1 / 84

Welcome to join Tutorial

Welcome to join Tutorial. An Introduction to LAPS and MSR Applications. To the March 2004 SG17 Meeting. Q.7/17 Rapporteur. Leader SG17. P802.17. IETF. Q.7/17. SG15. SG13. Our Liaisons and Communications. X.85/Y.1321 (IP over SDH using LAPS) milestone.

callie
Download Presentation

Welcome to join Tutorial

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to join Tutorial An Introduction to LAPS and MSR Applications To the March 2004 SG17 Meeting Q.7/17 Rapporteur

  2. Leader SG17 P802.17 IETF Q.7/17 SG15 SG13 Our Liaisons and Communications

  3. X.85/Y.1321 (IP over SDH using LAPS) milestone 1、Delay contribution, August 1998 2、It was acceptable by ITU-T SG7(Data network and Open System Communication) at the September meeting, 1998 3、X.85/Y.1321 on IP over SDH using LAPS was determined at the June 1999 meeting 4、Recommendation X.85/Y.1321) was approved at March 2000 meeting, then new version is available Feb. 2001

  4. X.85/Y.1321 Comments received 1、IETF and ISOC 2、ITU-T SG15 (Optical and other transport networks) 3、ITU-T SG11 (Signaling requirements and protocols) 4、ITU-T SG13 (Multi-protocol and IP-based networks and their internetworking) 6、Nortel 7、NTT 8、Swisscom 9、Lots of email from Vendors and Carriers

  5. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS) Note: PPP is widely deployed in networks around the world and has been updated and extended over the last 14 years. These slices just emphases a simple LAPS method of high-speed link (e.g. POS) and also provide compatibility with PPP/HDLC.

  6. IP IP PPP LAPS HDLC SDH/SONET SDH/SONET IP over SDH PPP over SDH/SONET Why LAPS (X.85)

  7. Why LAPS (X.85) The diagram of Router Line Card 0 Line Card 7 Switch Fabric Line Card 1 Line Card 8 Scheduler Line Card 6 Line Card 10 RE RE or LC11

  8. Why LAPS (X.85) POS Line Card POS PHY POS Framer STM-16c Transceiver Network Processor I/F O/E Switch Fabric Memory POS Line Card 16 x 16 SPI-4.2 POS Framer STM-16c Transceiver Network Processor I/F O/E Routing Engine Memory POS Line Card

  9. Why LAPS (X.85) Local node SNMP RIP BGP Software Routing Engine LCP UDP OSPF TCP Fwd/Rcv to/from IP Hardware Adjacent Node Forwarding Engine PPP,LCP,IPCP Filter Function POS PHY/Utopia3 Reference Point HDLC SDH/SONET Protocol processing of signaling and Traffic plane

  10. Why LAPS (X.85) • The major objective of X.85 is to remove PPP protocols including LCP and IPCP in the case of POS. • LCP contains 10 configuration packets,16 events, and 12 actions.

  11. X.86 vs. RFC 2615 (frame) RFC 1662 frame RFC 1661 frame Protocol 8/16 bits FCS 16/32 bits Flag 01111110 Flag 01111110 Address 11111111 Control 00000011 PPP PDU Padding SAPI 16 bits FCS 32 bits Flag 01111110 Flag 01111110 Address 00000100 IPv4 and IPv6 PDU Control 00000011 X.85 frame Why LAPS (X.85)

  12. Why LAPS (X.85) X.85 vs. RFC 2615, specifications including functions and related Network management RFC 2615：RFC 1661 RFC 1662 RFC 1570 RFC 1547 RFC 1340 SNMP & MIB X.85 SNMP & MIB

  13. Why LAPS (X.85) LAPS or POS HDLC Framer/Deframer functions: Insertion of HDLC frame into the SPE Framing, Inter-frame fill and transmit FIFO error recovery. Scrambling (X**43 +1), Transparency processing generate a 16/32 bit FCS. Extraction of HDLC frame, Transparency removal, De-scrambling (if enable), FCS error checking, Optional delete the HDLC address and control fields. T R

