Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Architectural Options for Metro Carrier-Ethernet Network Buildout: Analysis & Evaluation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Architectural Options for Metro Carrier-Ethernet Network Buildout: Analysis & Evaluation

1,166
views

Published on

This workshop is one of the first that we're aware of to give a detailed taxonomy & analysis of deployment options for Carrier Ethernet-based metro/access networks, in one place. 

We elaborate each …

This workshop is one of the first that we're aware of to give a detailed taxonomy & analysis of deployment options for Carrier Ethernet-based metro/access networks, in one place. 

We elaborate each option addressing questions like: network architectures possible? Is other supporting technology needed? Or, is it standalone for the applications/services a provider might run, and so on.

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,166
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
143
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Metanoia, Inc.Critical Systems Thinking™ Architectural Options for Metro Carrier-Ethernet Network Buildout: Analysis and Evaluation Metanoia, Inc. Email: experts@metanoia-inc.com Web: http://www.metanoia-inc.com Phone: +1-888-641-0082 © Copyright 2009 Fax: +1-888-641-0086 All Rights Reserved
  • 2. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Parallel  Overlay  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-2
  • 3. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Parallel  Overlay  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul (presented in detail later) Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-3
  • 4. Metanoia, Inc. Building Carrier Ethernet Networks Critical Systems Thinking™ Architectural Choices Carrier Ethernet Network Architectural ChoicesParallel Overlay Uniform MobileNetworks Networks Networks Backhaul IP/MPLS + Ethernet in parallel, spanning same Ethernet only in Ethernet over IP /MPLS Ethernet -based geographic area access/metro/core Ethernet à L2 services IP/MPLS à L3 services IP/MPLS over Ethernet IP/MPLS only in access/metro/core IP/MPLS-based  Three basic options to architect a carrier Ethernet network  Parallel, Overlay, Uniform  Mobile Backhaul – specially designed for wireless data and mobile voice traffic  Hybrids – numerous options, based on operator network status and technology availability, discussed extensively later in this module ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-4
  • 5. Metanoia, Inc.Our Analysis Approach For Each Critical Systems Thinking™Basic Architectural Option Network Architecture  Overall architecture/layout of the network Logical Structure  How the devices are logically connected at the service layer Physical Realization (of the logical structure)  What constructs are used at the transport layer (not PHY transport, rather the Carrier Ethernet transport) to realize the logical structure Protocol Stack  How tunnelling/interworking occurs in different segments of the network ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-5
  • 6. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Parallel  Overlay  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul (presented in detail later) Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-6
  • 7. Metanoia, Inc.Applicability of Key Technologies: Critical Systems Thinking™Assessment of Suitability Reference is to different network segments within the metro network itself  Metro Access (referred to in this workshop as “access”)  Metro Aggregation (referred to in this workshop as “metro”)  Metro Core (referred to in this workshop as “core”) “Eyeball” assessment of which technology is suitable for which particular segment Ratings Scale based on inherent properties of technology     Optimally suited – excellent fit/match for segment    Moderately suited – reasonable fit/match for segment   Minimally suited – could be used, but would not be effective   Not suited – Not recommended for this segment (either incapable or overkill for the segment) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-7
  • 8. Metanoia, Inc. Applicability of Key Technologies: Critical Systems Thinking™ A Comparative Rating Metro Access Metro Aggregation Metro Core Q-in-Q    Connectionless 802.1ad (PB) Good with small # flows Scalability strained w/ Unscalable (due to SPT, (few hundreds) large # flows (thousands) flooding, convergence) MAC-in-MAC    802.1ah (PBB) Suitable for access, but Unstable and unscalable Ideally scaled for agg. likely overkill (SPT/flooding, mgt.) 802.1 Qay    (PBB-TE) and Waste, as config./mgt. Useable, gives TE and TE/ manageability help PVT overhead not worth it manageability long-lived paths, QoSConnection-    Oriented IP/MPLS Mature tech., suitable, but Signaling, automatic CP Long indstry experience, needs configuration simplify confi. significant best practices T-MPLS/    MPLS-TP Suitable, but config. Controllability, similarity Better manageability of overhead significant to SDH/SONET, resilience aggregated traffic The above assessment/rating is based on the inherent properties/capabilities of each technology (and not its maturity, availability, and standardization status, which are examined in Module 3) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-8
  • 9. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Parallel  Overlay  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul (presented in detail later) Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-9
  • 10. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Parallel Networks: Network Architecture Two isolated networks (ships-in-the-night)  Different fibers, lambdas, or SDH/SONET channels Separate systems (for Ethernet and IP/MPLS) or independent cards in the same system IP/MPLS network can be:  p2p, mp2mp Ethernet network can be PB, PBB, PBB-TE based, and be:  p2p, mp2mp, p2mp ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-10
  • 11. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Why Parallel Networks?If majority of metro services are ... Ethernet  IP/MPLS connections handled by backhauling them from spoke(s) to metro hub, where IP routing is done  IP routing capability not needed in spoke COs IP or IP/MPLS  Mesh IP/MPLS routers by co-locating with Ethernet switches in all or some CO/POPs ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-11
  • 12. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Why Parallel Networks? Useful when the provider L2 (Ethernet) and L3 (IP/MPLS) networks have  Shared POPs/Cos  MSPPs with both IP/MPLS and Ethernet capabilities Applicable for operators that wish for both technologies to co-exist with service aggregation ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-12
  • 13. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Parallel Networks: Network Layout IP/MPLS Co-located IP/MPLS Linecard Router & Ethernet IP/MPLS Switch IP/MPLS Router IP/MPLS or T-MPLS or MPLS-TP Network Ethernet Hybrid system with two types of line cards Ethernet Linecard Ethernet Switch PB, PBB, PBB-TE Network ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-13
