MEF Service Level Aggrement

6,453 views

Published on

MEF Service Level Aggrement

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,453
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,293
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Motivation for MEF 23 - to introduce and define specific “classes” or CoS that will receive a commitment for a particular level of performance for a set of Service Frames (e.g., those belonging to a particular application) from the Service Provider for further development of Carrier Ethernet services that are interoperable and predictably support subscriber applications. Solving the problem of Class of Service spanning two or more Service Providers requires: Common Class of Service lexicon between the service providers on either side of the standardized Ethernet interconnect MENs may implement different number of CoS Alignment of the respective Classes of Service at the ENNI
  • The Global Interconnect program is a key initiative for the MEF for the next several years. The Global Interconnect initiative is the third phase of developing the Carrier Ethernet suite. Phase 1 being Architecture and Definition, Phase 2 being Implementation and Certification. Operators have been establishing interconnects as needed in recent years, and the MEF goal is to bring standardization to the process – ultimately benefiting the enterprise customers with a consistent global service delivery. Key Initiative for the MEF for 2009-2011 MEF Global Interconnect Defined The interconnection of autonomous Carrier Ethernet networks to enable standardized and streamlined delivery of MEF-certified Carrier Ethernet services with end-to-end Class of Service, management and protection Strategic Opportunity for Broadband Service Providers Expand coverage Extend reach Broaden service offering Reduce costs “ Globalize our network”
  • PCP (8 values) – Priority Control Point – Ethernet DSCP (64 values) – Differentiated Services Control Point EVC/VLAN Tag ID – defines priority and not use PCP in 10.1 MEF spec FD = Frame Delay IFDV = Interconnect Frame Delay Variation FLR = Frame Delay Range MFD = Measured Frame Delay
  • 1 Full CoS Identifier includes EVC. Table specifies only the PCP or DSCP values to be used with EVC. EVC indication is not constrained by CoS IA. 2 The Color Yellow column values are N/A when DEI is used to represent Color at the E-NNI. 3 CBS, EBS, Color Mode and Coupling Flag BWP parameters are not addressed in this table. 4 EIR is not constrained though EIR=0 assumed since not specifying Color Yellow PCP and DSCP for CoS Label H. Relaxation of EIR constraint is for applications such as Mobile Backhaul (see Mobile Backhaul example use case in Appendix). 5 Both CIR and EIR = 0 is not allowed as this would result in no conformant Service Frames. Note: Separate rows for Point-to-Point and Multipoint for each CoS Label to allow for different Performance Objectives for each as denoted by the prime (΄). Multipoint also includes Rooted Multipoint as per [2]. Color Green – in contract Color yellow – out of contract Color Red – drop EF = Expedited Forward AF = Assured Forwarding PHB = Per hop behavior H = Realtime M = data L = best effort Color Aware = knowledge of the customer priority before it hit interface (don’t make it higher) Color Blind = no knowledge of customer priority Stag = MEF COS mandatory for ENNI; recommended for UNI
  • In addition to what is stated on the slide. Phase 2 Emerging areas: - Convergence on required Class of Service Performance Objectives (CPOs) - Creation of Performance Tiers (PT) - Added support for OVC cases (e.g., OVC services, UNI Tunnel Access) - Adding guidance for burst alignment (i.e., CBS) and shaping for ENNI case - Increased number of performance parameters
  • PT: Performance Tiers CPO: CoS Performance Objectives PT refers to a MEN, set of MENs or domain within a MEN, for which specific CPO set applies Different PTs provide different CPOs based on Network scope, e.g., Metro (250km), Regional (1200km), National (7000km), Global/Intercontinental (27500 km) Other constraints, e.g., wired vs. wireless connectivity Up to 4 PTs currently envisioned Guidelines for CPO aggregation from traversed PTs also provided in MEF23.1
