NMA Panel Session, Feb.

25

14 vendor MPLS/GMPLS Inter-operability Trial Over Multi-area ROADM/OXC Network

Wataru Imajuku NTT Network Innovation Labs.

Feb 25, 2008

Page 1

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Contributing Co-Authors

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

NTT: Eiji Oki Isocore: Rajiv Papneja Toyo Corp.: Shinichiro Morishita KDDI R&D Labs.: Kenichi Ogaki and Masanori Miyazawa Fujitsu Lab.: Keiji Miyazaki Fujitsu: Hiroaki Nakazato Juniper Networks: John Allen and Hidetsugu Sugiyama ITOCHU Techno-Solutions: Shinichi Hasegawa and Nobuhiro Sakuraba NEC: Itaru Nishioka Mitsubishi Electric: Shoichiro Seno OKI: Yoshihiro Nakahira Keio Univ.: Daisuke Ishii and Satoru Okamoto Agilent Technologies: Tara Van Unen Alcatel-Lucent: Mark Blumhardt Cisco: Hari Rakotoranto Sycamore: Vijay Pandian
Page 2

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Outline

Status of Related Activities Study Objective Challenging Issues Experiments Results & Issues Remaining Problems & Discussion Conclusion

Page 3

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Status of GMPLS Standardization Activities

IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) z RSVP-TE (RFC 3473)/OSPF-TE (RFC4203)/LMP (RFC4204) z Protection & Restoration (RFC4872/RFC4873) z Current discussion is focused on
z Inter-domain signaling & routing in RFC editor queue z WSON z PBB-TE control z LCAS/VCAT control z ASON routing z Multi-layer (Nested domain architecture)

Optical Internetworking Forum

z O-UNI 2.0 signaling z E-NNI 2.0 signaling z E-NNI 1.0 routing
Page 4

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Other Research Activities

ASON/GMPLS Inter-domain Inter-operability Trial z NICT Keihanna open laboratory

Satoru Okamoto et al., OFC2006 PDP47

z MUPBED
Hans-Martin Foisel et al., ECOC2006 We3.P.119

OIF World Wide Interoperability Demo at ECOC2007

z VCAT/LCAS control z Auto-discovery

JGN II
z NICT/NTT/KDDI/MCNC/Univ. of Illinois/Calient JOINT activities US-Japan Inter-carrier LSP control z Terminated four year field research activity

Page 5

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

SINET 3

SINET III constructed by National Institute of Informatics http://www.sinet.ad.jp/ Currently largest GMPLS network in Japan z 75 nodes includes STM256 (40 Gbit/s) links z Layer-1 BoD service z Users can specify destination, duration, bandwidth with a granularity of 150 Mbps, and route option. z BoD server receives reservation requests, schedules accepted reservations, and triggers Layer-1 path setup.

Ref. S. Urushidani et al., Proc. of ECOC2007 6.5.2.

Page 6

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Initiation of L1 BoD Service on Feb. 1st

After hitlessly reducing bandwidths of L2/L3 paths by 1.8 Gbps using LCAS, established two L1 paths (0.9 Gbps x 2) on demand via client PC at Hokkaido Univ. Very stable transmission of non-compressed HDTV between sites
Hokkaido

BoD server
L1-OPS

IP router IP router IP router IP router

NII (Tokyo)

L2 Mux NII Tokyo Tokyo Tsukuba Sendai Sapporo

L2 Mux Hokkaido

: L2/L3 path : L1 path (0.9 Gbps) : L1 path (0.9 Gbps)

Client PC

Page 7

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Study Objective at ipop2006 Show Case

Objective
z Evaluate Intra-carrier multiple routing area architecture of IETF model - Per-area hop route calculation in area border (ABR)-OXC z Evaluate optical routing in STM-16/GbE multi-rate optical links z Evaluate routing in ROADM and OXC hybrid network

