Carrier Ethernet Technology and Standards Update
Presented by:
Rick Gregory
Senior Systems Consulting Engineer
May 25,2011
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
1
Carrier Ethernet:
Evolution, Defined
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
2
Ethernet Evolution Timeline
1970s to today
1973
Metcalfe & Boggs of Xerox PARC invented ALOHA packet-based network access
protocol over a wired shared medium

3 Mb/s operation
“The Ethernet Blue Book” Digital, Intel, Xerox (DIX)
1982

1985
10Mb/s operation based on the Xerox PARC concepts
IEEE 802.3 Carrier Sense Multiple Access w/ Collision Detection (CSMA/CD)
Formal standards definition, based on “Blue Book”

1999
Gigabit Ethernet standards ratified for use over copper twisted pair; vendors
also implement fiber optic versions; 1000Base-T

2000’s
IEEE 802.3ab
Fiber standards ratified for single and multimode fiber; speeds evolve to
10, 40 and (eventually) 100Gbps
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
3
Ethernet Evolution Events
Effect: Carrier Ethernet becomes Leading Transport Technology
Events
Effects
Ethernet is the first global network
International standardization
access technology
Access, metro, and wide-area
Unrivaled success in enterprise
applications
Large number of component and
Lowest cost per megabit; < 8¢ per
equipment manufacturers
megabit for triple-speed NIC
Mature, transparent layer 2
Simple plug-and-play installation
technology
Ethernet over any media…any service over Ethernet
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
4
Basic Ethernet Bridging
Unknown Destination
Multicast
Broadcast
(IEEE 802.1D)
Forwarding Table
Address
Port
A
B
C
D
E
F
1
2
2
3
3
3
A switch builds forwarding
table by LEARNING where
each station is (relative to
itself) by watching the SA of
packets it receives.
Four Important Concepts/Operations (upon switch receipt of a packet):
1.
LEARNING: The Source MAC Address (SA) and port number, if not known
2.
FORWARDING: Looking up Destination Address (DA) in table and sending to
correct port
3.
FILTERING: Discarding packets if destination port = receiving port
4.
FLOODING: Sending to all other ports if DA is unknown, multicast or broadcast
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
5
Ethernet’s Evolution
Originally
10 Mbps, then 100M
Now
1 Gbps, 10G, 40G, 100G
Half Duplex
Full Duplex
Yes (CSMA/CD)
No Collisions (Full Duplex)
Entire LAN
VLAN Controlled
None
802.1p
Topology
Bus
E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Line
(Access, Trunks)
Cabling
Coax
UTP, Optical (Access, Trunks)
Less Than 30%
Due to Collisions
Approaching
100%
Bandwidth
Transmission
Collisions
Broadcast Domain
Prioritization
Utilization
Distance
Limited by CSMA/CD
Propagation Time
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
6
Limited Only by
Media Characteristics
Standards: Current,
Forthcoming, and Direction
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
7
Scaling Ethernet…beyond 802.1ad (Q-in-Q)
 Preferred: “Large” number of customers
 Reality: One MAC domain for customer and Provider results in large forwarding table size
 48-bit MAC address (no ‘prefixing’ as in IP address)
 Every network switch needs to learn Destination Address (DA) of customer switches
 Preferred: Customer Isolation/Transparency
 Reality: One L2 broadcast domain for customer and provider
 Broadcast storms in one customer’s network can affect other customers and provider
as well
 Preferred: Million+ service instances
 Reality: Limited VLAN space, i.e., only 4095 (i.e., 212-1)
 802.1ad (Q-in-Q) suggested 16million+ instances but forwarding only to same S-tag
(4095!)
 Preferred: Deterministic behavior for services
 Reality: “p” bit for priority but no bandwidth guarantee & arbitrary forwarding/backup paths
 Data plane dependent on address table, vlan partition, spanning tree, bandwidth
contention
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
8
Ethernet Transport at Layer 2 & 2.5: Approaches to COE
 VLAN and Stacked VLAN (Q-in-Q) Cross-Connects
 Explicit forwarding paths using VLAN based classification. Tunneling via VLAN tag encapsulations
and translations. Defined in IEEE 802.1Q and IEEE 802.1ad specifications. Standards completed.
 Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB-TE) and Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB)
 Explicitly forwarding paths using MAC + VLAN tag. Tunneling via MAC-in-MAC encapsulations.
Defined in IEEE 802.1Qay and IEEE 802.1ah specifications. Standards completed.
 E-SPRing
 Shared Ethernet Ring Topology based Protocol mechanism that delivers sub-50ms in IEEE 802.1Q
and IEEE 802.1ad (Q-inQ) Ethernet Networks. Defined in ITU G.8032 specification. Standards
completed.
 MPLS & VPLS/H-VPLS
 Widely deployed in the core, less so in the metro / access. Uses pseudo wire emulation edge-toedge (PWE3) for Ethernet and multi-service tunneling over IP/MPLS. Can be point-to-point or multipoint (VPLS). Defined in IETF RFC 4364 (formerly 2547bis) and Dry Martini (IETF RFC 2026).
Standards completed.
 Provider Link State Bridging (PLSB)
 Adds a SPB (Shortest Path Bridging) using IS-IS for loop suppression to make Ethernet fit for a
distributed mesh and point to multi-point routing system. PBB-TE/PBB along with PLSB can
operate side-by-side in the same network infrastructure. PLSB is optimized for Any to Any E-LAN
