MPLS-TP in Multi-Service Packet

Network Deployments Tutorial

MR-245
January 2011
 Agenda

1. Introduction to the Broadband Forum

2. Technology, Market and Business drivers
3. MPLS-TP Technology Overview –
Architecture, data plane, OAM, control
plane, survivability
4. MPLS(-TP) Use Cases
5. Broadband Forum Applicability
6. Network Scenarios
7. Summary

2
 We are the Broadband Forum
http://www.broadband-forum.org

 The Broadband Forum is the central organization driving

broadband solutions and empowering converged packet
networks worldwide to better meet the needs of vendors,
service providers and their customers.

 We develop multi-service broadband packet networking

specifications addressing interoperability, architecture and
management. Our work enables home, business and
converged broadband services, encompassing customer,
access and backbone networks.

 Disclaimer: this tutorial is provided solely for educational

purposes. At this point, the applicability of MPLS-TP to BBF
architectures and solutions is under active study. Options
shown are examples of potential uses. Implementations and
architectural requirements are specified in BBF Technical
Reports.
3
 The BroadbandSuite
Goals and Focus
The BroadbandSuite is broken down into three major domains:
 BroadbandManagement
– Goal – enhance network management capabilities and enable an
intelligent, programmable control layer that unifies diverse networks
– Focus - empower service providers to deliver and efficiently maintain
personalized services that enhance the subscriber experience
 BroadbandNetwork
– Goal - establish network architecture specifications to support current
and emerging services and applications
– Focus - deliver access, aggregation and core specifications that
provide inherent interoperability, quality, scalability and resiliency
capabilities from end-to-end
 BroadbandUser
– Goal - Define unified networking standards by establishing a common
set of CPE capabilities within the business, home and mobile
environments
– Focus - Simplify the service delivery process by developing common
devices’ identification, activation, configuration and maintenance
specifications
4
www.broadband-forum.org
 Broadband Forum Scope

PARTNER
APPLICATION
Management Quality of Experience
TR-069 (CWMP)
IDENTITY
TR-069 ACS
FUNCTION Identity, Accounting and Policy
Operations and Network Management
DSL Quality Management
BILLING
PARTNER
CONTROL TR-126 IPTV TR-176 DSL OSS
FUNCTION Quality of Experience Profiles for IPTV

CWMP
TR-069

Network TR-144 Multi Service Requirements User

Multi-Service Core Edge Aggregation Access Connected
Home or Office
VoD
TV

Content Network P2P E-FTTx

TR-101, TR-156 GPON

IP/MPLS Ethernet
EPON
Aggregation
Customer
DSL
Premises
Routed Gateway Device
Mobile Network Management
Management
SGW
RNC
BSC

Smart Grid
Home Networking Protocols

Multi Service Architecture & Requirements Certification, Test and Interoperability

5
 The Broadband Forum Documents
The Broadband Forum uses the following nomenclature for its
Documents –

 Technical documents
 Technical Reports (TRs, TR-nnn)
 Working Texts (WTs, WT-nnn)
 Proposed Drafts (PDs, PD-nnn)

 Marketing documents (white papers and tutorials)

 Marketing Reports (MRs, MR-nnn)
 Marketing Drafts (MDs, MD-nnn)

TRs and MRs are available to non-members via the BBF website http://broadband-
forum.org/.

WTs, PDs and MDs are works in progress and generally available to members
only.

6
Technology, Market and Business
drivers

– Why MPLS in
transport?
– Requirements on
MPLS
 Market drivers for Packet Transport
Evolution
 Fast growing bandwidth demand - driven by new
packet applications/services
– IP Video: content downloading/streaming/sharing
– Mobile data: e.g. smart phone applications
– Triple play
– IP and Ethernet VPNs
 Network convergence and Technology refresh
– Consolidate networks onto common infrastructures
– Replace aging legacy networks
– Flexibility to adapt to different types of traffic and topologies
 Cost saving advantages
– Flexible data rates
– Statistical Multiplexing gains, where needed
– Lower operational costs

8
 IP and Ethernet Services Drive Network
Transformation
Multiple Legacy Networks Converged Infrastructure
IP FR/ATM TDM PSTN Services and Applications

OSS / BSS Network Layers

POS
ATM SONET/SDH L2, IP, MPLS Flexible
services Services
E
Wireline and Aggregation Packet Intelligent
t n Wireless and Core Transport scaling and
SONET/SDH
h e Access Traffic
e t Engineering
ETH, OTN
r WDM

OSS / BSS OSS / BSS OSS / BSS

Data Mobile Voice Multi-Services

Services & Services & Services &
Applications Applications Applications

• Multiple layers, separate single • Converged multi-function network

function networks
• Easily enables service and network
• Complicated service and network transformation
transformation
• Multiple single services • Multi-service convergence OSS: Operation Support System
BSS: Business Support System

• Circuit-based transport • Packet-enabled transport

9
 Simplifying Data Services and
Packet Transport
Enabling Technology
Layer 3: IP/MPLS
IP
Already widely deployed for IP-
VPN’s, L2VPNs, multi-point
Flexible services and service aggregation
IP/MPLS/ETH
Layer 2: Based
Ethernet, ATM Services MPLS Pseudowires and LSPs

Deployed for service

aggregation, may be optimized
for transport
Layer 1:
Efficient
SONET/SDH
Transport MPLS (Transport)

Profile of MPLS optimized for

transport
Layer 0:
DWDM
Underlying layer Network
e.g. OTN/WDM, Ethernet, …
Any service over converged packet transport

10
 Characterising Packet Transport
 Provides efficient, quality, scalable, reliable and secured
Transport paths between service termination/switching points..
 Enables cost-effective delivery of L2, MPLS(-TP) and IP
services over different transport technologies
 Independence between transport network and the client service
network
– Control/management plane isolation
– Little or no coordination required between the client services and
underlying transport network
– The packets of the client network are transparently transported
– Transport network addressing and topology info hidden from client of
service layer
 Service guaranteed not to fall below agreed level regardless of
the behaviour of other transport network client services

