French IP SNDCF Validation Initiative



| |ACP WGN04-WP11 |

| |02/11/04 |

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL

WORKING GROUP N “Networking”

Sub-Group N1 “Internet Communication Services”

USA, 10 to 19 November 2004

Agenda Item __

French IP SNDCF Validation Initiative

Prepared by: France

Presented by: Pierre Vabre (STNA)

WORKING PAPER

SUMMARY

STNA has implemented the IPv4 and IPv6 SNDCF inside the ProATN operational router. These implementations have been developed by analyzing the specification to provide a definitive requirements specification and subject to laboratory testing.

As a result, STNA has prepared this validation initiative report as an input for the validation report for the IP SNDCF

ACP WGN SGN/1 is invited to review the results and to consider them as inputs to an update of the IP SNDCF Validation Report.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4

1.1 Scope of the report 4

1.2 Document structure 4

1.3 References 4

2 Validation Strategy 5

2.1 Definitions 5

2.2 Validation Means and Tools 5

2.3 Validation Objectives 6

2.4 Validation Exercises 6

3 Validation Results 6

3.1 Draft technical Provisions for IP SNDCF text consistency 6

3.2 Coverage by Implementations 6

4 Future Work 6

5 Conclusions 7

Attachment A - Validation Objectives 8

A.1 Implementation of ATN systems (criterion 1) 8

A.2 Interoperability (criterion 2) 8

A.2.1 IDRP connectivity and policy 9

A.2.2 Data transfer 9

A.3 User requirements 10

A.4 ATN properties and performances (criterion 4) 10

Attachment B - Validation Tools 12

B.1 ProATN A/G BIS Validation Tool 12

B.2 CHARME A & G ES (upper layers) Validation Tool 13

B.3 OSIAMX G ES (lower layers) Validation Tool 15

Attachment C - Coverage of validation Objectives by validation Exercise 16

Attachment D - Validation Exercises performed by STNA 18

D.1 AVE 201 - Implementation exercise 18

D.1.1 Objective 18

D.1.2 Exercise specification 18

D.1.3 Exercise result 18

D.2 AVE_202 - Tests plan 19

D.2.1 Exercises objectives 19

D.2.2 Exercises configurations 20

D.2.3 Test catalogue 25

D.2.4 Exercises configurations 29

D.2.5 Exercises result 30

Table of figureS

Figure 1: graphical conventions 20

Figure 2: physical topology of CFG1 21

Figure 3: logical topology of CFG1 21

Figure 4: physical topology of CFG2 22

Figure 5: logical topology of CFG2 22

Figure 6: physical topology of CFG3 23

Figure 7: logical topology of CFG3 24

Introduction

1 Scope of the report

This report details the process employed and results obtained by the French IP SNDCF Validation Initiative conducted by STNA during April 2004 and September 2004 at STNA ATN laboratory.

The results of this initiative are merged and consolidated with some results obtained by Eurocontrol to form the IP SNDCF Validation Report ([REF 3]).

2 Document structure

Chapter 2 summarizes the ATN validation strategy ; additional information may be found in [REF 3] as well as other ATN ICS validation reports generated in the past.

Chapter 3 summarizes the obtained validation results.

Chapter 4 indicates some topic that may require some amount of work.

Chapter 5 formulates the recommendation of this report.

3 References

| |DIS/COM/ProATN_Sup/DCI/AW_116 |Draft SARPS for IP SNDCF – Issue 1.3 by Tony Whyman |

| | |Note: This document is the last version produced by the former ATNP |

| | |SGB1. |

| |DIS/COM/ProATN_Sup/DCI/AW_120 |Proposed_Guidance_Material_in_Support_of_the_IP_SNDCF.doc – Issue |

| | |1.0 by Tony Whyman |

| | |Note: This document is the last version produced by the former ATNP |

| | |SGB1 |

| |WGN04-WP10 |IP SNDCF Validation Report |

| |WGN04-WP40 |Proposed SARPs for the IP SNDCF. |

| | |Note: This document is a re-edition of [REF 1] following a formal |

| | |review by SGN1 during summer 2004, and with status moved to |

| | |“Proposed”. |

Validation Strategy

The strategy employed in the validation of the third edition of Doc 9705 Sub-Volume V incorporates a range of techniques, methods, procedures and tools. The strategy aims to ensure the completeness and traceability of the validation process. Each element of the validation strategy contributes towards these aims.

