Resilient Packet Ring Networks - Latest Seminar … Seminar Report 10 customer, per-service basis. And it does all this at a fraction of the cost of legacy SONET/SDH and ATM solutions

$Page 1: Resilient Packet Ring Networks - Latest Seminar … Seminar Report 10 customer, per-service basis. And it does all this at a fraction of the cost of legacy SONET/SDH and ATM solutions$
RPR Seminar Report 10

1. Introduction

The nature of the public network has changed. Demand for Internet Protocol (IP)

data is growing at a compound annual rate of between 100% and 800%1, while

voice demand remains stable. What was once a predominantly circuit switched

network handling mainly circuit switched voice traffic has become a circuit-

switched network handling mainly IP data. Because the nature of the traffic is not

well matched to the underlying technology, this network is proving very costly to

scale. User spending has not increased proportionally to the rate of bandwidth

increase, and carrier revenue growth is stuck at the lower end of 10% to 20% per

year. The result is that carriers are building themselves out of business.

Over the last 10 years, as data traffic has grown both in importance and volume,

technologies such as frame relay, ATM, and Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) have

been developed to force fit data onto the circuit network. While these protocols

provided virtual connections—a useful approach for many services—they have

proven too inefficient, costly and complex to scale to the levels necessary to

satisfy the insatiable demand for data services. More recently, Gigabit Ethernet

(GigE) has been adopted by many network service providers as a way to network

user data without the burden of SONET/SDH and ATM. GigE has shortcomings

when applied in carrier networks were recognized and for these problems, a

technology called Resilient Packet Ring Technology were developed.

RPR retains the best attributes of SONET/SDH, ATM, and Gigabit Ethernet.

RPR is optimized for differentiated IP and other packet data services, while

providing uncompromised quality for circuit voice and private line services. It

works in point-to-point, linear, ring, or mesh networks, providing ring

survivability in less than 50 milliseconds. RPR dynamically and statistically

multiplexes all services into the entire available bandwidth in both directions on

the ring while preserving bandwidth and service quality guarantees on a per-Dept

WWW.SEMINARCOLLECTIONS.COM-1-


customer, per-service basis. And it does all this at a fraction of the cost of legacy

SONET/SDH and ATM solutions.

Data, rather than voice circuits, dominates today's bandwidth requirements. New

services such as IP VPN, voice over IP (VoIP), and digital video are no longer

confined within the corporate local-area network (LAN). These applications are

placing new requirements on metropolitan-area network (MAN) and wide-area

network (WAN) transport. RPR is uniquely positioned to fulfill these bandwidth

and feature requirements as networks transition from circuit-dominated to

packet-optimized infrastructures.

Table 1. Resilient Packet Ring Technology Key Features

ResilienceProactive span protection automatically avoids failed spans

within 50 ms.

Services

Support for latency/jitter sensitive traffic such as voice and

video. Support for committed information rate (CIR)

services.

Efficiency

Spatial reuse: Unlike SONET/SDH, bandwidth is consumed

only between the source and destination nodes. Packets are

removed at their destination, leaving this bandwidth available

to downstream nodes on the ring.

ScalableSupports topologies of more than 100 nodes per ring.

Automatic topology discovery mechanism.

2. RPR Operation

DeptWWW.SEMINARCOLLECTIONS.COM

-2-


RPR technology uses a dual counter rotating fiber ring topology. Both rings

(inner and outer) are used to transport working traffic between nodes. By

utilizing both fibers, instead of keeping a spare fiber for protection, RPR utilizes

the total available ring bandwidth. These fibers or ringlets are also used to carry

control (topology updates, protection, and bandwidth control) messages. Control

messages flow in the opposite direction of the traffic that they represent. For

instance, outer-ring traffic-control information is carried on the inner ring to

upstream nodes.