(Paraphrased from RFC 5921)

11
 Case for MPLS in Packet Transport
MPLS:
 Is Multiservice
IP/MPLS
tools and  Is carrier-grade
operations MPLS
 Offers connection-oriented
MPLS-TP operation with Traffic
IP/MPLS
Engineering capability
 Is widely deployed in service
Optical transport routing and core
tools and operations
 Enables true convergence
between transport
and packet networks
MPLS-TP bridges the gap between the
transport and packet worlds allowing  Capex and Opex savings
true convergence
 Can be easily profiled for
See RFC5921: A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks packet transport
12
 Requirements on MPLS Transport
Profile
Transport-Centric Operational Model
Supports both static (OSS-based) and dynamic (control-plane) provisioning and management
Data plane capabilities independent of Control plane

Protection Switching
Can be triggered by OAM i.e., not be dependent on dynamic signalling or
Control Plane liveliness
Efficient operation for both dense mesh and ring topologies

Transport-Optimized OAM
Comprehensive set of OAM fault management and performance monitoring
supporting the network and the services. Not dependent on IP forwarding

Connection-Oriented
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are co-routed
No LSP merging; no Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)

Standard MPLS Data-Path

Solution is based on standardized MPLS and pseudowire constructs, guaranteeing data-path
interoperability and architectural soundness with IP/MPLS
(Paraphrased from RFC5654)

13
 IETF/ITU-T Joint Working Team (1)
Consensus on MPLS-TP
IETF and ITU-T agreed to work together and bring transport requirements
into the IETF and extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability,
network management, and control plane protocols to meet those
requirements through the IETF Standards Process. [RFC5317]1

Definition of MPLS “Transport Profile” (MPLS-TP) protocols,

based on ITU-T requirements

Derive packet transport requirements

Integration of IETF MPLS-TP definition into transport network
recommendations

BBF defines how to apply technologies in broadband

networks to allow interoperability and multi-services
support.

1: [RFC 5317]: Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile,
Feb. 2009.
14
MPLS-TP Technology Overview

Architecture, Data plane,

OAM, Control plane,
Survivability
 MPLS-TP Objectives
(from RFC5654 and RFC5921)

 To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport

network and operated in a similar manner to existing
transport technologies (SDH/SONET/OTN)

 To enable MPLS to support packet transport

services with a similar degree of predictability(*),
reliability and OAM to that found in existing
transport networks

Enable connection-oriented packet transport based on widely deployed MPLS

protocols, with transport-grade performance & operation similar to existing
transport networks; ensure interoperability with IP/MPLS

(*) MPLS-TE offers similar predictability

16
 What is MPLS-TP?

MPLS
Existing MPLS RFCs
prior to RFC5654

MPLS Transport Profile

Subset to meet transport
network operational
• ECMP requirements Additional
• MP2P LSP • MPLS forwarding functionality
• IP forwarding • P2MP and P2P LSP based on Transport
/ dependency • MPLS/PWE3 architecture Requirements
• GMPLS/PWE3, control
• OAM, Resilience, etc

17
 MPLS-TP Design considerations
 Differentiate between:
– Functionality – can probably be achieved in multiple ways
– Operational experience – the same look and feel as in other
transport networks
– Frame format of messages – many options. Should be
possible for HW to parse them efficiently.
How it looks and how it feels do not dictate how it is achieved!
 Ensure a Standards Based solution for each of the MPLS-TP
tools, simplifying implementation, deployment and operation.
The solution should suit all deployment environments.

18
 Additional Functionality based on
Transport Requirements

Transport-like OAM Additional

• In-band OAM channels
functionality
• Performance monitoring for SLA verification
• Sub-Path monitoring with multi-level operation Transport-like Operation
• Alarms and AIS • Dataplane / control plane
independent
• Fully operational without
control plane
Transport-like Resilience • Traffic Engineered Control
• Protection switching
triggered by OAM
• Linear protection
• Ring protection

Additional features for standard IP/MPLS routers & Optical Packet Transport equipment;
enhanced commonalities between service routing and optical transport

19
 MPLS-TP architecture
NMS Dynamic control
plane is an option

Client node
Client node Protect PE
PE LSP

Server layer : MPLS-TP LSP (Static or Dynamic)

Client layer : Pseudowire or any Network Layer
Client Signal

 Foundation for Optical Transport equivalent OAM and protection-switching capabilities

 A centralized control/management plane with or without support of a distributed control
plane
 Primary constructs are
– MPLS LSPs for transportation (RFC3031) for Server Layer
– Uses PWE3 architecture (RFC3985) if client Layer of an MPLS-TP LSP uses pseudowires
– Client Layer of MPLS-TP LSP can also be ‘any network layer’
 Specific Control messages (e.g. OAM and Protection Coordination Protocol) run inband
and share fate with data traffic.
20
 MPLS-TP Architecture: Point to Point Service
using PWE3
MPLS-TP
Pseudowires (PW) adapt L2 services to MPLS-TP Label Switched Path (LSP)
Static or dynamically signalled

Ethernet
ATM PW PW
TDM
etc.

