Enabling Efficient Packet Transport with MPLS-TPhome.btconnect.com/nivenjb/Enabling Efficient Packet...

Enabling Efficient Packet Transport with MPLS-TP

Matthew Bocci Alcatel-Lucent [email protected]

Luyuan Fang Cisco Systems [email protected]

Ben Niven-Jenkins (BT), Nabil Bitar (Verizon), Andrew G. Malis (Verizon), Nurit Sprecher (NSN)

2

Agenda   Evolving Transport Towards Packet   What is MPLS-TP?   MPLS-TP Architecture   OAM in MPLS-TP   Management, configuration and control plane   Protection and Resiliency   Relationship between IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP   Use Cases   Standardization Update   Summary

3


4

Wireline and Wireless

Access

IP and Ethernet Services Drive Network Transformation

Multiple Legacy Networks

Fewer layers, converged multi-function network

“Horizontalized”, more homogenized infrastructure

Enables service and network transformation

Multi-service, application aware

Converged packet-enabled transport

IP

ATM

SONET/SDH

WDM

TDM FR/ATM PSTN

Data Mobile Voice

SONET/SDH

Converged Infrastructure

IP/MPLS

Carrier Ethernet

WDM/OTN

Multiple layers, separate single function networks

“Verticalized”, stovepiped infrastructure

Complicates service and network transformation

Multiple single services

Circuit-based transport

Flexible Services

Aggregation and Core

Efficient Transport

POS

5

Simplifying Data Services and Packet Transport

Efficient Transport

Flexible IP/MPLS/ETH

Based Services

Layer 3: IP

Layer 2: Ethernet, ATM

Layer 1: SONET/SDH

Layer 0: DWDM

Layer 1/2

Layer 0/1

Layer 2/3

Profile of MPLS optimized for transport enables packet

transport

MPLS (Transport)

Already widely deployed for IP-VPN’s, multi-point services and

service aggregation

Deployed for service aggregation, may be optimized

for transport

MPLS Pseudowires

IP/MPLS

Transport

Service

Underlying layer provides framing, PHY convergence

functions, etc e.g. OTN IP-MPLS-Ethernet services over converged transport

6

Packet Transport Evolution

 Explosion of packet traffic due to packet services drives demand for carrier-grade packet transport   While embracing SONET/SDH features offering high-benchmark for

reliability and operational simplicity

 New big "frontier" for MPLS  MPLS well positioned to become the foundation for the next generation packet transport

Ethernet Ethernet +

Enhancements MPLS-TP

Connection-oriented packet transport

7

The case for MPLS in Packet Transport

MPLS-TP bridges the gap between the transport and service routing world

allowing true convergence

  Is Multiservice

  Is carrier-grade

  Offers connection-oriented operation with TE capability

  Is widely deployed in service routing and core

  Will allow true convergence between packet transport and service routing

  Capex and Opex savings   Can be easily profiled for packet transport

SONET/SDH

Routing

Transport MPLS-TP

OTN

IP/MPLS

40G/100G/WDM expansion

8


9

Operator A

Operator C

Operator D Operator B

Transport Network Environment

Client

  Wholesale transport of various services at various bit rates at lowest cost per bit

  High availability for each SLA: resilience (short term), maintainability (mid term) , measurability

  Resilience at transport service level (sub-50ms) for each SLA, and at section level for physical breaks (sub-50ms)

  Measurability by monitoring signal (connectivity, integrity and quality)

  Alarms in order to assist with network operation

SLA

10

Packet Transport: Requirements on MPLS

Transport-Centric Operational Model NMS Configuration without CP, or fully Dynamic Control Plane

Transport-Optimized OAM Functions such as CC, CV, Performance Monitoring, Alarm Suppression

Not dependent on IP forwarding

Protection Switching Triggered by OAM (i.e. not dependent on dynamic signaling or CP liveliness)

Efficient operation for both dense mesh and ring topologies

Connection-Oriented Bidirectional LSPs are co-routed

No LSP merging; no ECMP

Standard MPLS Data-Path

Must operate using standard labels, standard push/pop/swap operations

(ParaphrasedfromRFC5654)

NMS Configuration without CP

Data plane capabilities independent of Control plane

11

MPLS-TP Objectives (from draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.txt)

  To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.

  Enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a similar degree of predictability, reliability and OAM to that found in existing transport networks

Enablesconnec+on‐orientedop+calpackettransportbasedonwidelydeployedMPLSprotocols,withtransport‐gradeperformance&opera+onsimilartoexis+ngtransportnetworks;ensurescompa+bilitywithIP/MPLS

12

Characterising Packet Transport Services   Independence between MPLS-TP network operation and

client networks supported by the service   Service guaranteed not to fall below agreed level regardless

of the behaviour of other MPLS-TP clients   Control/management plane isolation between networks

using service and MPLS-TP network   Little or no coordination required between client using

service and MPLS-TP network   All packets of a client MPLS network transparently

transported   MPLS-TP server addressing and topology info hidden from

client of packet transport service

(Paraphrasedfromdraft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.txt)

13

What is MPLS-TP?

Existing MPLS RFCs prior to RFC5654

• ECMP • MP2P LDP • IP forwarding

Subset to meet transport network operational requirements • MPLS/PWE3 architecture • MPLS forwarding • GMPLS/PWE3 control

MPLS

Additional functionality based on Transport Requirements

MPLS Transport Profile

14

Additional Functionality based on Transport Requirements

• Operation through NMS • Static provisioning • TE rules

Transport-like Operation

• Sub-50ms protection switching • Linear protection • Ring protection

Transport-like Resilience

• In-band OAM channels • Performance monitoring for SLA verification • Tandem connections and multi-level operation • Wire-speed operation • Alarms and AIS

Transport-like OAM

Addi+onalfeaturesforstandardIP/MPLSrouters&Op+calPacketTransportequipment;enhancedinteroperabilitybetweenservicerou+ngandop+caltransport

Addi$onalfunc$onality

15

MPLS-TP Operation

Working LSP

PE PE

Protect LSP

NMS for Network Management Control

Client node Client node

Section MPLS-TP LSP (static or dynamic)

Pseudowire (static or dynamic)

Client Signal

Connection Oriented, pre-configured working path and protect path Transport Tunnel 1:1 or 1+1 protection, switching triggered by in-band OAM Initially, NMS used with static provisioning

Section

E2e and segment OAM

16


Thefollowingslidescontaintechnicaldetailsthatares+llworkinprogressatIETFincoordina+onwithITU‐TSG15

17

Architecture of MPLS-TP: P2P Service using a PW

Ethernet ATM TDM etc.

Point to Point Packet transport service

IP or MPLS LSPs Pseudowires adapt L2 services to MPLS-TP LSP Static or T-LDP signaled

PW PW

LSPs take strict path in both directions “bidirectional and co-routed” Static or RSVP-TE

Section between adjacencies at LSP layer

PE PE LSR/P

MPLS-TP

ReuseofMPLSarchitecturetomeettransportrequirements

Bidirectional MPSL-TP LSPs paring relationship

MPLS-TP LSP Section PW

18

Architecture of MPLS-TP: P2P Service using a MS-PW



PW1

PW1

PWs & LSPs take strict path in both directions “bidirectional and co-routed” Static or dynamic

T-PE T-PE

S-PE

MPLS-TP

MS‐PWsenhancescalingbyreducingTELSPmeshEnableinter‐providerPW‐basedservicesEnableinteropofsta+canddynamicMPLS(‐TP)networks

Section

T-PE

PW2

PW2

PW1

PW2

19

Architecture of MPLS-TP: P2P Service for a Network Layer Client

IP, MPLS LSP

etc.


IP or MPLS LSPs Service LSP provides encap/service multiplexer Static or RSVP-TE signaled

Service LSP (optional)

LSPs take strict path in both directions “bidirectional and co-routed” Static or RSVP-TE Section between adjacencies at LSP layer

PE PE LSR/P

MPLS-TP

Service LSP (optional)


20

Architecture of MPLS-TP: Services using P2MP LSPs

IP MPLS

Ethernet etc.

