Ethernet vs.

MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 1

Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP
in Access Networks
Yaakov (J) Stein
CTO
RAD Data Communications
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 2
Agenda
Is MPLS-TP ready to replace Ethernet as the packet technology
that dominates access networks?
Brief review of access networks
Characteristics of Ethernet and MPLS-TP
Technical comparison: Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 3
Access Networks
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 4
Core:
MPLS or IP
interface
(and theoretically PBB)
Access Network Considerations
Access Network:
Q-in-Q Ethernet?
MPLS-TP ?
Residential
Customers
(IP)
Business Customers
(IP or Ethernet)
Cell Sites
(IP and/or Ethernet
and/or TDM
and Timing)
Other
customer
sites
Other
customer
sites
Internet
Data
Centers
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 5
Core
Network:
MPLS
Customer
Network:
Ethernet
Why Ethernet and MPLS-TP ?
Ethernet started in customer networks (LAN) and over the
years has moved into the access network (MEF)
MPLS started in the core network and is now trying to
conquer the access network
Access Network
First Mile
Last Mile
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 6
Access Network Segmentation
A recent trend is to segment the access network into:
First/Last Mile
Provides connectivity from customer site to first access node
Leverages physical layer technologies such as DSL, active/passive fiber,
microwave, HSDPA+, LTE,
Middle Mile
Collects and aggregates traffic from multiple access nodes
Provides backhaul towards core
First/Last Mile Middle Mile
+
Access
Node
NTU/CLE
Aggregation
Backhaul
Access Network
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 7
Access / Core Differences (1)
Differences between core and access networks may translate to
protocol requirements differences:
Core Access Impact
No. of
Network
Elements
Few routers,
LSRs, switches
Many CPEs, NTUs,
DSLAMs,
aggregators
Strong pressure on
access NE price levels
Access needs to be
as touchless as
possible
Data Rates Higher Lower Core may guarantee
QoS by resource
over-provisioning
Access needs QoS
mechanisms
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 8
Access / Core Differences (2)
Core Access Impact
Topology Richly connected Simple typically
trees or rings
Fault in access network
affects fewer people, but
fewer bypass options
Core can get away with
fast rerouting
Access network requires
OAM and planned APS
Security Walled garden:
Strong security
to and from
the outside
world
Loose security
on the inside
Easily accessible Customer networks also
considered walled gardens
Impractical to protect the
entire access network
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 9
Ethernet and MPLS-TP
Overview
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 10
Ethernet / MPLS-TP Differences (1)
While both Ethernet and MPLS are commonly used to carry IP,
there are some fundamental protocol differences:
Ethernet MPLS-TP
OSI Layer L0-L2
(but may run over MPLS)
Requires a server layer to
transport it (which may be
Ethernet)
Packet
Identification
Frames are inherently
self-describing
No PID
Scope Destination address:
Global, not aggregated
Only locally-meaningful labels
Source
Identifier
Unique source address No source identifier
Clients IP and other IP and other
Transport Over SDH/SONET, OTN Over SDH/SONET, OTN
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 11
Ethernet / MPLS-TP Differences (2)
Ethernet MPLS-TP
OAMand
Protection
Fault Management
Performance Monitoring
APS
Fault Management
Performance Monitoring
APS
IP Protocols No routing protocol
defined
A number of L2CPs
Leverages the entire IP suite
of protocols
Loop
Tolerance
No Can tolerate transient loops
(has TTL field)
Priority
Marking
3-bit (e.g., DiffServ)
Drop Eligibility
3-bit (DiffServ)
Additional
Dedicated
Tools
Bandwidth Profiles
Timing over Packet
Security (MACSec)
None have been defined
Developed By IEEE
Multiple competing SDOs
IETF
Multiple competing SDOs
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 12
Ethernet and MPLS-TP:
Face-Off
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 13
Comparison Criteria
1. Fault Management Functionality
2. Performance Management
Functionality
3. Automatic Protection Switching
Mechanisms
4. Quality of Service Mechanisms
5. Traffic Handling Diverse Client Types
6. Timing High Accuracy Time and
Frequency Distribution
7. Integration with Surrounding
Networks
8. CapEx
9. OpEx
10. Security
Each will be scored for:
Suitability: 2 points
Coverage: 4 points
Maturity: 4 points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 14
Fault Management Functionality:
The Arguments
The Need: Access networks require strong FM capabilities to minimize down-time
Ethernet
Two OAM mechanisms (Y.1731/CFM and EFM)
Unique source address, particularly amenable to trace-back functionality
Q-in-Q is not true client-server, but this is covered up by MEL