PE P PE
LSPs take strict path in both directions
“bidirectional and co-routed” Section between adjacencies at LSP layer
Static or dynamically signalled

Reuse of MPLS architecture to meet transport requirements

Section : next higher order

MPLS-TP LSP
server layer that provides Bidirectional MPLS-TP LSPs
multiplexing of MPLS-TP paring relationship
PW
21 entities such as MPLS-TP LSPs
 MPLS-TP Architecture: Point to Point Service
for a Network Layer Client
Point to Point Packet transport service
MPLS-TP
IP or MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Service LSP provides encapsulation and service multiplexer
Static or dynamically signalled

IP, Service Service

MPLS LSP LSP LSP
etc. (optional) (optional)

PE P PE
LSPs take strict path in both directions
“bidirectional and co-routed”
Static or dynamically signalled Section between adjacencies at LSP layer

Reuse of MPLS architecture to meet transport requirements

22
 Domain of MPLS-TP
Where does MPLS-TP end, and client layers begin?

PW-based Labelled IP service

service e.g. router interconnect
services
e.g. L2 private line e.g. backhaul of MPLS traffic

PW PW S=1
IP
Payload Label

S=1 S=0 S=1

PW label LSP label* LSP label IP Client layer

S=0 S=0 S=0 S=1 MPLS-TP layer

LSP label LSP label LSP label LSP label

 S-bit follows current MPLS practice i.e., indicates non-MPLS follows

 Label stacks shown are the smallest number of labels possible

*Can be Penultimate Hop Popped

23
 Enabling Enhanced OAM Capabilities
Three possibilities for OAM supported by MPLS
1. Hop-by-hop (e.g. control plane based)
2. Out-of-band OAM
3. In-band OAM similar to transport model selected for MPLS-TP

RFC5586 – Generic Associated Channel

(GACh) generalises Pseudowire ACh to
Section
also enable OAM on MPLS LSPs & Sections
LSP • In-band forward and return path
PW • Increases range of OAM tools
• Common tools at PW, LSP and
Section level

Reuse of MPLS PW OAM architecture to meet transport requirements

24
 G-ACh Label Stack for an LSP
MPLS-TP uses a new alert label to identify packets on the Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACh)
– Generic ACh Label (GAL) Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL)
 Identifies G-ACh packet
OAM Packet
Label Stack  New reserved label (Value = 13)
 Not needed for PWs — use control word
LSP Label
Associated Channel Header (ACH)
GAL  Reuse PW ACH on LSPs ; same format and
ACH version number as is today
 Channel Type indicates protocol (support for
ACH TLV IETF standard and experimental protocol)

Payload ACH TLVs (optional — depends on ACh protocol)

 Provides additional context information such as
src/dst addressing, authentication, etc.
 Still under discussion
G-ACh Packet Payload
 E.g. OAM, Data Communication (DCC),
protection protocols, etc.
25
 Maintenance Domains for MPLS-TP OAM
 MPLS-TP uses concept of Maintenance Domains being
managed/monitored
 Maintenance End Points (MEPs) are edges of a maintenance domain
– OAM messages of a maintenance domain must not leak beyond
corresponding MEP
 Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPS) are intermediate elements
that can be monitored
 Maintenance Entity Groups (MEGs) comprise all the MEPs and MIPs
on a given maintenance domain for a pseudowire, LSP, or section
MEP MIP MIP MIP MEP MEG

LSP

LER LSR A LSR B LER

Maintenance Domains
MPLS-TP introduces transport OAM concepts to MPLS
Aligns management of packet and circuit based transport
26
 Targeting OAM to a MEP or MIP
 Verification that OAM message received at targeted MIP/MEP for
further processing using Destination address
 For a MEP, GAL exposed when label popped
– Ensures OAM does not leak beyond MEP LSP label popped
<push> <swap> <swap> <pop>
GAL
LSP Label GAL exposed
ACH
TTL=255 TTL=254 TTL=253 ACH processed

 For a MIP, TTL expires, force OAM packet to be processed

LSP label popped
<push> <swap>
GAL
LSP Label GAL exposed
ACH
TTL=1
TTL=2 ACH processed

MPLS-TP uses common MPLS mechanisms to achieve transport-oriented functions

27
 MPLS-TP OAM requirements (RFC 5860)

 The design should reuse the existing IETF MPLS tools (as far as reasonably
possible). Develop new tools when needed.
 Note: the tools meeting the requirements above are still under development in the
IETF, and may be discussed in a next version of the tutorial.
 It MUST be possible to operate OAM functions with or without relying on IP
capabilities.
– OAM interoperability is required between distinct domains which are tailored to IP and
non-IP environments.
 OAM operational experience should be similar to that in other transport networks.
 OAM packets should run in-band and share their fate with data packets.
 OAM toolset is required for:
– Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
– Alarm notification (alarm reporting, remote defect indication, client failure indication)
– Diagnostics (route tracing, loopback, path locking, throughput and error verification,
etc.)
– Performance monitoring (packet loss and packet delay measurement)

28
 Management and Control for MPLS-TP
“MPLS-TP transport paths may be established using static or dynamic configuration.
It should be noted that the MPLS-TP network and its transport paths can
always be operated fully in the absence of any control plane.”1
DYNAMIC

STATIC
 The LSP control plane is based on  Done via management
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), see plane.
[RFC3945].  “Static provisioning MUST
 The PW control plane is based on NOT depend on the
the existing PW control plane presence of any element
(targeted LDP), see [RFC4447]. of a control plane.”1
 Plug-and-play Signalling  Plug-and-play
Communication Channel (SCC) over Management
LSPs or sections for signaling in Communication Channel
absence of native IP support in (MCC) over G-ACh can [1]: RFC5654
server layer carry NMS traffic
29
 Data Communication Network using Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACh)
Carries Management Communication Channel (MCC) or Signalling
Communication Channel (SCC)

NMS NMS

Section
LSP

LSR A LSR B
DCN on LSP DCN on Section
LSP
GAL
GAL
ACH SCC or MCC
ACH SCC or MCC
Protocol ID
Protocol ID
30 DCN Message
DCN Message
 GMPLS for MPLS-TP LSP

GMPLS is a unified, generalized distributed

control plane providing common, single
operation across multi-layer and
technologies.

