PBB-TE tests - TERENA · connect • communicate • collaborate Agenda PBB-TE against EoMPLS History of trials JANET local trial UK-wide testbed & PBB-TE and EoMPLS interworking

connect • communicate • collaborate

PBB-TE tests

Victor Olifer (JANET/GEANT JRA1 Task 1)

JRA1 Workshop, Copenhagen, 20th November


Agenda

PBB-TE against EoMPLS

History of trials

JANET local trial

UK-wide testbed & PBB-TE and EoMPLS interworking tests

Testing PBB-TE resilience (protection switching)

General conclusions of EoMPLS & PBB-TE trial


Intro: technologies & features

Two reps of Carrier Ethernet:

•Two-tier hierarchy•Traffic Engineering•Protection switching•Ethernet&MPLS OAM

•Two-tier hierarchy•Traffic Engineering•Protection switching•Ethernet OAM

•Established•Rich control plane•Complex•Multi-domain support:

•Local labels•BGP

•Emerging•Zero control plane•Simple (relatively)•Single-domain:

•Global labels •GMPLS? Not avail.


Carrier Ethernet family objectives

De-coupling of provider and user networks

PB – VLAN ID separationPBB/PBB-TE – MAC and VLAN ID separation

Resilience PB & PBB – STP (TRILL, SPB) – re-routingPBB-TE – fast protection switching

Traffic Engineering PB, PBB – no (and yes for non-resilient services if routing is switched off – VLAN-based path )

OAM Relevant for PB, PBB, PBB-TE


History of trials

2008 2009 2010 2011

JANETLocal trial

JANET UK-wide Carrier Ethernet trial

JRA 1 Task 1PBB-TE trial same testbed


PBB-TE local trial

Switch A CIENA 311v

Switch B CIENA 311v

Switch C CIENA 311v

Simple goal: To check whether this new Carrier Ethernet offspring does what his parents promise

Results: In general: Yes, it does, and in a very familiar to classic Ethernet way

•TE – yes, by establishing of PBB-TE tunnels with explicit path •Scalability – yes, by using customer (I-SID) connections over tunnels

up to 16 M connections per tunnel

MAC A MAC C

B‐VID N

B‐VID NB‐VID N

B‐VID N


MACinMAC encapsulation

Customernetwork

Customernetwork

PBnetwork

PBB/PBB TEnetwork

PBnetwork

S‐VID added B‐header added B‐header removed S‐VID removed


PBB-TE local trial (cont.)

CIENA 311v

CIENA 311v

CIENA 311v

Results:

•Resilience – yes, by fast protection switchingof tunnels triggered by CCM heartbeat messages

Primary tunnel

Backup tunnel


Warrington

Reading

London Telecity

Core

Manchester Uni

Oxford Uni

Lancaster Uni

Essex Uni

JANET/JRA1 Task 1Carrier Ethernet multi-domain testbed

JANETLightpath(EoMPLS)

- PBB-TE domain

- EoMPLS-domain

JANET(UK)/Lumen House

CIENA 311v

CIENA 311v

CIENA 311v


Warrington

Reading

London Telecity

Core

Manchester Uni

Oxford Uni

Lancaster Uni

Essex Uni

PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS


MEF E-NNI:S-VID (outer VID) – service delimiter

M-Eth SAM-Eth DA

MPLS LSPMPLS PWC-Eth DAC-Eth SAPayload (IP)

B-SAB-DA

B-VIDI-SIDC-DAC-SA

Payload (IP)

S-VID

1. Use tagged Ethernet frames and copy/map PW ID into S-VID

2. Encapsulate EoMPLS frames into PBB-TE frames at ingress

3. Copy/map S-VID into I-SID

4. De-capsulate EoMPLS frames at ingress and send to destination

Payload

M-Eth SAM-Eth DA


S-VID

B-SAB-DA

B-VIDI-SIDC-DAC-SA

Payload (IP)Payload

M-Eth SAM-Eth DA


S-VID

M-Eth SAM-Eth DA


S-VID


PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:1. EoMPLS – PBB-TE – EoMPLS (cont.)

Overlay mode for the core, conforms to MEF E-NNI

Contiguous MPLS tunnels and PWs

Usage of IP control plane protocols in the EoMPLS testbeds(partly to make it close to real JANET):

•OSPF, BGP, LDP, RSVP (only for TE)

Main characteristics of the solution:

Problems encountered: STP BPDUs received within MPLS PWs from neighboring MPLS domain confused local STP and resulted in blocking ports :

It was fixes by switching STP off

LDP refused to distribute labels between MPLS domains which belonged to different AS:

It was fixes by using ‘BGP send-label’


PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB

Warrington

London Telecity

CoreEssex Uni



Two modes for the core and peripheral testbeds were tested: 1. Overlay, with PB in the peripheral testbeds and

encapsulation into PBB-TE in the coreFor LH – Essex Uni connection:

1. PB frame is encapsulated into PBB-TE one atthe core ingress E-NNI in Reading

Reading B-SAB-DA

B-VIDI-SID

Payload (IP)

C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

S-VID

E-NNI

2. S-VID is copied/mapped into I-SID

3. PBB-TE frame travels to the egress at Telecityswitch using I-SID as a service delimiter

B-SAB-DA

B-VIDI-SID

Payload (IP)C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

S-VID 4. PB frame is de-capsulated at the core egress

C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

S-VID

5. PB frame is delivered to Essex Uni testbedthrough JANET Lightpath EoMPLSconnection

One more overlay transfer: PB over EoMPLS on basis of S-VID


PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.)

