A Presentation on Resilient Packet Ring Technology
28-JUL-20132
Slide 3
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. ETHERNET AND SONET. LIMITATIONS OF
ETHERNET AND SONET. WHY RPR TECHNOLOGY ? RPR TECHNOLOGY.
CLASSIFICATION OF QOS. RPR CHARACTERISTICS. PACKET RING STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT. CONCLUSION. S7 ECE DEPT3
Slide 4
INTRODUCTION Packet-based technologies from LAN to MAN MAC
protocol for metro fiber ring networks. Emerging network Transport
of data traffic over optical fiber ring networks. Ethernet and
sonet 4
Slide 5
Todays Traditional Metro Access Networks ETHERNET SONET 5
Slide 6
ETHERNET Service offered via Ethernet interface. Speed10 Mbps
to 10 Gbps Rapid acceptance in the marketplace. Familiarity,
simplicity, and low cost. 6
Slide 7
SONET Synchronous optical network. High speed. Run on optical
fiber. Multiplexing protocols. Point-to-point circuits between ring
nodes. 7
Slide 8
WHY RPR TECHNOLOGY ? Limitations of sonet and ethernet. Fixed
Circuits. Multicast Traffic. Wasted Protection Bandwidth. Does not
have a fast protection mechanism. Not good at implementing global
fairness. 8
Slide 9
WHY RPR TECHNOLOGY Reliability and manageability Advanced
Protection. Distributed Control. Speed And Number Of Nodes.
Plug-and-play Operation. Performance Monitoring Capabilities.
Bandwidth Management. Unicast, Multicast And Broadcast Data
Traffic. 9
Slide 10
WHAT IS RPR TECHNOLOGY Resilient Packet Ring Tech Symmetric
Counter-rotating Rings Physical Layers Spatial Reuse Quality Of
Service 10
Slide 11
Symmetric Counter-rotating Rings 11
Slide 12
Wrapping the Packets 12
Slide 13
Physical Layers Physical layer: two existing physical layers of
high interest Ethernet and Sonet/SDH. There are two varieties of
each: Gigabit Ethernet reconciliation sublayer (GERS) for the
Gigabit Ethernet 10-Gigabit Ethernet reconciliation sublayer
(XGERS) for the 10-Gigabit Ethernet Sonet/SDH reconciliation
sublayer (SRS) for Generic Framing Procedure (GFP) GFP
reconciliation sublayer (GRS) for GFP adaptation sublayer only
26-JUL-2011S7 ECE DEPT13
Slide 14
SPATIAL REUSE Unlike SONET / SDH, bandwidth is consumed only
between the source and destination nodes. Packets are removed at
their destination, leaving this bandwidth availableto downstream
nodes on the ring. 14
Slide 15
CLASSIFICTIONS OF QOS SERVICE TYPE Class A (high-priority)
Class B (medium-priority) Class C (low-priority). 15
Slide 16
The 802.17 MAC controls traffic access to four different
logical services on the ring three of which provide different QOS
capabilities: CLASS A It is a High priority Quality of service, it
provides indefeasible reserved bandwidth that cannot be reclaimed
by active lower-priority traffic, even if there is idle bandwidth
available on the channel. 16
Slide 17
CLASS B It is a medium priority Quality of service it provides
reserved bandwidth that may be reclaimed by active equal- or
lower-priority traffic if there is idle bandwidth available on the
channel. 17
Slide 18
CLASS C It is a Low priority Quality of Service it provides a
share of any unused ring bandwidth. This channel is for best -
effort services only. 18
SPATIAL REUSE 20 Increase Efficiency. Bidirectionallytraffic.
Provide Full Bandwidth.
Slide 21
RESILIENCY Recovery from a Fiber Cut Self-healing or automatic
recovery. 21
Slide 22
RECOVERY FROM FIBER CUT 22
Slide 23
Broadcast or Multicast Traffic Natural fit for broadcast and
multicast traffic. Nodes can simply receive the packet and forward
it. Packet by sending one copy around the ring. Reserved Bandwidth
of RPR is the bandwidth as the SONET multicast. 23
Slide 24
BANDWIDTH FAIRNESS 24 ETHRNET RPR TECH
Slide 25
PACKET RING STANDARD DEVELOPMENT IN IEEE 802.17 The Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers ( IEEE ) began the RPR
standards ( IEEE 802.17) development project in December 2000 with
the intention of creating a new Media Access Control layer for
fiber optic rings. IEEEMedia Access Control layer 25
Slide 26
Some of the goals of the 802.17 Supports dual counter rotating
ring topology. Full compatibility with IEEE's 802 architecture.
Protection mechanism with sub 50ms fail-over. Packets destination
stripping. Avoid technical risk. 26
Slide 27
CONCLUSION True alternative to SONET transport for packet
networks. Fast protection, restoration, and performance monitoring
comparable of SONET. Unlike SONET RPR provides an ETHERNET like
cost curve as well as superior bandwidth utilization. RPR MAC with
Ethernet offers highly efficient metro networks. 27