Tuesday, October 04, 2011

MPLS-TP Introduction and Overview

For some time now, transport network operators have been striving to migrate gracefully from circuit-switched modes of operations to include more packet-switching technology, for the potential bandwidth utilization and network performance gains that can be achieved. As IP/MPLS and Ethernet technologies have become the de-facto packet-based technologies of choice, transport network operators have sought to evolve their networks with either the implementation of or interoperation with these technologies (or both).

However, the operations of packet-based and circuit-based architectures differ greatly. IP/MPLS-based networks have developed over time a planning and engineering tool set required to manage the more dynamic resiliency capabilities available in packet networks. Yet transport networks tend to be more static in their configuration, with re-engineering typically undertaken much less frequently. This has resulted in a significantly different skill set owned by transport network operations staff, one more attuned to the capabilities of the transport network. The objective of the MPLS-Transport Profile is to bridge this gap, from a technological as well as an operational perspective.

MPLS-TP provides a harmonizing paradigm spanning IP/MPLS-based and optical transport networks. While based on the IP/MPLS forwarding paradigm, MPLS-TP extends IP/MPLS capabilities by adding transport-based OAM enhancements more like those of SONET/SDH and OTN. MPLS-TP pursues the goal of providing resiliency and OAM capabilities similar to SONET/SDH and OTN networks, while maintaining the benefits associated with packet-based networking.

MPLS-TP is therefore a profile – or a specific subset – of an MPLS functionality set that is being extended to meet the key design parameters identified. The diagram shown below illustrates the relationship between the Transport Profile and the existing and expanded MPLS toolset.


Prior to the definition of the MPLS-TP requirements in RFC5654, there existed a set of MPLS functions that have been widely deployed in IP networks. Some of these meet the requirements in RFC5654 and are thus suitable for a transport network operational environment. These include the MPLS and PWE3 (pseudowire emulation edge-to-edge) architectures, the MPLS forwarding paradigm, and the Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) and pseudowire control planes. Hence these form a part of the transport profile. However, some functions do not meet these requirements, and are thus excluded. These include Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP), the mandatory use of IP forwarding in the data path, and LDP signaling that specifically creates multipoint-to-point paths (which thus causes LSPs to arbitrarily merge and lose the association of a label to an individual source).

In addition to these existing functions, some of the requirements outlined above will be met by adding a limited range of new functions to MPLS. These new functions also fall within the transport profile and form an inherent part of an extended set of MPLS functions – specifically the OAM, protection, and provisioning capabilities listed.

MPLS-TP is being standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T). Many MPLS-TP standards already have been ratified, while the bulk of the work remaining revolves around the OAM toolset. Upon full ratification of all related standards, MPLS-TP will enable connection-oriented, packet-optical transport, based on widely deployed MPLS protocols with the performance and operations characteristic of today’s transport networks, while also ensuring compatibility with today’s IP/MPLS-based networks.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Resiliency Defined

The ability to recover from a failure. The term may be applied to hardware, software or the network. Service guarantees in the form of Service Level Agreements (SLA) require a resilient network that instantaneously detects facility or node failures and restores network operation immediately to meet the terms of the SLA.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

IPV6 Routing – some technical background

Topics
- IPv6 Fragmentation
- Configurable MTU
- Path MTU Discovery
- ICMP v6

QoS:
- Classification on TC and dot1p
- Remarking of dot1p
- Remarking of TC based on FC


RFCs:
- RFC 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
- RFC 2461 Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
- RFC 2462 IPv6 Stateless Address Auto configuration
- RFC 2463 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the IP v6 specification
- RFC 2464 Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks
- RFC 3315 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (Relay Agent)
- RFC 3587 IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format
- RFC 4007 IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
- RFC 4193 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
- RFC 4291 IPv6 Addressing Architecture

Monday, March 08, 2010

L2VPN/VPLS-Martini and Kompella

Both Martini-draft and Kompella-draft addressed setting up of a Pseudowire emulation over MPLS in order to offer L2VPN services. These drafts were initial efforts to standardise L2VPN services.

Martini draft was named after a former Cisco employee Luca Martini. Martini draft uses LDP as signalling to setup L2VPN over MPLS backbone. The tradeoff of this draft was auto-discovery.
Kompella draft on the other hand uses BGP for both signalling and auto-discovery to establish fully-meshed pseudo wires (multipoint). Kompella-draft is named after author Keerti Kompella (Juniper Employee).

draft-martini and draft-kompella terms are used as labels for the two different L2VPN services methodologies (LDP Vs BGP for signaling). The actual drafts do not exist in IETF.
In dealing with multipoint-fully meshed topologies in edge routers, draft-martini suffered auto-discovery, to overcome aut0-discovery, it suffered configuration overhead. draft-Kompella claimed to be better scalable because of suto-discovery but with complex signalling whereas draft-martini leverages simplicity.

Martini draft was standardized under RFC 4096 . however it has since been superseded by the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) Working Group specifications described in RFC 4447 and related documents. On the other hand draft-kompella is obsolete and was not standardized.

RFC 4664 - Framework for Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPN), it describes the framework for L2VPNs (VPWS, VPLS and IPLS). This framework is intended to aid in standardizing protocols and mechanisms to support interoperable L2VPNs. Requirements for L2VPNs can be found in RFC 4665 – Service Requirements for Layer 2 Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks.

All this was consolidated, and the L2VPN Working Group produced two separate documents, RFC 4761 and RFC 4762, both offered VPLS but using different signaling protocols:
Kireeti Kompella and Yakov Rekhter published “Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling” RFC 4761 in January 2007.

Marc Lasserre and Vach Kompella published “Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling” RFC 4762 in January 2007.

L2VPN services for many vendors uses RFC 4762 -Martini ( with LDP) as a standard for example Alcatel 7450’s uses RFC 4762 as the standard

Taken From ciscotips.wordpress.com