Evolving Transport to Packet with MPLS-TP

Luyuan Fang, Cisco SystemsNabil Bitar, Verizon

Raymond Zhang, BT

FutureNet 2010

May 12, 2010, Boston

2

Agenda

� Transport Moving toward Packet

� Drivers and Requirements

� MPLS-TP Technologies Overview

� MPLS-TP Use Case Scenarios

� Design Considerations

� Standards Development Status

� Conclusions

3

Transport Moving Toward Packet

- Evolution Drivers- SONET/SDH TDM to Packet

4

Transport Evolution – Moving Toward Packets

� Drivers for moving from SONET/SDH TDM technologies to packet switching

– Fast growing bandwidth demand - driven by new packet applications/services

• IP Video: content downloading/streaming/sharing

• Mobile data: e.g. smart phone applications

• Triple play

• IP and Ethernet VPNS

– Network convergence and Technology refreshes

• Consolidate networks onto common infrastructure

• Replace aging legacy networks

� Transport moving from SONET/SDH TDM toward packet transport

– Flexible data rates and statistical Multiplexing gains

– Lower cost

5

Service Providers Transport Requirements

� Packet transport technology

– Reliable and stable

– Enables statistical multiplexing

– Flexible data rates

– High bandwidth

– Lower cost of ownership

� Maintain current transport characteristics

– Client-Server relationship: Transport domain is independent of client networks

– Forwarding Paradigm: Connection-oriented

– Transport OAM: In-band OAM

– Resiliency: Fast detection and recovery time without c/p (<50ms)

– Connection path determination and placement via

1) Network Management System (NMS)

2) Dynamic Control Plane

– Tight SLAs: BW and QoS guarantees, and high availability

6

Why MPLS-TP for Packet Transport?

� MPLS-Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is aimed to address the NGN transport needs of high bandwidth packet switched networks and satisfy carriers’ requirements

� MPLS-TP provides in-band OAM, NMS-based provisioning and maintenance, control plane, deterministic path protection with fast recovery time, and lower total cost of ownership

� Leverages Service providers’ experience with MPLS

� Standardization: Joint work by IETF and ITU-T.

– MPLS-TP protocols are developed in IETF

• Existing MPLS data plane (no IP user plane)

• Subset of MPLS, Pseudowire and GMPLS that satisfies transport needs and requirements

• Extensions when needed ala OAM

– Leverage the expertise in IETF and insure interoperability between MPLS-TP and existing MPLS technologies

7

MPLS-TP Fundamentals

- What is MPLS-TP?- MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS

88

IP And Transport Converging Under MPLS

PW

MPLS

MPLS-TP IP/MPLS

MPLS-TP OAM

Path Protection

50ms Switchover

Alarm and monitoring

Static Provisioning

MPLS ForwardingMPLS Forwarding

GMPLS

PHP

ECMP

MP2MP

IP

Transport IP

9

MPLS-TP Concept

Working LSP

PE PE

Protect LSP

NMS for Network

Management Control *

Client node Client node

MPLS-TP LSP (Static or Dynamic)

Pseudowire

Client Signal

Connection Oriented, pre-configured working path and protect pathTransport Tunnel 1:1 protection, switching triggered by in-band OAMPhase 1: NMS for static provisioning

E2e and segment OAM

Section Section

*Can use dynamic control

plane

10

What is MPLS-TP?

Resilency

– Sub-50ms protection switch over without c/p

– 1:1, 1+1, 1:N path protection

– Linear protection

– Ring protection

OAM

– In-band OAM channel (GACH)

– Connectivity Check (CC): proactive (ext. BFD)

– Connectivity verification (CV): reactive (ext. LSP Ping)

– Alarm Suppression and Fault Indication with AIS (new tool), RDI (ext. BFD), and Client Fault Indication

(CFI)

– Performance monitoring, proactive and reactive (new tools)

Control Plane

– NMS provisioning option

– GMPLS control plane option

– PW control plane option

Data Plane

– MPLS Forwarding

– Bidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs

– No LSP merging

– PHP optional

– PW (SS-PW, MS-PW)

11

Pseudowire

PW1

Emulated Service

Native Service(Attachment

Circuit)

T-PE1 T-PE2

Native Service(Attachment

Circuit)

S-PE1CE1 CE2

TP-LSP

PW.Seg t3PW.Seg t1

PW.Seg t2 PW.Seg t4

TP-LSP

PW.Seg t3

PW.Seg t4

PW.Seg t1

PW.Seg t2

TP-LSP

MPLS-TP Architecture

Basic construct of MPLS-TP:

