1 / 35

Generalized MPLS Premiere Journée Française sur l’IETF

Generalized MPLS Premiere Journée Française sur l’IETF. Papadimitriou Dimitri dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be. Table of Content. GMPLS Key Drivers Evolution of a Standard (from MPLS to GMPLS) GMPLS Paradigm and Concepts Technology Signalling TE-Routing

carolynmoore
Télécharger la présentation

Generalized MPLS Premiere Journée Française sur l’IETF

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. Generalized MPLSPremiere Journée Française sur l’IETF Papadimitriou Dimitri dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

  2. Table of Content • GMPLS Key Drivers • Evolution of a Standard (from MPLS to GMPLS) • GMPLS • Paradigm and Concepts • Technology • Signalling • TE-Routing • Key Differences between GMPLS and MPLS • What about MPLambdaS ? • Applications and Future GMPLS evolutions • Conclusion

  3. GMPLS Key Drivers • Dynamic and Distributed LSP Explicit TE-Route Computation (today: simulation, manual planning and human action) • Dynamic and Distributed intra and inter-domain LSP Setup/ Deletion/ Modification (today: manual and step-by-step provisioning - doesn’t provide “bandwidth on demand” capability) • Network resource optimization when using a peer interconnection model with multi-layer traffic-engineering and protection/restoration (today: provisioned model implies at least waste of 40% - 60% network resources) • Per-LSP (per-LSP Group) Fast Restoration in 200ms to < 1s (today: centralized computation based on restricted scenarios implying restoration time > 5s) and Signalled Protection in < 50ms (as specified in ITU-T G.841)

  4. GMPLS Key Drivers (cont’d) • Simplified Network control and management (today: each transport layer has its own control and management plane implying waste of 60% - 80% carrier resources) • Removes strong limitations of today proprietary protocols: • b/w network nodes (EMS/control plane) and Centralized NM System • b/w Centralized NM Systems (implying additional proprietary developments) • Conclusion: GMPLS can provide “carrier class” response to new generation transmission networks challenges • Scope: Demystify GMPLS paradigm and related concepts

  5. 1970 1995 today analog (copper) digital (PDH,SDH) optical (analog, but now on fiber) point-to-point wavelength switched burst/packet switched opaque optical non transparent optical Transport plane operator-assisted/centrally managed provisioning automated path setup under distributed control using GMPLS Control/management plane Control and Transmission Plane Evolutions

  6. Evolution of a Standard (Scope) IP/MPLS Developments (since 1996) IETF Standards

  7. Evolution of a Standard • MPLS: MultiProtocol Label Switching • IP packet based • Packet Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) • MPlS: MultiProtocol Lambda Switching • MPLS control applied on optical channels (wavelengths/lambda’s) and IGP TE extensions • GMPLS: Generalized MPLS • MPLS control applied on circuits (SDH/Sonet) and optical channel layer and IGP TE extensions • New Protocol introduction: LMP • GMPLS: “separation” b/w Technology dependent and independent • LMP extended to “passive devices” via LMP-WDM • GMPLS covers G.707 SDH, G.709 OTN… IETF 46-48 IETF48-49 IETF50-51

  8. Generalized MPLS Paradigm • GMPLS is based on several premises: • maintaining 1:1 relationship control plane technology and instance with transport plane layer(s) is counter-productive • “integrated IP/MPLS-Optical control plane” concept • maintaining N transport plane layer(s) is counter-productive • only IP/MPLS packet technologies will remain in long-run • ATM layer pushed toward ACCESS networks • SDH/Sonet layer used as framing for p2p links (just as Layer-2 IP-over-PPP) • re-use MPLS-TE as “non-packet” LSP control plane • “lightpath” defines switched path (label space values: wavelengths) • generalize Address Prefix to “non-packet” terminating interfaces • generalize TE concept to “non-packet” resources

  9. Let’s Be Cautious ! • GMPLS  “optical” and “optical”  GMPLS • GMPLS  “protocol” but “protocol suite” … a “philosophy” ? • GMPLS (as protocol suite) • tends to “ubiquity” by including MPLS (subset of GMPLS) • applies to ANY control plane interconnection (peer/overlay) and service model (domain/unified) • covers “standard” mainly ITU-T/T1X1 transmission layers • issue: who drives ? Transmission or Control plane ? • GMPLS (as distributed control plane concept) • collaboration with NMS (during transition phase) in particular for first all-optical deployments • next steps NMS limited to SNMP/Policy/VPN and LDAP Services • and after … ???