  • 14. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Parallel Networks: Logical Structure IP/MPLS Co-located IP/MPLS Linecard Logical IP /MPLS Router & Ethernet Link SwitchIP/MPLS Router Logical IP /MPLS Link Hybrid system with two types of line cards Logical Ethernet Linecard Ethernet LinkEthernet Switch Ethernet Switch Logical Ethernet Link ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-14
  • 15. Metanoia, Inc. Parallel Networks: Critical Systems Thinking™ IP/MPLS Network Realization Bi-directional Logical Mesh logical links IP/MPLS Layer (a) Logical MPLS Network L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L3 mp2p LSPs Physical links can have Ethernet or SONET /SDH framing L2(b) LSP Realization of Logical Network L1 L5 p2p LSPs L4 ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-15
  • 16. Metanoia, Inc. Parallel Networks: Critical Systems Thinking™ Ethernet Network Realization Logical Mesh at Logical links Ethernet Layer (a) Logical Ethernet Network(b) E-Line Realization of Logical Network E-Line (Realization via Ethernet entities) Physical links with Ethernet framing ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-16
  • 17. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Parallel Networks: Protocol Stack In parallel networks, the protocol stack is trivial, since each network is fully independent of the other For Ethernet it is: Ethernet Header Varies depending on whether the Ethernet Payload network is PB, PBB, or PBB-TE-based For IP/MPLS it is: LSP-Label May vary if further nesting of LSPs is used VC-Label IP Header Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-17
  • 18. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Parallel Networks: AssessmentPros Cons Flexible  Higher CapEX relative to uniform  IP/Ethernet networks/services can network grow independently  Need 2x fibers, lambdas, or Fault isolation SDH/SONET channels  Faults in one n/w, do not affect  More systems, cabling; thus, service in the other CO/POP space & power  Different mgt. s/w – one for each Service independence network: IP, Ethernet  L2 svcs. not affected by L3 svcs.  Greater OpEX and visa-versa  More vendors, maintenance  Greater number of s/w and mgt. tools Good choice if a provider has either an Ethernet- or IP/MPLS-dominant network, and wishes to expand into the other incrementally ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-18
  • 19. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Networks: IP/MPLS over Ethernet Metro is built using Ethernet switches  PB, or PBB, or PBB-TE capable Requires transport network  SDH/SONET, lambda’s or fiber to interconnect switches Ethernet layer is transmission network  Interconnects IP/MPLS routers – using p2p, mp2mp, p2mp constructs Ethernet network is oblivious to IP/MPLS layer IP/MPLS routers (U-PE, N-PE, PE) connected in logical mesh or hub-and-spoke, or some mix of two ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-19
  • 20. Metanoia, Inc.Why Overlay Networks with Critical Systems Thinking™IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet?If majority of metro services are ... Ethernet  IP/MPLS connections handled by backhauling them from spoke(s) to metro hub, where IP routing is done  IP routing capability not needed in spoke COs IP or IP/MPLS  Mesh IP/MPLS routers by co-locating with Ethernet switches in all or some CO/POPs ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-20
  • 21. Metanoia, Inc.IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Network Layout Co-Located Systems IP/MPLS Single IP/Ethernet Platform Ethernet PB, PBB, or PBB-TE Ethernet Network CE Customer Co-Located Edge Device Systems ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved M1-21 CE Operator Best Practices
  • 22. Metanoia, Inc.IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Logical Structure Logical Links Single IP/Ethernet Platform PB, PBB, or PBB-TE Network Logical Mesh ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-22
  • 23. Metanoia, Inc. IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet Critical Systems Thinking™ Overlay Network: Realization via E-Line p2p E-Line service (offered by underlying Ethernet network)Single IP/Ethernet Platform  The “transmission network” here is the Logical Links Ethernet network  Logical network is thus realized using this network’s entities: E-lines ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-23
  • 24. Metanoia, Inc.IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Realization via E-LANSingle IP/Ethernet Platform mp2mp Ethernet (E-LAN)  The “transmission network” here is the Ethernet network  Logical network is thus realized using this network’s entities: E-LAN ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-24
  • 25. Metanoia, Inc. IP/MPLS-over-Ethernet Critical Systems Thinking™ Overlay Network: Protocol Stack CE IP/MPLS Co-located Systems IP/MPLS Combined IP/ Ethernet Switch IP Service IP Service Ethernet CE Ethernet Svc CE Ethernet Svc Ethernet Network IP Service or PB/PBB PB/PBB PB/PBB PBB-TE PBB-TE PBB-TEIP/MPLS Service MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet IP IP IP IP IP IP IP Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload PB/PBB PB/PBB PB/PBB Ethernet Service PBB-TE PBB-TE PBB-TE Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-25
  • 26. Metanoia, Inc.Overlay Networks IP/MPLS-over Critical Systems Thinking™-Ethernet: AssessmentPros Cons Lower CapEX relative to Parallel n/wks  Lower flexibility relative to Parallel  Potentially fewer systems (need only network one set for underlying txn. network –  IP/MPLS & Ethernet networks coupled here Ethernet)  Cannot grow independently  Less fiber – due to common transport  Resilience issues  Simpler mgt – due to fewer systems, and hybrid systems (IP+Ethernet)  Faults in Ethernet network may affect IP/MPLS service Lower OpEx  Potentially, one vendor  Single s/w and mgt. tools  Single dept. to manage network Good choice if a provider has primarily an Ethernet infrastructure, and wishes to expand into IP/MPLS services ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-26
  • 27. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Networks: Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Metro is built using IP/MPLS devices  p2p, mp2mp IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP/T-MPLS network or any mix Requires one transport network  SDH/SONET, lambda’s or fiber to interconnect IP/MPLS routers MPLS layer is transmission network  Interconnects Ethernet switches – using p2p (VPWS) or mp2mp (VPLS) constructs VPWS interconnection à  MPLS network provides a transparent tunnel (network interworking) VPLS interconnection à  MPLS network participates in Ethernet switching via VSI (service interworking) Ethernet switches connected as logical mesh or hub-and-spoke or mesh-star topology ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-27