Importance of these issues

z Essential functionality for nationwide deployment of GMPLS z ITU-T G.709 based OTN link with multi-rate transport capability for STM-N and GbE/10 GE is real issue
- ITU-T G.sup43, Transport of IEEE 10G Based-R in Optical Transport Networks (OTN)

z ROADM/OXC hybrid network will be feasible within several years

Page 8

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Challenging Issues
Point II a) Auto-discovery of next-hop ABR-OXC b) Per-area hop route calculation at ABR-OXC c) Loose-hop expansion (RFC3209) at ABR-OXC

Auto-discovery of ABR, per-area hop route calculation, and loose-hop expansion

Point I Auto-discovery of ABR-OXC

#A

Sub-area X Area 0
ABR-OXC ASBR-OXC

Sub-area Y
ABR-OXC

#Z

z Originate from scalability issue regarding open shortest path first protocol (OSPF) - Requires sub-area routing architecture if number of nodes in OSPF area exceeds about one hundred z OSPF-TE specification indicates that link Information is advertised within each routing sub-area - Link information is invisible to outside sub-areas
Page 9

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Experimental Configuration

Inter-operability testing among 25 sets of equipment from 14 vendors

z Four GMPLS routing areas z 2.4 G SDH/GbE hybrid optical links z Two ROADM areas and two OXC/TDM-XC areas
: Router/ Tester : TDM-XC

: ROADM : OXC

Area 1 @Isocore (Washington DC)

#B3 #D1 #G #H ABR-OXC #L2 #F

GbE/OC48 dual rate link OC48 link GbE link

Area 2 @Toyo
#N2 #N1

ABR-OXC #L1

Area 3 @Toyo

Area 0 @Toyo
#K

#M1 #M2

#N3 #J ABR-OXC #L3 #I

#B2 MPLS NW

#E1

#D3 #B1
MPLS NW

#C

#E2

#D2

#A2

#A1
Page 10

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Equipment Tested in Experiment

MPLS/GMPLS testers

MPLS router

GMPLS routers

ROADMs TDM-XC

OXCs

Page 11

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Path Creation

RSVP-TE:
z Switching Type: Lambda z Encoding Type: Ethernet or SDH z GPID: Ethernet or SDH

1. Search NH-ABR 2. PDPC *) 3. ERO expansion

PATH

PATH

L
PATH PATH PATH

PATH RESV RESV RESV RESV RESV RESV

PATH RESV

#A

Sub-area X Area 0
ABR-OXC

Sub-area Y
ABR-OXC
*) PDCP: Per-domain path calculation

#Z
Page 12

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results I: RSVP-TE and OSPF-TE

RSVP-TE: Achieved very good inter-operability for strict ERO signaling OSPF-TE: Issues Encountered:
z Router LSA Vendor implementation does not support the advertisement of Node ID by stub area within Router LSA. This resulted in a lack of reachability information. What LSA or TLV should be responsible for providing reachability information to inter-domain LSPs ? Need discussion. z Router Address TLV ABR-OXCs did not advertise the Router Address TLV for sub-areas. Some vendor implementations recognized this as OSPF adjacency error and failed to perform CSPF calculation.
Page 13

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results II-a: CSPF Calculation

Routing over STM-16/GbE multi-rate lambda links Issues Encountered:

z Expectedly failed optical LSP routing in multiple rate lambda links Some vendor implementations anticipated multiple Link TLV information. On the other hand, other implementations disregarded transmission rate for lambda links. z What is the most effective way to advertise multi-rate lambda links ? We adapted OSPF-TE configuration to create logically separate GbE or STM-16 traffic engineering links for dual-rate optical links.

Routing over ROADM/OXC hybrid network Issues Encountered:

z No specification to advertise switching constraint of ROADMs z Failed to create inter-area LSP that traverses over ROADM ring on egress side.

