Supporting Transport Application in IP/MPLS Environments

Transcription

1 Supporting Transport Application in IP/MPLS Environments Simon Spraggs

2 Disclaimer The Cisco products, service or features identified in this document may not yet be available or may not be available in all areas and may be subject to change without notice Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 2

3 Agenda Background Packet versus OTN for future packet transport Services MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS MPLS options for supporting packet transport services

4 Circuit top Packet Migration Private Line TDM/OTN Traffic Private Line TDM/OTN Traffic ~50-70%* 20-30% Private/Public IP Traffic Private/Public IP Traffic ~30-50% 90+% IP Traffic 2016 Private Line TDM/OTN Traffic 0 10% Private/Public IP Traffic 70-80% Legacy TDM Traffic 90+% Massive change in SP traffic make-up in next 5 years* Overall worldwide packet traffic increasing at 38% CAGR*** Different types of IP traffic Strict L2 transport, loose L2 transport, L3 services *ACG Research 2011, ***Cisco VNI 2012

5 Today s Services Infrastructure L3VPNs, E-Line and E-LAN Packet - IP/MPLS Guaranteed Reserved B/W, Non deterministic paths, uni-directional, CP protection Legacy Service, Packet E-Line Services TDM -SDH SDH SDH End of Everything SDH SDH Guaranteed Reserved B/W, admission control Predictable Path, Rich OAM, 1+1 or 1:1 Protection Wave Services Optical Transport 10G/40G/100G DWDM Many questions on future architectures! One of the key ones is 2012 how Cisco and/or to its affiliates. support All rights reserved. transport orientated packet services

6 Future of SDH and SONET Equipment A more rapid decline of SONET/SDH spending than anticipated resulted in a negative market. but all of this is not enough to even meet our lowered forecasts as the bleeding in SONET/SDH continues. Ciena's Coredirector business dropped 71% QoQ, just one of many micro examples of legacy equipment revenue collapsing in the past months. Weakness in the macro market is more a result of declining legacy spending than any other factor. Source: Infonetics 27 Nov 2012: Optical Network Hardware: Worldwide, Regional, China, Japan, and India Market Share, Size, and Forecasts 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 6

7 How to transport future L2 transport services? OTN or Packet?

8 Optical Transport Network (OTN G.709) Technology Digital Cross Connect ROADM Two components to OTN switching Digital wrapper technology widely used Time Division Multiplexing Much debate on its role OTN Multiplexing OEO function ODU-0 ODU-4 ODU-Flex Two distinct technologies

9 Worldwide Ethernet Services Market: 2015 Source: Infonetics 2012 Worldwide Ethernet Services Revenue by Speed

10 Worldwide Ethernet Services Market: 2015 Scenario 1: Uniform Pricing Per Circuit 88% Source: Infonetics % of Ethernet Transport <1Gbps in 2015 Uniform pricing per circuit across service range Cost for 1Mbps service = Cost for 10Gbps service Over-estimates the number of high bandwidth services

11 Worldwide Ethernet Services Market: 2015 Scenario 2: Uniform Pricing Per Mbps 97% Source: Infonetics % of Ethernet Transport <100 Mbps in 2015 Uniform Pricing per Mbps Cost per Mbps Constant : 1Mbps = x*1, 100Mbps = x*100) Under Estimates High Bandwidth Services

12 Modelling Approach 1000 Circuits 50% Ethernet Circuits dropped in metro 2 Core Hops 1 hop and 4 remote metros 1 hop 1000 Ethernet Circuits 1 to 4 EVCs METRO METRO METRO METRO 50% Ethernet Circuits dropped in metro CORE METRO Compared a packet solution and a TDM solution based on OTN using ODU-FLEX Overall backbone bandwidth and capital cost

