| < draft-pate-pwe3-framework-00.txt | draft-pate-pwe3-framework-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Draft Prayson Pate | Internet Draft Prayson Pate | |||
| Document: draft-pate-pwe3-framework-00.txt Overture Networks | Document: draft-pate-pwe3-framework-01.txt Overture Networks | |||
| Expires: November 18, 2001 XiPeng Xiao | Expires: January 13, 2002 XiPeng Xiao | |||
| Photuris Inc. | Photuris Inc. | |||
| Tricci So | Tricci So | |||
| Caspian Networks | Caspian Networks | |||
| Craig White | Craig White Kireeti Kompella | |||
| Level 3 Communications, LLC. | Level 3 Communications, LLC. Juniper Networks, Inc. | |||
| Kireeti Kompella | Andrew G. Malis Thomas K. Johnson | |||
| Juniper Networks, Inc. | Vivace Networks Litchfield Communications | |||
| Framework for | Framework for | |||
| Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) | Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) | |||
| draft-pate-pwe3-framework-00.txt | draft-pate-pwe3-framework-01.txt | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. Internet-Drafts are | |||
| working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its | working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its | |||
| areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also | areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also | |||
| distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line ? ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line ? ¶ | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes a framework for Pseudo Wires Emulation Edge- | This document describes a framework for Pseudo Wires Emulation Edge- | |||
| to-Edge (PWE3). It discusses the emulation of circuits (such as T1, | to-Edge (PWE3). It discusses the emulation of circuits (such as T1, | |||
| E1, T3 and E3) and services (such as ATM and Frame relay) over packet | E1, T3, E3 and SONET/SDH) and services (such as ATM and Frame Relay) | |||
| networks using IP, L2TP or MPLS for transport. It presents an | over packet switched networks (PSNs) using IP, L2TP or MPLS. It | |||
| architectural framework for pseudo wires, defines terminology, | presents an architectural framework for pseudo wires (PWs), defines | |||
| specifies the various protocol elements and their functions, | terminology, specifies the various protocol elements and their | |||
| overviews some of the services that will be supported and discusses | functions, overviews some of the services that will be supported and | |||
| how pseudo wires fit into the broader context of protocols. | discusses how PWs fit into the broader context of protocols. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1 Introduction ................................................. 3 | ||||
| 1 Introduction ................................................. 5 | 2 Background and Motivation .................................... 5 | |||
| 1.1 What Are Pseudo Wires? .................................... 5 | 3 Architecture of Pseudo Wires ................................. 8 | |||
| 1.1.1 Definition ............................................... 5 | 4 Layer 1 (Circuit) Applications ............................... 15 | |||
| 1.1.2 Functions ................................................ 5 | 5 Layer 2 (Packet/Cell) Applications ........................... 25 | |||
| 1.2 Goals of This Document ..................................... 6 | 6 PW Maintenance ............................................... 36 | |||
| 1.3 Non-Goals .................................................. 6 | 7 Packet Switched Networks ..................................... 40 | |||
| 2 Background and Motivation .................................... 7 | 8 Acknowledgments .............................................. 43 | |||
| 2.1 Current Network Architecture ............................... 7 | 9 References ................................................... 43 | |||
| 2.1.1 Multiple Networks ........................................ 7 | 10 Security Considerations ..................................... 45 | |||
| 2.1.2 Convergence Today ........................................ 8 | 11 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 46 | |||
| 2.2 The Emerging Converged Network ............................. 8 | 12 Full Copyright Section ...................................... 47 | |||
| 2.3 Transition to the New Network .............................. 9 | ||||
| 3 Architecture of Pseudo Wires ................................. 10 | ||||
| 3.1 Reference Model ............................................ 10 | ||||
| 3.2 Terminology ................................................ 10 | ||||
| 3.3 Architecture Assumptions ................................... 11 | ||||
| 3.4 Comparison of Relevant Applications ........................ 13 | ||||
| 4 Layer 1 (Circuit) Applications ............................... 14 | ||||
| 4.1 Reference Model ............................................ 14 | ||||
| 4.2 Operational Considerations ................................. 15 | ||||
| 4.2.1 Transparency ............................................. 15 | ||||
| 4.2.2 Framed Versus Unframed Mode For TDM Circuits ............. 15 | ||||
| 4.2.3 Fractional T1/E1 ......................................... 16 | ||||
| 4.2.4 Loopbacks ................................................ 16 | ||||
| 4.2.5 Performance Processing ................................... 16 | ||||
| 4.2.6 LOS/LOF/AIS/RAI .......................................... 16 | ||||
| 4.2.7 SONET/SDH STS Unequipped ................................. 17 | ||||
| 4.3 Encapsulations ............................................. 18 | ||||
| 4.3.1 Criteria ................................................. 18 | ||||
| 4.3.2 SONET Encapsulation ...................................... 18 | ||||
| 4.3.2.1 SPE .................................................... 18 | ||||
| 4.3.2.2 Section/Line ........................................... 18 | ||||
| 4.3.2.3 VT ..................................................... 19 | ||||
| 4.3.3 ATM AAL1 Encapsulation ................................... 20 | ||||
| 5 Layer 2 (Packet/Cell) Applications ........................... 21 | ||||
| 5.1 Layer 2 PW Reference Model ................................. 21 | ||||
| 5.2 Ethernet ................................................... 22 | ||||
| 5.2.1 Reference Model Scope .................................... 22 | ||||
| 5.2.2 Operational Considerations ............................... 22 | ||||
| 5.2.2.1 Operational Modes ...................................... 22 | ||||
| 5.2.2.2 Quality Of Service Support Considerations .............. 23 | ||||
| 5.3 Frame Relay ................................................ 24 | ||||
| 5.3.1 Reference Model .......................................... 24 | ||||
| 5.3.2 Operational Considerations ............................... 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.1 Frame Sequence ......................................... 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.2 Frame Size ............................................. 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.3 End-to-end Transport Characteristics ................... 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.4 Connection Management and Congestion Control ........... 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.5 Link Management Support ................................ 26 | ||||
| 5.3.2.6 DLCI Association ....................................... 27 | ||||
| 5.3.2.7 Multiplexing VCs over PWs .............................. 27 | ||||
| 5.3.2.8 Signaling Transparency ................................. 27 | ||||
| 5.3.2.9 Soft PVC Support ....................................... 28 | ||||
| 5.4 ATM ........................................................ 29 | ||||
| 5.4.1 Reference Model .......................................... 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2 Operational Considerations ............................... 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2.1 Cell Sequence .......................................... 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2.2 End-to-end Transport Characteristics ................... 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2.3 ATM SLA ................................................ 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2.4 Connection Management and Congestion Control ........... 29 | ||||
