Understanding MPLS-TPv4 Cisco

Company

LOGOCiLOGOCisco KnowledgeKnowledge Network:Optical Solutions

Introduction

• Welcome – Moderator: Dale Clark Strategic Product Sales Specialist US Advanced Technologies, Optical Team

• Today’s Show: Understanding MPLS TP• Today s Show: Understanding MPLS-TPSpeaker:

N i J lNagi Jonnala Technical Marketing Engineer

Q&• Q&A• Survey

Congratulations Todd Gingrass!!!

Company

LOGO Understanding MPLS TPLOGO Understanding MPLS-TP

Nagi R JonnalaTechnical Marketing EngineerOptical Technology Business UnitCisco Systems Inc.,Cisco Systems Inc.,

April-20-2010

Agenda

1. Background

2 MPLS TP2. MPLS-TP

3. Packet Transport network vision

4. Summary

Background• Operators are moving from SONET / SDH technologies to packet

switchingswitching– Higher bandwidth demand to support multi-services. – Consolidate networks onto a common packet infrastructure

Replace aging legacy networks– Replace aging legacy networks – Lower cost with statistical multiplexing instead of fixed bandwidth

• Which technology for packet transport?– T-MPLS started by ITU-T. This work is dead. T-MPLS

deployment will cause severe interoperability issues with the existing MPLS equipment and with the MPLS-TP equipment

Background Of MPLS• MPLS stands for Multi Protocol Label Switching• Provides the capability to transport various L2 (ex: Ethernet FR• Provides the capability to transport various L2 (ex: Ethernet, FR,

ATM etc) and L3 (ex: IP) protocols / services• Switching is based on “label lookup”

Original motivation of MPLS was to create simple high speed• Original motivation of MPLS was to create simple high speed switches

• Now mainly used for multiple services models and traffic engineeringMPLS ffi i i ffi fl k b d• MPLS traffic engineering routes traffic flows across a network based on the resources the traffic flow requires and the resources available in the network. MPLS TE employs “constraint-based” routing

MPLS Terminology“Label Switch Router” (LSR / P)

“Label Edge Router” (LER / T-PE) “Label Switched Path” (LSP)

IGPOSPF,BGP,IS-ISLDP label assignment

“PseudoWire”“Customer

“AttachmentCircuit – AC”

(PW)Customer

Edge” -CE DWDMMesh

AC defines path between CE and LER

PW defines the service riding over the LSP

LSP defines the path through LSRs from ingress to egress LER

“ProviderEdge” RouterASR9k/7600

A collection of label pushes, swaps and Pops

Can be defined in many different ways : statically, dynamically through LDP, BGP, RSVP

Terminology Recap

• MPLS – Multi Protocol Label Switching• MPLS-TP – MPLS Transport Profile Transport profile of MPLS• MPLS-TP – MPLS Transport Profile. Transport profile of MPLS

whose control plane is NMS and data plane consists of regular MPLS LSP with “enhanced” transport capabilities (ex: OAM) and data plane does NOT require IP (i.e., IP support is optional)does NOT require IP (i.e., IP support is optional)

• LSP – Label Switched Path. Sometimes the term “MPLS-TP” may also refer to “statically setup LSP”.

• Tunnel – Sometimes refers to LSP Sometimes refers to a set of• Tunnel – Sometimes refers to LSP. Sometimes refers to a set of LSPs (ex: active and standby) participating in protection group.

• PW – Pseudowire. A short form for the Pseudowire emulation service Signifies an entity that transports any L2 service (ex: DSnservice. Signifies an entity that transports any L2 service (ex: DSn, Ethernet, etc.,). PW is a client of the LSP and rides over LSP.

Poll

Question:Are you planning to deploy MPLS-TP?

1) yes 2) no 3) I d ’t k3) I don’t know 4) I’m exploring other options

9

Agenda

1. Background

2 MPLS TP2. MPLS-TP

3. Packet Transport network vision

4. Summary

MPLS-TP – Transport perspective

• MPLS Transport Profile enhances and reuses the existing MPLS to support packet transport requirementssupport packet transport requirements

• Emulates capabilities of existing transport technologies– Strictly connection Orientated

• Long lived connectionsLong lived connections• Manually provisioned connections

– NMS provisioning and Fault (Alarms) and Performance Management a age e t

– Pre-determined end-to-end path– In-band OAM

Fast detection and recovery time (sub 50ms recovery)– Fast detection and recovery time (sub-50ms recovery)– Tight LSA: BW, QoS, High Availability

MPLS-TP – MPLS perspective

• As the name suggests, MPLS-TP is just a profile of existing IETFMPLS

• Retains MPLS forwarding paradigm Everything done over MPLS can• Retains MPLS forwarding paradigm. Everything done over MPLS can be run over MPLS-TP tunnels