PE

Leaf PEs

LSR/P

P2MP LSP

Section between adjacencies at LSP layer

Unidirectional P2MP LSP Static or RSVP-TE

Point to multipoint packet transport service

MPLS-TP

IP, MPLS, or P2MP PW


21

Domain of MPLS-TP Where does MPLS-TP end, and client layers begin?

LSP label S=1

IP PW label S=1

LSP label S=0

PW Payload

LSP label* S=0

LSP label S=0

PW Label

MPLS-TP layer

Client layer

Labelled services

e.g. backhaul of MPLS traffic

PW-based service

e.g. L2 private line

- S-bit follows current MPLS practice i.e. indicates non-MPLS follows -  Label stacks shown are the smallest no. labels possible. These could include more labels. *Could be PHP’d

IP service e.g. router interconnect

LSP label S=1

LSP label S=0

IP S=1

22

Enabling Enhanced OAM Capabilities

LSP

PW

Three possibilities for OAM supported by MPLS 1.  Hop-by-hop (e.g. control plane based) 2.  Out-of-band OAM (e.g. UDP return path) 3.  In-band OAM similar to transport model e.g PW Associated Channel

Section

MPLS-TP generalises PW ACH to also enable transport style OAM on MPLS LSPs & Sections

•  In-band forward and return path •  Increases range of OAM tools •  Common tools at

PW, LSP and Section level •  RFC5586 – Generic ACh

ReuseofMPLSPWOAMarchitecturetomeettransportrequirements

23

G-ACh Label Stack

LSP Label

OAM Packet Label Stack

GAL

Generic Alert Label (GAL)   Identifies G-ACh packet on LSP   New reserved label (Value = 13)   Not needed for PWs — use control word

ACH Associated Channel Header (ACH)   Reuse PW ACH on LSPs   Channel Type indicates protocol

Payload

G-ACh Packet Payload   E.g. OAM, Data Communication (DCC),

protection protocols, etc.

ACH TLV

ACH TLVs (optional — depends on ACH protocol)   Intended for src/dst addressing, authentication, etc.

MPLS‐TPusesanewalertlabeltoiden+fypacketsontheGenericAssociatedChannel(G‐Ach)–GenericAlertLabel(GAL)

24

Associated Channel Header Indicates G-ACh packet, per RFC4385

0 0 0 1 Version Reserved Channel Type

0 4 8 16 31

Version 0000 today!

Set to zero

Indicates protocol carried in G-ACh

Highly extensible range

Common to PWs, LSPs and Sections

Uses PW associated channel type registry

• 8 experimental values

• All others Standards allocation

25

Associated Channel TLVs

 ACh TLVs can be used to carry additional context information about the messages carried in the G-ACh

 Some example uses include:   Source Address   Destination Address   LSP ID   Pseudowire Identifier

26

Maintenance Domains for MPLS-TP OAM

  MPLS-TP uses concept of Maintenance Domains being managed/monitored

  Maintenance End Points (MEPs) are edges of a maintenance domain   OAM of a maintenance level must not leak beyond corresponding MEP

  Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPS) define intermediate nodes that can be monitored

  Maintenance Entity Groups (MEGs) comprise all the MEPs and MIPs on an LSP

  MIP/MEP can be any points along the LSP path where the LSP label is processed

LSR A LSR B LER LER

MEP MEP MIP MIP

LSP

MEG

MPLS‐TPintroducestransportmanagementconceptstoMPLSSimplifiesmanagementofpacketandcircuitbasedtransport

Maintenance Domains

MIP

27

Targeting OAM to a MEP or MIP   For a MEP, GAL exposed when label popped

  Ensures OAM does not leak beyond MEP

  For a MIP, TTL expires, force OAM packet to be processed

  Verification that OAM message received at targeted MIP/MEP for further processing

GAL <swap>

TTL=2 TTL=1

LSP Label ACH

LSP label TTL expires

GAL processed

ACH processed

<push>

LSP label popped

GAL exposed

ACH processed

LSP Label ACH

GAL <swap> <swap>

TTL=255 TTL=254 TTL=253

<push> <pop>

MPLS‐TPusescommonMPLSmechanismstoachievetransport‐orientedfunc+ons

28

Identifying MPLS-TP Entities

 Need to uniquely identify the following entities:   MPLS Network Elements: LSRs, PEs, etc   Paths: LSPs, PWs   Maintenance Entities: MEGs, MEPs, MIPs

