interoperability in and management of a multi technology packet transport network
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Interoperability in and Management of a Multi-Technology Packet Transport Network

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Interoperability in and Management of a Multi-Technology Packet Transport Network - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Interoperability in and Management of a Multi-Technology Packet Transport Network. Maarten Vissers Version 0.0. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Interoperability in and Management of a Multi-Technology Packet Transport Network' - elmo


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
interoperability in and management of a multi technology packet transport network

Interoperability in and Management of a Multi-Technology Packet Transport Network

Maarten Vissers

Version 0.0

introduction
Introduction
  • Our industry has developed three packet transport network technologies to support transport of frame/packet based service signals as well as bit stream based service signals and created as such a Multi-Technology PTN

Customer Networks

Customer Network

Customer Network

Customer Network

Multi-TechnologyPacket Transport Network

PTNNMS

ptn technologies
PTN Technologies
  • Ethernet and MPLS packet technologies are extended with a Transport Profile (TP)
  • MPLS is extended with a single transport profile, Ethernet is extended with two transport profiles (with different tunnel layer technologies: VLAN and MAC)
  • The layer stacks for those three PTN technologies are very similar and management of these PTN variations can be unified under a single PTN Network Manager

MPLS-TP

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

Customer/Client

Customer/Client

Customer/Client

MPLS PW

Service VLAN

Service VLAN

Service VLAN

(VPLS)

MPLS Tunnel

Tunnel VLAN

Tunnel MAC

MPLS Link

Link VLAN

Link VLAN

Physical Media(802.3,G.707,G.709)

Physical Media(802.3,G.707,G.709)

Physical Media(802.3,G.707,G.709)

ptn layer stack unified network management
PTN Layer Stack & Unified Network Management

PTNNMS

ACCESS

METRO

CORE

METRO

Metro

Aggr.

Metro

Edge

NTUMTU

Metro

Aggr.

Metro

Core

Outer

Core

Inner

Core

Outer

Core

Metro

Core

Metro

Edge

Customer/Client layer

PTN Service (Channel) layer

PTN Tunnel (Path) layer

Link (Section) layer

Physical

Media

GFP

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

GFP

GFP

GFP

GFP

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

Physical

Media

services in multi technology ptn
Services in Multi-Technology PTN
  • Carrier packet transport networks consists typically of access, metro and core domains
  • Access domains typically deploy Ethernet, metro domains deploy Ethernet or MPLS and core domains deploy MPLS technologies today
  • The evolution of those packet network technologies into packet transport network technologies is ongoing for some time
  • In the near future all three PTN technologies will have the same capabilities and there is no reason for carriers to deploy a single technology and thus replace existing equipment
  • All three PTN technologies can be deployed in every domain (access, metro, core)
  • Those multi-technology PTN’s must support inter-domain LINE, TREE and LAN services, which requires interoperability between the three PTN technologies as endpoints of each service may be in different PTN technology domains
  • Such interoperability is required between the service (channel) layers in the three technologies; interoperability between tunnel (path) and link (section) layers in the three technologies is not required
ptn interoperability for e tree e lan services
PTN Interoperability for E-TREE/E-LAN services
  • All three PTN technologies deploy a service VLAN to support E-TREE and E-LAN services
  • Interoperability for those services is as such guaranteed; main difference is the tag/label used to identify each service VLAN
    • MPLS-TP: PW label, Ethernet-TP (I): VID, Ethernet-TP (II): SID

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

UNI

UNI

Customer/Client: TREE or LAN service

rmp or mp2mp service VLAN

(VPLS)

VID

SID

PW label

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

ptn interoperability for line tree services
PTN Interoperability for LINE/TREE services
  • Two out of three PTN technologies deploy a service VLAN to support LINE and TREE services, one technology deploys MS-PW
  • Interoperability for those services requires service VLAN to MS-PW interworking (as per clause 5.5/G.805 “layer network interworking”)
    • ETH/MPLS PW InterWorking function provides such interworking
    • Similar OAM PDU formats and similar client encapsulations make interworking trivial

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

UNI

UNI

Clause 5.5/G.805 Inter Working Function

Customer/Client: LINE or TREE service

p2p or p2mp PW

p2p or p2mp service VLAN

VID

SID

PW label

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

clause 5 5 g 805 layer network interworking
Clause 5.5/G.805 Layer Network Interworking
  • The objective of layer network interworking is to provide an end-to-end trail between different types of layer network trail terminations. This requires interworking of characteristic information as different layer networks have per definition different characteristic information. In general the adapted information of different layer networks for the same client layer network is also different, although this is not necessarily the case. Layer networking may therefore require the interworking of adapted information.
  • The trail overhead of a layer network can be defined in terms of semantics and syntax. Provided that the same semantics exist in two layer networks, the trail overhead can be interworked by passing on the semantics from one layer network to the other in the appropriate syntax, as defined by the characteristic information. In other words layer network interworking shall be transparent for the semantics of the trail overhead. If both layer networks have a different set of semantics, the layer network interworking is restricted to the common set of semantics. The layer network interworking function has to terminate (insert, supervise) the semantics that are not interworked.
  • Layer network interworking is accomplished through an interworking processing function as depicted in Figure 19. The interworking processing function supports an interworking link connection between two layer network connections. The interworking link connection is special in the sense that it is asymmetric, delimited by different types of ports. It is also special because it is in general, only transparent for a specified set of client layers. An interworking link is a topological component that represents a bridge between two layer networks. The interworking link creates a "super layer network", defined by the complete set of access groups that can be interworked for a specified set of client layer networks.
example 1 tdm service
Example 1: TDM service
  • A TDM (e.g. 2 Mbit/s) LINE service is supported in Ethernet (MEF8) and MPLS (RFC4553). Both encapsulation methods are similar, which simplifies interworking of the adapted information.