• Decouples MPLS Control Plane (NMS / OSS / G-MPLS) from the Forwarding PlaneForwarding Plane

• Enhances OAM functionality. Supports In-band OAM• Access Services (ex: Ethernet services) are carried over

Pseudowires (PW). PWs are clients of MPLS-TP( )• No PHP, no ECMP, no MP2MP, no LSP Merging• IP is optional• TE can be done using the NMS Bandwidth ManagementTE can be done using the NMS Bandwidth Management• Control plane protocols such as RSVP are not required although they

can also control the MPLS-TP using G-MPLS in future

MPLS-TP FeaturesData Plane

– MPLS Forwarding

Control Plane– NMS provisioning option

– Bidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs

– No LSP merging

– PHP optional

– GMPLS control plane option

– PW (SS-PW, MS-PW)

OAM– In-band OAM channel (GACH)

Resiliency– Sub-50ms protection switch overIn band OAM channel (GACH)

– Connectivity Check (CC): proactive (ext. BFD)

– Connectivity verification (CV): reactive (ext. LSPPing)

Sub 50ms protection switch over without c/p

– 1:1, 1+1, 1:N path protection

– Linear protection

– Alarm Suppression and Fault Indication with AIS(new tool), LDI, and Client Fault Indication (CFI)

– Performance monitoring, proactive and reactive (new tools)

– Ring protection

13

MPLS-TP Basic ConceptNMS for Network

Management Control

Working LSP

PE PEClient node Client node

Protect LSP

In-band OAM (e2e or per-segment)

MPLS-TP LSP (Static or Dynamic)Pseudowire

Client Signal

Connection Oriented, pre-configured working path and protect path, p g g p p pTransport Tunnel 1:1 protection, switching triggered by in-band OAMPhase 1: NMS for static provisioning

MPLS-TP architecture – OAM

P P

Carrier 1 Carrier 2

NNITPE P

AC ACTPE SPE SPE

MEP MIP MIP MEP

t

end to end LSP OAM

MEP MEPMEP MEP MEP MEP MIPMIP

segment LSP OAM(inter carrier)

segment LSP OAM(carrier 2)

segment LSP OAM(carrier 1)

MIP

• Based on Maintenance Entities– Maintenance End Points (MEPs) and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs)– Multiple levels– Multiple levels

• Maintenance Entities– Association of two MEPs– Zero or more intermediate MIPs– MEPs source and sink OAM flow – MIPs can only sink or respond to an OAM flow

MPLS-TP architecture – OAM Constructs

• Common mechanism for carrying OAM and out-of-band management information

– Regardless of MPLS construct – Travels same path as the data

• Major components– Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH)– Generic Alert Label (GAL)

• G-ACH is the generalised container– Capable of carrying: OAM, APS, DCC, MCC traffic– Works across PWs, LSP and MPLS Sections

• OAM classes– Continuity Checks – Connectivity Verification– Performance Monitoring : packet loss measurement and delay – Alarm suppression– Alarm suppression

Multi Segment PW

Core Access Aggregation

MPLS-TP MPLSAccess Aggregation

MPLS-TP

Edge Edge

PW Segment over MPLS-TPPW Segment over MPLS-TP PW Segement over MPLS/LDP g

• One Pseudowire end to end• Separate segments in each technology domain

g g

Separate segments in each technology domain–Statically provisioned in MPLS-TP domains–Signaled via LDP in MPLS domain

• End to end and per domain manageability• End to end and per domain manageabilityS-PE

Standardization

• Background– ITU defined T-MPLS trying to meet the transport needsy g p– But T-MPLS broke the MPLS Forwarding paradigm

• by re-writing Ethernet OAM into MPLS• Cause problem for existing MPLS deploymentCause problem for existing MPLS deployment

– IETF and ITU-T agreed to work jointly on MPLS-TP in 4/2008• Important message: T-MPLS is not MPLS-TP

– There is no ITU-T T-MPLS OAM Recommendation All existing T-MPLS– There is no ITU-T T-MPLS OAM Recommendation. All existing T-MPLS Recommendations will be replaced by MPLS-TP Recommendations. There will be interoperability issues if T-MPLS is deployed.

IETF Development Status• Cisco strong leadership in IETF: WG chairs, RFC/ID co-authors,

contributors• IETF RFCs publishedIETF RFCs published

– RFC 5317: JWT Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile – RFC 5462: EXP field renamed to Traffic Class field – RFC 5586: MPLS Generic Associated Channel – RFC 5654: MPLS-TP Requirements– RFC 5654: MPLS-TP Requirements– RFC 5704: Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful – RFC 5718: An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile

• WG drafts– draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-06 txtdraft ietf mpls tp nm req 06.txt – draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-05.txt – draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-05.txt – draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-05 .txt– draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-01 txtdraft ietf mpls tp rosetta stone 01 .txt– draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-05.txt – draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-01.txt – draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01.txtetcetc

Agenda

1. Background

2 MPLS TP2. MPLS-TP

3. Packet Transport network vision

4. Summary

The Role of OTN

• OTN provides framing and PHY convergence functions etcfunctions etc.