The validation initiative of the IP SNDCF, as it is provided in [REF 1], [REF 2]and [REF 4] will follow the same plan.

1 Definitions

A Validation Initiative (i.e. this document) is a particular set of Validation Exercises carried out by one or several States/Organisations. Details of methods, specifications, tools, infrastructure and reports are under the responsibility of these States/Organisations.

Validation Exercise is the general term for a unit of validation activity. In order to facilitate the report consolidation, all validation exercises are defined with a reference to one or several ATN Validation Objectives (AVOs). Depending on the type of validation, a Validation Exercise may correspond to:

1. an Analysis case, e.g. document inspection, case study, etc.

2. an Experiment with prototype and/or pre-operational systems and/or operational systems

3. a Simulation

Validation Objectives are statements, which express the various verifications and evaluations required in order to declare the draft IP SNDCF as validated.. The list of objectives has been assessed by SGN1 as complete for this validation process.

2 Validation Means and Tools

IP SNDCF validation exercises have been performed with ProATN product. To ensure the traceability of the validation activities, a high-level validation tool description is provided in Attachment B.

Note: these tool descriptions are not intended to be the specifications of the tools' capabilities. These details can be obtained from the contact point / supplier, as given in the tool description.

3 Validation Objectives

The ATN Validation Objectives (AVOs) agreed by former ATNP / WGB are reproduced in Attachment A. The AVOs were developed under 4 major validation criteria, namely:

4. Criterion 1: has the requirement been implemented?

5. Criterion 2: do ATN systems interoperate?

6. Criterion 3: does the ATN satisfy User Requirements?

7. Criterion 4: does the ATN perform well?

Detailed definitions of each of the above criteria are provided in Attachment A. The coverage of the AVOs contributed to by STNA Validation Exercises is given in Attachment C.

4 Validation Exercises

The validation exercises for this work have been specified by STNA.

Validation Results

1 Draft technical Provisions for IP SNDCF text consistency

Nor missing nor ambiguous requirement has been identified.

2 Coverage by Implementations

The requirements contained in the draft IP SNDCF technical provisions may be divided into two categories: those pertaining to ATN systems (i.e. how systems are built), and those pertaining to the Network deployment (i.e. how ATN systems are used, how the network is managed).

Confidence has been gained in the draft IP SNDCF technical provisions pertaining to ATN systems by implementing the specification in the operational environment provided by STNA/Sofréavia's ProATN operational Router. A coverage analysis of the requirements associated with the specification has been performed with traceability from the draft technical provisions through to implementation and test.

Confidence has been gained in the draft edition of the IP SNDCF technical provision pertaining to ATN deployment. As the ProATN operational router is widely employed in ground ground communication in operational use today, a clear demonstration has been made that the specification is implementable in operational systems.

Future Work

The ATN IP SNDCF has been implemented by STNA in the ProATN BIS, for operation over IPv4 and IPv6. It relies on the current ACP draft specification ([REF 4]) which is believed to be mature. Hence, no future work is anticipated by STNA on this subject.

Conclusions

Based upon the above and the results of the set of validation exercises described in the attachments below, sufficient confidence has been gained to conclude that the draft technical provisions for the IP SNDCF are a mature basis for the upgrade or development of systems to be used in operational Air Traffic Management environment complying with stated User Requirements.

It is therefore proposed that the ACP endorses the recommendation in the main body of that document that the “Proposed” IP SNDCF technical provisions ([REF 4]) be incorporated into Document 9705.

A Validation Objectives

1. Implementation of ATN systems (criterion 1)

All the following exercises are meant to be conducted through analysis of existing documentation and reports: PICS, acceptance test reports.

The expected outcome is an indication of the ATN requirements that have been successfully implemented. As a result, some coverage analysis can be derived from these exercises.

