1 Carrier Ethernet: End-to-End OAM & Network-to-Network Interfaces (E-NNI) Moderator Arie Goldberg, CEO, Omnitron Panelists Michael Haugh, Sr. Product

1

Carrier Ethernet: End-to-End OAM & Network-to-Network Interfaces (E-NNI)

ModeratorArie Goldberg, CEO, Omnitron

PanelistsMichael Haugh, Sr. Product Manager, Ixia

Ralph Santitoro, Director CE Solutions, Turin NetworksRan Avital, VP Strategic and Product Marketing, Ceragon

2

Panel Members

Arie GoldbergMEF Board Member & Secretary MEFCEO and Chief TechnologistOmnitron Systems Technology, [email protected]+1 949-250-6510

Ran AvitalMEF Market Research Co-ChairVP of Strategic and Product MarketingCeragon [email protected]+972-52-5847526

Michael HaughSr. Product [email protected]

Ralph SantitoroMEF Board MemberCo-chair MEF Security WorkgroupDirector of Carrier Ethernet SolutionsTurin [email protected]

3

Agenda

• Introduction– Carrier Ethernet (CE) Market– MEF defined CE Services and OAM

• Link and Service OAM– OAM Components and Protocols – OAM Hierarchies and Testing

• Ethernet Services Demarcation Points– Definition of UNI and E-NNI– E-NNI Constructs and Service Attributes

• E-NNI and OAM in Mobile Backhaul– Mobile Backhaul and Carrier Ethernet model– Mobile Backhaul and Link/Service OAM

4

Introduction:Carrier Ethernet Market

Services and OAM

Arie Goldberg

5

Agenda





6

Demand Drivers – Services and Bandwidth

On-line Government Education Remote learning Healthcare date & Tele-medicine

Commerce, On-line Business, Tele-workers, On-lineFinancial Services, On-line

NEWtools!Apps!

BackhaulApps

$$$$

$$$$

$$

$$$$

$$

VoIPVoDIPTV E-Line

E-LAN)

Low CAPEXLow OPEX

Low Cost to Subscribers

7

Is Ethernet Ready for Carrier Class Deployment (response from 27 global SPs)

Yes, 93%

No, 5%

Don't Know, 2%

Global CE Market – Facts & Forecasts

Infonetics Research, Inc.

Vertical Systems Group

Global CE Service Market Size

Vertical Systems: $6.1B in 2006 to $31+B in 2012

IDC Research:$6.1B in 2006 to $17.0B in 2011

Infonetics Research:$13B in 2007 to 23.7B in 2011

8

MEF defined Basic CE Services

E-LINEEPL: Private LineEVPL: Virtual Private Line

E-LANEP-LAN: Private LANEVP-LAN: Virtual Private

LAN

Point to PointSite2Site L2 VPNs

E-TREEEP-Tree: Private TreeEVP-Tree: Virtual Private

Tree

Point to Multi-PointBroadcasting ServicesTriple Play backhaulMobile backhaul

Multi-Point to Multi-PointMulti-Site L2 VPNsTransparent LANs

Point-to-Point EVC

CPECPEUNIUNI

UNIUNI

CPECPE

CPECPE

UNIUNI CPECPEUNIUNI

Multipoint EVC

Rooted Multipoint EVC

CPECPE UNIUNI

CPECPEUNIUNI

CPECPEUNIUNI

9

Interfaces and Ethernet Virtual Circuits

Point-to-Point EVCPoint-to-Point EVC

Carrier A

E-NNIUNI

Multi-point to Multi-point EVCMulti-point to Multi-point EVC

UNIUNI

Point-to-Point EVCPoint-to-Point EVC

UNI

UNI

UNI

Link OAM802.3ah

E2E Service OAM:Fault-802.1agPerform-Y.1731

Carrier B

10

Challenges of CE for Service Providers

• Turn-up services quickly and efficiently – be competitive, get revenues ASAP

• On/Off-Net services – footprint and more revenue

• Reliability/Up-time (99.999%) - enable SLAs and keep revenues

• Quality – customer satisfaction – retention – keep revenues coming

• Efficient operation - keep costs down – be competitive and profitable

11

Response to Challenges

• New Protocol Solutions– Point-to-Point Link OAM (802.3ah)– End-to-End Service Connectivity Fault OAM (802.1ag)– End-to-End Service Performance Monitoring (Y.1731)