Being extended
to configure
MPLS-TP OAM
OSPF-TE allows the
IS-IS TE separation of data
RSVP-TE msg plane and control
topology
plane:
distribution RSVP-TE ACh
 out-of band
Link
signaling GAL signaling
Management LSP label  in-band signaling
Protocols

31
 GMPLS – Unified Control Plane

GMPLS supports fast, efficient, dynamic and reliable service

provisioning in multi-layer and multi-technology environments.

GMPLS Supports:
 Traffic engineering, constraint-based routing and explicit path control
 Mechanisms that address QoS and performance requirements (such as throughput,
delay, packet loss, etc.), while utilizing network resources efficiently and reliably.
 Comprehensive mechanisms for protection and fast restoration
 Partitioning of the managed network into separate peer or hierarchical control
domains
 Separate control and data channels, guaranteeing that failure of one does not
adversely affect the other
 Unnumbered links
 Graceful operations

32
 LDP for MPLS-TP PW

Targeted LDP universally deployed today for PW  Setup of PWs

 Lightweight protocol allows for service
scalability  Signaling Pseudowire (PW)
 Signals binding of PW label to FEC Status
 Support for single or multiple PW segments  PW Status Negotiation
 Use enhanced pseudowire addressing with Procedures
MPLS-TP
– Global Identifier + Node Prefix + Attachment Circuit  Encapsulation negotiation
Identifier
 Supports bidirectional PWs
– Allows PW routing scalability with aggregation and
domain partitioning

33
 MPLS-TP Survivability Objectives
 Survivability is the network’s ability to restore traffic and recover
from “failed” or “degraded” entities (links or nodes). It is critical for
the delivery of reliable services in transport networks.
 MPLS-TP to support a comprehensive set of recovery mechanisms
at different nested levels (i.e., the end-to-end level of a transport
path, a path segment, and an MPLS-TP link) including:
– Protection switching mechanisms that are appropriate for transport
networks, capable of providing the recovery time required to maintain
customer SLAs, by pre-provisioned active and backup paths.
– Network restoration mechanisms controlled by a distributed control
plane or a management plane, allowing to establish a backup path
when the failure occurs.

34
 MPLS-TP Survivability
Functional Elements
Control Elements: Recovery Elements:
Support for various recovery triggers, Support for various recovery
such as: domains:
 In-band OAM defect or degradation  MPLS-TP link recovery
indication  Segment recovery
 Network failure detection  End-to-end path recovery
 Administrator-initiated commands
 Control plane signaling
 Etc.
Survivability:
Functional
Elements
Recovery Grades: Mechanisms:
Support for multiple grades of  Support for generic mechanisms
recovery: applicable to any topology
 Dedicated recovery  Support for optimized
 Shared protection mechanisms for specific
 Restoration and repair topologies (e.g. ring)
 Etc.

35
 MPLS-TP Survivability
Functional Elements
Control Elements: Recovery Elements:
Support for various recovery triggers, Support for various recovery
such as: domains:
 In-band OAM defect or degradation  MPLS-TP link recovery
indication  Segment recovery
 Network failure detection  End-to-end path recovery
Different combinations of the
 Administrator-initiated commands
functional elements can provide
 Control plane signaling
 Etc.
different grades of recovery.
Survivability:
Functional
Different recovery grades may be Elements
Recovery Grades: Mechanisms:
used concurrently by a single
Supports for multiple grades  Support for generic mechanisms
MPLS-TP transport path for applicable to any topology
of recovery:
additional resiliency.
 Dedicated recovery  Support for optimized
 Shared protection mechanisms for specific
 Restoration and repair topologies (e.g. ring)
 Etc.

36
 MPLS-TP Recovery Mechanisms (Existing)
All existing GMPLS and MPLS mechanisms are applicable in MPLS-TP (for any
topology):
 GMPLS segment recovery (applicable to uni/bi-directional paths), [RFC4872] 1
– 1+1 bidirectional protection for P2P LSPs
– 1+1 unidirectional protection for P2MP LSPs
– 1:n (including 1:1) protection with or without extra traffic
– Rerouting without extra traffic (sometimes known as soft rerouting), including shared mesh restoration
 GMPLS end-to-end recovery (applicable to uni/bi-directional paths) [RFC4873]
 MPLS LSP end-to-end protection
 MPLS LSP Fast Reroute (FRR)
 Restoration (including pre-planned LSP restoration).
– Supports restoration priority and preemption priority
 PW redundancy (support for dual-homed AC failure, S-PE failure in MS-PW, etc.)
The provisioning method should be decoupled from the data plane capability of the
above mechanisms.
 The management plane is being extended enable the provisioning of the protection entities
and functions.
1 As indicated above, various elements can be used to trigger the recovery action,
37 e.g. in-band OAM, Notify message, network failure detection, etc.
 MPLS-TP Recovery Mechanisms (New)
Multiservice LSP MPLS-TP LSP protection
Access Protection
NMS or
Ring
ASON/GMPLS
Prot.

Ethernet,
TDM, ATM, Wire-speed
OAM
Section Protection IP/MPLS

New protection mechanisms optimized for mesh and ring topologies, which can be
supported at different nested levels (path, segment of a path, section).
 Resources are pre-allocated.
 The protection switching can be triggered by in-band OAM defect or degradation
indication, sub-50ms protection switching can be achieved.
 A data-plane-based protocol (in-band) is being defined to coordinate the protection state
between the edges of a protection domain, and thus enable bi-directional protection switching.
 Support bi-directional1:N, bi/uni-directional1+1. Extra traffic is not required.

