1 / 42

Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications

Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications. Presented by: Motty Anavi VP Business Development. Entelec Conference Spring 2013. Agenda. Utility Network Migration Process Factors and Influencers on Migration Migration Options Process Technology

aldona
Télécharger la présentation

Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications

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. Leaving Legacy, Moving to Next Generation Communications Presented by: Motty Anavi VP Business Development Entelec Conference Spring 2013

  2. Agenda • Utility Network Migration Process • Factors and Influencers on Migration • Migration Options • Process • Technology • Looking at the New Technology • Reliability • Services • Still Outstanding • Summary

  3. The Legacy Utility Network Sub-Station • Only TDM based • Strict and well known and tested protocols • Cyber Security in not a major concern • Delay is not an issue • Ubiquitously supported by carriers and service providers Control Center RTU RTU T1/E1 RS-232 RS-232 Multiplexer Multiplexer Tele-Protection Control Console C37.94 PBX Server ADM ADM ADM T1/E1 NMS Sub-Station Power Line PBX Phone 4W

  4. Migrating to Packet Networks • Obsolescence of equipment • Lack of support for 4W service • Improving and streamlining of Telecom network • New standards for Sub Station Services • IEC61850 • M2M communications • New challenges with Packet Networks • Cyber Security • New Characteristics of transport (More Delay, Compatibility)

  5. The Evolving Telecom Network Sub-Station Control Center RTU RTU RTU T1/E1 RS-232 RS-232 RS-232 Multiplexer Multiplexer Multiplexer Tele-Protection Tele-Protection Control Console C37.94 C37.94 PBX PBX Server ADM ADM ADM T1/E1 T1/E1 Sub-Station NMS Power Line PBX Switch PMU/ Small SS Packet Network RF-3080

  6. Challenges: Next Generation Migration Uncertainty Challenges in switching to All Packet • Not all critical application capable of migration • Maintain smooth operation of current networks, despite discontinued vendor products • Avoid over-burdening network operations and management due to TDM/PSN transport co-existence • Reconcile required investment in SDH/SONET equipment with decommissioning plans • Avoid CapEx hikes related to increase in number of network devices: • Continue using legacy installed-base while introducing IP/Ethernet devices • Ensure service quality for mission critical apps (e.g., Teleprotection)

  7. Challenges: Next Generation Migration Technology Aspect Smart Communications over Packet • Service assurance for mission critical apps in PSN environment: • Low end-to-end delay • High Availability • SDH/SONET-level Resiliency • Differentiated quality of service for SCADA, video surveillance, voice, Teleprotection, radio and data traffic • Remote operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) for fault management and lower OpEx • Efficient connectivity for IEC 61850 intelligent electronic devices (IEDs)

  8. The Migrated Telecom Network Sub-Station Control Center RTU RTU RTU RS-232 RS-232 RS-232 Next Gen MS Next Gen MS MS Gateway Tele-Protection Tele-Protection Control Console C37.94 C37.94 PBX PBX Server Sub-Station ADM T1/E1 T1/E1 NMS Power Line PBX PS Network PMU/ Small SS Firewall Firewall Firewall

  9. The Challenges • Selecting the “winning” packet network • Not all applications can be transported over packet • Application issues • Security concerns • Upgrading ancillary equipment to be “Packet Compatible” • Or making adjustment to the network • Training or retraining of workforce • Massive capital expense with a complete upgrade • Complexity of maintaining two or more networks • Buying more equipment with a short usability timeframe

  10. Addressing the Challenges: The Options Evolution instead of Revolution… Move everything to packet! • Keep my legacy forever! • Utilize existing assets • Deterministic performance • No learning curve • Flexible & scalable • Low OpEx • Future support • Asset lifespan • Gradual migration • Guaranteed performance • Moderate learning curve • Future ready design • High equipment costs • Non-deterministic • Steep learning curve • High operating costs • Low scalability • Not flexible

  11. The Core Replacement Choices • IP/MPLS • Added deterministic paths to IP • Used as a core Technology • No Built-in Security Mechanism • Still untried as access technology • CoE (aka Carrier Ethernet) • Mature Technology • Enhanced and updated • Established Security Protocol support • Connection Oriented Ethernet