Figure 1. RPR Terminology

By using bandwidth-control messages, a RPR node can dynamically negotiate for

bandwidth with the other nodes on the ring. RPR has the ability to differentiate

between low- and high-priority packets. Just like other quality of service (QoS)–

aware systems, nodes have the ability to transmit high-priority packets before

those of low priority. In addition, RPR nodes also have a transit path, through

which packets destined to downstream nodes on the ring flow. With a transit

buffer capable of holding multiple packets, RPR nodes have the ability to

transmit higher-priority packets while temporarily holding other lower-priority

packets in the transit buffer. Nodes with smaller transit buffers can use

bandwidth-control messages to ensure that bandwidth reserved for high-priority

services stays available.

The RPR MAC


-3-


One of the basic building blocks of RPR is Media Access Control (MAC). As a

Layer-2 network protocol, the MAC layer contains much of the

functionality for the RPR network. The RPR MAC is responsible for

providing access to the fiber media. The RPR MAC can receive, transit,

and transmit packets.

Figure 2. MAC Block Diagram

Receive Decision: Every station has a 48-bit MAC address. The MAC will

receive any packets with a matching destination address. The MAC can receive

both unicast and multicast packets. Multicast packets are copied to the host and

allowed to continue through the transit path. Matching unicast packets are

stripped from the ring and do not consume bandwidth on downstream spans.

There are also control packets that are meant for the neighboring node; these

packets do not need a destination or source address.

Transit Path: Nodes with a non-matching destination address are allowed to

continue circulating around the ring. Unlike point-to-point protocols such as

Ethernet, RPR packets undergo minimal processing per hop on a ring. RPR

packets are only inspected for a matching address and header errors (TTL=0,

Parity, CRC).


-4-


Transmit and Bandwidth Control: The RPR MAC can transmit both high- and

low-priority packets. The bandwidth algorithm controls whether a node is within

its negotiated bandwidth allotment for low-priority packets. High-priority packets

are not subject to the bandwidth-control algorithm.

Protection: RPR has the ability to protect the network from single span (node or

fiber) failures. When a failure occurs, protection messages are quickly

dispatched. RPR has two protection mechanisms:

Wrapping: Nodes neighboring the failed span will direct packets away from the

failure by wrapping traffic around to the other fiber (ringlet). This mechanism

requires that only two nodes participate in the protection event. Other nodes on

the ring can send traffic as normal.

Figure 3. Wrapped Traffic Flow

Steering: The protection mechanism notifies all nodes on the ring of the failed

span. Every node on the ring will adjust their topology maps to avoid this span.

Regardless of the protection mechanism used, the ring will be protected within

50 ms.

Topology Discovery : RPR has a topology discovery mechanism that allows

nodes on the ring to be inserted/removed without manual management


-5-


intervention. After a node joins a ring, it will circulate a topology

discovery message to learn the MAC addresses of the other stations.

Nodes also send these messages periodically (1 to 10 seconds). Each

node that receives a topology message appends its MAC address and

passes it to its neighbour. Eventually, the packet returns to its source

with a topology map (list of addresses) of the ring.

Routers are able to use the address resolution protocol (ARP) mechanism to

determine which RPR MAC address belongs to the destination address of an IP

packet. RPR switches and bridges will have a list of stations that they can reach

through a RPR MAC address. The topology map will be used to determine which

direction on the ring will provide the best path to the destination.

Physical Layer

RPR packets can be transported over both SONET and Ethernet physical layers.

The SONET/SDH physical layer offers robust error and performance monitoring.

RPR packets can be encapsulated within the synchronous payload envelope

(SPE) using a high-level data-link control (HDLC)–like or generic framing

protocol (GFP) encapsulation. A robust Layer-1 protocol, SONET/SDH provides

information such as loss of signal and signal degrade for use by the RPR

protection mechanism. When using a SONET/SDH physical layer, RPR can be

carried over SONET/SDH TDM transport or dark fiber.

Ethernet provides an economical physical layer for RPR networks. RPR packets

are transmitted with the required inter-packet gap (IPG).

RPR Systems using the SONET physical layer will not interoperate with Ethernet

physical-layer-based systems on the same ring.


-6-


MAC Frame format

Figure 4. RPR MAC frame.

Destination Address: This one or six byte address (see dual mode addressing) is

the MAC address of the ring node to which the frame is being transmitted, and

therefore does not change from link to link on the ring. This address can also be a

broadcast address

Source Address: This one or six byte address is the MAC address of the ring

node from which the frame is being transmitted, and therefore also does not

change from link to link.