• OTN switching is optimized for dedicated Bandwidth PL and TDM traffic

• OTN switching brings the following:– Efficiently pack high speed lambdas

Eliminate operational challenges of MXP– Eliminate operational challenges of MXP– Groom TDM or Packet at 1.25GB Level (ODU-0)

Worldwide Total Ethernet Market Place

35bn

30bn

25bn

20bn20bn

15bn

10bn

5bn

Wholesale and retail Ethernet services : E line ETREE and E-LANWholesale and retail Ethernet services : E line, ETREE and E LAN

~90% of Ethernet market place <1GE in 2013Source Infonetics 2009

Packet Transport network vision defined by service mix

• To build an efficient Packet Transport network:– Expected Ethernet service mix requires a packet based transport

technology– It is not just p2p transport, but service aware– Network scale for large number of services– Maintain SLAs

G t d BW ith bilit t ff hi h k t LS TP– Guaranteed BW with ability to offer higher peak ratesLS-TPaccomplishes all of the above

What about legacy services?

• Large scale replacement of existing SONET/SDH t k i t t dnetwork is not expected

• Smaller TDM rate circuits can also be addressed over MPLSMPLS

• OTN will be useful for packing of large line rate pipes( such as OC192, 10GE) in to larger pipes (100G)

i ll i h h l h TDM d k ffi iespecially with a healthy TDM and packet traffic mix. • For Packet Pipes, MPLS(TP) adds ability to push low

priority traffic or offer higher peak rates in an under-priority traffic or offer higher peak rates in an underutilized network – service differentiation with a range of SLAs

Agenda

1. Background

2 MPLS TP2. MPLS-TP

3. Packet Transport network vision

4. Summary

IP And Transport Converging Under MPLS

PWMPLS-TP IP/MPLSMPLS-TP OAMPath Protection50ms SwitchoverAlarm and monitoring

MPLS ForwardingMPLS Forwarding

PHPECMPMP2MPIPAlarm and monitoring

Static Provisioning GMPLSIPTE

MPLSTransport IP

26

MPLSTransport IP

Summary• T-MPLS is dead, T-MPLS is neither MPLS-TP nor MPLS-TP version-0• Using T-MPLS causes serious inter-op issues with existing MPLS.

OTN it hi i ti i d f ki 40G/100G l bd ith i d t ffi• OTN switching is optimized for packing a 40G/100G lambda with mixed traffic• MPLS is optimized for packet services• MPLS-TP optimizes a transport network for packet services

MPLS MPLS TP f t i d d i bl b d• MPLS + MPLS-TP from access to service node and in core enable a broad range of SLAs

• Organizations which can exploit this new fluidity will differentiate against slower moving providersmoving providers

• Cisco invented the “tag switching” and provided strong leadership in IETF for standardizing MPLS.

• Now IETF leadership in MPLS-TP• Meeting customers’ requirements with multi-platform end-to-end solutionsMeeting customers requirements with multi platform end to end solutions . • Transport customers can use the proven, same look & feel of the SONET / SDH

A-to-Z provisioning using the well known GUIs CTC / CTM• Common NMS (ANA) for end-to-end solution with various Cisco platforms and

with MPLS and MPLS-TP.

27

Cisco

Q&AQ&A

Next Optical Webinar

• Topic: Convergent Transport Architectures p g p(IP, OTN, MPLS-TP Transport, WSON)

• Date: May 18, 2010 @ 1 – 2 pm ESTDate: May 18, 2010 @ 1 2 pm EST• Speaker: Errol Roberts, Distinguished

Systems EngineerSystems Engineer

Upcoming Events

• Cisco Optical Networking Conference: Richardson, TX • Date: Wednesday-Thursday May 19-20 , 2010 (All day)• Please plan to arrive early on Wednesday and depart Friday p y y p y

morning. • Technical Sessions• See the newest transport technologies for 2010 and 2011• Peer Interaction (all levels)• 1:1 Meetings with Optical Experts• Fun Evening Event

Wrap-Up

• SurveySurvey• Contact us: [email protected]• Webinar playbacks and updates can be foundWebinar playbacks and updates can be found

at:www ciscoknowledgenetwork com/opticalwww.ciscoknowledgenetwork.com/optical

• Please also click on www.cisco.com/go/opticalfor more information.o o e o at o