1 / 62

SDN in Carrier Networks

SDN in Carrier Networks. Saurav Das, Guru Parulkar, Nick McKeown Broadcom 27 th October, 2011. Outline. Problem Statement – 2 networks Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture Prototype & Demonstration to validate

corin
Download Presentation

SDN in Carrier Networks

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. SDN in Carrier Networks Saurav Das, Guru Parulkar, Nick McKeown Broadcom 27th October, 2011

  2. Outline • Problem Statement – 2 networks • Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture • Prototype & Demonstration to validate • Simplicity & Extensibility compared to existing solution • Problem Statement – MPLS • Proposed Solution: SDN based MPLS

  3. Wide Area IP Network

  4. Logical Link between two Routers over the Wide-Area Other Clients Physical Router Link Physical Router Link TDM Switch WDM Line System Optical Fiber 40-160 wavelengths channels OtherClients WDM Switch Each channel runs at 10 or 40 Gbps. 100 Gbps coming soon!

  5. IP Network Transport Network

  6. Problem Statement • Today, IPandTransportnetworks are separate • planned, designed and operated separately • by separate teams • Owning and operating two separate networks: inefficient! • Is there a way to run one network instead of two separate ones?

  7. Eliminate Circuit Switching All Services INTERNET INTERNET Enterprise Private -Lines Private-Nets PSTN TRANSPORT Network Cellular Is there a need for circuit switching in the Transport Network?

  8. Eliminate Circuit Switching Fundamental Packet switching is more expensive than Circuit switching

  9. Circuit Switch Control Scheduler Input Linecard Output Linecard (λ, t, Port) (λ’, t’, Port’) Phy TSI/ (DE) MUX Phy O/E Framing Coding Err det/corr. Switching Fabric

  10. Circuit Switch Control Scheduler Input Linecard Output Linecard (λ’, t’, port’) (λ, t, port) Phy Parse Lookup Phy MOD TSI/ (DE) MUX Phy QoS • Phy O/E Framing Coding Err det/corr. (pkt., port) (pkt.’, port’) Set Push Pop Decr etc. Queuing, Sampling Mirroring Hashing Protocol Queuing Policing Scheduler ACLs, Routing, Policy- Routing QoS – WFQ, pQ, FIFO Congestion - RED Control • Packet Switch

  11. Packet and Circuit Switches

  12. Packet and Circuit Switches

  13. Packet and Circuit Switches

  14. Packet and Circuit Switches

  15. Capex Results 1 59%

  16. Convergence `

  17. Outline • Problem Statement: want one network, not two! • convergence makes sense. • but packets and circuits must work together • Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture • Common Flow Abstraction • Common Map Abstraction

  18. The Flow Abstraction CommonDest Flow End – to – End Flow Flow Identifiers L4: TCP src/dst port L3: IP src/dstaddr, IP proto L2.5: L2: L4: L3: IP dst prefix for China L2.5: L2:

  19. The Flow Abstraction Common Src Flow Web traffic from a Handset All packets between 2 routers Flow Identifiers L4: L3: IP src prefix for branch L2.5: L2: L4: TCP dst port 80 L3: IP proto L2.5: L2: MAC src L4: L3: L2.5: MPLS Label ID L2: What is a Flow? • Classification of packets that have a logical association • Action & Maintaining Flow State • Flow based Accounting & Resource Management

  20. 1. Common Flow Abstraction Flow Identifiers L1: L0: (p2, p5, p7, p9) λ5 L1: L0: (p2, p5, p7, p9) (λ5, λ8, λ3) L1: L0: (p2, λ5), (p5, λ8), (p7, λ3)

  21. 1. Common Flow Abstraction Flow Identifiers L1: p3, ts6, num3 L0: L1: p3, ts6, num3 p4, ts3, num3 p7, ts9, num3 L0:

  22. Circuit Switch Control Scheduler Cross-Connect Table (λ, t, port) (λ’, t’, port’) Phy TSI/ (DE) MUX Phy Phy Parse Lookup MOD QoS • Phy (pkt., port) (pkt.’, port’) Scheduler Lookup Table Control • Packet Switch

  23. 1. Common Flow Abstraction L4 L3 L2.5 L2 L1 L0 Packet Switch Wavelength Switch Multi-layer Switch Time-slot Switch Packet Switch

  24. Outline • Problem Statement: want one network, not two! • 3 possible options • But really only one (convergence) makes sense. • Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture • Common Flow Abstraction • Common Map Abstraction

  25. 2. Common Map Abstraction routing, access-control, mobility, traffic-engineering, guarantees, recovery, bandwidth-on-demand … Unified Control Plane

  26. Unified Control Architecture Network Functions routing, access-control, mobility, traffic-engineering, guarantees, recovery, bandwidth-on-demand … Network - API 2. Common Map Abstraction State Collection State Dissemination & Application Isolation Unified Control Plane Built for Performance Scale & Reliability Switch - API Common Flow Abstraction L4 L3 L2.5 L2 L1 L0 Tables for identifiers and actions Flow is any combination IP Router Wavelength Switch Multi-layer Switch TDM Switch EthernetSwitch

  27. Outline • Problem Statement: want one network, not two! • 3 possible options • But really only one (convergence) makes sense. • Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture • Common Flow Abstraction • Common Map Abstraction • Prototype & Demonstration to validate • Simplicity & Extensibility compared to industry-solution

  28. Unified Control Architecture Network Functions routing, access-control, mobility, traffic-engineering, guarantees, recovery, bandwidth-on-demand … Network - API 2. Common Map Abstraction State Collection State Dissemination & Application Isolation Unified Control Plane Built for Performance Scale & Reliability Switch - API Common Flow Abstraction L4 L3 L2.5 L2 L1 L0 Tables for identifiers and actions Flow is any combination IP Router Wavelength Switch Multi-layer Switch TDM Switch EthernetSwitch

