RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 2/54
Plan
1. MPLS basics2. The MPLS approach3. Label distribution –RSVP-TE4. Traffic Engineering5. QoS, CoS and DiffServ (DS)6. “DS-Aware”MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE)7. MPLS vs. FRQuestions
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 3/54
1. MPLS Basics
MPLA BasicsWhy MPLSWhat is MPLS
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 4/54
1. MPLS Basics –Why MPLS
Hypothesis: all networks are or will be Internets (IP based)MPLS was defined first and foremost as an IP-centric solutionA multi-protocol solution is important
Many legacy protocols will still be used
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Per
cen
to
fT
raff
ic
IP
SNA
IPX
Other
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 5/54
1. MPLS Basics –Why MPLS (cont)Traditional IP forwarding
Uses hop-to-hop routing/forwarding Inefficient as Layer 3 lookup required for each packetHop-by-hop networks are difficult to control
How do we guarantee QoS in a connectionless networkDifficult to control congestion in a large hop-by-hop networks
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 6/54
1. MPLS Basics –Why MPLS (cont)
Overcoming the limitations of traditional IPNew ways of forwarding packets
Alternative to hop-by-hop L3 lookups
New ways of allocating resourcesNecessary to provide guaranteed QoS
Integrate routing and switchingSwitch = high speed forwardingConnection oriented solutions: allocation of resources per virtual
connectionRouting performed once at the Virtual Circuit (VC) setup
Solution: make L2 switches “IP aware” This is what MPLS does
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 7/54
1. MPLS Basics –What is MPLS
MPLS evolution First used to facilitate new IP networks
QoS, scalability, traffic engineering Then MPLS was leveraged to provide IPVPNs
Or L3 MPLS VPNNow heading towards a converged core for L2 and L3 services
L2 VPNs and support of legacy, e.g.: ATM, FR, Ethernet
What is MPLS Label Switching
Data units are switched (routed) through the network by reference toan attached label
This in itself is not new: ATM and FR are label switched networksMulti-Protocol
It can handle multiple different network layer protocolIt can utilise different L2 technologies: ATM, FR, Ethernet, PPP…
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 8/54
1. MPLS Basics –What is MPLS (cont)Label switching concept
Simplifies data forwardingRemoves the need to examine the L3 (IP) headers at each hop
User data is “labelled” The label determines the route taken through the network
Labels have local significance
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 9/54
1. MPLS Basics –What is MPLS (cont)
Multi-Protocol Initial emphasis on IPNew focus on convergence to carry legacy services/protocols
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 10/54
1. MPLS Basics –What is MPLS (cont)
What does MPLS achieve? Integrate IP routing and L2 switching
Can reuse existing switching techniques such as FR and ATMLabel switching
Enables traffic engineering in IP networksRoutes other than shortest path can be usedDefine explicit paths through a networkTraffic Engineering (vs. Network Engineering)
–Put traffic where there is bandwidthSupports different services and QoS
Achieving QoS requires classification, marking and resource allocationon a path.
Resource Reservation Protocol-Tunnelling Extensions (RSVP-TE)Differentiated Services (DiffServ or DS)
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 11/54
2. MPLS Approach
The MPLS approachArchitecture Forwarding modelGeneric MPLS headerMPLS label for FR Label stack example
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 12/54
2. MPLS Approach –Architecture
Basic MPLS network architectureBasic operation
Ingress Label Edge Router (LER) adds labels to unlabelled packetsLabel Switched Router (LSR) forwards labelled packets following an
unidirectional Label Switch Path (LSP)Path determined by routing, established by signallingEgress LER removes label and forwards packetsLSRs switch labelled packets and route IP packets
Two preconditionsThe LSRs must participate in IP routingThe LSRs must participate in Label Distribution
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 13/54
2. MPLS Approach –Architecture (cont)
Basic MPLS network architecture (cont.)
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 14/54
2. MPLS Approach –Forwarding model
Conventional IP forwarding• Input router receives IP packet• Lookup to find matching IP network address• Lookup to find output port• Send packet to next hop router and repeat• Packet reaches destination router• Packet delivered to destination (ARP etc.)