OAM interworking, see slide 11

ECID format is same as PW label format to ease interworking with MPLS according MEF8

ETH OAM

MPLS-TP OAM

E

T

H

P

W

Transmitted DA = Received SA or broadcast address

Transmitted SA = local MAC address

G.8021 ETH_AI

Transmitted ECID = Received PW label stack entry

Transmitted S-bit = Received ECID[23]

DA

SA

MPLS-TP PW_AI

20 3 1 8

TYPE (88-d8)

ID

000

1

00000010

ECID (fixed)

S bit (1)

CESoETH CW

SAToP CW

RTP (optional)

RTP (optional)

TDM payload

TDM payload

UNI

UNI

2 Mbit/s (P12x_CI) service

p2p MS-PW

p2p service VLAN

ETHPW

ETH

PW

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

example 2 e line service
Example 2: E-LINE service
  • An Ethernet LINE service is supported in Ethernet and MPLS (RFC4558). Both encapsulation methods are similar, which simplifies interworking of the adapted information.

OAM interworking, see slide 11

ETH OAM

MPLS-TP OAM

E

T

H

P

W

Transmitted S-bit = 1

Required in MPLS-TP MS-PW due to MPLS-TP OAM presence; Seq Number support is not required; SN = fixed to 0

MPLS-TP PW_AI

S bit (1)

G.8021 ETH_AI

CW (fixed to all-0’s)

DA

DA

SA

SA

MSDU

MSDU

UNI

UNI

E-LINE (ETH_CI) service

p2p MS-PW

p2p service VLAN

ETHPW

ETH

PW

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

example 1 2 eth and mpls tp pw ncm oam interworking
Example 1&2: ETH and MPLS-TP PW NCM OAM interworking
  • For Network Connection Monitoring (highest MEG level) it is necessary to interwork the OAM PDU Header and Payload fields. The Header fields for both technologies are known and interworking is illustrated in figure below. The Payload fields of the MPLS-TP OAM are not yet specified; if those are a copy of the ETH OAM PDU Payload fields, then interworking becomes trivial.

Transmitted DA = multicast address or for LBM TargetMIP/MEP address

MIP or MEP identifier for Loopback OAM

G.8021 ETH_CI (OAM)

Transmitted SA = local MAC address or for LBM OriginatingMEP address

E

T

H

P

W

MPLS-TP PW_CI (OAM)

DA

SA

S bit (1)

OAM PDU independent Header

OAM PDU independent Header

TYPE (89-02)

0001

MEL (NCM: 7)

4-bit Version

5-bit Version

Reserved

Channel Type

OpCode

Flags

To Be Defined

(e.g. copy of ETH OAM)

TLV Offset

OAM PDU specific Payload

OAM PDU specific Payload

OAM specific

EndTLV

UNI

UNI

E-LINE (ETH_CI) service

p2p PW

p2p service VLAN

ETHPW

ETH

PW

NCM-MEG

NCM-MEG

NCM-MEG

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

example 1 2 eth and mpls tp pw tcm oam interworking
Example 1&2: ETH and MPLS-TP PW TCM OAM interworking
  • For Tandem Connection Monitoring (intermediate MEG level) it is necessary to interwork the OAM PDU Header and Payload fields. The Header fields for both technologies are known and interworking is illustrated in figure below. The difference with the NCM OAM is the presence of a Label_13 GAL header.

G.8021 ETH_CI (OAM)

E

T

H

P

W

MPLS-TP PW_CI (OAM)

DA

one GAL header for PW TCM

SA

Label_13 GAL

TYPE (89-02)

0001

MEL (TCM: 1..6)

4-bit Version

ACH

5-bit Version

Reserved

Channel Type

OpCode

Flags

To Be Defined

TLV Offset

OAM specific

EndTLV

E-NNI

UNI

UNI

E-LINE (ETH_CI) service

p2p PW

p2p service VLAN

ETHPW

ETH

PW

NCM-MEG

NCM-MEG

NCM-MEG

ETH

TCM-LSP

TCM-MEG

TCM-MEG

p2p tunnel VLAN

p2p tunnel MAC

p2p MPLS tunnel

Ethernet-TP (I)

Ethernet-TP (II)

MPLS-TP

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Interworking between ETH_CI and MPLS-TP PW_CI is an example of G.805 Layer Network Interworking
  • The addition of ETH/MPLS-TP PW interworking functions at the boundaries of Ethernet-TP and MPLS-TP domains reduces PTN network management complexity and reduces also complexity of UNI-N ports in MPLS-TP equipment
  • Interworking of ETH_AI and MPLS-TP PW_AI is trivial (i.e. not complex) due to common encapsulation methods of client signals
  • Interworking between ETH_CI and MPLS-TP PW_CI will become trivial when MPLS-TP OAM re-uses as much as possible the Ethernet OAM PDU Payload formats
  • Re-use of Ethernet OAM PDU payload formats has the additional advantage that existing (Ethernet OAM) hardware, firmware and software can be re-used, making MPLS-TP OAM available quickly
ad