13 Building the Service Mix Sample Circuits: 1000 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Service Range % Ethernet Revenue Number of Circuits % Ethernet Circuits Number of Circuits Service Increments within range (Mbps) 1Gbps-10Gbps 12% Mbps-1Gbps 37% >50Mbps-100Mbps 39% >10Mbps-50Mbps 4% >1Mbps-10Mbps 8% Scenario 1 = Uniform Price / Circuit ; Scenario 2 = Uniform Price / Mbps Operator Specifies Sample Number of Ethernet Services (e.g 1000 ) Circuits in each Bandwidth Based on Scenario Revenue Graphs Through 2015 Each Bandwidth Range Sub-divided Into Increments Number of circuits in a bandwidth range equally divided over the service increments

14 Impact Multiple EVCs per Circuit Core Bandwdith Required 50% traffic dropped at local metro, 1 metro hop, 2 core hops Include Core facing Metro and core switch interfaces Zero packet over-subscription included Scenario 1: Uniform Price/Circuit OTN ~ 2 X Packet Bandwdith with 1 EVC OTN ~ 5 X Packet Bandwidth with 4 EVCs Scenario 2: Uniform Price/Mbps OTN ~ 10 X Packet Bandwidth with 1 EVC OTN ~ 50 X Packet Bandwidth with 4 EVCs

15 Cisco Confidential Scenario 1: Uniform Pricing per Circuit Total Core B/W + Total Cost (UNI and Core interfaces) Variables: 1000 Circuits, 50% dropped at local metro, 4 remote metros, 1 metro hop, 2 core hops, 30% premium on packe core and UNI interfaces, no pkt over-subscription, EVC=1 Costs based on nominal cost of interfaces Cost of 1 DWDM 10G DWDM interfaces Cost of G UNI interfaces

16 Cisco Confidential Scenario 2: Uniform Pricing per Mbps Total Core B/W + Total Cost (UNI and Core interfaces) Variables: 1000 Circuits, 50% dropped at local metro, 4 remote metros, 1 metro hop, 2 core hops, 30% premium on packe core and UNI interfaces, no pkt over-subscription, EVC=1 Costs based on nominal cost of interfaces Cost of 1 DWDM 10G DWDM interfaces Cost of G UNI interfaces

17 Summary Packet more effective than OTN OTN Solution ~ Up to 20X More Core Bandwidth OTN Solution ~ Up to 5X Higher Total Cost Ethernet Services Forecast Mismatch ODU0 Container Size Majority of Ethernet Services Forecast at Low Data Rates OTN Minimum container is 1.25Gbps OTN Multiplexing Efficiency Only 8 1GE per 10Gbps Link (20% Lost) Higher Efficiency with packet over-subscription Over-subscription DOES NOT imply loss or delay Over-subscription imply removes the fresh 17

18 Legacy to Packet Migration Strategy

19 Typical Packet Migration Paths - Today L1 L2 P T 2 P T E L A N SDH Legacy Private Legacy LINE and Private Transport LINE oriented ELINE x2 main paths Reserved capacity (fixed) predictable route, OAM Packet ELINE Main path No reservation, no predictable route, limited OAM Protection path (IP FRR) No reservation, no predictable route, limited OAM VPLS TDM networks Packet networks L3 L3VPN

20 Typical Packet Migration Paths Moving Forward L1 L2 P T 2 P T E L A N SDH Legacy Private LINE x2 main paths Reserved capacity (fixed) predictable route, OAM Packet and Transport oriented ELINE X2 main paths Reserved (EF), predictable route, Rich OAM Protection path (1:1) Reserved (EF), predictable route. Rich OAM Main path No reservation, no predictable route, limited OAM Protection path (IP FRR) No reservation, no predictable route, limited OAM VPLS TDM network Common packet network L3 L3VPN

