Examining Progress in Interoperability between MPLS, MPLS-TP and PBB-TE

Network Clouds

Carsten Rossenhövel, Managing Director

European Advanced Networking Test Center

EANTC Introduction

Providing independent network quality assurance since 1991

EANTC Berlin, Germany

Test and certification of network components for manufacturersNetwork design consultancy and proof of concept tests for service providersRequest for Proposal (RFP) support and life cycle testing for large enterprises and government organizations

Agenda

Overview: Latest EANTC Interop EventGauging the state of the artPacket transport relevant interop test areas

New Services – E-TreeTransport – MPLS, MPLS-TP, PBB-TEGlobal Interconnect – MPLS-basedFault and performance management – Ethernet OAMClock synchronization – packet-/network-based

Outlook

EANTC

Interop

Event at MPLS and Ethernet World Congress,

February

2009

Participating Vendors

Network Topology

State of

the

Art in Packet Transport Technologies – Personal

View

Visibility

TechnologyProgress

TechnologyTrigger

Peak ofExpectations

Trough ofDisillusionment

Slope of

Enlightenment

Plateau of

Productivity

© European Advanced Networking Test Center –

Apr 2009 Hype Cycle model (five stages) © Gartner 1995

MPLS-TP

IEEE1588 Performance

MonitoringY.1731

MPLS/VPLS

E-NNI

Ethernet OAM (IEEE 802.1ag)

Better

EthernetResiliency MPLS Inter-Provider

PBB-TE

?

SyncE

Test Area: E-Tree ServicesEthernet Tree -

Point to

Multipoint Ethernet serviceUses: IPTV, multicast distribution,etc.MEF defines service, not technologyVendors were asked which mechanisms make sense

VPLS (without full mesh)MPLS-TP N:1 stitching

Inter-Provider

Peering

Solutions State of the art:

Carrier Ethernet E-NNI still in standardization – simplified with each further MEF meetingProvider Bridging-based interconnections (“Q-in-Q”) are standard deployed solution todayE-NNI added benefit will be mostly creation of a standard language

Growing SP interest in advanced MPLS interconnections, improving service and reducing provisioning effort

Multi-segment pseudowiresEnd-to-end MPLS pseudowiresMutual understanding of level of trust required!

QoS

awareness requiredService Level Agreements across service providers

Test Area: Inter-Carrier MPLS Interconnectivity

Three standardized alternatives tested:Option A – Treat opposite carrier like a customerOption B – Build separate service segment between providers, stitch three segments togetherOption C – Single, dynamic end-to-end serviceFrom A to C: Operational efficiency increases, privacy decreasesLab facilitated end-to-end testing

Test Area: MPLS Transport Aggregation

Pre-standard MPLS-TP TestsNew IETF work under joint IETF/ITU-T initiative.Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson testing early implementations:

Updated label usageGACH/GALSuggested OAM protocol (BFD)

T-MPLS TestsFrozen standard. Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, MRV, UTStarcom

tested:

ITU-T based protection of T-MPLS Paths using Automatic Protection Switching (APS, adapted from SDH) and CV (OAM protocol)

Test

Area: PBB-TE

Questionnaire

at CEWC 2008 –

Responses

Algeria

TelecomBelgacomBrazil

Telecom

Broadband InfracoBritish TelecomColt TelecomGTS

Novera

GVTOrange UK

PT PrimeSwisscomTelecom ItaliaTelecom New

Zealand

Turk CellT-Com

/ T-Systems

TelefonicaVersatelVodafone(28 in total)

Questionnaire

CEWC 2008 Relevance

of

Interoperability Areas

1.

Ethernet OAM

2.

Ethernet Service Types (E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree)

+ Performance Monitoring and Reporting3.

Metro Transport (MPLS, MPLS-TP, PBB-TE)

4.

Carrier Ethernet Security

5.

Access Networks

6.

E-NNI / Global Interconnect

Connectivity Fault Monitoring (CFM) Tests (Carrier Ethernet World Congress 2008)

12 router/switch plus 2 analyzer vendors participatedOutstanding level of support Implementations fully interoperable for the three basic services (CC, LT, LB)Added Remote Defect Indication tests

Y.1731 Performance Monitoring Tests

Helps validate SLAs for internal QA and for customersGrowing number of implementations (10 tested)Artificial loss, delay, delay variation inserted by impairment generatorsGenerally, high degree of accuracy –much improved since last testLack of specification for calculating/displaying delay values leads to variation amongst vendors

State of the art and challenges of clock synchronization over Carrier EthernetPacket based solutions:

Multiple technologies (adaptive clocking, IEEE 1588v2) developed –extensive lab testing activities going onPerformance threat: Network delay and delay variation at the same order of magnitude as clock wander and jitterControl end-to-end packet network QoS - finally use differentiated quality for clock, voice, data

Network synchronous solutions:Synchronous Ethernet support slowly growingNot influenced by network load conditionsHop-by-hop support required

Combination of methods expected in the future, using transparent boundary clocks

Clock Synchronization Tests (Precision Time Protocol IEEE 1588-2008)

Some vendors support multicast, some unicast transport of clock messagesTwo clock options: one-step and two-stepSync messages rate range support varied: 1-32, 32-128, 100-1000 per secondLimited interoperability already achieved in our early tests

Several implementations –

option support varies:

Synchronous Ethernet Tests

First time successful public multi-vendor testing at this year’s interop eventTest system measured wander of sync messagesRequirements for frequency synchronization quality met by all three implementations

Summary

Interoperability testing helps

to:Validate new protocols, create confidenceImprove quality of individual implementations(Majority of SP networks are multi-vendor today)

OutlookEANTC interop test at Carrier Ethernet World Congress (September 2009) will focus LTE backhaul, end-to-end clock sync, Advanced E-NNI, managed Ethernet servicesIndividual performance & scalability proof of concept tests (vendor- and service provider-driven) upcoming

Thank you!

Carsten RossenhoevelEANTC AG, Berlin, GermanyPhone: +49.30.318 05 95-0E-mail: cross@eantc.de