MPLS Deployment

Examining the Network Evolution

Agenda
 Overview of the existing network infrastructure.
 Potential MPLS Networks
 Current Design Practices and Market Forces
 Requirements Met by Current Designs
 Constraints of Current Design
 Requirements of MPLS for the New Public Network.
 MPLS Technology Evolution
 Obstacles to Deployment
 Benefits of the New Network
 The Migration Process.
 The Current Layered Model
 Moving to an End-to-end MPLS Network
 The New Services Enabled by an MPLS Infrastructure.
 Advantages of MPLS Networking
 New Services Enabled By MPLS
 Hybrid Switches Created by MPLS
 Conclusions
 Overview of the Existing
Network Design
Potential MPLS Networks
Current Design Practices and Market Forces
Requirements Met by Current Designs
Product Functionality by Product
Constraints of Current Design
Potential MPLS Networks
 Target Networks:
 IP Service Providers of all types, not just ISPs.
 ISP backbone to start (IP centric).
 CLEC, ILEC – transport providers take on IP knowledge.

 Challenges Facing IP Service Providers.

 Exponential Internet growth (BW, IP prefixes).
 Need to offer multiple service levels.
 Need to offer new IP services.
 Ex.: Virtual Private Networks.
Current Design: The Layered Model

C o n te n t A c c e s s R o u te r
Pop

S w it c h

A c c e s s R o u te r S w it c h
S w itc h
Access

T ie r 1
C o re R o u te r

A c c e s s R o u te r

S w itc h M a jo r C a r r ie r s
S w itc h

C o n te n t
A c c e s s R o u te r C o re R o u te r

A c c e s s R o u te r

Access

A c c e s s R o u te r
Current Practice and Market Forces
 Today: Layered Model.
 ATM backbone surrounded by big “Core” IP routers.
 IP over ATM.

 Market Forces:
 IP becomes universal service interface.
 VPNs, Voice, data (Internet, intranet, extranet), IP multicast.
 Traditional router vendors trying to push inward to displace
ATM backbone.
 Optical Internetworking poised to grab the very core of the
network hierarchy.
 Requirements Met by Current Designs
 ATM switching has an enormous presence in the backbone of many service
providers:
 Multiple tiers
 Bandwidth
 Capacity
 Value-add lock-ins, enabled by connection oriented link layer:
 Congestion Aware Routing
 Traffic Engineering
 QoS
 Traffic Management
 Circuit (service) Provisioning at ATM Layer
 These have been developed in the ATM control plane Extensions:
 UNI
 PNNI
 ABR/CBR/VBR/UBR/GFR
 Different Products Perform Critical Functions

POP
POP  IP Routers:
CR CR  Classify Traffic
POP
 Forward IP
CR
CR POP
 ATM Switches
POP
 Provide Raw Switching Capacity
CR  Provides connection-oriented link
CR POP
layer, that enables:
 Traffic Engineering
CR  Hard QoS
POP  Traffic management
 Constraint-Based / Congestion-
AR
AR AR AR aware routing
AR
 Constraints of Existing Designs

 COLL benefits end at router boundary.

 SPs dislike multiple control plane protocols:
 ATM and IP
 Previously Required Because IP Lacked a COLL.
 No TE, TM, CR or QoS
 Induces ‘Cost’
 Infrastructure Cost
 Operational Cost
 Management Cost
 Perceived Complexity of ATM.
 The benefits of ATM come at the expense of the “cell tax”.
 Cells make sense in many portions of the network
 Cells will move to edge at OC-3 and down
 DSL, ATM IADs
 MPLS will still provide control plane
Requirements of MPLS for
the New Public Network
Connection Oriented Networking
Comparisons of COLLs
The Evolution of IP Products
Software and Protocol Requirements
Hardware Requirements
Network Management Requirements
 The Requirement: Connections
 Marketing Debates
 Not IP vs. ATM
 Not MPLS vs. ATM

 Technical Reality: Connection-oriented vs. connectionless

 ATM
 IP enabled by MPLS
 Connection oriented traffic allows for traffic engineering and bandwidth guarantees
(QoS) - and is already provided today in technologies like ATM and Frame Relay.
 IP alone is a connectionless protocol. Its forwarding decision are made on a hop by hop
basis.
 MPLS enables to COLL behavior.
 The pinned-up connection is relatively permanent, thereby allowing for resources to be
reserved and allocated.
 Traffic Engineering, QoS and Congestion Aware Routing
 Service Providers with an existing COLL will require MPLS to be a functional
replacement.
 MPLS and ATM as COLLs
 The charts below reflect that MPLS is providing the key components of a COLL
technology.
ATM MPLS
Connection ID VP / VC (2) Stacked Labels (many)
Connection Method Virtual Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Circuits
Explicit Routing Designated Explicit Route Objects
Transit List
Path Setup UNI CR-LDP or RSVP-TE
Signaling

To meet QoS requirements, even non-ATM LSRs should provide capabilities

similar to ATM switches:
ATM MPLS
Queuing Per-VC queuing Per-LSP queuing
Traffic Weighted per-VC Weighted per-LSP scheduling
Scheduling scheduling
QoS Routing PNNI routing Enhanced IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
Product Software and Protocol Requirements
 Routing
 Not the ones you have today.
 Need TE and QoS Extensions:
 Maximum Link Bandwidth
 Maximum Allocation Multiplier (a percentage can be used for over-
subscription)
 Current Bandwidth Reservation
 Resource class (color, administrative group)
 Packet loss ratio
 Link Propagation Delay
 And several others
 Signaling
 Not just LDP or RSVP
 Need CR-LDP or RSVP-TE
 With matching properties to above items.
 Both will survive !
Additional Required Connection Features