21 What about the Legacy Private Line Services? Service or market based migration Service Migration Recreate all existing service on a new platform Old / New, Growing / Declining Challenges Technically challenging Very time consuming Service disrupting Capital intense Advantages Old platform can be retired Removal of End of Life equipment Market Based Migration Create similar service on new platform Only for new and growing services Marketing incentives to migrate new platform Frees up equipment to sustain old / declining services Challenges Old services remain on EOL equipment Old platform remains in service (but with spares) Advantages SP able to concentrate on new growing revenue streams Increasing sparing for new / growing services migrating No capital expenditure on old / declining services 21

22 Comparing IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP

23 MPLS Transport Profile Characteristics Aimed at emulating transport environment in packet networks Service and Operations No reliance on IP in the forwarding process MPLS : RFC3031, RFC3032, RFC3270 Simplified profile : No ECMP, No PHP, No LSP merge etc Bi-directional co-routed LSPs Primary MPLS-TP constructs are LSPs and Pseudowires (RFC3985) Comprehensive set of inband OAM Protection option 1:1, 1+1, 1:N Protection driven by OAM A Network Management system with or without support of a control plane

24 Comparing Technologies IP/MPLS Network Management System (FCAPs) Control Plane Control Plane ç Control Plane Edge OAM OAM OAM Data Plane Data Plane Data Plane Edge IP/MPLS Service Capability Network Management Edge Functionality required Data Plane Control Plane LSP config / Mgmt Protection OAM E-Line, E-LAN, L3 VPN FCAPs Extensive edge processing MPLS Distributed IP/MPLS Signalled (LDP/BGP and/or MPLS-TE) Primarily Control Plane driven Basic, but MPLS-TP OAM applicable LSP Unidirectional

25 Comparing Technologies MPLS-TP Network Management System (FCAPs) Edge OAM OAM OAM Data Plane Data Plane Data Plane Edge IP/MPLS MPLS-TP Service Capability E-Line, E-LAN, L3 VPN E-Line Network Management FCAPs FCAPs Edge Functionality required Extensive edge processing Extensive edge processing Data Plane MPLS MPLS Control Plane IP/MPLS NMS LSP config / Mgmt Signalled (LDP/BGP or MPLS-TE) Static Protection Primarily Control Plane driven OAM driven OAM Basic, but MPLS-TP OAM applicable Extensive LSP Unidirectional Co-routed Bi-directional LSPs

26 Label Switch Path Terminology Unidirectional LSPs MPLS Environment Traditionally LSPs are unidirectional No association between LSPs that go between two pairs Forward and reverse LSPs between two nodes do not have to follow the same path

27 Label Switch Path Terminology Non Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP MPLS Environment Traditionally LSPs are unidirectional No association between LSPs that go between two pairs Forward and reverse LSPs between two nodes do not have to follow the same path Non Co-routed Bidirectional LSP Two uni-directional LSPs associated at headend nodes No requirement for LSPs to follow same path across network Mid-point nodes are not associated

28 Label Switch Path Terminology Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP MPLS Environment Traditionally LSPs are unidirectional No association between LSPs that go between two pairs Forward and reverse LSPs between two nodes do not have to follow the same path Non Co-routed Bidirectional LSP Two uni-directional LSPs associated at headend nodes No requirement for LSPs to follow same path across network Mid-point nodes are not associated Co-routed Bidirectional LSPs Forward and reverse path the same through the network LSPs associated at headend and midpoint nodes

29 Providing guaranteed bandwidth service in MPLS environments L1/L2 all mapped to a dedicated transport class PQ1 PQ2 L2 Services L3 Services L3 per Class ingress classification, policing/shaping and marking (CIR/EIR per class) Dedicated class for transport services N Weighted queues Scheduler Link PQ1 L2 Services L3 Services N Weighted queues Scheduler Link L2/L3 per Class ingress classification, policing/shaping and marking (CIR/EIR per class) Per Class CIR/EIR shared queues with L3 Services Supported today on Cisco equipment In both examples unused transport class can be used by other traffic types Very significant when considering standby paths

