Pseudowires from 1999 to 2009 , 10 years of evolution · Cisco 7600 GE PE25 Cisco 7600 P P 10G PE1 Cisco 7600 PE2 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 PE50 PE26 PE27 P P

© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Presentation_ID 1

Picture 325

© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pseudowires from 1999 to 2009 , 10 years of evolution and deployments.

Luca Martini

[email protected]

© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 2© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Agenda

"Martini draft" Background and History.

Deployments: SP Ethernet/ATM services, and Mobile IP R.A.N.

PW Evolution: VPLS, and MS-PWs.

PW and MPLS-TP: PW in access networks.


History:

Year 1998/99:–ATM has failed to deliver the multi-service networks, and is too slow/expensive

–Huge bandwidth demand. ( or at least we thought so )

New network from the ground up:–All packet based services must run on one single packet network.

–MPLS is an emerging technology with the best management/granularity compromise

–Must create new telecom market competition to make network elements and services widely available.


Motivation of "draft-martini"

Next Generation SP design:–Classical frame/ATM is expensive and does not integrate well.

–Multi-service Backbone.

–Re-deployment or expand existing Hardware.

Multiple vendor Implementation = market competition.

New lower cost services with market acceptance.


Protocol Design Criteria

"Simple" protocol Implementation.

Must use existing hardware when possible.

Leverage MPLS, for multi-service Core network

Support existing SP protocols, and existing CPE

Similar operational model to standard SP services.


Result:

11 vendors inter-operated when I stopped counting (~2001).

Draft-martini is LDP based, a modern extensible design.

Point-to-point links - operationally similar to classical frame-relay/ATM.

MPLS based Multi-service network.

Service management granularity/scalability compromise


IETF Influence on draft-martini designDraft-martini -> rfc4447

Reorganized text , countless times !

Changed Terminology

PW remain 100% backward compatible to draft-martini

Added FEC129 ( generalized PWid ) (0.1% deployment)

Added PW status. (100% deployment)

Added Fragmentation. (0% deployment)

Wildcard Pseudowire Type. (0% deployment)

Many ATM special optimizations ( make ATM over MPLS better then ATM , long live ATM! ) (0.1% deployment)

Added Ethernet FCS retention (0% deployment)

Etc. etc. .....


Draft-martini Oops , If I had known !

MTU interface Parameter.–Folks clearly want broken networks

–Vendors write really crappy driver code

–10 years later I still average 1 long call per quarter on this topic!

Frame-relay Encapsulation Header Bits.


Picture 325


Deployment Examples.

© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 10

RAN Deployment case study

3G GE

STM1

RNC

GE

E1MetroEthernet

ME Switch

ME Switch

2G

RAD ACE3220

3G

E12G

RAD ACE3220

BSC

ANAServer

RadviewServer Operators

cSTM1

E1IMA

E1IMA

c7600

7x 3G and 1x 2G basestationfrom NSN and Ericsson

2x aggregation sites


VPLS for Carrier Ethernet networks – Case Study

Integrated Communications ProviderUse VPLS with QoS for various access networkDeployed VPLS using 50 c7600s networkHardware

C7600s for PEs, c3750ME for CEs,Use

QoS for service classesRSVP-TE Tunnelsvlan rewriteMax mac-address limitation (16 per vlan)H-VPLS, QinQ


EoMPLS Case Study EoMPLS between Campus for Server groups Segmentation (Migration from Global Routing) and L2 over MPLS with

HA and QoS

Type of PE-Box: SUP720, C7200

PE-Topology: full meshed

L2-Tunnel #: 2; L2-STP: Rapid STP

Cisco IOS: 12.2SX/12.0S

PE-CE links: directly connected GE

QoS on Core Links

iBGP RR for L3VPNs

Type of P-Box: SUP720

P-Topology: P2P (4)

Cisco IOS: 12.2SX

Core Routing: OSPF

Type of core links: 10GE (MAN)

QoS on Core Links

Type of CE-Box: Cat3550


Basic Architecture (PE-P-PE)

10G

Cisco 7600

GE

PE25

Cisco 7600

P

P

10G

PE1

Cisco 7600

PE2

Cisco 7600

Cisco 7600

Cisco 7600

Cisco 7600

PE50

PE26

PE27

P

P

. . .. . .

. . .

. . .. . .

. . .Each PE has 2 x pre-established RSVP tunnels to each remote PE

RSVP/TE - Tunnel label

VPLS - VC label VLAN 20

. . .