  14. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS)

  15. Why LAPS (X.85) Comparison of Protocol states： RFC 2615：2+137， LAPS：2

  16. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS)

  17. RFC 2615（PPP/HDLC） LAPS Protocol encapsulation yes yes Inter-frame fill yes yes Scrambling yes yes Transparency yes yes FCS yes yes Link status monitoring Yes yes Configuration Req./Ack/Nak yes（padding function） Terminate Req./Ack yes（but it is seldom used） Protocol Reject yes（but it is seldom used） Echo Req./Reply yes yes in SDH/SONET Discard Req. yes（but it is seldom used） Why LAPS (X.85)

  18. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS)

  19. Why LAPS (X.85) The Diagram of Network Processor SSRAM SDRAM Input stream scheduler Search & update Receive editor Queue mgnt. parsing Framer/Deframer Switch Fabric System I/F Fabric I/F Pre-search queue Output Stream scheduler Queue mgnt. Sending editor Statistics & internal registers CPU I/F CPU SDRAM

  20. L7 Application End system L6 Presentation L5 Session L4 Transport Network Intermediate system，40-1600 bytes L3 L2 PPP、LCP 、 IPCP Intermediate system ，10 bytes L2 HDLC Physical Layer L1 Open System Interconnection Why LAPS (X.85)

  21. Why LAPS (X.85) RFC 2615(PPP/HDLC) LAPS Cell based MPS/mPS 1600/10=160 1600/40=40 1 Latency NP NP Latency variance 4 times － good Packet loss 4 times － very low Capability of Jumbo payload processing relative lower relative power good Congestion processing capability low middle relative high QoS 3 times lower normal good

  22. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS)

  23. Node1 Node4 PPP/HDLC GbE LAPS Node5 GbE PPP/HDLC LAPS PPP/HDLC LAPS Node2 Node3 Why LAPS (X.85)

  24. How LAPS compatible with PPP/HDLC IP IP IP PPP PPP LAPS HDLC LAPS=HDLC SDH/SONET SDH/SONET SDH/SONET PPP over SDH using LAPS PPP over SDH/SONET IP over SDH Why LAPS (X.85)

  25. X.86 vs. RFC 2615 RFC 1662 frame RFC 1661 frame Protocol 8/16 bits FCS 16/32 bits Flag 01111110 Flag 01111110 Address 11111111 Control 00000011 PPP PDU Padding SAPI 16 bits FCS 32 bits Flag 01111110 Flag 01111110 Address 00000100 IPv4 and IPv6 PDU Control 00000011 X.85 frame Why LAPS (X.85)

  26. Why LAPS (X.85) When the PPP is used to be encapsulated via SAPI for the compatibility with RFC 2615, it is noted: (1)Both FCS-32 and FCS-16 can be set by provisioning and is not negotiated. The 32-bit FCS must be used for all SDH rates. For STM-1c/VC-4 only, the 16-bit FCS may be used, although the 32-bit FCS is recommended. (2)Regarding the path signal label (C2) of SDH, for compatibility with RFC 2615, the signal label value of (x43 + 1) scrambling is changed from 24 (18 hex) to 22 (16 hex). Additionally, the LAPS does also provide the signal label value 207 (CF hex) to indicate PPP without scrambling. (3)The data link will be operated as RFC 2615 defines and the Address field is set to “11111111”, the padding field followed information field and the functions of Link Control Protocol and Network Control Protocol will be included.

