Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to MEF Service Level Aggrement
Similar to MEF Service Level Aggrement (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
MEF Service Level Aggrement
- 3. Yoav Cohen Senior Standards Specialist, Nokia Siemens Networks [email_address]
- 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 ΄
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 28. More information is available from the following MEF web sites: www.metroethernetforum.org www.ethernetacademy.net
Editor's Notes
- 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