  29. Implementation of the Architecture 2. Common Map Abstraction NOX Unified Control Plane Interface: OpenFlow Protocol Packet & Circuit Switches Common Flow Abstraction Converged Network

  30. Prototype Packet switches NOX Hybrid Packet-Circuit Switches

  31. Prototype – Emulated WAN NOX OpenFlow Protocol NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO GE links OC-48 links (2.5 Gbps) HOUSTON

  32. Implementation of the Architecture Application across packet and circuits 2. Common Map Abstraction NOX Unified Control Plane Interface: OpenFlow Protocol Packet & Circuit Switches Common Flow Abstraction Converged Network

  33. Example Network Application • Control Function: Treat different kinds of traffic differently • Function Impl.: Use both packets and circuits, • at the same time. VOIP VOIP VIDEO HTTP HTTP

  34. Video of a Demonstration of Packet-Circuit Control with OF/SDN www.openflow.org/videos

  35. Why is it Simpler? Application across packet and circuits 4700 lines of code 2. Common Map Abstraction Unified Control Plane Interface: OpenFlow Protocol Common Flow Abstraction NOX Packet and Circuit Switches Converged Network

  36. Why is it Simpler? Proprietary Interface Proprietary Interface GMPLS Control Plane NOX IP/MPLS Control Plane OSPF-TE RSVP-TE UNI OSPF-TE RSVP-TE Vendor Islands Interface: OpenFlow Protocol EMS EMS EMS IP Network Converged Network Transport Network

  37. Why is it Simpler? Proprietary Interface Proprietary Interface ∑ = 175,000+ LOC GMPLS Control Plane 15000! IP/MPLS Control Plane OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000^ UNI 45000^ OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000* Vendor Islands EMS EMS EMS 45000# IP Network Transport Network Sources: * Quagga# Tequila ! MUPBED ^ DRAGON

  38. Why is it Simpler? 4726 175,800 + IOS or JUNOS Aggr. Map & Bw Rec. OSPF RSVP logic OSPF RSVP logic 51,828 68,870 NOX Quagga base Linux kernel Linux kernel ~ 13.5 million ~ 13.5 million ~ 20 million

  39. Why is it Simpler? Why is it the Right Abstraction? Application across packet and circuits 4700 lines of code 2. Common Map Abstraction Unified Control Plane Interface: OpenFlow Protocol Common Flow Abstraction NOX Packet and Circuit Switches Converged Network

  40. Why is it the Right Abstraction? Proprietary Interface Proprietary Interface ∑ = 175,000+ LOC GMPLS Control Plane 15000! IP/MPLS Control Plane OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000^ UNI 45000^ OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000* Vendor Islands EMS EMS EMS 45000# IP Network Transport Network Sources: * Quagga# Tequila ! MUPBED ^ DRAGON

  41. Why is it the Right Abstraction? Proprietary Interface Proprietary Interface ∑ = 175,000 LOC GMPLS Control Plane 15000 IP/MPLS Control Plane OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000 UNI 45000 OSPF-TE RSVP-TE 35000 Vendor Islands EMS EMS EMS 45000 Gold Silver Bronze • Can’t Specify : • route, • or delay, • or recovery mechanism • or monitoring/stats • or priorities Diffserv based TE + Policy Based Routing Transport Network IP Network

  42. Why is it the Right Abstraction? Extensibility 2. Common Map Abstraction Full View Control Function not tied to Distribution Mechanism Unified Control Plane Interface: OpenFlow Protocol Common Flow Abstraction NOX Packet and Circuit Switches Converged Network

  43. Outline • Problem Statement: want one network, not two! • 3 possible options • But really only one (convergence) makes sense. • Proposed Solution: Unified Control Architecture • Prototype & Demonstration to validate • Simplicity & Extensibility compared to existing solution • Problem Statement - MPLS

  44. MPLS Services • Why do Service Providers use MPLS? • Really about 2 services MPLS VPNs MPLS - TE • Motivation • Highly profitable • No easy way • Older ways not used Motivation Deterministic Behavior Efficient Resource Utilization Older ways not used

  45. Motivation MPLS has Flow Abstraction Label Switched Path (LSP) Label Edge Router (LER) Flow state in Head-end LER MPLS network Incoming packets Classification Into FECs LSPs IP network Label Switch Router (LSR)

  46. Motivation MPLS additional feature on complex core-routers IP/MPLS control exceedingly complex OSPF-TE LDP I-BGP RSVP-TE LMP MP-BGP Label Switched Path (LSP)

  47. IP/MPLS Control Plane State Distribution Mechanisms Distributed Network Functions Switch Operating System PE Label Distribution E-BGP learned Route Advert VPN-IPv4 Route Advert TE Label Distribution IGP- Route Advert, Link-State LDP I-BGP + RR MP-BGP RSVP-TE OSPFv2 Distributed Network Functions each with their own State Distribution Mechanisms MPLS lacks Map Abstraction

  48. Introducing Map Abstraction in MPLS Services Network Applications TE Provide the Services without the Complexity! Routing Discovery Label Distribution Recovery NETWORK OPERATING SYSTEM Simpler Control Plane OSPF-TE LDP I-BGP OpenFlow RSVP-TE LMP MP-BGP Simpler Data Plane Label Switched Path (LSP) P PUSH SWAP POP

  49. What is Traffic Engineering? • Steering traffic to where the bandwidth is… • good for the traffic - less congestion • good for the network - better resource utilization • MPLS Solution: • Create tunnels routed over under-utilized parts of the network • Route traffic through the tunnels

More Related