1 / 19

MS-PWs: A Small Step for Pseudowires, A Giant Leap for Metro Convergence? Jeff Sugimoto - Nortel sugimoto@nortel.com

MS-PWs: A Small Step for Pseudowires, A Giant Leap for Metro Convergence? Jeff Sugimoto - Nortel sugimoto@nortel.com. PW, MPLS. PW, MPLS. MPLS, 2547, PW. WAN. Metro B. Metro A. Legacy. Converged Packet Access. Leased Line Access. Broadband Access. L2 Access. Network Evolution.

carr
Download Presentation

MS-PWs: A Small Step for Pseudowires, A Giant Leap for Metro Convergence? Jeff Sugimoto - Nortel sugimoto@nortel.com

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MS-PWs: A Small Step for Pseudowires, A Giant Leap for Metro Convergence?Jeff Sugimoto - Nortelsugimoto@nortel.com

  2. PW, MPLS PW, MPLS MPLS, 2547, PW WAN Metro B Metro A

  3. Legacy Converged Packet Access Leased Line Access Broadband Access L2 Access Network Evolution Service Edge • Network simplification & streamlining • Consistent Network for New and Legacy Services • Collapse Operational Groups • Standardize on Ethernet Interfaces, including the MSE • Dynamically Provision & Resize Transport Tunnels, Services • Transport Efficiency Gains • Peel out data services from fixed size TDM circuits MPLS WAN MSE Driving Packet Convergence in the Metro

  4. Why PWs for Packet Convergence? • Enable Service, Network consolidation • Multi-service • Transport Agnostic • Commonality with the WAN • Feature Rich - Inherits the Properties of the MPLS Tunnel Layer • Dynamically Provision & Resize Transport Tunnels, Services • OAM (LSP-PING, VCCV, Status TLV) • Resiliency (FRR, Global Repair, IP) • Traffic Engineering • Service Rich – VPWS, VPLS • Safe technology direction • Standards in Place • Broad Industry Adoption

  5. VRF 1 VRF 3 2 Typical Deployment Models ATM Frame Ethernet MPLS Metro L3 VPN MSE Inter/intra provider bound ATM Frame Ethernet MPLS WAN • Local backhaul to an MSE service • Psuedowire access to L2 VPN, L3 VPN, Internet access • 2. Local L2 transport • Pseudowires/VPLS originates and terminates in the MPLS access network • 3. End to End Layer 2 transport • Pseudowires provides transport end to end across the network

  6. Deployment models Network view Metro-Access Interconnection Use Case Metro A Core Metro B Inter-Provider Use Case Provider A Provider B

  7. Why not just re-use existing PW/MPLS Technology? Metro A WAN Metro B MPLS Network 10,000s devices • Challenges • PWE3 Control Scaling • PSN Scaling • PSN Interoperability • Authentication/Security • Traffic Engineering & QoS • Discovery/Provisioning • Increased OPEX, CAPEX? Metro-Access Interconnection Use Case ? Provider A Provider B Inter-Provider Use Case

  8. Motivations for Multi-Segment PWs Metro-Access Interconnection Use Case WAN Core Metro A Metro B MS-PWs Enable • Limit Mesh to Domain • Fewer PSN Tunnels • Manageable Control • Different PSN Technologies • Dry-Martini like MAN • PSN Conversion at S-PEs • Authentication at Boundary • Low Cost U-PEs Ultimate-PEs (U-PEs) Switching PEs (S-PE) U-PEs Provider A Provider B Inter-Provider Use Case

  9. MS-PW Standardization ProgressWorking Group Drafts - IETF PWE3 • MS-PW Requirements - draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements • Contributions from a number of Service Providers • Manual Configuration of MS-PWs draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw • Manual stitching of PW Segments in the S-PEs • Interworking different PW Segments – e.g. static to dynamic, MPLS to L2TP • Dynamic Placement of MS-PW - draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txtdraft-balus-bocci-martini-dyn-ms-pwe3-00.txt just submitted as WG document • No S-PE provisioning, automatic selection of the next PW Segment • 1:1 Protection, Re-routing around the point of failure

  10. Why Extend Existing PW Procedures?Key Principles – draft-balus-bocci-martini-dyn-ms-pwe3 • Operational Consistency, Familiarity with SS-PWs • Same Service Management, Provisioning Models • OSS Touches at only U-PEs • Generalized Solution (SS/MS) as a Super Set of Existing Procedures • Existing PW Implementations, Deployments based on LDP Signaling • Re-use Signaling Procedures, Addressing • Minimal Changes (i.e. new addressing) to satisfy the MS-PW Requirements • Address Customer Use Cases • Easily applicable to existing LDP-VPLS Implementations Small Addition to Existing PWs minimizes the Implementation Effort. Enables Fast Track Technology Expansion.