  10. Let’s Be Cautious ! (cont’d) • Drawbacks and Challenges • “Full applicability” with multi-service devices in “integrated networks” • Pushing “routing protocols” to some limits … requiring LS IGP enhancements, LMP, etc. • Future GMPLS developments could suffer from a lack of “scientific” coverage • IETF Sub-IP Area WG Positioning • IPO WG plays “driving role” … from (all-)optical viewpoint • CCAMP WG plays “driving role” … from control and (monitoring) measurement protocols • PPVPN WG can be considered here as “service enabler” • Many collaborations with other WG (MPLS, OSPF, ISIS, etc.) and other bodies: ITU-T/T1X1, IEEE, etc.

  11. Network Management System Management Plane Management Channels Network Controller Control Channels Control Plane Network Device Transport Channels Transport Plane Distributed Distributed Control Plane Concept

  12. GMPLS Technology • GMPLS supports five types of interfaces: • PSC - Packet Switching Capable: IP/MPLS • L2SC - Layer-2 Switching Capable: ATM, FR, Ethernet • TDM - Time-Division Multiplexing: Sonet, SDH, G.709 ODU • LSC - Wavelength Switching: Lambda, G.709 OCh • FSC - Fiber Switching • GMPLS extends MPLS/MPLS-TE control plane • LSP establishment spanning PSC or L2SC interfaces is defined in MPLS/MPLS-TE control planes • GMPLS extends these control planes to support this five classes of interfaces (i.e. layers) • As MPLS-TE, GMPLS provides • separation b/w transmission, control and management plane • network management using SNMP (dedicated MIB)

  13. GMPLS Technology • GMPLS control plane supports: • domain and unified service model • overlay, augmented & peer control plane interconnection model (known as overlay and peer models) • GMPLS control plane architecture includes several extended MPLS-TE building blocks: • Signalling Protocols: RSVP-TE and CR-LDP • Intra-domain Routing Protocols: OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE • Inter-domain Routing Protocol: BGP • Link Management Protocol (LMP): new • TE-Routing enhanced scalability and flexibility • Link Bundling (TE-Links) • Generalized Unnumbered interfaces • Extended Explicit Routing

  14. GMPLS Signalling • Downstream on demand Label Allocation • Ingress LSR initiated Ordered Control • Liberal Label retention mode (conservative not excluded) • No distinction b/w Intra and Inter-domain (except policy) • No restriction on LSP establishment strategy • Control/Signalling driven • Topology driven • Data/Flow driven • Constraint-based Routing: • strict and loose explicit routing (hop-by-hop not excluded) • strict routing limited to intra-area routing ! • inter-area routing under specification

  15. GMPLS Signalling • Label Space per transport technology (in addition to MPLS) • “Wavelengths” for Lambda LSP • SDH/Sonet for TDM LSP • G.709 OTN for TDM ODUk and OCh LSP • Signalling Extensions • Label Request including: • LSP Encoding Type • Switching Type • Payload Type • Upstream Label: bi-directional LSP • Label Set: tackle wavelength continuity in AO Networks • Suggested Label: to improve processing • Traffic Parameters including: • TDM: SDH (ITU-T G.707) and Sonet (ANSI T1.105) • OTN: G.709 OTN (ITU-T G.709) and Pre-OTN

  16. Downstream-on-demand Ordered Control Ingress LSR Downstream Label: 8 Suggested Label: 8 Upstream Label: 4 Downstream Label: 5 Suggested Label: 3 Upstream Label: 6 Downstream Label: 9 Suggested Label: 9 Upstream Label: 2 Egress LSR

