1 / 18

SuperDREAM Testbed

SuperDREAM Testbed. Pete Siemsen August 2007. Why SuperDREAM? FRGP problems:. Single Points of Failure Routers Level 3 switch Member circuits Commodity Internet Members can’t connect at multiple sites. Existing Single Points of Failure. 1200 Larimer Router, switch, ATM switch Level 3

saburo
Download Presentation

SuperDREAM Testbed

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. SuperDREAM Testbed Pete Siemsen August 2007

  2. Why SuperDREAM?FRGP problems: • Single Points of Failure • Routers • Level 3 switch • Member circuits • Commodity Internet • Members can’t connect at multiple sites

  3. Existing Single Points of Failure • 1200 Larimer • Router, switch, ATM switch • Level 3 • switch/router – failure disconnects BiSON from Denver • BPoP • switch/router • Movaz boxes not addressed here

  4. M20 router For ICG only BPoP switch/router BiSON Larimer switch Level 3 switch/router DREAM Larimer ATM switch Larimer router Abilene Qwest NLR Level 3 FRGP logical view BPoP ICG Level 3 PoP 1200 Larimer

  5. SuperDREAM goals Redundancy Allow members to connect to two sites Provide multiple paths to Commodity providers Optimize Service offerings Routing

  6. FRGP services • Default service: access to other FRGP members and to FRGP peers (Comcast, RMIX) • Commodity Internet + TransitRail • Abilene (I2) • NLR PacketNet

  7. Proposed Solution: VRFs • VRFs - Virtual Routing and Forwarding. • Separate routing tables allows a router to partition services in a natural way. • 2 possible models: per-service VRFs or per-permutation VRFs

  8. Per-service VRF solution • Every FRGP router will have just these VRFs: • Members & peers VRF • A Commodity/TransitRail VRF • An NLR PacketNet VRF • An I2 VRF

  9. Per-service VRFs… Each member will have a VLAN and a BGP session for each service that they buy.

  10. Per-permutation VRF solution • Every router will have a VRF for each permutation of services bought by members • Members & peers VRF • A Commodity/TransitRail VRF • An NLR VRF • An I2 VRF • An NLR/I2 VRF • A Commodity/Transitrail/NLR VRF • A Commodity/Transitrail/I2 VRF • A Commodity/Transitrail/NLR/I2 VRF

  11. Solution trade-offs

  12. Commodity redundancy • Commodity ISPs will be spread across FRGP sites. Commodity access will no longer depend on the Larimer router. • Commodity traffic will flow to the globally “best” ISP, not necessarily the ISP nearest to each member.

  13. Rate limits (per-service) Member traffic will rate limited at the member’s primary connection point. This greatly simplifies engineering.

  14. Rate limits (per-permutation) • Member traffic will be rate-limited at multiple points.

  15. Load-sharing • We can’t apply a single rate limit to traffic on two separate routers. • Multihomed members must have a primary and an idle backup per service. Level 3 Qwest Level 3 Larimer member

  16. Constraints • Maintain charging algorithm • Have one engineering solution for everyone • All members will do BGP • Solution must fit in router memory

  17. Open issues • Implementation difficulty • Unknown memory limits • Engineering troubleshooting/debug • MPLS vs. VLANs • Cisco/Juniper interoperability • Long-term FRGP 10G routing solution

  18. TestBed

More Related