38
 Data plane: Linear 1+1 protection
Permanent Bridge Transport path: LSP, segment of a LSP, Selector Bridge
Link
PB SB
Working path

Recovery path

LSR LSR

 Permanent Bridge sends traffic on both working and recovery paths

 Selector bridge selects path
 Protection coordination protocol (PCP) for bi-directional, to coordinate both ends.
– Sent over the recovery path (over G-Ach)
– Upon failure, three PCP messages sent at 3.3 ms intervals to trigger switchover
in sub-50ms.
 Applicable to p2p and p2mp, uni and bi-directional
 Support revertive/non-revertive
39
 Data Plane: Linear 1:1 protection

Transport path: LSP, Segment of an LSP, Link Selector Bridge

Selector Bridge

SB SB
Working path

Recovery path

Protection Coordination Protocol LSR

LSR
 Selector bridge at the ingress LSR selects the path to send traffic on. The egress
LSR selects the traffic from that path.
 Protection coordination protocol (PCP) for bi-directional, to coordinate both ends.
– Sent over the recovery path (over G-ACh)
– Upon failure, three PCP messages sent at 3.3 ms intervals to trigger
switchover in sub-50ms.
 Applicable to bi-directional p2p paths. P2mp is for further study.
 Support revertive/non-revertive
40
 Regarding Pseudowire Redundancy

Attachment Circuit (AC) AC redundancy:

redundancy protocol drives Active/standby state of
forwarding state of PWs/PEs the ACs reflected in PW status

active
PW status

•CE
MPLS-TP network •CE
standby
AC redundancy:
Forwarding direction e.g. driven by LACP or Active/Standby
determined by PW state

MPLS-TP component of end-to-end protection against PE/AC failures

 PE configured with multiple pseudowires per service with multiple end-points
 Local precedence indicates primary PW for forwarding if multiple PWs are
operationally UP
 PW status exchanged end-to-end to notify PEs of operational state of both PWs &
ports/attachment circuits (PW Status Notification).
 Leverages Associated Channel or T-LDP
41
 Ring protection: Background

 Physical rings are prevalent in existing carrier transport networks.

 P2mp paths are easier to implement in a ring topology.
 Ongoing work to optimize the protection operation of MPLS-TP in
ring topologies. Various criteria for optimization are considered in
ring topologies, such as:
– Simplification of ring operation in terms of the number of OAM maintenance
entities that are needed to trigger recovery actions, the number of recovery
elements, the number of management-plane transactions during maintenance
operations
– Optimization of resource consumption around the ring, such as the number of
labels needed for the protection paths that traverse the network, the total
bandwidth required in the ring to ensure path protection

42
 Variants of Ring Protection
Typical options

Wrapping Steering

C B A C B A

D E F D E F

 Protection performed locally by nodes that detect the
fault
 Does not require knowledge of the path followed by an
LSP at the ring ingress/egress nodes
 Wrapping adds latency during protection switching
conditions
 Protection performed by the ring ingress/egress nodes
for the LSPs affected by the fault
 Requires knowledge of the path followed by an LSP at
the ring ingress/egress nodes
 Steering minimizes latency and bandwidth usage during
protection switching conditions

43
 QoS for MPLS-TP
 MPLS-TP data plane is a subset of the existing MPLS data
plane: therefore the QoS capabilities are the same
– MPLS based traffic management, e.g., policing, shaping, is
applicable to MPLS-TP for traffic guarantees
 The Traffic Class bits (aka EXP bits) are used to determine the
QoS for a packet
 QoS and SLA conformance can be measured using on-demand
or pro-active performance monitoring tools
 The Traffic Class bits to be used per LSP are established via
– provisioning or
– dynamic signaling (GMPLS)

44
 IETF MPLS-TP General Definitions
Description
JWT document JWT Report on MPLS-TP
Architectural Considerations
General MPLS-TP Terminologies
General
Focus Area IETF RFC or WG documents
First milestone on MPLS-TP RFC 5317
Joint work by IETF/ITU-T
Terminologies draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone

Requirements and Frameworks

Description and Focus Area IETF RFC or WG documents
Requirements General MPLS-TP Requirements. RFC 5654
MPLS-TP OAM Requirements RFC 5860
MPLS-TP Network Management Requirements RFC 5951
Frameworks MPLS-TP Architecture Framework RFC 5921
MPLS-TP Network Management Framework RFC 5950

MPLS-TP OAM Architecture Framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-

framework
MPLS-TP Survivability Framework draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk

MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-

framework
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

45
 IETF MPLS-TP General Protocol
Definitions
MPLS-TP Protocols for Forwarding and Protection
Function IETF RFC or WG documents
Data Plane MPLS-TP Identifiers conformant to existing draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers
ITU and compatible with existing IP/MPLS
MPLS Label Stack Entry: RFC 5462
"EXP" renamed to "Traffic Class"
MPLS Generic Associated Channel for In-band RFC 5586
OAM and control
In-Band Data Communication for the MPLS- RFC 5718
TP
MPLS TP Data Plane Architecture RFC 5960

MPLS-TP UNI-NNI draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni

Protection MPLS-TP Linear Protection draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection

MPLS-TP MIB Management

Function IETF RFC or WG documents
Management MPLS-TP MIB management overview draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview

46
 IETF MPLS-TP OAM (FM and PM)
MPLS-TP Fault Management (FM) OAM Functions
OAM Functions IETF WG documents

Proactive FM OAM MPLS-TP Identifiers conformant to existing draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers

Functions ITU and compatible with existing IP/MPLS
Remote Defect Indication (RDI) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi
Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault
Link Down Indication (LDI)
Lock Report (LKR)
Config MPLS-TP OAM using LSP Ping draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf
On demand FM OAM Continuity Verification (CV) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv
Functions
Loopback (LBM/LBR) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb

Lock Instruct (LI)

MPLS-TP Performance Management (PM) OAM Functions

OAM Functions IETF WG documents
Proactive PM OAM Packet loss measurement (LM) draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile
Functions
Packet delay measurement (DM)
and
On demand PM OAM Throughput measurement
Functions
Delay Variation measurement

47
 IETF MPLS-TP Various OAM

Various OAM Functions

OAM Functions IETF WG documents
Various OAM related Configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext
Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions Using
RSVP-TE
Guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
the IETF
An Overview of Operations, Administration, draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview
and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms