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 15/54
2. MPLS Approach –Forwarding model (cont)
MPLS forwarding • LER receives IP packet and does IP routing table lookup• Assigns packet to Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)• Assigns FEC to a label and labels the packet• Forwards packet to LSR1• LSR1 looks up table to find OUT port and Label OUT• Process repeated at each LSR - LSRs do not look up IP address• Label stripped on exit
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 16/54
Constructing the forwarding tableStandard routing protocol used to test the status of neighbours Label Distribution Protocols used to bind between labels and
FEC
2. MPLS Approach –Forwarding model (cont)
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 17/54
2. MPLS Approach –Generic MPLS Header
With L2 protocol that does not have label fieldMPLS header is inserted between the L2 and IP headers
The “Exp.”(or experimental) 3-bits field used for CoSThe “Stack”(S) field is set to 1 in the last entry in the stack
Forwarding is done with reference to the top label
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 18/54
2. MPLS Approach –MPLS Label for FR
With the FR header structure The DLCI field is used to carry the current (top) label The MPLS header is used to carry TTL information FR switches (acting as LSR) do not see the MPLS headers
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 19/54
2. MPLS Approach –Label Stack ExampleTwo LSPs: A to C and B to D
The second level labels remain unchanged
Two main characteristics Aggregation: several LSPs into one LSP (or “tunnel”) LSRs in the core network do not have visibility outside the core
Useful for the support of VPN (two VPNs in this example: A and C, and B and D
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 20/54
3. Label Distribution
Label distribution Two flavoursRSVP-TE
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 21/54
3. Label Distribution –Two flavours
Hop-by-Hop LDP Label Distribution Based on “normal”IP Time taken to re-route
(depends on convergence ofrouting protocol)
LDP does not supportresource allocation (QoS) ortraffic engineering
Explicit Routing RSVP-TE Label Distribution Uses source routing Specified path from source to
destination Re-routing can be achieved
quickly Used for allocating resources
(QoS) and performing trafficengineering
Hop-by-Hop: basic MPLS network Most common protocol for Traffic Engineering LSP is RSVP-TE
Resource Reservation Protocol with Tunnel Extensions
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 22/54
3. Label Distribution –RSVP-TE
The flow conceptDatagrams are part of a sequence from source to destinationNormal forwarding: each datagram is dealt with independentlyA flow identifies a sequence of packets
Flow requires routers to “remember”state information associated with it
RSVP-TE is a signalling protocol devised before MPLSRSVP-TE addresses the requirements to ensure QoS
Pre-allocating resources along the path to support a flowReport when resources not available
Standard routing processes are not sufficient They are reactive rather than predictive
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 23/54
3. Label Distribution –RSVP-TE (cont.)
RSVP PATH message: Session: unique ID for the LSP Explicit Route: Specify route from
Ingress to Egress Record Route: listing of the LSRs
traversed by the LSP
RSVP RESERVATIONmessage Label: perform the label
distribution upstream Style: specify the reservation style
Fixed filter: dedicated BW Shared explicit: shared BW
Record Route: Return the path tothe Ingress LSR (A)
RSVP-TE signalling takes place between Ingress and Egress Establish an LSP tunnel
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 24/54
3. Label Distribution –RSVP-TE (cont.)
Label Distribution and Binding1. LSR B receives RESV and binds the label to the port (30, Y)2. LSR B allocates a local label (20) and binds it to the port (X)3. LSR B generates a new LABEL object, replaces the previous
one (30) and sends to previous LSR.