| 5.4.2.5 OAM and Link Management Support ........................ 30 | ||||
| 5.4.2.6 VC Associations ........................................ 30 | ||||
| 5.4.2.7 Multiplexing ATM VCs over PWs .......................... 31 | ||||
| 5.4.2.8 ATM Signaling Transparency ............................. 31 | ||||
| 5.4.2.9 Soft PVC Support ....................................... 31 | ||||
| 5.4.2.10 Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) ..................... 31 | ||||
| 6 Timing ....................................................... 32 | ||||
| 6.1 Reference Model ............................................ 32 | ||||
| 6.2 Recreating the Timing ...................................... 33 | ||||
| 6.3 External Timing ............................................ 33 | ||||
| 6.4 SONET Pointer Justification ................................ 33 | ||||
| 6.5 Differential (SRTS) ........................................ 34 | ||||
| 6.6 Adaptive Timing ............................................ 35 | ||||
| 6.7 RTP ........................................................ 36 | ||||
| 6.7.1 RTP Timestamps ........................................... 36 | ||||
| 6.7.2 Analysis of Clock Drift .................................. 36 | ||||
| 6.7.3 RTCP/NTP as a Solution ................................... 37 | ||||
| 6.8 Summary of Timing Recovery Methods ......................... 37 | ||||
| 7 Integrity .................................................... 38 | ||||
| 7.1 Validation ................................................. 38 | ||||
| 7.2 Sequencing ................................................. 38 | ||||
| 8 Management ................................................... 38 | ||||
| 8.1 Session Multiplexing ....................................... 38 | ||||
| 8.2 Signaling .................................................. 38 | ||||
| 8.3 Security ................................................... 38 | ||||
| 8.4 Encapsulation Control ...................................... 38 | ||||
| 8.5 Statistics ................................................. 38 | ||||
| 8.6 Administrative Status ...................................... 39 | ||||
| 8.7 Operational Status ......................................... 39 | ||||
| 9 Transport Protocols .......................................... 39 | ||||
| 9.1 IP ......................................................... 39 | ||||
| 9.2 L2TP ....................................................... 39 | ||||
| 9.3 MPLS ....................................................... 39 | ||||
| 9.4 Common Infrastructure ...................................... 39 | ||||
| 10 Acknowledgments ............................................. 39 | ||||
| 11 References .................................................. 40 | ||||
| 11.1 IETF RFCs ................................................. 40 | ||||
| 11.2 IETF Drafts ............................................... 40 | ||||
| 11.3 ATM Forum ................................................. 40 | ||||
| 11.4 Frame Relay Forum ......................................... 40 | ||||
| 11.5 ITU ....................................................... 41 | ||||
| 11.6 IEEE ...................................................... 41 | ||||
| 11.7 ANSI ...................................................... 42 | ||||
| 11.8 Telcordia ................................................. 42 | ||||
| 12 Security Considerations ..................................... 42 | ||||
| 13 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 42 | ||||
| 14 Full Copyright Section ...................................... 43 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| This document describes a framework for Pseudo Wires Emulation Edge- | This document describes a framework for Pseudo Wires Emulation Edge- | |||
| to-Edge (PWE3). It discusses the emulation of circuits (such as T1, | to-Edge (PWE3). It discusses the emulation of circuits (such as T1, | |||
| E1, T3 and E3) and services (such as ATM and Frame relay) over packet | E1, T3, E3 and SONET/SDH) and services (such as ATM and Frame Relay) | |||
| networks using IP, L2TP or MPLS for transport. It presents an | over packet switched networks (PSNs) using IP, L2TP or MPLS. It | |||
| architectural framework for pseudo wires, defines terminology, | presents an architectural framework for pseudo wires (PWs), defines | |||
| specifies the various protocol elements and their functions, | terminology, specifies the various protocol elements and their | |||
| overviews the services supported and discusses how pseudo wires fit | functions, overviews the services supported and discusses how PWs fit | |||
| into the broader context of protocols. | into the broader context of protocols. | |||
| 1.1. What Are Pseudo Wires? | 1.1. What Are Pseudo Wires? | |||
| 1.1.1. Definition | 1.1.1. Definition | |||
| A pseudo wire (PW) is a mechanism that emulates the essential | PWE3 is a mechanism that emulates the essential attributes of a | |||
| attributes of a service (such as a T1 leased line or Frame Relay) | service (such as a T1 leased line or Frame Relay) over a PSN. The | |||
| over a packet network. The required functions of PWs include | required functions of PWs include encapsulating service-specific bit- | |||
| encapsulating service-specific bit-streams or PDUs arriving at an | streams or PDUs arriving at an ingress port, and carrying them across | |||
| ingress port, and carrying them across a path or tunnel, managing | a path or tunnel, managing their timing and order, and any other | |||
| their timing and order, and any other operations required to emulate | operations required to emulate the behavior and characteristics of | |||
| the behavior and characteristics of the service as faithfully as | the service as faithfully as possible. | |||
| possible. | ||||
| From the customer perspective, the PW is perceived as an unshared | From the customer perspective, the PW is perceived as an unshared | |||
| link or circuit of the chosen service. However, there may be | link or circuit of the chosen service. However, there may be | |||
| deficiencies that impede some applications from being carried on a | deficiencies that impede some applications from being carried on a | |||
| PW. These limitations should be fully described in the appropriate | PW. These limitations should be fully described in the appropriate | |||
| service-specific Applicability Statements (ASes). | service-specific Applicability Statements (ASes). | |||
| 1.1.2. Functions | 1.1.2. Functions | |||
| PWs provide the following functions in order to emulate the behavior | PWs provide the following functions in order to emulate the behavior | |||
| and characteristics of the desired service. | and characteristics of the desired service. | |||
| - Encapsulation of service-specific PDUs or circuit data arriving at | - Encapsulation of service-specific PDUs or circuit data arriving at | |||
| an ingress port (logical or physical). | an ingress port (logical or physical). | |||
| - Transporting the encapsulated data across a tunnel. | - Carrying the encapsulated data across a tunnel. | |||
| - Managing the signaling, timing, order or other aspects of the | - Managing the signaling, timing, order or other aspects of the | |||
| service at the boundaries of the PW. | service at the boundaries of the PW. | |||
| - Service-specific status signaling and alarm management. | ||||
| ASes for each service will describe any shortfalls of the emulation's | ASes for each service will describe any shortfalls of the emulation's | |||
| faithfulness. | faithfulness. | |||
| 1.2. Goals of This Document | 1.2. Goals of This Document | |||
| - Description of the motivation for creating PWs, and some background | - Description of the motivation for creating PWs, and some background | |||
| on how they may be deployed. | on how they may be deployed. | |||
| - Description of an architecture and terminology for PWs. | - Description of an architecture and terminology for PWs. | |||
| - Description of the relevant services that will be supported by PWs, | - Description of the relevant services that will be supported by PWs, | |||