Y.1731 is full-featured comprehensive set of FM TLVs
EFM is more limited, but adds dying gasp critical for CPEs
Interop issues of both OAMs have finally been resolved; remaining details
are resolved via implementation agreements (e.g., MEF-30)
MPLS-TP
Had basic heartbeats (BFD) and diagnostics (LSP-ping)
The IETF designed MPLS-TP FM based on the Generic Access Channel and:
BFD for CC
LSP-ping for on-demand diagnostics
New frame formats to fulfill specific requirements
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 15
Fault Management Functionality:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Highly suited (SA)
No true address, requires
extra work
2 Points 1 Point
Coverage
Y.1731 is full featured, EFM
fulfills its requirements
MPLS-TP FM similar to CFM
but missing dying gasp
4 Points 3 Points
Maturity
Y.1731 and EFM are
interoperable and widely
deployed
Some MPLS-TP features are
seeing initial trials
4 Points 1 Point
Total 10 Points 5 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 16
Performance Management Functionality:
The Arguments
The Need: Useful tool for maintenance and diagnostics of the access network
Ethernet
The ITU Y.1731 supports PM (loss, delay, PDV, ) using a request-response
model; IEEE 802.1ag does not
Y.1731 is used as the basis for commissioning procedures (Y.1564)
Widespread vendor interoperability has been demonstrated
MPLS-TP
RFCs 6374, 6375 define a set of PM functions based on the GA Channel
These functions were designed to be HW friendly, yet flexible
- Support byte or packet counters
- 1588 or NTP-style timestamps
- Traffic-counters or synthetic loss
Implementations have yet to be announced
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 17
Performance Management Functionality:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Neither protocol has an inherent advantage or disadvantage
2 Points 2 Points
Coverage
Supports all features
Supports all features (may
be more flexible)
4 Points 4 Points
Maturity
Y.1731 is finally interoperable
MPLS PM is not (widely)
implemented
4 Points 0 Points
Total 10 Points 6 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 18
Automatic Protection Switching:
The Arguments
The Need: APS is a complex subject, requiring careful protocol work and proper
configuration. Solutions required for both linear and ring protection
Ethernet
Ethernet has a particular problem with rings
There are many open loop ring protection (e.g., G.8032) but these are not
compatible with QoS mechanisms
MPLS-TP
MPLS in the core exploits Fast ReRoute (RFC 4090) instead of APS
But FRR requires rich interconnection and so is usually not applicable
to access networks
The IETF has standardized RFC 6378 for MPLS-TP linear protection
There are also proposals for ring protection
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 19
Automatic Protection Switching:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Not suitable for ring protection
No particular strengths or
weaknesses
0 Points 2 Points
Coverage
G.8031/G.8032 fulfill current
requirements
RFC 6378 (linear protection);
no ring protection RFC yet
3 Points 2 Points
Maturity
G.8031/G.8032 have been
extensively debugged and
updated
MPLS-TP only partially
finalized and not yet
deployed
4 Points 1 Point
Total 7 Points 6 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 20
Quality of Service:
The Arguments
Two types of QoS need to be considered to manipulate traffic:
1. Hard QoS (engineering): Connection Admission Control, Resource Reservation
2. Soft QoS (conditioning): Priority marking, discard eligibility, queuing, bucketing
Ethernet
PBB-TE (PBT) defines hard QoS, but is not widely implemented
P-bits for prioritization marking; discard eligibility marking in S-VLANs
MEFs BW profile defines a bucketing algorithm
Ethernet headers are self-describing support Traffic Awareness
MPLS-TP
MPLS-TE supports resource reservation but traffic engineering may not
be relevant for access networks
Traffic Class (and L-LSPs) support DiffServ prioritization application
awareness MPLS packets are not self-describing
DPI is required for Traffic Awareness
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 21
Quality of Service:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Supports all QoS types
Does not define for (bucket-
based) traffic conditioning
2 Points 1 Point
Coverage
MEF standards have been
proven
Without bucketing,
MPLS is at a disadvantage
4 Points 3 Points
Maturity
BW profiles are standardized;
certification programs
MPLS-TP nothing special
4 Points 0 Points
Total 10 Points 4 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 22
Traffic types:
The Arguments
The Need: No transport protocol is useful if it cant transport the required client
traffic
Ethernet
Differentiates traffic via Ethertype marking or LLC
Can directly carry IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, Ethernet, fiber channel, and low-
rate TDM (MEF-8)
Does not directly carry other legacy traffic types (e.g., ATM, frame relay)
