Company

Cisco Ci LOGO Knowledge Network: Optical Solutions

Introduction
Welcome Moderator: Dale Clark Strategic Product Sales Specialist US Advanced Technologies, Optical Team Todays Show: Understanding MPLS TP Today s MPLS-TP Speaker: N iJ l Nagi Jonnala Technical Marketing Engineer Q& Q&A Congratulations Todd Gingrass!!! Survey

Company

LOGO

Understanding MPLS TP MPLS-TP

Nagi R Jonnala Technical Marketing Engineer Optical Technology Business Unit Cisco Systems Inc., April-20-2010

Agenda
1. Background 2. MPLS-TP 2 MPLS TP 3. Packet Transport network vision 4. Summary

Background
Operators are moving from SONET / SDH technologies to packet switching Higher bandwidth demand to support multi-services. Consolidate networks onto a common packet infrastructure 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 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 switches Now mainly used for multiple services models and traffic engineering MPLS traffic engineering routes traffic flows across a network based ffi i i ffi fl kb d 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) IGP
OSPF,BGP,IS-IS LDP label assignment

Label Switched Path (LSP)

Customer Customer Edge -CE Attachment Circuit AC

DWDM Mesh

PseudoWire (PW)

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 A collection of label pushes, swaps and Pops

Provider Edge Router ASR9k/7600

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 Profile 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) 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 LSP. LSPs (ex: active and standby) participating in protection group. PW Pseudowire. A short form for the Pseudowire emulation service. service Signifies an entity that transports any L2 service (ex: DSn 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 dont know d t k 4) Im exploring other options

9

Agenda
1. Background 2. MPLS-TP 2 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 requirements Emulates capabilities of existing transport technologies
Strictly connection Orientated
Long 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) (sub-50ms Tight LSA: BW, QoS, High Availability

MPLS-TP MPLS perspective

As the name suggests, MPLS-TP is just a profile of existing IETF MPLS Retains MPLS forwarding paradigm. Everything done over MPLS can paradigm be run over MPLS-TP tunnels Decouples MPLS Control Plane (NMS / OSS / G-MPLS) from the Forwarding 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 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 Features
Data Plane
MPLS Forwarding Bidirectional P2P and P2MP LSPs No LSP merging PHP optional PW (SS-PW, MS-PW)

Control Plane
NMS provisioning option GMPLS control plane option

OAM
In-band OAM channel (GACH) In band

Resiliency
Sub-50ms protection switch over Sub 50ms without c/p 1:1, 1+1, 1:N path protection Linear protection Ring protection

Connectivity Check (CC): proactive (ext. BFD) Connectivity verification (CV): reactive (ext. LSP Ping) Alarm Suppression and Fault Indication with AIS (new tool), LDI, and Client Fault Indication (CFI) Performance monitoring, proactive and reactive (new tools)

13

MPLS-TP Basic Concept

NMS for Network Management Control

Working LSP

Client node

PE
MPLS-TP LSP (Static or Dynamic) Pseudowire In-band OAM (e2e or per-segment) Client Signal

PE

Client node

Protect LSP

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

MPLS-TP architecture OAM

Carrier 1 AC TPE P P SPE NNI SPE Carrier 2 P TPE AC

end to end LSP OAM MEP segment LSP OAM (carrier 1) MEP MIP MIP MIP segment t LSP OAM (inter carrier) MEP MEP MIP segment LSP OAM (carrier 2) MIP MEP MEP

MEP MEP

Based on Maintenance Entities

Maintenance End Points (MEPs) and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs) Multiple levels 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

Maintenance Entities

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

Multi Segment PW
MPLS-TP
Access Aggregation Edge

MPLS
Core Edge Aggregation

MPLS-TP
Access

PW Segment over MPLS-TP g

PW Segement over MPLS/LDP g

PW Segment over MPLS-TP g

One Pseudowire end to end 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

S-PE

Standardization
Background ITU defined T-MPLS trying to meet the transport needs y g p
But T-MPLS broke the MPLS Forwarding paradigm by re-writing Ethernet OAM into MPLS Cause 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 Recommendation. 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 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 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 txt draft 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 .txt draft 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.txt etc

Agenda
1. Background 2. MPLS-TP 2 MPLS TP 3. Packet Transport network vision 4. Summary

The Role of OTN

OTN provides framing and PHY convergence functions etc 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 Groom TDM or Packet at 1.25GB Level (ODU-0)

Worldwide Total Ethernet Market Place

35bn 30bn 25bn 20bn 15bn 10bn 5bn

Wholesale and retail Ethernet services : E line ETREE and E-LAN line, E LAN ~90% of Ethernet market place <1GE in 2013
Source 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 Guaranteed BW with ability to offer higher peak ratesLS TP t d ith bilit t ff hi h k t LS-TP

accomplishes all of the above

What about legacy services?

Large scale replacement of existing SONET/SDH network is not expected t ki t t d Smaller TDM rate circuits can also be addressed over MPLS OTN will be useful for packing of large line rate pipes( such as OC192, 10GE) in to larger pipes (100G) especially with a h l h TDM and packet traffic mix. i ll i h healthy d k ffi i For Packet Pipes, MPLS(TP) adds ability to push low priority traffic or offer higher peak rates in an underunder utilized network service differentiation with a range of SLAs

Agenda
1. Background 2. MPLS-TP 2 MPLS TP 3. Packet Transport network vision 4. Summary

IP And Transport Converging Under MPLS

MPLS-TP

PW

IP/MPLS
PHP ECMP MP2MP IP TE

MPLS-TP OAM Path Protection MPLS Forwarding 50ms Switchover MPLS Forwarding Alarm and monitoring Static Provisioning GMPLS

Transport

MPLS
26

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 switching i optimized f packing a 40G/100G l bd with mixed t ffi it hi is ti i d for ki lambda ith i d traffic MPLS is optimized for packet services MPLS-TP optimizes a transport network for packet services MPLS + MPLS-TP from access to service node and in core enable a b d MPLS TP f t i d di bl broad range of SLAs Organizations which can exploit this new fluidity will differentiate against slower moving 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 solutions . customers multi platform end-to-end 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&A

Next Optical Webinar

Topic: Convergent Transport Architectures p g p (IP, OTN, MPLS-TP Transport, WSON) Date: May 18, 2010 @ 1 2 pm EST Speaker: Errol Roberts, Distinguished Systems 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
Survey Contact us: cisco-optical-sales@cisco.com Webinar playbacks and updates can be found at: www.ciscoknowledgenetwork.com/optical www ciscoknowledgenetwork com/optical Please also click on www.cisco.com/go/optical for more information. o o e o at o