leaving legacy moving to next generation communications n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 163 Views
  • Uploaded on

Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications. Presented by: Motty Anavi VP Business Development. Entelec Conference Spring 2013. Agenda. Utility Network Migration Process Factors and Influencers on Migration Migration Options Process Technology

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 'Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications' - aldona


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
leaving legacy moving to next generation communications
Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications

Presented by:

Motty Anavi

VP Business Development

Entelec Conference

Spring 2013

agenda
Agenda
  • Utility Network Migration Process
  • Factors and Influencers on Migration
  • Migration Options
    • Process
    • Technology
    • Looking at the New Technology
    • Reliability
    • Services
  • Still Outstanding
  • Summary
the legacy utility network
The Legacy Utility Network

Sub-Station

  • Only TDM based
  • Strict and well known and tested protocols
  • Cyber Security in not a major concern
  • Delay is not an issue
  • Ubiquitously supported by carriers and service providers

Control Center

RTU

RTU

T1/E1

RS-232

RS-232

Multiplexer

Multiplexer

Tele-Protection

Control Console

C37.94

PBX

Server

ADM

ADM

ADM

T1/E1

NMS

Sub-Station

Power Line

PBX

Phone

4W

migrating to packet networks
Migrating to Packet Networks
  • Obsolescence of equipment
  • Lack of support for 4W service
  • Improving and streamlining of Telecom network
  • New standards for Sub Station Services
    • IEC61850
    • M2M communications
  • New challenges with Packet Networks
    • Cyber Security
    • New Characteristics of transport (More Delay, Compatibility)
the evolving telecom network
The Evolving Telecom Network

Sub-Station

Control Center

RTU

RTU

RTU

T1/E1

RS-232

RS-232

RS-232

Multiplexer

Multiplexer

Multiplexer

Tele-Protection

Tele-Protection

Control Console

C37.94

C37.94

PBX

PBX

Server

ADM

ADM

ADM

T1/E1

T1/E1

Sub-Station

NMS

Power Line

PBX

Switch

PMU/ Small SS

Packet Network

RF-3080

challenges next generation migration uncertainty
Challenges: Next Generation Migration Uncertainty

Challenges in switching to All Packet

  • Not all critical application capable of migration
  • Maintain smooth operation of current networks, despite discontinued vendor products
  • Avoid over-burdening network operations and management due to TDM/PSN transport co-existence
  • Reconcile required investment in SDH/SONET equipment with decommissioning plans
  • Avoid CapEx hikes related to increase in number of network devices:
    • Continue using legacy installed-base while introducing IP/Ethernet devices
    • Ensure service quality for mission critical apps (e.g., Teleprotection)
challenges next generation migration technology aspect
Challenges: Next Generation Migration Technology Aspect

Smart Communications over Packet

  • Service assurance for mission critical apps in PSN environment:
    • Low end-to-end delay
    • High Availability
    • SDH/SONET-level Resiliency
  • Differentiated quality of service for SCADA, video surveillance, voice, Teleprotection, radio and data traffic
  • Remote operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) for fault management and lower OpEx
  • Efficient connectivity for IEC 61850 intelligent electronic devices (IEDs)
the migrated telecom network
The Migrated Telecom Network

Sub-Station

Control Center

RTU

RTU

RTU

RS-232

RS-232

RS-232

Next Gen MS

Next Gen MS

MS Gateway

Tele-Protection

Tele-Protection

Control Console

C37.94

C37.94

PBX

PBX

Server

Sub-Station

ADM

T1/E1

T1/E1

NMS

Power Line

PBX

PS Network

PMU/ Small SS

Firewall

Firewall

Firewall

the challenges
The Challenges
  • Selecting the “winning” packet network
  • Not all applications can be transported over packet
    • Application issues
    • Security concerns
  • Upgrading ancillary equipment to be “Packet Compatible”
    • Or making adjustment to the network
  • Training or retraining of workforce
  • Massive capital expense with a complete upgrade
  • Complexity of maintaining two or more networks
  • Buying more equipment with a short usability timeframe
addressing the challenges the options
Addressing the Challenges: The Options

Evolution instead of Revolution…

Move everything to packet!

