2008 Gmpls Interop at Ofc

7/30/2019 2008 Gmpls Interop at Ofc

1/22

Page 1

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

14 vendor MPLS/GMPLS Inter-operability Trial Over

Multi-area ROADM/OXC Network

Wataru Imajuku

NTT Network Innovation Labs.

Feb 25, 2008


2/22

Page 2

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25Contributing Co-Authors

z NTT: Eiji Oki

z Isocore: Rajiv Papneja

z Toyo Corp.: Shinichiro Morishita

z KDDI R&D Labs.: Kenichi Ogaki and Masanori Miyazawa

z Fujitsu Lab.: Keiji Miyazaki

z Fujitsu: Hiroaki Nakazato

z J uniper Networks: J ohn Allen and Hidetsugu Sugiyama

z ITOCHU Techno-Solutions: Shinichi Hasegawa and Nobuhiro Sakuraba

z NEC: Itaru Nishioka

z Mitsubishi Electric: Shoichiro Seno

z OKI: Yoshihiro Nakahira

z Keio Univ.: Daisuke Ishii and Satoru Okamoto

z Agilent Technologies: Tara Van Unen

z Alcatel-Lucent: Mark Blumhardt

z Cisco: Hari Rakotoranto

z Sycamore: Vijay Pandian


3/22

Page 3

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25Outline

Status of Related Activities

Study Objective

Challenging Issues

Experiments

Results & Issues

Remaining Problems & Discussion

Conclusion


4/22

Page 4

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25Status of GMPLS Standardization Activities

IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)

zRSVP-TE (RFC 3473)/OSPF-TE (RFC4203)/LMP (RFC4204)

z Protection & Restoration (RFC4872/RFC4873)

zCurrent discussion is focused onz Inter-domain signaling & routing in RFC editor queue

zWSON

z

PBB-TE controlzLCAS/VCAT control

zASON routing

zMulti-layer (Nested domain architecture)

Optical Internetworking Forumz O-UNI 2.0 signaling

z E-NNI 2.0 signaling

z E-NNI 1.0 routing


5/22

Page 5

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25Other Research Activities

ASON/GMPLS Inter-domain Inter-operability Trial

zNICT Keihanna open laboratorySatoru Okamoto et al., OFC2006 PDP47

zMUPBEDHans-Martin Foisel et al., ECOC2006 We3.P.119

OIF World Wide Interoperability Demo at ECOC2007z VCAT/LCAS controlz Auto-discovery

J GN IIz NICT/NTT/KDDI/MCNC/Univ. of Illinois/Calient J OINT activities

US-J apan Inter-carrierLSP control

z Terminated four year field research activity


6/22

Page 6

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25SINET 3

Ref. S. Urushidani et al., Proc. of ECOC2007 6.5.2.

SINET III constructed by National Institute of Informatics

http://www.sinet.ad.jp/

Currently largest GMPLS network in J apan

z 75 nodes includes STM256 (40 Gbit/s) links

z Layer-1 BoD servicez Users can specify destination, duration, bandwidth

with a granularity of 150 Mbps, and route option.

z BoD server receives reservation requests,

schedules accepted reservations,and triggers Layer-1 path setup.


7/22

Page 7

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25Initiation of L1 BoD Service on Feb. 1st

Hokkaido

HokkaidoSapporoSendaiTsukubaTokyoTokyoNII

: L2/L3 path

: L1 path (0.9 Gbps)

: L1 path (0.9 Gbps)

IP router IP routerIP router

Client PC

L2Mux

BoDserver IP router

L1-OPS

L2Mux

NII (Tokyo)

After hitlessly reducing bandwidths of L2/L3 paths by 1.8 Gbps using LCAS,established two L1 paths (0.9 Gbps x 2) on demand via client PC at HokkaidoUniv.