30 OAM - Associated Channel Processing (A-CH) OAM flow A B C D Pseudowire E F MAC Header LSP-L PWE-3 L PWE-3 ACH OAM message LSP Label Pseudo-wire Label 0001 Ver resv Channel Type PSEUDOWIRE Pseudo-wire Associated Channel Pseudo-wire Channel Type OAM function OAM flow A B C LSP D E F MAC Header LSP-L GAL(13) G-ACH OAM message LSP Label GAL 0001 Ver resv Channel Type LSP and SECTION Generic Associated Channel Generic Channel Type OAM function

31 MPLS OAM Constructs Done under the MPLS-TP banner but relies heavily on previous MPLS pseudo-wire technology Applicable to all MPLS constructs MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Travels same path as the data Major components Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH) based on RFC 4385 based on ACH from pseudo-wires Generic Alert Label (GAL) defined by RFC 5586 G-ACH is the generalised container Capable of carry : OAM, APS, DCC, MCC traffic Works across PWs, LSP and MPLS Sections Existing IP/MPLS OAM functions can be used (LSP-Ping, BFD and VCCV) OAM classes Continuity Checks Connectivity Verification Performance Monitoring : packet loss measurement and delay Alarm suppression Remote integrity

32 Building a transport orientated packet environment. What approaches and technology?

33 MPLS High Level Components and Evolution <=2000 <=2000 MPLS-IGP/LDP Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/LDP control plane Minimal dataplane OAM IGP/LDP FC, IP LFA Full L2/L3 Head End MPLS-Traffic Eng Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/RSVP-TE control plane Basic dataplane OAM MPLS-FRR Full L2/L3 Head End IP/MPLS supporting L2/L3 LDP + MPLS-TE >=2008 MPLS-TP (Static) Bi-directional Pt2Pt LSP NMS based provisioning Extensive dataplane OAM OAM driven protection Pt-2-Pt L2 Head End What do we do with MPLS-TP Technology? 1) Build separate packet networks OR 2) Integrate MPLS-TP into IP/MPLS

34 Evolving MPLS Separate Networks <=2000 <=2000 MPLS-IGP/LDP Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/LDP control plane Minimal dataplane OAM IGP/LDP FC, IP LFA Full L2/L3 Head End MPLS-Traffic Eng Cisco Supports this options Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/RSVP-TE control plane Basic dataplane OAM MPLS-FRR Full L2/L3 Head End Multiple Networks supporting L2 services Difficulty migrating between L2 service offerings IP/MPLS needs OAM improvements IP/MPLS supporting L2/L3 LDP + MPLS-TE Inter-work via multi-segment PW >=2008 All transport environments are introducing dynamic control planes MPLS-TP (Static) Bi-directional Pt2Pt LSP NMS based provisioning Extensive dataplane OAM OAM driven protection Pt-2-Pt L2 Head End MPLS-TP supporting transport L2 services

35 <=2000 Evolving MPLS - Converged network MPLS-IGP/LDP Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/LDP control plane Minimal dataplane OAM IGP/LDP FC, IP LFA Full L2/L3 Head End MPLS-Traffic Eng Uni-directional Pt-2-Pt LSP IGP/RSVP-TE control plane Basic dataplane OAM MPLS-FRR Full L2/L3 Head End Single network offering a rich L2 / L3 service offering <=2000 IP/MPLS supporting L2/L3 MPLS-TP and MPLS-TE morph into single technology LDP + TE + TP MPLS-TP OAM functionality applicable to all forms of MPLS LSPs >=2008 MPLS-TP (Static) Bi-directional Pt2Pt LSP NMS based provisioning Extensive dataplane OAM OAM driven protection Pt-2-Pt L2 Head End

