Download draft-martini

Picture 325
Pseudowires from 1999 to
2009 , 10 years of evolution
and deployments.
Luca Martini
[email protected]
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
1
Agenda
 "Martini draft" Background and History.
 Deployments: SP Ethernet/ATM services, and Mobile IP
R.A.N.
 PW Evolution: VPLS, and MS-PWs.
 PW and MPLS-TP: PW in access networks.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
2
History:
 Year 1998/99:
–ATM has failed to deliver the multi-service networks, and is too
slow/expensive
–Huge bandwidth demand. ( or at least we thought so )
 New network from the ground up:
–All packet based services must run on one single packet network.
–MPLS is an emerging technology with the best
management/granularity compromise
–Must create new telecom market competition to make network
elements and services widely available.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
3
Motivation of "draft-martini"
 Next Generation SP design:
–Classical frame/ATM is expensive and does not integrate well.
–Multi-service Backbone.
–Re-deployment or expand existing Hardware.
 Multiple vendor Implementation = market competition.
 New lower cost services with market acceptance.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
4
Protocol Design Criteria
 "Simple" protocol Implementation.
 Must use existing hardware when possible.
 Leverage MPLS, for multi-service Core network
 Support existing SP protocols, and existing CPE
 Similar operational model to standard SP services.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
5
Result:
 11 vendors inter-operated when I stopped counting
(~2001).
 Draft-martini is LDP based, a modern extensible design.
 Point-to-point links - operationally similar to classical
frame-relay/ATM.
 MPLS based Multi-service network.
 Service management granularity/scalability compromise
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
6
IETF Influence on draft-martini design
Draft-martini -> rfc4447
 Reorganized text , countless times !
 Changed Terminology
 PW remain 100% backward compatible to draft-martini
 Added FEC129 ( generalized PWid )
 Added PW status.
(0.1% deployment)
(100% deployment)
 Added Fragmentation.
(0% deployment)
 Wildcard Pseudowire Type. (0% deployment)
 Many ATM special optimizations ( make ATM over
MPLS better then ATM , long live ATM! ) (0.1% deployment)
 Added Ethernet FCS retention (0% deployment)
 Etc. etc. .....
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
7
Draft-martini Oops , If I had known !
 MTU interface Parameter.
–Folks clearly want broken networks
–Vendors write really crappy driver code
–10 years later I still average 1 long call per quarter on this
topic!
 Frame-relay Encapsulation Header Bits.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
8
Picture 325
Deployment Examples.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
9
RAN Deployment case study
RAD
E1 ACE
IMA 3220
3G
2G
c7600
ME Switch
STM1
GE
GE
RNC
E1
MetroEthernet
ME Switch
cSTM1
7x 3G and 1x 2G basestation
from NSN and Ericsson
BSC
2x aggregation sites
E1
IMA
3G
2G
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
E1
RAD
ACE
3220
ANA
Server
Radview
Server Operators
10
VPLS for Carrier Ethernet networks –
Case Study
 Integrated Communications Provider
 Use VPLS with QoS for various access network
 Deployed VPLS using 50 c7600s network
 Hardware
C7600s for PEs, c3750ME for CEs,
 Use
QoS for service classes
RSVP-TE Tunnels
vlan rewrite
Max mac-address limitation (16 per vlan)
H-VPLS, QinQ
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
11
EoMPLS Case Study
EoMPLS between Campus for Server groups
 Segmentation (Migration from Global Routing) and L2 over MPLS with
HA and QoS

Type of PE-Box: SUP720, C7200


L2-Tunnel #: 2; L2-STP: Rapid STP


PE-Topology: full meshed
Cisco IOS: 12.2SX/12.0S
PE-CE links: directly connected GE
 QoS on Core Links
 iBGP RR for L3VPNs

Type of P-Box: SUP720
 P-Topology: P2P (4)
 Cisco IOS: 12.2SX
 Core Routing: OSPF

Type of core links: 10GE (MAN)


