We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAlondra Sidebotham
Modified over 2 years ago
NEW OUTLOOK ON MULTI-DOMAIN AND MULTI-LAYER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Adrian Farrel email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org AUSNOG, Sydney, September 2013
2 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT MULTI-LAYER NETWORKS? What is a layer? Most obvious definition is technology layers Packet-over-optical is seeing a resurgence of interest MPLS-over-MPLS is layering There are also sub-layers of optical technologies Routers are connected together Hope that is not a shock to you Router inter-connect does not need to be a p2p link Mesh transport networks offer ways provide variable connectivity and maximise return from a set of transport resources Many network services are examples of layering VPNs are best example Pseudowires count as well
3 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net WHAT PROBLEMS ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? We need to make connectivity requests from a client network to a server network Typically the client cannot see / understand the server topology Client networks / nodes typically multi-homed to a server network Client networks may be connected to multiple server networks Client needs to understand client-layer reachability across the server networks Server-layer connectivity may be through a concatenation of server networks
4 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net SOME OLD VIEWS OF LAYERING User to Network Interface No routing exchange No hints about resolving dual homing No hints about client layer reachability Protocol solutions from ITU-T, OIF, and IETF UNI request is a stab in the dark UNI
5 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net FLOODING WOULD BE CRAZY Well, it would, wouldn’t it? Flooding means… Telling the client network about all of the links and nodes in the server network A shared IGP Two IGP instances GMPLS actually supports this Networks usually under different administrations Scaling is a real concern It can get messy with multiple server networks Client network will not understand server links All those optical parameters etc. Really don’t want to try to send packets down optical links
6 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net LINK AGGREGATION DOESN’T QUITE DO THE JOB Disadvantages of link aggregation Waste of transport resources Under-use of dedicated resources n 2 scaling issues (full mesh) Complexity of server layer planning and management Edge nodes need more server layer resources (line cards, lasers, etc.) Client has no idea of physical path Cost of client services is high Protection may not be real Need for frequent advertisement updates Every time resource is used on a component path Computationally expensive to aggregate Multiple paths Multiple constraints Advantages of link aggregation Direct, any-to-any connectivity Minimize delay in provisioning new client services Server layer treated as a set of logical links No worries about client connectivity Simplified client network management Redundant connections in case of failure
7 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net NODE AGGREGATION DOESN’T CUT IT EITHER Disadvantages of aggregation No consideration of path properties No visibility into disjoint paths Limited cross-connect ability is hidden In particular when network is partitioned Issues with wavelength continuity There are ways to handle limited cross-connects in GMPLS advertisements, but higher layer network will not understand them Advantages of Aggregation Very simple model Scales well Does not need frequent updates
8 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net HOW PCE ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM A L M K J I H G E F C B D VNT Manager PCE A PCE for each network Hides topology of one network from the other network Higher layer PCE reports absent connectivity in higher layer to Virtual Network Topology Manager VNTM consults lower layer PCE and then provisions connectivity PCE
9 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net PERHAPS THE CLIENT CAN BE IN BOTH NETWORKS This is a variation of the UNI model The UNI is within the node Only the edge nodes need to be aware of the core network The edge node can make choices about the path across the server network The edge node could determine potential connectivity and advertise as potential links in the client network But… It doesn’t help planning end-to-end paths The edge node (probably a router) needs to be aware of All server technologies Complex TE parameters (such as optical constraints) All vendor-specific issues in the server network UNI
10 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net TWO UNASKED QUESTIONS Do we *really* want provisioning in the server layer auto- triggered by activity in the client layer? Server may be 100G lambda Client may be a UDP packet There may be commercial implications When can I start to send data using the virtual link? Many optical circuits need tuning and testing first
11 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net ABSTRACT LINKS A virtual link is a link created out of a server-layer LSP. Advertised into the client-layer IGP just like any other link An abstract link is the possibility of a virtual link. It is a link that would be formed if an LSP was set up to support it. Installed in the client-layer Traffic Engineering Database Maybe by IGP or by BGP-LS Policy is used to determine which abstract links to advertise I.e. not all potential links Allows stability of selection without frequent re-compute / re-advertisement Just key reachability with basic constraints Allows knowledge of server network resources, topology, constraints, etc. to be hidden from client Client layer can see what links might be established Ask for them to be turned up if needed Reachability is known within the client layer Abstract converted to virtual link as service request from client layer LSP is set up (and tuned and tested) Link is advertised into client IGP
12 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net INTRODUCING A CONNECTIVITY LAYER IGP in Server Layer Node X determines abstract XY It’s a policy thing IGP in Connectivity Layer Consists of “Access Links” and “Abstract Links” Update “abstract” to “real” when server LSP set up by NMS action Node V determines abstract VW IGP in Client Layer Consists of normal “Client Links” and “Abstract Links” Update “abstract” to “real” when client LSP set up by NMS action Client Connectivity Layer Server X V W Y
13 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO THE VPN It’s a layered network It has multi-homing and reachability issues We need to provision TE connectivity Discussion is about better VPN enablement for the carrier
14 Copyright © 2013 Juniper Networks, Inc. www.juniper.net APPLICABILITY TO PEER DOMAINS Strong driver for tier 1 VPN providers Need to leak “TE reachability” without flooding mega-data Key components are Abstract links Connectivity Layer BGP-LS PCE
draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange Questions? email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
A New Paradigm for Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks
Page 1 iPOP2009, Tokyo, Japan Selecting Domain Paths in Inter-Domain MPLS-TE and GMPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Daniel King, Old Dog Consulting.
