1. NSIS Interoperability Meeting 12-13 October 2006 University of Coimbra Portugal

2. 2 09/11/2006 Summary Participants Implementations Tests Methodology Issues Conclusions

3. 3 09/11/2006 Participants University of Coimbra (UoC)  Luís Cordeiro  Luís Conceição (GIST)  David Palma (QoS NSLP & QSPEC)  Rui Vilão (NATFW NSLP)  Vitor Bernardo University of Göttingen (UoG)  Bernd Schloer (QoS NSLP)  Henning Peters (NATFW NSLP) University of Karlsruhe (UKA)  Roland Bless  Matthias Friedrich

4. 4 09/11/2006 Participants Roke  Alan Ford Ericsson  Ferenc Pintér  Attila Bader University of Twente  Rudd Klaver (remotely only) Total of 13 persons from 6 organizations

5. 5 09/11/2006 Implementations GIST  UoC v11  UoG v11  UKA v11  Roke v09  UoT v09 (remotely only) QoS NSLP  UoC v11  UoG v11  UKA v09  Ericsson v06 [using UoG GIST] NATFW  UoC v12  UoG v11  UKA v12

6. 6 09/11/2006 Tests done/scheduled GIST  Stateless mode  D-Mode Handshake  C-Mode Handshake (TCP)  C-Mode Handshake (SCTP)  C-Mode Handshake (TCP) with TLS/SSL  Timers  Error messages  Packages torture: Header MRI  State refresh  IPv6  Multiple flows in parallel in D-Mode  Multiple flows in parallel in C-Mode (with association reuse)  Multiple nodes (message interception) QoS NSLP  Create sessions  Update sessions  Remove sessions  Receiver initiated reservation  Query probe  Error cases  Multiple sessions in parallel  Multiple nodes  Packages torture NATFW NSLP  Create  Update  Remove  Trace  Error cases  Proxy mode  Lifetime maintenance  Asynchronous termination  Packages torture  Different subsets of these tests were done depending on the implementations interacting  The interacting team chose the tests to perform depending on their concerns A detailed list of tests and methodology MUST be made to the next interop

7. 7 09/11/2006 Important Issues GIST  Use of Stack-Configuration-Data and MA-Protocol- Options  MA-Hold-Time issues  GIST Hop count QoS NSLP:  Receiver initiated methods  Is notify required to acknowledge every refresh message?  All issues have been taken to the mailing list  Many spec clarification issues were taken directly to the author

8. 8 09/11/2006 Conclusions GIST  Several implementation issues were discovered and most of them solved on site  Not all features were tested Only back-to-back tests were made Few package torture were made  There are interoperable implementations  The spec is clear and "simple" enough to produce running and interoperable code. NSLPs  Several implementation issues were discovered and most of them solved on site  There are interoperable implementations  There are still some issues with the spec

9. 9 09/11/2006 Conclusions Interop meetings are very good to:  Fast testing  Fast debugging  Discuss implementation issues  Discuss specification unclear parts New interop is needed  Should have more days (3-4)  Have a very detail methodology and test sequence defined  All intervenient should have the same spec version implemented  Roland Bless offered University of Karlsruhe (Germany) to held the next interop  When?