and Point to Multi-Point E-Tree Network Topology Service delivery. Defined in IEEE 802.1aq
specification. Standards to be completed. Target completion approximately 2H 2011.
 MPLS-TP
 Formerly know as T-MPLS (defined by ITU-T). New working group formed in IETF now called
MPLS-TP. Transport-centric version of MPLS for carrying Ethernet services based on PWE3 and
© Ciena Confidential
Proprietary
LSPandconstructs.
Defined in IETF RFC 5654. Standard to be completed. Target completion
approximately 1H 2012.
9
What’s Next in Carrier Ethernet ?
802.1aq PLSB
G.8032
802.1Qay PBB-TE
Y.1731
Performance Management
802.1ag
Fault Management
802.1ah PBB
Robust L2 Control Plane
Ethernet Shared Ring
Resiliency
Traffic Engineered Ethernet Tunnels
Proactive Performance Management
Service and Infrastructure CFM Diagnostics
Scalable, Secure Dataplane
Ethernet has steadily evolved to address more
robust networking infrastructures
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
10
CESD Technology and Mechanisms
OAM And QOS
Ethernet Service Monitoring
March 2010
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
11
Design
Predictable Resilience
Create a stable network, that remains stable as it scales
 Ciena is the leader in Connection-oriented Ethernet (COE) and provides a range of carrier-class
resiliency schemes (RSTP, MPLS, PBB-TE)
 COE tunnels (PBB-TE, MPLS-TP (future)) are connection-oriented and traffic engineered
 Provides deterministic performance for predicable SLAs
 Better resiliency & stability of provider networks
PBB-TE domain supporting sub-50 ms
protection (via 802.1ag Connectivity
Check Messages)
802.1Q/ad domains protected using
802.1w RSTP with 50 ms restoration
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
12
Design
Granular Bandwidth Control
Controlled & measurable for predictable QoS
CIR/EIR
 Specific service identification with rich
L1-L2 classification
20/0
Voice VLAN
10/100
MAC DA B
20/100
L2VPN
50/100
80/200
 Segmented bandwidth via a hierarchy of
“virtual ports”
 Flexible priority resolution for CoS
mapping
 Traffic profiles and traffic management at
all levels in the hierarchy
 Specify CIR/CBS, EIR/EBS, Color
Aware profiles
 Allows with
efficient
service
upgrades
Enhance revenue
Service
Stratification
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
13
DENY
IP SA 192.168.1.23
10/40
MAC SA A
20/55
TCP port 80
30/100
Flow Interface
Sub-Port
(e.g. Combo of
Logical Port
TCP/UDP port, IP (e.g. Dept
DSCP, MAC,
VLAN range) (e.g. all the
etc.)
client ports of
a Business)
Operate
Comprehensive OAM
Reduce the cost to run the network and keep services profitable
Complete standards-based Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) offering provides visibility, manageability, and controls
 Proactive SLA assurance, rapid fault isolation and minimized downtime
 Includes L2 and L3 based performance measurement capability as a way to
differentiate services
Layer 3 SLA Monitoring & Metrics: Delay, Jitter
IETF RFC 5357 TWAMP
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
Layer 2 SLA Monitoring & Metrics: Delay, Jitter, Frame Loss
ITU-T Y.1731 Ethernet OAM
IEEE 802.1ag CFM
Service Heartbeats, End-to-End & Hop-by-Hop fault detection Connectivity Fault Management
Enhanced troubleshooting, rapid network discovery
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
14
IEEE 802.3ah EFM
Physical Link
Technology Options for Packet Transport
Packet transport
Subscriber
Management
IP/MPLS
Service Edge
& Core
Metro access &
aggregation
 Routing, i.e., forward IP packets
“Application”
“Service”
Management
 IP -over- {IPsec, GRE -over-} MPLS
MPLS (L3)
 IP -over- {IPsec, GRE -over-} IP
 MPLS -over- L2TPv3 -over- IP
IP
 Ethernet -over- L2TPv3 -over- IP
Bridging, i.e., forward Ethernet frames based on MAC DA
 Ethernet -over- Ethernet: PBB
 Ethernet -over- MPLS: VPWS & VPLS
PBB
MPLS (L2)
Switching, i.e., forward of Ethernet frames based on tunnel label
PBB-TE
MPLS-TP
 Ethernet -over- Ethernet: PBB-TE
 Ethernet -over- MPLS-TP
Goal: cost-effective, high-performance transport
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
15
Mechanisms to Build the Carrier Grade Enterprise Ethernet Network
PBB
• IEEE 802.1ah PBB
(MAC in MAC)
• Secure Customer
Separation
• Service/Tunnel
Hierarchy
• Reduced Network
State
PBB-TE
• IEEE 802.1Qay
Ethernet Tunneling
• Deterministic
Service Delivery
• QoS & Traffic
Engineering
• Resiliency &
Restoration
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
16
Ethernet
OAM
• Connectivity /
Service Checks
• ITU Y.1731
Performance
Metrics
• Complete Fault
Management
• 802.1ag
Performance Monitoring
and
Connectivity Fault Management
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
17
Maturing Ethernet OAM into a Transport
Technology
Fault Management Functions
Y.1731
CCM
Continuity Check
P
LBM/LRM
Loopback
P
LTM/LTR
Link Trace
P
AIS
Alarm Indication Signal
P
RDI
Remote Defect Indication
P
LCK
Locked Signal
P
TST
Test Signal
P
MCC
Maintenance Comms. Channel
P
VSM/EXM
Vendor/Experimental OAM
P
Performance Management Functions Y.1731
FLR
Frame Loss Ratio
P
FD
Frame Delay
P
FDV
Frame Delay Variation
P
802.3ah (2005) Link Management Functions
A Partial List of
Completed and
Evolving Standards
802.1ag
P
P
P
O
P
O
O
O
O
802.1ag
O
O
O