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 25/54
3. Label Distribution –RSVP-TE (cont.)
LSP re-routing1. The initial LSP has STYLE = Shared Explicit2. New Explicit Route reservation AB, BC, CD, DE and
EF3. When new LSP is established
Ingress moves the flow to new LSP Initial LSP is torn down
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 26/54
4. Traffic Engineering
Traffic EngineeringRequirementsBasics
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 27/54
4. Traffic Engineering –Requirements
Control traffic flows in the networkBetter utilise network resources, move traffic to specified pathsEnsure QoS requirements are met
Establish LSPs: activate and deactivate LSPsProvide re-routing capabilities
Re-routing due to failed pathsPre-emption
Provide details traffic statistics for optimisation and futurecapacity planning
Traffic engineering vs. network engineering: BOTH!Network engineering to provide BWTraffic engineering to use BW efficiently
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 28/54
4. Traffic Engineering –Basics
Automated LSP path selectionUse RSVP-TE signalling protocols to establish constraint-based
LSPs
Constraint determined by either/both: The network operator
Required BW, include or exclude specific LSPs from the LSP
Information in a Traffic Engineering Database
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 29/54
4. Traffic Engineering –Basics (cont.)
An Explicit Route (ER) is setup by the Ingress LSR IGP Extended for TE: max and remaining “reservabale”BW TE Database: input from the extended IGP (OSPF or IS-IS)User defined constraints: the network operator (user) can define
BWHop limitsSetup and Holding prioritiesExplicit Route definition
Shortest Path calculationLinks selection
Explicit RouteThe resulting route of SPF calculation
LSP SignallingSetup of the Explicit Route LSP
IGP Extended for Traffic Engineering
Routing Table TE Database
Shortest Path (Constrained) calculation
Explicit Route
LSP Signalling
User definedconstraints
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 30/54
4. Traffic Engineering –Basics (cont.)
Recovery methodsReroutingProtection Switching
Common technique used by transmission systems, e.g. Optical and SDHIn MPLS: swapping traffic to a backup LSP within 50msecRelies on failure detection mechanisms
Use pre-established LSPsBackup may be between
Ingress and Egress: global repairAny LSRs: local repair
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 31/54
5. QoS & CoS
QoS & CoSDefinitions The DiffServ (DS) modelDiffServ and ToSDiffServ basicsDiffServ and MPLS
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 32/54
5. QoS & CoS –Definitions
QoS vs. CoSQoS provides absolute quantifiable levels of performance
E.g. based on parameters such as throughput, delay…
CoS provides for relative levels of performanceIt assigns traffic flow to classes where different classes receive
different treatment
QoS requires guaranteed BW and class-based forwarding It is useless to have separate classes if there is no BW
CoS only requires class-based forwarding
Both Traffic Engineered LSP and class-based forwardingare required to provide QoS in an MPLS environment
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 33/54
5. QoS & CoS –The DiffServ Model
Why differentiated services? Traditional IP is best-effortAll users get the same service: no distinction between the
different trafficsNew applications require specific QoSService providers need to differentiate the different flowsCustomers want to request QoS
The DiffServ (DS) modelA simple way to differentiate servicesClassify traffic entering the networkAssign traffic to a service classMark traffic with its service class at ingress Inside the network treat packets according to their service class
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 34/54
5. QoS & CoS –DiffServ and ToS
IP’s Type of Service (ToS) fieldCan specify relative QoS, coupled to routing In practice it has not been used consistently
The DS fieldRedefined ToS: the 6 most significant bits (64 possible values)DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) is the value of the DS fieldDSCP of 000000 is a default for best-effort service
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 35/54
5. QoS & CoS –DiffServ Basics
The Ingress routerClassifies trafficConditions trafficPolices trafficPuts traffic in priority queues
Based on the marking
All packets are given the same treatment within the networkDiffServ basics
Moves complexity to ingress: traffic classification and markingRequires node to examine the DS fieldDS marking applied to aggregate flows
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 36/54
5. QoS & CoS –DiffServ and MPLS
Define label distribution requirements to support DSDefine how DS packets are to be treated in an MPLS network
Mapping from the DS Code Point (DSCP) to the forwardingbehaviour of an MPLS LSP
Define how DS behaviour aggregates are supported byMPLS networkMapping is to two types of LSP
LSPs which use the EXP bits to specify the class (E-LSP)LSPs where the class is obtained from the label value
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 37/54
5. QoS & CoS –DiffServ and MPLS (cont.)
E-LSP The EXP field of the MPLS header is used by the LSR to
determine the class applied to the packet
Mapping DSCP to E-LSP Ingress LSR maps a subset of the 64 possible DS values to one
of 8 possible values, or Behaviour Aggregate (BA), defined bythe EXP (3 bits) field