| including any relevant service-specific considerations. | including any relevant service-specific considerations. | |||
| - Description of methods to ensure in-order final PDU delivery, | - Description of methods to ensure in-order final PDU delivery, | |||
| - Description of methods to perform clock recovery, as needed or | - Description of methods to perform clock recovery, as needed or | |||
| appropriate. | appropriate. | |||
| - Description of methods to perform edge-to-edge/inband signaling | - Description of methods to perform edge-to-edge/inband signaling | |||
| functions across the transport network as needed or appropriate. | functions across the PSN, as needed or appropriate. | |||
| - Description of the statistics and other network management | - Description of the statistics and other network management | |||
| information needed for tunnel operation and management. | information needed for tunnel operation and management. | |||
| - Description of the security mechanisms to be used to protect the | - Description of the security mechanisms to be used to protect the | |||
| control of the PW technology. The protection of the encapsulated | control of the PW technology. The protection of the encapsulated | |||
| content (e.g., payload encryption) of the PW is outside of scope. | content (e.g., payload encryption) of the PW is outside of scope. | |||
| - Description of a mechanism to exchange encapsulation control | - Description of a mechanism to exchange encapsulation control | |||
| information at an administrative boundary of the transport network, | information at an administrative boundary of the PSN, including | |||
| including security methods. | security methods. | |||
| - Whenever possible, relevant requirements from existing IETF | - Whenever possible, relevant requirements from existing IETF | |||
| documents and other sources will be incorporated by reference. | documents and other sources will be incorporated by reference. | |||
| 1.3. Non-Goals | 1.3. Non-Goals | |||
| The following are out of scope: | The following are out of scope: | |||
| - The protection of the encapsulated content of the PW. | - The protection of the encapsulated content of the PW. | |||
| - Any multicast service not native to the emulated medium. Thus, | - Any multicast service not native to the emulated medium. Thus, | |||
| Ethernet transmission to a "multicast" IEEE-48 address is in scope, | Ethernet transmission to a "multicast" IEEE-48 address is in scope, | |||
| while multicast services like MARS that are implemented on top of | while multicast services like MARS that are implemented on top of | |||
| the medium are out of scope. | the medium are out of scope. | |||
| - Methods to signal the underlying network | - Methods to signal the underlying PSN. | |||
| 2. Background and Motivation | 2. Background and Motivation | |||
| Many of today's service providers are struggling with the dilemma of | Many of today's service providers are struggling with the dilemma of | |||
| moving to an optical network based on IP and/or MPLS. How do they | moving to an optical network based on IP and/or MPLS. How do they | |||
| realize the capital and operational benefits of a new packet-based | realize the capital and operational benefits of a new packet-based | |||
| optical infrastructure, while leveraging the existing base of SONET | optical infrastructure, while leveraging the existing base of SONET | |||
| (Synchronous Optical Network) gear, and while also protecting the | (Synchronous Optical Network) gear, and while also protecting the | |||
| large revenue stream associated with this equipment? How do they | large revenue stream associated with this equipment? How do they | |||
| move from mature Frame Relay or ATM networks, while still being able | move from mature Frame Relay or ATM networks, while still being able | |||
| to provide these lucrative services? One possibility is the | to provide these lucrative services? One possibility is the | |||
| emulation of circuits or services, currently referred to as "pseudo | emulation of circuits or services via PWs. Circuit emulation over | |||
| wires" in the IETF. Circuit emulation over ATM and interworking of | ATM and interworking of Frame Relay and ATM have already been | |||
| Frame Relay and ATM have already been standardized. Emulation allows | standardized. Emulation allows existing circuits and/or services to | |||
| the transport of existing circuits and/or services across the new | be carried across the new infrastructure, and thus enables the | |||
| infrastructure, and thus enables the interworking of disparate | interworking of disparate networks. [ATMCES] provides some insight | |||
| networks. [ATMCES] provides some insight into the requirements for | into the requirements for such a service: | |||
| such a service: | ||||
| There is a user demand for carrying certain types of | There is a user demand for carrying certain types of | |||
| constant bit rate (CBR) or "circuit" traffic over | constant bit rate (CBR) or "circuit" traffic over | |||
| Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networks. As ATM is | Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networks. As ATM is | |||
| essentially a packet- rather than circuit-oriented | essentially a packet- rather than circuit-oriented | |||
| transmission technology, it must emulate circuit | transmission technology, it must emulate circuit | |||
| characteristics in order to provide good support for CBR | characteristics in order to provide good support for CBR | |||
| traffic. | traffic. | |||
| A critical attribute of a Circuit Emulation Service (CES) | A critical attribute of a Circuit Emulation Service (CES) | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 51 ¶ | |||
| and video services. It is transparent to both protocols and | and video services. It is transparent to both protocols and | |||
| signaling, irrespective of whether they are standards based | signaling, irrespective of whether they are standards based | |||
| or proprietary with full timing support and the capability | or proprietary with full timing support and the capability | |||
| of maintaining the integrity of framed and unframed DS1 | of maintaining the integrity of framed and unframed DS1 | |||
| formats. | formats. | |||
| 2.1. Current Network Architecture | 2.1. Current Network Architecture | |||
| 2.1.1. Multiple Networks | 2.1.1. Multiple Networks | |||
| The current "network" for any given service provider delivering | For any given service provider delivering multiple services, the | |||
| multiple services usually consists of parallel networks. Each of | current "network" usually consists of parallel or "overlay" networks. | |||
| these networks implements a specific service, such as voice, Frame | Each of these networks implements a specific service, such as voice, | |||
| Relay, internet access, etc. This is quite expensive, both in terms | Frame Relay, Internet access, etc. This is quite expensive, both in | |||
| of capital expense as well as in operational costs. Furthermore, | terms of capital expense as well as in operational costs. | |||
| multiple networks complicates planning. Service providers wind up | Furthermore, the presence of multiple networks complicates planning. | |||
| asking themselves these questions: | ||||
| - Which network do I build out? | Service providers wind up asking themselves these questions: | |||
| - Which of my networks do I build out? | ||||
| - How many fibers do I need for each network? | - How many fibers do I need for each network? | |||
| - How do I efficiently manage multiple networks? | - How do I efficiently manage multiple networks? | |||
| 2.1.2. Convergence Today | 2.1.2. Convergence Today | |||
| There are some examples of convergence in today's network: | There are some examples of convergence in today's network: | |||
| - Frame Relay is frequently carried over ATM networks using [FRF.5] | - Frame Relay is frequently carried over ATM networks using [FRF.5] | |||
| interworking. | interworking. | |||
| - T1, E1 and T3 circuits are sometimes carried over ATM networks | - T1, E1 and T3 circuits are sometimes carried over ATM networks | |||
| using [ATMCES]. | using [ATMCES]. | |||
| - Voice is carried over Frame Relay and IP networks. | - Voice is carried over ATM (using AAL2), Frame Relay (using FRF.11 | |||