For more information, see:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mpls/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pwe3/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/

48
 MPLS-TP ITU-T Standards Overview
Work in progress to align with MPLS-TP
For more information, see:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
Architecture and T/publications/Pages/recs.aspx
Definitions G.8110.1 G.8101 http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
Architecture Definitions T/studygroups/com15/Pages/ahmpls-
G.8110
07/07 07/10
tp.aspx

Interface, OAM
specifications G.tpoam G.8112
OAM UNI/NNI
Mechanisms
10/06

Specific
functionalities G.8131 G.8132 G.8121
linear ring Equipment
protection protection
02/07 10/07

Management and
Control Plane Arch. G.8080 G.8151 G.8152 G.7712
ASON EMF Infomodel DCN
Arch.
09/10 10/07 09/10
49 Rec under revision approved Rec consented Rec Rec in Rec started Rec not planned yet
progress
MPLS-TP Use-Cases and BBF
Applicability
 Use cases

 Multiple services over MPLS-TP

– Ethernet
– ATM
– TDM
– IP and/or MPLS (e.g. Router interconnect)
 Interoperability between MPLS-TP and
IP/MPLS
 MPLS-TP as a client of IP/MPLS (using an
IP/MPLS core to tunnel MPLS-TP LSPs)

51
 Multiple services as a client of MPLS (-TP*)
(-TP)
Ethernet MPLS (-TP)
Ethernet Ethernet
Fiber/Copper PW Fiber/Copper
LSP MPLS
PE ETH/SDH/OTN PE
Client Client
Fiber/ wave
PDH MPLS(-TP)

TDM
PDH PDH
Copper / wave PW SONET/SDH
MPLS-TP
LSP MPLS
Fiber/Copper

Client PE
ETH/SDH/OTN
Ethernet PE Client
Fiber/
Fiber/ wave
wave

ATM MPLS(-TP)

ATM ATM
T1/E1 PW SONET/SDH
Copper LSP MPLS
Fiber/Copper

Client PE
ETH/SDH/OTN PE Client
Fiber/ wave
52 (*)The Transport Profile can be used in any case where MPLS can be used
Note: SDH refers to both SONET and SDH
 Multiple services as a client of MPLS (-TP*)
IP and/or MPLS (Router interconnect)

Transport of ETH/PPP

IP/MPLS MPLS (-TP) IP/MPLS

ETH/PPP ETH/PPP
Fiber PW Fiber
LSP MPLS
LER PE ETH/SDH/OTN PE LER
IP/MPLS
Fiber

Transport of IP/MPLS

IP/MPLS MPLS (-TP) IP/MPLS

ETH/POS Service LSP ETH/POS
Fiber LSP Fiber
MPLS
LER LSR/PE ETH/SDH/OTN LSR/PE LER
IP/MPLS
Fiber
(*)The Transport Profile can be used in any case where MPLS can be used
53 Note: SDH refers to both SONET and SDH
 Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW)
enables interconnection between MPLS-TP and other domains
This scenario assumes IP/MPLS supporting MPLS-TP OAM , as per RFC5860

Border Node scheme

MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
Client Client
PW PW
LSP LSP
ETH/SDH/OTN Ethernet/POS/OTN
MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
T-PE Fiber Fiber
S-PE T-PE
PW OAM
PW OAM PW OAM
LSP OAM LSP OAM

Border Link scheme IP/MPLS or

MPLS-TP MPLS-TP IP/MPLS

Client Client
PW PW PW
LSP LSP LSP
ETH/SDH/OTN Ethernet Ethernet/POS/OTN

T-PE Fiber Fiber Fiber

S-PE S-PE T-PE
MPLS-TP IP/MPLS
PW OAM
PW OAM PW OAM PW OAM
LSP OAM LSP OAM LSP OAM
ETH OAM
54
 MPLS-TP as a client of IP/MPLS

IP/MPLS core tunnels MPLS-TP LSP

IP/MPLS LSP Label

Stacking
MPLS-TP
MPLS-TP

MPLS-TP LSP MPLS-TP LSP

Ethernet IP/MPLS ServiceLSP Ethernet
Fiber IP/MPLS Trans LSP
IP/MPLS Fiber
PE ETH/SDH/OTN PE
CE MPLS-TP
Fiber CE

Notes:
 MPLS-TP Bidirectional corouted LSPs must be ensured (TE) over
IP/MPLS core
 P2P MPLS-TP LSPs over IP/MPLS core  ECMP is not used
 IP/MPLS Service LSP and Transport LSP roles may be provided
by one LSP
55
Applicability in Broadband Forum
Architectures

– Use of MPLS-TP in
Multiservice Broadband
– WT-145, WT-178
 WT-145 :Multiservice Broadband
Network Functions and Architecture
R M

PC EMS

A10 U1 T
Device1

ASP/NSP E-NNI-L3 Device2

e.g. Internet, NID
IPTV, VoIP
Device3
Residential
Premise
NSP
e.g. Ethernet
E-NNI-L2 Regional Access Network Functions Device4

Legacy
Adaption Analogue
Function Telephone

E-NNI-L1 Customer Mobile T1/E1

NSP, PSTN Located Backhaul
Equipment

Customer Site
WT-145 Scope
WT-145 is a broadband network architecture to support multiple services
including Residential Triple-Play, Business L2VPN and L3VPN, Backhaul
and Wholesale Services
57 WT-178 provides nodal requirements for WT-145
Note: WT-145 /178 is work in progress
 WT-145/178 : current snapshot of IP
Service Edge Placement Evolution
Centralized
Service Insertion

