Ralph SantitoroDirector, Carrier Ethernet Market Development

Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Cell Tower Backhaul

Glenn WellbrockDirector, Optical Transport Network Architecture & Design

March 23, 2011

Ethernet over SONET (EoS) for BackhaulWhy use it ?

Many different implementations of Ethernet Transport Switched (Connectionless) Ethernet Ethernet over MPLS Ethernet over SONET Connection-Oriented Ethernet

Each implementation varies significantly in: QoS Performance (packet latency, loss) Network Availability (protected / unprotected transport) Bandwidth Assurances (statistical versus guaranteed) Network Security (number of vulnerabilities)

2Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

EoS used because it is the safe choice… It just works !

Connection-Oriented Ethernet

March 23, 2011

What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) ?

The best of both worlds

SONET/SDH•Deterministic and precision QoS•Bandwidth reserved per channel•99.999% Availability•Highest Security (Layer 1 service)

Connectionless Ethernet•Layer 2 Aggregation•Statistical Multiplexing•Flexible Bandwidth Granularity•Cost Effectiveness

Connection-Oriented Ethernet

COE provides the Flexibility and Scalability of Ethernetwith the Performance, Reliability and Security of SONET/SDH

Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense Overview4Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications. 4

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) FAQs

What is COE ? Industry term defining a point-to-point implementation of Carrier Ethernet

• Tracked by industry analysts for past few years COE technologies have been around for about 10 years

What’s the difference between COE and Carrier Ethernet ? COE is a high performance implementation of Carrier Ethernet

Are COE implementations based on industry standards ? Implementations utilize MEF, IEEE, IETF and ITU-T standards

• Plus value added enhancements where standards are nascent

What technologies can be used to implement COE? COE can be implemented using Ethernet or MPLS technologies

March 23, 2011

Different approaches to COETechnology selection depends on the problem you’re trying to solve

6

MPLS-centric COE

Static PW T-MPLS

Eth EthMPLS LSPPW PW

• Ethernet• MPLS Pseudowire (PW)• MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP)

• Ethernet

Eth Eth

VLAN TagSwitchingPBT

Ethernet-centric COE

BMAC/BVID or C/SVID

PBB-TEMPLS-TP

Optimized for Multi-Service Transport Three OAM Layers Less optimal for Ethernet

service transport Standards Under Development

New standards being developed Augmenting MPLS standards

Optimized for Ethernet Service Transport One OAM Layer Less optimal for multi-service

transport Standardized Now

Reuses existing Carrier Ethernet standards, e.g., Service OAM

Ethernet TagSwitching

Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense OverviewConnection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

Ethernet-centric COE optimized for Ethernet TransportMPLS-centric COE optimized for Multi-service Transport

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications 7

COE designed to mimic SONET

Makes Ethernet point-to-point Just like SONET circuits

Ethernet Virtual Connections (EVCs) are provisioned across the network Just like SONET circuits Eliminates Ethernet control plane and many layer 2 control protocols

Provide 50ms EVC path protection / restoration Just like SONET linear path protection

Provide EVC fault management at demarcation points Just like DS1 circuit loopbacks

Provides guaranteed bandwidth throughout the network Just like SONET circuits

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

Why COE for MBH ?

Makes Ethernet more like SONET which dominates MBH networks today Network operations procedures similar to SONET Smoother transition for SONET-trained operations personnel

Highly scalable packet-centric technology Meets large scale MBH connectivity and aggregation requirements COE is supported over any Layer 1 technology

Key Attributes Guaranteed Bandwidth (CIR) Consistent QoS Performance (Bounded Packet Delay, Packet Loss) High Security

• COE uses few protocols • Fewer protocols = Less security vulnerabilities

8

Focusing on Ethernet-centric Implementations of COE

Connection-oriented Ethernet AttributesConnection-oriented Ethernet Attributes

March 23, 2011 10Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

COE Ecosystem6 Attributes of Connection-Oriented Ethernet

Standardized Services•MEF E-Line and E-Access

Security•No Bridging: MAC DoS attacks mitigated•Completely Layer 2: No IP vulnerabilities

Deterministic QoS•Lowest Packet Latency and Loss•Bandwidth Resource Reservation

Reliability / Availability• 50ms EVC Protection•UNI and ENNI Protection

Ethernet OAM• Link Fault Management•EVC Fault Management•Performance Monitoring

Scalability•Layer 2 Aggregation•Statistical Multiplexing

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications 11

Connection-Oriented Ethernet Security

No MAC Address Learning Vulnerabilities Immune to MAC Address spoofing of Network Elements (NE) Immune to MAC address table overflow DoS attacks in NEs

No Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) Vulnerabilities Immune to STP Denial of Service (DoS) attacks

Doesn’t use IP protocols Immune to IP protocol vulnerabilities and attacks

Uses few Layer 2 protocols Fewer protocols = Fewer network security vulnerabilities

COE provides security comparable to SONET networks

March 23, 2011

High Availability Ethernet Backhaul using COEMulti-level Fault Tolerance on Packet Optical Transport Systems

Port protection via Link AggregationLink Aggregation across cards

Card protection (active/standby or active/active)

Protected Power, Switch Fabric, etc.