Discovery
Link Monitoring
Remote Failure Detect
Rate Limiting
Remote Loopback
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
18
Traffic Engineering for
deterministic bandwidth
utilization
Network planning:
Bandwidth resources &
traffic placement

IEEE 802.3ah EFM defines
link level diagnostics and
OAM

ITU Y.1731 “OAM functions
and mechanisms for
Ethernet based networks”

IEEE 802.1ag “Connectivity
Fault Management”, a
subset of Y.1731
Fault sectionalization &
propagation
mechanisms

MEF10 and Y.1731 describe
Packet PM

Trace & loopback
facilities
MEF16 describes EthernetLocal Management Interface
(LMI)
MEF UNI and LMI
E LMI Status
E-LMI VLAN mapping
E-LMI BW Admission
MEF-ENNI
Remote Loopback
IEEE 802.1Qay for PBB-TE
– Connection Oriented
Ethernet
True Ethernet transport
must maintain important
functions from the TDM
Transport Environment

ITU G.8031 “Ethernet
Protection Switching”

draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernetPBB-TE-01.txt for Control
Plane
Performance
monitoring & statistics
collection
Local Link Management
Control plane for
automated end-to-end
provisioning and
resiliency
PBB / PBB-TE management
802.1ag Properties
 802.1ag has the concept of maintenance levels (hierarchy). This means
that OAM activity at one level can be transparent at a different level.
 802.1ag has clear address and level information in every frame. When
one looks at an 802.1ag frame, one knows exactly
 Where it originated from (SA MAC)
 Where is it going (DA MAC)
 Which maintenance level is it
 What action/functionality does this frame represent.
 Design Inherently address the OAM aspects for MP2MP connectivity
(e.g. VLANs)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
19
The New Ethernet OAM
Standards-based IEEE 802.1ag and ITU Y.1731
802.1ag Maintenance levels/hierarchy
Maintenance End Point = MEP
Maintenance Intermediate Point = MIP
customer demarcs
Adapt
Adapt
Service OAM (SID)
Continuity Check (Fault)
Multicast/unidirectional heartbeat
UNI
Link
Link OAM
Loopback – (MEP/MIP Fault Connectivity)
UNI
Link
Trunk OAM
MEP
Link OAM
MIP
MEP
Link OAM
Unicast bi-directional request/response
Traceroute (MEP/MIP Link Trace - Isolation)
Edge
Switch
Trace nodes in path to a specified target
NNI
Link
Transit
Switch
NNI
Link
Edge
Switch
Discovery
Service (e.g. all PEs supporting common service instance)
Network (e.g. all devices common to a domain)
Performance Monitoring
Frame Delay
Frame Delay Variation
Frame Loss
Conceptually:
-monitor the trunk or the service
… or both
Service
802.1ag
Trunk
802.1ag
Built-in and on-switch
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
20
Carrier Ethernet Technology and Standards Update
PBB/PBB-TE/E-SPRing G.8032/PLSB
and
MPLS/VPLS/HVPLS/MPLS-TP
Presented by:
Rick Gregory
Senior Systems Consulting Engineer
May 25,2011
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
21
Provider Backbone Bridging
(PBB)
IEEE 802.1ah
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
22
Provider Backbone Bridge Introduction
 IEEE 802.1ah is the Provider Backbone Bridge standard
Payload
C-VID
S-V
DA
SA
I-SID
B-VID
B-DA
B-SA
 Also known as Mac In Mac (MiM) encapsulation
 PBB solves several of today’s Ethernet challenges
 Service Scalability – up to 16 millions VPNs
 Customer Segregation – Overlapping VLANs supported
 MAC Explosion – Customer MAC addresses only learned at
edge
 Security – Customer BPDUs are transparently switched
802.1ah
Provider
Backbone
Bridges
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
23
Ethernet Frames…Before and After
Payload
Payload
Payload
Ethertype
Ethertype
C-VID
C-VID
Payload
Ethertype
Ethertype
Ethertype
VID
S-VID
S-VID
Ethertype
Ethertype
Ethertype
Ethertype
SA
DA
SA
DA
SA
DA
SA
DA
I-SID
Ethertype
802.1
802.1Q
802.1ad
basic
B-VID
tagged VLAN
QinQ
Provider
Bridge
Ethertype
SA = Source MAC address
DA = Destination MAC address
VID = VLAN ID
C-VID = Customer VID
S-VID = Service VID
I-SID = Service ID
B-VID = Backbone VID
B-DA = Backbone DA
B-SA = Backbone SA
B-SA
B-DA
802.1ah
MACinMAC
PBB
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
24
Pre-existing
(unchanged)
New
(backbone)
802.1ah PBB Encapsulation Header as used by PBB-TE
B-SA MAC
B-DA MAC
Backbone
Destination MAC
address
Tunnel
Ethertype
0x88A8
Backbone
Source MAC
address
Field
58 Bit Tunnel Address
Size
B-TAG
P D
C E
P I
D
A
Service
Ethertype
0x88C8
B-VID
I-TAG
P
C
P
D R R
E E E I-SID
I S1 S2
Value
Backbone-DA
6 bytes
Tunnel destination MAC address. This must be a Unicast address only.
Multicast MAC addresses are not allowed to be specified for this field.
Backbone-SA
6 bytes
Tunnel source MAC address used to identify this node in the network.
B-TAG Ether-type
2 bytes
0x88A8 (default)
B-VID
12 bits
Tunnel VID (802.1Q compliant).
B-TAG DEI
1 bit
Drop Eligibility Indicator: 1=Drop eligible, 0=Not drop eligible
B-TAG PCP
3 bits
Tunnel Priority Code Point (0-7)
I-SID
24 bits
Service identifier (1 – 16 million)
I-TAG Ether-type
2 bytes
0x88C8 (default)
RES1
2 bits
Don’t care
RES2
2 bits
Don’t care
I-TAG DEI
1 bit
Drop Eligibility Indicator: 1=Drop eligible, 0=Not drop eligible
I-TAG
PCP
3 bits
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
Service Priority Code Point (0-7)
25
S
A
PBB: Solving Current Ethernet Challenges
Up to 16 million service
instances using 24 bit
service ID ISID
Ethernet Challenges:
 Service Scalability
Overlapping
V-LANs supported
 Customer Segregation
Stops MAC Explosions and
Broadcast Storms at MACin-MAC Demarcation Point
 MAC explosions,
Broadcast Storms
Customer MAC is
completely separate from
Backbone MAC
 Learning, Forwarding,
Flooding Control
Architected to build E-LAN, E-Tree and E-Line services
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
26
Provider Backbone Bridging
With Traffic Engineering
(PBB-TE)
IEEE 802.1Qay
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
27
PBB-TE (IEEE 802.1Qay)
MPLS Services
Ethernet Services
(RFC 2547 VPN, PWs etc.)
(EVPL, ELAN, ELINE, Multicast)
PBB-TE
> Keep existing Ethernet, MPLS…FR/ATM…ANY & ALL services
> Capitalize on Ethernet as transport for significant savings
> Existing network-friendly solution!
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
28
PBB-TE
PBB
E-LINE
Traffic engineered
PBB-TE trunks
PBB
Ethernet Metro
E-LINE
 P2P traffic engineered trunks based on existing Ethernet forwarding principles
 Reuses existing Ethernet forwarding plane
 Simple L2 networking technology
 Tunnels can be engineered for diversity, resiliency or load spreading
 50 ms recovery with fast IEEE 802.1ag CFM OAM
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
29
PBB-TE
Solving Current Ethernet Challenges
Ethernet Challenges:
Full segregation in P2P model
End to End TE
With QoS & 50 ms recovery
 Customer Segregation