  • 28. Metanoia, Inc.Why Overlay Networks with Critical Systems Thinking™Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS?If majority of metro services are ... IP/MPLS  Ethernet connections are backhauled to metro hub, where Ethernet switching is done  Ethernet switching capability not needed in spoke COs/PoPs Ethernet  Mesh Ethernet switches by co-locating with IP/MPLS routers in all or some CO/POPs ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-28
  • 29. Metanoia, Inc.Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Network Layout Co-Located Systems Ethernet Single IP/Ethernet Platform IP/MPLS IP/MPLS or T-MPLS or MPLS-TP Network IP SVC Customer Edge Co-Located CE Device Systems Ethernet SVC ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-29 CE
  • 30. Metanoia, Inc.Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Logical Structure Logical Links Single IP/Ethernet Platform IP/MPLS or T-MPLS or MPLS-TP Network Logical Mesh ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-30
  • 31. Metanoia, Inc.Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Realization via VPWS p2p PW in IP/MPLS network Logical Links Single IP/Ethernet Platform Logical Mesh ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-31
  • 32. Metanoia, Inc.Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Realization via VPLS Single IP/Ethernet PW full-mesh (VPLS) with Platform VSI-based routing ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-32
  • 33. Metanoia, Inc.Ethernet-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™Overlay Network: Protocol Stack CE CE IP Service Co-located Systems EthernetEthernet SVC IP/MPLS IP Service Ethernet CE IP/MPLS Network CE SVC Ethernet SVC MPLS MPLS MPLSEthernet Label Label LabelService PWE3 PWE3 PWE3 Label Label Label PB/PBB PB/PBB PB/PBB PB/PBB PB/PBB PBB-TE PBB-TE PBB-TE PBB-TE PBB-TE Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Ethernet Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload PayloadIP Service MPLS MPLS MPLS Ethernet Label Ethernet Label Label IP IP IP IP IP Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-33
  • 34. Metanoia, Inc. Ethernet-over-PB-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™ (VPWS) Interworking: Protocol Stack CE CE Co-located Systems EthernetEthernet SVC IP/MPLS CE IP/MPLS, T-MPLS, CE MPLS-TP Network Ethernet SVC One-to-one Mapping (No MAC Lookup) LSP Label (MPLS) LSP Label VC Label (PWE3) VC Label C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA 5-tag 5-tag 5-tag 5-tag C-SA C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Customer Ethernet Switch IP/MPLS Packet Packet Router Packet ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-34
  • 35. Metanoia, Inc. Ethernet-over-PBB-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™ (VPWS) Interworking: Protocol Stack CE CE Co-located Systems EthernetEthernet SVC IP/MPLS CE IP/MPLS, T-MPLS, CE MPLS-TP Network Ethernet SVC One-to-one Mapping (no MAC lookup) LSP Label (MPLS) LSP Label VC Label (PWE3) VC Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-tag B-tag B-tag B-tag I-tag I-tag I-tag I-tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-tag S-tag S-tag S-tag C-SA C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Customer Ethernet Switch IP/MPLS ©Copyright 2009 Packet Packet Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving Router PacketAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-35
  • 36. Metanoia, Inc. Ethernet-over-PB-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™ (VPLS) Interworking: Protocol Stack CE CE Co-located Systems EthernetEthernet SVC IP/MPLS CE IP/MPLS, T-MPLS, CE MPLS-TP Network Ethernet Ethernet SVC bridging VPLS (VSI MAC Lookup) LSP Label (MPLS) LSP Label VC Label (PWE3) VC Label C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA VPLS C-SA 5-tag VSI 5-tag 5-tag 5-tag C-SA C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Customer Ethernet Switch IP/MPLS Packet Packet Router Packet ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-36
  • 37. Metanoia, Inc. Ethernet-over-PBB-over-IP/MPLS Critical Systems Thinking™ (VPLS) Interworking: Protocol Stack CE CE Co-located Systems EthernetEthernet SVC IP/MPLS CE IP/MPLS, T-MPLS, CE MPLS-TP Network Ethernet Ethernet SVC bridging VPLS (VSI MAC LSP Label (MPLS) LSP Label Lookup) VC Label (PWE3) VC Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-tag B-tag B-tag B-tag I-tag VPLS I-tag I-tag I-tag C-DA VSI C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S-tag S-tag S-tag S-tag C-SA C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag C-tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Customer Ethernet Switch IP/MPLS Packet Packet Router Packet ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-37
  • 38. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Uniform Networks: Network Architecture One technology used throughout (for all three metro segments)  Access, Aggregation, and Core Technology could be either Ethernet or IP/MPLS Ethernet-only option  Access can be 802.1ad (Q-in-Q)  Metro can be 802.1ah (MAC-in-MAC)  Core can be 802.1Qay (Provider Backbone Bridging – TE) IP/MPLS-only option  Access uses p2p PWs in hub-and-spoke design  Metro uses a meshed VPLS design  Core uses a hierarchically meshed H-VPLS design ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-38
  • 39. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Uniform Networks: Ethernet-Only Network Architecture  Comprised typically of access, metro, core segments  Access à PB (802.1ad), metro à PBB (802.1ah), core à PBB/PBB-TE (802.1Qay) Logical Structure  Service-Layer is Ethernet, with remote CE’s knowing each other’s MAC address  Devices at service-layer connected by p2p or p2mp Ethernet tunnels Physical Realization (of logical structure)  Transport layer could be Ethernet or SDH/SONET Protocol Stack  Illustrated ahead ... ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-39
  • 40. Metanoia, Inc. Uniform Networks: Ethernet Only Critical Systems Thinking™ Network Layout and Protocol Stack Access Network Aggregation Network Core Network Aggregation Network Access Network (802.1ad) (802.1ah) (802.1Qay) (802.1ah) (802.1ad) Provider Backbone Provider Backbone Provider Bridging (PBB) Provider Bridging (PBB) BCB Bridging (PBB) Bridging (PBB) Last Mile Last Mile IB-BEB BCB B-BEB B-BEB B-BEB IB-BEB PE CECE PE PB B-BEB BCB PBB – Traffic Engineered (PBB-TE) PBCE PE PE CE IB-BEB IB-BEB BCB B-BEB B-BEB B-BEB 802.1ad/Q-in-Q 802.1ah 802.1ah 802.1ad/Q-in-Q encapsulation BCB encapsulation decapsulation decapsulation B-DA B-DA - Pinned paths B-DA - Based only on B-SA B-SA B-DA, B-SA, B-Tag B-SA - No STP B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag - No MAC learning I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag Switching based on pre - C-DA C-DA C-DA configured fwding tables C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-40