Warrington

London Telecity

CoreEssex Uni



Second mode tested: Peer-to-peer mode with a contiguous PBB-TE connection

For LH – Essex Uni connection:

1. Customer frame is encapsulated into PBB-TEone at the LH testbed ingress UNI

Reading

B-VIDB-SAB-DA

I-SID

Payload (IP)

C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

I-NNI

2. C-VID is mapped into I-SID

3. PBB-TE frame travels along the contiguous PBB-TE tunnel (LH – the core – Essex Uni) using I-SID as a service delimiter

4. PB frame is de-capsulated at Essex testbedegress

UNI

C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

B-VIDB-SAB-DA

I-SID

Payload (IP)C- SAC- DA

C-VIDPayload (IP)

PBB-TE frame travelled over Lightpath EoMPLS on basis of B-VID (outer VID)


PBB-TE & EoMPLS interworking tests:2. PB – PBB-TE – EoMPLS- PB (cont.2)

Overlay PB vs. contiguous multy-domain PBB-TE

Overlay model Contiguous modelNumber of PBB-TE tunnels

Minimal:- Only to connect domain edge switches (e.g. 3 unprotected core tunnels in our case)

Might be quite big: - A tunnel per customer pair (e.g. 10 unprotected core tunnels in our case)

Co-ordination of end point of tunnel MAC addresses between domains

Not needed Needed (private loopback MACs might be used)

Tunnel protection Only within a domain End-to-end

IP control plane Not needed, doesn’t exist yet in practice (might be GMPLS)

Not needed, doesn’t exist yet in practice (might be GMPLS)


Warrington

Reading

London Telecity

Core

Lancaster Uni

Essex Uni

Overlay and contiguousPBB-TE protection switching

JANET LH

1. Overlay model Primary tunnel

Backup tunnel

X

No mechanism to redirect traffic in case of inter-domain link failure – so, only intra-domain protection

Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed – e.g. BGP


Warrington

Reading

London Telecity

Core

Lancaster Uni

Essex Uni

Overlay and contiguousPBB-TE protection switching (cont.)

JANET LH

2. Contiguous model Primary tunnel

Backup tunnel

Standard CCM mechanism triggers end-to-end protection

No other Control Plane inter-domain protocol is needed

X


General Carrier Ethernet trial conclusions

•Both EoMPLS and PBB-TE proved to be working transport technologies with required core set of carrier-grade features

•EoMPLS and PBB-TE can smoothly inter-operate according MEF E-NNI spec

•EoMPLS is a good choice for carrier core networks because of its tight integration with powerful IP control plane, router vendor support and wide implementation base

•PBB-TE might be used for access and campus networks: simple but robust

•PBB-TE is not dead despite some rumours (Ciena, Extreme, ...)


Trials’ participants

JANET Carrier Ethernet TrialVictor Olifer (JANET UK)

([email protected])

Dave Tinkler (JANET UK)Martin Dunmore (JANET UK)Michael Robson (Manchester Uni)Anthony Ryan (Manchester Uni)Faris Ali (Lancaster Uni)Oliver Gorwitz (Oxford Uni)Guy Morrell (Oxford Uni)Bijan Rahimzadeh Rofoee(Essex Uni)

JRA1 Task 1: Jan Radil (CESNET)Marcin Grastka (PSNC) Ramanujam Jayakumar (Essex Uni) Jac Kloots (SURFnet) Alberto Colmenero (NORDUnet)


PBB-TE positioning

Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP

Sub wavelength switching: SDHFrame switching: PBB-TE

Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services


PBB-TE positioning (cont.)

Wavelength and sub wavelength switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP

Packet switching: IP/MPLS; Services

Frame switching: Carrier Ethernet

1. L2 services to customers 2. Links to upper layers3. Links to upper layers directly from layer 0/1


PBB-TE - Optical integration

Wavelength, sub wavelength and frame switching: DWDM/OTN/GFP/CE

Pros

Cons

•Network is simpler: one layer, less boxes, one type of boxes

• More efficient provisioning : consistent approach of one NMS or one control plane ->cut through, selection between layers etc

Complexity of combined boxes –> - difficulty in configuring grows as the number of components are squared -> error prone, unstable behaviour


Questions

Questions?


Extra slides


Testing PBB-TE resilience

warr‐cec1

EssexLancaster

• The configuration was tested for a ping session with 100 ms interval

PBB‐TE tunnel group: warr‐lond

7/2

7/17/2

7/17/23

7/24

7/23

7/24

7/24

VS: lancaster‐essex‐vs

read‐cec1

lond‐cec3

VS: essex‐lh‐vs

Tunnel 1 : weight 8

Tunnel 2 : weight 7

Tunnel 3 : weight 6

XX

• CCM inetrval was set also for 100 ms

• Switching off port 7/1 of warr‐cec1 caused loss of 0 or 1 ping

7/1 7/2


Traffic policing tests

Documents

PBB-TE tests - TERENA · connect • communicate • collaborate Agenda PBB-TE against EoMPLS History of trials JANET local trial UK-wide testbed & PBB-TE and EoMPLS interworking