IPTV and Packet Optical Stream Examining the MEF’s Initiative to Establish Common Ethernet CoS Definitions   Bruno De Troc...
Agenda <ul><li>Introduction to MEF EVC and CoS </li></ul><ul><li>Issues with the current model </li></ul><ul><li>Common Co...
Carrier Ethernet Defined <ul><li>A set of certified network elements that connect to transport Carrier Ethernet services f...
The 5 Attributes Carrier Ethernet (4) <ul><li>Wide choice and granularity of bandwidth and quality of service options </li...
Service Parameters <ul><li>EVC Service Attributes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Details regarding the EVC including </li></ul></ul...
Carrier Ethernet Architecture (1) UNI CE Subscriber Site  Ethernet Services Layer Terminology Carrier Ethernet Network CE ...
Carrier Ethernet Architecture (2) Ethernet Services Layer Terminology Service Provider 1 Carrier Ethernet Network CE UNI M...
Common Classes of Service initiative <ul><li>MEF has started a Common Class of Service initiative to accelerate the adopti...
Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Phase 1 Attributes <ul><li>CoS ID and Color Indication at UNI and E-NNI:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UN...
Reference and Scope Diagrams UNI E-NNI UNI UNI UNI Multipoint EVC MEN 1 MEN 2 UNI Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Application Poin...
Reference and Scope Diagrams (2) Proposed CoS Motivational example reference diagram  CoS Rock CoS Paper CoS Scissors CoS ...
The importance of CoS on IPTV <ul><li>Nobody has footprint everywhere. The interconnection of Carrier Ethernet networks is...
Mission Critical Applications <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Softwar...
Status of the Initiative <ul><li>Common CoS definition initiative has been debated at MEF and the first Draft is approved ...
Summary <ul><li>This Implementation Agreement (IA) specifies a small common set of Classes of Service (CoS) that can be us...
Accelerating Worldwide Adoption of  Carrier-class Ethernet Networks and Services www. MetroEthernetForum .org
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

EthernetCoS-Bruno_De_Troch.ppt

262

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
262
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • So the way Carrier Ethernet has been defined, is the way traditional Ethernet was defined – by classifying attributes. And we define standardized services – initially point-to-point and multipoint-multipoint services for transparent private line, VPL &amp; LAN services, but we’re adding new service types like e-Tree too. These offer ubiquitous global &amp; local service via standardized equipment requiring no change to the customer’s LAN and existing connectivity. The services are ideal for converged voice, video &amp; data networks and offer choice and granularity of bandwidth &amp; QoS options. So the services you sell are well-defined, globally recognized standard services. The secondly attribute is reliability. Ethernet has traditionally been known as the best effort technology – not necessarily a bad thing, because the reason Ethernet became number one was because it was the cheapest good enough technology. But when it becomes carrier-class, you want to make sure there&apos;s a reliability component built in. Today’s Carrier Ethernet can detect &amp; recover rapidly from incidents, as low as 50ms recovery without impacting users. It meets the most demanding quality and availability needs for critical business applications. Next is the scalability. We want to make sure we&apos;ll be able to scale from a speed perspective – scalable, granular bandwidth from 1to 10Gbps and beyond. Carrier Ethernet spans access, metro, national &amp; global services over variety of infrastructures, service providers &amp; MSOs, so that millions can use a service that is ideal for widest range of business, communications &amp; entertainment applications with voice, video and data. Then comes Quality of Service, with as wide a choice and granularity of QoS options as of bandwidth options. The MEF has defined standards that allow Service Level Agreements (SLAs) matching the needs of voice, video &amp; data over converged business &amp; residential networks, because we set exacting standards for such characteristics as CIR, frame loss, delay &amp; delay variation. So the fifth one is service management. What we have defined is carrier class OAM, with the ability to monitor, diagnose &amp; centrally manage via standards-based vendor independent implementations. This means rapid service provisioning. Most of the service providers today are experiencing somewhere between 200% to 300% growth in the United States, as well as in Hong Kong. Carrier Ethernet’s service management facility helps them to maintain and accelerate their service provisioning to new customers as well as updating existing services.