IP/MPLS Control Plane

MPLS(-TP) MPLS(-TP)
L1/L2/L3 Services

IP ETH/WDM/OTN

ATM  IP/MPLS control plane in core

 Fixed placement of Service Edges

SDH/SONET Flexible
Service Insertion

IP/MPLS Control Plane

L1/L2/L3 Services
Yesterday (TR-59)
ETH/WDM/OTN

 IP/MPLS dynamic control plane end to end

 Flexible placement of Service Edges
58
 WT-178: Nodal Requirements for WT-145

E-NNI-L3 IP Edge
Node Aggregation
Node/ Access
Network Node/
Network

E-NNI-L2
E-NNI-L2

Va

A10 T/U1
59
Note: WT-145/178 is work in progress
 WT-178: Nodal Requirements for WT-145
Access
IP Aggregation Functional
Single Stage Set
Functional Set L2 Aggregation Functional Set
Ethernet (TR-101)
MPLS (Ethernet,
IP Edge DSL,
Node Aggregation GPON,
Va Access
Node/ Etc)
Network
Stage-2 L2 Stage-1 L2Node/
Aggregation Network
Aggregation

Eth MPLS Ethernet

MPLS MPLS
Vc
A10 T/U1
Note 1: WT-145/178 is work in progress
60 Note 2: MPLS refers to any IETF functionality including the Transport Profile
 MPLS(-TP) in WT-178 : Multiservice
Broadband Nodal Requirements
Example topology and deployment models

Ethernet (TR-101)

Eth MPLS Eth

Eth MPLS Eth
Eth MPLS
IP Edge Access
Node Nodes
MPLS MPLS
Eth
Aggregation
Network

61 Note 1: WT-178 is work in progress

Note 2: MPLS refers to any IETF functionality including the Transport Profile
Applicability in Broadband Forum
Architectures

– Ethernet L2VPN
Services
– Ethernet Wholesale
 Carrier Ethernet L2VPNs w. MPLS-TP
E-LINE Ethernet Virtual Connection
LSP Tunnel
PWE

LER LER
UNI UNI
LSR LSR
PE E-LAN Ethernet Virtual Connection PE

PW
Tunnel LSP PW
UNI LER w.
LER w. VSI UNI
VSI PW
PE
MPLS-TP same architecture as
IP/MPLS for L2VPNs
Note: E-TREE under development in IETF LER w.
63 VSI UNI
 Broadband Wholesale Access
 Broadband Wholesale Access (*) :
– Mix of E-LINE and E-TREE services
– Distributed and centralized handoff options
 Broadband Wholesale Access can be provided over MPLS(-TP)

Wholesale
User

Wholesale Provider
UNI
LSP Tunnel
PWE End
Customer
E-NNI-L2
MPLS(-TP) Aggregation
Handoff

(*) See MD-229 , “Leveraging Standards for Next Generation

64
Wholesale Access” Whitepaper
Applications in Broadband Forum
Architectures

– MPLS TP in Mobile
Backhaul Networks
 Mobile Backhaul Networks Topology
 2G(GSM/CDMA) and 3G (UMTS/HSPA)
Mobile Backhaul Networks are based on
Centralized Connectivity Model:
– Each Base Station communicates only
with a single Radio Controller across a
static path
– The Network is designed in Hierarchical
Aggregation Architecture (Centralized
Architecture)
 LTE Backhaul Networks are based on
an Any to Any Connectivity Model:
– Each Base Station communicates with
one or more Network Controllers (aGW)
– Each Base Station communicates with
its neighbouring Base Stations in order
to forward user data traffic during
handovers and to support signalling
traffic
66
 MPLS-TP Usage in 2G/3G Architecture
MPLS-TP can be used in 2G/3G Mobile
Backhaul Networks :
 The centralized and static nature of the
architecture can make use of the “Transport like”
functionality
– uses MPLS Pseudowires for Point-to-Point or Hub &
Spoke connectivity
 No need for Any to Any connectivity
– bi-directional tunnels simplify the network provisioning
process
 The TP specific features may be used to provide:
– Advanced OAM and Protection to assure service
survivability
– Predictable delay and jitter
67
 Backhaul of 2G/3G over Packet infrastructure
 RFC 4553 (structure agnostic)
TDM  RFC 5086 (Circuit Emulation Services
over Packet Switched Network)
MPLS (-TP)

TDM TDM
T1/E1 PW SONET/SDH
Copper MPLS-TP
LSP Fiber
MPLS-TP
Ethernet/OTN
Ethernet
2G Hub Fiber/ wave MTSO BSC
Cell Site

ATM  RFC 4717

MPLS (-TP)
(IMA)
ATM ATM
T1/E1 PW SONET/SDH
Copper LSP Fiber
MPLS-TP
Ethernet/OTN
3G ATM Hub Fiber/ wave MTSO RNC
Cell Site
68
 MPLS-TP in 2G/3G Backhaul Architecture
 MPLS-TP could be used in a 2G/3G backhaul network architecture in a similar
manner to IP/MPLS:
– A) across the entire Access & Aggregation network
– B) inside Aggregation Network, Replacing the legacy Transport network
– C) in the Access Network, Complementing IP/MPLS aggregation network
 See BBF MPLS in Mobile Backhaul Tutorial for info on how End to End IP/MPLS
can be used (option D)

Access Network Aggregation

Network

Dynamic IP/MPLS (BBF documented)

D
Static MPLS-TP Dynamic IP/MPLS
C
Legacy Access MPLS-TP
69 B
Static MPLS-TP
A
 MPLS-TP in LTE Networks
MPLS-TP can be used in LTE networks in a similar
manner to IP/MPLS (*):
 When Any to Any connectivity can be feasibly supported
with static provisioning
 MPLS-TP control-plane signaling (GMPLS) dynamically
adds Any to Any connectivity when needed
 MPLS-TP advanced OAM, Restoration and Survivability
mechanism can enhance monitoring and protection of the
network/mission-critical service (e.g. Signaling)