 Traffic engineering
Disable STP
No
blocked links
Fast
802.1ag convergence
 Spanning Tree challenges:
 Stranded bandwidth
 Poor convergence
 MAC explosions
MAC Explosions Eliminated
 Security
Backbone MAC is Completely
Different Than Customer MAC
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
30
Provider Link State Bridging
(PLSB)
IEEE 802.1aq
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
31
Introducing….PLSB
 PBB-TE is a trivial change to the Ethernet dataplane that has huge Benefits
 Explicit enforcement of configured operation
 Ability to have non STP based VLANs
 Similarly PLSB requires a further trivial change with huge Benefits
 Adding loop suppression to make Ethernet fit for a distributed routing
system
 PBB-TE, PLSB and existing Ethernet control protocols can operate side-by-
side in the same network infrastructure
 Consequence of ability to virtualize many network behaviors on a
common Ethernet base….
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
32
PLSB Approach
 If Ethernet is going to be there….use it!
 Take advantage of Ethernet’s more capable data plane
 Virtual partitions (VLANS), scalable multicast, comprehensive OAM
 PLSB uses a Single (1) Link State Control Plane protocol – IS-IS
 IS-IS topology and service info (B-MAC and I-SID information)
 Integrate service discovery into the control plane
 PLSB nodes use link state information to construct unicast and per
service (or I-SID) multicast connectivity
Combines well-known networking protocol with well-known data
plane to build an efficient service infrastructure
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
33
VPLS Operation
Required for Auto-Discovery
Separate RR topologies (to help scale)
Eases burden of statically managing VSI PWE’s
Signal PWEs
VPN Protocols
Typical VPLS Implementation:
BGP-AD
E-LDP
Base LDPs: build LSP
tunnels
Redundant to IGP (same paths)
Base IGP: Topology
Required for network topology knowledge
Tunnel LSP Protocols
N2 manual session creation
LDP or RSVP-TE
IGP (IS-IS or OSPF)
Physical Links
SONET, SDH, Ethernet, etc…
Link layer headers striped off, label
lookup per node
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
VPLS CONTROL PLANE
34
PLSB Operation
PLSB Implementation:
Tunnel + VPN Protocols
One IGP for Topology & Discovery
-One protocol now provides
- Auto-discovery
- Fast fault detection
- Network healing
- Shortest path bridging
- Intra-AS only Link State Protocol
- Dijkstra's algorithm for best path
- No VSI awareness required at Edge
- Once Standardized Ciena could deploy
- Own I.P. from MEN acquisition
- Target IEEE 802.1aq Ratification 2H 2011
PLSB (IS-IS)
Physical Links:
- Link layer headers reused
as a label lookup through
every node
Ethernet
Minimizing control plane = Minimized complexity = Reduced cost
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
35
PPB/PBB-TE and PLSB Delivers
E-LINE
Point to Point
E-LAN
Any to Any
CESD
CESD
Characteristics:
PLSB – 200-500ms resiliency
PBB-TE – 50ms resiliency
Optimized per service multicast
Feature Rich OAM
SLA and Service Monitoring
Latency Monitoring
No Spanning Tree Protocol
E-TREE
Point to Multi-Point
CESD
Value:
Simplest Operations Model
Less Overhead and Network Layering
Most Cost Effective Equipment
Efficient Restoration
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
36
Ethernet Shared Ring
(E-SPRing)
ITU G.8032
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
37
G.8032 Objectives and Principles
 Use of standard 802 MAC and OAM frames around the ring. Uses
standard 802.1Q (and amended Q bridges), but with xSTP
disabled.
 Ring nodes supports standard FDB MAC learning, forwarding,
flush behaviour and port blocking/unblocking mechanisms.
 Prevents loops within the ring by blocking one of the links (either
a pre-determined link or a failed link).
 Monitoring of the ETH layer for discovery and identification of
Signal Failure (SF) conditions.
 Protection and recovery switching within 50 ms for typical rings.
 Total communication for the protection mechanism should
consume a very small percentage of total available bandwidth.
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
38
ITU G.8032 Ethernet Rings
a.k.a. E-SPRing (Ethernet Shared Protection Rings)
E-SPRing Values
•
•
•
•
•
•
Efficient connectivity (P2P, multipoint, multicast)
Rapid service restoration (<50 msecs)
Server layer technology agnostic (runs over Ethernet, OTN, SONET/SDH, etc…)
Client layer technology agnostic (802.1 (Q, PB, PBB, PBB-TE), IP/MPLS, L3VPN, etc…)
Fully Standardized (ITU-T SG15/Q9 G.8032)
Scales to a large number of nodes and high bandwidth links (GE, 10G, 40G, 100G)
E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree
Major
Ring
Sub
Ring
Fault
Sub
Ring
Deterministic
50ms Protection
Switching
Grow ring
diameter, nodes,
bandwidth
Full service
compatibility
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
39
Sub
Ring
Multi-Layer
Aggregation with
Dual Homing
The Ciena G.8032 Solution
FORWARDING PLANE
CONTROL PLANE
• Sub-50ms protection for E-LINE,
E-TREE,
and E-LAN
services
CONTROL
PLANE
• Guarantees loop freeness with
prevention of frame duplication
and reorder service delivery
• Utilizes existing IEEE defined
FORWARDING
PLANE
Bridging and IEEE 802.3
MAC
• Supports IEEE 802.1Q, 802.1ad,
and 802.1ah
MANAGEMENT PLANE
• Ciena G.8032 solution MIB
• Generic Information Model
• Supports
Ethernet OAMPLANE
(802.1ag,
MANAGEMENT
Y.1731) fault and performance
management
• Operator commands (e.g.,
manual/force switch, DNR, etc.)
STANDARDIZED
•
•
•
•
•
ITU-T Q9/15 G.8032 (ERP)
IEEE STANDARDIZED
802.3 MAC
IEEE 802.1Q, 802.1ad, 802.1ah
Ethernet OAM IEEE 8021.ag
Ethernet OAM ITU-T Y.1731
Ciena PORTFOLIO
NETWORKING
• Carrier Ethernet: 318x, 3190,
3911, 3916, 3920, 3930, 3931,
Ciena
3940,
3960,PORTFOLIO
5140, 5150
• Transport: OME 6500, OM 5K,
OME 6110/6130/6150
SCALABLE
• Physical/server layer agnostic
• SupportsSCALABLE
heterogeneous rings
• Leverages Ethernet BW, cost, and
time-to-market curve
(1GbE10GbE40GbE100GbE)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
40
• Dedicated rings
• Ring interconnect via shared node
NETWORKING
and dual
node
• Dual-homed support to provider
network technologies (e.g., PB,
PBB, PBB-TE, MPLS, etc.)
Example G.8032 Network Applications
Business Services – Private Build
Wireless Backhaul
Metro Packet Transport
N x T1/E1s
CO
Metro/Collector
G.8032
Metro/Collector
G.8032
Access
G.8032
T1/E1s
Data
Standalone
G.8032
PBX
PSTN
RNC
Access
G.8032
Ethernet
BSC
T1/E1s
Voic
e
PBX
Other Core Technology
Data
PBX
Branch Office #3
RNC
Branch Office #1
Business Services - Access
Business Services – DSL Aggregation
Metro Packet
Transport
Branch Office #1
HQ
Ethernet
Data
Ethernet
Metro/
Collector
G.8032
Metro/
Collector