• Enable quick turn-up – Acct acquisition/revenue • Increase reliability/up-time – Acct retention/revenue• Enables SLA commitments – Keep revenue• Enable efficient service operation / maintenance

(man/machine/time/energy) – reduce OPEX

12

Link and Service OAM

Michael Haugh

13

Agenda





14

Ethernet OAM / CFM

Ethernet OAM / CFM provides a critical feature to Provider Ethernet networks to ensure they are “Carrier Grade”. OAM and E-LMI are included in the UNI Type 2 MEF standard.

“Link OAM”:– IEEE 802.3ah Clause 57– EOAM “Ethernet in the first mile” –

used on access links. • Provides four key mechanisms:

– Remote loopback– Remote failure indication– Link monitoring– Loopback Control

• Good for single links, but does not monitor across EVC

15

Ethernet OAM / CFM

“Service OAM”– IEEE 802.1ag – “Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)” –

used over EVC. • Mechanisms include

– Continuity Check (CC)– Loopback– Linktrace– Also provides the ability to monitor at specific service

levels (including customer, service provider, operator, section) and support for maintenance domains.

– ITU-T Y.1731 – “OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet based networks”

• Provides all of the 802.1ag functionality with additions including:

– Delay Measurement (DM)– Delay Variation Measurement (DVM)– Loss Measurement (LM)– Automatic Protection Switching (APS)

16

OAM Layer Components

• Each layer support OAM capabilities independently• OAMs interoperate • Component responsibilities are complementary

17

Protocol Positioning

• “Link OAM” 802.3ah is run on a point-to-point L2 Ethernet link. It is a common requirement for the access link

• “Service OAM” CFM 802.1ag/Y.1731 is run over a L2 Ethernet service end-to-end. It can traverse many L2 Ethernet hops, but is tunneled over MPLS along with the other customer traffic

18

802.3ah Ethernet OAM Test Challenges

• Functional Protocol Validation– Test Discovery

• Verify capability exchange• Test Active/Passive roles• Change capabilities and verify change

– Test Loopback• Put remote port in loopback, ensure state change• Transmit data to test link

– Test Faults• Dying Gasp, Critical Events, Link Errors, Link Fault• Configure DUT to take action on fault and verify action

– Verify all counters and logs– Verify state machine stability (enable/disable/state changes)– Test OUI and Optional TLVs – (transmit and verify receive)

• Integrate OAM in Higher Scale and Performance Testing– Enable OAM on ports and run traditional tests (like RFC 2544)

• Standardized testing will be defined as part of UNI Type 2 MEF specification

19

Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) Example

This example shows Maintenance Associations (MAs) between Maintenance End Points (MEPs) at three levels within a Maintenance Domain (MD). Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs) can be associated per MD or per MA which depends on the visibility the administer has configured.

20

• Service– Type– MTU

• Endpoint– Service Mux– Tag ID/CoS

Preservation

• Link – Rate– L2CPs

Basic OAM Protection QoS

• Link OAM–IEEE 802.3ah

• Service OAM–IEEE 802.1ag & ITU-T Y.1731

• Link Protection– IEEE 802.3ad

(LAG)

• Service Protection

– IEEE 802.1D (STP/MSTP)

• BandwidthProfiles

– By EI – By EVC– By PCP– By DSCP

• Performance– Delay– Loss– Availability

E-NNI Attributes

Similar attribute structure as current MEF specifications

E-NNI Attributes

21

Hierarchical OAM Domains

• A flat network is difficult to manage and define accountabilities• Hierarchical Maintenance Domains will bound OAM Flows & OAM responsibilities

