Comparing Layer 2 and Layer 3 Metro Ethernet Access Rings for Multicast Traffic

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Abstract
Currently the Service Providers are implementing Metro Ethernet across the cities, and are looking at mainly two options 1. Having Layer 2 based rings or 2. Layer 3 / MPLS control plane based.

The primary services that Service Providers will implement are 1. Residential : HSI, IPTV, VoIP 2. Business: Layer 2, Layer 3 point to point and also multipoint to multipoint. The session will discuss advantages and disadvantages that Layer 3 / IP based multicast provides as compared to a Layer 2 based approach for a ring configuration. The session will describe how basic multicast streams / flows behave when the rings are based on layer2 or layer3. The session would also look at how the two implementations differ in responding to fibre cuts / ring failures / node failure. Finally we conclude with the importance that services have in developing a flexible metro ethernet architecture.
Presentation_ID 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

Agenda
Network and Service Rollout scenarios Layer 2 and Layer 3 solution Failure Scenarios Comparison

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Ethernet DSL Services Considerations

Service Internet Access VoIP Telepony VoD TV Broadcast MPLS VPN Ethernet Virtual Lines Ethernet Virtual LANs

Transport Topology
P2MP, Unicast P2P, Unicast P2MP, Unicast P2MP, Multicast partial MP, Unicast P2P

Service Governance
Subscriber Application Application Application Subscriber Subscriber

Application Elements
Policy Server, Portal Call Control Server Video Middleware Video Middleware None None

IP Edge Element
BRAS BRAS, Aggregation Node Aggregation Node Aggregation Node MPLS PE Aggregation Node Aggregation, Distribution Node, MPLS PE

MP

Subscriber

None

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Current Architecture Options

Driven by the Services and SLAs
Metro A U-PE PE-AGG Hub & Spoke P P N-PE U-PE 10/100/ 1000 Mbps Metro C

GE

GE Ring

IP/MPLS
Metro B N-PE DWDM/ CDWM N-PE U-PE Internet U-PE Metro D P P SONET/SDH Ring 10/100/ 1000 Mbps

/ 00 s /1 bp 10 0 M 0

10

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Access / Aggregation Network Control Plane Options

Content Network
Business Corporate

Access

Aggregation Node

L2/3 Edge
Distribution Node

VoD

TV

SIP

Business Corporate

BRAS
Business Corporate

Ethernet Access Node Aggregation Node

Aggregation Network MPLS, Ethernet, IP

SCE
Distribution Node Aggregation Node

Core Network IP / MPLS

Residential

DSL Access Node

MPLS PE
Content Network
VoD TV SIP

STB

Layer 3 - IP, MPLS

Layer 2 Bridged Ethernet IEEE 802.1q / 802.1ad

Layer 2 MPLS EoMPLS/ H-VPLS

802.1q Centralised L3 Service Edge Transparent Ethernet Services

EoMPLS

Distributed L3 Service Edge

Centralised L3 Service Edge Transparent Ethernet Services

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Layer 2 based Ring architectures

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

TV/VoD Distribution Mechanisms Ethernet Layer 2 Aggregation Network

IGMP snooping

Unicast and multicast IEEE 802.1q bridging Forwarding with IEEE bridging relies on flooding L2
IEEE 802.1q RSTP

L2
DR
Multicast

L2

L2

PIM

Redundant topologies solved by RSTP

Consistent with the logical STP derived topology Flooding for unicast is constrained by MAC learning Flooding for multicast is constrained by PIM or IGMP snooping Subscriber STBs isolation needs to be secured across the entire multicast VLAN Convergence is in range of seconds L3 multicast might be delivered inefficiently, as STP is multicast unaware

L2

L2

Querier Router

Multicast convergence dependent on L3

Only one Multicast Router can inject traffic Redundant Multicast Routers; Failover between Multicast Routers could potentially take 120s

IGMP/PIM snooping

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

TV/VoD Distribution Mechanisms MPLS Layer 2 Aggregation Network

Overlay bridged H-VPLS topology
IGMP snooping
Each VPLS node runs a bridged VSI (Virtual Forwarding Instance All physical links and bridges are replaced by EoMPLS tunnels terminating into VFIs Including the PW between the two switches that connect to the multicast routers PW
VSI VSI

PW

PW
VSI

MPLS Overlay Topology: VPLS, EoMPLS PW

Designated Router Multicast VSI

PW

Topology protection may be addressed at different levels:

MPLS TE FRR: Protects the VPLS pseudo-wires Does not protect the VPLS VFIs (the VFIs) Can lead to 50 ms convergence but ONLY in case of link failure STP must be used to avoid the discontinuous subnet Still results into several seconds of STP convergence in case of node failure

PIM

VSI VSI

PW

PW

Querier Router

IGMP/PIM snooping

The H-VPLS overlay topology implies the same considerations related to bridged multicast distribution

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

Layer 3 based Ring architectures

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

10

10

IP Multicast and Unicast TV and VoD

L3 control plane is now leveraged to run IP multicasting (potentially together with MPLS) Forwarding topology created at network layer
Both P2MP and MP2MP services are available to upper layers No discontiguous subnet problems
PIM

