Tech Challenges2547
Tech Challenges2547
2
Abstract
3
Objective
4
Benefits of an Ethernet service
5
Challenges, Ethernet over Multi-protocol Networks
6
A Multi-step approach
7
A Multi-step approach
8
A Multi-step approach
9
A Multi-step approach
10
A Multi-step approach
Capacity Management
High Availability/High Performance networks are a
requirement for large service providers.
Capacity Planning should be done in conjunction with
Performance analysis, QoS management best
practices and WhatIf scenario analysis.
11
Agenda
12
What are VPNs about ? Site with DOCSIS L2VPN
Accessing Server2 using IP
Example: Enterprise with 3 sites
Site with DOCSIS L2VPN
With Server 1, Server 2
13
Another view, implemented with DOCSIS
Both technologies make the dotted line entity behave like a 2 port switch
14
L2VPN DOCSIS details
15
L2TPv3
Layer 1 agnostic rides over any transport
Simplified L2 encapsulation techniques, like encapsulation in IP
No additional protocols required for support in the network i.e. MPLS
L2TPv3 requires configuration of end-points only
No configuration of intervening network elements required.
DOCSIS carries IP; DOCSIS edge CMs can encapsulate the L2 frames in IP
Allows connectivity to VPN from off-net (off plant) locations with
minimal coordination between providers.
Simplifies NNI and peering considerations.
L2TPv3 is point to point, combined with MetroE becomes multipoint
capable
Multipoint L2TPv3
Hybrid approach, L2TPv3 end points combined with VPLS end points for
multipoint flexibility
L2TPv3 tunnel allows HSD and VPN service off of same cable router
16
L2VPN extended across the core
VPLS MAC Addr Learning L2VPN CMTS
submits VPN Tagged
Frames from
Enterprise
local
Tier 3 local
ISP local local
ISP ISP
ISP ISP
Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Only new, VPLS-
Tier 1 ISP aware PE gear
No MAC Addr does MAC Addr
learning in the core. learning, (North of
So legacy gear works CMTS)
for VPNs too. Tier 1 ISP Tier 1 ISP
Tier-2 ISP
local
Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP
local local local ISP
ISP ISP ISP
17
OAM frames injected into VPN data
New L2 layer shims add OAM frames to VPN data as tracers
Network Element support MEPS inside their interfaces -next slide
MEPs check OAM frames for connectivity, loss, latency, and jitter
local
Tier 3 local
ISP local local
ISP ISP
ISP ISP
Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP
Tier 1 ISP
MEPS
18
DOCSIS with simple OAM
This L2VPN entity behaves like a 2 port switch
Enterprise Site 1
CMTS
L2VPN CMs
Enterprise Site 2
BESMIinterfaces
OAM interfacesembedded
embedded within
withineach
eachCM interface
CMCI exchange
interface exchange
BESMIframes
OAM framestotocontinually
continually measure
measureconnectivity and
connectivity performance
and performance
19
DOCSIS with more complex OAM
This slide shows a L2VPN Service spanning two CMs and
a third interface across the Internet core
OAM MEPs need only be added at CM interfaces.
Provider Edge Switches (PE/SW) will already support them
anyway. Thus, no modifications needed for CMTSs.
CMTSs L2VPN Cable Modems
PE/SW
PE/SW
20
OAM MEP structure inside an interface
LLC Layer
OAM MEP
MAC Layer
21
OAM Multiple Maintenance levels
ME 6 SUBSCRIBER
ME 5 TEST
ME 4 EVC
ME 2 OPERATORS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
23
E-OAM Fault Management
Summary of Protocols and Mechanisms
Fault Protocol Mechanism
Management
Fault 802.1ag Continuity Check Message (CCM)
Detection 802.3ah Link Monitoring
Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
802.1ag
Port Status, Interface Status TLVs
Fault Y.1731 Alarm Indication Signal (ETH-AIS)
Notification Remote Failure Indication (RFI)
802.3ah
Event Notification OAMPDU
E-LMI Status Message
Fault 802.1ag Loopback protocol (LBM, LBR)
Verification Y.1731 Multicast Loopback (ETH-LB)
Fault Isolation 802.1ag Linktrace protocol (LTM, LTR)
24
Ethernet LMI
Overview
Provides protocol and mechanisms used for:
Notification of Remote UNI status to CE
Notification of EVC addition, deletion or
status (Active, Not Active, Partially Active)
to CE User Network Interface
Communication of UNI and EVC attributes (UNI)
to CE (e.g. CE-VLAN to EVC map) UNI-C UNI-N
Metro
CE auto-configuration CE Ethernet
Asymmetric protocol based on Network
Frame Relay LMI, mainly applicable
to the UNI (UNI-C and UNI-N) E-LMI
Specification completed by MEF:
http://www.metroethernetforum.