Network OAM

Service OAM

Customer Domain

Provider Domain

Operator Domain

Operator Domain

Customer CustomerService Provider

UNI UNIE-NNI

22

Ethernet Service OAM Test Challenges

• Basic Protocol Functionality– Ethernet CFM are new protocols and basic functionality and operation needs to

be verified and exercised in the lab

• Scalability and Performance– Generating and responding to CFM PDUs puts additional strain on network

elements. Within a single Maintenance Domain there could be over 8,000 Maintenance Associations concurrently running. Each participating Maintenance Point needs to examine and process each PDU. CC intervals can be configured as low as 3.33ms which may have performance impacts. Test hundreds of ports concurrently.

• Interoperability– Ethernet CFM standards (especially 802.1ag) have recently been updated

causing all Network Equipment Manufactures to update their implementation. Significant testing is required to ensure interoperability between various products and vendors.

• Inter-working– Testing and validating inter-working with other Carrier Ethernet technologies is

required for successful end to end service delivery

23

Ethernet Service DemarcationE-NNI and UNI

Ralph Santitoro

24

Agenda





25

Ethernet Service Demarcation Points

• UNI (User-to-Network Interface)– Demarcation point between

• Ethernet Service Provider/Access Network Provider and Subscriber– Ethernet Service (EVC) starting/ending point

• E-NNI (External Network-to-Network Interface)– Demarcation/peering point between:

• Ethernet Service Provider (ESP) and Access Network Provider• ESP and Transport (Long Haul) Network Provider

E-NNI E-NNIAccess Network Access Network

ProviderProvider

E-NNI Transport Transport

Network ProviderNetwork ProviderEthernet Service Ethernet Service

ProviderProvider

UNI UNI

EVCEVCSubscriber Subscriber

26

E-NNI Constructs: Component EVC (CEVC)

• MP-to-MP EVC1 associates UNI4, UNI5 and UNI6

• EVC1 decomposed into 3 CEVCs

– CEVC A1 within Operator A’s network

– CEVC B1 within Operator B’s network

– CEVC C1 within Operator C’s network

UNI4

Operator A

UNI6

E-NNI

C1

Operator CE-NNI

A1

UNI5

EVC1

B1

Operator B

27

UNI

EVC2

EVC1

Operator 3

E-NNI Constructs: Tunnels, VUNIs and RUNIs

• Tunnels– Transit Tunnels (associates two E-NNIs)– Terminating Tunnels (associates a VUNI and an RUNI)

• VUNI (Virtual UNI)– Logical interface at endpoint of E-NNI side of Terminating Tunnel– Maps CEVC(s) to its Terminating Tunnel

• RUNI (Remote UNI)– Logical interface at end point of UNI side of the Terminating Tunnel

Terminating tunnel

EVC3

VUNI

Transit Tunnel

E-NNI

UNI

Operator 2

Operator 4

RUNI

E-NNI

EVC1

EVC2

EVC3

E-NNI

UNI

UNI

Operator 1

28

MEF E-NNI, VUNI and CEVC Service Attributes- A comparison to MEF UNI and EVC Service Attributes

• E-NNI and VUNI Service Attributes modeled after UNI Service Attributes– Ingress/Egress Bandwidth Profiles– MTU Size– Identifier

• CEVC Service Attributes modeled after EVC Service Attributes– S-VLAN ID Preservation vs. C-VLAN ID Preservation– Max. Number of VUNI Endpoints vs. Max. Number of UNIs– MTU Size

These similarities will facilitate and accelerate implementation and deploymentThese similarities will facilitate and accelerate implementation and deployment

29

E-NNI Constructs: Putting it all together

E-NNI UNI2

• Access Network Provider – Provides CEVC1 connection between Subscriber UNI1 (RUNI) and

VUNI1 at E-NNI1 with Transport Network Provider

• Transport Network Provider– Provides CEVC2 connection between E-NNI1 (VUNI2) and E-NNI2