| VoFR), IP (using VoIP) and MPLS (using VoMPLS) networks. | ||||
| Deployment of these examples range from limited (ATM CES) to fairly | Deployment of these examples range from limited (ATM CES) to fairly | |||
| common (FRF.5 interworking) to widespread (VoIP). | common (FRF.5 interworking) to rapidly growing (VoIP). | |||
| 2.2. The Emerging Converged Network | 2.2. The Emerging Converged Network | |||
| Many service providers are finding that the new IP-based and MPLS- | Many service providers are finding that the new IP-based and MPLS- | |||
| based switching systems are much less costly to acquire, deploy and | based switching systems are much less costly to acquire, deploy and | |||
| maintain than the systems that they replace. The new systems take | maintain than the systems that they replace. The new systems take | |||
| advantage of advances in technology in these ways: | advantage of advances in technology in these ways: | |||
| - The newer systems leverage mass production of ASICs and optical | - The newer systems leverage mass production of ASICs and optical | |||
| interfaces to reduce capital expense. | interfaces to reduce capital expense. | |||
| - The bulk of the traffic in the network today originates from packet | - The bulk of the traffic in the network today originates from packet | |||
| sources. Packet switches can economically switch and transport | sources. Packet switches can economically switch and deliver this | |||
| this traffic natively. | traffic natively. | |||
| - Variable-length switches have lower system costs than ATM due to | - Variable-length switches have lower system costs than ATM due to | |||
| simpler switching mechanisms as well as elimination of segmentation | simpler switching mechanisms as well as elimination of segmentation | |||
| and reassembly (SAR) at the edges of the network. | and reassembly (SAR) at the edges of the network. | |||
| - Deployment of services is simpler due to the connectionless nature | - Deployment of services is simpler due to the connectionless nature | |||
| of IP services or the rapid provisioning of MPLS applications. | of IP services or the rapid provisioning of MPLS applications. | |||
| 2.3. Transition to the New Network | 2.3. Transition to a IP-Optimized Converged Network | |||
| The emergence of a converged network solves many of the problems | The greatest assets for many service providers are the physical | |||
| faced by service providers, but the old networks and services don't | communications links that they own. The time and costs associated | |||
| just go away. Use of PWs can help facilitate this transition with | with acquiring the necessary rights of way, getting the required | |||
| these benefits. | governmental approvals, and physically installing the cabling over a | |||
| variety of terrains and obstacles represents a significant asset that | ||||
| is difficult to replace. Their greatest on-going costs are the | ||||
| operational expenses associated with maintaining and operating their | ||||
| networks. In order to maximize the return on their assets and | ||||
| minimize their operating costs, service providers often look to | ||||
| consolidate the delivery of multiple service types onto a single | ||||
| networking technology. | ||||
| - Leverage the low capital and operational expenses of packet | The first generation converged network is based on TDM (time-division | |||
| networks. | multiplexing) technology. Voice, video, and data traffic has been | |||
| carried successfully across TDM/DACS-based networks for decades. TDM | ||||
| technology has some significant drawbacks as a converged networking | ||||
| technology. Operational costs for TDM networks remain relatively | ||||
| high because the provisioning of end-to-end TDM circuits is typically | ||||
| a tedious and labor-intensive task. In addition, TDM switching does | ||||
| not make the best use of the communications links. This is because | ||||
| fixed assignment of timeslots does not allow for the statistical | ||||
| multiplexing of bursty data traffic (i.e. temporarily unused | ||||
| bandwidth on one timeslot cannot be dynamically re-allocated to | ||||
| another service). | ||||
| - Simple provisioning. | The second generation of converged network is based on ATM | |||
| technology. Today many service providers convert voice, video, and | ||||
| data traffic into fixed-length cells for carriage across ATM-based | ||||
| networks. ATM improves upon TDM technology by providing the ability | ||||
| to statistically multiplex different types of traffic onto | ||||
| communications links. In addition, ATM SPVC technology is often used | ||||
| to automatically provision end-to-end services, providing an | ||||
| additional advantage over traditional TDM networks. However, ATM has | ||||
| several significant drawbacks. One of the most frequently cited | ||||
| problems with ATM is the so-called cell-tax, which refers to the 5 | ||||
| bytes out of 53 used as an ATM cell header. Another significant | ||||
| problem with ATM is the AAL5 SAR, which becomes extremely difficult | ||||
| to implement above 1 Gbps. There are also issues with the long-term | ||||
| scalability of ATM, especially as a switching layer beneath IP. | ||||
| - Provide a transition path to a converged network. | As IP traffic takes up a larger and larger portion of the available | |||
| network bandwidth, it becomes increasingly useful to optimize public | ||||
| networks for the Internet Protocol. However, many service providers | ||||
| are confronting several obstacles in engineering IP-optimized | ||||
| networks. Although Internet traffic is the fastest growing traffic | ||||
| segment, it does not generate the highest revenue per bit. For | ||||
| example, Frame Relay traffic currently generates a higher revenue per | ||||
| bit than do native IP services. Private line TDM services still | ||||
| generate even more revenue per bit than does Frame Relay. In | ||||
| addition, there is a tremendous amount of legacy equipment deployed | ||||
| within public networks that does not communicate using the Internet | ||||
| Protocol. Service providers continue to utilize non-IP equipment to | ||||
| deploy a variety of services, and see a need to interconnect this | ||||
| legacy equipment over their IP-optimized core networks. | ||||
| Editor's Note: this section needs more work. | To maximize the return on their assets and minimize their operational | |||
| costs, many service providers are looking to consolidate the delivery | ||||
| of multiple service offerings and traffic types onto a single IP- | ||||
| optimized network. | ||||
| In order to create this next-generation converged network, standard | ||||
| methods must be developed to emulate existing telecommunications | ||||
| formats such as Ethernet, Frame Relay, ATM, and TDM over IP-optimized | ||||
| core networks. This document describes a framework accomplishing | ||||
| this goal. | ||||
| 3. Architecture of Pseudo Wires | 3. Architecture of Pseudo Wires | |||
| 3.1. Reference Model | 3.1. Terminology | |||
| Figure 1 below shows the reference model for PWs. | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALLNOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | ||||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Below are | ||||
| the definitions for the terms used throughout the document. | ||||
| |<--------- pseudo wire -------->| | Packet Switched Network | |||
| | | | A Packet Switched Network (PSN) is a network | |||
| | +------+ | | using IP, MPLS or L2TP as the unit of | |||
| service |PW-PDU| -> service | switching. | |||
| +-----+ access +------+ +------+ +------+ access +-----+ | ||||
| | SE1 |---------| PWE1 |..................| PWE2 |---------| SE2 | | ||||
| +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+ | ||||
| PW endpoint 1 PW endpoint 2 | ||||
| | | | ||||
| |<---------------- emulated service ---------------->| | ||||
| service service | Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge | |||
| endpoint 1 endpoint 2 | Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) is a | |||
| mechanism that emulates the essential | ||||
| attributes of a service (such as a T1 leased | ||||
| line or Frame Relay) over a PSN. | ||||