  17. Traffic Parameters and Label Space • Traffic Parameters • Technology “independent” traffic parameters: • Packet • ATM/Frame Relay • MPLambdaS • Technology “dependent” traffic parameters: • TDM: SDH (ITU-T G.707) and Sonet (ANSI T1.105) • Optical: G.709 OTN (ITU-T G.709) and Pre-OTN • Extended Label Space (Generalized Label) • Wavelength (Waveband) Label Space • SDH/SONET Label Space • G.709 OTN Label Space

  18. Signal Type (8-bits) RCC (8-bits) NCC (16-bits) NVC (16-bits) Multiplier (16-bits) Transparency (32-bits) SDH/Sonet Traffic Parameters Signal Type • SDH: LOVC/TUG and HOVC/AUG • SONET: VT/VTG and STS SPE/STS-Group Request Contiguous Concatenation (RCC) • Standard Contiguous Concatenation • Arbitrary Contiguous Concatenation • Flexible Contiguous Concatenation Number of components (timeslots) • NCC: Contiguous concatenation • NVC: Virtual concatenation Multiplier (multiple connections) Transparency • RS/Section OH • MS/Line OH • per OH Byte (on-demand)

  19. S (1,..,N) U (1,..,4) K (1,..4) L (1,..,8) M (1,..,10) SDH/Sonet Label Space • Numbering scheme: • For SDH, extension of G.707 numbering scheme (K, L, M) • For SONET, field U = 0 = K (not significant). Only S, L and M fields are significant • Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at parent node in multiplex structure (increasing order from top of multiplex structure) • S - indicates a specific AUG-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N multiplex • U - only significant for SDH, indicates a specific VC inside a given AUG-1 • K - only significant for SDH VC-4 (ignored for HO VC-3), indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. • L - indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (not significant for unstructured VC-4 or STS-1 SPE) • M - indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group (not significant for unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (M=0))

  20. Signal Type • DTH: ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 • OTH: OCh at 2.5, 10 and 40 Gbps Request Multiplexing Type (RMT) • Direct Multiplexing (flexible) • Default: no multiplexing (mapping) Number of components • NMC: Direct Multiplexing • NVC: Virtual Components Multiplier (multiple connections) G.709 OTN Traffic Parameters Signal Type (8-bits) RMT (8-bits) NMC (16-bits) NVC (16-bits) Multiplier (16-bits) Reserved (32-bits)

  21. Reserved k3 k2 k1 G.709 OTN Label Space - Definitions • Label Structure defined as Tree: • Root: OTUk signal and Leaves: ODUj signals (k  j) • 3 fields k1, k2 and k3 self-consistently characterising ODUk label space • k1 (1-bit): unstructured client signal mapped into ODU1 (k1 = 1) via OPU1 • k2 (3-bit): unstructured client signal mapped into ODU2 (k2 = 1) via OPU2 or the position of ODU1 tributary slot in ODTUG2 (k2 = 2,..,5) mapped into ODU2 (via OPU2) • k3 (6-bit): unstructured client signal mapped into ODU3 (k3 = 1) via OPU3 or the position of ODU1 tributary slot in ODTUG3 (k3 = 2,..,17) mapped into ODU3 (via OPU3) or the position of ODU2 tributary slot in ODTUG3 (k3 = 18,..,33) mapped into ODU3 (via OPU3)

  22. G.709 OTN Label Space - Examples • If label k[i]=1 (i = 1, 2 or 3) and labels k[j]=0 (j = 1, 2 and 3with j=/=i), then ODUk signal ODU[i] not structured and mapped into the corresponding OTU[i] (mapping of an ODUk into an OTUk) • Numbering starts at 1 and Label Field = 0 invalid • Examples: • k3=0, k2=0, k1=1 indicates an ODU1 mapped into an OTU1 • k3=0, k2=1, k1=0 indicates an ODU2 mapped into an OTU2 • k3=1, k2=0, k1=0 indicates an ODU3 mapped into an OTU3 • k3=0, k2=3, k1=0 indicates the second ODU1 into an ODTUG2 mapped into an ODU2 (via OPU2) mapped into an OTU2 • k3=5, k2=0, k1=0 indicates the fourth ODU1 into an ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3) mapped into an OTU3

