10 fn s22

3,612 views
3,508 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,612
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
441
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

10 fn s22

  1. 1. Evolving Transport to Packet with MPLS-TP Luyuan Fang, Cisco Systems Nabil Bitar, Verizon Raymond Zhang, BT FutureNet 2010 May 12, 2010, Boston
  2. 2. Agenda Transport Moving toward Packet Drivers and Requirements MPLS-TP Technologies Overview MPLS-TP Use Case Scenarios Design Considerations Standards Development Status Conclusions 2
  3. 3. Transport Moving Toward Packet - Evolution Drivers - SONET/SDH TDM to Packet 3
  4. 4. Transport Evolution – Moving Toward Packets Drivers for moving from SONET/SDH TDM technologies to packet switching – Fast growing bandwidth demand - driven by new packet applications/services • IP Video: content downloading/streaming/sharing • Mobile data: e.g. smart phone applications • Triple play • IP and Ethernet VPNS – Network convergence and Technology refreshes • Consolidate networks onto common infrastructure • Replace aging legacy networks Transport moving from SONET/SDH TDM toward packet transport – Flexible data rates and statistical Multiplexing gains – Lower cost 4
  5. 5. Service Providers Transport Requirements Packet transport technology – Reliable and stable – Enables statistical multiplexing – Flexible data rates – High bandwidth – Lower cost of ownership Maintain current transport characteristics – Client-Server relationship: Transport domain is independent of client networks – Forwarding Paradigm: Connection-oriented – Transport OAM: In-band OAM – Resiliency: Fast detection and recovery time without c/p (<50ms) – Connection path determination and placement via 1) Network Management System (NMS) 2) Dynamic Control Plane – Tight SLAs: BW and QoS guarantees, and high availability 5
  6. 6. Why MPLS-TP for Packet Transport? MPLS-Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is aimed to address the NGN transport needs of high bandwidth packet switched networks and satisfy carriers’ requirements MPLS-TP provides in-band OAM, NMS-based provisioning and maintenance, control plane, deterministic path protection with fast recovery time, and lower total cost of ownership Leverages Service providers’ experience with MPLS Standardization: Joint work by IETF and ITU-T. – MPLS-TP protocols are developed in IETF • Existing MPLS data plane (no IP user plane) • Subset of MPLS, Pseudowire and GMPLS that satisfies transport needs and requirements • Extensions when needed ala OAM – Leverage the expertise in IETF and insure interoperability between MPLS-TP and existing MPLS technologies 6
  7. 7. MPLS-TP Fundamentals - What is MPLS-TP? - MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS 7
  8. 8. IP And Transport Converging Under MPLS MPLS-TP PW IP/MPLS MPLS-TP OAM PHP Path Protection MPLS Forwarding ECMP 50ms Switchover MPLS Forwarding MP2MP Alarm and monitoring IP Static Provisioning GMPLS Transport MPLS IP 8 8
  9. 9. MPLS-TP Concept NMS for Network *Can use dynamic control Management Control * plane Working LSP Client node PE PE Client node Protect LSP MPLS-TP LSP (Static or Dynamic) Pseudowire E2e and Section segment OAM Section Client Signal Connection Oriented, pre-configured working path and protect path Transport Tunnel 1:1 protection, switching triggered by in-band OAM Phase 1: NMS for static provisioning 9
  10. 10. What is MPLS-TP? Data Plane Control Plane – MPLS Forwarding – NMS provisioning option – Bidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs – GMPLS control plane option – No LSP merging – PW control plane option – PHP optional – PW (SS-PW, MS-PW) OAM Resilency – In-band OAM channel (GACH) – Sub-50ms protection switch over – Connectivity Check (CC): proactive (ext. BFD) without c/p – Connectivity verification (CV): reactive (ext. LSP – 1:1, 1+1, 1:N path protection Ping) – Linear protection – Alarm Suppression and Fault Indication with AIS – Ring protection (new tool), RDI (ext. BFD), and Client Fault Indication (CFI) – Performance monitoring, proactive and reactive (new tools) 10
  11. 11. MPLS-TP Architecture Emulated Service Pseudowire Native Service Native Service (Attachment (Attachment Circuit) Circuit) PW.Seg t1 PW.Seg t3 CE1 T-PE1 S-PE1 PW1 T-PE2 CE2 PW.Seg t2 PW.Seg t4 TP-LSP TP-LSP PW.Seg t1 PW.Seg t3 PW.Seg t2 PW.Seg t4 TP-LSP TP-LSP Basic construct of MPLS-TP: –MPLS LSPs for transportation (LSPs can be nested) –PWs for the client layer (SS-PW and MS-PW) –All other types of traffic are carried by PW as client layer 11