  11. Building Blocks: from Single to Multi-Segment PWs LDP • PWs Setup and Maintenance • Define Multi-service Transport over PSN • Signaling L2 FEC using LDP • draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol • Scope is one network domain (WAN) PE2 PE1 SS-PW P VF VF L2FEC VF = Virtual Forwarder SP = Switching Point MS-PW LDP LDP • Multi-Segment PWs • Segmentation of Control and Data Plane • Adds Service (to Tunnel) Label Switching • Build a Virtual Circuit across Multiple Domains • Enabler for different PSN technologies S-PE U-PE1 U-PE2 SP VF VF L2FEC

  12. Segmented PW Model - draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw • Manual Configuration: • PW X maps to PW Y • Service Label Switching SS-PW SS-PW T-PE 1 S-PE T-PE 2 SP VFx VFy LDP LDP PW X PW Y Useful for Interworking between Static PW, E-LDP-based (FEC 128, 129), different PSN types – e.g. MPLS, L2TP

  13. LSPa12 = (AGI, TAII2, SAII1) MS-PWa LSPa21 = (AGI, TAII1, SAII2) • Unique Endpoint ID • AII11 = Global ID-Prefix1-AC ID11 • Unique Endpoint ID • AII21 = Global ID-Prefix2-AC ID21 MS-PW Information Model -draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txtUnique Identification of PW Endpoint SS-PW SS-PW T-PE 1 S-PE T-PE 2 SP VFx VFy LDP LDP • No Provisioning Required • Automatic Selection of the next SS-PW • Service Label Switching Identical Service Management for both SS/MS-PWs

  14. 1’. T-PE2 (IP2) provisioned with • AGI = 40 • SAII (AC ID) = 200 • TAII (AC ID) = 100 • Destination PE = IP1 4. On LM receipt: ... check TAII against “routing table”. No full match on “local i/f”. Longest match =>NSH • 1. T-PE1 (IP1) provisioned with • AGI = 40 • SAII (AC ID) = 100 • TAII (AC ID) = 200 • Destination PE = IP2 30. 22. 5. SS-PWb LSP Fwd 3. SS-PWa LSP Fwd 7. SS-PWb LSP Rev 8. SS-PWa LSP Rev Generalized Signaling Procedures (SS/MS-PWs) draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt TAII = AS#-IP2-200 2. Before sending LM: … check TAII against “routing table”. No full match on “local i/f”. Longest match => NSH (next signaling hop) 6. On LM receipt: … check TAII against “routing table”. Full match on “local i/f” implies T-PE. S-PE T-PE2 T-PE1 P P SP VF VF LDP1 LDP2 Same Service Provisioning for SS/MS-PWs, in-line w/ existing PW Technology

  15. MS-PWs Enable Technology Options for Individual PSNs S-PE S-PE • MS-PWs enable convergence of the service layer across the network • Architecture separates service layer from tunnel layer • MS-PWs are transparent to tunnel layer functionality • Trunks between x-PEs may be setup using LDP, RSVP-TE, GMPLS • Provider Backbone Transport (PBT) – Ethernet-based Trunks • Ethernet instantiation of “Dry-Martini - see draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-ivl-00.txt U-PEs PW over PBT PW over MPLS (RSVP-TE/LDP) PW over PBT U-PEs • Revenue Generating Service (PWs) decoupled from PSN Technology • PSN choices should be driven by business model, cost target, use case

  16. MS-PW Application: Inter-Provider Multi-segment PWE3 End-to-end U-PE • Dominant Attribute • Operational Simplicity • End to End Provisioning MD-5 Authentication Provider A S-PE U-PE S-PE Inter-provider options S-PE • Dominant Attribute • Control • Mask addressing scheme S-PE Provider B S-PE U-PE Multi-segment PWE3 SS-PW Interworking, Static Provisioning

  17. MS-PW Application: (H)VPLS MTU-s MTU-s Metro S-PE3 Provider B • Enable Distributed VPLS • Complements HVPLS technology • VSI on S-PE only if 2+ PWs are required • MAC Learning only on T-PE • Inter-Provider VPLS • Transparent to existing VPLS Provisioning, A/D Procedures S-PE1 PE-rs Core Provider A S-PE2 MTU-s S-PE1 Metro PE-rs PE-rs = T-PE function = S-PE function S-PE4 = Virtual Switch Instance = MS-PWs between VSIs MTU-s = SS-PWs between VSIs

  18. The Move to Packet based Infrastructure underway in the Metro … one network to handle new and legacy services Pseudowires provide an Ideal Framework … but new end-to-end MPLS Paradigms provide New Challenges Multi-Segment Pseudowires address SS-PW Challenges … Scalability, PSN Interoperability, Low Cost Edge (MTU/DSLAM) Summary MS-PW Provides enables Service Convergence while allowing cost effective technology choices for Individual PSN domains

  19. MPLS, 2547, MS-PW MS-PW MS-PW MPLS WAN Metro B Metro A

More Related