  • “ Problem Statement” mentions 50Mbps, deeper dive to understand what 50Mbps service means In this case, 50Mbps Ethernet service delivered over a GigE physical interface 2 Customer premises (Building L, R) UNI: user network interface 2 service providers ENNI: external network to network interface
  • MEF Service Level Aggrement

    1. 3. Yoav Cohen Senior Standards Specialist, Nokia Siemens Networks [email_address]
    2. 4. Agenda <ul><li>Multi-provider Class of Service Implementation Agreement, Phase 1  (MEF 23) Overview </li></ul><ul><li>Delivering Ethernet end-end SLAs in interconnect environments </li></ul>
    3. 5. Class of Service Alignment - MEF 23 <ul><li>MEF 23 Phase 1 is published. MEF 23 Phase 2 is in development and emerging </li></ul><ul><li>Metro Ethernet Networks (MENs) may implement a different number of Classes of Service (CoS), and use different terminologies </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: Alignment of the respective Classes of Service at the ENNI </li></ul>Class of Service Class of Service End-to-end Class of Service Operator 1 Service Provider 1 Operator 2 Service Provider 2 Subscriber Subscriber Carrier Ethernet Network Carrier Ethernet Network Class of Service Alignment
    4. 6. MEF Global Interconnect Work <ul><li>Ethernet Services at the UNI (6.1) </li></ul><ul><li>EMS-NMS Information Model (MEF 7.1) </li></ul><ul><li>Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2 (10.2) </li></ul><ul><li>Carrier Ethernet Class of Service (MEF 23) </li></ul><ul><li>External Network Network Interface (MEF 26) </li></ul><ul><li>UNI Tunnel Access UTA (MEF 28) </li></ul><ul><li>Service OAM Fault Management (MEF 30/MEF 31) </li></ul>Interconnect Work Completed: <ul><li>CoS Phase 2/MEF 23.1 Cos Performance Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Ethernet Access Services Definitions </li></ul><ul><li>Service OAM Performance Management </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid NID Service </li></ul><ul><li>New Bandwidth Profile </li></ul><ul><li>Various enhancements service definitions </li></ul>Related Work in Progress:
    5. 7. Scope & Applicability <ul><li>Scope and applicability of the Class of Service Implementation Agreement (MEF 23): </li></ul><ul><li>both UNI and ENNI, </li></ul><ul><li>both Multipoint and Point-Point and </li></ul><ul><li>both single and multiple MENs </li></ul>UNI Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Application Point (recommended PCP/DSCP values, mandatory Performance Objectives) ENNI Carrier Ethernet CoS IA Application Point (mandatory PCP Values if 802.1ad and mandatory Performance Objectives) CE CE Multi-MEN Multipoint EVC Multipoint EVC Point-Point EVC MEN MEN MEN 2 MEN 1 UNI UNI CE CE CE CE UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI UNI Multi-MEN Point-Point EVC MEN 2 MEN 1 CE CE UNI UNI ENNI
    6. 8. MEF 23 in a Nutshell <ul><li>Carrier Ethernet CoS Implementation Agreement - Phase 1: </li></ul><ul><li>Specifies a 3 CoS Model and allows for subsets and extensions </li></ul><ul><li>Provides Guidance for interconnections of MENs implementing CoS models. Map subset of the 3 CoS Model. </li></ul><ul><li>PCP/DSCP values, as part of the CoS ID, are recommended for the UNI while PCP values are mandatory at the ENNI to facilitate interconnection. </li></ul><ul><li>ENNI CoS ID based on PCP values mandatory for ENNI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PCP/DSCP mandatory values are subset of the total value </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guidance on Bandwidth Profile constraints </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes consideration for frame disposition (i.e., “Color”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Performance Attributes based on FD, IFDV/FDV and FLR positioned as placeholders (point-point objectives defined in MEF CoS Phase 2) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantification in future phase (Phase 2 will add Mean FD and FD Range) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vary for Point to Point vs Multipoint EVC types </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Positions for future certification </li></ul></ul>