Very stable transmission of non-compressed HDTV between sites


8/22

Page 8

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Study Objective at ipop2006 Show Case

Objective

z Evaluate Intra-carriermultiple routing area architecture ofIETF model

- Per-area hop route calculationin area border (ABR)-OXC

z Evaluate optical routing in STM-16/GbE multi-rate optical links

z Evaluate routing in ROADM and OXC hybrid network

Importance of these issuesz Essential functionality for nationwide deployment of GMPLS

z ITU-T G.709 based OTN link with multi-rate transport capability for STM-Nand GbE/10 GE is real issue

- ITU-T G.sup43, Transport of IEEE 10G Based-R in Optical Transport Networks (OTN)

z ROADM/OXC hybrid network will be feasible within several years


9/22

Page 9

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Challenging Issues

Auto-discovery of ABR, per-area hop route calculation, and loose-hop expansion

Sub-area

XArea 0

Sub-area

Y

ABR-OXC

Point IIa) Auto-discovery of next-hop ABR-OXCb) Per-area hop route calculation at ABR-OXC

c) Loose-hop expansion (RFC3209) at ABR-OXC

ABR-OXC

ASBR-OXC

Point I

Auto-discovery of ABR-OXC

#A #Z

z Originate from scalability issue regarding open shortest path first protocol (OSPF)- Requires sub-area routing architecture if number of nodes in OSPF area exceedsabout one hundred

z OSPF-TE specification indicates that link Information is advertised within each

routing sub-area- Link information is invisible to outside sub-areas


10/22

Page 10

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Experimental Configuration

Inter-operability testing among 25 sets of equipment from 14vendorsz Four GMPLS routing areas

z 2.4 G SDH/GbE hybrid optical links

zTwo ROADM areas and two OXC/TDM-XC areas

MPLS NW

#H

ABR-OXC

#L1

#I#E1 #D2#E2

#J

#N3

#N2

#M1

#M2#N1

#F

Area 2 @Toyo

Area 1 @Isocore

(Washington DC)

MPLS NW

#B1 #B2

#G

#B3

#C#D3

#D1

#K

Area 3 @Toyo

Area 0 @Toyo

#A2 #A1

: ROADM

: OXC

: Router/

Tester

: TDM-XC

GbE/OC48 dual rate link

OC48 link

GbE link

ABR-OXC

#L3

ABR-OXC

#L2


11/22

Page 11

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Equipment Tested in Experiment

MPLS router

OXCs

TDM-XC

ROADMs

MPLS/GMPLS testers

GMPLS routers


12/22

Page 12

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Path Creation

Sub-areaX

Area 0

Sub-areaY

ABR-OXC ABR-OXC

#A #Z

1. Search NH-ABR2. PDPC *)

3. ERO expansion

PATH PATH

PATH PATH PATH

PATH PATHRESVRESVRESVRESVRESVRESVRESV

*) PDCP: Per-domain path calculation

L L

RSVP-TE:

z Switching Type: Lambda

z Encoding Type: Ethernet or SDH

z GPID: Ethernet or SDH


13/22

Page 13

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results I: RSVP-TE and OSPF-TE

RSVP-TE:

Achieved very good inter-operability for strict ERO signaling

OSPF-TE:

Issues Encountered:z Router LSA

Vendor implementation does not support the advertisement of Node ID bystub area within Router LSA. This resulted in a lack of reachabilityinformation.

What LSA or TLV should be responsible for providing reachabilityinformation to inter-domain LSPs ? Need discussion.

z Router Address TLVABR-OXCs did not advertise the Router Address TLV for sub-areas.

Some vendor implementations recognized this as OSPF adjacency errorand failed to perform CSPF calculation.


14/22

Page 14

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results II-a: CSPF Calculation

Routing over STM-16/GbE multi-rate lambda links

Issues Encountered:

z Expectedly failed optical LSP routing in multiple rate lambda links

Some vendor implementations anticipated multiple Link TLV information. On the

other hand, other implementations disregarded transmission rate for lambda links.

z What is the most effective way to advertise multi-rate lambda links ?

We adapted OSPF-TE configuration to create logicallyseparate

GbE or STM-16 traffic engineering links for dual-rate optical links.

Routing over ROADM/OXC hybrid network

Issues Encountered:

z No specification to advertise switching constraint of ROADMs

z Failed to create inter-area LSP that traverses over ROADM ring on egress side.


15/22

Page 15

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results II-b: CSPF Calculation

Switching constraint of ROADM

z LSPs from West Tributary Ports are terminated at East Tributary Ports

zThis is also true for the opposite case.