In these exercises, the term 'ATN requirements' is used to refer to mandatory requirements and to recommendations. The ATN options, as derived from PRLs, can be considered as out of the scope of these exercises. However, ATN options may be the subject of additional validation exercises to verify that they are neither needed nor "dangerous" to the ATN service when implemented.

The term 'implemented' in this context is not restricted to 'implemented in operational/avionics systems'. Prototypes and pre-operational are also capable of validating the 'implementability' of Doc 9705 Sub-Volume V technical provisions. The degree of confidence required, hence the type of implementation, is an issue for the assessment procedure to establish.

|AVO_4_101 |Verify that all requirements specified for the IP v4 SNDCF have been implemented |

|AVO_4_102 |Verify that all requirements specified for the IP v6 SNDCF have been implemented |

2. Interoperability (criterion 2)

The ATN Internet Communications Service SARPs specify the ATN Network and Transport Layers in terms of their constituent protocols and functions. They mandate certain features, recommend others and document a wide variety of options without mapping these to real world systems (e.g. Routers and Host Computers). The large number of possible combinations of standards, recommendations and options complicates the validation process.

Within each type of ATN system defined in SARPs (ES, GG-BIS, AG-BIS, A-BIS), there are a number of possible ATN compliant solutions (called hereafter ATN Compliant Profiles). A Profile is defined as a specific choice of recommendations/options allowed by the SARPs. Validation must prove that all these possible profile solutions interoperate. When this is not the case, the ATN SARPs must be in error and cannot be validated as they stand.

Experiments will contribute to the definition of a practical number of interoperable ATN components of various types (e.g. air-ground Router, ground-ground Router, ATC Host Computer etc.) by identifying ATN Compliant Profiles for them. These Profiles will be constructed from the standards, recommendations and options specified in the ATN SARPs.

It must be noted that the focus of the validation effort is on the enhancements introduced between the third edition of Sub-Volume V and the proposed ammendment for the ATN IP SNDCF in the Sub-Volume V technical provisions.

Hence, interoperability objectives concentrate on the dialogue between systems supporting the IP SNDCF and the service provided by those systems.

Backward interoperability between third edition compliant systems and systems extended to support the IP SNDCF is not a goal since there is no possible interactions between these systems through an IP subnetwork.

1. IDRP connectivity and policy

Only Ground systems (Ground BIS and Air-Ground BIS over ground subnetworks) are concerned with the IP SNDCF. The proposed draft recommends use of IP only as a Ground subnetwork. There is currently no mobile SNDCF supporting IP.

|AVO_4_201 |Verify that two compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v4 SNDCF are able to establish and |

| |maintain IDRP connectivity with each other. |

|AVO_4_202 |Verify that the use of the IP v4 SNDCF between two different compliant implementations does not |

| |disturb the IDRP routing policies |

|AVO_4_203 |Verify that two compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v6 SNDCF are able to establish and |

| |maintain IDRP connectivity with each other. |

|AVO_4_204 |Verify that the use of the IP v6 SNDCF between two different compliant implementations does not |

| |disturb the IDRP routing policies |

2. Data transfer

Data transfer exercises should investigate various transport user situations. Depending on the tool used, transport users may be implemented as:

8. Raw data exchanges stimulated at the network service level, hence with no relationship to the ATN transport service. This data exchange type only serves the purpose of demonstrating the extended network layer capabilities. It should not be used to demonstrate the ATN capability to support any specific ATN transport user type.

9. Simulation of ATN transport users at the transport service level. These data exchanges approximate the characteristics of real application behaviours in a roughly manner. This level of exercice enable exchange of important amount of data between systems.

10. Prototype/real applications using ATN transport service. These data exchanges can be used in demonstration of capability to support ATN user applications. However, the amount of exchanged data is somewhat limited (every interaction is stimulated by an human operator).

|AVO_4_205 |Verify that a compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v4 SNDCF allows the transfer of raw data |

| |with a peer BIS also implementing the IP v4 SNDCF |

|AVO_4_206 |Verify that a compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v4 SNDCF allows the transfer of transport|

| |data. |

|AVO_4_207 |Verify that a compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v6 SNDCF allows the transfer of raw data |

| |with a peer BIS also implementing the IP v6 SNDCF |

|AVO_4_208 |Verify that a compliant ground BIS implementing the IP v6 SNDCF allows the transfer of transport|

| |data. |

3. User requirements

Only a subset of the ATN User Requirements has been selected. The main selection criterion has been that the user requirement was linked to an observable property of an ATN network or ATN topology and related to an enhanced capability offered by the IP SNDCF as compared to the existing third edition of Sub-Volume V document.