  • 41. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Uniform Networks: IP/MPLS-Only Network Architecture  Comprised typically of access, aggregation (metro), core segments  Two options exist:  Option 1: Access/Metro (Aggregation) à p2p spoke PWs to backbone (core) PEs, Core à H-VPLS mesh between backbone PEs  Option 2: Access à p2p spoke PWs to aggregation PEs, Metro (Aggregation)/Core à H-VPLS mesh between all aggregation PEs Logical Structure  Service-Layer is still Ethernet; remote CE’s/nPE’s learn MAC addresses  Devices at service-layer connected by p2p MPLS LSPs Physical Realization (of logical structure)  Construct used at transport layer are IP/MPLS p2p PWs in p2p LSPs Protocol Stacks  Illustrated ahead ... ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-41
  • 42. Metanoia, Inc. Uniform Networks: IP/MPLS Only Critical Systems Thinking™ Network Layout and Protocol Stack (1) Access Network Aggregation Network Core Network Aggregation Network Access Network (p2p PW) (p2p PW) (PW full mesh, H-VPLS) (p2p PW) (p2p PW) Access + Aggregation spanned by spoke PWs Full PW Mesh P per service Spoke PW PE P nPE nPE P PE CE uPECE uPE P P P PECE uPE uPE CE PE PE P nPE P nPE VPWS (p2p) PW Spoke PW VPWS (p2p PW) VPLS P VPLS decapsulation encapsulation encapsulation decapsulation LSP LSP Tunnel LSP LSP LSP Label Label Label Tunnel Label Tunnel Label Spoke PW Label PW Label PW Label Mesh PW Label Spoke PW Label (PW) (VPLS (PW) C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA Instance) C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-42
  • 43. Metanoia, Inc. Uniform Networks: IP/MPLS Only Critical Systems Thinking™ Network Layout and Protocol Stack (2) Access Network Aggregation Network Core Network Aggregation Network Access Network (p2p PW) (PW full mesh) (PW full mesh, H-VPLS) (PW full mesh) (p2p PW) Aggregation and Core spanned by Full PW Mesh P PW Full Mesh Spoke PW nPE P PE PE P nPE CE uPECE uPE P P P PECE uPE Spoke uPE CE nPE PW nPE P PE P PE VPWS (p2p) PW VPLS VPLS P VPWS (p2p PW) encapsulation encapsulation decapsulation decapsulation LSP LSP LSP Tunnel LSP LSP Tunnel Label Tunnel Label Label Label Label Spoke PW Label Spoke PW Label PW Label Mesh PW Label PW Label (PW) (PW) (VPLS C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA Instance ) C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-43
  • 44. Metanoia, Inc.Uniform Networks: IP/MPLS-Only Critical Systems Thinking™Observations Trade-offs exist between Option 1 and Option 2 in terms of MAC learning and PW scalability Option 1: PW full mesh in core, spoke PWs upto core nPEs  nPEs must learn all customer MAC addresses  PW mesh confined to core, thus only core PEs must be meshed  Requires one PW mesh per customer’s service instance Option 2: PW full mesh in agg. + core, spoke PWs upto agg. nPEs  nPEs learn all customer MACs, but fewer than in Option 1  PW mesh, however, is between nPEs in all aggregation networks (thus much larger with more PWs than in Option 1)  Requires one PW mesh per customer’s service instance ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-44
  • 45. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Overlay  Parallel  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul (presented in detail later) Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-45
  • 46. Metanoia, Inc.Our Analysis Approach For Critical Systems Thinking™Hybrid Architectures Network Overview  Overall architecture/layout of the network Protocol Stack  Explain tunneling/interworking in different network segments Assessment  Key observations about the architecture  Benefits and drawbacks of approach ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-46
  • 47. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Hybrid Architectures: Overview Involve a combination of IP/MPLS and Ethernet (PB, PBB, PBB-TE) Access network, customer-edge to provider-edge, is common and typically one of three Ethernet types (so not shown in figures)  Vanilla Ethernet (802.1d)  V-LAN capable Ethernet (802.1q)  S-VLAN capable Ethernet or Q-in-Q (802.1ad) Two principal hybrid architectures  H-VPLS with PB or PBB Aggregation  H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-47
  • 48. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Hybrid Architectures Taxonomy H-VPLS with PB/PBB Aggregation H-VPLS w/ Homogeneous H-VPLS with Heterogeneous PBB Aggregation PB/PBB Aggregation Type I Svc. Interface Type II Svc. Interface Modified PB PE Modified PBB PE (S-Tag (B-VID) as delimiter) (I-SID as delimiter) H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation PBB-capable uPE PBB-capable nPE PBB Migration (PBB uPE, for short) (PBB nPE , for short) PB service frames PBB service frames PB and PBB service over H-VPLS core over H-VPLS core frames over H-VPLS core ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-48
  • 49. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation: Critical Systems Thinking™Type I Interface -- Overview Type I i/f is a B-tagged i/f with B-VID as service delimiter Handoff between BCB and N-PE is B-tagged PBB frame N-PE itself can be transparent to the frames  Treats them as 802.1ad frames  Only need support 802.1ad-style frames ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-49
  • 50. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation: Critical Systems Thinking™Type I i/f – Operation & Protocol Stack PBB Ethernet MPLS/PW Ethernet CE U-PE BCB N-PE Raw or Tagged- N-PE BCB U-PE mode Ethernet PW CE PBB X IP/MPLS X PBB A1 IB-BEB C1 D1 IB-BEB B1 S-Tag I/f S-Tag I/f (B-VID is Svc. delimiter ) (B-VID is Svc. delimiter ) All 3 operational modes Supports VPLS for B-Tag supported: (need not be PBB-aware) - Port Mode - VLAN Mode - VLAN Bundling Mode LSP-Label VC-Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-50
  • 51. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™Type I Interface: Assessment Application of the overlay model Use case: SP has converged to an MPLS core, but prefers Ethernet aggregation to connect 802.1ad-based access networks A “steady-state” model, once all aggregation networks are 802.1ah-capableBenefits Drawbacks No new functionality in VPLS PE  Needs extra replication in core Reduces C-MAC learning and PW (relative to w/o I-SID bundling) mesh in core PEs  Unknown unicast, brdcast, or  Due to I-SID bundling, multiple mcast in a single svc. instance (I- svc. instances map to one bridge SID) leads to full brdcast in core domain (B-VID)  May be addressed by per-I-SID Separates service layer (I-SID) flood containment from network layer (B-VID) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-51
  • 52. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation: Critical Systems Thinking™Type II Interface -- Overview Type II i/f: I-tagged i/f with I-SID as service delimiter B-Tag is locally significant in PBB cloud, not sent over core PE must support B-BEB and VPLS functionality  Must interpret I-Tag ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-52