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 38/54
5. QoS & CoS –DiffServ and MPLS (cont.)
DS and MPLS can provide QoS becauseDS provides scheduling and queuing TE provides guaranteed bandwidth
DiffServ providesScalable support for CoS applied to traffic aggregates
MPLS-TE providesOptimised use of resources and selection of routes with BW
constraint
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 39/54
6. DS-TE
DS-TEBasicsUsesExample
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 40/54
6. DS-TE –Basics
Called DiffServ-Aware MPLS Traffic Engineering or DS-TECombining MPLS-TE and DiffServ
QoS on a per-class basisApply TE on a per-class basis
Separate BW reservation is required for each traffic classRequire admission control on a per-class basis
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 41/54
6. DS-TE –Uses
Uses of DS-TE To limit the proportion of classes on a link
E.g. Ensure that VoIP uses no more than a certain percent of the BWto meet delay requirements
To maintain proportional BW allocationE.g. 3 traffic classes (1 [45%], 2 [35%] and 3 [20%])These proportions of link BW to be maintained regardless of
established order, rerouting etc
To provide a guaranteed BW serviceDedicate a DS class to the guaranteed trafficPolice the traffic at the ingress against the traffic contractPlace a limit on percent link BW usedConstraint-based routing used to enforce
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 42/54
6. DS-TE –Example
DS-TE example The TE path may have sufficient total BW for all classes but
insufficient BW for a given class The DS-TE path sets up LSPs and allocate BW on a per-class
basis: QoS on a per-class basis
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 43/54
7. MPLS vs. FR
MPLS vs. FRGlobal comparison FR label switchMPLS label switchNetwork topologyRoutingNetwork engineeringBandwidth guaranteesBandwidth useCoS
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 44/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Global comparison
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
Local loop rate
Point topoint CIR
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
Local loop rate
Point topoint CIR
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
RMDCN Site
Local loop ratePoint toany CAR
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
RMDCN SiteRMDCN Site
Local loop ratePoint toany CAR
FR VPN Point-to-point PVCs make up the
VPN A Committed Information Rate (CIR)
per circuit
MPLS VPN Global connectivity to any other sites
belonging to the VPN A Committed Access Rate (CAR) par
site
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 45/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –FR Label Switch
Labelling done by CPE, which “speaks”FR
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 46/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –MPLS Label Switch
Labelling done by Edge Router: CPE is MPLS-agnostic(classic IP router)
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 47/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Network Topology
FR Network topology is on a customer-
per-customer basis Network path = PVC
MPLS A single shared network topology Network topology designed by
provider
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 48/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Routing
FR Routing is managed CPE-to-CPE Backbone does not participate to
routing
MPLS Routing is managed by the backbone CPE exchange routing information
with the backbone
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 49/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Routing (cont.)
FR When no direct PVC is available,
routing involves several hops
MPLS Optimised routing: directly sent to
destination
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 50/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Network Engineering
FR PVCs’topology: between which CPEs? Which bandwidth for which PVC? Which bandwidth for access lines?
MPLS Which bandwidth for access lines?
… and that’s it! All core network design done by
network provider
What is left for customer to decide?
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 51/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Bandwidth Guarantees
FR In the SLA: site-to-site guarantees Backbone is dimensioned accordingly Guarantees are met due to technique
MPLS In the SLA: guarantees on global traffic
sent by given site to all other sites Shared paths in the backbone Guarantees should statistically be met
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 52/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Bandwidth Use
FR Unused bandwidth of a
PVC can not be transferredto another PVC
MPLS Bandwidth can be spent
anyhow
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 53/54
7. MPLS vs. FR –Class of Service
FR Can be achieved by subscribing a
dedicated PVC for each CoS 20 PVCs with no CoS 40 PVCs with
2 CoS (costs!) CPE is responsible for packet
classification (applicationrecognition)
MPLS Built-in: shared paths per CoS on the
backbone CPE is responsible for packet
classification and coloring (DSCP tag) Edge LSR maps DSCP to appropriate
path
RMDCN workshop on the migration to IP/VPN 54/54
Questions?