    7. 9. Three CoS Model - Framework Table 2: Three CoS Model Table CoS Label EVC Type FD FDV FLR Ingress UNI Band-width Profile Con-straints 3 PCP / PHB (DSCP) CoS and Color Identifiers 1 PCP / PHB (DSCP) CoS-only Identifiers 1 Example Applica-tions Color Green Color Yellow 2 w/DEI H Pt-Pt A FD A FDV A FLR CIR>0 EIR  0 4 CF=0 5 / EF (46) N/S in Phase 1 5 / EF (46) VoIP and Backhaul Control Multipt A FD ΄ A FDV ΄ A FLR ΄ M Pt-Pt B FD B FDV B FLR CIR>0 EIR  0 3 / AF31 (26) 2 / AF32 (28) or AF33 (30) 2-3 / AF31-33 (26, 28, 30) Near-Real-Time or Critical Data Apps Multipt B FD ΄ B FDV ΄ B FLR ΄ L Pt-Pt C FD C FDV C FLR CIR  0 EIR  0 5 1 / AF11 (10) 0 / AF12 (12), AF13 (14) or Default (0) 0-1 / AF11-13 (10, 12, 14) or Default (0) TBD in future Phase Multipt C FD ΄ C FDV ΄ C FLR ΄
    8. 10. Mapping the CoS Model at an ENNI <ul><li>Common CoS lexicon between the Service Providers on either side of the standardized Ethernet interconnect facilitates CoS alignment: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MENs are still free to implement a subset or superset of the CoS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MEF 23 specifies interoperability between MENs using up to 3 MEF CoS </li></ul></ul>* Each CoS Label associated with particular CPO Without MEF CoS IA: MENs requires bilateral agreements at each ENNI. Customers may not get consistent QoS treatment With MEF CoS IA: MENs remark frames on egress of an ENNI to align based on standardized MEF CoS indications. Other mappings are possible, e.g., CoS “Heart” mapping option to a MEF CoS or to a MEN specific CoS based on bilateral agreement. CoS Rock CoS Paper CoS Scissors CoS Plus CoS Square CoS Heart CoS Coal CoS Mapping? CoS Rock CoS Paper CoS Scissors CoS Plus CoS Square CoS Heart CoS Coal CoS Medium* CoS High* CoS Low* MEN 2 MEN 1 CE CE UNI UNI ENNI
    9. 11. Example: C-Tag PCP Mappings <ul><li>This is an example of full mappings of PCP at a UNI for multi-CoS EVCs that support all 3 MEF CoS and no additional CoS. </li></ul><ul><li>Mapping in which PCP value 5 is assumed to be handled by network devices as “EF” traffic. </li></ul><ul><li>This may be a common approach in handling low latency traffic based on a PCP marking – particularly when using (for instance) IP Routers. </li></ul>Example PCP Mapping for Multi-CoS EVC Supporting Only Standard Classes of Service at UNI – “Router-Application-Friendly” mapping MEF CoS Combination Supported on EVC PCP Mapping per Class of Service - Color Blind Mode H M L {H + M + L} 5 2-4, 6, 7 0, 1 {H + M} 5 0-4, 6, 7 N/A {H + L} 5 N/A 0-4, 6, 7 {M + L} N/A 2-7 0, 1
    10. 12. Delivering SLAs – overview <ul><li>Specify the service to be provided </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition of the service at the UNI (MEF 20) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key SLA aspects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth profile – MEF 10.2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Performance requirements – MEF 23 (CoS IA) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Construct end-to-end EVC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stitch together OVCs joining UNI to ENNI, ENNI to ENNI, ENNI to UNI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Map EVC attributes to OVC attributes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Turn up and monitor the new service </li></ul>
    11. 13. Bandwidth Profile Bandwidth Profile is a characterization of Ethernet frames – e.g., frames from a customer into a UNI <ul><li>Bandwidth Profile attributes: </li></ul><ul><li>Frame delivery obligated by the SLA </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Committed Information Rate (CIR) [bits per sec] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Committed Burst Size (CBS) [bytes] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Frame delivery based on available bandwidth (not subject to SLA) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Excess Information Rate (EIR) [bits per sec] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Excess Burst Size (EBS) [bytes] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Out of Profile frames policed, discarded </li></ul>