  • 53. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation: Critical Systems Thinking™Type II i/f – Operation & Protocol Stack PBB PBB PBB Ethernet MPLS/PW Ethernet CE U-PE B-BEB N-PE N-PE B-BEB U-PE CE PBB X IP/MPLS X PBB B-BEB D1 PBB A1 C1 B-BEB B1 I-tag I/f I-tag I/f (Type II) (Type II) (I-SID is svc. delimiter) B-VID locally significant in 2 Mapping options PBB, not xported over core -- I-SID à VPLS Must support B-BEB and VPLS capability -- I-SID àB-VID à VPLS Internal B-VID, B-BEB removes enables I-SID LSP-Label PBB-specific bundling B-Tag VD-Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-DA B-SA B-DA B-SA B-Tag B-SA B-Tag B-SA B-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-53
  • 54. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™Type II Interface: Assessment Application of the overlay model Use case: SP has converged to MPLS core, but prefers Ethernet aggregation to connect 802.1ad-based access networks Good for customers with mcast traffic (w/o mcast pruning fn. at VPLE-PE)Benefits Drawbacks Less replication in core, w/o needing  N-PE complex with new capability – per-I-SID flood containment needs B-comp for I-SID processing Supports tightly & loosely-coupled  Potentially larger # of PWs in core, for service domains same # of services (relative to Type I)  Increased segregation of svc. instances (by I-SID) over disjoint PW meshes ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-54
  • 55. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with Heterogeneous Access Critical Systems Thinking™Modified PB PE -- Overview Used to interoperate existing 802.1ad (PB) networks with new 802.1ah (PBB) aggregation networks Both networks connect to an H-VPLS core/backbone PE interfacing with PB network must support VPLS and IB- BEB functionality  Mapping of S-VID to I-SID  I-SID bundling into B-VID and mapping to a VPLS instance ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-55
  • 56. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with Modified PB PE Critical Systems Thinking™Operation & Protocol Stack Q-in-Q PBB Ethernet MPLS/PW Ethernet CE U-PE1 BCB N-PE1 N-PE2 B-BEB U-PE2 CE Q-in-Q X IP/MPLS X PBB A1 C1 D1 B1 S-tag I/f I-tag I/f (Type 1) (Type II) Must support Must support IB-BEB and B-BEB and -- Participates in local I -SID VPLS VPLS domain of MPLS core -- Supports I-SID bundling -- 1:1 mapping of S-VID à I-SID LSP-Label VC-Label B-DA B-DA B-SA B-DA B-SA B-Tag B-SA B-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA S/C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag S/C-Tag C/S-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-56
  • 57. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™H-VPLS with Modified PB PE: Assessment Overlay with cascade of IP/MPLS and Ethernet networks Use case: SP has converged to MPLS core, but has different Ethernet aggregation/access networks, which have not converged to a single Ethernet technologyBenefits Drawbacks Reduces PW mesh in core  N-PE is complex with new  Via I-SID bundling, where group of capability – needs IB-BEB I-SIDs is mapped to B-VID and to a functionality VPLS instance  PB PE (N-PE1) needs to learn Supports tightly, loosely-coupled, many C-MAC addresses and different service domains ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-57
  • 58. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with Heterogeneous Access Critical Systems Thinking™Modified PBB PE -- Overview Used to interoperate existing 802.1ad (PB) networks with new 802.1ah (PBB) aggregation networks Both networks connect to an H-VPLS core/backbone PE interfacing with PBB network must support VPLS and IB- BEB functionality  B-component faces PBB cloud  I-component faces MPLS core, connects to VPLS forwarder ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-58
  • 59. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with Modified PBB PE Critical Systems Thinking™Operation & Protocol Stack Q-in-Q PBB I-Comp Ethernet MPLS/PW Ethernet B-Comp CE U-PE1 PCB N-PE1 N-PE2 B-BEB U-PE2 CE Q-in-Q X IP/MPLS X PBB 1P 1P 1P 1P S-tag I/f I-tag I/f (Type I) (Type II) Must support Must support VPLS for B-tag IB-BEB -- 1:1 mapping of S-VID (not PBB aware) and VPLS to VPLS instance -- S-VID bundle has no counterpart in PBB n/w B-DA B-DA B-SA LSP-Label B-SA B-Tag VD-Label I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-59
  • 60. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with Modified PBB PE: Critical Systems Thinking™Assessment Overlay with cascade of Ethernet and IP/MPLS networks Use case: SP has converged to MPLS core, but has different Ethernet aggregation/access networks, which have not converged to a single Ethernet technologyBenefits Drawbacks VPLS core can operate without any  N-PE2 needs IB-BEB functionality modifications  Maps tags (I-tag) to VPLS instance  PB PE (N-PE1) must learn C-MAC addresses Supports tightly, loosely-coupled, and different service domains  Absence of S-VID bundling, implies each I-SID maps to independent PW mesh in core à no scaling in PWs Viable option to incrementally at PBB aggregation networks to existing PB networks over IP/MPLS core  Need same I-SID domain across all PBB aggregation networks for consistent C-VID grouping ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-60
  • 61. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB uPE -- Overview Used to integrate 802.1ah (PBB) functionality into an IP/MPLS provider network PBB functionality is embedded in uPE to restrict MAC learning as close to customer as possible PE at the IP/MPLS core is unchanged, and only needs IP/MPLS and PW capability Bridging over VPLS network need be only 802.1ad capable as  MAC forwarding is based on B-MAC address space  Service delimiter is based on B-VLAN ID or B-VID ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-61
  • 62. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB uPE: Operation & Protocol Stack PBB MPLS/PW MPLS/PW MPLS/PW CE U-PE LSR N-PE N-PE LSR U-PE CE MPLS X IP/MPLS X IB-BEB MPLS A1 C1 D1 IB-BEB B1 MPLS MPLS I/f I/f Spoke PWs per Full PW mesh per VPLS instance -- Port Mode -- VLAN Mode Must support IB-BEB and Must support MPLS/PW VPLS instance -- VLAN-bundling Mode MPLS/PW encap of C-MAC Operates on B-DA, B-SA, Maps svcs. to I-SID frames into B- MAC frames B-VID only (not I-SID), so I-SID àB-Tag (bridge domain) need be 802.1ad capable B-Tag à VPLS instance LSP-Label LSP-Label LSP-Label LSP-Label LSP-Label VC-Label VC-Label VC-Label VC-Label VC-Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-SA B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag S/C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-62
  • 63. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB uPE: Assessment Overlay with IP/MPLS transmission n/w and Ethernet service Use case: SP converged to MPLS in core and aggregation networks I-SID allocation  Global across MPLS networksno I-SID translation needed I-SID bundling must be consistent across all participating PEsBenefits Drawbacks PBB functionality at uPE improves  Customer broadcast/mcast frames scalability must be sent over entire B-VLAN Multiple I-SIDs per B-VLAN à fewer  Greater replication over VPLS PW core PWs mesh  As B-VLAN mesh is larger than scope of any particular I-SID N-PE only learns uPE MACs à MAC addresses scale ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-63