Supports multiple injection points

Multiple active trees can co-exist

PIM

PIM

Multicast

Layer 3 BUS

Dynamic topology driven by PIM

Enables anycasting Node and service injection point failures solved at this layer
PIM PIM PIM

Enables multicast (receiver driven) distribution model

Optimal forwarding P2MP trees (TV) with PIM SSM

Predictable sub-second convergence (Cisco specific)

Cisco Confidential

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

11

11

TV / VoD distribution mechanisms with Layer 3 / IP control plane

Local Ad Server or Multilingual Server

L3

L3

1
L3 L3

PIM-SM
L3 L3

IP Multicast Implementation
Presentation_ID 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

12

12

Failure Scenarios

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

13

13

TV Multicast Distribution Failure Cases Ethernet/MPLS Layer 2 Aggregation Network

Topology failures
Link
Addressed by MPLS FRR with 50ms convergence or by STP with1-3s convergence

Node
Addressed only by STP Otherwise recovered by the DR failover Inconsistency: the layer 2 topology depends on layer 3 topology convergence
Layer 2 BUS

DR
Multicast

Functional element failures

Querier Router failure
Requires Querier re-election, around 120 s Designated Router failure Relies on DR failover, that (ex. Cisco) can be very fast (sub second)

PIM

Failure
Querier Router

Source and other Headend failures

Anycast-Source possible if they are routed to the DR/QR

Conclusion:
Presentation_ID

Video Multicast redundancy has functional Cisco

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Confidential

14

14

The Discontiguous Subnet Problem Failure scenarios: Box Failure

MPLS-FRR, backup LSP

Assume: R1 IGMP querier: If R2 does not see IGMPqueries from R1 any more it usually starts being a querier after 2 x queryinterval (default 120s) Requires significant tuning/ enhancements on PIM routers to achieve fast failover (> 50 ms!) L2 Access Problem is pushed to the L3 Edge

IGMP PW

AN1
VSI VSI

DN1 PW
VSI

R1

PIM

PW

AN2 AN3
VSI

DN2 PW
VSI VSI

AN4

PW

R2

Logical view
IGMP IGMP query R1 IGMP query R2

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

15

15

The Discontiguous Subnet Problem Failure scenarios: Box Failure (II)

Layer-2 subnet is partitioned into two pieces
Violation of the fundamental rule that an L2 segment must be contiguous
VSI

AN1
VSI

DN1 PW
VSI

PW

R1

PW

AN2 AN3
VSI

Usually there is unicast control traffic in the multicast VLAN (e.g. RTCP, HTTP, MiddleWare traffic) Unicast control traffic could be blackholed

PW

VSI VSI

AN4

PW

DN2

R2

Logical view
R1

? R2
Cisco Confidential

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

16

16

Packet Duplication
N-PE 1 N-PE 2

PW/FRR
U-PE A U-PE B U-PE C L3 L3

PIM-SSM
L3 L3 L3 L3

Traffic-Flow from N-PE1 to U-PE B: Traffic traverses link twice

N-PE 1 N-PE 2

U-PE A U-PE B

U-PE C

Ring-VPLS Implementation

IP Multicast Implementation

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

17

17

Conclusion and Comparison

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

18

18

Final Words
Is it Layer 2 or Layer 3 or may be Hybrid ? There are quite a lot of advantages of Layer 2, cheaper, easier to maintain Layer 2 may be the best solution for various other services like ERS, EWS etc.. However as we clearly see there are some clear advantages of Layer 3 specially for Video traffic We see these two continue in hybrid way whereas the TV traffic will be L3 primarily and the other traffic may continue on Layer 2 pseudo wires or plane Layer 2 itself.

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

19

19

Aggregation Network Models

Ethernet/IP

MPLS/IP
Allows different or common administrative domains for the aggregation and core network Supports virtualized Layer 2 and 3 services thru MPLS based VPNs Supports Traffic Engineering thru MPLS TE mechanisms Service recovery, as low as 50ms, is implemented with MPLS FRR and Fast IGP convergence The scalability for Layer 2 Service BUS is dependent on the network element Flexibility for aggregating other access services as: Mobile RAN, Legacy ATM/FR/TDM with MPLS AToM

Characteristics Similarities

Requires a STP operational domain for the Layer 2 BUS transport Provides optimal layer 2 multipoint transport that is topology independent Supports virtualised Layer 2 services thru native 802.1q and 802.1ad bridges The scalability of the L2 Service BUS is dependent on the aggregation network Service recovery, in average of seconds, is implemented with RSTP and Fast IGP convergence Possibility to aggregate other access services as: Mobile RAN, Legacy ATM/FR/ TDM with L2TPV3

Similar Layer 2 and Layer 3 BUS mechanisms Support point to point and multipoint layer 2 and layer 3 transport Support the same residential, business and wholesale broadband services
2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential

Presentation_ID

20

20

Presentation_ID

2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential

21

21