Inter-City MAN Services using MPLS

1
Inter-City MAN Servicesusing MPLS Primary
Authors Pascal Menezes (Terabeam) Yakov Rekhter
(Juniper) July 23rd 2001Version 1.0
2
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.

3
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.

4
MAN Overlay (Virtual) Backbone Topology
EMAN 2
Telecom Backbone Provider
NE
EMAN 1
NE
NE
Virtual Connection MAN Provider
Managed And Operated
EMAN 3
5
Global MAN Overlay Backbone Topology
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
Telecom Backbone Provider
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
6
MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology
EMAN 2
Telecom Backbone Provider
PE
EMAN 1
PE
PE
PE
LSPs NSP Provider Managed And Operated
EMAN 3
NSP Traffic Engineered LSPs
7
Global MAN Peering Model Backbone Topology
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
EMAN
12
12
NSP Backbone Provider
12
12
12
EMAN
EMAN
12
12
12
EMAN
EMAN
12
12
12
EMAN
EMAN
12
12
EMAN
EMAN
8
Inter-City MAN Peering Model
NSP Network
MAN 2
MAN 1
PE 1
PE 2
CE 1 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
P1
P2
PE 2
PE 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
Separate IGP Domain
Separate IGP Domain
Same Autonomy
9
Inter-City MAN LSP Hierarchical Model
NSP Network
MAN 2
MAN 1
Inter-City Service LSP
Inter-City LSP
NSP TE- LSP
PE 1
PE 2
CE 1 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
P1
P2
PE 2
PE 1
MAN BB 1
MAN BB 2
10
CoS Mapping
NSP Network
MAN 2
MAN 1
Inter-City Service LSP
EXP Marking
EXP Marking
Inter-City LSP
EXP Marking
NSP TE LSP
PE 1
PE 2
CE 1 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
P1
P2
PE 2
PE 1
11
Proposal to Join RFC 2547bisand RFC 3107 For
Inter-City MAN Services
12
Inter-City MAN Hierarchical LSP
LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services
Hierarchical LSP (NO Label) for Prefix 1
Hierarchical LSP Label K for Prefix 1
Hierarchical LSP Label L for Prefix 1
IGP LSP Label (swap) for PE1
PE 1
PE 2
CE 1 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
P1
P2
PE 2
PE 1
RSVP Resv Label (swap) for PE1
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)
E-MBGP MPLS Advertise Prefix 1 BGP Next Hop
PE2 And Label K (swapped label)
13
Multi-Site Example
LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services
Hierarchical LSP
PE 1
CE 1 ASBR
PE 2
CE 2 ASBR
P1
P2
PE 1
PE 2
Hierarchical LSP
PE 3
CE 3 ASBR
P3
PE 3
LSP with ERO Prefix 1 for Inter-City MAN Services
14
Hierarchical Distribution Tree
CE 1 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
CE 3 ASBR
CE 1 ASBR
CE 1 ASBR
CE 3 ASBR
CE 3 ASBR
CE 2 ASBR
15
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.