540 likes | 556 Vues
Explore testing activities, scenarios, and configurations of CJK NGN Test-bed. Action plan includes objectives, work plan phases, and testing schedules for future testing stages.
E N D
2008. 4. 2 CJK NGN Test-bed Ad-hoc Group CJK NGN Test-bed Activities Phase I & II Testing Result
Topics • Terms of Reference • Testing Schedule • Testing Scenarios • Testing Items • Testing Network & Service Configurations • Testing Activities • Testing Results • Next Steps
TOR: NGN Test-bed Objectives • Interconnecting CJK NGN Test-beds and building a common NGN technology testing infrastructure • Feasibility testing prior to NGN commercial deployment • Interoperability testing for Standard-based NGN components developed by CJK • Providing NGN service development platform especially focusing on inter-country issues • Reflection of testing results into corresponding standardization activities periodically • Cooperation with other international NGN related testbeds and their activities such as MOONv6, Plugtests, GMI, etc.
TOR: Work Plan • Phase 1 (March 2005 ~ March 2006): Preparation Stage • Pick up the study items which include our target services for the evaluations on the test-bed • Check the participants who are interested in the studies again • Plan the schedule of the implementation and evaluation of the test-bed • Prepare the test-bed in each SDO • Establish each administration’s NOC for each SDO’s test-bed • Agree on first and second set of target services and components and test scenarios • Build test case suits for the agreed target services including a specific milestone • Phase II (April 2006 ~ December 2007): First Interoperability Testing Stage • Construct CJK NGN test-bed • common operation and management infrastructure • Test agreed first set of target services, especially focusing on transport functionality such as QoS, adimission control, traffic monitoring, etc. • Especially main interest is in inter-domain/inter-operator issues • Phase III (January 2008~ December 2010): Second Interoperability Testing Stage • Test agreed second set of target services, especially focusing on application/service functionality and its binding with transport functionality • Test other advanced NGN services yet to be defined NOTE: Phase III and later phases are being updated. Refer to Phases III and IV plans.
TOR: Action Plan for Phase I • Define Objectives of the CJK interoperability tests for NGN (4th Meeting) • Define Roadmap (4th Meeting) • Define Network Architecture (Physical, Transport and Service Topologies and underlying technologies (e.g., MPLS, etc.)) of the testbed both intra- and inter-domain scope (4th Meeting) • In Intra-domain case, each administration decides its own network (e.g., KOREN or APII in case of Korea) and enhances its functionalities to conform to NGN • Define Implementation Agreements for inter-domain connectivity (5th Meeting) • Define target services, target components, test scenarios and test case suits (5th Meeting) • Recruit participants for equipment and services at each testbed site (5th Meeting) • Establish a dedicated reflector for detailed discussion
Testing Schedule • Phase I: 2006 3rd/4th Quarter • Network Connectivity • Senario1 only (Feb. 26 ~ Mar. 2) • Conducted by CATR and ETRI • First Report/Demo during 9th CJK NGN Meeting (April 2007) • Phase II: 2007 1st/2nd Quarter • Scenario 2 ~ 5 (Feb. 26 ~ Mar. 2) • Conducted by CATR and ETRI • Second Report/Demo during 9th CJK NGN Meeting (April 2007) • Phase III: 2007 4th ~ 2010 1st/2nd Quarter • Scenario 6 ~ 7 • Testing details will further be defined depending on the technology availability status • CATR, KDDI, NTT, and ETRI will participate in the testing • Third Report/Demo 13th CJK NGN Meeting NOTE: Phase III and later phases are being updated. Refer to Phases III and IV plans.