 MPLS-TP can use either:   IP-based:

  Compatible with existing GMPLS and PW identifiers

  ITU-T based:   International Carrier Code (ICC)

29


30

MPLS-TP OAM Requirements

Comprehensive set of “pro-active” & “on-demand” tools, applicable to both layer (PW/tunnel/section) and domain (tandem and e2e)

  Checking signal integrity, connectivity, quality   Allowing for fault localization, performance monitoring   Supporting remote indications and alarm suppression (server client)

Fast, data plane operation and without need for IP forwarding

31

OAM Operational Principles  MPLS-TP defines a comprehensive set of

OAM tools  OAM tools must be available for both

proactive and on demand operation  Must not need IP forwarding in data path  Operationally independent at all layers  Monitoring at different nested levels

  End to end monitoring   Per-Domain

  “Path segment monitoring”

32

OAM Function Outline Functions Description

Continuity Check Rapid, proactive detection of faults causing SLA violation

Connectivity Verification ..and Path Trace

Reactive fault localisation

Alarm Suppression / Fault Notification

Rapid indication of remote faults Prevention of alarm storms

Performance Monitoring Delay and loss measurements

Proactive non-intrusive detection of degradations causing SLA violation

Terms: LM: Loss Measurement DM: Delay Measurement FM: Fault Management

33

OAM Functions and tools

OAM functions MPLS-TP OAM ongoing work

Continuous (proactive) On demand (reactive)

Continuity Extended BFD (*) Extended LSP Ping (**)

Connectivity (path verification)

Extended BFD Extended LSP Ping

Quality New LM and DM tools New LM and DM tools

Fault Localization Not applicable Extended LSP Ping

Remote integrity Extended BFD Extended LSP Ping

Silencing (alarm suppression)

New FM tool Not applicable

* BFD to be extended for pro-active CC- CV and RDI

** LSP Ping to be extended for on-demand CV and TraceRoute

Design guidelines: Reuse/extend MPLS tools as much as possible, ensure interoperability

34

Example OAM functionality: Proactive Continuity Check w/o IP

LSR A LSR B LER A LER B

LSP1

BFD running on G-ACh Optimized for transport network operation - No UDP headers – similar to VCCV - Static configuration of parameters

• Initiated by a source MEP, and processed by the sink MEP • Configurable interval for fast failure detection* • If no CC received in 3.5 times interval, Loss of Continuity defect

*Between 3.3ms to 10min

MEP MIP MIP MEP

35

Example OAM functionality: Proactive Connectivity Verification

LSR A LSR B LER A LER B

LSP1

LSR B LER C

LSP2

BFD packet injected into LSP 2 - ACH TLV: ME ID (x)

BFD packet received on LSP 1 - ACH TLV: ME ID (x)

Mis-connection (mis-swap)

• Detects miss-merge or miss-connection through wrong ME identifier • Detects MEP miss-configuration through wrong peer MEP identifier • Detects period miss-configuration (different from its own)

MEP MIP MIP MEP

MIP MEP

36

Example OAM functionality: Path Segment Monitoring

  Path segment monitoring enables a subset of the segments of an LSP to be monitored independently of any end-to-end OAM   Tandem monitoring in terms of connectivity, fault and

quality, as well as alarms   Achieved via standard MPLS label stacking

LSR A LSR B LER LER

MEP MEP MIP MIP

LSP

MEP MEP

Pathsegmentmonitoring

End‐to‐endmonitoring

37

Example: Alarm Reporting using AIS

Domain B Domain A

Client Client Sec. LSP

MS-PW

  Fiber cut generates alarms in physical layer, section, LSP, PW (TCM) and MS-PW

  Only fiber cut alarm needs to be reported to NMS   Alarms on LSPs / PWs running CC need to be

suppressed using AIS packets

NMS

AIS AIS

38

Example: Performance Monitoring   Loss, Delay and Delay Variation measurements   Delay and Loss measurements can be proactive

or on-demand and rely on sending LM/DM packets from MEP to MEP for exchanging counters/timestamps

  Delay Measurements can be one way and two way   One way contains all the information in the packet send

from source MEP to sink MEP   Two way requires sink MEP to reply back with the

relevant information

39

Example: Performance Monitoring (draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay-00)

  At T1: A sends Loss Measurement (LM) query messages to B   contains the count of packets transmitted prior to time T1 over the connection to B (A_TxP).