* See MR-238, MMBI White Paper on Use of MPLS in LTE

70
Network Scenarios

– SONET/SDH to
Packet interoperability
 Example of Migration in Packet Optical
Networks
Ethernet (SONET/SDH migration to Packet Transport Networks)
GFP
EPL, EVPL,
Ethernet
EPLAN, EVPLAN,
SONET/SDH
EPTree, EVPTree
SONET/SDH
Fiber

GFP MPLS-TP

Ethernet Ethernet
SONET/SDH PW
Fiber LSP
PE Ethernet / OTN PE
SONET/SDH Fiber MPLS-TP

Ethernet MPLS-TP
PW
LSP MPLS-TP
Ethernet / OTN PE
PE
72 Fiber
 Example of SONET/SDH to MPLS-TP
Interconnection
Ethernet interconnection

GFP MPLS-TP
EPL, EVPL,
EPLAN, EVPLAN,
Ethernet Ethernet
EPTree, EVPTree
SONET/SDH PW
Fiber LSP
PE Ethernet / OTN PE
SONET/SDH Fiber MPLS-TP

MPLS-TP interconnection
MPLS-TP MPLS-TP
GFP
Any client Any client
Any client including
PW PW
EPL, EVPL, LSP LSP
EPLAN, EVPLAN, SONET/SDH Ethernet / OTN
EPTree, EVPTree PE Fiber Fiber PE
LSR
SONET/SDH MPLS-TP

73
Summary
 Summary

 ITU-T and IETF working together on MPLS-TP, with ITU-T

providing Transport Requirements and IETF defining the
protocols and functionality
 MPLS-TP leverages current MPLS functionality, as well as
defines new functionality:
– Standards definition focusing on OAM, protection,
forwarding, control plane, and management
– MPLS-TP is a subset of extended MPLS
– New functionality can be leveraged in IP/MPLS networks
 The applicability of MPLS-TP to multi-service broadband
architectures, as well as specifying interoperability requirements
is under active study at the Broadband Forum

75
 Related Standards Organizations and
Consortiums

 Broadband Forum: http://www.broadband-forum.org

 IETF: http://www.ietf.org
 ITU-T: http://www.itu.int/itu-t

76
 Thank you for attending the
MPLS-TP in Multi-Service Packet
Network Deployments Tutorial
The Broadband Forum is a non-profit
corporation organized to create guidelines for
For more information,
broadband network system development and
deployment. This Broadband Forum
visit us at
educational presentation has been approved
by members of the Forum. This Broadband http://www.broadband-
Forum educational presentation is not binding
on the Broadband Forum, any of its members,
or any developer or service provider. This
forum.org
Broadband Forum educational presentation is
subject to change, but only with approval of
members of the Forum. This educational
presentation is copyrighted by the Broadband
Forum, and all rights are reserved. Portions of
this educational presentation may be
copyrighted by Broadband Forum members or
external sources.
 MPLS-TP Tutorial Contributors

 Matthew Bocci – Alcatel-Lucent, editor

 Yves Hertoghs – Cisco, editor
 Luyuan Fang – Cisco
 Andrew Malis – Verizon
 Nabil Bitar - Verizon
 Elisa Bellagamba - Ericsson
 Riccardo Martinotti – Ericsson
 Nurit Sprecher –Nokia Siemens Networks
 Ariel Shuper – Celtro

78
 Abbreviations

ATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode

BBF – Broadband Forum
BFD – Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
CC – Continuity Check
CDMA – Code Division Multiple Access
CV – Continuity Verification
DCC – Data Communications Channel
DM – Delay Management
DWDM – Dense Wave Division Multiplexing
ECMP – Equal Cost Multipath
E-NNI – External Network to Network Interface
ETH – Ethernet
FR – Frame Relay
FRR – Fast ReRoute
GACh – Generic Associated CHannel
GAL – Generic Alert Label
GMPLS – Generic MPLS
GSM – Global System for Mobile Communications
HSPA – High Speed Packet Access
IETF – Internet Engineering Task Force
IP/MPLS – Internet Protocol / Multi Protocol Label Switching
ITU – International Telecommnuication Union
LDP – Label Distribution Protocol
LER – Label Edge Router
79 LM – Loss Management
 Abbreviations (2)

LMP – Link Management Protocol

LSP – Label Switched Path
LSR – Label Switch Router
MC-APS – Multi Chassis – Automatic Protection Switching
MCC – Management Communication Channel
MC-LAG – Multi Chassis – Link AGgregation
MPLS – Multiprotocol Label Switching
MPLS-TP – MPLS Transport Profile
MSPW – Multi Segment Pseudowire
NGN – Next Generation Network
NMS – Network Management System
OAM – Operations and Management
OSPF-TE – Open Shortest Path First – Traffic Engineering
OTN – Optical Transport Networking
P – Provider (Node)
P2MP – Point to Multipoint
P2P – Point to point
PDH - Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy
PE – Provider Edge (Node)
PHP – Penultimate Hop Popping
POS – Packet over SONET
PPP – Point to Point Protocol
PSTN – Public Switched Telephony Network
PW - Pseudowire
80 PWE3 – Pseudowire Emulation End to End
 Abbreviations (3)

QoS – Quality of Service

RDI – Remote Defect Indicator
RFC – Request For Comments
RSVP-TE – Reservation Protocol – Traffic Engineering
SCC – Signalling Communication Channel
SDH – Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
SLA – Service Level Agreement
SONET - Synchronous Optical NETworking
S-PE – Switching PE
SPME – Sub-Path Maintenance Entity
SSPW – Single Segment Pseudowire
TC – Tandem Connection
TDM – Time Division Multiplexing
T-LDP – Targeted Label Distribution Protocol
TLV – Type ,Length, Value
T-PE – Terminating PE
TR – Technical Report
UMTS – Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
UNI – User to Network Interface
VPN – Virtual Private Network
VSI – Virtual Switching Instance
WDM – Wave Division Multiplexing
WT – Working Text
81
 The Broadband Forum

Thank You

82