Payload Type: This two-byte field tells the system what type of payload follows

the RPR fields. For example MPEG, ATM or Ethernet.


-7-


Class of Service (CoS): The three bit CoS field allows the identification of up to

eight Classes of Services, including Expedited Forwarding (EF), six levels of

Assured Forwarding (AF1 through AF6), and Best Effort (BE).

Extension (E) Bit: This field indicates that there is an extension to the RPT

header. This allows for fields that may be added in the future.

Time To Live (TTL): The one byte TTL field is included to allow the RPT ring

topology. It ensures that under no circumstances do RPT frames continue to

circulate in a loop indefinitely.

Flow ID (optional): The 20-bit flow ID field maps a virtual connection from

ingress to egress over the RPT ring. It allows the simple manual or automatic

setup of connection oriented services such as Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)

circuit emulated services and Ethernet virtual leased lines through the packet-

switched network.

Header Error Check (HEC): Borrowing a concept from ATM, the two byte

Header Error Check (checksum) provides a way to test the integrity of the

header, allowing for persistent delivery of frames despite errors in the payload.

Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC): The four byte (32 bit) Cyclic Redundancy

Check (CRC-32) works differently in RPT than it does for standard Ethernet.


-8-


3. Comparing RPR to Other Solutions

Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) technology was designed to combine SONET’s

carrier-class functionalities with Ethernet’s high bandwidth utilization and

granularity. Additionally, RPR technology offers fairness that has been lacking in

today’s Ethernet solutions.

RPR has a MAC layer technology as discussed earlier, being standardized in the

IEEE 802.17 workgroup. This employs spatial reuse to maximize bandwidth

utilization, provides a distributed fairness algorithm, and ensures high-speed

traffic protection similar to SONET Automatic Protection Switching (APS). RPR

allows full ring bandwidth to be utilized under normal conditions and protects

traffic in the case of a nodal failure or fiber cut using a priority scheme,

alleviating the need for SONET-based protection. Furthermore, because the RPR

MAC layer can run on top of a SONET PHY, RPR-based networks can provide

performance-monitoring features similar to those of SONET.

RPR technology offers all of these carrier-class functionalities, while at the same

time keeping Ethernet’s advantages of low equipment cost, high bandwidth

granularity, and statistical multiplexing capability.

The following table summarizes the differences between traditional Ethernet and

RPR:

Table 2. Comparison between Gigabit Ethernet and RPR

GIGABIT ETHERNET RPR

Enterprise-class equipment Carrier-class equipment

Data service only Data, circuit or video servicePoint-to-point or mesh topology (No rings) Point-to-point, linear, ring, or mesh

topology

Protection in 50 seconds Protection in 50 milliseconds or lessSimple management Full FCAPS managementLimited scalability 254 nodes per ring, multiple rings


-9-


The following table compares SONET/SDH to RPT:

Table 3. Comparison between SONET/SDH and RPT

SONET/SDHT RPTManual topology configuration Auto-topology discovery16 nodes per ring 254 nodes per ringFixed, dedicated management

bandwidth

Management bandwidth used as needed

Time division multiplexing Statistical multiplexingManual provisioning of bandwidth

and routes

Manual or dynamic provisioning

No service class awareness Differentiated services in eight classesFixed direction traffic routing Least-cost traffic routingAll traffic is protected Per-connection protection50% of all bandwidth reserved—

unused—for protection

Bandwidth reserved as needed, but still

usable by

unprotected servicesProtection per bi-directional span Per-fiber protection


-10-


4. Using RPR with SONET and Ethernet

Ethernet is the most common interface within enterprise networks. Although the

optimal customer interface and LAN solution, Ethernet does not work well

within metro networks. Most RPR edge systems offer an Ethernet interface as the

customer interface. SONET/SDH can be used to transport RPRs that use the

SONET/SDH physical layer. A 2.5G RPR can be carried as two optical carrier

(OC)–48/synchronous transfer mode (STM)–16 channels (inner and outer rings)

inside an OC–192/STM–64 SONET/SDH ring. This allows customers to utilize

their existing transport infrastructure to deliver legacy TDM services, while RPR

delivers data services efficiently. New SONET advancements such as virtual

concatenation and the link-capacity adjustment scheme (LCAS) allow more

precise and dynamic allocation of bandwidth dedicated to RPR services.