(VUNI3) with Ethernet Service Provider

• Ethernet Service Provider– Provides connection to E-NNI2 with Transport Network Provider– Provides End-to-End Ethernet Service to Subscriber

• Provides EVC between UNI1 and UNI2

UNI1 Transport Transport

Network ProviderNetwork Provider

Ethernet Service Ethernet Service ProviderProvider

Transit TunnelTransit TunnelTerminating TunnelTerminating Tunnel

EVC

Access Network Access Network

ProviderProvider

RUNI VUNI1 VUNI2 and VUNI3

E-NNI1 E-NNI2

SubscriberCEVC1 CEVC2Subscriber

30

E-NNI and OAM in Mobile Backhaul

Ran Avital

31

Agenda





32

Why relevant for Mobile Backhaul?

• Mobile services need Coverage

• Leasing backhaul services is a common practice

• High capacity, low cost creates new opportunities– Wholesale– RAN sharing– Converged operations A better way to do business

in Mobile Backhaul

33

Mobile Backhaul Market Survey

• Evaluate network planning assumptions and integrate the derived needs from the MEF Implementation Agreement (IA)

• 41 operators/worldwide coverage (APAC 20%, EMEA 49%, NA 27% and LA 5%)

• Independent research commissioned by the MEF

34

Mobile Backhaul Market Survey- Highlights

Will you require Ethernet Service OAM (IEEE 802.1ag, ITU-T Y.1731)?

Will you require UNI at the RAN BS will need to support Link OAM (IEEE 802.3ah)

Will you require UNI at the RAN NC will need to support Link OAM (IEEE 802.3ah)

Require (78%) Likely

Likely (91%) Not

Likely (85%) Not

35

SOAM - A Major Industry Education Challenge

• Will you require Ethernet Service OAM (IEEE 802.1ag, ITU-T Y.1731) to perform connectivity and fault management?

36

Ethernet OAM

• Collectively refers to Link OAM and Service OAM• Ethernet OAM requirements are not specified in any

current mobile standards from 3GPP, 3GPP2 or IEEE – And normally not implemented on mobile equipment…

• Link OAM– For UNI-N and UNI-C for the RAN NC and RAN BS are

recommended.

• Service OAM– For UNI-N and UNI-C for the RAN NC and RAN BS are a must

37

802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah 802.3ah

Service OAM; 802.1ag/Y.1731

E-LMI E-LMI

UNI UNI

E-NNI

802.3ah

RAN BS RAN NC

OAM Spanning number of MENs

• A scenario for future Mobile backhaul IA work• RAN BS and the RAN NC are not likely to reside on

the same CEN in many mobile networks

38

Further Reasons for E-t-E E-NNI and OAM

• Business models:– In the mobile world dictate local optimization– ENNI and SOAM enables a lower cost backhaul network

• Scale: – An Ethernet service should be delivered to 000s base stations – Self own Vs. lease parts of the network need to interconnect– Different groups handle aggregation and access backhaul

• Cost:– Leverage existing networks

serving residential DSL and business services

– Lease of substantial parts of the network

– Use of multiple technologies

– Concurrent traffic delivery over different network

• E.g. DSL and Lease lines (Legacy split access)

39

Q&A Panel Members

Arie GoldbergMEF Board Member & Secretary MEFCEO and Chief TechnologistOmnitron Systems Technology, [email protected]+1 949-250-6510

Ran AvitalMEF Market Research Co-ChairVP of Strategic and Product MarketingCeragon [email protected]+972-52-5847526

Michael HaughSr. Product [email protected]

Ralph SantitoroMEF Board MemberCo-chair MEF Security WorkgroupDirector of Carrier Ethernet SolutionsTurin [email protected]

40

Thank You

Presentations are availableat

www.metroethernetforum.org

Documents

1 Carrier Ethernet: End-to-End OAM & Network-to-Network Interfaces (E-NNI) Moderator Arie Goldberg, CEO, Omnitron Panelists Michael Haugh, Sr. Product