  • EthernetCoS-Bruno_De_Troch.ppt

    1. 1. IPTV and Packet Optical Stream Examining the MEF’s Initiative to Establish Common Ethernet CoS Definitions Bruno De Troch – Juniper Networks [email_address] September 2008
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Introduction to MEF EVC and CoS </li></ul><ul><li>Issues with the current model </li></ul><ul><li>Common CoS Initiative </li></ul><ul><li>Application to IPTV </li></ul><ul><li>Status of the initiative </li></ul>
    3. 3. Carrier Ethernet Defined <ul><li>A set of certified network elements that connect to transport Carrier Ethernet services for all users, locally & worldwide </li></ul><ul><li>Carrier Ethernet services are carried over physical Ethernet networks and other legacy transport technologies </li></ul>Carrier Ethernet for Service Providers:
    4. 4. The 5 Attributes Carrier Ethernet (4) <ul><li>Wide choice and granularity of bandwidth and quality of service options </li></ul><ul><li>Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that deliver end-to-end performance matching the requirements for voice, video and data over converged business and residential networks </li></ul><ul><li>Provisioning via SLAs that provide end-to-end performance based on CIR, frame loss, delay and delay variation characteristics </li></ul>Attribute 4: Quality of Service
    5. 5. Service Parameters <ul><li>EVC Service Attributes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Details regarding the EVC including </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth profiles, QoS Assignment and Tagging options </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Latency, Delay Variation (Jitter), Frame-loss </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bandwidth Profiles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Committed Information Rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excess Information Rate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rate Enforcement - Shaping and Policing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Burst size (window) </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Carrier Ethernet Architecture (1) UNI CE Subscriber Site Ethernet Services Layer Terminology Carrier Ethernet Network CE UNI MEF certified Carrier Ethernet products Ethernet Services “Eth” Layer Subscriber Site ETH UNI-C ETH UNI-N ETH UNI-N ETH UNI-C UNI: User Network Interface, UNI-C: UNI-customer side, UNI-N network side NNI: Network to Network Interface, E-NNI: External NNI; I-NNI Internal NNI CE: Customer Equipment I-NNI CoS Mapping
    7. 7. Carrier Ethernet Architecture (2) Ethernet Services Layer Terminology Service Provider 1 Carrier Ethernet Network CE UNI MEF certified Carrier Ethernet products Ethernet Services “Eth” Layer Subscriber Site ETH UNI-C ETH UNI-N ETH UNI-N ETH E-NNI ETH UNI-C UNI: User Network Interface, UNI-C: UNI-customer side, UNI-N network side NNI: Network to Network Interface, E-NNI: External NNI; I-NNI Internal NNI CE: Customer Equipment UNI CE I-NNI E-NNI Service Provider 2 I-NNI ETH E-NNI Subscriber Site IMPORTANT NOTE This information is preliminary and is subject to change CoS Mapping
    8. 8. Common Classes of Service initiative <ul><li>MEF has started a Common Class of Service initiative to accelerate the adoption of Carrier Ethernet by minimizing confusion that will result from each Service Provider inventing their own CoS schemes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple schemes result in a multiplicity of diverse CoS definitions that don’t easily map to provide end to end CoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interconnect (via E-NNI) simplification </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Agree on 3 class common models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure key applications can be given sufficient forwarding performance end-to-end to meet application requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Table Definition: CoS, circuit type, bandwidth and performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Service Provider may well offer additional classes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Later phase goal: quantify performance objectives for the model </li></ul>IMPORTANT NOTE This information is preliminary and is subject to change
    9. 9. Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Phase 1 Attributes <ul><li>CoS ID and Color Indication at UNI and E-NNI: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UNI: EVC+PCP or EVC+DSCP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-NNI: EVC+PCP or EVC+PCP+DEI </li></ul></ul><ul><li>3 CoS Model: CoS Label High, Medium, Low </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Objective placeholders for Frame Delay, Frame Delay Variation and Frame Loss per CoS Label and per EVC Type </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Objectives will be mandatory when quantified </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PCP and DSCP values for CoS ID provided for MEF CoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mandatory at E-NNI & recommended at UNI </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional Service Provider defined CoS allowed (e.g., Mobile Backhaul Use Case with 4 th CoS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 of 8 PCP values not used in 3 CoS Model </li></ul></ul></ul>IMPORTANT NOTE This information is preliminary and is subject to change