  At T2: B appends two values and reflects the message back to A   the count of packets received prior to time T2 over the connection from A (B_RxP)

  At T3: B sends response back to A   the count of packets transmitted prior to time T3 over the connection to A (B_TxP).

  At T4: When the response reaches A, it appends a fourth value   the count of packets received prior to time T4 over the connection from B (A_RxP).

These four counter values enable A to compute the desired loss statistics.

LSR A LSR B

T1 T2

T3 T4

QUERY

RESPONSE

40


41

Management and Control for MPLS-TP   MPLS-TP control plane based on existing MPLS-based

control plane protocols   GMPLS for LSPs

  ISIS-TE, OSPF-TE for topology distribution   RSVP-TE for signalling

  T-LDP for PWs   Both of these already support bidirectional connections   Pug-and-play SCC over LSPs or sections for signaling in

absence of native IP support in server layer   MPLS-TP can be operated in absence of control plane

  NMS configuration   Static assignment of labels   Plug-and-play MCC over G-ACh carries NMS traffic

  Operation of MPLS-TP data plane is independent of configuration mechanism

SCC: Signaling Communication Channel MCC: Management Communication Channel

42

Data Communication Network using G-Ach: Carries MCC or SCC

LSPSec$on

NMS NMS

LSRA LSRB

GALACH

ACHTLV

DCNMessage

SCCorMCC

ProtocolID

DCNonSec+on

GALACH

ACHTLV

DCNMessage

SCCorMCC

ProtocolID

DCNonLSP

LSP

43

MPLS-TP LSP Control Plane (GMPLS)  GMPLS is a unified, generalized distributed control plane used for multiple networking technologies, including packets, TDM and WDM   I(nternal)-NNI concept (the only one supported in MPLS CP)

 E(xternal)-NNI concept (thus allowing for interworking among different vendors/operators)

 Bidirectional paths

 GMPLS allows for separation of data plane and control plane  Only control interfaces are used to flood control information

 GMPLS allows for “horizontal” scalability in routing domains (thanks to separation of data plane and control plane and recursive topology)

 GMPLS allows for “vertical” scalability (same control plane across different layers)

44

MPLS-TP PW Control Pane (Targeted LDP) T-LDP universally deployed today for PW

  Lightweight protocol allows for service scalability   Signals binding of PW label to FEC   Will use FEC 129 with MPLS-TP

  Global-ID + Node Prefix + AC-ID   Allows routing scalability with aggregation and domain

partitioning Establishes and maintains each direction of a SS-

PW or MS-PW Enables encapsulation to be negotiated, as well as

PW status to be signaled When used with a MS-PW, supports bidirectional,

co-routed PWs

45

 Creation of:   UNI and NNI   Tunnel, LSP   PW   service at the Ethernet UNI:

E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree  Association of the service to PWs:

  service mapped to FEC by classification at UNI   Classification parameters

are Port, VID, P-bits, IP DSCP, Client Ethertype…

Service Set-up

MPLS-TP

physical link

UNI / NNI Interfaces

MPLS-TP

physical link Tunnel

Termination (LER) Tunnel Swap

(LSR)

MPLS-TP

physical link PW

Termination PW Termination

PW Swapping

46


47

MPLS-TP Resilience MPLS-TP

Multiservice Access Ring

Prot.