|AVO_4_301 |Verify that some perturbation in an IP v4 sub-network does not impact the ATN quality of service|

| |except the average end-to-end transit delay. |

|AVO_4_302 |Verify that some perturbation in an IP v6 sub-network does not impact the ATN quality of service|

| |except the average end-to-end transit delay. |

4. ATN properties and performances (criterion 4)

This section can be viewed as a list of objectives that validates the assumed or implicit User Requirements. Other than the ATN SARPS and Doc 9705 Sub-Volume I, no other formal ICAO source document is available which states the expected technical high-level properties/performances of the ATN. Generally, many of the performance characteristics of the ATN (e.g., number of mobile users to be supported) will be determined on a local or regional basis.

The assessment procedure is required to define the expected values/targets against which the ATN properties and performances will be evaluated.

Until these expected values are specified, an objective of the form "Evaluate X" should be interpreted as "Evaluate X. Verify that X is acceptable". The acceptability criterion for such a general case is:

11. Exercises derived from this objective do not reveal SARPs inconsistencies or gaps.

12. Observed performances are consistent with provision of ATN user services.

13. Observed performances are scaleable to future ATN configurations or ATN systems.

|AVO_4_401 |Verify that the IP v4 SNDCF allows forwarding of NPDU according to their ATN trafic-type and |

| |their priority. |

|AVO_4_402 |Verify that the IP v6 SNDCF allows forwarding of NPDU according to their ATN trafic-type and |

| |their priority. |

B Validation Tools

1. ProATN A/G BIS Validation Tool

|Tool Identification |

|Name |ProATN A/G BIS |

|Category |Operational implementation |

|Description |Operational ATN air-ground BIS, ground-ground BIS, and intra-domain Level 1 and |

| |Level 2 IS. |

| |The system can emulate the behaviour of an Airborne BIS in testing environment. |

| |The system can also be configured as an ES and as a combined ES and IS. However, the|

| |End System capability is limited to the provision of the ATN lower layer services up|

| |to (including) the transport service. |

| |Versions 4.1 and higher of the system are compliant with the third edition of Doc |

| |9705 Sub-Volume V and with the draft IP SNDCF. |

|Contact Point and/or Supplier |Supplier: Sofréavia |

| |Contact point: |

| |Sofréavia |

| |Mr Pierre SCHACRE |

| |Tel: + 33.(0)5.62.24.56.13 |

| |Email: schacrep@tlse.sofreavia.fr |

| | |

| |STNA |

| |Mr Henri DENIS |

| |Tel: + 33.(0)5.62.14.54.89 |

| |Email: henri.denis@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

| | |

|Tool Version and Date |Version 4.1, January 2004 |

|Supporting Hardware |SUN and DEC Workstations, PC |

|Supporting Operating System and/or |Solaris 5.7, OSF 1 V4.0, LINUX Red Hat 7.2 (kernel 2.4.7-10), LINUX Enterprise 2.1 |

|Software |(kernel 2.4.9-e34 smp) |

|ATN Systems |End System (up to the Transport service) |

| |Intra-Domain Intermediate System |

| |Ground-gorund BIS |

| |Air-ground BIS |

| |Airborne BIS |

| |Other |

|Protocols |ISO 8073 |

| |ISO 8602 |

| |ISO 8473 |

| |ISO 9542 |

| |ISO 10747 |

| |ISO 10589 |

| |ISO 8802 SNDCF |

| |ISO 8208 SNDCF |

| |ISO 8208 Mobile SNDCF |

|IP SNDCF |Enhancements supported: |

| |IP v4 SNDCF |

| |IP v6 SNDCF |

|Connectivity Information: ISO 8802-2, IP and X.25 subnetworks, AMSS, VDL Mode 2 and Mode S |