Ref.

draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-constraint-0x.txtnow merged to draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-info-0x.txt

RxTx

Add

switches

Dropswitches

Drop

switches

RxTx

Addswitches

West boundtributary port group

West bound

bi-directional LSP

East bound

bi-directional LSP

NNI link

(West)

East boundtributary port group

NNI link

(East)

ROADM

RxTx RxTx


16/22

Page 16

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results III-a: Inter-area LSP Creation

Issues Encountered:

z Auto-discovery of ABR-OXC/Next-hop ABR-OXC

Auto-discovery of next-hop ABR-OXC is possible, if all GMPLS capable nodesadvertise their node IDs within Router LSA.

z Each ABR-OXC successfully performed per-area hop route calculation,ifoperators conduct manual assignment of next-hop ABR-OXC.

ABR-OXCs automatically inserted explicit route objects into RSVP-TEmessages (Loose hop expansion) to assign the route for their area.

ABR-OXC#L2

ABR-OXC#L1

#B1

#K#B2 #I30.204.16.13

RSVP PATH messagePCE


17/22

Page 17

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results III-b: Inter-area LSP Creation

Three other successful scenarios for per-area hop routecalculationin ABR-OXC

ABR-OXC

#L1ABR-OXC

#L2

ABR-OXC

#L3 #I

#B2#K#B1

#N1 #N2

#I

Per-area hop route calculation & loose hop expansion

694 msec

5216 msec

583 msec

Typically 8 to 9 seconds in addition to

the round trip time is required to initiate IP packet forwarding.

RTT


18/22

Page 18

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25 Results IV

MPLS over GMPLS control test

z GMPLS LSPs are used as forwarding adjacency LSPs to nest MPLS LSPs.ABR-OXC

#L2ABR-OXC

#L1#I #B1#K#B2

#A1#A2

RSVP PATH

IP traffic

over MPLS(PING reply)

58.92 sec

ping

MPLS LSPOptical GbE LSP


19/22

Page 19


Mainly three problems remain

z Inconsistency in Node ID advertisement policy

zSome vendor implementations do not advertise Node ID info

zProblems in discovering next-hop ABR

z Need for clear OSPF-TE advertisement policy for multi-rate lambda links

zNo consensus at this momentzHowever, we need to minimize OSPF-TE extension

z Need to incorporate switching constraint information of ROADMs

zWe need to reach a consensus on method for handling such Staticconstraint information

Remaining Problem Summary


20/22

Page 20


Before discussion on IP reachability problem, it is important to addressnetwork architecture

z Is ABR-ROADM/OXC architecture really an excellent solution ?

z Instability of ABR-ROADM/OXC resulted in instability throughout network

z

It is valuable to re-consider control plane network architecturez For example, isolate ABRs to control plane and user plane network

zMinimize burden on TNE memory capacity for routing information in Area 0

Discussion

ABR-OXC ABR-OXC

#A #Z

#A #Z

Example of alternative architecture

Area 0

Area 0

IP reachability Info

C-Plane ABR PCE

Up to 20,000 reachability info,

if UNI is provided for service network


21/22

Page 21


Once we employ this control plane network architecture, sub-AS architecture is alsoapplicable without changing deployed TNE control plane functionalities.Meaningful from the viewpoint of future proof.

Discussion (cont.)

#A #Z


C-Plane ABR PCE

#A #Z


C-Plane sub-ASBR

PCE

OSPF Area 0

BGP Sub-AS

Even in this case, IP reachability information is essential to discover next-hop PCE

and ABR (or sub-ASBR), and to transport RSVP-TE notify messages between twoend points.


22/22

Page 22


Achieved LSP creation with per-area hop route calculation in ROADM/OXCnetworks in four routing areas.

Before addressing to inter-area protocol extension,

z Need to re-consider control plane network architecturez Need to consider how to locate PCE and ABR (or sub-ASBR).

z need rough consensus for these issues.

z While protocol extension has to have flexibility for the control plane networkarchitecture, we have to find an effective way to avoid excess protocol extensionfor TNEs.

z PCE architecture seems to be a good solution for this purpose, both for carrierand vendors.

Conclusion

Thank you for your attention !

Documents

2008 Gmpls Interop at Ofc