Page 14

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results II-b: CSPF Calculation

Switching constraint of ROADM z LSPs from West Tributary Ports are terminated at East Tributary Ports z This is also true for the opposite case. Ref. draft-imajuku-ccamp-rtg-constraint-0x.txt now merged to draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-info-0x.txt
NNI link (West) West bound bi-directional LSP Add switches Drop switches ROADM Drop switches Add switches NNI link (East) East bound bi-directional LSP

RxTx

RxTx

RxTx

RxTx

West bound tributary port group

East bound tributary port group

Page 15

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results III-a: Inter-area LSP Creation

Issues Encountered:
z Auto-discovery of ABR-OXC/Next-hop ABR-OXC Auto-discovery of next-hop ABR-OXC is possible, if all GMPLS capable nodes advertise their node IDs within Router LSA. z Each ABR-OXC successfully performed per-area hop route calculation, if operators conduct manual assignment of next-hop ABR-OXC. ABR-OXCs automatically inserted explicit route objects into RSVP-TE messages (Loose hop expansion) to assign the route for their area.

PCE

RSVP PATH message

#B1

#B2

#I

ABR-OXC #L2

#K

ABR-OXC #L1

30.204.16.13
Page 16

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results III-b: Inter-area LSP Creation

Three other successful scenarios for per-area hop route calculation in ABR-OXC
RTT 694 msec 5216 msec
#I #B1 ABR-OXC #L1 #K ABR-OXC #L2 ABR-OXC #L3 #B2

#N1

#N2

#I

583 msec
Per-area hop route calculation & loose hop expansion

Typically 8 to 9 seconds in addition to the round trip time is required to initiate IP packet forwarding.
Page 17

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Results IV

MPLS over GMPLS control test

z GMPLS LSPs are used as forwarding adjacency LSPs to nest MPLS LSPs.
#B2 ping #A2 MPLS LSP #I Optical GbE LSP ABR-OXC #L2 #K ABR-OXC #L1 #B1 #A1

RSVP PATH

58.92 sec

IP traffic over MPLS (PING reply)

Page 18

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Remaining Problem Summary

Mainly three problems remain

z Inconsistency in Node ID advertisement policy z Some vendor implementations do not advertise Node ID info z Problems in discovering next-hop ABR z Need for clear OSPF-TE advertisement policy for multi-rate lambda links z No consensus at this moment z However, we need to minimize OSPF-TE extension z Need to incorporate switching constraint information of ROADMs z We need to reach a consensus on method for handling such Static constraint information

Page 19

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Discussion

Before discussion on IP reachability problem, it is important to address network architecture

z Is ABR-ROADM/OXC architecture really an excellent solution ? z Instability of ABR-ROADM/OXC resulted in instability throughout network z It is valuable to re-consider control plane network architecture z For example, isolate ABRs to control plane and user plane network z Minimize burden on TNE memory capacity for routing information in Area 0

#A

Area 0
ABR-OXC ABR-OXC

#Z
Up to 20,000 reachability info, if UNI is provided for service network PCE IP reachability Info

Example of alternative architecture

Area 0
C-Plane ABR

#A

#Z
Page 20

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Discussion (cont.)

Once we employ this control plane network architecture, sub-AS architecture is also applicable without changing deployed TNE control plane functionalities. Meaningful from the viewpoint of future proof.

OSPF Area 0

C-Plane ABR

PCE IP reachability Info

#A
C-Plane sub-ASBR

#Z
BGP Sub-AS
PCE IP reachability Info

#A

#Z

Even in this case, IP reachability information is essential to discover next-hop PCE and ABR (or sub-ASBR), and to transport RSVP-TE notify messages between two end points.
Page 21

NMA Panel Session, Feb. 25

Conclusion

Achieved LSP creation with per-area hop route calculation in ROADM/OXC networks in four routing areas. Before addressing to inter-area protocol extension,
z Need to re-consider control plane network architecture z Need to consider how to locate PCE and ABR (or sub-ASBR). z need rough consensus for these issues. z While protocol extension has to have flexibility for the control plane network architecture, we have to find an effective way to avoid excess protocol extension for TNEs. z PCE architecture seems to be a good solution for this purpose, both for carrier and vendors.

Thank you for your attention !

Page 22