Figure 5. RPR over SONET with Ethernet Customer Interfaces


-11-


5. Technical aspects of RPR

Technical aspects of RPR are multicast, spatial reuse, fairness, fast protection

and quality of service.

Multicast

One RPR multicast packet can be transmitted around the ring and can be received

by multiple nodes. Mesh topologies require multicast packets to be replicated

over all possible paths, wasting bandwidth.

Spatial Reuse

RPT has the ability to switch traffic over multiple spans of the ring

simultaneously. Hence, the bandwidth on a particular span between ring nodes is

utilized asynchronously with regard to the bandwidth on other spans. This allows

bandwidth to be added or dropped on a span-by-span basis, which ensures

maximum utilization of bandwidth in the ring, especially when traffic patterns

are highly distributed. For example, traffic passing from node A to node B will

be dropped at node B, allowing new traffic to be inserted at node B for

transmission to downstream nodes C, D, etc.

Figure 6. RPR Spatial ReuseDept



Fairness

Fairness is one of the most important features in carrier-class networks. Fairness

is achieved when the traffic characteristics of two service flows that have the

same service level agreement (SLA) are identical, regardless of their network

source and destination.

The RPR protocol can guarantee fairness across the metropolitan network. Each

node on the metro ring executes an algorithm designed to ensure that each node

on the ring will get its fair share of bandwidth. However, ring nodes use the

spatial reuse capability to use additional available bandwidth, which is greater

than their fair share on local ring segments, as long as it doesn’t affect other ring

nodes. More specifically, the ring supports weighted fairness, proportional to the

bandwidth each user buys.

Figure 7 demonstrates the operation of the fairness algorithm. Before employing

the fairness algorithm, all nodes transmit at their peak usage rate. At some point

Node 1 experiences congestion and requests upstream nodes to reduce their

transmission rate to the allowed rate. After convergence, each node will receive

its fair share of bandwidth, while nodes that can locally transmit higher rates, like

nodes 2 and 3, without generating congestion on other nodes, continue to

transmit their peak usage rate.

Other data optimized technologies, such as Ethernet, do not provide the carrier-

class fairness guaranteed in RPR-based networks. Ethernet switches prioritize

traffic locally, on every interface on the ring, thus creating unfair conditions for

traffic that has to traverse through several nodes on its way to the destination

node.


-13-


Figure 7: Fairness in an RPR Ring

Figure 8 demonstrates the lack of fairness in Ethernet-based networks. In this

example, a 10Gbps Ethernet ring connects between the nodes. Nodes 4, 5 and 6 Dept



all transmit traffic to node 1, creating congestion between node 1 and node 6.

Under these conditions, node 6 will get half of the total available bandwidth,

while nodes 4 and 5 will each get 25% of the available bandwidth.


-15-


Figure 8: Unfairness in an Ethernet Ring

Fast Protection and Restoration

The feature that more than any other makes RPR a carrier-class technology is its

fast self-healing capability which allows the ring to automatically recover from a

fiber cut or node failure. This is done by wrapping traffic onto the alternate fiber

within the SONET-class 50msec restoration timeframe. RPR technology

provides carriers with more than SONET-class fast protection and performance

monitoring capabilities; it also enables them to achieve it without dedicating

protection bandwidth, as in the case of SONET, thus eliminating the need to

sacrifice 50% of the ring bandwidth for protection.

Two mechanisms are proposed for fast protection in the RPR MAC - Wrap and

Steer. Each of these mechanisms has its own advantages and limitations, and

both can be used on an RPR ring utilizing the Selective Wrap Independent Steer

(SWIS) scheme.