  • Keep my legacy forever!
  • Utilize existing assets
  • Deterministic performance
  • No learning curve
  • Flexible & scalable
  • Low OpEx
  • Future support
  • Asset lifespan
  • Gradual migration
  • Guaranteed performance
  • Moderate learning curve
  • Future ready design
  • High equipment costs
  • Non-deterministic
  • Steep learning curve
  • High operating costs
  • Low scalability
  • Not flexible
the core replacement choices
The Core Replacement Choices
  • IP/MPLS
    • Added deterministic paths to IP
    • Used as a core Technology
    • No Built-in Security Mechanism
    • Still untried as access technology
  • CoE (aka Carrier Ethernet)
    • Mature Technology
    • Enhanced and updated
    • Established Security Protocol support
    • Connection Oriented Ethernet
ip mpls highlights
IP/MPLS Highlights
  • Mature Technology
  • Widely used
  • Deterministic routing
  • No Built-in Security
  • All paths for packets setup on connection establishment
  • Well established resiliency mechanisms
  • No built-in security (very susceptible for cyber attacks)
  • Different in architecture than existing SONET/TDM
  • Fairly unaffordable
coethernet highlights
CoEthernet Highlights
  • Mature Technology
  • Newly enhanced Connection Oriented Ethernet technology
  • Built in Security including Source authentication
  • Similar to SONET/SDH in terms of architecture and Terminology
  • CoE developed mechanisms for:
    • Deterministic network performance
    • Detection of Network failure
    • Measurement of network performance
    • Very fast restoration of service (Sub 10ms)
  • Very affordable
an ip mpls based network
An IP/MPLS Based Network
  • Architecture is very different than SONET/SDH (Similar to IP)
    • New set of addressable values
    • Each device now requires new management connection
  • Training is a challenge
  • Susceptible to cyber attacks with no source authentication
  • Network performance is predictable
  • In network delay is manageable and could be designed to be low
  • Extremely high equipment costs
  • Built in fast resiliency
a coe based network
A CoE Based Network
  • Architecture similar SONET/SDH
    • Connection based virtual circuits
    • Similar OAM terms (AIS/RDI etc….)
  • Training simple
  • More resilient to cyber attacks with source authentication
  • Network performance guaranteed by CoE OAM measurements
  • In network delay can be designed to be low
  • Relatively low equipment cost – regardless of network size or number of nodes
  • Built in fast resiliency
comparing the technologies
Comparing The Technologies
  • Connection Setup
    • SONET : Hard coded paths mapped through ADMs
    • CoE: Hard coded EVCs mapped through Switches with pre-determined priorities
    • MPLS: Dynamic path setup based on IP addressing and exchanging routing tables
  • Vulnerability of connections
    • SONET: All connections are initiated by NMS
    • COE: All connections are initiated by NMS
    • MPLS: Connections made dynamically and are vulnerable to errored/malicious routing information
comparing the technologies1
Comparing The Technologies
  • Troubleshooting
    • SONET : Comprehensive troubleshooting built in with OAM bits propagating faults
    • CoE: Comprehensive troubleshooting built in with OAM packets propagating faults
    • MPLS: No built-in OAM mechanism for localizing faults relies on other overlays to initiate backup paths
  • Resiliency
    • SONET: Ring resiliency to a predetermined path
    • COE: Ring and path resiliency to a pre-determined path within 10ms
    • MPLS: Ring or Mesh resiliency depending on topology
comparing security
Comparing Security
  • Source Authentication:
    • MPLS – No source authentication, once entering an CE/PE – local id is erased.
    • Ethernet – Universal address is maintained (MAC address), Standard for source authentication 802.1X
  • Snooping / Scouting:
    • MPLS – LSPs used as transparent pipes from one location to another.
    • Ethernet - Individual frames screened at global level (MAC) for validity
  • Control Plane:
    • MPLS - BGP and other routing protocols very susceptible for attacks that can crash entire network
    • Ethernet - Control plane isolated and access controlled by corporate access control
the future iec 61850
The Future: IEC 61850
  • Standard design for Sub Station Communications
  • Establishes standard:
    • Architecture (Process/Station Bus)
    • Protocols and formats (e.g. Goose)
    • Open interconnection points
    • Equipment requirements
    • Common communications: Ethernet
comparing the contenders
Comparing the Contenders
  • CoE has the advantage over the other packet technologies when it comes to similarity to SONET/SDH which make this technology the technological and business winner
drivers for ethernet oam
Drivers for Ethernet OAM
  • OAM benchmarks
    • Set by TDM and existing WAN technologies
  • Operational Efficiency
    • Reduce OPEX, avoid truck-rolls
    • Downtime cost
  • Management Complexity
    • Large Span Networks
    • Multiple constituent networks belong to disparate organizations/companies
ethernet oam capabilities
Ethernet OAM Capabilities
  • Fault Management
    • Fault Detection
    • Fault Verification
    • Fault Isolation
    • Fault Recovery
    • Fault Notification
  • Performance Management
    • Frame Loss Measurement
    • Delay Measurement
    • Delay Variation Measurement
    • Availability Measurement

Configuration Management

Ethernet

OAM

ethernet oam1
Ethernet OAM
  • IEEE 802.1ag
    • Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
    • Also referred as Service OAM
  • IEEE 802.3ah (clause 57)
    • Ethernet Link OAM
    • Also referred as 802.3 OAM, Link OAM or Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) OAM
  • ITU-T Y.1731
    • OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks
standards ethernet oam
Standards: Ethernet OAM

A summary of available Ethernet OAM mechanisms

what is pseudowire pw
What is Pseudowire (PW)?
  • Pseudo = Simulated, Seemingly
  • Emulation of a native service over a Packet Switched Network (PSN).
  • The native services can be ATM, TDM, Frame Relay or ETH, while the PSN can be ETH, IP or MPLS.
  • Supports voice, data and video
  • Provides a transparent tunnel through the PSN
  • Provides clock distribution and synchronization over PSN
what is pseudowire pw1
What is Pseudowire (PW)?