  12. 12. MPLS-TP NGN Packet Transport MPLS PWs (SS-PWs and MS-PWs): Provide circuit emulation for native L2 connections over an MPLS PSN LSPs: Provide for creating MPLS tunnels over an MPLS PSN that can carry PWs or other LSPs (nesting) Traffic-engineering capability (bandwidth guarantees) Rich and mature traffic protection mechanisms Rich control plane Routing: OSPF-TE/ISIS-TE Signaling: RSVP-TE with GMPLS extensions Provide for very flexible hierarchical tunneling better scale in core Further enhancements are in progress in IETF/ITU joint effort targeting OAM and protection schema data-plane fault detection and notification performance measurement no dependence on IP data plane 12
  13. 13. Deployment Scenarios 13
  14. 14. MPLS-TP Potential Deployment Scenarios IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP Access and Aggregation Use Cases Replacing TDM SONET/ATM network with MPLS-TP Mobile Backhaul Carrier Ethernet Aggregation Multi-service Support Transport 14
  15. 15. MPLS-TP in Aggregation and Access AAA DHCP,DN EMS NMS Service and Performance Mgmt Portal S OAM Subsystem ) Business Edge Multiservice Core oA Access Aggregation (C Corporat US e DI RA Residential Aggregation Node Distribution Node VoD TV SIP Ethernet STB BNG Content Network 2G/3G MPLS-TP MPLS-TP IP/MPLS Business Node e Corporat Aggregation Network Core Core Network Residential DSL Business PE STB Business PON Corporat e Residential Dark Fibre / CWDM / DWDM and ROADM STB Static or dynamic Static or Dynamic MPLS-TP MPLS-TP IP/MPLS 15
  16. 16. Deployment Scenario 1: Service Networks and MPLS-TP over OTN/DWDM Ethernet Services Attachment circuit (AC), LSP, or PW segment Network Island 3 PW, PW segment, or LSP MPLS transport (MPLS, MPLS-TP) LSP tunnel DWDM Ethernet Ethernet Service Networs Services Network Island 1 Island 2 MPLS-TP IP MPLS Network IP MPLS Network Domain Island 2 Island 1 UNI UNI Client Network Transport Server Network Client Network (e.g. Metro/Medium Haul. Long Haul) • MPLS-TP provides transport services (server) for many client networks •Ethernet services (native and Ethernet/MPLS) network: Inter-switch/router links, Ethernet tunnels transport •IP MPLS services network : Inter-outer IP links transport •Enterprises: Leased line replacement. Wireless backhaul is a special case • Islands of a client services network form a contiguous domain (e.g., IGP domain) •Client-transport network interface is a UNI 16
  17. 17. Deployment Scenario 2: MPLS-TP for Carrier Ethernet Aggregation/Access AAA DHCP,DN EMS NMS Service and Performance Mgmt Portal S OAM Subsystem ) Business Edge Multiservice Core oA Access Aggregation (C Corporat US e DI Aggregation Distribution RA Residential Node Node VoD TV SIP Ethernet STB BNG Content Network 2G/3G MPLS-TP MPLS-TP IP/MPLS Business Node e Corporat Aggregation Network Core Core Network Residential DSL Business PE STB Business PON Corporat e Residential Static or dynamic MPLS-TP Static or Dynamic MPLS IP/MPLS STB 17
  18. 18. Deployment Scenario 3: MPLS-TP for Mobile Backhaul IP/ATM/TDM Node B BSC / RNC MPLS-TP Circuit Network BTS IP/MPLS Core eNB Mobile Backhaul S- GW / P-GW MME Node B IP Using PW in MPLS-TP to support legacy TDM, ATM and IP transport Deterministic path provisioning Protection with fast restoration Backhaul performance monitoring Interoperability with IP/MPLS and in RAN Support 2G/3G/4G services 18
  19. 19. Deployment Scenario 4: Backhaul with MPLS-TP MS-PW for Security Consideration Existing Ethernet Existing Ethernet Provider Managed CPE Provider access termination access termination Managed CPE point point Dynamically signaled LSP & Statically or signaled Statically or signaled PW labels configured LSP & PW labels configured LSP & PW labels (LDP & T-LDP) BS E1 BS E1 PW Core PW E1 PW chSTM1 IM A/E1 ATM PW Core PW ATM PW STM1* BS Ethernet PW Core PW Ethernet PW Transport VLAN Ethernet Transport VLAN (Etherway) (Etherway) Ethernet PW segment over Ethernet Same as Ethernet services PW segment over Ethernet access VLAN(s) today access VLAN(s) Key: Transport UNI/presentation OSS/Static Control plane signaled Synchronization & Timing OAM *Could also be chSTM1 based on MOLO requirements 19
  20. 20. - Standards Development - Design considerations - Conclusions 20