-16-


Figure 9 shows an example of the data paths taken before and after a fiber cut

event when Wrap is being used. Before the fiber cut, node 3 sends traffic to node

1 via node 2 (Figure 9a). When the fiber cut occurs (between node 1 and node 2),

node 1 will wrap the inner ring to the outer and node 2 will wrap the outer to the

inner ring. After the wrap, traffic from node 3 to node 1 initially traverses

through the non-optimal path (passing through node 2, back to node 3 and into

the originally assigned port on node 1 - Figure 9b). This is immediately done and

can inherently meet the 50ms criteria, as it is a local decision of the nodes that

identify the fault (in this case, nodes 1 and 2). Subsequently, higher layer

protocols discover the new ring topology and a new optimal path is used (Figure

9c). This can take several seconds to converge in a robust manner, after which

the double ring capacity is restored (even though not evenly distributed,

depending on the location of the fault and the ring traffic pattern). Thus, unlike

SONET rings that always pay the redundancy tax to achieve protection, after a

failure; an RPR ring reduces its capacity only for several seconds.

Other data optimized protocols, such as Ethernet, do not provide the SONET-

class restoration time. Typically, spanning tree tools are used for protection in

these cases. In a mesh topology, these tools provide protection time of the order

of 1 second, but in ring topologies, protection time is degraded to the order of 10

seconds or more.

Figure 9: Fast-Protection in RPR Using Wrap


-17-


In summary, RPR’s fast protection and restoration capability prevents service

loss for high priority critical traffic. And just as SONET does, RPR enables

carriers to continue to support their existing critical traffic over a data optimized

network, without compromising their guaranteed 99.999% service availability.

Quality of Service

Quality of Service (QoS) is required in order to let a carrier effectively charge for

the services it provides. ATM promised to deliver multiple services due to its

rich QoS feature set. However, a carrier’s service offering should be simple.

Customers should clearly understand the service differentiators for which they’re

required to pay.

Often, a too-rich QoS feature set causes a complicated and incomprehensible

service offering. Furthermore, different service quality features are required for

different types of applications. Data transfer applications require low packet loss

rate, while real-time applications, such as voice, require low latency and low

delay variation.

There are several parameters that more than others govern the characteristics of a

delivered service: Service availability, delay, delay variation and packet loss rate.

Service availability depends on the reliability of the network equipment, as well

as on the network survivability characteristics. Delay occurs in a network when a

packet waits in a switch queue for other packets to pass. Delay variation is the

difference in delay of several packets belonging to a common traffic flow. High-

frequency delay variation is called jitter while low-frequency delay variation is

called wander.

The most important parameter for a carrier selling bandwidth services is service

availability. In order to remain competitive, a carrier must guarantee “five-nines” Dept



(99.999%) service availability, irrespective of other service characteristics. The

respective requirement from the network is that all traffic flows should remain

active under any circumstances, including during a protection event. During a

protection event, and until high layer protocols converge, the available

bandwidth on an OC-192 RPR ring reduces to 10Gbps. In order to guarantee

service for every traffic flow under these circumstances, a portion of each flow’s

bandwidth should be allocated on this guaranteed throughput. This way, even

during a protection event, service availability is guaranteed and none of the

services is preempted.

Traffic delay is a minor issue in high throughput rings. An end-to-end delay of

several tens of milliseconds is usually regarded as acceptable, while in an OC-

192 ring, the expected delay for the longest Ethernet frames (1518 bytes) is

shorter by three orders of magnitude (about 5(sec).

Delay variation control is essential to ensure proper transport of TDM services

over an RPR ring. Control can be achieved by synchronizing the nodes on the

RPR ring by a common timing source.


-19-


6. RPR Market Development

ISP Networks

Without barriers of traditional SONET/SDH infrastructures, RPR solutions are

helping ISPs to deliver reliable Internet services (such and IP and video) and

address the growing bandwidth service requirements for the next-generation

intra-point of presence (POP), exchange point, and server farm/storage

applications.

Regional Metro Networks

RPR enables regional metro networks designed to deliver Internet services (such

as IP, VoIP, and video) to the metro. RPR regional metro solutions are available

for transport over dark fiber, over wavelength division multiplexing (WDM), and

over SONET/SDH, cable MSO, and enterprise/campus MANs.

