PBB-TE tests Victor Olifer (JANET/GEANT JRA1 Task 1) JRA1 Workshop, Copenhagen, 20 th November connect • communicate • collaborate
Agenda PBB-TE against EoMPLS History of trials JANET local trial UK-wide testbed & PBB-TE and EoMPLS interworking tests Testing PBB-TE resilience (protection switching) General conclusions of EoMPLS & PBB-TE trial connect • communicate • collaborate
Intro: technologies & features Two reps of Carrier Ethernet: • Two-tier hierarchy • Two-tier hierarchy • Traffic Engineering • Traffic Engineering • Protection switching • Protection switching • Ethernet&MPLS OAM • Ethernet OAM • Established • Emerging • Rich control plane • Zero control plane • Complex • Simple (relatively) • Multi-domain support: • Single-domain: • Local labels • Global labels connect • communicate • collaborate • BGP • GMPLS? Not avail.
Carrier Ethernet family objectives De-coupling of provider and PB – VLAN ID separation user networks PBB/PBB-TE – MAC and VLAN ID separation Resilience PB & PBB – STP (TRILL, SPB) – re-routing PBB-TE – fast protection switching Traffic Engineering PB, PBB – no (and yes for non-resilient services if routing is switched off – VLAN- based path ) OAM Relevant for PB, PBB, PBB-TE connect • communicate • collaborate
History of trials JRA 1 Task 1 PBB-TE trial same testbed JANET UK-wide Carrier Ethernet trial JANET Local trial 2008 2009 2010 2011 connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE local trial Simple goal: To check whether this new Carrier Ethernet offspring does what his parents promise up to 16 M connections per tunnel Switch B CIENA 311v B ‐ VID N B ‐ VID N Switch A Switch C CIENA 311v CIENA 311v B ‐ VID N B ‐ VID N MAC A MAC C Results: In general: Yes, it does, and in a very familiar to classic Ethernet way •TE – yes, by establishing of PBB-TE tunnels with explicit path •Scalability – yes, by using customer (I-SID) connections over tunnels connect • communicate • collaborate
MACinMAC encapsulation B ‐ header added S ‐ VID removed S ‐ VID added B ‐ header removed PBB/PBB TE PB Customer PB Customer network network network network network connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE local trial (cont.) CIENA 311v Primary tunnel CIENA 311v CIENA 311v Backup tunnel Results: •Resilience – yes, by fast protection switching of tunnels triggered by CCM heartbeat messages connect • communicate • collaborate
JANET/JRA1 Task 1 Carrier Ethernet multi-domain testbed Lancaster Uni JANET(UK)/Lumen House CIENA 311v JANET Core Lightpath Warrington Essex Uni (EoMPLS) CIENA 311v London Manchester Uni Telecity CIENA 311v Reading - PBB-TE domain - EoMPLS-domain Oxford Uni connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests: 1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS Lancaster Uni M-Eth DA M-Eth SA S-VID JANET Core MPLS LSP Lightpath Warrington MPLS PW Essex Uni C-Eth DA (EoMPLS) London Manchester Uni C-Eth SA Telecity B-DA B-DA Payload (IP) B-SA B-SA B-VID B-VID Reading I-SID I-SID C-DA C-DA C-SA C-SA Payload Payload Payload (IP) Payload (IP) M-Eth DA MEF E-NNI: M-Eth DA M-Eth SA S-VID (outer VID) – service delimiter M-Eth DA M-Eth SA S-VID M-Eth SA S-VID S-VID MPLS LSP MPLS LSP MPLS LSP MPLS PW 1. Use tagged Ethernet frames and copy/map PW ID into S-VID MPLS PW MPLS PW C-Eth DA C-Eth DA C-Eth DA C-Eth SA 2. Encapsulate EoMPLS frames into PBB-TE frames at ingress C-Eth SA C-Eth SA Oxford Uni Payload (IP) Payload (IP) Payload (IP) 3. Copy/map S-VID into I-SID 4. De-capsulate EoMPLS frames at ingress and send to destination connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests: 1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS (cont.) Main characteristics of the solution: Overlay mode for the core, conforms to MEF E-NNI Contiguous MPLS tunnels and PWs Usage of IP control plane protocols in the EoMPLS testbeds (partly to make it close to real JANET): •OSPF, BGP, LDP, RSVP (only for TE) Problems encountered: STP BPDUs received within MPLS PWs from neighboring MPLS domain confused local STP and resulted in blocking ports : It was fixes by switching STP off LDP refused to distribute labels between MPLS domains which belonged to different AS: It was fixes by using ‘ BGP send-label ’ connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests: 2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB Two modes for the core and peripheral testbeds were tested: 1. Overlay, with PB in the peripheral testbeds and encapsulation into PBB-TE in the core For LH – Essex Uni connection: 1. PB frame is encapsulated into PBB-TE one at the core ingress E-NNI