High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Network Element

Ogawa, Kensuke; Haleplidis, Evangelos; Salim, Jamal Hadi; Wang, Weiming

doi:10.17487/rfc7121

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ForCES architecture has been widely accepted by several academic research groups such as the University of Zhejiang Gongshang, the Institute of Communications Networks and Engineering in China, Ben Gurion University in Israel, and Stanford University among others, as can be seen in the documents [4], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. This because of that the components of a network element (NE), control elements (CE) in the plane of control and elements of forwarding (FE) in the data plane, are can it studied separately and individually (improving its functions and services), to then integrate it and to form a single flexible and scalable device.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and implementation of a prototype of the entity Control Element (CE) of the Architecture ForCES

Ramirez

Cordero

Lloret

et al. 2018

NPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the designed an implementation of a prototype with the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Architecture. That is to say, which allows each of the elements to be improved separately and then interconnected through the ForCES protocol, even in remote locations. The Control Element (CE) is the logical entity that is part of the control plane and is responsible for managing Forwarding Elements (FE) of the data plane. The ForCES architecture allows you to see these two elements (the CE and the FE through the ForCES protocol) as a single Network Element (NE), even if they are located in remote sites each. To demonstrate this principle, a network testbed scenario was implemented, based on two Local Area Networks (LAN). The LAN 1, for the CEs and the LAN 2 for the FEs, once communicated through the ForCES protocol, the different LFBs configurations of the ARP, SNMP, RIP protocols were used to demonstrate their operation.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and implementation of a prototype of the entity Control Element (CE) of the Architecture ForCES

Ramirez

Cordero

Lloret

et al. 2018

NPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A new CE could be booted and some FEs moved to it. To achieve this goal, the CE management application will first ask an FE to connect to a new CE and would then instruct that FE to change its master to the new CE as described in [RFC7121].…”

Section: Scalabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By doing a delete on this table, the CE instructs the FE to terminate any connection with that CE. How the FE interacts with the new CEs is dependent on the operations discussed in [RFC7121].…”

Section: Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Logical Functional Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management

Khasnabish¹,

Haleplidis²,

Salim³

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deployment experience has demonstrated the value of using the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) architecture to manage resources other than packet forwarding. In that spirit, the Forwarding Element Manager (FEM) is modeled by creating a Logical Functional Block (LFB) to represent its functionality. We refer to this LFB as the Subsidiary Mechanism (SM) LFB. A Control Element (CE) that controls a Forwarding Element's (FE) resources can also manage its configuration via the SM LFB. This document introduces the SM LFB class, an LFB class that specifies the configuration parameters of an FE. The configuration parameters include new LFB class loading and CE associations; they also provide manipulation of debug mechanisms along with a general purpose attribute definition to describe configuration information.

show abstract

“…This event condition is particularly useful when there is a need to monitor one or more states of an LFB or the FE. For example, in the Control Element High Availability (CEHA) document [RFC7121], it may be useful for the master CE to know which backup CEs have just become associated in order to connect to them and begin synchronizing the state of the FE. The master CE could always poll for such information, but getting such an event will speed up the process, and the event may be useful in other cases as well for monitoring state.…”

Section: Optional Access Types For Structsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Model Extension

Haleplidis¹

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This memo extends the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) model defined in RFC 5812 and updates that RFC to allow complex data types for metadata, optional default values for data types, and optional access types for structures. It also fixes an issue with Logical Functional Block (LFB) inheritance and introduces two new features: a new event condition called eventBecomesEqualTo and LFB properties. The changes introduced in this memo do not alter the protocol and retain backward compatibility with older LFB models.

show abstract

High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Network Element

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Design and implementation of a prototype of the entity Control Element (CE) of the Architecture ForCES

Design and implementation of a prototype of the entity Control Element (CE) of the Architecture ForCES

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Logical Functional Block (LFB) Subsidiary Management

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Model Extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About