    10. 10. Reference and Scope Diagrams UNI E-NNI UNI UNI UNI Multipoint EVC MEN 1 MEN 2 UNI Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Application Point (recommended PCP/DSCP values, mandatory Performance Objectives) UNI E-NNI UNI Point-Point EVC MEN 1 MEN 2 UNI MEN Point-Point EVC UNI Applicability to Multipoint and Point-Point for single and multiple UNI UNI MEN Multipoint EVC UNI E-NNI Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Application Point (mandatory PCP values if 802.1ad and mandatory Performance Objectives) CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
    11. 11. Reference and Scope Diagrams (2) Proposed CoS Motivational example reference diagram CoS Rock CoS Paper CoS Scissors CoS Plus CoS Square CoS Heart CoS Coal Mapping? With MEF CoS IA : For compliant EVC using MEF 3 CoS Model Operators remark frames on egress to the E-NNI to align with the MEF CoS. Other mappings are possible, e.g., CoS ‘Heart’ mapping options such as different MEF CoS, separate from MEF CoS per bilateral agreement or only used for single MEN. CoS Rock CoS Paper CoS Scissors CoS Plus CoS Square CoS Heart CoS Coal CoS Medium* CoS High* CoS Low* No MEF CoS IA : Mapping at E-NNI requires different bilateral agreements at each E-NNI. Customers may not get consistent CoS. * Each CoS Label associated with particular Performance Objectives (later phase), PCP values, DSCP values, BWP, etc. CE CE UNI E-NNI UNI MEN 1 MEN 2
    12. 12. The importance of CoS on IPTV <ul><li>Nobody has footprint everywhere. The interconnection of Carrier Ethernet networks is one of the last hurdles for ubiquitous Ethernet services. E-NNI initiative provides a common language for peering. </li></ul><ul><li>The Common CoS initiative provides a standard CoS mapping definition. </li></ul><ul><li>IPTV is a critical application with strict Bandwidth, Performance and CoS definitions for the Data and Control Plane </li></ul><ul><li>When using 3rd Party MEF certified CEN, the IPTV SP will have standard CoS mapping mechanisms to successfully deliver the service. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperability between SPs including CoS is guaranteed </li></ul></ul>Edge IPTV Head-end 3 rd Party Network IPTV Head-end Video Source Remote DSlam
    13. 13. Mission Critical Applications <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Scalability, </li></ul><ul><li>Reach, </li></ul><ul><li>Convergence demands on low latency, high performance networks </li></ul><ul><li>Video, Streaming Media </li></ul>Media <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Service Orientated Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access </li></ul><ul><li>Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Web Based applications </li></ul><ul><li>Flexible SLAs </li></ul><ul><li>TCO/ROI </li></ul>Government <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access </li></ul><ul><li>Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Increased demands of community partnerships using educational infrastructure, TCO/ROI critical </li></ul>Education <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Service Orientated Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access </li></ul><ul><li>Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Data Integrity via distributed, closely-controlled, simplified architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance, SOX, SEC, GLB, etc. </li></ul>Finance <ul><li>Site-to-Site Access </li></ul><ul><li>Server Consolidation </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Service Orientated Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Internet Access </li></ul><ul><li>Software as a Service </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory issues </li></ul><ul><li>Imaging driving storage </li></ul><ul><li>HIPAA compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Performance and scalability req. </li></ul><ul><li>TCO/ROI Critical </li></ul>Health Care Top Applications Application Profile
    14. 14. Status of the Initiative <ul><li>Common CoS definition initiative has been debated at MEF and the first Draft is approved </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approved project: 3Q07 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Straw ballots: 3 rd in progress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approved Drafts: 3 rd posted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planned Letter Ballot: 1Q09 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not heavily dependent on E-NNI spec </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The initiative is defined in multiple phases. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase One will provide a 3 CoS Model with performance objective placeholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subsequent phases will provide further details (quantification,…) </li></ul></ul>Approved Draft Approved Specification comments Letter Ballot New Project Straw Ballot Stable Document
    15. 15. Summary <ul><li>This Implementation Agreement (IA) specifies a small common set of Classes of Service (CoS) that can be used by Operators, Service Providers and their subscribers. </li></ul><ul><li>The common set of CoS will provide a subset of the CoS an Operator may provide. </li></ul><ul><li>The MEF CoS IA will facilitate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>service interoperability and consistency between Operators on an E-NNI, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a common CoS set for subscribers to utilize and support of key applications. </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Accelerating Worldwide Adoption of Carrier-class Ethernet Networks and Services www. MetroEthernetForum .org
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×