|Notes |

| |

2. CHARME A & G ES (upper layers) Validation Tool

|Tool Identification |

|Name |STNA ATN ES supporting Security (CHARME_SEC) |

|Category |Prototype implementation |

|Description |Analysis and validation of the ATN ULCS and ASE Security Protocols through |

| |pre-operational implementation and test of air and ground Secure ATN End Systems |

| |(ULCS, CM & CPDLC) |

| |The ATN communication protocol software is the STNA test ATN ES (CHARME) supporting |

| |the Doc 9705 security provisions (sub-volumes II, IV and VIII). |

| |The ATN cryptographic algorithm package developed by Sofréavia is integrated in the |

| |Secure ATN ES. |

|Contact Point and/or Supplier |Contact point: Mr. Denis Henri (STNA), Mr Frédéric Picard (Sofréavia) |

|Tool Version and Date |Only current version is maintained, April 2004. |

|Supporting Hardware |DecAlpha Worstation |

|Supporting Operating System and/or |OSF1 V4.0 |

|Software | |

| |

|ATN Systems |Air End System |

| |Ground End System |

| |Intra-Domain Intermediate System |

| |Ground-ground BIS |

| |Air-ground BIS |

| |Airborne BIS |

| |Other |

|Protocols |ULCS Doc 9705 Ed. 3 (CO) |

| |CM V2 |

| |CPDLC V2 |

| |ADS V2 |

| |FIS V2 |

| |AIDC |

| |GACS |

|CNS/ATM-2 Specifics |Requirements Grouping supported: |

| |SEC3-01 |

| |SEC3-02 |

| |SEC3-03 |

| |SEC3-04 |

| |SEC3-05 |

| |SEC3-06 |

| |SEC3-07 |

| |SEC3-08 |

| |SEC3-09 |

| |SEC3-10 |

| |SEC3-11 |

| |SEC3-12 |

| |SEC3-13 |

| |SEC3-14 |

| |SEC3-15 |

| |SEC3-16 |

| |SEC3-17 |

|Connectivity Information: XTI transport service interface |

|Notes |

| |

3. OSIAMX G ES (lower layers) Validation Tool

|Tool Identification |

|Name |STNA OSIAMX |

|Category |Operational implementation |

|Description |Operational ATN / ISO ground ES limited to the provision of the ATN lower layer |

| |services up to (including) the transport service. |

| |Operational system (OSIAMX) used within the French CAUTRA system to provide ISO/ATN |

| |transport and interneworking services to CAUTRA applications. |

|Contact Point and/or Supplier |Supplier: none (not a commercial product). |

| |Contact point: |

| |STNA |

| |Mr Henri DENIS |

| |Tel: + 33.(0)5.62.14.54.89 |

| |Email: henri.denis@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

| | |

|Tool Version and Date |Version 1.3.3-C, March 2000 |

|Supporting Hardware |HP, BULL and DEC Workstations, PC |

|Supporting Operating System and/or |HP-UX 9/10/11, AIX 4.2/4.3, OSF 1 V4.0, LINUX Red Hat 7.2. |

|Software | |

|ATN Systems |End System (up to the Transport service) |

| |Intra-Domain Intermediate System |

| |Ground-gorund BIS |

| |Air-ground BIS |

| |Airborne BIS |

| |Other |

|Protocols |ISO 8073 |

| |ISO 8602 |

| |ISO 8473 |

| |ISO 9542 |

| |ISO 10747 |

| |ISO 10589 |

| |ISO 8802 SNDCF |

| |ISO 8208 SNDCF |

| |ISO 8208 Mobile SNDCF |

|Connectivity Information: ISO 8802-2 |

|Notes |

| |

C Coverage of validation Objectives by validation Exercise

The table below indicates how every validation objective is met. Details of validation exercices, exercice objectives and test is given further in this document.