36 Building transport orientated packet services into a multi-service IP/MPLS environment

37 Transport Centric Support on IP/MPLS Layer 3 VPN and basic L2VPNs Starting Point : L3 VPNs and basic L2 VPN services How do we bring L2 Packet Transport Characteristics? 1. IP/MPLS Technology LDP and/or BGP or MPLS-TE 2. MPLS-TP as ships in the night 3. FlexLSP Bringing MPLS-TP functionality into IP/MPLS 37

38 MPLS-TP Characteristics in more detail Capability MPLS-TP LDP/BGP MPLS-TE Protocol Support VPWS VPWS / VPLS / L3 VPWS / VPLS / L3 Data Plane MPLS MPLS MPLS L2 Construct Pseudo-wires Pseudo-wires Pseudo-wires Control Plane None or signaled : NMS / G-MPLS IP/MPLS IP/MPLS RSVP-TE LSP config / Mgmt Static / G-MPLS Signalled LDP/BGP Signalled RSVP-TE Bidirectional LSP Yes No Yes ERO based Co-routed Yes Mid-point associated Yes No No Predictable Path Yes No Yes ERO based Diverse routed LSPs Yes No Yes LSP merge No Yes No PHP No Optional Optional Guaranteed QoS Yes Yes Yes LSP protection OAM driven protection CP IP LFA CP - MPLS-FRR Pseudo-wire OAM Yes (ACH based) Yes (ACH based) Yes (ACH based) LSP OAM Probe and event driven GAL and G-ACH based Probe based Probe based

39 Option 1a IP/MPLS with LDP/ BGP LSPs Protocol Support Data Plane Control Plane LSP config / Mgmt Bi-directional LSPs MPLS LDP/BGP VPWS / VPLS / L3 MPLS Yes - IP/MPLS Signalled LDP/BGP No Pseudo-wires running over LSP built using LDP and/or BGP Common Control Plane for L2 / L3 Large scale / minimal set-up 50ms protection (IP LFA) Lacks traditional transport characteristics Field proven and works extremely well Co-routed Midpoint associated Predictable Path Diverse routed LSPs LSP merge PHP Guaranteed QoS LSP protection Pseudo-wire OAM LSP OAM No No No No Yes Optional Yes IGP/LDP based (IP LFA) Yes (VCCV) Probe but difficult due to ECMP and LSP merge

40 Option 1b IP/MPLS with MPLS-TE LSPs L3 services can use MPLS-TE LSPs or LDP/BGP LSPs Protocol Support Data Plane Control Plane LSP config / Mgmt Bidirectional LSPs L2 over MPLS-TE VPWS / VPLS / L3 MPLS Yes - IP/MPLS Signalled RSVP-TE No Pseudo-wires running over LSP built using MPLS-TE Common control plane for L2 / L3 Lower scale and more ops overhead 50ms protection (MPLS-FRR) Meets most transport characteristics Field proven and works extremely well Co-routed Midpoint associated Predictable Path Diverse routed LSPs LSP merge PHP Guaranteed b/w LSP protection Pseudo-wire OAM Yes ERO based No Yes - ERO based Yes No Optional yes MPLS-FRR Yes (VCCV) LSP OAM Probe driven

41 Option 2 Ships in the night IP/MPLS / MPLS-TP NMS for L2 Services L3 services can use MPLS-TE LSPs or LDP/BGP LSPs Protocol Support Data Plane Control Plane LSP config / Mgmt MPLS-TP VPWS MPLS No - NMS Static Pseudo-wires running over MPLS-TP LSP built using NMS Common platform L3 uses IP/MPLS control plane Transport L2 uses NMS to build Tunnel LSPs L2 services 50ms protection (OAM) L3 services 50ms protection (IP LFA or MPLS-FRR) Meets full transport characteristics ITS COMPLICATED!! Bidirectional LSP Co-routed Midpoint Associated Predictable Path Diverse routed LSPs LSP merge PHP Guaranteed QoS LSP protection Pseudo-wire OAM LSP OAM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 1:1 OAM driven protection Yes (VCCV) Probe and Event driven