  • 64. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB nPE -- Overview Used to integrate 802.1ah (PBB) functionality into an IP/MPLS provider network PBB function embedded in nPE, when uPE is not capable Bridging over VPLS n/w must be 802.1ah capable, as nPE  Assigns an I-SID for each service of a customer  Muxes I-SIDs into a common bridge domain, or B-VLAN  Maps either I-SIDs or B-VLANs to VPLS instances ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-64
  • 65. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB nPE: Operation & Protocol Stack Q-in-Q PBB Q-in-Q MPLS/PW MPLS/PW MPLS/PW CE U-PE LSR N-PE N-PE LSR U-PE CE IB-BEB MPLS X IP/MPLS X MPLS A1 C1 IB-BEB D1 B1 MPLS MPLS I/f I/f Full PW mesh per PWs per customer Must support customer or cust. grp (one service per PW, VPLS and PBB no service muxing) Supports -- Port Mode LSP-Label -- VLAN Mode -- VLAN-bundling Mode VD-Label B-DA B-SA LSP-Label LSP-Label B-Tag LSP-Label LSP-Label C-DA C-DA VD-Label VD-Label I-Tag VD-Label VD-Label C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag S/C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-65
  • 66. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with MPLS Aggregation Critical Systems Thinking™PBB nPE: Assessment Overlay with IP/MPLS txn network and Ethernet service Use case: SP has converged to MPLS in core and aggregation n/ws, but aggregation n/w is not PBB capable Needs integration of PBB functionality into H-VPLS PEBenefits Drawbacks PBB functionality at nPE  Spoke PWs terminate at nPE improves VPLS PW scalability  nPE must learn all customer MAC addresses nPE maps multipe I-SIDs into a B- VLAN à fewer core PW meshes  Per-service spoke PWs à needs significantly more spoke PWs  Since uPE is not PBB aware ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-66
  • 67. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™H-VPLS with PBB Migration Provides migration path for operators with investments in IP/MPLS (and VPLS) deployments Enables incremental induction of PBB into the network Expands scalability benefits of PBB over time with deployment Three migration scenarios:  Non-PBB (802.1ad) encapsulated frames over VPLS core  PBB-encapsulated (802.1ah) frames over VPLS core  Mixed frames (802.1ad and 802.1ah) over VPLS core  Depends on capabilities of different edge devices in network ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-67
  • 68. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: 802.1ad Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core -- Overview Existing 802.1ad access/aggregation n/wks  Unchanged – need no modifications  nPE’s require no changes, and need no knowledge of PBB New MPLS-based access/aggregation networks with PBB functionality on uPE  Need IB-BEB functionality on nPE  Required to terminate PBB encap. on incoming frames Ethernet frames in VPLS/H-VPLS core use 802.1ad format  VPLS core operation is unchanged ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-68
  • 69. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS w/ PBB Migration 802.1ad Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core: Operation & Protocols Q-in-Q PBB I-Comp I-Comp MPLS/PW MPLS/PW MPLS/PW B-Comp B-Comp CE U-PE1 LSR N-PE1 N-PE2 LSR U-PE2 CE MPLS X IP/MPLS X IB-BEB D1 MPLS A1 C1 MPLS IB-BEB B1 MPLS I/f I/f Must support Must terminate PBB PWs could be per Must terminate Spoke PWs per customer VPLS and MPLS/PW VPLS instance or per PBB and (one service per PW) service MPLS/PW LSP-Label LSP-Label C-DA VC-Label VC-Label B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA LSP-Label LSP-Label LSP-Label B-Tag B-Tag C-DA VC-Label VC-Label VC-Label I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag S/C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-69
  • 70. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: 802.1ad Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core: Assessment Overlay with IP/MPLS txn network and Ethernet service Use Case: SP has converged to MPLS in core and aggregation n/ws, but all access/aggregation networks are not PBB capable Ideal when SP has single PBB-capable aggregation/access networkBenefits Drawbacks Requires no change to existing  nPE1 must learn all customer access/aggregation n/wk (Q-in-Q) MAC addresses (as spoke PWs terminate at nPE1)  PBB benefit cannot be leveraged No change to existing VPLS nPEs (those not facing 802.1ah n/wks)  nPEs need full mesh of PWs ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-70
  • 71. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: 802.1ah Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core -- Overview Existing 802.1ad access/aggregation n/wks  Unchanged – need no modifications nPE’s must be upgraded for PBB-based processing (IB-BEB)  All Ethernet svc frames over VPLS core are PBB-encapsulated New MPLS-based access/aggregation networks have PBB functionality on uPE  Need IB-BEB functionality on remote nPE  PBB encap. of incoming frames terminated at far-end nPE Ethernet frames in VPLS/H-VPLS core use 802.1ah format  Thus, VPLS core operation is modified ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-71
  • 72. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS w/ PBB Migration 802.1ah Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core: Operation & Protocols Q-in-Q PBB I-Comp I-Comp MPLS/PW MPLS/PW MPLS/PW B-Comp B-Comp CE U-PE1 LSR N-PE1 N-PE2 LSR U-PE2 CE MPLS X IP/MPLS X MPLS A1 C1 IB-BEB D1 MPLS IB-BEB B1 MPLS I/f I/f Must terminate PBB Must support PWs per VPLS Must terminate Spoke PWs per customer and MPLS/PW only VPLS instance PBB and (one service per PW) MPLS/PW LSP-Label LSP-Label LSP-Label C-DA VC-Label VC-Label VC-Label B-DA B-DA B-DA B-SA B-SA B-SA LSP-Label LSP-Label B-Tag B-Tag B-Tag C-DA VC-Label VC-Label I-Tag I-Tag I-Tag C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-SA C-DA C-SA S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag S-Tag C-SA C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag C-Tag Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload Payload ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-72
  • 73. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: 802.1ah Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core: Assessment Overlay with IP/MPLS txn network and Ethernet service Use Case: SP has converged to MPLS in core and aggregation n/ws, and wishes to have the benefit of PBB scaling in the VPLS core Useful for the operator whose MPLS access/aggregation networks are being upgraded to support PBB IB-BEB at uPEsBenefits Drawbacks Reduces MAC learning at nPEs  Must upgrate nPEs of all existing  Due to PBB at nPEs, thus giving MPLS access/aggregation n/wks MAC address scalability  nPE needs IB-BEB functions Lowers PW mesh counts in core  Multiple customer instances can be bound to a single B-VLAN and VPLS instance ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-73
