Inter-City MAN Services using MPLS Primary Authors: Pascal Menezes (Terabeam)

1. Inter-City MAN Servicesusing MPLS Primary Authors: Pascal Menezes (Terabeam) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) July 23rd 2001Version 1.0

2. Problem Definition • How does an Ethernet MAN (EMAN) operator deliver economical services between cities for a global footprint? • Operating a Metro and a WAN network E-2-E is too costly and complex. • Buying Lambda, SONET or ATM services from WAN carriers still pushes the complexity and cost of layer 3 and MPLS to the MAN provider (overlay model and virtual backbone). • Global telecom costs using legacy circuit networks make it cost prohibitive for large bandwidth at long distances.

3. Objective • Use upstream IP NSP networks for backbone services. NSPs IP networks are distance insensitive. • Push the complexity of operating a global WAN backbone to NSP partners (peering model). Use hierarchical MPLS concepts. • Deliver local MAN services between cities using NSP backbone. Services look the same regardless of inter or intra city communication. • Deliver bilateral agreements on SLAs (QoS, etc.) between MAN and WAN NSP partner.

4. EMAN 4 NE MAN Overlay (Virtual) Backbone Topology EMAN 2 Telecom Backbone Provider NE EMAN 1 NE NE Virtual Connection MAN Provider Managed And Operated EMAN 3

5. Global MAN Overlay Backbone Topology EMAN EMAN EMAN Telecom Backbone Provider EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN

6. EMAN 4 MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology EMAN 2 Telecom Backbone Provider PE EMAN 1 PE PE PE LSPs NSP Provider Managed And Operated NSP Traffic Engineered LSPs EMAN 3

7. Global MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN EMAN 12 12 NSP Backbone Provider 12 12 12 EMAN EMAN 12 12 12 EMAN EMAN 12 12 12 EMAN EMAN 12 12 EMAN EMAN

8. Inter-City MAN Peering Model MAN 1 NSP Network MAN 2 CE 1 ASBR PE 1 PE 2 CE 2 ASBR P1 P2 PE 1 PE 2 MAN BB 1 MAN BB 2 NSP Inter-City MAN Service Automated Announcement Protocol Of labels for Inter-City LSPs Automated Announcement Protocol Of labels for Inter-City LSPs Separate IGP Domain Separate IGP Domain Same Autonomy

9. Inter-City MAN LSP Hierarchical Model MAN 1 NSP Network MAN 2 Inter-City Service LSP Inter-City LSP NSP TE- LSP CE 1 ASBR PE 1 PE 2 CE 2 ASBR P1 P2 PE 1 PE 2 MAN BB 1 MAN BB 2

10. CoS Mapping MAN 1 NSP Network MAN 2 Inter-City Service LSP EXP Marking Inter-City LSP EXP Marking NSP TE LSP EXP Marking CE 1 ASBR PE 1 PE 2 CE 2 ASBR P1 P2 PE 1 PE 2

11. Proposal to Join RFC 2547bisand RFC 3107 For Inter-City MAN Services

12. Inter-City MAN Hierarchical LSP LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services Hierarchical LSP (NO Label) for Prefix 1 Hierarchical LSP Label K for Prefix 1 Hierarchical LSP Label L for Prefix 1 IGP LSP Label (swap) for PE1 CE 1 ASBR PE 1 PE 2 CE 2 ASBR P1 P2 PE 1 PE 2 RSVP Resv Label (swap) for PE1 E-MBGP & MPLS Advertise Prefix 1 Label “implicit null label” MBGP Advertise VPN IPV4 Prefix 1 (RD some value) And Route Target A (assigned by NSP) And BGP Next Hop PE1 And Label L (swapped label) E-MBGP & MPLS Advertise Prefix 1 BGP Next Hop PE2 And Label K (swapped label)

13. Multi-Site Example LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services Hierarchical LSP CE 1 ASBR PE 1 PE 2 CE 2 ASBR P1 P2 PE 1 PE 2 Hierarchical LSP PE 3 CE 3 ASBR P3 PE 3 LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services

14. Hierarchical Distribution Tree CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR CE 2 ASBR CE 3 ASBR CE 1 ASBR CE 1 ASBR CE 3 ASBR CE 3 ASBR CE 2 ASBR

15. Issues • CoS model will work, but what about a Hard QoS model with CAC signaling E-2-E (or centralized bandwidth broker model). • To date NSP do NOT deliver jitter guarantees.