    12. 14. <ul><li>Note: frames are transmitted immediately if network is uncongested </li></ul>Bandwidth Profile Model
    13. 15. Class of Service Phase 2 (MEF 23.1) <ul><li>Add new performance attributes for Mean Delay and Delay Range introduced in MEF 10.2 </li></ul><ul><li>Recommend quantified CoS performance objectives and associated parameters for point to point EVCs and OVCs </li></ul><ul><li>Recommend Bandwidth profile parameter constraints </li></ul>MEN A MEN B MEN A OVC OVC EVC UNI UNI UNI UNI ENNI Quantitative Delay, Jitter, Loss objectives Quantitative Delay, Jitter, Loss objectives Quantitative Delay, Jitter, Loss objectives <ul><li>Letter Ballot target – Late 2011 </li></ul>DRAFT
    14. 16. Performance Tiers and CoS Performance Objectives <ul><li>4 Performance Tiers( PTs) contain sets of CoS Performance Objectives (CPOs). </li></ul><ul><li>A PT may be applied to an EVC or segments of an EVC, such as an OVC for point-to-point only in Phase 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Different PTs may provide different CPOs </li></ul><ul><li>Derivation of PT CPOs based on Metro (250km), Regional (1200km), Continental (7000km), Global/Intercontinental (27500 km) </li></ul><ul><li>A particular PT may be used based on criteria other than distance </li></ul>
    15. 17. Three CoS Model Using Frame Marking MEF 23.1 Table 4: Three CoS Model Table DRAFT DRAFT CoS Label CoS and Color Identifiers C-Tag PCP PHB (DSCP) S-Tag PCP Color Green Color Yellow Color Green Color Yellow 2 Color Green Color Yellow H 5 N/S in Phase 2 EF (46) N/S in Phase 2 5 N/S in Phase 2 M 3 2 AF31 (26) AF32 (28) or AF33 (30) 3 2 L 1 0 AF11 (10) AF12 (12), AF13 (14) or Default (0) 1 0
    16. 18. Notes for CoS Performance Objectives (CPOs) MEF 23.1 Tables 5, 6, 7: CoS Performance Metric Parameters DRAFT DRAFT Performance Attribute Parameter Name Class H Parameter Value for CPO Derivation Class M Parameter Value for CPO Derivation Class L Parameter Value for CPO Derivation Frame Delay (FD) Percentile (P)  99.9th  99th  95th Time Interval (T)  Month  Month  Month Mean Frame Delay (MFD) Time Interval (T)  Month  Month  Month Inter Frame Delay Variation (IFDV) Percentile (P)  99.9th  99th N/S Time Interval (T)  Month   Month N/S Pair Interval (Dt)  1sec  1sec N/S Frame Delay Range (FDR) Percentile (P y )  99.9th  99th N/S Time Interval (T)  Month  Month N/S Frame Loss Ratio (FLR) Time Interval (T)  Month  Month  Month Availability For future phase. For future phase. For future phase. For future phase.
    17. 19. Performance Tier 1 CPOs - Metro DRAFT MEF 23.1 Table 8: Performance Tier 1 (Metro) CoS Performance Objectives DRAFT Performance Attributes CoS Label H CoS Label M CoS Label L 1 Applicability Notes DELETE COLUMN BEFORE LB Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt FD (ms)  10 TBD  20 TBD  37 TBD At least one of either FD or MFD required MFD (ms)  7 TBD  13 TBD  28 TBD IFDV (ms)  3 TBD  8 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD At least one of either FDR or IFDV required No Objectives for L, optional for M FDR (ms)  TBD  10 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD FLR (ratio)  .01% i.e. 10 -4 TBD  .01% i.e. 10 -4 TBD  .1% i.e. 10 -3 TBD Availability TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD For future phase
    18. 20. Performance Tier 2 CPOs - Regional DRAFT MEF 23.1 Table 9: Performance Tier 2 (Regional) CoS Performance Objectives DRAFT Performance Attributes CoS Label H CoS Label M CoS Label L 1 Applicability Notes DELETE COLUMN BEFORE LB Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt FD (ms)  25 TBD  75 TBD  125 TBD At least one of either FD or MFD required MFD (ms)  18 TBD  30 TBD  50 TBD MBH Revision IFDV (ms)  8 TBD  40 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD At least one of either FDR or IFDV required Non-Specified Objectives for L, optional for M FDR (ms)  10 TBD  50 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD FLR (ratio)  .01% i.e., 10 -4 TBD  .01% i.e., 10 -4 TBD  .1% i.e., 10 -3 TBD MBH revision Availability TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD For future phase
