Presentation on theme: "Inter-City MAN Services using MPLS Primary Authors: Pascal Menezes (Terabeam) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) July 23rd 2001 Version 1.0."— Presentation transcript:
Inter-City MAN Services using MPLS Primary Authors: Pascal Menezes (Terabeam) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) July 23rd 2001 Version 1.0
Problem Definition How does an Ethernet MAN (EMAN) operator deliver economical services between cities for a global footprint? Operating a Metro and a WAN network E-2-E is too costly and complex. Buying Lambda, SONET or ATM services from WAN carriers still pushes the complexity and cost of layer 3 and MPLS to the MAN provider (overlay model and virtual backbone). Global telecom costs using legacy circuit networks make it cost prohibitive for large bandwidth at long distances.
Objective Use upstream IP NSP networks for backbone services. NSPs IP networks are distance insensitive. Push the complexity of operating a global WAN backbone to NSP partners (peering model). Use hierarchical MPLS concepts. Deliver local MAN services between cities using NSP backbone. Services look the same regardless of inter or intra city communication. Deliver bilateral agreements on SLAs (QoS, etc.) between MAN and WAN NSP partner.
Telecom Backbone Provider MAN Overlay (Virtual) Backbone Topology EMAN 1 EMAN 3 EMAN 2 NE EMAN 4 NE Virtual Connection MAN Provider Managed And Operated
Telecom Backbone Provider EMAN Global MAN Overlay Backbone Topology EMAN
Telecom Backbone Provider EMAN 1 EMAN 3 EMAN 2 PE MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology EMAN 4 LSPs NSP Provider Managed And Operated NSP Traffic Engineered LSPs
EMAN Global MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology EMAN NSP Backbone Provider 12
PE 1 P1P2 PE 2 CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR PE 2 PE 1 Inter-City MAN Peering Model NSP NetworkMAN 2MAN 1 MAN BB 1 MAN BB 2 Automated Announcement Protocol Of labels for Inter-City LSPs NSP Inter-City MAN Service Automated Announcement Protocol Of labels for Inter-City LSPs Same Autonomy Separate IGP Domain
PE 1 P1P2 PE 2 CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR PE 2 PE 1 Inter-City MAN LSP Hierarchical Model NSP NetworkMAN 2MAN 1 MAN BB 1 MAN BB 2 NSP TE- LSP Inter-City LSP Inter-City Service LSP
CoS Mapping PE 1 P1P2 PE 2 CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR PE 2 PE 1 EXP Marking NSP TE LSP Inter-City LSP Inter-City Service LSPEXP Marking NSP NetworkMAN 2MAN 1
Proposal to Join RFC 2547bis and RFC 3107 For Inter-City MAN Services
PE 1 P1P2 PE 2 CE 1 ASBR Hierarchical LSP (NO Label) for Prefix 1 CE 2 ASBR E-MBGP & MPLS Advertise Prefix 1 Label implicit null label MBGP Advertise VPN IPV4 Prefix 1 (RD some value) And Route Target A (assigned by NSP) And BGP Next Hop PE1 And Label L (swapped label) RSVP Resv Label (swap) for PE1 E-MBGP & MPLS Advertise Prefix 1 BGP Next Hop PE2 And Label K (swapped label) Inter-City MAN Hierarchical LSP PE 2 PE 1 IGP LSP Label (swap) for PE1 LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services Hierarchical LSP Label K for Prefix 1 Hierarchical LSP Label L for Prefix 1
PE 1 P1P2 PE 3 CE 1 ASBR CE 3 ASBR Multi-Site Example PE 3 PE 1 LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services PE 2 CE 2 ASBR PE 2 P3 Hierarchical LSP LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services Hierarchical LSP
CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR CE 3 ASBR CE 3 ASBR CE 1 ASBR CE 2 ASBR CE 2 ASBR CE 1 ASBR CE 3 ASBR Hierarchical Distribution Tree
Issues CoS model will work, but what about a Hard QoS model with CAC signaling E-2-E (or centralized bandwidth broker model). To date NSP do NOT deliver jitter guarantees.