QoS on Core Links
Type of CE-Box: Cat3550
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
12
VPLS for Carrier Ethernet networks – Case Study
Basic Architecture (PE-P-PE)
OSM-based VPLS
Each PE has 2 x pre-established
RSVP tunnels to each remote PE
Cisco
7600 TE01261
TE26011
PE26
Cisco
7600
TE01262
10G
P
PE2
TE26012
GE
P
GE
Cisco
7600
PE27
10G
P
. . .
. . .
P
. . .
. . .
Cisco
7600
. . .
. . .
PE1
Cisco
7600
Cisco
7600
PE25
PE50
. . .
. . .
Cisco
7600
RSVP/TE - Tunnel label
VLAN 10
VPLS - VC label
VLAN 20
Dual Attached PEs to the core; 2 TE Tunnels to each PE, 50 PEs, 5000 Tunnels
VC are evenly load­shared over 2 pre­established Tunnels
Each TE LSP takes one explicit­route, dynamic path on one TE
Presentation_IDWhen one OSM port/link is down, all VC traffic switches to another established LSP
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
Cisco Confidential
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
13
PW Technology Evolution:
Dynamic
Placement of
Multi-Segment
Pseudowires
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
14
Multi-Segment PW Definition
Emulated Service
N
Se ativ
rvi e
ce
N
Se ativ
r vi e
ce
Multi-Segment Pseudowire
ACCESS
CE
AC
T-PE1
S-PE1
S-PE3
MPLS
AC
S-PE2
T-PE2
CE
AS1
S­PE – Switching Provider Edge – Can switch control and data planes of preceding and succeeding segments of a MS­PW. S­PE initiates the signaling for MS­PWs.
T­PE – Terminating Provider Edge – Customer facing PE, hosting the first or last segment of a MS­PW
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
15
Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PW
(= PW Routing) Procedures
 For DP MS-PW, need global addresses assigned to individual PW
Attachment Circuits and all S-PEs composing MS-PW for reachability
and manageability of the PW.
 Each AC gets assigned GLOBAL-ID + Prefix+ ACID = AII Type 2.
 This TAII is used by S-PEs to determine the next SS-PW destination for
LDP Signaling.
 PW Next Hop Selection from PW Routing Table
0
31
Global ID
32
63
64
Prefix
95
AC ID
 During the signaling phase, the content of the TAII type 2 field from the
FEC129 TLV is compared against routes from the PW Routing table.
The longest match is NH to be signaled
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
16
Dynamic Placement of MS­PWs – 4 S­PEs connecting two PSNs with Redundancy
Emulated Service
PSN 1
Tunnel PW Seg 1
CE
PSN 2
Tunnel PW Seg 3
PW Seg 2
S-PE1.1
N
Se ativ
rvi e
ce
N
Se ativ
r vi e
ce
Multi-Segment Pseudowire
S-PE2.1
AC
T-PE1
Recovery
Path
PSN1
Provider 1
S-PE1.2
S-PE2.2
PW
Switching Points
PSN2
T-PE2
AC
CE
Provider 2
 Recovery Case :
Routing failure recovered via backup route
= Recovery Path
= MPLS LSP Tunnel
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
17
VCCV Trace Example
LSP pIng Reply:
Code 3(egress LSR)
TTL=4
Src IP: 127.0.0.1
Dest IP:PE5
LSP pIng Reply:
Code 8(label switched)
TTL=3
Src IP: 127.0.0.1
Dest IP:PE5
LSP pIng Reply:
Code 8(label switched)
TTL=2
Src IP: 127.0.0.1
Dest IP:PE5
SS-PW1
LSP pIng Reply:
Code 8(label switched)
TTL=1
Src IP: 127.0.0.1
Dest IP:PE5
SS-PW2
LSP
pIng:
LSP
pIng:
LSP
pIng:
Sender
Addr:PE2
LSP pIng:
Sender
Addr:PE2
Sender
Addr:PE3
Remote
PE
Addr:
0PE1
Sender
Addr:PE4
Remote
PEPE
Addr:
Remote
Addr:
PE2
PWID:
100
Remote
PE
Addr:
PE3
PWID:
100
PWID:
200
TTL=4
PWID:
300
TTL=3
TTL=2
SrcSrc
IP:IP:
PE5
TTL=1
PE5
Src
IP:
PE5
Dest
IP:127.0.0.1
Src
IP: PE5
Dest
IP:127.0.0.1
Dest
IP:127.0.0.1
Dest IP:127.0.0.1
SS-PW3
SS-PW4
AC1
T-PE1
Presentation_ID
AC2
S-PE2
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
S-PE3
Cisco Confidential
S-PE4
T-PE5
18
Picture 325
PW Technology Evolution:
MPLS-TP
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
19
MPLS-TP and PWs
 MPLS TP is static provisioned MPLS LSPs with some extra OAM.
 PWs are the only current “Client” application of MPLSTP
 NO change to PWs, We had static configuration already
defined in rfc4447
 Applications:
–Lower cost Ethernet Access
–SONET Replacement in access/aggregation.
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
20
How IT works in 1 slide !
 Basic MPLS LSP with static label configuration at every
Router Hop.
 Today: Redundancy by pre-configured backup path,
and AIS/RDI failure indication.
 Also BFD monitoring or LSPs, or Segments
 LFU ( Label For You , = 13) for segment in-band
monitoring.
 Otherwise it's a normal MPLS LSP......
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
21
Thank you !
Presentation_ID
2006Cisco
CiscoSystems,
Systems, Inc.
©©
2006
2009
Inc.All
All rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
Cisco Confidential
22