–MPLS LSPs for transportation (LSPs can be nested)

–PWs for the client layer (SS-PW and MS-PW)

–All other types of traffic are carried by PW as client layer

TP-LSP

12

MPLS-TP NGN Packet Transport

� MPLS PWs (SS-PWs and MS-PWs): Provide circuit emulation for native L2 connections over an MPLS PSN

� LSPs: Provide for creating MPLS tunnels over an MPLS PSN that can carry PWs or other LSPs (nesting)

Traffic-engineering capability (bandwidth guarantees)

Rich and mature traffic protection mechanisms

Rich control plane

Routing: OSPF-TE/ISIS-TE

Signaling: RSVP-TE with GMPLS extensions

Provide for very flexible hierarchical tunneling � better scale in core

� Further enhancements are in progress in IETF/ITU joint effort targeting OAM and protection schema

data-plane fault detection and notification

performance measurement

no dependence on IP data plane

13

Deployment Scenarios

14

MPLS-TP Potential Deployment Scenarios

� IP/MPLS and MPLS-TP Access and Aggregation Use Cases

� Replacing TDM SONET/ATM network with MPLS-TP

� Mobile Backhaul

� Carrier Ethernet Aggregation

� Multi-service Support Transport

15

MPLS-TP in Aggregation and Access

Dark Fibre / CWDM / DWDM and ROADM

�Aggregation Network

Aggregation

BNG

Business PE

Access Edge

Aggregation Node

�DSL

�Ethernet

�Core

�VoD

�Content Network

�TV �SIP

�EMS �NMS�Portal

�AAA �Service and Performance Mgmt�DHCP,DN

S

�OAM Subsystem

Multiservice Core

�Core Network

Distribution Node

�STB

�Corporat

e

�STB

�STB

�Residential

�Corporat

e

�Corporat

e

�Business

�Business

�Business

�Residential

�Residential

�2G/3G Node

�RADIU

S (C

oA)

PON

IP/MPLSStatic or Dynamic MPLS-TPStatic or dynamic MPLS-TP

�MPLS-TP�MPLS-TP �IP/MPLS

16

Deployment Scenario 1: Service Networks and MPLS-TP over OTN/DWDM

• MPLS-TP provides transport services (server) for many client networks•Ethernet services (native and Ethernet/MPLS) network: Inter-switch/router links, Ethernet tunnels transport•IP MPLS services network : Inter-outer IP links transport•Enterprises: Leased line replacement. Wireless backhaul is a special case

• Islands of a client services network form a contiguous domain (e.g., IGP domain)•Client-transport network interface is a UNI

MPLS-TPDomain

Ethernet Service Networs

Island 1

Ethernet Services Network

Island 2

Ethernet ServicesNetwork Island 3

IP MPLS NetworkIsland 1

IP MPLS NetworkIsland 2

Attachment circuit (AC), LSP, or PW segmentPW, PW segment, or LSPMPLS transport (MPLS, MPLS-TP) LSP tunnel

Client Network Transport Server Network(e.g. Metro/Medium Haul. Long Haul)

UNI

DWDM

Client Network

UNI

17

�Aggregation Network

BNG

Business PE

Access Edge

�DSL

�Ethernet

�Core

�VoD

�Content Network

�TV �SIP

�EMS �NMS�Portal

�AAA �Service and Performance Mgmt�DHCP,DN

S

�OAM Subsystem

Multiservice Core

�Core Network

�STB

�Corporat

e

�STB

�STB

�Residential

�Corporat

e

�Corporat

e

�Business

�Business

�Business

�Residential

�Residential

�2G/3G Node

�RADIU

S (C

oA)

PON

IP/MPLSStatic or Dynamic MPLSStatic or dynamic MPLS-TP

�MPLS-TP �IP/MPLS

Aggregation Node

�MPLS-TP

Distribution Node

Aggregation

Deployment Scenario 2:MPLS-TP for Carrier Ethernet Aggregation/Access

18

� Using PW in MPLS-TP to support legacy TDM, ATM and IP transport

� Deterministic path provisioning

� Protection with fast restoration

� Backhaul performance monitoring

� Interoperability with IP/MPLS and in RAN

� Support 2G/3G/4G services

BSC /

RNC

BTS

Node B

Node B

eNB

IP/MPLS Core

Circuit NetworkMPLS-TP

MMES- GW / P-GW

Mobile Backhaul

IP/ATM/TDM

IP

Deployment Scenario 3: MPLS-TP for Mobile Backhaul

19

Deployment Scenario 4: Backhaul with MPLS-TP MS-PW for Security Consideration

*Could also be chSTM1 based on MOLO requirements

Key:

Transport

UNI/presentation

OSS/Static

Control plane signaled

Synchronization & Timing

OAM

Ethernet PW Ethernet PW

Ethernet

Core PW

E1

chSTM1

Ethernet

BS

IMA/E1STM1*

ATM PW ATM PWCore PW

E1 PW E1 PWCore PW

Existing Ethernet access termination

point

Existing Ethernet access termination

point

Provider Managed CPE

Provider Managed CPE

BS

BS

Same as Ethernet services

today

PW segment over Ethernet

access VLAN(s)

PW segment over Ethernet

access VLAN(s)

Transport VLAN

(Etherway)

Transport VLAN

(Etherway)

Statically or signaled

configured LSP & PW labels

Dynamically signaled LSP &

PW labels

(LDP & T-LDP)

Statically or signaled configured LSP & PW labels

20

- Standards Development

- Design considerations- Conclusions

21

IETF/ITU-T Consensus

� History

– “For a number of years, the ITU-T has been designing a connection-oriented packet switched technology to be used in Transport Networks.”[RFC5317]1

– Issues: Breaking the MPLS Forwarding paradigm, Jeopardizing the value and functionality of the large-scale of deployed MPLS networks and associated equipment

–“Development of T-MPLS was abandoned [RFC5317]1 by ITU-T Study Group 15 due to inherent conflicts with the IETF MPLS design and, in particular, with the Internet architecture. These conflicts arose due to the lack of coordination with the IETF as the design authority for MPLS.”[RFC 5704]2

� T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP

� IETF/ITU-T Consensus - Joint Work on MPLS-TP

- ITU-T provide transport requirements

- IETF develop protocol definitions

- Joint review of documents/specifications

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

2: [RFC 5704]: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful, Nov. 2009.

22

IETF Development Status

� 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

� 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

� Open issued under work

OAM: FM and PM related: involves BFD ext., certain aspect of Y.1731, MEP, MIP…

Protection: especially Ring Protection – proposal convergence in progress

23

MPLS-TP IETF Status

� 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

The following is the latest update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010:

� WG Drafts (target date June 2010)

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk

� In other working groups

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework

draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def

24

Draft targeted for Feb 2011- IETF update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010

� WG Drafts

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection

� Other working groups

draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext

draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk

25

Draft targeted for Feb 2011 – II- IETF update by MPLS WG at IETF 77, 3/25/2010

� Individual Drafts

draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv

draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config

draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay

draft-zhl-mpls-tp-sd

draft-fang-mpls-tp-security-framework

draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures

draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions

draft-dai-mpls-tp-lock-instruct

draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback

draft-he-mpls-tp-csf

draft-flh-mpls-tp-oam-diagnostic-test

draft-fbb-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework

26

General Design Considerations

� MPLS-TP vs. IP/MPLS

Operational experience

Transport requirements

� Standards compliance

IETF standards are evolving, good progress

T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP - it would not inter-op with MPLS

� Interoperability with IP/MPLS

MS PW support static to dynamic PW interconnect

End-to-end OAM – we are not there yet.

� Resilency – fast switch over

sub 50ms switch over for liner and ring topology

Event driven with AIS/LDI

� Scalability

Number of LSPs and PWs supported

BFD HW support

� Performance monitoring

Delay / loss measurement

27

General Design Considerations

� MPLS-TP vs. IP/MPLS

Operation experience

Transport requirements

� Standards compliance

IETF standards are evolving, good progress

T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP

� Interoperability with IP/MPLS

MS PW support static to dynamic PW interconnect

End-to-end OAM

� Resilency – fast switch over

� Scalability

28

Conclusions� Transport Evolution – toward Packet Transport

New services driving BW growth

Support IP, Ethernet, High BW, Statistical Multiplexing, low cost packet transport

Moving away from SONET/SDH/ATM TDM technology to packet

� MPLS-TP satisfies transport requirements, key characteristics and needed interoperability with IP/MPLS

Common with IP/MPLS/GMPLS: Forwarding, PW, GMPLS

Enhanced OAM, Resiliency, Fast-switch over, NMS support

Provide a path for IP and transport to converge over MPLS umbrella

� MPLS-TP Potential Use Case ExamplesMetro Ethernet aggregation and access

Multi-service transport

Mobile backhaul

� T-MPLS is not MPLS-TPIETF and ITU-U consensus to terminate T-MPLS

IETF and ITU-T JWT joint effort developing MPLS-TP

29

Thank You