OLD DOG CONSULTING Traffic Engineering or Network Engineering? The transition to dynamic management of multi-layer networks Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting.
The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt.
Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed Page 1 © The.
An Architecture for Application-Based Network Operations Adrian Farrel - Old Dog Consulting Daniel King –
Application-Based Network Operations (ABNO) IETF 88 – SDN RG
The Impact of SDN On MPLS Networks Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks
Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed Limit for content Do not exceed 1 Aria Networks Multi-domain.
IPOP2009, Tokyo, Japan Old Dog Consulting Network Virtualisation for Packet Optical Networks Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Steve West, Cyan Optics.
ITU-T Workshop “NGN and its Transport Networks“ Kobe, April 2006 International Telecommunication Union ITU-T Introduction to the Path Computation.
G : DCM Signaling Mechanism Using GMPLS RSVP-TE ITU-T Workshop on IP-Optical, Chitose, Japan 7/11/2002 Dimitrios Pendarakis, Tellium, Inc. ITU-T.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 E-VPN and Data Center R. Aggarwal
OIF NNI: The Roadmap to Non- Disruptive Control Plane Interoperability Dimitrios Pendarakis
A Snapshot on MPLS Reliability Features Ping Pan March, 2002.
Video Services over Software-Defined Networks
1 Introducing the Specifications of the Metro Ethernet Forum.
Best Practices for ISPs
O LD D OG C ONSULTING Optical Networking and Converged Networks Impact and Trends in Standardisation Adrian Farrel
Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-03.txt.
Identifying MPLS Applications
Objectives: Chapter 5: Network/Internet Layer How Networks are connected Network/Internet Layer Routed Protocols Routing Protocols Autonomous Systems.
The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-00.txt.
1 Computer Communication & Networks Lecture 22 Network Layer: Delivery, Forwarding, Routing (contd.)
Draft-li-isdnrg-seamless-mpls-mbh-00IETF 92 SDNRG1 Inter-SDN in Seamless MPLS for Mobile Backhaul Zhenbin Li, Rober Tao Huawei Technologies IETF 92, Dallas,
CCAMP WG, IETF 80th, Prague, Czech Republic draft-gonzalezdedios-subwavelength-framework-00 Framework for GMPLS and path computation support of sub-wavelength.
APNOMS03 1 A Resilient Path Management for BGP/MPLS VPN Jong T. Park School of Electrical Eng. And Computer Science Kyungpook National University
Draft-oki-pce-vntm-def-00.txt 1 Definition of Virtual Network Topology Manager (VNTM) for PCE-based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering draft-oki-pce-vntm-def-00.txt.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—2-1 Label Assignment and Distribution Introducing Typical Label Distribution in Frame-Mode MPLS.
OLD DOG CONSULTING MPLS-TE Doesn’t Scale Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting
What do we put in the TED? Which TE links from the network should appear in the Traffic Engineering Database at a Label Switching Router? An attempt to.
Draft-li-rtgwg-cc-igp-arch-00IETF 88 RTGWG1 An Architecture of Central Controlled Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) draft-li-rtgwg-cc-igp-arch-00 Zhenbin.
1 Multi Protocol Label Switching Presented by: Petros Ioannou Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, UCY.
An evolutionary approach to G-MPLS ensuring a smooth migration of legacy networks Ben Martens Alcatel USA.
MPLS - 73nd IETF Minneaplis1 Composite Transport Group (CTG) Framework and Requirements draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-00.txt draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-00.txt.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 BGP based Virtual Private Multicast Service Auto-Discovery and Signaling.
Deployment of MPLS VPN in Large ISP Networks
Survivability in IP-over-WDM Networks. Introduction Multilayer network architecture is moving into IP-optimized two-layer architecture. ․ They have same.
MPLS and GMPLS Li Yin CS294 presentation.
Connect. Communicate. Collaborate BANDWIDTH-ON-DEMAND SYSTEM CASE-STUDY BASED ON GN2 PROJECT EXPERIENCES Radosław Krzywania (speaker) PSNC Mauro Campanella.
Evolution of Path Computation Towards Generalized Resource Computation Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting
IETF-70th Vancouver1 Extensions to GMPLS RSVP-TE for Bidirectional Lightpath with the Same Wavelength draft-xu-rsvpte-bidir-wave-01 Sugang Xu, Hiroaki.
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00.txt.
Use Cases for High Bandwidth Query and Control of Core Networks Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking Young Lee, Huawei draft-bernstein-alto-large-bandwidth-cases-00.txt.
TCP/IP Protocol Suite 1 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Chapter 11 Unicast Routing Protocols.
IP Routing Principles. Network-Layer Protocol Operations Each router provides network layer (routing) services X Y A B C Application Presentation Session.
COS 461 Fall 1997 Networks and Protocols u networks and protocols –definitions –motivation –history u protocol hierarchy –reasons for layering –quick tour.
GVPNs: Generalized VPNs using BGP and GMPLS Toolkit draft-ouldbrahim-ppvpn-gvpn-bgpgmpls-06.txt Hamid Ould-Brahim Yakov Rekhter
Guide to Network Defense and Countermeasures Second Edition
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.