Impact of Photonic Switches on IP/Optical Network Architecture for

Impact of Photonic Switcheson IP/Optical Network Architecturefor Advanced e-Science Applications

TNC 2005Poznan, June 7 2005

Olivier [email protected]

2

where innovation comes to light ®

Copyright © 2005 Calient Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Outline of Talk

• Status and Impact of Photonic Switching

• IP/Optical Architecture for e-Science

• Case Studies

• What’s next?

3



Photonic Switching:Technologies

• 3D-MEMS solved the (long-time) problem of scalability

3D MEMS

10 µs10 ms

Num

ber o

f Por

ts/C

hann

els

10 ns

10

100

1000

Tunable Wavelength

AOTFThermo-optic

LiquidCrystal

Electro-optic

2D MEMS

3D MEMS

10 µs10 ms

Num

ber o

f Por

ts/C

hann

els

10 ns

10

100

1000

Tunable Wavelength

AOTFThermo-optic

LiquidCrystal

Electro-optic

2D MEMS

4



Photonic Switching: Status

• Majority of optical switches deployed today are still 1x2 and 2x2 for simple protection but increased deployment of large photonic switches (320x320 in service today)– Difference between bare switch matrices (non-redundant fiber

switches) and cross-connect systems (full system with modularity and internal redundancy similar to OEO systems but with OOO core and line-cards)

• Improved maturity and reliability– Photonic switches carrying live traffic for more than 3 years– Multiple vendors with 3D-MEMS main technology for sizes > 16x16– OOO switches are intrinsically more reliable than OEO switches

because they consist of much fewer components• On-going research on fast switching (micro/nano-seconds)

– Scalability limitation again!– Sub-ms performance demonstrated on 3D-MEMS switches

5



Networking Applications

• Optical Exchange Points– In its simplest form see photonic switch as automated patch-panel

• You can use it to reconfigure interconnectivity and track it• You can use it also to share data monitoring capabilities

• Core IP/Optical NetworksWith control plane provides powerful networking tool– Regional optical networks

• Interconnect rings and ease management of large junction nodes• Extend managed 10GbE/WDM services across multiple rings• End-to-end and automated connectivity

– National backbone• Provide mesh wavelength switching capability on line side• Transponder and fiber protection• Availability of network connectivity among multiple users• End-to-end and automated connectivity

6



Impact on Networks

• Cost (“get more bandwidth for less”)– Two orders magnitude less than IP at 10G– One order magnitude less than SDH at 10G

• Scalability (“keep co-location cost low”)– Scale better than OEO for bit-rate > 1G– Low foot-print and power consumption

• Flexibility (“control network from PC”)– Remote re-configuration and monitoring regardless of format– Better use of network resources as needed

• Future proof (“increase customer ownership”)– Really transparent (40G, 160G, multi-lambdas, etc)– Extends value of dark fiber (long-term asset) to layer-1 switching

7



NREN Example

• Increased interest in high-bandwidth connectivity by demanding NREN users– Worldwide: Japan, Europe, and North America– Various Applications: GRID computing, “big science” (ex: eVLBI), etc

• Note: Some Government & Military applications (ex: GIG-BE) and commercial carrier customers (“wavelength services” for SAN/Data center business continuance) have similar needs: “you are not alone!”

• Differences in service definition & implementation– Level of control over “lightpath”, service requirements and access to fiber

• What is common:– Access to some fiber, need for guaranteed bandwidth (not all the time but

on demand), and need for some control plane• This results into the deployment of new type of networks

– Hybrid IP/Optical networks– Facility based (vs. overlay) networks

⇒ This led NRENs to be some of the first to use and leverage photonic switching to achieve these goals.Ex: Super-SINET (2002) & OptIPuter (2003)

8



Migration from IP to IP/Optical Networks Architectures for e-Science

• What does advanced e-Science applications want ?– New Services

• Dynamic and higher capacity bandwidth services – Performance

• Low Latency to allow distributed computing• High Throughput

– Capacity & Scalability• Scaling from 1 Gbit/s to1 Tbit/s connections

– End-to-End

NRN/RE Migration

X.25 ATM POS Optical

1980s 1990s 2000s

Learning, Collaboration, Connectivity

Advanced Services

2Mbps 34Mbps 155Mbps 622Mbps 2.5Gbps 10Gbps nx10Gbps nx40Gbps

Market Transition

?