Can be carried indirectly via PHPed MPLS PWs
MPLS-TP
Can carry IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, and PWs (and through which Ethernet, Fiber
Channel and all legacy types)
Defining a new PW type requires IETF consensus but the new packet-PW
provides more freedom
Neither is universal but existing mechanisms can be extended to cover
new cases
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 23
Traffic types:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Supports arbitrary clients via
Ethertypes
Supports arbitrary clients via
PWs
2 Points 2 Points
Coverage
Does not support all legacy
traffic types (ATM, FR)
Supports most traffic types
via PWs
2 Points 3 Points
Maturity
Ethertypes have been widely
deployed
PWs have been widely
deployed
4 Points 4 Points
Total 8 Points 9 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 24
Timing:
The Arguments
The Need: Distribution of highly accurate timing (frequency and Time of Day)
is crucial for some access network applications, notably cellular backhaul
Ethernet
Two protocols have become standard for this purpose:
1. Synchronous Ethernet (SyncE) is Ethernet-specific
2. IEEE 1588-2008 (defined for Ethernet and UDP/IP) for Timing over
Packet; on-path support elements (Boundary Clocks or Transparent
Clocks) have only been defined for Ethernet
MPLS-TP
MPLS does not define a physical layer
The IETF TICTOC WG is presently working on 1588oMPLS
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 25
Timing:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Supports ToP and defines a
physical layer to support SyncE
May be able to support
1588 but there can be no
SyncMPLS
2 Points 1 Point
Coverage
Meets all requirements with
SyncE, 1588, BC, TC
1588oMPLS to support ToP
may be coming
4 Points 1 Point
Maturity
ITU-T has defined profile(s) for
1588 use
MPLS presently has no
timing support
4 Points 0 Points
Total 10 Points 2 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 26
Integration:
The Arguments
The access network needs to integrate with the core and customer networks.
Cost and complexity will be minimized by a smooth hand-off, i.e., access
protocol compatibility with other network protocols
Customer networks may have Ethernet or TDM interfaces (IP over Ethernet,
Ethernet over TDM, Ethernet over SDH)
Core networks are usually MPLS (IP over MPLS, MPLS over Ethernet, MPLS
over SDH)
Ethernet
Ethernet in the access is a perfect match for customer networks
Can not seamlessly interface with MPLS core
MPLS-TP
A reasonable match for customer network protocols since they can be
tunneled over MPLS
Reuses existing MPLS standards thus maximizing compatibility
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 27
Integration:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Perfect match for customer
network, but not for core
Best match for core
network, but not for
customer
1 Point 1 Point
Coverage
Ethernet Q-in-Q and MAC-in-
MAC perfect customer hand-
off
Does not require GW for
forwarding to core, but
control protocols may not
interconnect
3 Points 2 Points
Maturity
Ethernet Q-in-Q presently
widely deployed
Seamless MPLS still in its
infancy
4 Points 1 Point
Total 8 Points 4 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 28
CapEx:
The Arguments
The Need: Access network providers need to keep their costs down; due to the
large number of Network Elements, access networks are CapEx-sensitive
Ethernet
Ethernet switching fabrics are inherently non-scalable (long global
addresses cant be aggregated)
Due to popularity, Ethernet switches are inexpensive (high volumes, large
R&D investment in cost reduction)
However, carrier-grade Ethernet switches need extra functionality
Ethernet supports CapEx-saving architectures (e.g., EPON)
MPLS-TP
LSRs are complex and expensive reducing the price of NEs (MPLS switch
instead of MPLS router) was the unstated motivation for MPLS-TP
Pure MPLS NEs have simple forwarding engines and thus should be less
expensive than Ethernet switches, but still require Ethernet or SDH or
OTN interfaces
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 29
CapEx:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Inexpensive, but can not scale
forever
Allows for significant cost
reduction vs. full LSR
1 Point 2 Points
Coverage
R&D and volumes have driven
down Ethernet CapEx
MPLS-TP-specific devices
can be low cost
4 Points 4 Points
Maturity
MEF certification programs for
carrier-grade Ethernet switches
Many trials are using LSRs;
chip sets are starting to
come out to address
4 Points 2 Points
Total 9 Points 8 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 30
OpEx:
The Arguments
OpEx considerations that are taken into account:
- Direct operations cost
- Staffing
- Minimizing unchargeable overhead
Reduction of direct operations costs for networks with large number of NEs :
- Equipment must work reliably and be interoperate
- Minimum touch (auto-discovery, zero-touch configuration., etc.)