  23. GMPLS TE-Routing Extensions • GMPLS based on IP routing and addressing models • IPv4/v6 addresses used to identify PSC and non-PSC interfaces • Re-using of existing routing protocols enables: • benefits from existing intra and inter domain traffic-engineering extensions • benefits from existing inter-domain policy • To cover SDH/Sonet, G.709 OTN transmission technology GMPLS-TE defines technology dependent TE extensions • Increasing scalability using Link bundling and unnumbered interfaces • LSP Hierarchy (and region) through Forwarding Adjacency concept (FA-LSP)

  24. TE-Routing Extensions for SDH/Sonet • TE-Routing information transported • OSPF: Link State Advertisements (LSAs) grouped in OSPF Packet Data Units (PDUs) • IS-IS: Link State PDUs (LSPs) • TLVs describing capabilities of SDH/SONET links • Link Capability and Allocation • LS-MC TLV: Link SDH/SONET Multiplex Capability TLV • LS-CC TLV: Link SDH/SONET Concatenation Capability TLV • LS-PC TLV: Link SDH/SONET Protection Capability TLV • LS-UA TLV: Link SDH/SONET Unallocated Component TLV • Node Capability • RS-I TLV: Router SDH Interconnection TLV • RS-SI TLV: Router SDH-SONET Interworking TLV • Clearly demonstrates rationale for link bundling and unnumbered interfaces

  25. TE-Routing Extensions for G.709 OTN • TE-Routing information transported • OSPF: Link State Advertisements (LSAs) grouped in OSPF Packet Data Units (PDUs) • IS-IS: Link State PDUs (LSPs) • TLVs describing capabilities of G.709 OTN links • At ODU Layer • LD-MP TLV: Link ODUk Mapping Capability TLV • LD-MC TLV: Link ODUk Multiplexing Capability TLV • LD-CC TLV: Link ODUk Concatenation Capability TLV • LD-UA TLV: Link ODUk Unallocated Component TLV • At OCh Layer • LO-MC TLV: Link OCh Multiplexing Capability TLV • LO-UA TLV: Link OCh Unallocated Component TLV • Clearly demonstrates rationale for link bundling and unnumbered interfaces

  26. Link Management Protocol - LMP • LMP Protocol provides: • Control Channel dynamic configuration • Control Channel maintenance (Hello Protocol) • Link Verification (Discovery, Mis-wiring) • Link Property Correlation (Link bundling) • Fault Management • detection (using LoS/LoL/etc.) • localization/correlation (alarm suppression) • notification • LMP extended at OIF to cover • UNI Neighbor and Service Discovery • NNI Adjacency, Neighbor and Service Discovery • Further elaboration for SDH/Sonet and G.709 specifics

  27. Key Differences with MPLS-TE • Label space(s) including timeslot, wavelength, or physical space while label stacking is NOT supported • Same type of Ingress and Egress LSR interface per LSP • Control Sonet/SDH, G.709 OTN, Lambda LSP while payload can include G.707 SDH/Sonet, G.709 OTN, Lambda, Ethernet, etc. • Bandwidth allocation in discrete units (TDM, LSC and FSC interfaces) • Downstream on demand ordered control (label distribution) • Bi-directional LSP setup (using Upstream Label) • Reduced bi-directional LSP setup latency (using Suggested Label)

  28. Key Differences with MPLS-TE (cont’d) • Label Set to restrict the label choice by downstream node (photonic networks w/o wavelength conversion) • Forwarding Adjacencies in addition to Routing Adjacencies • Fast failure notification/location (for LSP restoration) • Provides enhanced recovery mechanisms (control-plane) in case of signalling channel and/or node failure and “graceful restart”

