View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE tests
Victor Olifer (JANET/GEANT JRA1 Task 1)
JRA1 Workshop, Copenhagen, 20th November
connect • communicate • collaborate
Agenda
PBB-TE against EoMPLS
History of trials
JANET local trial
UK-wide testbed & PBB-TE and EoMPLS interworking tests
Testing PBB-TE resilience (protection switching)
General conclusions of EoMPLS & PBB-TE trial
connect • communicate • collaborate
Intro: technologies & features
Two reps of Carrier Ethernet:
•Two-tier hierarchy•Traffic Engineering•Protection switching•Ethernet&MPLS OAM
•Two-tier hierarchy•Traffic Engineering•Protection switching•Ethernet OAM
•Established•Rich control plane•Complex•Multi-domain support:
•Local labels•BGP
•Emerging•Zero control plane•Simple (relatively)•Single-domain:
•Global labels •GMPLS? Not avail.
connect • communicate • collaborate
Carrier Ethernet family objectives
De-coupling of provider and user networks
PB – VLAN ID separationPBB/PBB-TE – MAC and VLAN ID separation
Resilience PB & PBB – STP (TRILL, SPB) – re-routingPBB-TE – fast protection switching
Traffic Engineering PB, PBB – no (and yes for non-resilient services if routing is switched off – VLAN-based path )
OAM Relevant for PB, PBB, PBB-TE
connect • communicate • collaborate
History of trials
2008 2009 2010 2011
JANETLocal trial
JANET UK-wide Carrier Ethernet trial
JRA 1 Task 1PBB-TE trial same testbed
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE local trial
Switch A CIENA 311v
Switch B CIENA 311v
Switch C CIENA 311v
Simple goal: To check whether this new Carrier Ethernet offspring does what his parents promise
Results: In general: Yes, it does, and in a very familiar to classic Ethernet way
•TE – yes, by establishing of PBB-TE tunnels with explicit path •Scalability – yes, by using customer (I-SID) connections over tunnels
up to 16 M connections per tunnel
MAC A MAC C
B‐VID N
B‐VID NB‐VID N
B‐VID N
connect • communicate • collaborate
MACinMAC encapsulation
Customernetwork
Customernetwork
PBnetwork
PBB/PBB TEnetwork
PBnetwork
S‐VID added B‐header added B‐header removed S‐VID removed
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE local trial (cont.)
CIENA 311v
CIENA 311v
CIENA 311v
Results:
•Resilience – yes, by fast protection switchingof tunnels triggered by CCM heartbeat messages
Primary tunnel
Backup tunnel
connect • communicate • collaborate
Warrington
Reading
London Telecity
Core
Manchester Uni
Oxford Uni
Lancaster Uni
Essex Uni
JANET/JRA1 Task 1Carrier Ethernet multi-domain testbed
JANETLightpath(EoMPLS)
- PBB-TE domain
- EoMPLS-domain
JANET(UK)/Lumen House
CIENA 311v
CIENA 311v
CIENA 311v
connect • communicate • collaborate
Warrington
Reading
London Telecity
Core
Manchester Uni
Oxford Uni
Lancaster Uni
Essex Uni
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS
JANETLightpath(EoMPLS)
MEF E-NNI:S-VID (outer VID) – service delimiter
M-Eth SAM-Eth DA
MPLS LSPMPLS PWC-Eth DAC-Eth SAPayload (IP)
B-SAB-DA
B-VIDI-SIDC-DAC-SA
Payload (IP)
S-VID
1. Use tagged Ethernet frames and copy/map PW ID into S-VID
2. Encapsulate EoMPLS frames into PBB-TE frames at ingress
3. Copy/map S-VID into I-SID
4. De-capsulate EoMPLS frames at ingress and send to destination
Payload
M-Eth SAM-Eth DA
MPLS LSPMPLS PWC-Eth DAC-Eth SAPayload (IP)
S-VID
B-SAB-DA
B-VIDI-SIDC-DAC-SA
Payload (IP)Payload
M-Eth SAM-Eth DA
MPLS LSPMPLS PWC-Eth DAC-Eth SAPayload (IP)
S-VID
M-Eth SAM-Eth DA
MPLS LSPMPLS PWC-Eth DAC-Eth SAPayload (IP)
S-VID
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS (cont.)
Overlay mode for the core, conforms to MEF E-NNI
Contiguous MPLS tunnels and PWs
Usage of IP control plane protocols in the EoMPLS testbeds(partly to make it close to real JANET):
•OSPF, BGP, LDP, RSVP (only for TE)
Main characteristics of the solution:
Problems encountered: STP BPDUs received within MPLS PWs from neighboring MPLS domain confused local STP and resulted in blocking ports :
It was fixes by switching STP off
LDP refused to distribute labels between MPLS domains which belonged to different AS:
It was fixes by using ‘BGP send-label’
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB
Warrington
London Telecity
CoreEssex Uni
JANET(UK)/Lumen House
JANETLightpath(EoMPLS)
Two modes for the core and peripheral testbeds were tested: 1. Overlay, with PB in the peripheral testbeds and
encapsulation into PBB-TE in the coreFor LH – Essex Uni connection:
1. PB frame is encapsulated into PBB-TE one atthe core ingress E-NNI in Reading
Reading B-SAB-DA
B-VIDI-SID
Payload (IP)
C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
S-VID
E-NNI
2. S-VID is copied/mapped into I-SID
3. PBB-TE frame travels to the egress at Telecityswitch using I-SID as a service delimiter
B-SAB-DA
B-VIDI-SID
Payload (IP)C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
S-VID 4. PB frame is de-capsulated at the core egress
C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
S-VID
5. PB frame is delivered to Essex Uni testbedthrough JANET Lightpath EoMPLSconnection
One more overlay transfer: PB over EoMPLS on basis of S-VID
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.)