GRID Applications

9



Example of Architecture

STM-nGE

DWDM

Leased Circuits (SONET/SDH)

STM-16/6410GE WAN

Lambda

Transport Options

GMPLS Multi-layer Control Plane

Layer-2 Services

Production and Experimental Layer 1/2/3 services

CWDM

Layer-3 Services

Layer-1 Services

10 GE LANGE

10/100 FEGE

10GbE

Customer owned fiberPhotonic

Switch

10



Need for Unified Control Plane

• Control Plane needed to operate layer-1/2 network resources like today at layer-3 (but higher capacity and guaranteed bandwidth)– Provide protection services at optical layer (when you remove SONET)– Interoperability across vendors and across layers 1, 2, and 3– End-to-end automated connectivity, including multiple domains

• GMPLS/ASON unified control plane is needed to deliver on the promises of IP/Optical– Multi-vendor interoperability– Coherence between standard bodies (ex: E-NNI at OIF and IETF)– User and network interfaces

• Remember:– GMPLS is a flexible & powerful set of tools– But this does not provide itself “bandwidth-on-demand” and functions

such as scheduling, authentication, etc– It is a foundation to manage efficiently layer 1/2/3 network resources that

can be leveraged by NREN community

11



End-to-End Connectivity

• Automated and e2e connectivity from NREN to another NREN over backbone infrastructure is an important issue (non-trivial)

• Layer-1 switching and control plane are needed capabilities to increase service availability, support high-end research (requires a lot of bandwidth but not all the time) and make availability to 10G connectivity more affordable (cost sharing model) to more institutions

NREN NREN

12



Network to Grid Middleware Interface

• Grid middleware (ex: AAA, MonALiSA, etc) can be integrated over GMPLS to provide intelligent services

• Importance of model and interface between service layers (layer 4-7) and network resources (layer 1-3)

• Critical role played by research & education community

Example of layer 1/2/3 GRID serviceExample of architecture

GMPLS

13



Case Studies

• Real examples– Exchange Points

• OptIPuter (Chicago, Amsterdam)• UltraLight (Los Angeles)

– Core Networking• National backbone

– Super-SINET (Japan)– JGN-2 (Japan)

• Regional network– LONI (Louisiana)

• Look at various usages– Automated configuration, Intra and Inter-domain switching/routing– Applications and services enabled over network

14



OptIPuter (Chicago, Amsterdam)

• By-pass router and SDH when and where it makes sense• Brokered lambda connectivity demonstrated with AAA on simple

network (2 sites). Idea is to use network as supercomputer • Demonstration with direct interface to devices but optical control

plane needed as lambda network grows (e.g., GLIF) and complexityincreases (multi-vendors, multi-layers and multi network domains)

Source: Pr. Cees de Laat, University of Amsterdam

15



UltraLight (LA CENIC PoP)• Flexible tool to interconnect various devices and networks• Development of dynamic services for high-energy physics (HEP) • Integration of MonaLISA Grid middleware with Optical Switch

– 1st step: interface to single devices– 2nd step: interface to GMPLS network

• Use of switch beyond automated patch-panel as it becomes really a networking tool with control plane required for peering

Source: Pr. Newman, California Institute of Technology

16



SuperSINET Network

• Economical Solution: Dark Fiber + WDM + PXC realized over 3 years 90% cost reduction compared to equal bandwidth of SDHs