org/PDFs/Standards/MEF16.doc
25
Link OAM (IEEE 802.3ah, Clause 57)
Overview
27
Y.1731
28
Challenges Implementing Ethernet OAM
Core Connectivity
Customer Access
E-LMI FaultAccess
Management Customer
Business Business
Backbone Backbone
Bridges Bridges
Provider Provider
Bridges Bridges
Residential Residential
Ethernet
Link OAM
IP/MPLS
29
Challenges with Delivering Carrier Ethernet
Technical challenges of integrating multiple
end-points in a multipoint EVC.
SONET & Dark Fiber End points, i.e. VLAN and/or
VPLS, L2TPv3.
Maintaining end to end QOS
Non-Native Ethernet Networks that carry
802 frames
DOCSIS end-points
Out of Footprint EVC end-points.
Between operating units
Between Service Providers
Cross Provider agreements
30
Agenda
31
Ethernet Services Model
Service Provider
Responsibility
32
Basic MEF Services
Point-to-Point Multipoint-to-Multipoint
EVC EVC
UNI A
UNI D CE
UNI UNI
CE
MEN
MEN
CE
CE
UNI C
UNI B CE
CE
Ethernet Privet Line (EPL) Ethernet LAN Service (E-LAN)
Service
UNI UNI A
Multipoint-to-Multipoint EVC 1
Multiplexed at
Service B
Multiplexed UNI D UNI D
CE
at UNI A CE CE
UNI B
MEN MEN
UNI CE CE
CE C
CE UNI C
UNI E Multipoint-to-Multipoint EVC 2
Ethernet Virtual Privet Line (EVPL) Ethernet LAN Service (E-LAN)
33
Use Case 1: P2P EPL, 1 EVC, BE CoS
34
Use Case 1: P2P EPL, 1 EVC, BE CoS
35
Use Case 3: Hub & Spoke, 2 EVC, RT and BE CoS
36
Use Case 4: ELAN, Multipoint EVC, BE CoS
37
Simplified View
38
The Provisioning Challenge
End to End Ethernet Service
Customer Customer
Edge 1 Edge 2
Provider Provider
Edge 1 Edge 2
Administrative and provisioning system that sets up the VLAN connections are essential
DOCSIS provisioning is usually a single ended solution
SLA and CoS difficult to monitor and ensure
Multiple devices to configure
Possibly crossing several provisioning domains
Do we need to make a change every time we add a customer or a VLAN?
Can we scale effectively without automation?
39
L2VPN provisioning
CMs
Uses standard DOCSIS provisioning with BPI
CMTSs
Must provision a table associating the VPN .1Q tag
with the MAC address of the L2VPN CM
PEs
Must accept different .1Q tags from each VPN
Must connect VPN segments together across:
DOCSIS only by associating .1Q tags
The core by supporting VPLS (or equal)
40
L2TPv3 tunnel provisioning
41
L2TPv3 tunnel provisioning
CMs
Uses standard DOCSIS provisioning
Must provision a Pseudo-Wire to the next L2TPv3 hop
Since L2TPv3 adds an extra IP header around the frames, MTU
size may become an issue
L2TPv3 CMs need to cooperate to discover the Path MTU size
and agree to fragment at the edge to keep the core happy.
CMTSs should require no special provisioning
PEs
May need to terminate the L2TPv3 tunnels of each VPN (in
concentrator/Aggregator arch. only)
May need to support VPLS, if backbone is MPLS.
If layer 3 (IP) is used as backbone transport no change or special
provisioning is required.