G.8032
Ethernet
PSTN
Branch Office #2
PBX
Branch Office #3
Ethernet
T1/E1s
Metro
Core
Standalone
G.8032
Ethernet
T1/E1s
Ethernet
T1/E1s
Metro Packet Transport
PBX
T1/E1s
Data
Ethernet
Voic
e
Ethernet
HQ
Branch Office #2
BSC
Access
G.8032
LAG
HQ
Metro Packet
Transport
Other Core Technology
Ethernet
Data
Ethernet
PSTN
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
PBX
41
General G.8032 Concepts
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
42
What is a Channel Block?
Blocking Port
 A Channel block can be an ingress/egress rule
A
B
placed on a G.8032 node port
 The Channel block rule specifies that any traffic
C
F
with a VID received over this port within a given
VID space should be discarded
E
 NOTE: The Channel block function prevents
D
traffic from being forwarded by the G.8032 node,
however, it does not prevent traffic from being
received by Higher Layer Entities (e.g., G.8032
Engine) on that node
 Each G.8032 ringlet needs at least a single
channel block installed
Channel Block Function
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
43
What is a Ringlet (a.k.a. Virtual Ring)?
Ringlet 2
 A Ringlet is a group of traffic flows over the
Ringlet 1
ring that share a common provisioned
channel block
 NOTE: It is assumed that each traffic flow has
a VLAN associated with it
 The traffic flows within a Ringlet is composed
of
 A single ringlet control VID (R-APS VID)
 A set of traffic VIDs
 A group of traffic flows over the ring can be
identified by a set of VIDs
 Multiple Ringlets on a given Ring can not have
overlapping VID space
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
44
Please view in animation mode
G.8032 E-SPRing Failure/Restoration
1
2
A
B
C
F
C
F
E
A
B
E
D
a) Normal configuration
D
b) Ring span failure occurs
3
4
A
B
A
C
F
E
D
B
C
F
E
R-APS
messages
c) LOS detected
d) Port blocking applied
e) APS message issued
D
R-APS
messages
f) R-APS causes forwarding database flush
g) Ring block removed
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
45
V
A
Recovery Events
F
VI
B
C
R-APS(NR)
E
WTR
F
D
8. Ring span recovery detected
9. Tx R-APS(NR) and start Guard Timer
VII
A
F
E
C
D
10. When RPL owner Rx R-APS(NR), it
starts WTR timer.
VIII
B
R-APS(NR,RB)
B
R-APS(NR)
E
Guard Timer
Guard Timer
A
A
C
B
C
F
D
E
11. When WTR expires, RPL block installed, Tx R-APS(NR,RB)
12. Nodes flush FDB when Rx R-APS(NR,RB)
13. Nodes remove port block when Rx R-APS(NR,RB)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
46
D
14. Normal configuration
G.8032 Product Specifications
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
47
G.8032 E-Spring Interconnections
Phase 1
a
Standalone Ring
Phase 1
b
Standalone Rings,
LAG interconnect
E-SPRing
E-SPRing1
Phase 1
c
If each ring is
different Virtual
Switch
E-SPRing1
E-SPRing2
Phase 2
d
Dual-Homed
Rings (Major and
Minor rings)
E-SPRing1
E-SPRing2
e
E-SPRing2
Phase 2
Dual-Homed Ring
Dual Homing
E-SPRing
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
48
Phase 2 Availability
Dual-Homed Rings (Major
and Minor rings) are not
supported in SAOS 6.8
Chaining Rings and R-APS Protocol
 There can be only one R-APS session running for a given VID Group on a ring span.
 Major-Ringlets and Sub-Ringlets are used to chain rings.
 On a Sub-Ringlet, the provisioned block for the data path is at the RPL owner (or on
each side of a link fault), and the control path ALWAYS has its blocks where the SubRinglet is open.
G
Data Path example
A
F
C
Control Path example
I
MajorRinglet
E
E
SubRinglet
B
H
A
J
C
D
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
49
F
D
H
I
MajorRinglet
E
E
SubRinglet
B
G
J
G.8032 Terms and Concepts
 Ring Protection Link (RPL) – Link designated by mechanism that is blocked during
Idle state to prevent loop on Bridged ring
 RPL Owner – Node connected to RPL that blocks traffic on RPL during Idle state
and unblocks during Protected state
 Link Monitoring – Links of ring are monitored using standard ETH CC OAM
messages (CFM)
 Signal Fail (SF) – Signal Fail is declared when ETH trail signal fail condition is
detected
 No Request (NR) – No Request is declared when there are no outstanding
conditions (e.g., SF, etc.) on the node
 Ring APS (R-APS) Messages – Protocol messages defined in Y.1731 and G.8032
 Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Channel - Ring-wide VLAN used exclusively
for transmission of OAM messages including R-APS messages
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
50
Ring Idle State
ETH-CC
ETH-CC
RPL
connected in a ring
ETH-CC
C. Logical topology has all nodes
ETH-CC
the RPL (link between 6 & 1 in figure)
ETH-CC
ETH-CC
B. ERP guarantees lack of loop by blocking
ETH-CC
ETH-CC
connected without a loop.
ETH-CC
ETH-CC
ETH-CC
D. Each link is monitored by its two
adjacent nodes using ETH CC OAM
messages
E. Signal Failure as defined in Y.1731, is
trigger to ring protection
2
1
3
4
RPL
6
5
Physical topology
 Loss of Continuity
 Server layer failure (e.g. Phy Link
Down)
2
1
6
3
4
5
Logical topology
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
51
RPL
Owner
ETH-CC
A. Physical topology has all nodes
Protection Switching  Link Failure
A. Link/node failure is detected by
RPL
Owner
RPL
the nodes adjacent to the failure.
B. The nodes adjacent to the failure,
R-APS(SF)
R-APS(SF)
block the failed link and report
R-APS(SF)
this failure to the ring using RAPS (SF) message
R-APS(SF)
C. R-APS (SF) message triggers
 RPL Owner unblocks the RPL
 All nodes perform FDB
flushing
2
1
3
4
2
1
6
3
4
5
D. Ring is in protection state
E. All nodes remain connected in
the logical topology.
RPL
6
2
3
5
Physical topology
52
RPL
6
4
5
2
1
6
3
4
5
Logical topology
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
1
Protection Switching  Failure Recovery
A. When the failed link recovers, the
traffic is kept blocked on the nodes
adjacent to the recovered link
R-APS(NR, RB)
RPL
R-APS(NR)
R-APS(NR,R-APS(NR)
RB)
B. The nodes adjacent to the
recovered link transmit R-APS(NR)
message indicating they have no
local request present
RPL
Owner
R-APS(NR)
C. When the RPL Owner receives RAPS(NR) message it Starts WTR
timer
R-APS(NR)
D. Once WTR timer expires, RPL
Owner blocks RPL and transmits RAPS (NR, RB) message
E. Nodes receiving the message –
perform a FDB Flush and unblock
their previously blocked ports
2
1
3
4
RPL
6
2
1
5
3
4
5
RPL
6
Physical topology
F. Ring is now returned to Idle state
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
2
1
6
2
1
6
3
4
5
3
4
5
Logical topology
53
Multi Protocol Label Switching
(Layer 3 IETF RFC 4364 / aka 2547bis)
(Layer 2 IETF RFC 2026 / Dry Martini)
(Layer 2 IETF RFC 5654 / MPLS-TP)
(MPLS/VPLS or PBB/PBB-TE)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
54
Ethernet Access – Network Choices