| Figure 1: PW Reference Model | Customer Edge A Customer Edge (CE) is a device where one end | |||
| of an emulated service originates and | ||||
| terminates. The CE is not aware that it is | ||||
| using an emulated service rather than a "real" | ||||
| service. | ||||
| As shown, the PW provides an emulated service between the service | Provider Edge A Provider Edge (PE) is a device that provides | |||
| endpoints. Any bits or packets presented at the service access are | PWE3 to a CE. | |||
| encapsulated in a PW PDU and carried across the underlying network. | ||||
| The PW endpoints (PWE) perform the encapsulation, decapsulation, | ||||
| order management, timing and any other functions required by the | ||||
| service. The underlying transport network is not involved in any of | ||||
| these service-specific operations. | ||||
| 3.2. Terminology | Pseudo Wire A Pseudo Wire (PW) is a connection between two | |||
| PEs carried over a PSN. The PE provides the | ||||
| adaptation between the CE and the PW. | ||||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALLNOT", | PW End Service A Pseudo Wire End Service (PWES) is the | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | interface between a PE and a CE. This can be a | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Below are | physical interface like a T1 or Ethernet, or a | |||
| the definitions for the terms used throughout the document. | virtual interface like a VC or VLAN. | |||
| Pseudo Wire The Pseudo Wire (PW) is a mechanism that | Pseudo Wire PDU A Pseudo Wire PDU is a PDU sent on the PW that | |||
| emulates the essential attributes of a | contains all of the data and control | |||
| service, providing this emulation over a | information necessary to provide the desired | |||
| packet network. | service. | |||
| Pseudo Wire Domain A PW Domain (PWD) is a collection of | PSN Tunnel A PSN Tunnel is a tunnel inside which multiple | |||
| instances of PWs that are within the scope of | PWs can be nested so that they are transparent | |||
| a single homogenous administrative domain | to core network devices. | |||
| (e.g. PW over MPLS network or PW over IP | ||||
| network etc.). | ||||
| Pseudo Wire Endpoint The PW Endpoint (PWE) is a device that | Pseudo Wire Domain A PW Domain (PWD) is a collection of instances | |||
| provides the adaptation between the end | of PWs that are within the scope of a single | |||
| service and the PW. | homogenous administrative domain (e.g. PW over | |||
| MPLS network or PW over IP network etc.). | ||||
| Pseudo Wire PDU The PW-PDU is a PDU sent on the PW that | Path-oriented PW A Path-oriented PW is a PW for which the | |||
| contains all of the data and control | network devices of the underlying PSN must | |||
| information necessary to provide the desired | maintain state information. | |||
| service. | ||||
| Service Endpoint The Service Endpoint (SE) is the point of | Non-path-oriented PW A Non-path-oriented PW is a PW for which the | |||
| termination for the emulated service. | network devices of the underlying PSN need not | |||
| maintain state information. | ||||
| Network Interworking Network Interworking means that the ingress | Interworking Interworking is used to express interactions | |||
| and egress of the PW interfaces are identical | between networks, between end systems, or | |||
| (e.g. ATM-to-ATM, Frame Relay-to-Frame Relay | between parts thereof, with the aim of | |||
| etc.). The interworking function (IWF) at | providing a functional entity capable of | |||
| the edge of the PW performs the service | supporting an end-to-end communication. The | |||
| mapping (e.g. ATM Cell Loss priority (CLP) | interactions required to provide a functional | |||
| maps to EXP field in MPLS header) on the | entity rely on functions and on the means to | |||
| service data unit (SDU) (e.g. ATM cell) to | select these functions. | |||
| ensure the service transparency while | ||||
| transporting the SDU data transparently | ||||
| across the PWD. | ||||
| Service Interworking Service Interworking means that the ingress | Interworking Function An Interworking Function (IWF) is a functional | |||
| and egress of the PW interfaces are different | entity that facilitates interworking between | |||
| (e.g. ATM-to-Frame Relay). The interworking | two dissimilar networks (e.g., ATM & MPLS, ATM | |||
| function at the ingress edge of the network | & L2TP, etc.). A PE performs the IWF function. | |||
| terminates the SDU transport (e.g. ATM AAL5 | ||||
| PDU transport)and performs service mapping | ||||
| between the ingress SDU and the pseudo-wire | ||||
| PDU (e.g. ATM CLP to MPLS EXP) while it is | ||||
| converting the incoming SDU into the PW SDU | ||||
| (e.g. transcoding ATM AAL5 PDU into MPLS PDU) | ||||
| and transports converted PDU across the PWD. | ||||
| The same operation may be repeated in the | ||||
| reverse order at the egress PW if the | ||||
| outgoing interface does not have the same SDU | ||||
| type as the PW. | ||||
| Applicability Statement Each PW service will have an Applicability | Service Interworking In Service Interworking, the IWF (Interworking | |||
| Statement (AS) that describes the particulars | Function) between two dissimilar protocols | |||
| of PWs for that service, as well as the | (e.g., ATM & MPLS, Frame Relay & ATM, ATM & IP, | |||
| degree of faithfulness to that service. | ATM & L2TP, etc.) terminates the protocol used | |||
| in one network and translates (i.e. maps) its | ||||
| Protocol Control Information (PCI) to the PCI | ||||
| of the protocol used in other network for User, | ||||
| Control and Management Plane functions to the | ||||
| extent possible. In general, since not all | ||||
| functions may be supported in one or other of | ||||
| the networks, the translation of PCI may be | ||||
| partial or non-existent. However, this should | ||||
| not result in any loss of user data since the | ||||
| payload is not affected by PCI conversion at | ||||
| the service interworking IWF. | ||||
| Network Interworking In Network Interworking, the PCI (Protocol | ||||
| Control Information) of the protocol and the | ||||
| payload information used in two similar | ||||
| networks are transferred transparently by an | ||||
| IWF of the PE across the PSN. Typically the | ||||
| IWF of the PE encapsulates the information | ||||
| which is transmitted by means of an adaptation | ||||
| function and transfers it transparently to the | ||||
| other network. | ||||
| Applicability Statement | ||||
| Each PW service will have an Applicability | ||||
| Statement (AS) that describes the particulars | ||||
| of PWs for that service, as well as the degree | ||||
| of faithfulness to that service. | ||||
| Outbound The traffic direction where information from a | ||||
| CE is adapted to a PW, and PW-PDUs are sent | ||||
| into the PSN. | ||||
| Inbound The traffic direction where PW-PDUs are | ||||
| received on a PW from the PSN, re-converted | ||||
| back in the emulated service, and sent out to a | ||||
| CE. | ||||
| CE Signaling CE (end-to-end) Signaling refers to messages | ||||
| sent and received by the CEs. It may be | ||||
| desirable or even necessary for the PE to | ||||
| participate in or monitor this signaling in | ||||
| order to effectively emulate the service. | ||||
| PE/PW Signaling PE/PW Signaling is signaling used by the PEs to | ||||
| set up and tear down the PW. It may be coupled | ||||
| with CE signaling in order to effectively | ||||
| manage the PW. | ||||
| PSN Tunnel Signaling PSN Tunnel Signaling is used to set up, | ||||
| maintain and remove the underlying PSN tunnel. | ||||
| An example would be LDP in MPLS for maintaining | ||||
| LSPs. This type of signaling is not within the | ||||
| scope of PWE3. | ||||
| <Editor's Note: The following figure is temporary. It is intended to | ||||
| facilitate discussion of the preceding set of terms versus those used | ||||
| in [MARTINI].> | ||||
| [MARTINI] This Draft | ||||
| ---------------------------------------- | ||||
| MPLS Network PSN (includes MPLS) | ||||
| Tunnel LSP PSN Tunnel | ||||
| VC LSP PW | ||||
| Edge LSR, R1, R2 PE | ||||
| Figure 1: Comparison of Terms | ||||
| 3.2. Reference Models | ||||
| 3.2.1. Network Reference Model | ||||
| Figure 2 below shows the network reference model for PWs. | ||||