|Validation Objective |Validation Exercice |Exercise Objective |Test Reference |

|AVO_4_101 |AVE_201 |EO_201_1 |N/A |

| | |EO_201_2 |N/A |

| |AVE_202 |EO_202_1 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_102 |AVE_201 |EO_201_1 |N/A |

| | |EO_201_2 |N/A |

| |AVE_202 |EO_202_1 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_201 |AVE_202 |EO_202_2 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_2 |

| | | |TE_202_3 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

| | |EO_202_3 |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_202 |None |None |None |

|AVO_4_203 |AVE_202 |EO_202_2 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_2 |

| | | |TE_202_3 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

| | |EO_202_3 |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_204 |None |None |None |

|AVO_4_205 |AVE_202 |EO_202_4 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_206 |AVE_202 |EO_202_5 |TE_202_1 |

| | |EO_202_6 |TE_202_2 |

|AVO_4_207 |AVE_202 |EO_202_4 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_208 |AVE_202 |EO_202_5 |TE_202_1 |

| | |EO_202_6 |TE_202_2 |

|AVO_4_301 |AVE_202 |EO_202_7 |TE_202_3 |

|AVO_4_302 |AVE_202 |EO_202_7 |TE_202_3 |

|AVO_4_401 |AVE_202 |EO_202_8 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

|AVO_4_402 |AVE_202 |EO_202_8 |TE_202_1 |

| | | |TE_202_4 |

From the table above, it appears that the test initiative has validated the IP SNDCF till the level D (one implementation validated by one state/organisation). Absence of a distinct implementation has not permitted to reach a higher level (hence, AVO_4_202 and AVO_4_204 are not yet covered).

D Validation Exercises performed by STNA

1. AVE 201 - Implementation exercise

1. Objective

The objectives of this exercise were:

1. To analyse the draft IP SNDCF technical provisions.

2. To develop high-level system requirements for implementation in a new component of the ProATN operational router.

2. Exercise specification

The exercise was performed by inspection and analysis of the draft IP SNDCF technical provisions. A set of system high-level requirements was produced. A high level design was then prepared according to the specification.

Through a series of design reviews, the high level design was verified to be a complete implementation of the specification. Nor missing nor ambiguous requirement has been identified.

3. Exercise result

The high-level design document and the ProATN operational router have been successfully updated. Confidence was thus gained that the specification was complete and could be implemented by a group of competent Software Engineers.

2. AVE_202 - Tests plan

1. Exercises objectives

The validation exercises has the following objectives:

1. Check the proper implementation of IP SNDCF requirements (especially priority mapping between CLNP and IP packets).

2. Check the capability of operating IDRP (establish maintain and release connection, transfer route over the connexion).

3. Check the use of IDRP routing policy (route selection, aggregation and reduction) and Rourteing Domain Confederation over an IP subnetworks.

4. Check the transfer of raw data at the network service level.

5. Check the transfer of raw data at the transport service level.

6. Check the transfer of real ATN application data (CM and CPDLC).

7. Check the impacts of subnetwork perturbations (datagram loss) on the ATN quality of service at the transport service level.

8. Check forwarding of NPDU according to their network priority and ATN trafic-type.

The same list of exercise objectives applies for IPv4 and IPv6 subnetwork. Hence, every test is performed twice (over IPv4 and over IPv6). Procedures and configurations used for this purpose only differ in the identification of the underlying subnetwork access.

2. Exercises configurations

1. Conventions

Systems in each topology have a unique name. The same names are used across several topologies when they correspond to similar system configurations on the same physical machine

Depending on the evaluation step, different physical and routing topology configurations are involved.

Graphical conventions are those used for ATN SARPS validation exercises. In summary:

|[pic] |Ground End System |

| |Ground BIS |

| |Combined Ground BIS + ES |

| |Adjacency supporting IDRP |

| |Adjacency supporting other protocols than IDRP (e.g. static or ESIS) |

| |Routing Domain or Routing Domain Confederation (depends on inclusion pattern) |

Figure 1: graphical conventions

2. Configuration CFG1

In this configuration, only two BIS are used. The used subnetwork between both BIS is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 subnetwork. Specific test commands may instruct the BIS to drop randomly some datagram at subnetwork level (drop-ratio is tunable).

An ethernet capture tool may be used to control the exchanged subnetwork datagrams characteristics.

Note 1 : Both systems operates as ES+BIS and provide access to the transport service through an XTI interface.

