1 / 19

SERENATE WP3 Equipment Study

SERENATE WP3 Equipment Study. Valentino Cavalli, TERENA slides from Roberto Sabatino, DANTE. WP3 (Equipment) Mission. A study of into the availability and characteristics of equipment for next-generation networks

arva
Télécharger la présentation

SERENATE WP3 Equipment Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SERENATE WP3Equipment Study Valentino Cavalli, TERENAslides from Roberto Sabatino, DANTE

  2. WP3 (Equipment) Mission • A study of into the availability and characteristics of equipment for next-generation networks • More specifically, to look at developments of routing, switching and transmission equipment over the next 2-5 years • Efforts concentrated on addressing: • higher capacities (i.e. 40+Gbps) • optical technology for switching and transmission • developments in network management and the control plane • impact on network architectures

  3. Work Plan • Bi-lateral meetings with 11 equipment vendors and 2 university research labs during November and December 2002 • Equipment vendors: • Alcatel, Calient, Ciena, Cisco, Corvis, Juniper, Lucent, Nortel, Photonex, Tellium, Wavium* • e.g. cross-section of players from the well established to the newly started-up • University research labs: • University of Essex (Prof Mike O’Mahoney) • University of Ghent (Prof Piet Demeester) • Attempted to contact a number of other vendors who either did not respond or declined to take part

  4. Questionnaire • A confidential questionnaire was developed to: • set the context of the bi-lateral meetings for the vendors (questionnaire was sent to them in advance) • provide some guidance for discussion during the meetings • Questionnaire addressed the following broad topics: • 40+Gbps capabilities (drivers & technical difficulties) • Device scalability • New control plane paradigms • switching and transmission developments

  5. The Team • DANTE (leader) • TERENA • NREN Consultants from: • CESNET • PSNC • HEANet

  6. Routing developments • Scalable to terabits, in multi-chassis platforms • require experts for installation? • 40Gbps backplane support and slot capability exists today • 40Gbps interface capability “planned”, but not yet available • SONET/SDH framing • coloured interfaces ? • Maybe but proprietary solutions

  7. Router functionality • Differentiated Classes of Service • multicast • ipv6 • MPLS-based VPNs • G-MPLS • following standards, expected improved interoperability • interdomain functionality still questionable

  8. Switching developments • Optical Cross Connects (OXC) • Essentially digital cross connects with optical interfaces • Also called O-E-O switches • Photonic Cross Connects (PXC) • Devices that work entirely in the optical domain • Also called O-O-O switches

  9. OXCs • Scale to hundreds of Gbps, using advanced ASICs • bandwidth grooming performed with proprietary techniques (not interoperable!) • GMPLS developments: implementations still have proprietary features, although some interoperability demonstrated • Colour DWDM interfaces: some proprietary examples • Will only work with same vendor’s transmission equipment

  10. PXCs • All the rage a few years ago • Now all but a few vendors have either moth-balled their products or gone out of business • Can save on O-E-O conversions hence: • footprint • power consumption • cost • Bit rate, protocol & wavelength independence • Scale up to tens of Tbps switching capacity • Earliest envisaged use (of smaller products) as “remotely manageable optical patch panel”

  11. PXC difficulties • re-routing of wavelengths leads to optical channels in different route length: amplification and dispersion control difficult • QoS hard to control • Need external TDM devices for BW grooming • interoperability

  12. Transmission equipment • Capabilities of current state-of-the-art DWDM transmission equipment far exceeds BW needs for the next few years • Little vendor interoperability amongst transmission components nor is this likely to happen • nature of systems is proprietary and analogue • only “standards” are ITU grid wavelength specs • may be possible to mix & match for low capability systems (CWDM, lower bit rates e.g. 2.5Gbps) • Every DWDM link is bespoke: • No “off the shelf” deployments

  13. Reach • Very complex equation. Depends on: • fibre type (G.652, G655….) • capacity of each wavelength • number of wavelengths • amplification technology used • transmission technology used • FEC

  14. Reach with Nothing In Line (NIL) • Using pre and post amplification • up to 280km at 2.5Gbps (Cesnet experience) using RAMAN • using cheaper equipment (1GE, EDFA amplifier) result was 189km • 350km demonstrated

  15. LH and ULH systems • LH (to 1,500km) and ULH (to 4,000 km) require amplification at each span (40-100km) • larger spans if less wavelengths (200km) at 10Gbps • RAMAN • FEC • 40Gbps can reach 1,000+km with 80km spans • RAMAN • dispersion compensation at receiver • PMD mitigators (depending on fibre)

  16. Some conclusions • 40Gbps: first in LH? Some say metro-area….. • depends where economics work in its favour • common view is that main driver will be router interface cards • still more than 4x cost of 10Gbps… • 80Gbps, 160Gbps technically possible, but in labs. (600Gbps has been demonstrated)

  17. Network architectures • New set of requirements for research networks: • traditional users at large • relatively limited number of users with requirements for limited coverage but very high capacity • accessibility of “cheap” wavelengths in some parts of Europe • developments of transmission technology • in some cases NRENS can “do better without carriers”

  18. Network Options • Traditional IP (layer-3) only • mixed layer-2 + layer-3, with OXCs (or PXCs) • Owned fibre network • a mix of all

  19. Network Management and control • Different network architecture means NRENS will manage new network elements • Use traditional telco-style management systems as well as SNMP-based ones • Integration of two needs work! • G-MPLS has potential for integrated control, but interoperability and implementations conformant to standards not there yet

More Related