Metro Access Networks

RPR enables metro access solutions for service providers looking to deliver

Internet services (such as IP, VoIP, and VPN) to metro access networks with

direct Ethernet connectivity for multi-tenant/multidwelling customers and edge

programmability.


-20-


7. Summary of features and benefits of RPR

RPR provides the following benefits to service provider networks:

• Packet-optimized, Layer 1 independent protocol that allows the

integration of DWDM, transport, switching and routing functions in a single

platform.

• Differentiated data services, with advanced QoS mechanisms.

• Point-to-point and multipoint services.

• Topology flexibility, including the ability to have spans running at

different data rates and with different numbers of fibers and wavelengths, as

well as the ability to have asymmetry in the bandwidth.

• End-to-end networking through a standard, heterogeneous IP/MPLS

network.

• Full interworking with standard IP, MPLS, Ethernet, and circuit-based

networks.

• Maximum utilization of the fiber bandwidth under both normal and

protection-switched conditions.

• Minimum disruption of user services during a protection-switching event.

Specifically, full restoration of all

• protected service well within the 50-millisecond period specified by

SONET and SDH standards.

• Maximum configurability of the switch as to its behavior under all

conditions.

• Ease of provisioning and management of the ring.


-21-


• Significantly simplified network operations vs. ATM and SONET/SDH

approaches.

• Faster deployment of services.

8. Conclusion

The main objective of Resilient Packet Ring technology is to enable a true

alternative to SONET transport for packet networks, providing carriers with

resiliency, fast protection and restoration, and performance monitoring

comparable to those of SONET networks.

RPR was designed to combine SONET strengths of high availability, reliability

and TDM services support, with Ethernet’s low-cost, superior bandwidth

utilization and high service granularity characteristics.

Unlike SONET, RPR provides an Ethernet-like cost curve as well as superior

bandwidth utilization, both in its Ethernet-like statistical multiplexing, and in its

spatial reuse capabilities. Spatial reuse provides an extremely efficient use of

shared media traffic in metro/access rings, since it is expected that in the near

future most traffic originating in a metro area will remain within the same

metro/access ring.

Unlike next-generation SONET solutions that integrate both transport and data

switching in the same network element, RPR is a transport technology that fits

into existing carriers’ operations model, this tremendously reduces the required

operational expenses in deployment as well as the maintenance expenses

associated with the manual provisioning process of today’s transport networks.


-22-


Unlike Ethernet transport technology, RPR provides “five-nines” availability

using SONET-grade fast protection and restoration, carrier-class fairness, the

ability to transparently carry and groom TDM traffic, and SONET-like reliability

and performance monitoring capabilities.

RPRs provide a reliable, efficient, and service-aware transport for both enterprise

and service-provider networks. Combining the best features of legacy

SONET/SDH and Ethernet into one layer, RPR maximizes profitability while

delivering carrier-class service. RPR will enable the convergence of voice, video,

and data services transport.

RPR is being promoted and standardized by industry leaders as well as by

innovative startup companies, and is positioned to take a major role in

deployment of next generation carrier-class networks.

Standardization

The IEEE 802.17 working group is working on the industry standard for an RPR

MAC. This group was formed in January 2001 and expects to complete the

standard in mid-2003.


-23-


References

1. www.iec.org

2. www.ieee.org

3. Data Networks by Dimitri Bertsekas and Robert Gallagar.

4. Computer Networks by Andrew .S. and Taneabaum

5. Computer Network – A systems approach by Larry.L.Petterson and

Bruces. David


-24-


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. RPR OPERATION

• RPR MAC

• MAC FRAME FORMAT

3. COMPARING RPR TO OTHER SOLUTIONS.

4. USING RPR WITH SONET AND ETHERNET

5. TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF RPR

6. RPR MARKET DEVELOPMENT

7. SUMMARY OF FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF RPR

8. CONCLUSION

9. REFERENCES


-25-


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


-26-

Documents

Resilient Packet Ring Networks - Latest Seminar … Seminar Report 10 customer, per-service basis. And it does all this at a fraction of the cost of legacy SONET/SDH and ATM solutions