© 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
© 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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 3© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 4© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 5© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 6© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 7© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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. .....
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 8© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Presentation_ID 9
Picture 325
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 11© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 12© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 13© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 14© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
PW Technology Evolution:
Dynamic Placement of
Multi-Segment Pseudowires
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 15© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 16© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 17© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 18© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
LSP pIng:Sender Addr:PE3
Remote PE Addr: PE2PWID: 200
TTL=2Src IP: PE5
Dest IP:127.0.0.1
LSP pIng:Sender Addr:PE2
Remote PE Addr: PE1PWID: 100
TTL=3Src IP: PE5
Dest IP:127.0.0.1
LSP pIng:Sender Addr:PE2
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
LSP pIng Reply:Code 8(label switched)
TTL=3Src IP: 127.0.0.1
Dest IP:PE5
LSP pIng Reply:Code 8(label switched)
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
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Presentation_ID 19
Picture 325
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
PW Technology Evolution:MPLS-TP
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 20© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 21© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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......
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 22© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Thank you !