• Development of GMPLS controlled DataGRID applications

Source: Pr. Asano, Tokyo Univ., NORDUNET 2003

14

TokyoPXC

NagoyaPXC

IP Backbone(Quality Control, Policy Control)

IP Backbone(Quality Control, Policy Control)

OsakaPXC

Telescope for VLBITelescope for VLBI

Super ComputersSuper Computers

UsersUsers

•Realization of DataGRID•Data Sharing with low Latency

Equipmentson Liner Accelerator

Equipmentson Liner Accelerator

Fusion Research EquipmentFusion Research Equipment Network StorageNetwork Storage

Example of GMPLS Control applied to DataGRID on SuperSINET

6

SuperSINET Backbone Logical TopologySuperSINET Backbone Logical Topology

P

P P

P TokyoExchange

OsakaExchange

NagoyaExchange

HokkaidoUniv.

TohokuUniv. KEK

TsukubaUniv.

Institute ofMaterialReserch (Tokyo Univ.)

WasedaUniv.

TokyoInstitute ofTechnology

NII Chiba

NII Hitotsubashi

NAOTokyoUniv.ISAS

NIG

OkazakiNationalResearchInstitutes

NagoyaUniv.

NIFS

DoshishaUniv.

KyotoUniv.

(Yoshida)

KyotoUniv.(Uji)

OsakaUniv.

KyushuUniv.

Institute ofMedicalScience(Tokyo Univ.)

PE

PE

PE

PE PE PE

PE

PE PE

PE PE PE

PE PE PE

PE

PE

PE PE PE

PE

PE

BackboneOC192

Customer AccessOC48,GbE

Cisco12400

Customer Router

17



JGN-2 Interoperability Trial

• Recent major GMPLS Interoperability trial– 2 carriers and nine equipment vendors– MPLS Routers, GMPLS Routers, SDH-XC, PXC, DWDM– Establishment of various Label-Switched-Paths

• Lambda Switched Capable (LSC) LSP, TDM LSP and MPLS LSP

18



• Development of GMPLS based E-NNI interface across 2 sub-networks:

JGN-2 Inter-domain Routing

1st step: Static/loose signaling (like ILSI)2nd step: Dynamic signaling using Inter-area

routing (OSPF-TE based)3rd step: Inter-AS routing (ex. BGP4-TE)

OXC OXCOC-192 OC-192 OC-192

OSPF-TE OSPF-TE

Router

OSPF-TE OSPF-TE

1st step: Area 02nd step: Area 03rd step: AS1

1st step: Area 02nd step: Area 13rd step: AS2

PXC PXC

19



LONI (Louisiana)• State initiative to support high-end research and economic development • Elegant network design with core hub extending connectivity across rings• Optical switch intended use is to provide dynamic express optical connectivity

between supercomputing sites for high-capacity data processing and visualization • Collaborative work with LSU CCT, Cisco and MCNC to integrate Grid middleware

for scheduling with switch and control plane (GMPLS) to allocate lambda bandwidth resource on demand for computing jobs

Source: Lonnie Leger, Louisiana Tech LONI Symposium 2005

Northern DWDM ring

Southern DWDM ring

To NLR

LSU

SuperComputer

20



What’s next?

• “All-optical” networks– Definitely but to some extent (“islands of transparency”)– Development in pair with tunable transponders and 2R/3R

technologies, and control plane extensions (routing & wavelengthassignment, constrained-based routing on optical reach)

• “Faster” networks– Already some demonstrations of fast switches (micro and nano

seconds) but will take time to be integrated in networks– Transparency allows for increased capacity (bit-rate and number

of wavelengths) with existing infrastructure• Increased and better usage of network resources

– This is where biggest and most interesting advances lay mid-term– Ex: use of existing technologies and integrating hardware/control-

plane/middleware to establish 10G connectivity truly on-demand from months to seconds

– Enable advanced e-science applications and spur new ones

Documents

Impact of Photonic Switches on IP/Optical Network Architecture for