| |<------- Pseudo Wire ------>| | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | |<-- PSN Tunnel -->| | | ||||
| PW V V V V PW | ||||
| End Service+----+ +----+ End Service | ||||
| +-----+ | | PE1|==================| PE2| | +-----+ | ||||
| | |----------|............PW1.............|----------| | | ||||
| | CE1 | | | | | | | | CE2 | | ||||
| | |----------|............PW2.............|----------| | | ||||
| +-----+ | | |==================| | | +-----+ | ||||
| ^ +----+ +----+ | ^ | ||||
| | Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| |<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->| | ||||
| Customer Customer | ||||
| Edge 1 Edge 2 | ||||
| Figure 2: PWE3 Network Reference Model | ||||
| As shown, the PW provides an emulated service between the customer | ||||
| edges (CEs). Any bits or packets presented at the PW End Service | ||||
| (PWES) are encapsulated in a PW-PDU and carried across the underlying | ||||
| network. The PEs perform the encapsulation, decapsulation, order | ||||
| management, timing and any other functions required by the service. | ||||
| In some cases the PWES can be treated as a virtual interfaces into a | ||||
| further processing (like switching or bridging) of the original | ||||
| service before the physical connection to the CE. Examples include | ||||
| Ethernet bridging, SONET cross-connect, translation of locally- | ||||
| significant identifiers such as VCI/VPI, etc. to other service type, | ||||
| etc. | ||||
| The underlying PSN is not involved in any of these service-specific | ||||
| operations. | ||||
| 3.2.2. Signaling Reference Model | ||||
| Figure 3 below shows the signaling reference model for PWs. | ||||
| |<------- CE (end-to-end) Signaling ------>| | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | |<----- PW/PE Signaling ------>| | | ||||
| | | | | | ||||
| | | |<-- PSN Tunnel -->| | | | ||||
| | | | Signaling | | | | ||||
| | V V V V | | ||||
| v +-----+ +-----+ v | ||||
| +-----+ | PE1 |==================| PE2 | +-----+ | ||||
| | |-----|.............PW1..............|-----| | | ||||
| | CE1 | | | | | | CE2 | | ||||
| | |-----|.............PW2..............|-----| | | ||||
| +-----+ | |==================| | +-----+ | ||||
| ^ +-----+ +-----+ ^ | ||||
| | Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| |<----------- Emulated Service ----------->| | ||||
| Customer Customer | ||||
| Edge 1 Edge 2 | ||||
| Figure 3: PWE3 Signaling Reference Model | ||||
| - The CE (end-to-end) signaling is between the CEs. This signaling | ||||
| includes Frame Relay PVC status signaling, ATM SVC signaling, etc. | ||||
| - The PW/PE signaling is used between the PEs to set up and tear down | ||||
| PWs, including any required coordination of parameters between the | ||||
| two ends. | ||||
| - The PSN Tunnel signaling controls the underlying PSN. An example | ||||
| would be LDP in MPLS for maintaining LSPs. This type of signaling | ||||
| is not within the scope of PWE3. | ||||
| 3.2.3. Protocol Stack Reference Model | ||||
| Figure 4 below shows the protocol stack reference model for PWs. The | ||||
| PW provides the CE with what appears to be a connection to its peer | ||||
| at the far end. Bits or PDUs from the CE are passed through an | ||||
| encapsulation layer. | ||||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | ||||
| | Emulated | | Emulated | | ||||
| | Service | | Service | | ||||
| | (TDM, ATM, | Emulated Service | (TDM, ATM, | | ||||
| | Ethernet, |<=================================>| Ethernet, | | ||||
| |Frame Relay, | |Frame Relay, | | ||||
| | etc. | | etc. | | ||||
| +-------------+ Pseudo Wire +-------------+ | ||||
| |Encapsulation|<=================================>|Encapsulation| | ||||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | ||||
| | PSN | PSN Tunnel | PSN | | ||||
| |IP/MPLS/L2TP |<=================================>|IP/MPLS/L2TP | | ||||
| +-------------+ +-------------+ | ||||
| | Physical | | Physical | | ||||
| +-----+-------+ +-----+-------+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | IP/MPLS/L2TP Network | | ||||
| | ____ ___ ____ | | ||||
| | _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ | | ||||
| | / \__/ \_ | | ||||
| | / \ | | ||||
| +=========/ |=====+ | ||||
| \ / | ||||
| \ / | ||||
| \ ___ ___ __ _/ | ||||
| \_/ \____/ \___/ \____/ | ||||
| Figure 4: PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model | ||||
| 3.3. Architecture Assumptions | 3.3. Architecture Assumptions | |||
| 1) The current design is focused on a point-to-point and same-to-same | 1) The current design is focused on a point-to-point and same-to-same | |||
| service interface at both end of the PW. Only network | service interface at both end of the PW. Only network | |||
| interworking will be performed at the edge or the PW. Support for | interworking will be performed at the edge or the PW. Support for | |||
| service interworking is for further study. | service interworking is for further study. | |||
| 2) The initial design of PWE3 is focused on a single homogenous | 2) The initial design of PWE3 is focused on a single homogenous | |||
| administrative PWD (e.g. PW over MPLS or PW over IP etc. ONLY). | administrative PWD (e.g. PW over MPLS or PW over IP etc. ONLY). | |||
| Interworking between different pseudo-wire types and the support | Interworking between different PW types and the support of inter- | |||
| of inter-domain PWs are for further study. | domain PWs are for further study. | |||
| 3) The design of PW will not perfectly emulate the characteristics of | 3) The design of PW will not perfectly emulate the characteristics of | |||
| the native service. It shall be dependent on both the emulated | the native service. It will be dependent on both the emulated | |||
| service, as well as on the network implementation. An AS shall be | service, as well as on the network implementation. An AS shall be | |||
| created for each service to describe the degree of faithfulness of | created for each service to describe the degree of faithfulness of | |||
| a PW to the native service. | a PW to the native service. | |||
| 4) Only the permanent emulated circuit type (e.g. PVC/PVP) is | 4) Only the permanent emulated circuit type (e.g. PVC/PVP) is | |||
| considered initially. The switched emulated circuit type (e.g. | considered initially. The switched emulated circuit type (e.g. | |||
| SVC/SVP) will be for further study. | SVC/SVP) will be for further study. | |||
| 5) The creation and placement of the tunnel to support the PW is not | 5) The creation and placement of the PSN tunnel to support the PW is | |||
| within the scope. | not within the scope. | |||
| 6) The current PW encapsulation approach considerations are focused | 6) The current PW encapsulation approach considerations are focused | |||
| on IPv4, IPv6, L2TP, GRE and MPLS. Other encapsulation approach | on IPv4, IPv6, L2TP and MPLS. Other encapsulation approach is for | |||
| is for further study. | further study. | |||
| 7) Current PW service applications are focused on Ethernet (i.e. | 7) Current PW service applications are focused on Ethernet (i.e. | |||
| Ethernet II (DIX), 802.3 "raw", Ethernet 802.2, Ethernet SNAP, | Ethernet II (DIX), 802.3 "raw", Ethernet 802.2, Ethernet SNAP, | |||
| 802.3ac VLAN), Frame Relay, ATM, TDM (e.g. DS1, DS3, T1, SONET | 802.3ac VLAN), Frame Relay, ATM, TDM (e.g. DS1, DS3, E1, SONET/SDH | |||
| etc.) and MPLS. | etc.) and MPLS. | |||
| 8) Within the single administrative PWD, the design of the PW assumes | 8) Within the single administrative PWD, the design of the PW assumes | |||
| the inheritance of the security mechanism that has been applied to | the inheritance of the security mechanism that has been applied to | |||
| the emulated services. No PW specific security mechanism will be | the emulated services. No PW specific security mechanism will be | |||
| specified. | specified. | |||
| 3.4. Comparison of Relevant Applications | 3.4. Suitable Applications for PWE3 | |||
| <Editor's Note: This section will discuss the attributes that make an | ||||
| application suitable (or not) for PWE3 emulation. This section is | ||||
| currently under revision. > | ||||
| When considering PWs as a means of providing a service, the following | When considering PWs as a means of providing a service, the following | |||