Test Scenarios • Scenario 1: Single Call Server within a single NGN Network Domain without PSTN • Scenario 2: Call Servers across multiple IP Network Domains without PSTN • Scenario 3: Single Call Server within a single NGN Network Domain with PSTN • Scenario 4: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with PSTN • Scenario 5: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with PSTN & Value Added Services • This scenario adds Value Added Services to scenario 4 using Media Servers and Application Servers • Scenario 6: Performance Evaluation • Scenario 7: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with PSTN, Value Added Services and RACF Involvement
Scenario 1: Single Call Server within a single IP Network Domain without PSTN IP Network Domain Call Server SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP(-I),H.323 AG SG SG AG Enterprise Access Enterprise Access Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 1 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Access Gateway – Access Gateway • SIP phone – Access Gateway • SIP phone – SIP phone • Subscriber Gateway – Access Gateway • Subscriber Gateway – SIP phone • Subscriber Gateway – Subscriber Gateway • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Scenario 2: Call Servers across multiple IP Network Domains without PSTN IP Network Domain 1 IP Network Domain 2 Call Server 2 Call Server 1 SIP-I SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP(-I),H.323 Enterprise Access Enterprise Access SG AG AG Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 2 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Same cases with scenario 1 • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • SIP-I • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Scenario 3: Single Call Server within a single NGN Network Domain with PSTN IP Network Domain SG PSTN Sigtran(SCTP/M3UA) Call Server MGCP H.248/Megaco Class4/5 SW TG SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP(-I),H.323 Enterprise Access Enterprise Access SG SG AG AG Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 3 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Same cases with scenario 1 • Access Gateway – Class4/5 SW • Subscriber Gateway – Class4/5 SW • SIP Phone – Class4/5 SW • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • SIGTRAN • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Scenario 4: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with PSTN IP Network Domain 1 Class4/5 SW IP Network Domain 2 SG SG PSTN TG Call Server 2 Call Server 1 TG SIP-I SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP(-I),H.323 SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* Enterprise Access Enterprise Access SG SG AG AG Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 4 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Same cases with scenario 1 • Access Gateway – Class4/5 SW • Subscriber Gateway – Class4/5 SW • SIP Phone – Class4/5 SW • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • SIP-I • SIGTRAN • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Scenario 5: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with Value Added Services & PSTN Back-End Servers Back-End Servers MS MS SIP Application Server SIP Application Server Class4/5 SW Diameter RADIUS Proprietary SIP MGCP H.248/Megaco Diameter RADIUS Proprietary SIP MGCP H.248/Megaco SG SG SIP(-) SIP(-I) PSTN TG TG IP Network Domain 1 IP Network Domain 2 Call Server 2 Call Server 1 SIP-I SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 Enterprise Access Enterprise Access SG SG AG AG Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 5 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Same cases with scenario 1 • Access Gateway – Class4/5 SW • Subscriber Gateway – Class4/5 SW • SIP Phone – Class4/5 SW • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • SIP-I • SIGTRAN • Application Servers Feature Testing • SIP Application Server Features: IP conferencing, Voice mail, etc. • Media Server Features: Generic conference bridge, Voice mail media processing, etc. • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Scenario 6 – Performance Evaluation • Network Performance Testing cases • E2E Call Setup Delay • Call Completion Rate • Each Segment & E2E IPTD/IPDV/IPLR/Path unavailability • Call Traffic Accounting • Harmonization Testing ofService QoS class differences among CJK • User Terminal Performance Testing cases • Various User Terminal Performance Testing
Scenario 7: Call Servers across multiple NGN Network Domains with Value Added Services, PSTN, and RACF Involvement Back-End Servers Back-End Servers MS MS SIP Application Server SIP Application Server Class4/5 SW Diameter RADIUS Proprietary SIP MGCP H.248/Megaco Diameter RADIUS Proprietary SIP MGCP H.248/Megaco SG SG SIP(-I) SIP(-I) PSTN TG IP Network Domain 2 TG IP Network Domain 1 Call Server 2 Call Server 1 SIP-I RACF RACF SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 SIP H.323 MGCP H.248/Megaco* SIP(-I),H.323 Enterprise Access Enterprise Access SG SG AG AG Residential Access Residential Access Country 1 Country 2
Scenario 7 - Testing Cases • Basic Call with the following combinations • Same cases with scenario 7 • SIP phone – RACF • Access Gateway – RACF • Subscriber Gateway – RACF • Application Server - RACF • Protocols to test • SIP • H.323 • MGCP • H.248/Megaco • SIP-I • SIGTRAN • Rq • Application Servers Feature Testing • SIP Application Server Features: IP conferencing, Voice mail, etc. • Media Server Features: Generic conference bridge, Voice mail media processing, etc. • RACF Feature Testing • Resource Admission Control Performance • NAT/Gate Control Performance • Testing Residential & Business Features • Call Transfer, Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Calling Numbering and Name Delivery, Three-party conference • Centrex, Private numbering plan, DDI/DDO
Testing Item Description Ex. 1 EXPECTED SIGNAL SEQUENCE:: Call-setup flow: • SIP user1 sends an INVITE to SS1 to setup a session,SS1 responses 100 Trying.SS1 forwards the INVITE request to SS2. • SS2 sends an Add request to creat a new context in AG .AG sends back a Reply message with the RTP port and the stream descriptor. • SS2 sends an Modify to AG ,AG sends the ringtone to user2 and monitors user2 hook-off. • SS2 sends a 180Ringing response to SS1,SS1 forwards this message to SS2. • User2 answers the call ,AG sends a Notify to SS2 and SS2 sends back a Reply. • SS2 sends a 200 OK response to SS1 and SS1 forwards to user1. • User1 sends back ACK . • SS2 sends AG a Modify command to stop ringtone and monitor user2 hook-on.