- Use of FM, Control Plane or Management Plane protocols
Maintaining competent staff requires:
- Availability
- Training
- Employee retention
Overhead minimization applies to:
- Per packet overhead
- OAM, CP/MP packets
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 31
OpEx:
The Arguments (Cont)
Ethernet
Basic Ethernet is zero-touch by design but carrier-grade may add many
configuration parameters
A large number of useful L2CPs (STP, ELMI, GVRP) but no universal CP
protocol
In addition to equipment certification, MEF has initiated certification for
carrier Ethernet engineers
Main Ethernet overhead is large, but tags add only a small delta
MPLS-TP
Basic MPLS relies on IP routing protocols but TP is designed to be able to
function w/o CP
GMPLS CP has been defined as an option
Can operate without IP forwarding (eliminating IP logistics); CP and MP
can be carried in GACh (although not yet developed)
Specific vendors have expert certifications but none specific to MPLS-TP
Same look and feel as other transport networks to minimize retraining
May leverage extensions to existing OSS
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 32
OpEx:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Metro Ethernets have been
shown to be low OpEx
Designed to be
inexpensively maintainable
2 Points 2 Points
Coverage
Inelegant CP, available staff,
medium overhead
Learned from previous
efforts
4 Points 4 Points
Maturity
Extensive experience and
certification programs
Extensive operational
experience only partially
applicable
4 Points 2 Points
Total 10 Points 8 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 33
Security:
The Arguments
The Need: Security is perhaps the most important telecomm issue today
OAM, APS, QoS mechanisms are powerless to cope with Denial of Service
attacks
Access network NEs are frequently physically unprotected, so:
1. Ports must be protected
2. Packets must be authenticated and integrity checked
3. Confidentiality mechanisms may be needed
4. MPs and CPs must be hard-state
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 34
Security:
The Arguments (Cont)
Ethernet
Ethernet packets carry unique authenticatable source addresses
MACsec and its 802.1X extensions define mechanisms that can be used to
protect carrier networks (although hop-by-hop security model may not
always be ideal)
MPLS-TP
MPLS was designed for core networks (walled gardens) with the
assumption that there are no inside attacks
Forwarding plane attacks based on lack of authentication/integrity
Control plane attacks based on soft state of protocols
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 35
Security:
The Verdict
Ethernet MPLS-TP
Suitability
Has an authenticatable unique
SA
Has no source identifier and
uses soft-state CPs
2 Points 0 Points
Coverage
MACsec and 802.1X, but may
need more
Little positive support (but it
does support attacks )
3 Points 1 Point
Maturity
MACsec is starting to appear in
standard chipsets
MPLS community is not
addressing the TP security
problem
2 Points 0 Points
Total 7 Points 1 Points
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 36
Summary: Final Score
Caveats:
Deployments have particular (non)requirements, but all 10
considerations were given equal weight
Some coverage and all maturity scores will change over time
Suitability Coverage Maturity Total
Ethernet 16/20 35/40 38/40 89
MPLS-TP 14/20 27/40 11/40 52
Note: MPLS-TP lost
29 points due to lack of maturity
9 points due to lack of security
Ethernet vs. MPLS-TP in the Access Slide 37
For information about RADs
Ethernet Access solutions,
visit www.ethernetaccess.com
www.rad.com