested 1538 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1539 specification in [LOADng-03]. 1541 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, ome of the 1542 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1543 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-03]. 1545 5.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1547 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1548 resulting from interoperability testing performed at Fujitsu 1549 Laboratories of America (FLA), San Jose, USA, on April 13, 2012. 1551 5.3. Participating Implementations 1553 The following implementations were used to perform the 1554 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1556 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1557 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1558 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1559 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1560 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1561 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1563 Fujitsu Laboratories of America: "FLA" - This implementation was 1564 developed by Ulrich Herberg from Fujitsu Laboratories of America. 1565 It is a Java implementation, supporting basic features (RREQ, 1566 RREP, RREP-ACK generation, processing, forwarding and 1567 transmision). 1569 5.4. Interoperability Test Considerations 1571 As an intermediate test, only a subset of the scenarios described 1572 were tested (01, 03 and 05), for verifying interoperability bug- 1573 fixing the involved implementations. 1575 5.5. Results For Scenario 01 1577 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1578 different combinations for which a 1-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1579 Route initial installation test was performed: 1581 +-----+------+------+ 1582 | | LIX | FLA | 1583 +-----+------+------+ 1584 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1585 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1586 +-----+------+------+ 1588 Table 13 1590 5.6. Results For Scenrio 03 1592 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1593 different combinations for which a 2-hop Forward Route and Reverse 1594 Route initial installation test was performed: 1596 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1597 | A | B | C | Result | 1598 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1599 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1600 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1601 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1603 Table 14 1605 5.7. Results For Scenario 05 1607 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1608 different combinations for which a Link breakage handling test was 1609 performed: 1611 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1612 | A | B | C | Result | 1613 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1614 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1615 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1616 Table 15 1618 6. Interop 03: Los Angeles, USA, June 2012 1620 6.1. Version of LOADng Specification Tested 1622 The interoperability tests were conducted according to the 1623 specification in [LOADng-04]. 1625 NOTE: Due to the evolution of [LOADng] and this document, some of the 1626 conventions used in Section 3, such as routing metric and some fields 1627 of messages, may be different from the description in [LOADng-04]. 1629 6.2. Place and Date of Interoperability Test 1631 This section reports experience with the LOADng routing protocol, 1632 resulting from interoperability testing performed at the Los Angeles 1633 Airport Hilton, USA, on June 6, 2012. 1635 6.3. Participating Implementations 1637 The following implementations were used to perform the 1638 interoperability tests this section, listed alphabetically: 1640 Ecole Polytechnique: "LIX" - This implementation was jointly 1641 developed by Axel Colin de Verdiere, Jiazi Yi, Ulrich Herberg and 1642 Thomas Clausen of Ecole Ploytechnique's networking team. It 1643 consists of approximately 6000 lines of JAVA code running in a Mac 1644 OS environment. It supports RREQ, RREP, RREP-ACK and RERR 1645 generation, processing, forwarding and transmission. 1647 Fujitsu Laboratories of America: "FLA" - This implementation was 1648 developed by Ulrich Herberg from Fujitsu Laboratories of America. 1649 It is a Java implementation, supporting basic features (RREQ, 1650 RREP, RREP-ACK generation, processing, forwarding and 1651 transmision). 1653 6.4. Scenarios Tested 1655 This interoperability test includes scenarios 01-12 (inclusive). 1657 6.5. Additional Interoperability Test Considerations 1659 Wireshark packet sniffers, that have been modified to interpret 1660 LOADng control traffic, were used to monitor each single underlying 1661 link. 1663 For each test, the initiation of the communication resulting in the 1664 generation of the first LOADng control traffic message is always 1665 triggered manually. In addition, RREP-ACK LOADng control messages 1666 were systematically expected from each LOADng Router upon reception 1667 of a RREP LOADng control message in order to allow the detection of 1668 unidirectional links. 1670 6.6. Results For Scenario 01-02 1672 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1673 different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse 1674 Route initial installation) was performed: 1676 +-----+------+------+ 1677 | | LIX | FLA | 1678 +-----+------+------+ 1679 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1680 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1681 +-----+------+------+ 1683 Table 16 1685 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1686 different combinations for which test 2 (Forward Route and Reverse 1687 Route updating) was performed: 1689 +-----+------+------+ 1690 | | LIX | FLA | 1691 +-----+------+------+ 1692 | LIX | N/R | Pass | 1693 | FLA | Pass | N/R | 1694 +-----+------+------+ 1696 Table 17 1698 6.7. Results For Scenario 03-04-05 1700 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1701 different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and 1702 Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and 1703 Reverse Route updating) were performed: 1705 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1706 | A | B | C | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1707 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1708 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1709 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1710 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1711 +-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1713 Table 18 1715 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1716 different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage 1717 handling) was performed: 1719 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1720 | A | B | C | Test 3 | 1721 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1722 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1723 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1724 