50ms Network Protection via G.8031

Working / Protect EMS/NMS Instances

In-Service System Software Upgrades

Port

Card

Network Element

Management

NE Software

Network

Service

High Availability MBH Service

Ethernet Service OAM via 802.1ag and Y.1731

12Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

March 23, 2011

COE versus Ethernet over SONET Key differences

Attribute COE EoSHigh Security

Deterministic (bounded) QoS (latency, loss)

50 ms protection/restoration

Ethernet Service OAM N/A

Guaranteed Bandwidth (CIR) through resource reservation

(CIR in 1Mbps increments)

(CIR in SONET

50Mbps increments)

Oversubscribed Bandwidth (EIR) (EIR in 1Mbps increments) N/A

Service Multiplexing and Aggregation N/A

Efficient Bandwidth Utilization N/A

MEF-compliant Services EPL, EVPL, Access EPL, Access EVPL EPL

13Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

Ethernet over SONET challenges andhow COE addresses themEthernet over SONET challenges andhow COE addresses them

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

Ethernet over SONET (EoS) Challenges using Multi-Service Provisioning Platforms (MSPPs)

EoS doesn’t support aggregation EoS is a port-based transport with no service multiplexing Ethernet switch added for aggregation

EoS bandwidth dictated by SONET Container Size EoS bandwidth available in only 50Mbps STS increments Other bandwidth rates waste SONET bandwidth

15

SONETMSPP

Eth

MSPPEthMSPP

50Mbps

SONET VCG40Mbps wasted

10Mbps EVC50Mbps

SONET VCG30Mbps wasted

20Mbps EVC50Mbps

SONET VCG30Mbps wasted

20Mbps EVC

150Mbps of SONET BW required for only 50Mbps of EVC BW

MSC

March 23, 2011 Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Efficient Cell Tower Backhaul. (c) Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications.

COE over SONET on Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms (P-ONP)

COE supports aggregation Aggregates EVCs onto higher speed Ethernet port

COE aggregates EVCs onto same SONET VCG Can achieve 100% bandwidth utilization

16

COE over

SONET P-ONP

EthP-ONP

EthP-ONP

50Mbps20Mbps EVC

20Mbps EVC10Mbps EVC

COE significantly improves BW efficiency over existing SONET network

MSC

March 23, 2011

Mobile Backhaul Evolution From SONET to Ethernet using COE

17© Copyright 2010 Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

FMO Step 1: Add P-ONP with COE over

SONET to increase BW efficiency

FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to Ethernet

over Fiber (EoF) network. Existing services unaffected

Cel

l tow

er

MS

C

2G/3G 3G/LTE

PMO: SONET

T1s

MSPP at MSC

TDM

SONET

MSPP at Cell Site

Ethernet

EoS

SONET

Ethernet

COETDM

2G/3G 3G/LTE

T1s

P-ONP at MSC

P-ONP at Cell Site

Each Ethernet service requires a separate

SONET VCG EoF

Ethernet

COETDM

2G/3G 3G/LTE

T1s

SONET

P-ONP at MSC

P-ONP at Cell Site

COE muxes Ethernet services onto same

SONET VCG

Connection-Oriented Ethernet: A No-Nonsense Overview

Fujitsu’s FLASHWAVE Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE facilitate MBH network migration of multi-generation 2G/3G/4G services

Cost Analysis

March 23, 2011

Cost Comparison

MSPP commonsMSPP GE client portsES client and trunk portsES commons

P-OTP SONET & Ethernet commonsP-OTP Ethernet trunk ports

19

FLASHWAVE

9500

PMO FMO

MSPP

One switch port per customer portInstalled individually as customer UNIs added

N x 1GbE N x 10GbE

MSPP

MSPPMSPP MSPP

MSPP

N x 1GE

Analysis assumes SONET access costs are identical

SONET Connections configured and installed once Customer UNIs provisioned remotely

MSPP

MSPPMSPP MSPP

MSPP

N x 1GE

Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

March 23, 2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

8 16 32 64 128 256

No

rmal

ized

Co

st

Number of End-user Ethernet UNIs

Normalized Cost Comparison - FLASHWAVE 9500 P-OTP vs. PMO

Total cost - PMO

Total cost - P-OTP

Example Results

Assumptions Leading switch vendor list pricing minus 60% “Typical” MSPP & FLASHWAVE 9500 pricing OpEx savings not shown

• E.g., savings due to moving from N x 1 GbE to 10 GbE handoffs

High-level analysis Cost reduction higher for more incoming

Ethernet ports Cost reduction is obtained by:

• Reducing common equipment costs in ES office• Eliminating client GbE port cost between access

network an ES device Cost reduction decreases as GE UNI port

bandwidth increases• But still results in substantial savings even at 1

Gbps of traffic per GbE UNI

20

100 Mbps of traffic per GbE UNI

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

8 16 32 64 128 256

No

rmal

ized

Co

st

Number of End-user Ethernet UNIs

Normalized Cost Comparison - FLASHWAVE 9500 P-OTP vs. PMO

Total cost - PMO

Total cost - P-OTP

500 Mbps of traffic per GbE UNIConnection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications

March 23, 2011

Verizon COE Proof of Concept Testing

Side-by-side comparison for delivering Ethernet services Ethernet over SONET Connection-Oriented Ethernet

Proof of concept tests using GA products Service performance Resiliency OAM

Results: COE transport provides SONET equivalency in QoS & Performance with the added benefits of improved granularity and bandwidth utilization

21Connection-Oriented Ethernet for Next-Generation Transmission & Distribution Networks. © Copyright 2011 Fujitsu Network Communications