Upload
others
View
31
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ETSI NFV ISGAndy Reid, BT
Founding Member of ETSI NFV ISG
Background to ETSI NFV ISG
• Many carriers independently progressing research on NFV technology
– independently concluded that technology is ready but would not be commercialised quickly
for scale deployment without industry cooperation and support
• Cooperation amongst the carriers began with informal discussions in April 2012
• With wide carrier support, started informal discussions on convening an industry
forum
• A meeting in Sept 2012 decided - after consideration of several options - to
parent under ETSI as an “Industry Specification Group”
© British Telecommunications plc
parent under ETSI as an “Industry Specification Group”
• The joint white paper on Network Functions Virtualisation was published to
coincide with presentations at the OpenFlow/SDN World Congress, Darmstadt
(Oct 2012), and the ETSI Board approved creation of the NFV ISG (Nov 2012)
• Founding members:
– AT&T, BT, Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, Verizon
• First formal meeting in ETSI HQ, Sophia Antipolis, Jan 2013
Why we believe NFV is the future for Networks
© British Telecommunications plc
3
• Standard high volume servers have sufficient packet processing performance to cost effectively virtualise network appliances.
• The hypervisor need not be a bottleneck.
• LINUX need not be a bottleneck.
• TCO advantages are scenario specific but expect significant benefits.
• Plus a significant reduction in energy consumption.
ETSI NFV
The basic concept
NFV ApproachClassical Network Appliance Approach
CDN WAN
Acceleration
Message
Router
Session Border
Controller Independent
SoftwareVendors
Co
mp
etitive
& In
no
vative
Eco
system
ISVs
© British Telecommunications plc
BRAS
FirewallDPI Tester/QoE
monitor
Radio Access
Network
Controller
Carrier
Grade NAT
PE RouterSGSN/GGSN
Vendors
High volume
Ethernet switches
High volume
standard servers
High volume
standard storage
Orchestrated, automatic, & remote install
Co
mp
etitive
& In
no
vative
NFV Infrastructure
• Fragmented non-commodity hardware.• Physical install per appliance per site.• Hardware development large barrier to entry for
new vendors, constraining innovation & competition.
NVF Organization and Structure
Technical Mgt
© British Telecommunications plc
Technical Steering Committee (chaired by Technical Manager)
WGExpert
Task
GroupWG WG…
ETSI NFV 5
NFV Scope
© British Telecommunications plc
ETSI NFV 6
NFV Applications Domain
VI Container Interface
Carrier
Management
12
5
43
4
Basic Domain Architecture
© British Telecommunications plc
Infrastructure Network Domain
Virtual Network Container Interface
Orchestration and Management Domain
Compute Domain
Compute Container Interface
Hypervisor Domain
Virtual Machine Container Interface
Exi
stin
g N
etw
ork
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14
Example Use Cases
• Mobile networks:
– HLR/HSS, MME, SGSN, GGSN/PDN-GW, Base Station, vEPC
• NGN signalling:
– SBCs, IMS
• Switching elements:
• Security functions:
– Firewalls, virus scanners, intrusion detection systems, spam protection
• Tunnelling gateway elements:
– IPSec/SSL VPN gateways
• Converged and network-wide
© British Telecommunications plc
• Switching elements:
– BNG, CG-NAT, routers
• Home environment:
– home router, set top box
• Application-level optimisation:
– CDNs, Cache Servers, Load Balancers, Application Accelerators
• Converged and network-wide functions:
– AAA servers, policy control and charging platforms
• Traffic analysis/forensics:
– DPI, QoE measurement
• Traffic Monitoring,
– Service Assurance, SLA monitoring, Test and Diagnostics
Benefits
• Reduced equipment costs (CapEx) through equipment consolidation equipment and due to economies of scale
• Reduced operational costs (OpEx): labor, power, space
• Increased speed of Time to Market by minimising the typical network
operator cycle of innovation.
• Availability of network appliance multi-version and multi-tenancy, which allows use of a single platform for different applications, users and
© British Telecommunications plc
allows use of a single platform for different applications, users and tenants.
• Flexibility to easily, rapidly dynamically provision and instantiate new
services in various locations (no need for new equipment install)
• Improved operational efficiency by taking advantage of the higher
uniformity of the physical network platform and its homogeneity to other
support platforms.
• Encouraging innovation to bring new services and generate new
revenue streams
• Mobility of skillset and talent (easy to move around, on need basis)
ETSI NFV ISG
• Carrier-led Industry Specification Group (ISG) under the auspices of ETSI (20 carriers and mobile operators). Wide industry support (more than 50 vendors).