| questions must be asked: | questions regarding the application must be considered. | |||
| - Preservation of Order - Does the application require in-order | - Preservation of Order - Does the application require in-order | |||
| delivery of data? | delivery of data? Emulation of an application that requires in- | |||
| order delivery over a PSN that does not guarantee such delivery may | ||||
| be difficult. | ||||
| - Preservation of Timing - Does the application require fine-grain | - Preservation of Timing - Does the application require fine-grain | |||
| preservation of timing? | preservation of timing? If so, the adaptation may be complicated | |||
| by providing such timing where it is not normally available. | ||||
| - Natural Delineation - What is the "natural" boundary for | - Natural Delineation - What is the "natural" boundary for | |||
| delineation of data for encapsulation? | delineation of data for encapsulation? (Note: For bit/byte- | |||
| oriented services, such as TDM emulation, this "natural" | ||||
| delineation may not necessarily be the overriding consideration for | ||||
| determining the best "chunk" for packetizing the service.) | ||||
| - Packet Size - Are the encapsulated packets variable or fixed in | - Packet Size - Are the encapsulated packets variable or fixed in | |||
| size? | size? | |||
| - Data Rate - Is the data rate presented at the interface fixed or | - Data Rate - Is the data rate presented at the interface fixed or | |||
| variable? | variable? | |||
| Figure 2 below shows a summary of the applications relevant to pseudo | Figure 5 below shows a summary of the applications relevant to PWs, | |||
| wire transport, along with a comparison of their attributes. | along with a comparison of their attributes. | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| | Attribute ->|Preserve|Preserve| "Natural" | Packet | Data | | |Attribute ->|Preserve|Preserve| "Natural" | Packet | Data | | |||
| |Application | Order | Timing | Delineation| Size | Rate | | |Application | Order | Timing | Delineation| Size | Rate | | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |TDM Circuits | yes | yes |125 us frame| fixed | fixed | | |T1/E1/T3/E3 | yes | yes |125 us frame| fixed | fixed | | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |SONET Circuits | yes | yes |125 us frame| fixed | fixed | | |SONET/SDH | yes | yes |125 us frame| fixed | fixed | | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |Frame Relay | yes | no | frame |Variable|Variable| | |Frame Relay | yes | no | frame |variable|variable| | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |ATM AAL1 | yes | no | cell | fixed | fixed | | |ATM AAL1 | yes | yes | cell | fixed | fixed | | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |ATM AAL2 | yes | no | cell | fixed |variable| | |ATM AAL2 | yes | yes | cell | fixed |variable| | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |ATM AAL5 | yes | no |cell or PDU |variable|variable| | |ATM AAL5 | yes | no |cell or PDU |variable|variable| | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| |Ethernet | yes | no | frame |variable|variable| | |Ethernet | yes | no | frame |variable|variable| | |||
| +----------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | +------------+--------+--------+------------+--------+--------+ | |||
| Figure 5: Summary of Applications and Attributes | ||||
| Figure 2: Summary of Applications and Attributes | ||||
| 4. Layer 1 (Circuit) Applications | 4. Layer 1 (Circuit) Applications | |||
| For these applications the entire bit stream needs to be transported | For circuit applications the entire bit stream (or at least the | |||
| to the far end. As with SONET transport or ATM CES, the physical | payload) needs to be recreated at the far end of the PW. As with ATM | |||
| layer coding is terminated and re-generated on the far end. In | CES, the physical layer coding is terminated and re-generated on the | |||
| addition, framing may be terminated and regenerated, depending on the | far end. In addition, framing may be terminated and regenerated, | |||
| application. | depending on the application. | |||
| 4.1. Reference Model | 4.1. Reference Model | |||
| Figure 3 below shows a pair of T1s being carried over a TDM/SONET | Figure 6 below shows a pair of T1s being carried over a TDM/SONET | |||
| network. The node marked "M" is an M13 multiplexer, while the nodes | network. The node marked "M" is an M13 multiplexer, while the nodes | |||
| marked "S" are SONET Add-Drop Multiplexers (ADMs). | marked "S" are SONET Add-Drop Multiplexers (ADMs). Note that the | |||
| physical interface of the circuit may change without affecting the | ||||
| circuit. For example, the T1s in Figure 6 below enter the network as | ||||
| physical T1s but exit the network as Virtual Tributaries (VTs) in a | ||||
| physical OC12. | ||||
| SONET/TDM Network | SONET/TDM Network | |||
| ____ ___ ____ | ____ ___ ____ | |||
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ | _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ | |||
| +------+ Physical / \__/ \ | +------+ Physical / \__/ \ | |||
| |Site A| T1 / +---+ DS3 \ Hub Site | |Site A| T1 / +---+ DS3 \ Hub Site | |||
| |T1 #1=|=================|\M/|-------------+-----+ \ OC12+------+ | |T1 #1=|=================|\M/|-------------+-----+ \ OC12+------+ | |||
| | | \ |/ \|=============|\ /| \----| | | | | \ |/ \|=============|\ /| \----| | | |||
| +------+ /\ +---+-------------| \ / |========|=T1 #1| | +------+ /\ +---+-------------| \ / |========|=T1 #1| | |||
| / | S | / | | | / | S | / | | | |||
| +------+ Physical/ +---+-------------| / \ |========|=T1 #2| | +------+ Physical/ +---+-------------| / \ |========|=T1 #2| | |||
| |Site B| T1 \ |\S/|=============|/ \| \----| | | |Site B| T1 \ |\S/|=============|/ \| \----| | | |||
| |T1 #2=|=================|/ \|-------------+-----+ / +------+ | |T1 #2=|=================|/ \|-------------+-----+ / +------+ | |||
| | | \ +---+ OC3 __ / | | | \ +---+ OC3 __ / | |||
| +------+ \ __/ \ / | +------+ \ __/ \ / | |||
| \ ___ ___ / \_/ | \ ___ ___ / \_/ | |||
| \_/ \____/ \___/ | \_/ \____/ \___/ | |||
| Figure 3: T1/SONET Example Diagram | Figure 6: T1/SONET Example Diagram | |||
| Figure 4 below shows the same pair of T1s being carried over a packet | ||||
| network. Here the emulation is performed by the boxes marked "E", | ||||
| and the routers marked "R" carry the resulting packets. Note that | ||||
| the emulation, routing and/or SONET functions could be combined in | ||||
| the same device. | ||||
| Figure 7 below shows the same pair of T1s being carried over a packet | ||||
| network. Here the emulation is performed by the PEs marked "PE", and | ||||
| the routers marked "R" carry the resulting packets. Note that the | ||||
| PE, routing and/or SONET functions could be combined in the same | ||||
| device. | ||||
| SONET/TDM/Packet Network | SONET/TDM/Packet Network | |||
| ____ ___ ____ | ____ ___ ____ | |||
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ | _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ | |||
| +------+ Physical / \__/ \_ | +------+ Physical /+-+ \__/ \_ | |||
| |Site A| T1 / +-+ +---+ \ Hub Site | |Site A| T1 / | | +---+ \ Hub Site | |||
| |T1 #1=|=============|E|=| R | +---+ +-+ +-----+ \ OC12+------+ | |T1 #1=|=============|P|=| R | +---+ +-+ +-----+ \ OC12+------+ | |||
| | | \ +-+ | |===| | | |=|\ /| \----| | | | | \ |E| | |===| | | |=|\ /| \----| | | |||
| +------+ /\ +---+ | | | | | \ / |========|=T1 #1| | +------+ /\+-+ +---+ | | | | | \ / |========|=T1 #1| | |||
| / | R |=|E| | S | / | | | / | R |=|P| | S | / | | | |||
| +------+ Physical/ +---+ | | | | | / \ |========|=T1 #2| | +------+ Physical/ +-+ +---+ | | |E| | / \ |========|=T1 #2| | |||
| |Site B| T1 \ +-+ | R |===| | | |=|/ \| \----| | | |Site B| T1 \ |P| | R |===| | | |=|/ \| \----| | | |||
| |T1 #2=|=============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ +-----+ / +------+ | |T1 #2=|=============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ +-----+ / +------+ | |||
| | | \ +-+ +---+ __ / | | | \ | | +---+ __ / | |||
| +------+ \ __/ \ / | +------+ \ +-+ __/ \ / | |||
| \ ___ ___ / \_/ | \ ___ ___ / \_/ | |||
| \_/ \____/ \___/ | \_/ \____/ \___/ | |||
| Figure 4: T1 Emulation Example Diagram | Figure 7: T1 Emulation Example Diagram | |||