Testing Item Description Ex. 1 Call-release flow: • Caller releases the call, user1 sends a BYE to SS1,and SS1 sends BYE to SS2. • SS2 sends a Modify command to AG to send a busy tone to user2. • SS2 sends a 200 OK response to SS1.SS1 sends 200 ok to user1. • User2 hungs up,and AG sends Notify to AG,then SS2 sends Subtract(TDM)+Subtract(RTP)to AG to delete the context. • SS2 sends Modify to AG to monitor hook-oof.
Testing Item Description Ex. 2 EXPECTED SIGNAL SEQUENCE:: • SIP user1 sends INVITE to SS1 to setup a session,SS1 responses 100 Trying.SS1 forwards the INVITE request to SS2. • SS2 knows that the called party is busy now,then SS2 sends a 486 response to SS1. • SS1 forwards the 486 to user1.
Testing Item Description Ex. 3 EXPECTED SIGNAL SEQUENCE:: (1) SIP user1 sends an INVITE request to SS1 to setup a session,SS1 responses 100 Trying.SS1 forwards the INVITE request to SS2 then to user2. (6) SIP user1 rings .User 2 sends a 180Ringing response to SS2,SS2 forwards this message to SS1 then to user1. (9)User2 answers the call ,User 2 sends a 200 OK response to SS2 then to User1. (10)User1 sends ACK back. User1 and user2 setups a multimedia session.
CATR’s CS Lab Configuration SCP SoftX3000 SIP IOSS U - NICA FTP/FTAM SIP/MGCP /H.248/H.323 SIP SIGTRAN Lanswitch INAP USAU SIGTRAN MGCP MRS6100 STP ISUP IP Network SG7000 ISUP SNMP STUN UMSN2000 FE PSTN Eudemon E1 Lanswitch Lanswitch H.248 H.323 MGCP SIP UMG 8900+UA5000 POTS / BRI/ADSL POTS / BRI/ADSL … OpenEye VedioPhone SoftPhone IAD
Signaling Link Bearer Link ETRI’s CS Lab Network Configuration Japan CERNET 155M POS Internet Border Router 2G Ethernet Support Facility GBE Management/ Monitoring System, GW, SIP phones, … GBE, 100BT, 10BT Meeting Room 100BT SBC 100BT(VLAN) L2 Switch 100BT 100BT 100BT 100BT 100BT AS/MS CS SG/TG RACF Packet Monitor E1 TDM 100BT PSTN Network
TestingServices, Venders & Terminals • Interworking services: • voice and video • Interworking venders: • CATR (Huawei) and ETRI (Xener) • Interworking terminals: • ETRI SIP phone and CATR SIP, MGCP IAD and PSTN terminal(H.248 TG) • 25 test items
Testing Processes and Schedules • Started at Sept.25, 2006 • Four Phases • Network connection: Sept.25-30, 2006 • Data configuration: Jan.30-Feb.1, 2007 • Test: Feb.26-March 2 • Test: March 5-9
Testing Result Examples • The following several testing result examples provide a few failed cases and successful cases • Ethereal was used to capture the SIP messages exchanged in each Call Server site • The failures were fixed during the testing process • The failures were two kinds: intentional (i.e., abnormal) and non-intentional • The former were used to check the correctness of the system behavior. For example, a call attempt was used to non-existing callee • The latter were mainly for the message format mismatches and/or IP address misuses
Failed Testing Example 1 • This example shows the receiving Call Server doesn’t understand the SIP Invite request message
Failed Testing Example 2 • This example shows call attempt to non-existing callee
Lessons Learned from Testing • First successful interconnection of CK NGN Test-beds and build of a common NGN technology testing infrastructure • Successful interoperability testing for CJK-driven ITU-T Standard-based NGN components and services (i.e., call server) • Provided NGN service development platform especially focusing on inter-country issues • First attempt to bridge the standard and implementation by the reflection of testing results into corresponding standardization activities • Stimulation of further test-bed activities, for example, RTP/RTCP-based Performance Measurement testing
Next Steps NOTE: Information here is at April 2008. Further updates will be made.