. . .

VLAN 10

GE

TE26011

TE26012

TE01261

TE01262

OSM-based VPLS

Dual Attached PEs to the core; 2 TE Tunnels to each PE, 50 PEs, 5000 TunnelsVC are evenly loadshared over 2 preestablished Tunnels

Each TE LSP takes one explicitroute, dynamic path on one TEWhen one OSM port/link is down, all VC traffic switches to another established LSP

VPLS for Carrier Ethernet networks – Case Study


PW Technology Evolution:

Dynamic Placement of

Multi-Segment Pseudowires


Multi-Segment PW DefinitionN

ativ

eS

ervi

ce

Nat

ive

Ser

vice

Emulated Service

Multi-Segment Pseudowire

CE CES-PE1

ACCESS

MPLS

AS1S-PE3

SPE – Switching Provider Edge – Can switch control and data planes of preceding and succeeding segments of a MSPW. SPE initiates the signaling for MSPWs.TPE – Terminating Provider Edge – Customer facing PE, hosting the first or last segment of a MSPW

S-PE2 T-PE2ACAC

T-PE1


Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PW (= PW Routing) Procedures

For DP MS-PW, need global addresses assigned to individual PW Attachment Circuits and all S-PEs composing MS-PW for reachability and manageability of the PW.

Each AC gets assigned GLOBAL-ID + Prefix+ ACID = AII Type 2. This TAII is used by S-PEs to determine the next SS-PW destination for

LDP Signaling.

PW Next Hop Selection from PW Routing Table

During the signaling phase, the content of the TAII type 2 field from the FEC129 TLV is compared against routes from the PW Routing table. The longest match is NH to be signaled

64 95

AC ID

32 63

Prefix

0 31

Global ID


Nat

ive

Ser

vice

Nat

ive

Ser

vice

Dynamic Placement of MSPWs – 4 SPEs connecting two PSNs with Redundancy

Emulated Service

Multi-Segment Pseudowire

CE CE

PSN 2Tunnel PW Seg 3PW Seg 1

PSN 1Tunnel

PW Seg 2

PW Switching Points

Provider 1 Provider 2

PSN1 PSN2

S-PE1.1 S-PE2.1

Recovery Case : Routing failure recovered via backup route

= MPLS LSP Tunnel

= Recovery Path

Recovery Path

ACT-PE1

S-PE1.2 S-PE2.2

T-PE2AC


VCCV Trace Example

S-PE2 S-PE3 S-PE4 T-PE5

AC2

SS-PW1 SS-PW2 SS-PW3 SS-PW4

T-PE1

AC1

LSP pIng:Sender Addr:PE4

Remote PE Addr: PE3PWID: 300

TTL=1Src IP: PE5

Dest IP:127.0.0.1



TTL=2Src IP: PE5

Dest IP:127.0.0.1



TTL=3Src IP: PE5

Dest IP:127.0.0.1


Remote PE Addr: 0PWID: 100

TTL=4Src IP: PE5

Dest IP:127.0.0.1

LSP pIng Reply:Code 8(label switched)

TTL=2Src IP: 127.0.0.1

Dest IP:PE5


TTL=3Src IP: 127.0.0.1

Dest IP:PE5


TTL=1Src IP: 127.0.0.1

Dest IP:PE5

LSP pIng Reply:Code 3(egress LSR)

TTL=4Src IP: 127.0.0.1

Dest IP:PE5


Picture 325


PW Technology Evolution:MPLS-TP


MPLS-TP and PWs

MPLS TP is static provisioned MPLS LSPs with some extra OAM.

PWs are the only current “Client” application of MPLS-TP

NO change to PWs, We had static configuration already defined in rfc4447

Applications:–Lower cost Ethernet Access

–SONET Replacement in access/aggregation.


How IT works in 1 slide !

Basic MPLS LSP with static label configuration at every Router Hop.

Today: Redundancy by pre-configured backup path, and AIS/RDI failure indication.

Also BFD monitoring or LSPs, or Segments

LFU ( Label For You , = 13) for segment in-band monitoring.

Otherwise it's a normal MPLS LSP......


Thank you !

Documents

Pseudowires from 1999 to 2009 , 10 years of evolution · Cisco 7600 GE PE25 Cisco 7600 P P 10G PE1 Cisco 7600 PE2 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 Cisco 7600 PE50 PE26 PE27 P P