  29. What about MPLambdaS ? • Each OXC includes the equivalent of MPLS-capable Label-Switching Router (LSR) • MPLS control plane is implemented in each OXC • Lambda LSP (or Lightpaths) are considered similar to MPLS Label-Switched Paths (LSPs) • Selection of wavelengths (or lambdas) and OXC ports are considered similar to selection of labels • MPLS signaling protocols (such as RSVP-TE, CR-LDP) adapted for Lambda LSP setup/delete/etc. • IGPs (such as OSPF, ISIS) with “optical” traffic-engineering extensions used for topology/resource discovery using IP address space (no “reachability extensions”)

  30. GMPLS Application Scope • Optical Internetworking Forum - OIF • UNI 1.0 Signalling Protocol • Expected to become major NNI 1.0 Protocol Suite • ITU-T SG15 • Q12/Q15: ASTN (G.807)/ASON Model • Q9/Q12/Q15: G.DCM using Traffic Parameters • Q12/Q15: G.RTG using TE-Routing Extensions • Q9/Q11/Q15: G.VBI (LMP-WDM/OLI) • ATM Forum • GMPLS as “control plane” for ATM networks • Interoperability Tests • OIF UNI Interoperability Test (SuperComm’01 - June’01) • GMU MPLS/GMPLS Interop Test (October’01) • New: OIF NNI Interoperability Test (SuperComm’02 - June’02)

  31. Future Developments • Extend connection services to p2mp and mp2mp • GMPLS-based Meshed Protection/Restoration • Tackling All-Optical challenges • optical routing impairments • transparency • Integrate optical (Layer-1/Layer-0) VPN architecture • Keeping track of G.709 OTN evolutions • Define a global management model including • performance monitoring/management • security and policy • ‘optical’ VPN • scheduling services • billing/accounting

  32. References - GMPLS • E.Mannie, D.Papadimitriou et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Architecture’, Informationa Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt, November 2001 • P. Ashwood-Smith, Lou Berger et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Signaling – Signaling Functional Requirements,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signalling-06.txt, October 2001 • P. Ashwood-Smith, Lou Berger et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Signaling – RSVP-TE Extensions,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt, October 2001 • P. Ashwood-Smith, Lou Berger et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Signaling – CR-LDP Extensions,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt, July 2001 • E.Mannie, D.Papadimitriou et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control’, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt, October 2001 • M.Fontana, D.Papadimitriou et al., ‘Generalized MPLS Extensions for G.079 Optical Transport Networks Control’, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-02.txt, November 2001

  33. References - (G)MPLS-TE • K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter, “Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-03.txt, November 2001 • K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter, “Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-02.txt, March 2001 • K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-03.txt, November 2001 • K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter and L. Berger, “Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt, November 2001 • K. Kompella et al., “Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt, November 2001 • K. Kompella et al., “IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-05.txt, November 2001 • K. Kompella et al. “OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS”, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt, November 01

  34. References - MPLS-TE Optical • D. Awduche et al., ‘Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching: Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control With Optical Cross-Connects,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical-03.txt, April 2001 • B. Rajagopalan et al., ‘IP over Optical Networks: A Framework,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ipo-framework-01.txt, July 2001 • A.Chiu, J.Strand et al., ‘Impairments And Other Constraints On Optical Layer Routing,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-ietf-ipo-impairments-00.txt, May 2001 • D. Papadimitriou et al., ‘Non-linear routing impairments in wavelength switched optical networks,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-papadimitriou-ipo-non-linear-routing-impairments-01.txt, November 2001 • D. Papadimitriou et al., ‘Linear Crosstalk for Impairment-based Optical Routing,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-papadim-ipo-impairments-crosstalk-00.txt, November 2001 • D. Papadimitriou et al., ‘Enhanced LSP Services’, Internet Draft, Work in progress, draft-papadimitriou-enhanced-lsps-04.txt, July 2001

  35. BACKUP SLIDES

More Related