in Reading JANET Core Warrington Lightpath Essex Uni 2. S-VID is copied/mapped into I-SID London (EoMPLS) Telecity B-DA B-DA C- DA Reading B-SA B-SA 3. PBB-TE frame travels to the egress at Telecity C- SA B-VID B-VID switch using I-SID as a service delimiter S-VID I-SID I-SID C-VID C- DA Payload (IP) E-NNI C- SA 4. PB frame is de-capsulated at the core egress S-VID Payload (IP) Payload (IP) C- DA C-VID C- SA JANET(UK)/Lumen House Payload (IP) S-VID 5. PB frame is delivered to Essex Uni testbed C-VID through JANET Lightpath EoMPLS Payload (IP) connection One more overlay transfer: PB over EoMPLS on basis of S-VID connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests: 2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.) Second mode tested: Peer-to-peer mode with a contiguous PBB-TE connection For LH – Essex Uni connection: 1. Customer frame is encapsulated into PBB-TE one at the LH testbed ingress UNI JANET Core Warrington Lightpath Essex Uni 2. C-VID is mapped into I-SID London (EoMPLS) Telecity Reading 3. PBB-TE frame travels along the contiguous PBB-TE tunnel (LH – the core – Essex Uni) B-DA B-DA using I-SID as a service delimiter C- DA B-SA B-SA I-NNI B-VID C- SA B-VID 4. PB frame is de-capsulated at Essex testbed I-SID I-SID C-VID egress Payload (IP) C- DA JANET(UK)/Lumen House C- SA Payload (IP) Payload (IP) C-VID Payload (IP) C- DA C- SA C-VID Payload (IP) UNI PBB-TE frame travelled over Lightpath EoMPLS on basis of B-VID (outer VID) connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests: 2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.2) Overlay PB vs. contiguous multy-domain PBB-TE Overlay model Contiguous model Number of PBB-TE Minimal: Might be quite big: tunnels - Only to connect - A tunnel per domain edge switches customer pair (e.g. 3 unprotected (e.g. 10 unprotected core tunnels in our core tunnels in our case) case) Co-ordination of end Not needed Needed point of tunnel (private loopback MAC addresses MACs might be used) between domains Tunnel protection Only within a domain End-to-end IP control plane Not needed, doesn’t Not needed, doesn’t exist yet in practice exist yet in practice (might be GMPLS) (might be GMPLS) connect • communicate • collaborate
Overlay and contiguous PBB-TE protection switching 1. Overlay model Lancaster Uni Primary tunnel X Core Warrington Essex Uni London Telecity Reading Backup tunnel No mechanism to redirect traffic in case of inter-domain link failure – so, only intra-domain protection JANET LH Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed – e.g. BGP connect • communicate • collaborate
Overlay and contiguous PBB-TE protection switching (cont.) 2. Contiguous model Lancaster Uni Primary tunnel X Core Warrington Essex Uni London Telecity Reading Backup tunnel Standard CCM mechanism triggers end-to-end protection No other Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed JANET LH connect • communicate • collaborate
General Carrier Ethernet trial conclusions • Both EoMPLS and PBB-TE proved to be working transport technologies with required core set of carrier-grade features • EoMPLS and PBB-TE can smoothly inter-operate according MEF E-NNI spec • EoMPLS is a good choice for carrier core networks because of its tight integration with powerful IP control plane, router vendor support and wide implementation base • PBB-TE might be used for access and campus networks: simple but robust • PBB-TE is not dead despite some rumours (Ciena, Extreme, ...) connect • communicate • collaborate
Trials’ participants JRA1 Task 1: JANET Carrier Ethernet Trial Jan Radil (CESNET) Victor Olifer (JANET UK) Marcin Grastka (PSNC) (victor.olifer@ja.net) Ramanujam Jayakumar (Essex Uni) Dave Tinkler (JANET UK) Jac Kloots (SURFnet) Martin Dunmore (JANET UK) Alberto Colmenero (NORDUnet) Michael Robson (Manchester Uni) Anthony Ryan (Manchester Uni) Faris Ali (Lancaster Uni) Oliver Gorwitz (Oxford Uni) Guy Morrell (Oxford Uni) Bijan Rahimzadeh Rofoee (Essex Uni) connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE positioning Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services Frame switching: PBB-TE Sub wavelength switching: SDH Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP connect • communicate • collaborate
PBB-TE positioning (cont.) Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services 3. Links to upper layers directly from layer 0/1 2. Links to upper layers 1. L2 services to customers Frame switching: Carrier Ethernet Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP connect • communicate • collaborate
Recommend
More recommend