Note 2 : SN1 may also be implemented as an Ethernet type subnetwork (e.g. for comparing results obtained through IP with their equivalent on LAN).

Physical topology

[pic]

Figure 2: physical topology of CFG1

Logical topology

[pic]

Figure 3: logical topology of CFG1

3. Configuration CFG2

In this configuration, two BIS and two ES are used. Both ES are based on CHARME (an implementation of ES ATN communication and upper layers independent from ProATN product).

Some Interactive Testing Tools on ES 1 and ES 2 allow for the transmission of CM and CPDLC messages.

SN 1 subnetwork between both routers is either an IPv4 or IPv6 subnetwork. SN 2 and SN 3 subnetworks are Ethernet subnetworks. SN1, SN2 and SN3 are completely independent.

Physical topology

[pic]

Figure 4: physical topology of CFG2

Logical topology

[pic]

Figure 5: logical topology of CFG2

4. Configuration CFG3

This configuration implements the network architecture depicted in chapter ? of the Sub Volume 5 Guidance Material, but after transposing every X.25 subnetworks to an IP subnetwork.

Lack of hosting system for supporting this configuration has lead STNA to implement it in ‘emulated’ mode : this consist in running several independent instances of BIS on the same host. Hence, the objective of the configuration is met without requiring a large number of hosting systems.

For simplification purpose, this environment does not provide a transport level access. However it provide for generation and reception of datagram at the network service level (either regular CLNP DT or echo-request / reply).

Physical topology

[pic]

Figure 6: physical topology of CFG3

Logical topology

[pic]

Figure 7: logical topology of CFG3

3. Test catalogue

1. TE_202_1

|Configuration |CFG1 |

|Related objectives |EO_202_1 |

| |EO_202_2 |

| |EO_202_4 |

| |EO_202_5 |

| |EO_202_8 |

|Description |Test operations are performed in the following sequence: |

| |Start BIS1 and BIS2 with subnetwork access initially disabled. |

| |Start the Ethernet capture tool. |

| |Activate the IP subnetwork access. |

| |Activate the IDRP adjacency and check the connection establishment. |

| |Monitor the KEEPALIVE IPDU exchange. |

| |Exchange CLNP datagram with varying priority and ATN trafic-type (echo mode). |

| |Transfer a test file from BIS2 to BIS1 over the transport service. |

| |Simulate a ‘black-hole’ at the subnetwork level and wait until IDRP detects this event |

| |and close the connection. |

| |Stop BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |The same test is run seperately over an IPv4 and an IPv6 subnetwork. Is is also run with |

| |CLNP over Ethernet in order to compare impact of IP on performance. |

2. TE_202_2

|Configuration |CFG2 |

|Related objectives |EO_202_2 |

| |EO_202_6 |

|Description |Test operations are performed in the following sequence: |

| |Start ES1 and ES2. |

| |Start BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |Check IDRP connection establishment between BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |Check the ES-IS relationship between ES1 and BIS1. |

| |Check the ES-IS relationship between ES2 and BIS2. |

| |Generate a CM logon from ES1 (airborne side) and check a positive response is received |

| |(implies opening a transport connection, not maintened after the login exchange). |

| |Generate various CPDLC message and check corresponding response is received (including |

| |LACK). Both ground initiated and airborne initiated message are generated (implies |

| |opening a transport connection, maintened during the whole CPDLC activity). |

| |Abort the CPDLC connection (this breaks also the underlying transport connection). |

| |Stop BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |Stop ES1 and ES2. |

| |The same test is run seperately over an IPv4 and an IPv6 subnetwork. |

3. TE_202_3

|Configuration |CFG1 |

|Related objectives |EO_202_2 |

| |EO_202_7 |

|Description |Test operations are performed in the following sequence: |

| |Start BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |Check IDRP connection establishment between BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |Repeat step below with a datagram loss probability of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 %. |

| |Transfer a file between BIS2 and BIS1 and retrieve obtained throughput. |

| |Start BIS1 and BIS2. |

| |The same test is run seperately over an IPv4 and an IPv6 subnetwork. Is is also run with |

| |CLNP over Ethernet in order to compare impact of IP on obtained quality of service. |

