Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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