42 Running IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP together Reserved Labels Labels for static applications (e.g., MPLS-TP tunnels) Labels for dynamic applications (e.g., MPLS-TE tunnels /LDP) 0 Max Label Value Label Space Split between static and dynamic Link bandwidth Diffserv or Normal set-up TP always uses global pool TE can use global or the subpool When sharing the global pool TP always has precedence or TE tunnels Topology Tracking and Resource information TE OSPF or ISIS MPLS-TP NMS 42

43 Capability MPLS-TP LDP/BGP MPLS-TE Protocol Support VPWS VPWS / VPLS / L3 VPWS / VPLS / L3 Data Plane MPLS MPLS MPLS L2 Construct Pseudo-wires Pseudo-wires Pseudo-wires Control Plane None : NMS / G-MPLS IP/MPLS (LDP) IP/MPLS RSVP-TE LSP config / Mgmt Static / G-MPLS Signalled LDP/BGP Signalled RSVP-TE Bidirectional LSP Yes No No Co-routed Yes No Yes ERO based Midpoint associated Yes No No Predictable Path Yes No Yes ERO based Diverse routed LSPs Yes No Yes LSP merge No Yes No PHP No Optional Optional Guaranteed QoS Yes Yes Yes LSP protection OAM driven protection CP IP LFA CP - MPLS-FRR Pseudo-wire OAM Yes (ACH based) Yes (ACH based) Yes (ACH based) LSP OAM Extensive using GAL/GACH Probe and event Proposal Enhance MPLS-TE to support MPLS-TP Basic probe transport based functionality Continue to support all existing MPLS-TE functionality 2012 Cisco BEST and/or its affiliates. OF BOTH All rights reserved. WORLDS! Probe based

44 Enhancing MPLS-TE to support L2 Transport Services

45 Bringing Transport Characteristics to MPLS TE and pseudo-wires Sum of tunnels <= EF B/W Network Management and Admission Control Class0 Class1 EF All Classes Primary path (Predictable route, guaranteed B/W bi-directional associated TE tunnel) Signalled tunnel LSP setup Inband MPLS-TP OAM Admission control Attachment Circuit IP/MPLS Attachment Circu 1:1 LSP OAM driven protection Standby tunnel (Predictable route, guaranteed B/W bi-directional co-associated TE tunnel)

46 Morphing MPLS TE and MPLS-TP Tunnel Characteristics Operating on a Int Te interface; normal or diffserv TE tunnels GAL and G-ACH on TE tunnels Co-routed bi-directional TE tunnels Tunnel LSP placement options Explicit routed paths Bi-directional co-routed TE head-end calculation with bi-directional CSPF Placement using external stateful PCE Tunnel LSP Protection schemes OAM driven onto standby path Prototype Code available end Feb 2013 Administratively driven onto standby path Control Plane driven: MPLS-TE FRR later phase

47 Morphing MPLS TE and MPLS-TP Head-end dynamically signalled using RSVP-TE co-routed bi-directional tunnels Also uni-directional and non co-routed bi-directional tunnels RSVP-TE based using signalling based on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp Tunnel OAM Continuity Check / Remote Defect Indicator (RDI) BFD running on GAL / G-ACH Continuity Verification and Route Tracing - LSP ping and traceroute over IP or GACH Fault Detection Fault OAM: LDI, AIS, LKR Tunnel Performance Delay (RFC6374) Tunnel Performance Loss (RFC6374) Later phase Pseudo-wire tunnel selection and admission control Prototype Code available end Feb 2013

48 Summary

49 Summary Packet traffic increasingly dominant One element of packet is transport orientated services Packet switching more efficient than OTN switching based on existing packet transport forecasts Discussed some solutions for supporting packet transport services Outlined the FlexLSP prototype work which morphs MPLS-TP and MPLS-TE

50 The End

51 The End 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 51