    19. 21. Performance Tier 3 CPOs w/FLR Changes DRAFT DRAFT Change has no impact on application support in CoS IA spreadsheet Change has no impact on statistical constraints or application support New values in Red MEF 23.1 Table 10: Performance Tier 3 (Continental) CoS Performance Objectives Performance Attributes CoS Label H CoS Label M CoS Label L 1 Applicability Notes DELETE COLUMN BEFORE LB Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt FD (ms)  77 TBD  115 TBD  230 TBD At least one of either FD or MFD required MFD (ms)  70 TBD  80 TBD  125 TBD IFDV (ms)  10 TBD  40 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD At least one of either FDR or IFDV required Non-Specified Objectives for L, optional for M FDR (ms)  12 TBD  50 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD FLR (ratio) <ul><li>.01% i.e., 10 -4 </li></ul><ul><li>.025% i.e., 2.5x10 -4 </li></ul>TBD <ul><li>.01% i.e., 10 -4 </li></ul><ul><li>.025% i.e., 2.5x10 -4 </li></ul>TBD  .1% i.e., 10 -3 TBD H and M FLR relaxed by factor of 2.5 to differentiate from PT1 & 2 Availability TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD For future phase
    20. 22. Performance Tier 4 CPOs w/FLR Changes DRAFT Change has no impact on application support in CoS IA spreadsheet Change has no impact on statistical constraints or application support MEF 23.1 Table 11: Performance Tier 4 (Global) CoS Performance Objectives DRAFT Performance Attributes CoS Label H CoS Label M CoS Label L 1 Applicability Notes DELETE COLUMN BEFORE LB Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt Pt-Pt Multipt FD (ms)  230 TBD  250 TBD  390 TBD At least one of either FD or MFD required MFD (ms)  200 TBD  220 TBD  240 TBD IFDV (ms)  32 TBD  40 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD At least one of either FDR or IFDV required Non-Specified Objectives for L, optional for M FDR (ms)  40 TBD  50 or N/S 2 TBD N/S TBD FLR (ratio) <ul><li>.01% i.e., 10 -4 </li></ul><ul><li>.05% i.e., 5x10 -4 </li></ul>TBD <ul><li>.01% i.e., 10 -4 </li></ul><ul><li>.05% i.e., 5x10 -4 </li></ul>TBD  .1% i.e., 10 -3 TBD H and M FLR relaxed by factor of 5 to differentiate from other PTs Availability TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD For future phase
    21. 23. Benefits of CoS Alignment, Standardization <ul><li>Customers can easily receive the same service between all points in the world </li></ul><ul><li>Carriers can interconnect with other carriers automatically without engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Services can rapidly roll out worldwide </li></ul><ul><li>Service calls diminish when service performance is universally predictable </li></ul><ul><li>Carrier Ethernet applications are tuned to work better because the underlying service is better understood </li></ul>
    22. 24. Concatenating OVCs to deliver an EVC <ul><li>An Ethernet service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Example, 50 Mbps Ethernet service over a GigE interface </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth Profile </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance requirements: Frame Delay, Frame Delay Variation, Frame Loss Ratio, Availability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OVC inherits CPO from PT associated with the MEN </li></ul><ul><li>* All OVCs’ attributes must match EVC requirements </li></ul><ul><li>End Point Maps at the ENNI are used to connect the service </li></ul>ENNI UNI UNI MEN 2 (OOF operator) OVC2 MEN 1 (Service Provider) OVC1 50 Mbps over 1GigE Phy PT 1 PT 4 * Not specified by the MEF
    23. 25. Summary <ul><li>MEF CoS IA is a building block to Global Interconnect </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a common set of CoS the Operators can map frames into to facilitate interworking </li></ul><ul><li>Introduces and defines specific “classes” to achieve a commitment for a particular level of performance. </li></ul><ul><li>CoS Phase 2 adds performance objectives for the performance attributes defined in MEF 10.2 Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Carrier Ethernet services that are interoperable and predictable to support subscriber applications. </li></ul>
    24. 28. More information is available from the following MEF web sites: www.metroethernetforum.org www.ethernetacademy.net

    ×