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1726 Table 19 1728 6.8. Results For Scenario 06-07-08 1730 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1731 different combinations for which these test 1 (Forward Route and 1732 Reverse Route initial installation) and test 2 (Forward Route and 1733 Reverse Route updating) were performed: 1735 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1736 | A | B | C | D | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1737 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1738 | LIX | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1739 | LIX | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1740 | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1741 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1742 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1744 Table 20 1746 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1747 different combinations for which these test 3 (Link breakage 1748 handling) was performed: 1750 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1751 | A | B | C | D | Test 3 | 1752 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1753 | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1754 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1755 +-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1757 Table 21 1759 6.9. Results For Scenario 09-10 1761 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1762 different combinations for which test 1 (Forward Route and Reverse 1763 Route initial installation) and test 2 (Link breakage handling) were 1764 performed: 1766 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1767 | A | B | C | D | E | Test 1 | Test 2 | 1768 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1769 | FLA | FLA | LIX | LIX | LIX | Pass | Pass | 1770 | LIX | LIX | LIX | FLA | FLA | Pass | Pass | 1771 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------+--------+ 1773 Table 22 1775 6.10. Results For Scenario 11 1777 The following table is summarizing the results obtained for the 1778 different combinations for which this test was performed: 1780 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1781 | A | B | C | Result | 1782 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1783 | LIX | FLA | LIX | Pass | 1784 | LIX | LIX | FLA | Pass | 1785 | FLA | LIX | LIX | Pass | 1786 +-----+-----+-----+--------+ 1788 Table 23 1790 6.11. Conclusions 1792 The different test scenarios carried that were carried out for 1793 different interoperable and independent implementations allowed to 1794 cover all major features of the LOADng specification by checking each 1795 technical feature one by one. In addition, the completion of this 1796 process permitted the improvement of the overall quality and accuracy 1797 of the [LOADng] specification. 1799 7. Security Considerations 1801 This document does currently not specify any security considerations. 1803 8. IANA Considerations 1805 This document has no actions for IANA. 1807 9. Contributors 1809 This specification is the result of the joint efforts of the 1810 following contributors -- listed alphabetically. 1812 o Alberto Camacho, LIX, France, 1814 o Thomas Heide Clausen, LIX, France, 1816 o Axel Colin de Verdiere, LIX, France, 1818 o Ulrich Herberg, Fujitsu Laboratories of America, USA, 1819 1821 o Yuichi Igarashi, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1822 1824 o Nobukatsu Inomata, HITACHI ULSI Systems, Japan, 1825 1827 o Yoko Morii, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1829 o Hiroki Satoh, HITACHI YRL, Japan, 1831 o Jiazi Yi, LIX, France, 1833 10. Acknowledgments 1835 TBD 1837 11. References 1839 11.1. Normative References 1841 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1842 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. 1844 11.2. Informative References 1846 [LOADng] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1847 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, 1848 T., and C. Perkins, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance- 1849 vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1850 draft-clausen-lln-loadng (work in progress), July 2012. 1852 [LOADng-00] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Lavenu, C., 1853 Lys, T., Niktash, A., Igarashi, Y., and H. Satoh, "The 1854 LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing Protocol - 1855 Next Generation (LOADng)", draft-clausen-lln-loadng-00 1856 (work in progress), October 2011. 1858 [LOADng-03] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1859 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., and T. 1860 Lys, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing 1861 Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1862 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-03 (work in progress), 1863 March 2012. 1865 [LOADng-04] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1866 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., and T. 1867 Lys, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance-vector Routing 1868 Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1869 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-04 (work in progress), 1870 April 2012. 1872 [LOADng-05] Clausen, T., Colin de Verdiere, A., Yi, J., Niktash, A., 1873 Igarashi, Y., Satoh, H., Herberg, U., Lavenu, C., Lys, 1874 T., and C. Perkins, "The LLN On-demand Ad hoc Distance- 1875 vector Routing Protocol - Next Generation (LOADng)", 1876 draft-clausen-lln-loadng-05 (work in progress), 1877 July 2012. 1879 Authors' Addresses 1881 Thomas Heide Clausen 1882 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1884 Phone: +33 6 6058 9349 1885 EMail: T.Clausen@computer.org 1886 URI: http://www.ThomasClausen.org/ 1887 Alberto Camacho 1888 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1890 Phone: +34 636 309 835 1891 EMail: alberto@albertocamacho.com 1892 URI: http://www.albertocamacho.com/ 1894 Jiazi Yi 1895 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1897 Phone: +33 1 6933 4031 1898 EMail: jiazi@jiaziyi.com 1899 URI: http://www.jiaziyi.com/ 1901 Axel Colin de Verdiere 1902 LIX, Ecole Polytechnique 1904 Phone: +33 6 1264 7119 1905 EMail: axel@axelcdv.com 1906 URI: http://www.axelcdv.com/ 1908 Yuichi Igarashi 1909 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1911 Phone: +81 45 860 3083 1912 EMail: yuichi.igarashi.hb@hitachi.com 1913 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1915 Hiroki Satoh 1916 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1918 Phone: +81 44 959 0205 1919 EMail: hiroki.satoh.yj@hitachi.com 1920 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1922 Yoko Morii 1923 Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory 1925 Phone: +81 45 860 3083 1926 EMail: yoko.morii.cs@hitachi.com 1927 URI: http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/index.html 1928 Ulrich Herberg 1929 Fujitsu Laboratories of America 1931 Phone: +1 408 530 4528 1932 EMail: ulrich@herberg.name 1933 URI: http://www.herberg.name/ 1935 Cedric Lavenu 1936 EDF R&D 1938 Phone: +33 1 4765 2729 1939 EMail: cedric-2.lavenu@edf.fr 1940 URI: http://www.edf.fr/