LSP Protection

Section Protection IP/MPLS

Ethernet, TDM, ATM,

NMS or ASON/GMPLS

Wire-speed OAM

PW protection

  < 50ms with PSC protocol trigged by data-plane OAM

  1+1, 1:1, 1:N, without extra traffic

  Unidir, Bidir   Section, LSP, PW   Subnetwork Connection (SNCP)   Mesh and Ring

Protection (data plane)   GMPLS based restoration for LSP in

synergy with other transport network technologies (SONET, OTN, WDM)

  PW redundancy   LSP fast reroute   GMPLS segment end-to-end

protection   Pre-planned LSP rerouting

restoration   Any topology

Restoration (ctrl. and mgmt. plane)

PSC: Protection State Coordination

48

Data plane: Linear 1+1 protection

Recovery path

Working path

Transport path: PW, PST, LSP, TC

PB SB

Permanent Bridge Selector Bridge

LSR LSR   Permanent Bridge sends traffic on both working and recovery

paths   Selector bridge selects path   Applicable to p2p and p2mp, uni and bi-directional   PSC protocol for bi-directional, to synchronize both ends

PST: Path Segment Tunnel TC: Tandem Connection

Permanent Bridge Selector bridge

49

Data Plane: Linear 1:1 protection

Recovery path

Working path

Transport path: PW, PST, LSP, TC

SB SB

Selector Bridge Selector Bridge

LSR LSR

  PSC protocol for synchronization between selector bridges   Always sent over the recovery path over the GACH   Upon failure, three PSC packets sent at 3.3 ms intervals to

trigger switchover in sub-50ms   Supports revertive and non-revertive, uni and bi-directional

operation

PSC

50

Data Plane: Ring Protection

 Ring operation of importance in transport scenarios due to existing fiber layout   Optimizations possible in rings

 Many ring-specific protection scheme developed (RPR, ERP, UPSR, BLSR…) in existing technologies

 FRR can be fully applied to rings   FRR does not provide bi-directional protection

switching. Linear protection does.

 Several schemes discussed in MPLS-TP (work in progress)   Based on Optimizing FRR (FRR-Transport Profile and

Ring Optimized FRR)   Multipoint protection switching   Based on G.8132-like mechanism

Protec+onop+mizedwithknowledgeofringtopology

51

Control Plane Based Protection

 MPLS-TP uses existing GMPLS and PW control planes

  Inherits existing control plane based protection/restoration mechanisms applicable to uni/bi-directional paths

  LSPs: GMPLS protection mechanisms   PWs: PW Redundancy

  Correct forwarding if dual-homed AC fails-over   Protection if S-PE fails on MS-PW

52

GMPLS Protection   GMPLS defines recovery signaling for

  P2P LSPs in [RFC4872], RSVP-TE extensions in support for end-to-end GMPLS recovery

  and [RFC4873] for GMPLS segment recovery.   GMPLS segment recovery provides a superset of

the function in end-to-end recovery1.   All five of the protection types defined for recovery are

supported in MPLS-TP.   1+1 bidirectional protection for P2P LSPs   1+1 unidirectional protection for P2MP LSPs   1:n (including 1:1) protection with or without extra traffic   Rerouting without extra traffic (sometimes known as soft

rerouting), including shared mesh restoration   Full LSP rerouting

1Use of Notify messages to trigger protection switching and recovery is not required in MPLS-TP as this is expected to be supported via OAM. However, it's use is not precluded. The restoration priority and The preemption priority are supported

53

PW Redundancy

MPLS-TP component of end-to-end protection against PE/AC failures   PE configured with multiple pseudowires per service with multiple end-points   Local precedence indicates primary PW for forwarding if multiple PWs are

operationally UP   PW status exchanged end-to-end to notify PEs of operational state of both PWs

& ports/attachment circuits (PW Status Notification).