 Combined, they enable the following functions:

 Crankback
 Make-before-break
 Prioritized reroutes
 Prioritized call setup
 Bulldozer bits
 Path computation algorithms
 MPLS based recovery (recent draft submitted)
 Sophisticated path computation methods
 CAC

 Key Measurements: Calls per second; circuit rerouting; protocol

convergence, in the presence of CR CA information.
Product Hardware Requirements
 Classification and forwarding
 On a per connection basis
 Queue
 Schedule
 Buffer
 Shape
 Policing
 Marking
 Throttling
 New methods
 Class Based Queuing (CBQ)
 Random Early Discard (RED/wRED)

 Not per box or per port, but per connection.

 MPLS: The Common Ground
 ATM Switches
 Connection oriented Networking

Connectionless Packet Connection

 Traditional Routing Routing Switching
 IP Routing and forwarding

 MPLS
 Connections for IP MPLS

IP ATM

ATM already has the right experience with the necessary algorithms.
Connection types: Is your MPLS vendor delivering 1994 technology?
Network Management Requirements

 Management is critical component to the migration.

 Provisioning, billing and accounting is a major operational issue.

 Sophisticated tools already exist for current networking technologies.

 Relatively long evolution to meet SP needs.
 Many SPs have extended these even further through own engineering.

 These networks can’t migrate and restart the clock, and wait for new
tools.
 They must be available day-1
The Migration Process
The Current Layered Model
Moving to an End-to-end MPLS Network
 The Migration Process
Easy migration
ATM
 IP/ATM/cells ATM
Today Cells
F-NNI Cells

 IP/ATM/FNNI HW
 IP/MPLS/FNNI SW
 IP/MPLS/POS SW
Technology Encapsulation and MTU Routing Protocol
 Each step is a fully functional network.
ATM AAL5
Header Fixed 53 byte MTU P-NNI
 What is not shown is that you
lose your COLL….which is why F-NNI AAL5
Header Dynamic MTU up to 16k P-NNI
you need to add MPLS back on POS PPP
Header Dynamic MTU up to 16k OSPF, RIP,
top. IS-IS, BGP
The New Services Enabled by
an MPLS Infrastructure
Advantages of MPLS Networking
New Services Enabled By MPLS
Hybrid Switches Created by MPLS
Conclusions
Advantages of MPLS network
 Transport technology independent
POP
 End to end connections POP
CR
 COLL in single control plane POP
CR
 TE
CR
 TM CR POP
 QoS
 CR POP
 Greater tunnel hierarchy CR
CR POP
 N2 adjacencies gone
 Minimizes IP lookup process CR
 Intelligence at edge POP
 Core can be simpler switches AR
AR AR AR
AR
 Service Offerings Enabled By MPLS

 IP Routing/Forwarding on ALL ports.

 Filtering, policies, firewalling
 Customer prem. gear
 MPLS based VPNs (IP VPNs)
 Virtual leased line
 MPLS based QoS
 Service level agreements

 Voice over IP/MPLS Architectures

 IP Multicast
A New Breed of Switching Product
 Hybrids that offer Ships In the Night mode (MPLS and ATM)
 Many carriers today have multiple networks
 Frame, IP, ATM
 Replicated operational costs
 SIN – expose multiple service interfaces to customer over a single infrastructure
 VC, VP, POS, MPLS, Frame Relay…
 Only ATM switches can operate in SIN mode
 Packet-based routers can not
 Packet based IP centric services only – likely POS/MPLS
 BUT, if there are other services….…
 ATM service
 VC/VP/ L2VPN
 TDM/CEM
 This approach is also a low risk approach to building out your next backbone.
 ATM COLL is proven technology
 Easily migration to MPLS on same product
 Move entirely to MPLS when ready
 Or, stay in SIN mode for hybrid network
 4 Modes of Hybrid Operation

Edge

Con ID Payload

Edge

4 modes: hop by hop; ATM; MPLS, SIN

Hybrids Redefine Multi-Service
 Multi service past:
 Voice
 Video
 Data
 Multi service now
 POS, ATM, FNNI, IP interface to customer
 Option of MPLS on top of all
 Hybrid acts as adaptation layer

 Connection oriented service, enable multi-application uses:

 Voice video data
The Effect of Hybrid Switches in the Network Design

POP Full mesh of SPVCs between

POP all Core Routers

CR CR
Many diverse paths exploited
through ATM core
POP

CR Routers’ View of the Network

CR POP

POP
CR
CR POP

ATM Switch
CR
POP CR Core IP Router

AR Access Router /
AR
AR AR AR AS Border Router
AR
Conclusions
 MPLS promises to be a powerful unification technology
 Marring the best of IP and ATM
 It will take time to meet all high expectation.
 Functional replacement
 Network management
 MPLS is not vanilla IP.
 SPs will be very cautious, and will be sure they know what they are
getting when vendors talk about MPLS.
 SPs do require a low risk, simple migration process.
 Can not build out a parallel network
 MPLS is just a technology, with great potential
 Must enable new services (revenue)
 Reduce operational burdens (costs)
 Hybrid Switches enable a low risk migration process, while enabling a
truly multi-service network.
Thank You!