  27. Why LAPS (X.85) 1、Simple implementation 2、High efficiency in the POS line card of router 3、Function equivalent to PPP/HDLC 4、Performance of Carrier concern 5、Compatibility with PPP/HDLC 6、Test equipment (share POS)

  28. Why LAPS (X.85) Testing equipment 1、Smartbits are used to throughput 2、RouterTest/Adtech is used to traffic and routing protocols

  29. X.86 (Ethernet over SDH/SONET) introduction

  30. LAPS (X.86) milestone 1、Delay contribution from May 1999 2、It was acceptable by ITU-T SG7(Data network and Open System Communication) at the June meeting, 1998 3、X.86 on Ethernet over LAPS was determined at the March 2000 meeting 4、Recommendation X.86 on Ethernet over LAPS (TD 2046/Rev.1) was approved at Feb. 2001 meeting, ten months earlier than that of GFP

  31. 155Mbps SDH 2.5Gbps SDH 2 3 1 Ethernet SONET/WDM Ethernet EOS GE 2.5Gbps 155Mbps Ethernet EOS EOS EOS GE FE GE 1.Telecom based Switch 2.Datacom based SDH/SONET 3.2-port small box solution Ethernet Ethernet ITU-T X.86 (Target at Ethernet over SDH/SONET) LAPS (X.86), three types of application

  32. Latency Variance Computation Ethernet MAC -15μs Rate Adaptation, Buffer -15μs LAPS mapping, Buffer -15μs LAPS CRC, Buffer -15μs ----------------------------------------- Latency Variance Total:-60μs GE on GE switch -4μs

  33. The competitive advantages of X.86 • Remote Trail Performance Monitoring • Remote Fault Indication • IEEE802.3x – Active Flow Control in Burst Traffic Condition • Low Price and Ease of Use (Compared to LANE) • Low Latency and Low Latency Variance • 1+1 redundancy based Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet service • Target at existing telecom transport resources

  34. Preamble +SFD IFG 802.3 MAC Frame 12 Bytes 8 Bytes 64 Bytes =84 Bytes Time Fill Flag Flag Addr Cont SAPI 802.3 MAC 32-Bit CRC Flag 1 10 1 1 1 2 64 4 =84 Bytes X.86 does match Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet very well

  35. Understand GFP (1)Payload (2)Payload Header (3)Optional Payload FCS (4)PLI value (5)cHEC computation

  36. Understand GFP • HEC inherits from ITU-T Rec. I.432，Octet based spec. • ATM is L2/L3 technologies, based on connection and fixed packet size (cell), IP as a ATM client is flexible rate for the IP over ATM applications in the most case; GFP is L1/L2 technologies, based on connectionless and variable packet size. For the L1-GFP, FE/GE as a GFP client is rigid rate for the Ethernet over SDH applications in the most case • In terms of PDH(E1/T1/E3/E4), Jumbo Payload size of IPv6 can be greater to 64Kbits length due to GFP-PLI is 2-Octet definition (216bits=64Kbits=8Kbytes)？If PLI is changed to 3-octet or more, how to keep compatibility with existing GFP standard • Flow control？Rate adaptation?

  37. Understand GFP Why Flow control? Why Rate adaptation? (1)FE/GE Bandwidth≠VC or VCs concatenation Bandwidth (2)No difference is applied for the two time-slice (TS) ifEthernet data stream is mapped into VC overhead or/and VC payload during two different time-slice Mapping octet by octet VC overhead VC payload TS2 TS1 Real-time

  38. Understand GFP • Issue of tiny-frame (7 bytes), Client Signal Fail (LOS of Client Signal and Loss of Character Synchronization)？ • 4-octet idle issue？

  39. Understand GFP tiny-frame issue for IPv4 over SDH using GFP(1) L7 Application End system L6 Presentation L5 Session L4 Transport Network Intermediate system，40-1600 octets L3 L2 GFP Intermediate system ，7 bytes L1 Physical Layer Open System Interconnection