(For more details, please attend the BBF “MPLS in the RAN” tutorial at 4PM today)

• RNC

MPLS-TP network

AC redundancy: MC – APS MC - LAG

ATM (IMA)

Ethernet Node B

3G active

standby

AC redundancy protocol drives forwarding state of PWs/PEs

Forwarding direction determined by PW state

PW status

Active/standby state of LAG/APS sub-groups reflected in PW status

54

Protection for static PWs

 Static PWs are common in MPLS-TP   PW status messaging can be extended to

static PWs when T-LDP control plane absent

 Carry PW status TLV in PW associated channel, instead of over T-LDP

  draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt

55

Static PW Status Messaging


PW PW

MPLS-TP LSP

T-PE T-PE

MPLS-TP

S-PE

T-LDP static

PW status

Carried in T-LDP signaling across dynamic segment

Carried in ACH across static segment PW label TTL=1 ensures single hop (S-PE-T-PE) propagation

PW status TLV:

56

LSP and PW working/protect Relationships

  Working PW configured over LSP Green with working and protect paths.   When LSP Green working path fails, switches to LSP Green Protect. No PW

failover is needed.   PW redundancy takes place when both LSP Green Working and Protect

paths fail, in that case, PW will switch to the protect PW which is configured on the LSP Red tunnel interface with working and protect path.

LSP Red Working

LSP Red Protect

Working PW over LSP Green

LSP Green Protect

LSP Red Working

Protect PW over LSP Red

57


58

  MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS are one technology set   For both IP edge routing and transport

  Brings benefits to the IP edge routing toolset   Transport-oriented OAM features for more predictable services

  Peer interworking with a hybrid optical transport network to reduce OPEX

  Seamless delivery of packet transport services from IP edge routing and transport networks

MPLS-TP: Relationship to IP/MPLS

Commonsetofnewfunc+onsapplicabletobothMPLSnetworksingeneral,andtothoseofMPLS‐TPprofile

IP

MPLS‐TP

Convergedservicerou$ngMPLSNetwork

59

Example: Access/Aggregation using MPLS-TP

PWE3 e2e MPLS-TP OAM

LSP [Static/GMPLS-RSVP-TE]

LSP MPLS-TP OAM

LSP [RSVP-TE/LDP]

LSP MPLS-TP OAM /BFD/RSVP/IGP

LSP [Static]

Section OAM

IP/MPLS w/MPLS-TP

IP/MPLS w/MPLS-TP

MPLS-TP

Hybrid optical aggregation

Full feature IP aggregation

MS-PW (static/T-LDP)

MS-PW (static/T-LDP)

MS-PW (T-LDP)

PW hand-off between networks Optical and IP platforms act as S-PEs Common, end-to-end TP functions

IP network cherry-picks TP functions

60


61

Business VPN Services

MPLS-TP/Optical Metro Network

IP/MPLS-TP Metro Core

IP/MPLS-TP

Core

Enterprise

Enterprise

Internet

IMS, Video Servers

Enterprise

IP/MPLS-TP Metro

Consistent PW Forwarding, OAM, & Resiliency Options End-End Across Domains

PW

MPLS-TP extensions can be used selectively (e.g. per-domain, per-service) in

IP/MPLS networks

  VPNs across geographically distributed networks

  Several transport and IP/MPLS metro and core segments

  Interop between transport and routing (OAM, bandwidth provisioning, QoS, resilience)

Enterprise bandwidth services Enterprise access to

voice, video, & VPN services

VPN

62

Carrier’s Carrier Service Provider

Service Provider (or Large

Enterprise)


Enterprise)


Enterprise)


Enterprise)

MPLS-TP/Optical Transport Network

Highly Scalable, Packet-Optimized Transport

MPLS-TP End-End & Per-Domain Connection Monitoring

  Highly segmented topologies with several nested service providers/enterprises

  OAM with e2e as well as per domain capabilities to isolate problems   MPLS-TP OAM supporting path segment monitoring

Multiplexed, flexible- bandwidth LSP UNIs

SP Trunks & Enterprise WAN Connections

63

Mobile Backhaul

 Multiservice transport for Ethernet, TDM, ATM, IP using PW  Performance monitoring for new services (delay for VoIP)  Fast protection  Interoperability with IP/MPLS ePC and in RAN  Support for E-LAN and E-Line for S1 and X2 interfaces  Support for L2VPNs

BSC / RNC

BTS

Node B

Node B eNB

Evolved packet Core (IP/MPLS)

Circuit core

Backhaul transport (MPLS-TP with or w/o IP)

IP

ATM

TDM

P- GW

MME S- GW

64


65

IETF/ITU-T Joint Working Team Consensus on MPLS in Transport

IETF and ITU-T formed Joint Working Team Achieved consensus: agree to work together and bring transport requirements into the IETF

and extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability, network management, and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF Standards Process.[RFC5317]1

1: [RFC 5317]: Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile, Feb. 2009.