Legacy Ethernet (No MEF compliance)
Carrier Class Ethernet (MEF compliance)
1.
Connection-less Ethernet
 802.1Q or 802.1ad or 802.1ah: VLANs
2.
Connection Oriented Ethernet
 802.1Qay (PBB-TE): VLANs
 MPLS-TP: Traffic Engineered PWs over LSP
3.
IP control plane based IP or MPLS VPNs
 IP VPN: Ethernet over L2TPv3 over IP
 MPLS VPN: Ethernet PW or VLAN over LSP
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
55
Packet transport
MPLS vs. Ethernet
– Data Plane (+OAM)
IP/MPLS
Service Edge
& Core
Metro access &
aggregation
MPLS metro network
 L2: forward Ethernet frames over Ethernet
EVCs over Ethernet port
 Fewer data planes and OAM levels – Ethernet
Service and Network/Link
 L2 (VPLS/VPWS, MPLS-TP): forward Ethernet
frames over Ethernet PW in MPLS LSP over
Ethernet port
 Simpler hw/sw for >40% lower cost2
 IP awareness for dataplane behavior
but no need for OAM at IP layer
 Multiple, varied data planes: IP, PW, LSP,
Ethernet
 Less complex OAM using 802.1ag and
Y.1731 for Ethernet service and
network/tunnel layers
 complex hw/sw interactions resulting in
higher cost1
 complex OAM
 Ethernet (PB, PBB) can enable Pt-Mpt and MptMpt, in addition to Pt-Pt
 MPLS-TP LSP OAM yet to be defined
Reid, Willis, Hawkins, Bilton (BT), IEEE
Communications Magazine, Sep 2008
2 (40-60% less) McKinsey & Co., Jan 2008;
(40% less) CIMI Corp, Jul 2008
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
“Application”
“Service”
Management
Ethernet (PBB-TE) metro network
 L3 (IP/MPLS): terminate Ethernet & forward IP
frames over IP PW in MPLS LSP over Ethernet
port
1
Subscriber
Management
IP, Ethernet
PW
LSP
Ethernet
Service
IP, Ethernet
VLAN (EVC)
Network
Ethernet
Complex
Simpler
56
Data Plane
MPLS vs. Ethernet
– Control Plane (+OAM)
MPLS metro network
Subscriber
Management
Packet transport
IP/MPLS
Service Edge
& Core
Metro access &
aggregation
“Application”
“Service”
Management
Ethernet (PBB-TE) metro network
 Complex link-by-link label swapping –
inherent source of unreliability1
 Complete, global Ethernet header
 BEB’s SA/DA+BVID for tunnel
 Complex L3 control plane for PW/LSP
signaling/routing (& PW stitching at core
edge)
 No label switched path setup needed
 E2E visibility, connectivity verification
 PW/LSP labels: LDP or BGP
 Simpler L2 control plane for discovery only
 LSP setup: RSVP-TE (signaling),
OSPF-TE (routing)
 No distributed routing/signaling needed
 Metro hub-&-spoke (vs. core mesh)
affords explicit failure mode config4
 MPLS-TP can avoid L3 control plane;
use complex NMS-based link-by-link
LSP config instead
 Complex protocol couplings resulting in
processing complexity and higher opex3
 <=9 such modes in large metro
 12% lower opex (future: up to 44%)4
 Simpler OAM: reliable & lower opex1,3
Ethernet provides just enough control & data plane functionality
to meet all service needs while containing cost and complexity
3
4
Seery, Dunphy, Ovum-RHK, Dec 2006
CIMI Corp., Netwatcher newsletter, Jul 2008
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
57
PBB/PBB-TE or VPLS/MPLS?
Ethernet is the
new paradigm
Caution: Unscientific poll results
Deterministic
Transport
with OAM&P
Light Reading webinar:
Building Converged Services Infrastructure
http://www.lightreading.com/webinar_archive.asp?doc_id=28415
PBB-TE perceived to
offer cost advantages
CO-Ethernet is
one option
Light Reading webinar:
PBB-TE’s Winning Ways
http://www.lightreading.com/webinar_archive.asp?doc_id=28511
Light Reading webinar:
Building Converged Services Infrastructure
http://www.lightreading.com/webinar_archive.asp?doc_id=28415
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
58
PB/PBB/PBB-TE and MPLS Tunnel Inter-working
Ingress and egress virtual interfaces provide greatest flexibility and interoperability
with existing and emerging technologies
 Dual-tag push/pop/swap enables multi-protocol interworking (e.g., PBB-TE, MPLS)
 Standard IEEE and popular Cisco-proprietary protocol handling enable robust L2VPNs
IEEE and Cisco proprietary
L2 control frame tunneling
Access / Aggregation
MEF
UNI
Metro
Q-in-Q or
MPLS H-VPLS
PBB/PBB-TE
or PBB/TE
Core
Dual tag push/pop/swap
EVC
Q-in-Q or PBB-TE Tunnel
EVC
Q-in-Q or PBB-TE Tunnel
MPLS LSP
Q-in-Q or PBB-TE Tunnel
EVC (PW)
EVC
EVC (PW)
Seamless interworking between PB (Q-in-Q), PBB/PBB-TE and
MPLS simplifies the handoff between domains
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
59
PBB-TE provides cost-effective robust packet transport, but why
not combine that with IP/Ethernet service intelligence on one node?
 i.e. IP Routing isn’t deterministic, but it has useful service
layer functions – multicast, differentiated services treatment
 Why not use IP/MPLS nodes?
Because Carrier Ethernet Switches
are >40% lower cost than IP/MPLS
Carrier Ethernet Switch/Routers
 IP for services
Multicast
(40-60% less) McKinsey & Co., Jan 2008
(40% less) CIMI Corp, July 2008
L3 Prioritization
 MPLS for services
VPLS: Mpt-Mpt
VPWS: Pt-Pt
 MPLS-TP for transport
Pt-Pt
Need a Carrier Ethernet Switch that combines “IP/service-aware”
switching while retaining carrier-grade packet transport qualities!
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
60
Ethernet data plane
Functions
PBB-TE / PBB
MPLS-TP
Ethernet
Aggregation
Native Ethernet (E-o-E) with less overhead.
Scalability with 24-bit I-Sid
Same as MPLS.
Need PW & tunnel headers (E-o-PW/LSP-o-E).
Can nest aggregation layers. May help with scaling
Forwarding
labels
Transparency
& Isolation
Unique end-to-end: DA+B-Vid
Same as MPLS.
Scales as # of endpoints (nodes) + service
classes, if any.
(tunnel) labels can be per hop or end-to-end
Separate MAC address space
(provider/Backbone vs. customer)
Transparent transport for Ethernet clients
May scale as # of links + service classes, if any. Need
coordination across links along a path
B-
MAC learning can be enabled for PBB-TE’s
vid space
Topology
No MAC learning defined but possible
ELINE (Point-Point): Yes
ELINE (Point-Point): : Yes
ETREE (Point- Multipoint): Yes
ETREE (Point- Multipoint): : Yes
ELAN (Multipoint): Yes
ELAN (Multipoint): Needs either Pt-Mpt or full mesh of PtPt LSP tunnels. May use VPLS model but need complex
MPLS control plane & also requires either Pt-Mpt or full
mesh of Pt-Pt PW’s.
Layering,
Partitioning,
Hierarchy
Simple: Backbone MAC address space w.r.t.
Customer MAC address space
Complex: additional PW/LSP layers. Nested tunnels can
introduce OAM/provisioning complexity
Peering
MEF’s ENNI and CoS IA are work in progress
for service level. IEEE already provides
interface and link models
Work in progress. Peering with MPLS network may mean
complex MPLS control plane. Also, need PW signaling
end-to-end.
“other”
services
Adjunct platforms where needed to achieve
ATM/FR IW. Possible to use PWs if necessary
PW capability along with protocol zoo for ATM/FR IW
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
61
Ethernet Management plane
OAM
PBB-TE / PBB
MPLS-TP
Reuse 802.1ag/Y1731.
Use 802.1ag/Y.1731 for Ethernet EVC
(a) CCM needs to use unicast DA (allowed by
PW/LSP is work in progress
802.1ag and already defined in Y.1731). Also, MIPs
need to intercept if DA is of MIP.
(b) LBM/LBR in most cases, will use same VID in
forward and reverse direction and so no issues.
(c) LTM/LTR is possible if MIPs can intercept/ignore
frames as needed. New TLV with MIP DA to be
defined
End-to-End
visibility
MEG levels
Protection
I-Sid for service (EVC)
PW/LSP is work in progress
DA+B-vid for tunnel
Less oam levels: Ethernet customer flow, Ethernet
More oam levels: Ethernet customer flow, Ethernet
EVC, operator and transport / link
EVC, LSP tunnel(s), operator and transport / link
End-to-end (1+1, m:n), IEEE Link Aggregation
Transport network like using APS for 1+1/m:n
G.8031/G.8032
PW and LSP level, span/segment/end-to-end
may use fast re-route if control plane present
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
62
MPLS Protocols (net-net)
 MPLS Provides:
 Virtually unlimited service scalability
 Requires RSVP-TE + FRR
everywhere
 Eliminates MAC table explosions
 50 ms resiliency
 OAM
 OAM relies on the control plane
 Traffic Engineering
 Limited performance monitoring
 Bandwidth guarantees
 Requires DS-TE for multiple
bandwidth pools
 MPLS Requires
 IGP+TE
 RSVP-TE
 FRR
PBB-TE eliminates
these protocols
 Increased OPEX
 BFD
 Increased CAPEX
 PWE3 control plane
 VPLS control plane
 H-VPLS/ MS-PW for scalability
 MPLS forwarding plane upgrades
 MPLS control plane server cards
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
63
PBB/PBB-TE Protocols (net-net)
 Carrier Ethernet Service Delivery Provides:
 Virtually unlimited service scalability
 Eliminates MAC table explosions
 Sub 50 ms recovery with PBB-TE
 50 ms resiliency
 Deterministic and scalable in-band
OAM
 Service OAM
 Traffic Engineering
 Standardized performance
monitoring
 Bandwidth guarantees
 PBB-TE provides traffic
engineering and bandwidth
guarantees
 Carrier Ethernet Delivers:
 Provider Backbone Bridging
 Standardized Ethernet forwarding
and OAM
 No changes to the hardware
 No huge learning curve
 Still just forwarding Ethernet
 Enterprise demands Simplicity
 Provider Backbone Bridging with TE
 IEEE 802.1ag, ITU Y.1731
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
64
Positioning Carrier Ethernet
to Enterprise Customer
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
65
Connection Oriented Ethernet
Packet Access Comparison
Key aspects
Connectionless
IP VPNs
MPLS
MPLS-TP
Ethernet
Interoperability - Ethernet
  