  • 74. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: Mixed Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core -- Overview Existing 802.1ad access/aggregation n/wks unchanged  Exchange Ethernet frames with 802.1ad format over PWs in core nPE’s must be upgraded for PBB-based processing (IB-BEB)  All Ethernet svc frames over VPLS core are PBB-encapsulated New MPLS-based access/aggregation networks have PBB functionality on uPE  Exchange PBB-encap frames over VPLS core Interworking b/ween PBB-capable and PB-capable requires that nPE of PBB network has IB-BEB functionality Ethernet frames in VPLS/H-VPLS core use 802.1ah/802.1ad format ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-74
  • 75. Metanoia, Inc. H-VPLS w/ PBB Migration Mixed Critical Systems Thinking™ Frames in Core: Operation PBB Q-in-Q Q-in-Q PBB I-Comp I-Comp MPLS/PW MPLS/PW MPLS/PW B-Comp B-CompCE U-PE1 LSR N-PE1 N-PE2 LSR U-PE2 CE MPLS X B-BEB IP/MPLS X MPLS A1 C1 IB-BEB D1 MPLS MPLS IB-BEB B1 I/f I/fSpoke PWs per customer -- Must terminate PBB and MPLS/PW Must support PWs per VPLS(one service per PW) Must terminate only VPLS instance PBB and -- Needs IB-BEB and B-BEB capability MPLS/PW -- Should be aware of remote PEs’ capabilities – via static config . or extended VPLS control plane Non-PBB Capable PBB- Capable Existing Access Networks New Access Networks Protocol stack is a combination of those shown earlier for 802.1ad and 802.1ah in core ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-75
  • 76. Metanoia, Inc.H-VPLS with PBB Migration: 802.1ah Critical Systems Thinking™Frames in Core: Assessment Overlay with IP/MPLS txn network and Ethernet service Use Case: SP has converged to MPLS in core and aggregation n/ws, has a mix of PB- and PBB-capable access/aggregation networksBenefits Drawbacks Core can serve both PB-encapsulated  Must upgrate nPEs of PBB-capable and PBB-encapsulated frames access/aggregation n/wks. nPE needs  IB-BEB to interface with PBB network  B-BEB to interface with PB network Lowers PW mesh counts in core  For PBB-capable aggregation networks  PE must be aware of remote peer’s capability  Requires either static config. or VPLS control plane extensions ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-76
  • 77. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Workshop Outline Overview of Architectural Options Applicability of Key Technologies to Access/Metro/Core  Q-in-Q (PB), MAC-in-MAC (PBB), 802.1Qay (PBB-TE) and PVT, IP/MPLS, MPLS-TP Basic Architectures and Their Analysis  Overlay  Parallel  Uniform  Mobile-Backhaul Hybrid Architectures and Their Analysis ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-77
  • 78. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Mobile Backhaul Architectures Mobile backhaul architectures derive from the basic and hybrid architectures presented earlier We examine them separately due to their unique needs:  Interface with the core network  Timing and synchronization requirements  Evolution requirements – from TDM or ATM to IP/MPLS and/or Ethernet ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-78
  • 79. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Evolution of Cellular Technology: 2G to 4G 2G  GSM (TDM, 56-114 kbps) 2.5G  GPRS, EDGE (TDM, 236-473 kbps)  CDMA 1XRTT (HDLC, TDM, 144 kbps) 3G  WCDMA/UMTS (3GPP) (R99, R4) (ATM, 384 kbps uplink, 2Mbps downlink)  UMTS (3GPP) (R5 (HSDPA), R6 (HSUPA))( IP, 2-3 Mbps)  EV-DO (3GPP2) (Rev0, RevA, RevB, RevC) (IP, 1.8 Mbps uplink, 3.1Mbps downlink) 4G (LTE)  3GPP (R7/R8) (IP, >50 Mbps uplink, >100 Mbps downlink)  WiMAX (802.16e, 802.16m) (IP, 50-100 Mbps) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-79
  • 80. Metanoia, Inc.Evolution of Cellular Technology Critical Systems Thinking™and Backhaul Types Network Speed Interface GSM/GPRS 56-114 Kbps TDM EDGE 236 – 473 Kbps TDM 3G (UMTS/ 384 Kbps Uplink ATM WCDMA) R3, R4 384 Kbps Downlink 3G, R5 (HSDPA), 384 Kbps Uplink IP/Ethernet R6 (HSUPA) 14.4 Kbps Downlink 500 Mbps Uplink LTE R8 (20 Mhz) IP/Ethernet >100 Mbps Downlink CDMA1X-RTT 100 Kbps TDM Legend CDMA EV-DO 1.8 Mbps Uplink 2G IP/Ethernet Rev A/B 1.8 to 5 Mbps Downlink 2.5G WiMAX (10 Mhz) 50 Mbps IP/Ethernet 3G 4G Backhaul Types ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-80
  • 81. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Mobile Backhaul Components Backhaul network – defined as the network that connects  Base Transceiver Station (BTS, or Base Station) to Base Station Controller (BSC) in 3GPP2 – GSM-based cellular networks  Node-B to Radio Network Controller (RNC) in 3GPP – CDMA-based cellular networks Traditional backhaul networks have used ...  E1/T1 leased lines  SONET/SDH TDM channels (for higher rate aggregation) Mobile transport infrastructure has hitherto been ...  Microwave links  Optical fiber with SDH/SONET Evolution to packet-based wireless services creates a push for the transport itself to be packet-based: Ethernet or IP/MPLS or a combination ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-81
  • 82. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Traditional Backhaul Evolution2G BTS BSC TDM TI/EI Cellsite SONET/SDH SONET/SDH Gateway XConnect XConnect E1 T1/E1/STM SDH/SONET Network ATM RNC ATM nxE1 ATM3G BTS Switch Separate transmission facilities for different technologies (TDM and packets) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-82
  • 83. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Mobile Backhaul Challenges Exponential growth in mobile subscribers  3 Billion subscribers (2007)  Expected to touch 5 Billion by 2013!  Leads to massive increase in traffic volume Shift in mobile traffic patterns  High-speed data, including multimedia traffic (video, VoIP, IMS)  Bandwidth insensitive but QoS sensitive applications!  With increasing speed, revenue-per-bit is decreasing  Result is that traffic and revenue are decoupled ! These trends lead to massive increase in traffic volume Backhaul accounts for 30% of OpEX (Per Yankee Group 2005) Traditional backhaul unsustainable with such traffic growth ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-83
  • 84. Metanoia, Inc.Key Performance Requirements Critical Systems Thinking™for Mobile Backhaul Delay – budget for entire RAN is 100ms  Backhaul segment delay must be < 3-4 ms Loss – Target BER is  2G networks = 10-7  3G networks = 10-5 to 10-4 Synchronization – Frequency and Time accuracy  2G: 50 ppb freq. accuracy at radio interface  3G: 50 ppb freq. accuracy and 2.5 µs time accuracy for TDD  WiMAX: 8 ppm freq. for FDD/TDD, and 5-25 µs time accuracy for TDD ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-84
  • 85. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Backhaul Strategy Fundamentals Future-Proof  Should support existing legacy (TDM) infrastructure  Evolving new packet-based and IP services using diverse and coexistent technologies Scalable  Grow b/w to support next-gen. wireless access technology LTE/4G  Ethernet interfaces versus nxT1/E1 Cost Effective – reduce OpEx Must meet timing and synchronization targets Simplify provisioning & planning – advanced OAM, troubleshooting ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-85