PSN Network

SCADA

SCADA

PW-GW

PW-GW

Analog

Analog

TDM

TDM

ieee 1588
IEEE 1588

IEEE-1588 is a standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems

  • Defines a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) designed to synchronize real-time clocks in a hierarchical distributed system
  • Intended for LAN using multicast communications
  • Targeted accuracy of microseconds or sub-microsecond (v1)
  • v1 approved in September 2002 and published November 2002
  • v2 approved in June 2007
what is ieee1588v2
What is IEEE1588v2?
  • IEEE1588v2 is designed to distribute frequency and time to a higher accuracy and precision, to the scale of nanoseconds and fractional nanoseconds.
  • The protocol operates over packet switched networks. The standard is currently defined to run over IEEE 802.3, UDP/IPv4, UDP/IPv6, DeviceNet, ControlNet and PROFINET.
  • Designed to operate automatically to establish master slave hierarchy for time distribution. (not for Telecomm industry)
  • Introduces “Transparent Clocks” to overcome the network’s delay variation.
  • C37.238 Power Profile based on IEEE-1588v2 required for Syncrophasor accuracy
g 8031 protection
G.8031 Protection
  • Protection as per ITU-T G.8031
    • 1:1 Mode
    • Unidirectional Only
    • Using APS messages
  • Triggers
    • Port Signal loss
    • CCM LOC , ETH-AIS
  • Protection time
    • 10ms protection for one pair of EVC
    • As low as 40ms protection 4 pairs of EVCs
  • Topologies
    • EVC protection with one fiber (both EVC’s running on the same Fiber)
    • EVC protection with 2 fiber each path on different fiber (dual link)
    • EVC protection with dual fiber working with MC-LACP to dual PE
    • EVC protection with Dual NTU (Future development)
g 8031 applications end to end path protection
G.8031 Applications – End to End path protection
  • Redundancy on S-Tags in the network
  • APS is running over one standby EVC only
  • Revertive and Non revertive modes
  • End to end service shell be maintained
    • TLS , Accesses to L3 VPN
  • CCM or ETH-AIS is used to trigger protection event

Customer Premises

CustomerPremises

Ethernet

NID

CPE

CPE

NID

X

L2PE

Metro /

VPLS

L2PE

L2PE

End to End path protection

Online EVC

Redundant EVC

teleprotection
Teleprotection

• Deliver Teleprotection signals with mission-critical accuracy over dedicated fiber, TDM or IP

• C37.94-compliant Teleprotection communication channels allow reliable transmission by minimizing data errors due to EM and RF interference, or ground potential rise (GPR)

•Ultra-low end-to-end propagation delay supports immediate delivery of Transfer Trip commands from protective relay/contact transfer to remote-end substations

•Maintain performance levels when migrating to packet networks with hard QoS, as well as robust latency and jitter protection

teleprotection requirements
Teleprotection Requirements
  • Very strict delay
    • 80ms total
    • 40ms for network
  • Differential Teleprotection
    • Constant delay
    • During failover – Delay could change
  • Packet solutions do not factor differential delays on redundancy
the ideal migration strategy
The Ideal Migration Strategy
  • Select a new technology
    • Reliability
    • Longevity
    • Affordability
  • Selectively migrate application
    • Check availability of solutions
    • Migrate only when application validate
    • Minimize cyber security threat
  • Complete migration within timeframe
migration steps
Migration Steps

Infrastructure

Required Services

ETH to PSN

SDH/SONET

Legacy to SDH/SONET

Legacy to PSN

Data

ETH to SDH/SONT

PSN

VoIP

NMS

Aggregation Network

Access Aggregation

Access

summary
Summary
  • The energy industry is being forced to migrate to packet technologies
  • Caution should be used when selecting a new technology
  • Established Standards such as IEC61850, C37.238 (IEEE-1588v2) use Ethernet as their transport of choice
  • An evolutionary approach to migration can ease the pain
  • Some applications may not be suitable today for migration to NGN
  • Migrating to NGN is unavoidable and should be designed today to optimize available funds and reduce future issues
slide42

For More Information:

Motty Anavi

VP of Business Development

Motty_a@rad.com

(201) 378-0213