  40. 背板 适配 背板 适配 Backplane Adaptation 背板 适配 背板 适配 背板 适配 Framer Framer Framer Framer Framer Framer 网络处理器 Network Processor 网络处理器 网络处理器 网络处理器 网络处理器 Understand GFP tiny-frame issue for IPv4 over SDH using GFP(2) Line Card POS-PHY bus/SPI-4.2 bus Routing and signaling 155M POS ---825M 622M POS --- 1650M 2.5G POS --- 32100M,6450M

  41. Understand GFP tiny-frame issue for IPv4 over SDH using GFP(3) GFP LAPS Cell based MPS/mPS 1600/7=228 1600/40=40 1 Latency variance great middle little MPS: Maximum packet Size, 1600 octets specified by IETF mPS: Minimum Packet Size , 40 octets specified by IETF

  42. Understand GFP 4-octet idle issue Mapping relationship and timing, FE/GE is mapped into GFP, LAPS and RPR(LAPS/GFP)

  43. Understand GFP Ethernet Frame IFG IFG Preamble+SFD Preamble+SFD 8 64-1518 12 8 12 64-1522 if VLAN GFP frame GFP Payload 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Idle Idle Idle Idle PLI Idle tHEC Idle PLI cHEC eHEC Type CID+ Spare FCS FCS Real Time Case 1 - Octets Mapping of Ethernet using GFP

  44. Ethernet Frame Preamble+SFD Preamble+SFD IFG IFG 12 64-1518 8 12 8 X.86 Frame 4 N LAPS Payload 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 Flag Flag FCS Addr. Ctrl SAPI Flag Flag Flag Addr Real Time Case 2 - Octets Mapping of Ethernet using LAPS 1 2 3 4 5 6 LAPS & GFP 68-1522 if VLAN

  45. LAPS & GFP RPR idle format

  46. No Delay Delay Variable Variable Variable 2 1 1 3 4 6 7 3 8 9 10 2 5 4 1 6 7 8 9 10 5 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 LAPS & GFP 68-1522 if VLAN Preamble+SFD Preamble+SFD IFG IFG Ethernet Frame 12 64-1518 8 12 8 64 Next frame RPR Frame 2 RPR Payload 2 6 6 16 2 Header CRC FCS DA SA Ring Control Protocol Type ? Packet Loss GFP frame GFP Payload 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 tHEC Idle CID+ Spare Idle Idle cHEC Type Idle Idle PLI PLI Idle eHEC Timing border FCS FCS 4 4 Variable Idle Idle Real Time Case 3 - Octets Mapping of Ethernet/RPR/GFP

  47. No Delay Delay Variable Variable Variable 2 10 2 3 4 6 7 8 8 9 10 7 5 1 1 9 5 4 3 2 1 10 7 9 6 6 8 5 4 3 LAPS & GFP 68-1522 if VLAN IFG IFG Preamble+SFD Preamble+SFD Ethernet Frame 12 64-1518 8 12 8 64 Next frame RPR Frame 2 RPR Payload 2 16 6 6 2 Header CRC FCS DA SA Ring Control Protocol Type Good No Packet Loss GFP frame LAPS Payload 1 4 N 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 2 Flag Idle Flag Flag Ctrl Flag Flag Addr Flag SAPI Timing border FCS FCS N 1 1 Fixed Flag Flag Real Time Case 4 - Bytes Mapping of Ethernet/RPR/LAPS

  48. LAPS & GFP Comparison of Measurement

  49. Advantage of using LAPS • Flow-control and rate adaptation are very useful for BW mismatch between Ethernet and SDH VC (or concatenation) and time-slice difference between VC overhead and VC payload • Application of Both SDH and PDH(E1/T1/E3/E4) for LAPS, Both SDH and PDH(DS3) for GFP • High efficiency • LAPS is compatible with POS and PPP/HDLC • LAPS Idle(Flag) has good performance for line-speed Ethernet over SDH/SONET applications • X.86 was approved ten months earlier than that of GFP

  50. LAPS & GFP Disadvantage of LAPS and PPP/HDLC (1) Escape Code

More Related