42
QoS Provisioning Goals and outline
The goals
Transport Enterprise frames with QoS meeting the SLA
The implementation
The forwarding mechanism for the frames is irrelevant as long as
the SLA is met
OAM provides mechanisms to detect problems
Forwarding mechanisms
Most forwarding entities examine tags on the data to determine
forwarding needs
IP header DiffServ Code Point (DSCP)
Ethernet header .1Q tag p bits, and others
MPLS cos
Tags may be used at each network element to give passing data
different queue priority, routing, etc based on its tag.
Most standardization efforts are centering on defining classes of
service (like VOIP, video, best effort, etc) so they may be assigned
to the different tag values in the different QoS mechanisms
43
QoS Provisioning Interoperation
Forwarding mechanisms
Where networks interface, forwarding may change from one
method to another.
Tag usage methods must be changed in a predictable manner (for
interoperation). This is QoS mapping.
Often this means changing focus from one tag to another, or
swapping out tags to different types.
QoS for forwarding L2 frames is accomplished by giving QoS to
the container the frames are in, even if its an L3 container.
Standards
Everyone has always been working on this!
MEF has a Class of Service (CoS) team and the NNI specification
team working on these issues using L2 tags
Cable has an MSO backbone group working on peering using IP
tags
44
Possible QoS mapping
45
Agenda
46
Ethernet Business Services
$11 Billion
(2007)
ITFacts Telecom
47
ETHERNET BUSINESS SERVICES
E-LAN
48
FIBER ETHERNET BUSINESS SERVICES
TDM & GE
20km @ 1:32 split
49
GPON Advantages in the SMB
50
Targets for GPON Services
Commercial Service Types Transparent LANs, VOIP, Voice
Small to medium enterprise
Home based businesses
Retail services
Mixed use residential/business
Hospitality and health care
Cell site backhaul
Resorts & smart communities
51
GPON Access Solution
DCCS
Class 5
GR303/SoftSwitch
2.4 Gbps
IP-MPLS Internet
Core 1.2 Gbps
MDU
Central Office
761
GE/T1 Transport
Remote Terminal
52
Business & Wholesale ONT models
53
RFOG and GPON Combined Network
Network Layout
EDFA Output: 19 - 21.5 dBm
ONT RF Optical Receive : +2 to -5 dBm
ONT 1590nm Output (at port): -1.5
Interactive Services dBm
Reverse Path Receive : -8 to -25 dBm
Manager
Video Encoders
Satellite Forw ard Path Tx
Out-of-Band Control
Max Transmission Distance is 17 km
Off-AIr 4W CWDM with RF video overlay
EDFA
2.4 dB loss
PEG- Local
Content Reverse
Path Rx
Set-top Box
PON
1490 nm GPON
4 CWDM 1310 nm GPON
Voice
Sw itch
54
Service Harmony with HFC+GPON
GPON and HFC are more alike than you may think
Both systems use the same RF video transmitter
HFC and GPON systems have an identical optical architecture
GPON systems use more fibers
HFC system requires coaxial amplifiers
Benefits of using GPON FTTx
Complementary high bandwidth SMB services where customer
will not pay extra for protected service
Used to augment cable modem services where symmetrical
bandwidth is desired by the customer
Lower operational cost, reducing outside plant trouble shooting
Disadvantages of GPON FTTx
GPON electronics cost is $350 premium over HFC Cable
modem
Coax is ubiquitous in businesses passed, fiber is not
CO Electronics cost: GPON OLT port serves only 32-64 max
A CMTS port serves 100s of businesses served by cable
modems
55
GPON O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant
GPON
Technical Supervision $ 0.00
56
Conclusions
GPON ONTs deliver complete portfolio of commercial services
Over a future-proofed multiservice operator infrastructure
Integrated 10/100 and GE drops (VLAN rate limiting, QOS and COS)
Embedded DS1/T1 backhaul for voice and data T1s
Multiple services over glass the end game
Fully compatible with existing RF delivery and digital return
Service stability through passive & optical plant (retain customers)
Annual operating savings of FTTH plant is substantial over copper
The cost to deploy FTTH is around $350 per business above HFC
HFC is significantly less bandwidth per business
2.5 GPON systems support 1GE bursting today
And can be designed for symmetrical 75 Mbps per business; sustained
DOCSIS systems are designed for much lower bandwidths
Pay back for FTTx & commercial GPON ranges from 1 to 6 years
GPON prices are declining more rapidly than HFC
57
Q&A
58