Definition of MPLS “Transport Profile” (MPLS-TP) protocols, based on ITU-T requirements

Derivation of packet transport requirements

Integration of IETF MPLS-TP definition into transport network recommendations

Providing MPLS-TP Recommendations per IETF definitions

66

IETF MPLS-TP Development

Requirements (MPLS WG)

Transport Profile Architectural Framework (MPLS WG)

G-Ach Definition (MPLS WG)

OAM (MPLS WG)

Survivability (MPLS WG)

Control Plane (CCAMP WG)

Network Management (MPLS WG)

IETF developing a set of MPLS-TP specs under umbrella of ‘MEAD team’ First set already approved during 2009

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework

JWT report: RFC5317 Requirements: RFC5654 GACH: RFC5568 DCN: RFC5718 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req (WG last call) draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements

RFC5586 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-frmwk

Many additional individual drafts proposing MPLS-TP functions

RFC5718

See http://tools.ietf.org/id/mpls-tp http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/

Several I-Ds on mechanisms

67

IETF Work on MPLS-TP

  The IETF MPLS-TP design team has successfully achieved its objectives.

  The main requirements work has been published, and two subsidiary requirements documents (NM and OAM) are close to publication.

  The core work on the frameworks and solutions has started and are progressing.

  Further work on MPLS-TP continues using the IETF normal process to allow

  Open participation by everyone in the industry,   New items to be introduced more quickly.   Streamlining the process

68

MPLS-TP Elements – Standardization Status

69

MPLS-TP Specific Documents

 Four RFCs

  Informational RFC 5317: “JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile“

  Standard RFC 5586: “MPLS Generic Associated Channel” The basic architectural elements of MPLS-TP are fully defined!

 Standard RFC 5654: “Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile “

 Standard RFC 5718 on An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile

 More than ten IETF WG drafts (in MPLS, PWE3 and Opsawg WGs). One of them is in the RFC editor queue and another is under the IESG processing.

 More than thirty individual documents on OAM tools and entitles, linear and ring protection, control plane, management plane, interworking with IP/MPLS and security.

70

MPLS-TP Documents’ Structure

RFC

IETF Document under IESG Review

IETF Document

Individual documents

71

IETF and ITU-T Collaboration

ITU-T G.81xx

IETF RFCs

ITU-T G.81xx

ITU-T

IETF

Joint Working Team (JWT)

Alignment Converged

MPLS Transport

Specs Transport

requirements

MPLS-TP

MPLS-TP MPLS

IETF RFCs

IETF Drafts

Draft Recs

Review

72

Agenda   Evolving Transport Towards Packet   What is MPLS-TP?   MPLS-TP Architecture   OAM in MPLS-TP   Management, configuration and control plane   Protection and Resiliency   Relationship between IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP   Standardization Update   Summary

73

The goal: MPLS-transport profile   For next-generation converged

packet network supported in service routing and transport platforms for convergence

  Consistent operations and OAM between both routing and transport domains to enable seamless interconnection

  Standards definition focused on five topics: OAM, protection, forwarding, control plane and management

  Significant advantage over Ethernet-centric alternatives due to commonality with MPLS

74

IETF RFC and WG Draft Reference

  IETF RFCs published   RFC 5317: JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a

Transport Profile   RFC 5586: MPLS Generic Associated Channel   RFC 5654: MPLS-TP Requirements   RFC 5704: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful   RFC 5718: An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS

Transport Profile   IETF WG drafts

  draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-01   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-00.txt

75

www.alcatel-lucent.com Thank You! Please come and see further MPLS-TP

presentations on Wednesday 10th February

Enabling Efficient Packet Transport with MPLS-TPhome.btconnect.com/nivenjb/Enabling Efficient Packet...

Documents

Transcript of Enabling Efficient Packet Transport with MPLS-TPhome.btconnect.com/nivenjb/Enabling Efficient Packet...