MEF Ethernet UNI/ENNI
(Work In Progress)

  
  
  
 
  
Need IWF (L2TP, GRE)
MEF Ethernet Services
Interoperability - other
PBB/PBB-TE

Need IWF, dry Martini
MPLS NNI
ATM/FR/TDM/MPLS UNI

Need IWF (L2TP, GRE)
 
  
L3

 






 


  
   


Transparency
Address & control protocols

Need IWF, dry Martini
L2
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Scalability
Network & Services
(Pt-Pt & MPt)
 
  
Reliability
FRR
1+1
50-100msec protection
Disjoint Working/Protect
paths
Manageability
Fault sectionalization
TBD  
  
  
  
TBD  
  
Service & Network OAM/PM
Deterministic Perf/QoS
Guaranteed rate,
latency/jitter/loss
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
Low CapEx and OpEx
66
Positioning Carrier Ethernet to Enterprise
VPLS/H-VPLS/MPLS
PBB/PBB-TE/E-SPRing
1.
PBB-TE/PBB/E-SPRing Forwarding Plane Only
1.
Multiple VPN & Tunneling Control Plane Protocols
2.
Optimized for Large Carrier Customers with MPLS backbone 2.
Optimized for Enterprise Customers looking to minimize OPEX and
and IP/MPLS knowledgeable and trained Engineering Staff
CAPEX spend (low cost plug & play Network)
3.
CCIE type skills Not Required (+ Ethernet and SONET knowledgeable
3.
Requires Extensive Engineering
4.
2 to 3 9s SLAs Ethernet Service Delivery
5.
Second/s to Sub-second Restoration (R-STP/FRR)
6.
Q-in-Q Stacked VLANs 4096 maximum
7.
High priced MPLS HW and SW based Routers
8.
Requires strong L3/IP/MPLS Knowledge/Config
9.
Locked into a Vendor’s MPLS Products/Solution
10.
Desire to fill unused capacity
11.
Higher % sales of L3VPN
12.
Solving core not aggregation
13.
Desire protocols to provision
14.
Techs trained for L3/IP config
12.
16 Million VPNs (IEEE 802.1ah Mac-in-Mac), PBB only
15.
Difficult to deploy @ customer
13.
Low CAPEX and OPEX Economics
Engineers Get it !)
4.
Need to Lease Fiber (Typically unless you already own)
5.
High Reliability, Resiliency, Scalability, and Simplicity
6.
4 to 5 9s SLAs Ethernet Service Delivery
7.
Sub 50ms Protection Switching / Restoration (IEEE 802.1ag)
8.
Ethernet is the single End to End Protocol Language Spoken
9.
Excellent OAM (Y.1731 and 802.1ag) – Jitter/Latency
10.
Stop MAC/VLAN explosions and Broadcast Storms (Separate MAC Tables
– Customer LAN & Backbone)
11.
Minimizes MAC Learning and Distribution/Forwarding (True MAC learning
Demarcation between LAN and MAN/WAN)
1.
Field techs not trained
14.
SONET Like Skill sets to Configure and Manage Network
2.
Higher $$$ CPE
15.
Ethernet Open Standards – 3rd Party Vendor Interop benefits
3.
More complex configuration
16.
Transport over GE Microwave
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
67
Carrier Ethernet Service Delivery
Summary
 Increased Simplicity with universally acknowledgeable Ethernet MAC
•
Ethernet MAC is the single End to End Protocol Language (No Multi-Protocol Translation, Ethernet only)
 Improved Reliability with IEEE 802.1ag
•
Sub 50ms Protection Switching / Restoration (IEEE 802.1ag Network Continuity Message that is tunable)
 QoS (Quality of Service) without Control Plane Complexity with IEEE 802.1Qay PBB-TE
•
Traffic engineered tunnels with B-MAC’s B-VID pcp (p-bit) Classification Prioritization
 Superior OAM with IEEE 802.1ag and ITU Y.1731
•
Monitor Performance End to End (Varying Delay-Jitter/Delay-Latency/Loss) in and out of Network at Layer 2
•
Loop Back Message / Link Trace Message (SONET like) Loopback troubleshoot testing on Ethernet
 Enhanced Network Control applying IEEE 802.1ah MACinMAC Backbone
•
Stop MAC/VLAN explosions and Broadcast Storms
•
Minimize MAC Learning and MAC Distribution (Separate MAC Demarc between LAN and MAN/WAN)
 Massive Scalability with IEEE 802.1ah MACinMAC Backbone Frames
•
24 bit ISID delivers 16 Million VPNs (IEEE 802.1ah Mac-in-Mac)
•
Only learns and forwards based on Backbone MAC Addresses (LAN MAC learning stays in the LAN)
 Lower OPEX and CAPEX plus Open Standards inter-operability benefits
•
Lower OPEX, SONET and/or Ethernet Engineering Skill sets/experience to Configure and Manage Network
•
Lower CAPEX, Open to inter-operate with “any” 3rd Party Ethernet Products, Ethernet Price Points
 Key Message to Customer
•
Ethernet Switch Where You Can
•
IP/MPLS Route Where You Must
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
68
Carrier Ethernet Service Delivery Value Proposition
1. Scalable
 Eliminate control plane restrictions
 Deployable on Optical and Broadband NEs
2. Operationally Sound, Easier to Troubleshoot