Warrington
London Telecity
CoreEssex Uni
JANET(UK)/Lumen House
JANETLightpath(EoMPLS)
Second mode tested: Peer-to-peer mode with a contiguous PBB-TE connection
For LH – Essex Uni connection:
1. Customer frame is encapsulated into PBB-TEone at the LH testbed ingress UNI
Reading
B-VIDB-SAB-DA
I-SID
Payload (IP)
C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
I-NNI
2. C-VID is mapped into I-SID
3. PBB-TE frame travels along the contiguous PBB-TE tunnel (LH – the core – Essex Uni) using I-SID as a service delimiter
4. PB frame is de-capsulated at Essex testbedegress
UNI
C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
B-VIDB-SAB-DA
I-SID
Payload (IP)C- SAC- DA
C-VIDPayload (IP)
PBB-TE frame travelled over Lightpath EoMPLS on basis of B-VID (outer VID)
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.2)
Overlay PB vs. contiguous multy-domain PBB-TE
Overlay model Contiguous modelNumber of PBB-TE tunnels
Minimal:- Only to connect domain edge switches (e.g. 3 unprotected core tunnels in our case)
Might be quite big: - A tunnel per customer pair (e.g. 10 unprotected core tunnels in our case)
Co-ordination of end point of tunnel MAC addresses between domains
Not needed Needed (private loopback MACs might be used)
Tunnel protection Only within a domain End-to-end
IP control plane Not needed, doesn’t exist yet in practice (might be GMPLS)
Not needed, doesn’t exist yet in practice (might be GMPLS)
connect • communicate • collaborate
Warrington
Reading
London Telecity
Core
Lancaster Uni
Essex Uni
Overlay and contiguousPBB-TE protection switching
JANET LH
1. Overlay model Primary tunnel
Backup tunnel
X
No mechanism to redirect traffic in case of inter-domain link failure – so, only intra-domain protection
Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed – e.g. BGP
connect • communicate • collaborate
Warrington
Reading
London Telecity
Core
Lancaster Uni
Essex Uni
Overlay and contiguousPBB-TE protection switching (cont.)
JANET LH
2. Contiguous model Primary tunnel
Backup tunnel
Standard CCM mechanism triggers end-to-end protection
No other Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed
X
connect • communicate • collaborate
General Carrier Ethernet trial conclusions
•Both EoMPLS and PBB-TE proved to be working transport technologies with required core set of carrier-grade features
•EoMPLS and PBB-TE can smoothly inter-operate according MEF E-NNI spec
•EoMPLS is a good choice for carrier core networks because of its tight integration with powerful IP control plane, router vendor support and wide implementation base
•PBB-TE might be used for access and campus networks: simple but robust
•PBB-TE is not dead despite some rumours (Ciena, Extreme, ...)
connect • communicate • collaborate
Trials’ participants
JANET Carrier Ethernet TrialVictor Olifer (JANET UK)
(victor.olifer@ja.net)
Dave Tinkler (JANET UK)Martin Dunmore (JANET UK)Michael Robson (Manchester Uni)Anthony Ryan (Manchester Uni)Faris Ali (Lancaster Uni)Oliver Gorwitz (Oxford Uni)Guy Morrell (Oxford Uni)Bijan Rahimzadeh Rofoee(Essex Uni)
JRA1 Task 1: Jan Radil (CESNET)Marcin Grastka (PSNC) Ramanujam Jayakumar (Essex Uni) Jac Kloots (SURFnet) Alberto Colmenero (NORDUnet)
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE positioning
Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP
Sub wavelength switching: SDHFrame switching: PBB-TE
Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE positioning (cont.)
Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP
Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services
Frame switching: Carrier Ethernet
1. L2 services to customers 2. Links to upper layers3. Links to upper layers directly from layer 0/1
connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE - Optical integration
Wavelength, sub wavelength and frame switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP/CE
Pros
Cons
•Network is simpler: one layer, less boxes, one type of boxes
• More efficient provisioning : consistent approach of one NMS or one control plane ->cut through, selection between layers etc
Complexity of combined boxes –> - difficulty in configuring grows as the number of components are squared -> error prone, unstable behaviour
connect • communicate • collaborate
Questions
Questions?
connect • communicate • collaborate
Extra slides
connect • communicate • collaborate
Testing PBB-TE resilience
warr‐cec1
EssexLancaster
• The configuration was tested for a ping session with 100 ms interval
PBB‐TE tunnel group: warr‐lond
7/2
7/17/2
7/17/23
7/24
7/23
7/24
7/24
VS: lancaster‐essex‐vs
read‐cec1
lond‐cec3
VS: essex‐lh‐vs
Tunnel 1 : weight 8
Tunnel 2 : weight 7
Tunnel 3 : weight 6
XX
• CCM inetrval was set also for 100 ms
• Switching off port 7/1 of warr‐cec1 caused loss of 0 or 1 ping
7/1 7/2
connect • communicate • collaborate
Traffic policing tests
Recommended