  21. 21. IETF/ITU-T Consensus History – “For a number of years, the ITU-T has been designing a connection- oriented packet switched technology to be used in Transport Networks.” [RFC5317]1 – Issues: Breaking the MPLS Forwarding paradigm, Jeopardizing the value and functionality of the large-scale of deployed MPLS networks and associated equipment –“Development of T-MPLS was abandoned [RFC5317]1 by ITU-T Study Group 15 due to inherent conflicts with the IETF MPLS design and, in particular, with the Internet architecture. These conflicts arose due to the lack of coordination with the IETF as the design authority for MPLS.” [RFC 5704]2 T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP IETF/ITU-T Consensus - Joint Work on MPLS-TP - ITU-T provide transport requirements - IETF develop protocol definitions - Joint review of documents/specifications 1: [RFC 5317]: Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile, Feb. 2009. 2: [RFC 5704]: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful, Nov. 2009. 21
  22. 22. IETF Development Status IETF RFCs published RFC 5317: JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile RFC 5586: MPLS Generic Associated Channel RFC 5654: MPLS-TP Requirements RFC 5704: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful RFC 5718: An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile WG drafts draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-04.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-04.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-01 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-04.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-00.txt Open issued under work OAM: FM and PM related: involves BFD ext., certain aspect of Y.1731, MEP, MIP… Protection: especially Ring Protection – proposal convergence in progress 22
  23. 23. MPLS-TP IETF Status IETF RFCs published RFC 5317: JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile RFC 5586: MPLS Generic Associated Channel RFC 5654: MPLS-TP Requirements RFC 5704: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful RFC 5718: An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile The following is the latest update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010: WG Drafts (target date June 2010) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk In other working groups draft-ietf-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def 23
  24. 24. Draft targeted for Feb 2011 - IETF update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010 WG Drafts draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection Other working groups draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk 24
  25. 25. Draft targeted for Feb 2011 – II - IETF update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010 Individual Drafts draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay draft-zhl-mpls-tp-sd draft-fang-mpls-tp-security-framework draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions draft-dai-mpls-tp-lock-instruct draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback draft-he-mpls-tp-csf draft-flh-mpls-tp-oam-diagnostic-test draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework 25
  26. 26. General Design Considerations MPLS-TP vs. IP/MPLS Operational experience Transport requirements Standards compliance IETF standards are evolving, good progress T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP - it would not inter-op with MPLS Interoperability with IP/MPLS MS PW support static to dynamic PW interconnect End-to-end OAM – we are not there yet. Resilency – fast switch over sub 50ms switch over for liner and ring topology Event driven with AIS/LDI Scalability Number of LSPs and PWs supported BFD HW support Performance monitoring Delay / loss measurement 26
  27. 27. General Design Considerations MPLS-TP vs. IP/MPLS Operation experience Transport requirements Standards compliance IETF standards are evolving, good progress T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP Interoperability with IP/MPLS MS PW support static to dynamic PW interconnect End-to-end OAM Resilency – fast switch over Scalability 27
  28. 28. Conclusions Transport Evolution – toward Packet Transport New services driving BW growth Support IP, Ethernet, High BW, Statistical Multiplexing, low cost packet transport Moving away from SONET/SDH/ATM TDM technology to packet MPLS-TP satisfies transport requirements, key characteristics and needed interoperability with IP/MPLS Common with IP/MPLS/GMPLS: Forwarding, PW, GMPLS Enhanced OAM, Resiliency, Fast-switch over, NMS support Provide a path for IP and transport to converge over MPLS umbrella MPLS-TP Potential Use Case Examples Metro Ethernet aggregation and access Multi-service transport Mobile backhaul T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP IETF and ITU-U consensus to terminate T-MPLS IETF and ITU-T JWT joint effort developing MPLS-TP 28
  29. 29. Thank You 29

×