Better OAM tools: 802.1ag vs. VCCV/LSP-PING
Fewer Moving Parts: No IGP, MPLS signaling etc.
Consistent Operations Model with PMO
Easier transition of workforce
Consistent use of Metro OSS systems
3. Number # 1 with 20% Market Share in the Layer 2 CEAD Ethernet over Fiber
Market, “Light Reading July 14, 2010 www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=194390
4. SLA / Performance Measurement Built In Simplified Network Layering
 Ethernet is the faceplate and network layer
5. Lower CAPEX
 Ethernet based infrastructure that rides Ethernet cost curves
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
69
Thank you !
(Q & A)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
70
G.8032 Terms and Concepts
 Ring Protection Link (RPL) – Link designated by mechanism that is blocked
during Idle state to prevent loop on Bridged ring
 RPL Owner – Node connected to RPL that blocks traffic on RPL during Idle
state and unblocks during Protected state
 Link Monitoring – Links of ring are monitored using standard ETH CC OAM
messages (CFM)
 Signal Fail (SF) – Signal Fail is declared when ETH trail signal fail condition is
detected
 No Request (NR) – No Request is declared when there are no outstanding
conditions (e.g., SF, etc.) on the node
 Ring APS (R-APS) Messages – Protocol messages defined in Y.1731 and G.8032
 Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Channel - Ring-wide VLAN used exclusively
for transmission of OAM messages including R-APS messages
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
71
G.8032 Timers
 G.8032 specifies the use of different timers to avoid
race conditions and unnecessary switching
operations
WTR (Wait to Restore) Timer – Used by the RPL Owner
to verify that the ring has stabilized before blocking the RPL
after SF Recovery
Hold-off Timers – Used by underlying ETH layer to filter
out intermittent link faults
Faults will only be reported to the ring protection
mechanism if this timer expires
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
72
Controlling the Protection Mechanism
 Protection switching triggered by
 Detection/clearing of Signal Failure (SF) by ETH CC OAM
 Remote requests over R-APS channel (Y.1731)
 Expiration of G.8032 timers
 R-APS requests control the communication and states of the ring nodes
 Two basic R-APS messages specified - R-APS(SF) and R-APS(NR)
 RPL Owner may modify the R-APS(NR) indicating the RPL is blocked:
R-APS(NR,RB)
 Ring nodes may be in one of two states
 Idle – normal operation, no link/node faults detected in ring
 Protecting – Protection switching in effect after identifying a signal
fault
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
73
Signaling Channel Information
 ERP uses R-APS messages to manage and coordinate the protection
switching
 R-APS defined in Y.1731 - OAM common fields are defined in Y.1731.
 Version – ‘00000’ – for this version of Recommendation
 OpCode – defined to be 40 in Y.1731
 Flags – ‘00000000’ – should be ignored by ERP
1
8
1
7
MEL
6
5
2
4
3
2
1
8
7
Version (0)
6
5
3
4
3
2
1
8
OpCode (R-APS = 40)
7
6
5
4
Flags (0)
5
R-APS Specific Information (32 octets)
..
…
37
4
3
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
TLV Offset (32)
[optional TLV starts here; otherwise End TLV]
last
End TLV (0)
Defined by Y.1731
Defined by G.8032
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
74
Non-specified content
1
R-APS Specific Information
 Specific information (32octets) defined by G.8032
 Request/Status(4bits) – ‘1011’ = SF | ’0000’ = NR | Other = Future
 Status – RB (1bit) – Set when RPL is blocked (used by RPL Owner in NR)
 Status – DNF (1bit) – Set when FDB Flush is not necessary (Future)
 NodeID (6octets) – MAC address of message source node (Informational)
 Reserved1(4bits), Status Reserved(6bits), Reserved2(24octets) - Future
development
1
8
7
6
5
Request /State
2
4
3
2
1
8
7
Reserved 1
6
5
3
4
3
2
1
8
7
Status
R
B
D
N
F
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
8
7
Node ID (6 octets)
Status Reserved
(Node ID)
Reserved 2 (24 octets)
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
75
6
5
4
3
2
1
Items Under Study
 G.8032 is currently an initial recommendation that will continue
to be enhanced. The following topics are under study for future
versions of the recommendation:
a)
RPL blocked at both ends – configuration of the ring where both nodes
Interconnected rings scenarios: shared node, shared links
b)
connected to the RPL control the protection mechanism
c)
Support for Manual Switch – administrative decision to close down a link and force a
“recovery” situation are necessary for network maintenance
d)
Support for Signal Degrade scenarios – SD situations need special consideration for
any protection mechanism
e)
Non-revertive mode– Allows the network to remain in “recovery” configuration either
until a new signal failure or administrative switching
f)
RPL Displacement – Displacement of the role of the RPL to another ring link flexibly
in the normal (idle) condition
g)
In-depth analysis of different optimizations (e.g., FDB flushing)
h)
Etc.
© Ciena Confidential and Proprietary
76