• Open membership to everyone
– ETSI members sign the “Member Agreement”
– Non-ETSI members sign the “Participant Agreement”
• Operates by consensus (formal voting only when required)
• Deliverables: White papers addressing challenges and operator requirements, as input to standardisation bodies
© British Telecommunications plc
• Face-to-face meetings quarterly
• Currently four (4) WGs and two (2) expert groups (EG)
– WG1: Infrastructure Architecture EG: Security
– WG2: Management and Orchestration EG: Performance and Portability
– WG3: Software Architecture
– WG4: Reliability & Availability
• Network Operators Council (NOC)
– governing and technical advisory body
• Technical Steering Committee:
– Technical Manager
– WG Chairs, EG Leaders
Do join and contribute
© British Telecommunications plc
© British Telecommunications plc
EXTRAS
Implementing Hierarchical-QoS in Software
Progress� The January 2012 vBRAS test implemented Priority QoS and implementing
Hierarchical-QoS in software was seen as a barrier.
� BT & Intel ® initiated a project to implement high performance H-QoS in
software.
� Currently implemented a Hierarchical scheduler with:
5 levels, 64K queues, traffic shaping, strict priority and weighted round robin.
� Preliminary performance per CPU core is close to line rate for hierarchical
scheduling and packet transmission for one 10GbE port at 64 byte packet size
i.e. 13.3 Mpps
13
© British Telecommunications plc
Slide 13
i.e. 13.3 Mpps
� Hardware: 2x Intel Xeon E5-2680 CPUs @2.7GHz, 8 cores, 20MB L3 cache, 8GT/s QPI, 4x DDR3
memory, 32 GB DDR3 memory: 2x 2GB DIMMs per each of the 4x memory channels of each CPU, 1x Intel X520-SR2 Dual Port 10Gbps Ethernet Controller connected to CPU0 through one PCI-Express Gen2 x8
slot.
� Software: Fedora release 16 (Verne) with Linux kernel 3.1.0-7.fc16.x86_64. Kernel boot time
configuration: 16x 1GB huge memory pages reserved (8 pager for each CPU), CPU isolation enabled to restrict kernel scheduler to CPU0 core 0; Intel DPDK 1.4 Early Access Release 1
� Subject to further development and testing.
� H-QoS may be included in the Intel ® DPDK.
Hierarchical Scheduler Performance
Gbps p
er C
PU
Core
Virtualising Content Distribution Networks� Ran Verivue (now Akamai Aura) HyperCache node and IneoQuest adaptive
stream monitor, measuring Video QoE, virtual machines on VMware ESXi 5.0 on
an HP BL460 G8 server with 2 x 10GigE ports.
Results shown below
� The video traffic from the virtual HyperCache node was “mirrored” to the virtual
IneoQuest ASM using the standard VMware Vswitch.
Currently investigating bottlenecks and testing new version of ASM.
� For BT’s UK network the virtualised solution 8Gbps level of performance would
be sufficient for 77% of Metro nodes.
Virtualisation reduces box count, saving CAPEX & OPEX.
14
© British Telecommunications plc
Slide 14
18,7
16,6
10,7
8 8 8
4,5 4,5 4,5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
All PDL All ABR VoD
All ABR Live
Peak Ntwk Thro'put Cache (Gbit/s) with ASM Off
Peak Ntwk Thro'put Cache (Gbit/s) with ASM On
ASM Monitor Capacity (Gbit/s)
Gb
ps
Rank order UK Metro Nodes
Mb
ps C
ach
e T
raff
ic P
er
No
de
<8 Gbps > 77% of
Nodes in 2013/14
<32 Gbps > 77% of
Nodes in 2017/18
PDL = Progressive DownLoad. ABR = Adaptive Bit Rate. VoD = Video on Demand. Live = live linear TV. ASM = Adaptive Stream Monitor from IneoQuest.
Running on 1 HP BL460c G8
Where Virtualisation Improves Performance
� Widely accepted that virtualisation reduces performance compared to running
on “bear metal” but here’s a real application where it improves performance:
� Scalable IPsec solutions are required for FONera roaming WiFi and LTE
services.
Investigated lowest cost IPsec solution for BT’s FON WiFi service.
Requirements: Null encryption, 3DES IKE, ~80Kbps/tunnel, millions tunnels,
high tunnel set-up rate.
� Tested the KAME solution bundled in the Linux kernel (Ubuntu 10.04 LTS)
15
With Virtualisation
© British Telecommunications plc
Slide 15
� Tested the KAME solution bundled in the Linux kernel (Ubuntu 10.04 LTS)
achieved 7K tunnels.
IPse
c tu
nn
els
pe
r DL
36
0 s
erv
er
Number of E5-2667 Cores
3.2
Gbps
3.8
Gbps
Packets
dro
pped!1.2
G
Tunnel set-uprate
= 100/sec
� Bottleneck was a single core being
used to terminate all IPsec tunnels.
� How to use more CPU cores?
� Rewrite the code �
� Or use KVM and run multiple
virtual Linux kernels to load share
the IPsec tunnels across multiple
cores ☺
Used KVM (redhat 6.3) with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS virtual machines
WithoutVirtualisation
With Virtualisation