4. TE_202_4

|Configuration |CFG3 |

|Related objectives |EO_202_1 |

| |EO_202_2 |

| |EO_202_3 |

| |EO_202_4 |

| |EO_202_8 |

|Description |Test operations are performed in the following sequence: |

| |Start all BIS instances. |

| |Check that all IDRP connexions are in ESTABLISHED state. |

| |Check that the inter-domain routes are setup according to the expectation (through |

| |display of IDRP RIBs as well as network layer FIBs). |

| |Perform a reachability test between every couple of BIS, using varying network priority |

| |and ATN trafic-type. |

| |Stop all BIS instances. |

| |The same test is run seperately over an IPv4 and an IPv6 subnetwork. |

4. Exercises configurations

Validation test documents of the ProATN operational router were successfully updated with 6 scenarios (manual or automated) dealing with 3 differents tests configurations.

Detailed traces were analysed to check the compliancy of the ProATN operational router with the IP SNDCF requirements.

All these tests have been passed in the ProATN tests environment. The table below indicates the main characteristics of the test systems used for this purpose.

|BIS1 |CFG1 and CFG2 |PC Linux – RedHat 7.2 / ProATN A/G BIS software |

|BIS1 |CFG1 and CFG2 |PC Linux – RedHat 7.2 / ProATN A/G BIS software |

|BIS2 |CFG1 and CFG2 |PC Linux – RedHat 7.2 / ProATN A/G BIS software |

|ES1 |CFG2 |DEC workstation – OSF1 4.0D / CHARME and OSIAMX ES |

|ES2 |CFG2 |DEC workstation – OSF1 4.0D / CHARME and OSIAMX ES |

|BIS1 to BIS10 |CFG3 |PC Linux – RedHat 7.2 / ProATN A/G BIS software |

5. Exercises result

The summary of the test reports is indicated in the table below:

|Exercice reference |Report name and location |Description |

|TE_202_1 |ip_val/bis2/testsend.ref |Trace messages issued by BIS2 during test |

| | |sequence. |

| |ip_val/bis2/testsend.trc |Messages displayed by the Ethernet capture |

| | |tool during tests sequence. |

| | |These files contain all messages generated |

| | |during tests over Ethernet, IPv4 and IPv6 |

| | |(tests are executed in this order). |

|TE_202_2 |ip_val/bis2/ip4_cm_cpdlc.ref |Trace messages issued by BIS2 during test |

| | |sequence over IPv4. |

|TE_202_2 |ip_val/bis2/ip6_cm_cpdlc.ref |Trace messages issued by BIS2 during test |

| | |sequence over IPv6. |

|TE_202_3 |ip_val/bis2/xferloss.ref |Trace messages issued by BIS2 during test |

| | |sequence. |

| |ip_val/bis2/xferloss.xls |Display graphically the obtained throughput |

| | |relative to the number of transport protocol |

| | |retransmission. |

| | |This file contains all messages generated |

| | |during tests over Ethernet, IPv4 and IPv6 |

| | |(tests are executed in this order). |

|TE_202_4 | |Result obtained during test over IPv4: |

| | |Display IDRP RIBs of all BIS instances. |

| |simupolicip4/showribs.ref |Display CLNP FIBs of all BIS instances. |

| | |Display reachability status at network level. |

| |simupolicip4/showroute.ref | |

| | | |

| |simupolicip4/testsend.ref | |

|TE_202_4 | |Result obtained during test over IPv6: |

| | |Display IDRP RIBs of all BIS instances. |

| |simupolicip6/showribs.ref |Display CLNP FIBs of all BIS instances. |

| | |Display reachability status at network level. |

| |simupolicip6/showroute.ref | |

| | | |

| |simupolicip6/testsend.ref | |

All tests were completed with a "PASS" result and led to an update of ProATN BIS validation tests documents. The exercises demonstrated that:

1. The implementation was able to established ATN communications between two systems over an IP subnetwork,

2. The IP SNDCF does not change the behaviour of the IDRP protocol,

3. The IP SNDCF does not change the level of quality of service as seen by the transport user.

4. The IP SNDCF does not disturb the general behaviour of the ProATN operational router.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download