  12. IP/MPLS Highlights • Mature Technology • Widely used • Deterministic routing • No Built-in Security • All paths for packets setup on connection establishment • Well established resiliency mechanisms • No built-in security (very susceptible for cyber attacks) • Different in architecture than existing SONET/TDM • Fairly unaffordable

  13. CoEthernet Highlights • Mature Technology • Newly enhanced Connection Oriented Ethernet technology • Built in Security including Source authentication • Similar to SONET/SDH in terms of architecture and Terminology • CoE developed mechanisms for: • Deterministic network performance • Detection of Network failure • Measurement of network performance • Very fast restoration of service (Sub 10ms) • Very affordable

  14. An IP/MPLS Based Network • Architecture is very different than SONET/SDH (Similar to IP) • New set of addressable values • Each device now requires new management connection • Training is a challenge • Susceptible to cyber attacks with no source authentication • Network performance is predictable • In network delay is manageable and could be designed to be low • Extremely high equipment costs • Built in fast resiliency

  15. A CoE Based Network • Architecture similar SONET/SDH • Connection based virtual circuits • Similar OAM terms (AIS/RDI etc….) • Training simple • More resilient to cyber attacks with source authentication • Network performance guaranteed by CoE OAM measurements • In network delay can be designed to be low • Relatively low equipment cost – regardless of network size or number of nodes • Built in fast resiliency

  16. Comparing The Technologies • Connection Setup • SONET : Hard coded paths mapped through ADMs • CoE: Hard coded EVCs mapped through Switches with pre-determined priorities • MPLS: Dynamic path setup based on IP addressing and exchanging routing tables • Vulnerability of connections • SONET: All connections are initiated by NMS • COE: All connections are initiated by NMS • MPLS: Connections made dynamically and are vulnerable to errored/malicious routing information

  17. Comparing The Technologies • Troubleshooting • SONET : Comprehensive troubleshooting built in with OAM bits propagating faults • CoE: Comprehensive troubleshooting built in with OAM packets propagating faults • MPLS: No built-in OAM mechanism for localizing faults relies on other overlays to initiate backup paths • Resiliency • SONET: Ring resiliency to a predetermined path • COE: Ring and path resiliency to a pre-determined path within 10ms • MPLS: Ring or Mesh resiliency depending on topology

  18. Comparing Security • Source Authentication: • MPLS – No source authentication, once entering an CE/PE – local id is erased. • Ethernet – Universal address is maintained (MAC address), Standard for source authentication 802.1X • Snooping / Scouting: • MPLS – LSPs used as transparent pipes from one location to another. • Ethernet - Individual frames screened at global level (MAC) for validity • Control Plane: • MPLS - BGP and other routing protocols very susceptible for attacks that can crash entire network • Ethernet - Control plane isolated and access controlled by corporate access control

  19. The Future: IEC 61850 • Standard design for Sub Station Communications • Establishes standard: • Architecture (Process/Station Bus) • Protocols and formats (e.g. Goose) • Open interconnection points • Equipment requirements • Common communications: Ethernet

  20. Comparing the Contenders • CoE has the advantage over the other packet technologies when it comes to similarity to SONET/SDH which make this technology the technological and business winner

  21. Ethernet OAM

  22. Drivers for Ethernet OAM • OAM benchmarks • Set by TDM and existing WAN technologies • Operational Efficiency • Reduce OPEX, avoid truck-rolls • Downtime cost • Management Complexity • Large Span Networks • Multiple constituent networks belong to disparate organizations/companies

  23. Ethernet OAM Capabilities • Fault Management • Fault Detection • Fault Verification • Fault Isolation • Fault Recovery • Fault Notification • Performance Management • Frame Loss Measurement • Delay Measurement • Delay Variation Measurement • Availability Measurement Configuration Management Ethernet OAM

  24. Ethernet OAM • IEEE 802.1ag • Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) • Also referred as Service OAM • IEEE 802.3ah (clause 57) • Ethernet Link OAM • Also referred as 802.3 OAM, Link OAM or Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) OAM • ITU-T Y.1731 • OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks

  25. Standards: Ethernet OAM A summary of available Ethernet OAM mechanisms

  26. Ethernet SLA Tools Example

  27. Pseudowires

  28. What is Pseudowire (PW)? • Pseudo = Simulated, Seemingly • Emulation of a native service over a Packet Switched Network (PSN). • The native services can be ATM, TDM, Frame Relay or ETH, while the PSN can be ETH, IP or MPLS. • Supports voice, data and video • Provides a transparent tunnel through the PSN • Provides clock distribution and synchronization over PSN

  29. What is Pseudowire (PW)? PSN Network SCADA SCADA PW-GW PW-GW Analog Analog TDM TDM

  30. Timing

  31. IEEE 1588 IEEE-1588 is a standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems • Defines a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) designed to synchronize real-time clocks in a hierarchical distributed system • Intended for LAN using multicast communications • Targeted accuracy of microseconds or sub-microsecond (v1) • v1 approved in September 2002 and published November 2002 • v2 approved in June 2007

  32. What is IEEE1588v2? • IEEE1588v2 is designed to distribute frequency and time to a higher accuracy and precision, to the scale of nanoseconds and fractional nanoseconds. • The protocol operates over packet switched networks. The standard is currently defined to run over IEEE 802.3, UDP/IPv4, UDP/IPv6, DeviceNet, ControlNet and PROFINET. • Designed to operate automatically to establish master slave hierarchy for time distribution. (not for Telecomm industry) • Introduces “Transparent Clocks” to overcome the network’s delay variation. • C37.238 Power Profile based on IEEE-1588v2 required for Syncrophasor accuracy

  33. Protection Over Ethernet - G.8031

  34. G.8031 Protection • Protection as per ITU-T G.8031 • 1:1 Mode • Unidirectional Only • Using APS messages • Triggers • Port Signal loss • CCM LOC , ETH-AIS • Protection time • 10ms protection for one pair of EVC • As low as 40ms protection 4 pairs of EVCs • Topologies • EVC protection with one fiber (both EVC’s running on the same Fiber) • EVC protection with 2 fiber each path on different fiber (dual link) • EVC protection with dual fiber working with MC-LACP to dual PE • EVC protection with Dual NTU (Future development)

  35. G.8031 Applications – End to End path protection • Redundancy on S-Tags in the network • APS is running over one standby EVC only • Revertive and Non revertive modes • End to end service shell be maintained • TLS , Accesses to L3 VPN • CCM or ETH-AIS is used to trigger protection event Customer Premises CustomerPremises Ethernet NID CPE CPE NID X L2PE Metro / VPLS L2PE L2PE End to End path protection Online EVC Redundant EVC

  36. Teleprotection • Deliver Teleprotection signals with mission-critical accuracy over dedicated fiber, TDM or IP • C37.94-compliant Teleprotection communication channels allow reliable transmission by minimizing data errors due to EM and RF interference, or ground potential rise (GPR) •Ultra-low end-to-end propagation delay supports immediate delivery of Transfer Trip commands from protective relay/contact transfer to remote-end substations •Maintain performance levels when migrating to packet networks with hard QoS, as well as robust latency and jitter protection

  37. Teleprotection Requirements • Very strict delay • 80ms total • 40ms for network • Differential Teleprotection • Constant delay • During failover – Delay could change • Packet solutions do not factor differential delays on redundancy

  38. The Ideal Migration Strategy • Select a new technology • Reliability • Longevity • Affordability • Selectively migrate application • Check availability of solutions • Migrate only when application validate • Minimize cyber security threat • Complete migration within timeframe

  39. Migration Steps Infrastructure Required Services ETH to PSN SDH/SONET Legacy to SDH/SONET Legacy to PSN Data ETH to SDH/SONT PSN VoIP NMS Aggregation Network Access Aggregation Access

  40. Summary • The energy industry is being forced to migrate to packet technologies • Caution should be used when selecting a new technology • Established Standards such as IEC61850, C37.238 (IEEE-1588v2) use Ethernet as their transport of choice • An evolutionary approach to migration can ease the pain • Some applications may not be suitable today for migration to NGN • Migrating to NGN is unavoidable and should be designed today to optimize available funds and reduce future issues

  41. Questions ?

  42. For More Information: Motty Anavi VP of Business Development Motty_a@rad.com (201) 378-0213

More Related