  • 86. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Timing and Synchronization ITU-T G.8261 specifies timing & synchronization in packet networks Synchronization needed for  Radio framing accuracy, hand-off control, backhaul transport reliability Three Methods  Synch. Ethernet: Similar to SONET/SDH -- embed clock in PHY layer  Requires changes in PHY chip  IEEE 1588 (Precision Time Protocol)  Distributed protocol: specifies how real-time PTP clocks synchronize  IEEE 802.1as  Aimed at adapting IEEE 1588 to Carrier Ethernet ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-86
  • 87. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Clock Distribution Methods Used Physical Layer Clock  Via synchronous TDM i/fs e.g. PDH/SDH/SONET  Via Sync. Ethernet as per G.8261/G.8262 GPS-receiver based synchronization Clock distribution over packet network  IEEE 1588v2 – being looked at in ITU-T Q13/SG15, who are developing a telecom profile for 1588 v2  NTP – IETF currently working on NTP v4 Adaptive and Differential clock synchronization ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-87
  • 88. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Packet Transport for Mobile Backhaul Packet-based transport can provide high bandwidth at lower cost (than TDM transport) Ideal choice for LTE and 4G technologies Challenges ...  Support legacy traffic (TDM and ATM ) via circuit emulation  Meet timing and synchronization requirements  Provide QoS and protection switching  Furnish advanced OAM capabilities ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-88
  • 89. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ Pseudowires (PW) for Legacy Transport PW PSN Tunnel BSC AC AC Carrier Ethernet Wireless CE Network Core PE PE(BTS) AC: Attachment Ckt CE : Customer Edge (BTS) PE: Provider Edge BSC: Base Station Controller  Encapsulation  PSN Tunnels   May be IP/MPLS, T-MPLS/MPLS-TP, or Structure-Agnostic TDM-over-IP PB/PBB/PBB-TE based (SAToIP) (RFC 4553)  Structure-Aware TDM Circuit  PW Signaling Emulation (CESoPSN) (RFC 5086)  ATMoPSN (RFC 4717) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-89
  • 90. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™PBB/PBB-TE for Mobile Backhaul Connection-oriented p2p tunnels b/ween BTS (BS) -- BSC (NC)  Provides MEF-style EVPL/EVP-Tree between RAN BS and RAN NC IEEE 802.1ag OAM enables carrier-grade OAM tools Delay/loss ensured via admission control & 802.1Q PCP Supporting Legacy TDM over PBB/PBB-TE  IETF has draft on PW over PBB-TE  802.1ah supports encap. of non-Ethernet frames (via short I-TAG TCI) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-90
  • 91. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™PBB/PBB-TE for TDM Encapsulation IEEE 802.1ah PBB Short & Long I-Tag DEI I-SID C-DA C-SA Etc. (Service Identifier) Long I-TAG Tag Control Information DEI I-SID Etc. (Service Identifier) Short I-Tag (Only I-SID used for encapsulation of multiple protocols) EtherType used to indicate encapsulation of Ethernet or multiple protocolsWe show I-SID with C-DA and C-SA but without Ethernet encapsulation ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-91
  • 92. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™MEF Services for Mobile Backhaul RNC RNC BSC BSC Service Multiplexing mp2mp EVC Metro Ethernet EVC EVC Metro Ethernet BTS BTS BTS BTS BTSEVPL Service for Backhaul using EP-LAN Service for Backhaul using Metro Ethernet Networks Metro Ethernet Networks Services muxed at RNC UNI Needed when inter-BS communication is permitted like in LTE/802.16m (WiMAX) ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-92
  • 93. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™MEF Services for Mobile Backhaul RNC BSC Service Multiplexing Metro Ethernet EVC EVC BS/ BS/ BS/ BTS BTS BTS EP-Tree Service for Backhaul using Metro Ethernet Networks ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-93
  • 94. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™IP/MPLS for Mobile Backhaul MPLS PW/VPLS can provide effective backhaul  Traditional circuit-based services are offered using PWs PW signaling – uses either BGP or LDP Protection switching  Achieved via MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) on LSP tunnel OAM provided by  LSP Ping, VCCV  BFD ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-94
  • 95. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™IP/MPLS and PBB/PBB-TE Caveats Poor support for P2MP LSPs in MPLS  Such support is desirable:  For Clock Distribution from BSC to BTSs  When BSs allowed to communicate with each other and cooperate as in WiMAX/LTE PW over PBB-TE is not fully developed ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-95
  • 96. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Migration Strategies for Service Providers HSDPA/3G Data Off-load  Separation of transport  GSM/UMTS voice sent over SONET/SDH  Data traffic transported over PSN tunnel Packet-based Backhaul  TDM/ATM/Ethernet/IP all transported over PSN tunnel via PWs Converged Transport  Single packet-switched infrastructure for wireline, broadband and mobile services ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-96
  • 97. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™ HSDPA/3G Data Off-Load2G BTS TDM TI/EI Multi-Service Cellsite SONET/SDH SONET/SDH Aggregation Gateway XConnect XConnect Router 2G BSC TI/EI/STM SDH/SONET Network 3G RNC Wireless Core ATM nxE1 Ethernet Carrier Ethernet3G BTS Network Ethernet Ethernet Switch Switch ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & Evolving All Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-97
  • 98. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Packet-Based Backhaul2G BTS BSC TDM Cellsite Gateway PE PE ATM Carrier Ethernet TI/EI/STM Network (PSN) RNC/GW Ethernet3G/4G IP/ATM/Ethernet/TDM are all transported over the PSN BTS Tunnel using PWs ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-98
  • 99. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Converged Packet-Based Transport Converged Service Delivery Platform 3G/4G Base Station Aggregation Converged Network Metro Core Internet Access Network Common packet-switched infrastructure for both wireline and wireless services ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-99
  • 100. Metanoia, Inc. Critical Systems Thinking™Backhaul References MEF White Paper, “Carrier Ethernet Access for Mobile Backhaul Networks”, Feb 2008. MEF Technical Specification Draft 2, “Mobile Backhaul Implementation Agreement- Phase 1”, Feb 2008 Nortel Networks White Paper, “Mobile Network Evolves with Carrier Ethernet”, 2008. ITU-T G.8261, “Timing and Synchronization Aspects in Packet Networks”, Sept 2007. IP/MPLS Forum White Paper, “Use of MPLS Technology in Mobile Backhaul Networks”, Feb 2008 Kireeti Kompella and Mallik Tatipamula, “IP/MPLS in Next Gen Mobile Backhaul Networks”, MPLS 2007. ©Copyright 2009 Carrier Ethernet Technology Strategies & EvolvingAll Rights Reserved Operator Best Practices M1-100