| 4.2. Operational Considerations | 4.2. Operational Considerations | |||
| 4.2.1. Transparency | 4.2.1. Transparency | |||
| Circuits such as T1/E1/T3/E3 lines need a greater degree of | Circuits such as T1/E1/T3/E3/SONET/SDH lines need a greater degree of | |||
| transparency than Layer 2 services. These circuits may be carrying | transparency than Layer 2 services. These circuits may be carrying | |||
| the services described in the section on Layer 2 services, but in the | the services described in the section on Layer 2 services, but in the | |||
| Layer 1 scenario the higher layer application is irrelevant and is | Layer 1 scenario the higher layer application is irrelevant and is | |||
| ignored. In general, these are "bits in, bits out" applications. | ignored. In general, these are "bits in, bits out" applications. | |||
| In this application a circuit or bit stream is encapsulated in fixed- | In this application a circuit or bit stream is encapsulated in fixed- | |||
| size frames that are sent at a fixed rate. The emulated stream must | size frames that are sent at a fixed rate. The emulated stream must | |||
| be delivered in a reliable and predictable fashion to the far end. | be delivered in a reliable and predictable fashion to the far end. | |||
| Absolute delay and delay variation (also called jitter or wander) | Absolute delay and delay variation (also called jitter or wander) | |||
| must be minimized. | must be minimized. Excess delay and delay variation may cause | |||
| problems with the application carried by the TDM/SONET CEs. | ||||
| This encapsulation of TDM data must be transparent. The emulated | This encapsulation of TDM data must be transparent. The emulated | |||
| circuit could be carrying one or more types of data (ATM, Frame | circuit could be carrying one or more types of data (ATM, Frame | |||
| Relay, TCP/IP, etc.), voice traffic, video or anything else. The | Relay, TCP/IP, etc.), voice traffic, video or anything else. The | |||
| data is not interpreted; it is simply transported. | data is not interpreted; it is simply transported. | |||
| 4.2.2. Framed Versus Unframed Mode For TDM Circuits | 4.2.2. Structured Versus Unstructured Mode For TDM Circuits | |||
| As discussed in [ATMCES], emulation of a T1, E1 or other circuit can | As discussed in [ATMCES], emulation of a T1, E1 or other circuit can | |||
| be done in a framed mode or in an unframed mode. Framed mode | be done in a structured (framed) mode or in an unstructured | |||
| requires the use of a framer to generate the outgoing framing | (unframed) mode. This same distinction can be applied to higher rate | |||
| pattern. More importantly, it is needed to detect a LOS condition or | circuits such as DS3, E3, and SONET/SDH. | |||
| reception of an Alarm Indication Signal (AIS). A framer is also | ||||
| needed to generate and terminate the Facility Data Link (FDL) | Unstructured mode generally involves collecting all bits received | |||
| overhead channel used for communication of loopback commands and | from a physical port (including transport framing), and packing them | |||
| performance reports. The capabilities described in the rest of this | into packets for transport through the PSN. The fact that the | |||
| section (except for LOS) are predicated on the presence of a framer. | received bit stream contains a framed signal is more or less | |||
| irrelevant to the adaptation function. | ||||
| Structured mode requires the use of a framer to identify and | ||||
| terminate the incoming transport framing, and delineate logical TDM | ||||
| channels within the TDM bit stream for emulation. In addition, TDM | ||||
| framers are generally needed to detect maintenance signals such as | ||||
| Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) and Remote Defect Indication (RDI). | ||||
| Framers are also used to measure various performance parameters such | ||||
| as Errored Seconds, Frame Errored Seconds, etc. Lastly, a framer is | ||||
| needed to generate and terminate the Facility Data Link (FDL) as well | ||||
| as the SONET/SDH Data Communications Channels (DCCs). | ||||
| The capabilities described in the rest of this section (except for | ||||
| LOS) are predicated on the presence of a framer. | ||||
| 4.2.3. Fractional T1/E1 | 4.2.3. Fractional T1/E1 | |||
| A fractional T1 or E1 is composed of a number of concatenated DS0s | A fractional T1 or E1 is composed of a number of concatenated DS0s | |||
| and is sometimes referred to as NxDS0. It may be emulated by | and is sometimes referred to as NxDS0. It may be emulated by | |||
| replicating the contents of the relevant DS0s at the other end of the | replicating the contents of the relevant DS0s at the other end of the | |||
| tunnel. The value of the other timeslots and/or framing are | tunnel. The value of the other timeslots and/or framing are | |||
| irrelevant and are not transported in leased line application. Even | irrelevant and are not transported in leased line application. Even | |||
| though the framing is not transported, a framer is still needed to | though the framing is not transported, a framer is still needed to | |||
| delineate the timeslots for encapsulation. | delineate the timeslots for encapsulation. | |||
| 4.2.4. Loopbacks | 4.2.4. STS-1/Nc | |||
| It is desirable for a PWE node to process loopback messages as | The SONET/SDH equivalent to Structured T1/E1 services are STS-1/Nc | |||
| defined in [T1.403]. This would allow for isolation of faults in a | and their SDH equivalents. For STS-1/Nc services a single SONET | |||
| network. It also facilitates the certification of equipment for | timeslot or a concatenation of multiple timeslots is used to carry a | |||
| operation in a carrier's network. | single logical circuit. As with structured T1/E1 services, the | |||
| transport framing (i.e. SONET Section and Line Overhead) is | ||||
| terminated, and only the relevant SONET timeslots are carried through | ||||
| the packet network. A single physical SONET interface can be the | ||||
| source of multiple STS-1/Nc services, each of which may be emulated | ||||
| as an independent PWE3 service. | ||||
| There are also inband loopbacks that are used for voice equipment. | 4.2.5. Loopbacks | |||
| These are falling out of favor due to their incompatibility with data | ||||
| services. A PWE device that implements inband loopbacks must have | ||||
| the capability to disable them. | ||||
| 4.2.5. Performance Processing | It could be useful for a PE to process loopback messages as defined | |||
| in [T1.403]. This would allow for isolation of faults in a network. | ||||
| It also facilitates the certification of equipment for operation in a | ||||
| carrier's network. | ||||
| There are also inband loopback commands that are used for voice | ||||
| equipment. These loopback commands are triggered by patterns carried | ||||
| in with the data itself. Voice is limited in the patterns it can | ||||
| present, so it won't falsely mimic the inband loopback command. | ||||
| These inband commands are falling out of favor due to their | ||||
| incompatibility with data services. The inband pattern for the | ||||
| loopback may inadvertently appear in a data stream due to its | ||||
| arbitrary nature. A PE device that implements inband loopbacks must | ||||
| have the capability to disable them. | ||||
| 4.2.6. Performance Processing | ||||
| [T1.403] defines a Network Performance Report Message (NPRM) that | [T1.403] defines a Network Performance Report Message (NPRM) that | |||
| carry periodic reports on the performance of the link. It is | carry periodic reports on the performance of the link. It would be | |||
| desirable for a PWE node to generate these messages, as they are | useful for a PE to generate these messages, as they are frequently | |||
| frequently used for surveillance and trouble-shooting. | used for surveillance and trouble-shooting. | |||
| 4.2.6. LOS/LOF/AIS/RAI | 4.2.7. LOS/LOF/AIS | |||
| Figure 5 shows an example for the generation of AIS and RAI. | Figure 8 shows an example for the generation of AIS and RAI. | |||
| <-- Upstream Downstream --> | <-- Upstream Downstream --> | |||
| LOS +-----+ AIS | LOS +-----+ AIS | |||
| ------X----->|\ /|---------> | ------X----->|\ /|---------> | |||
| | \ / | | | \ / | | |||
| | / \ | | | / \ | | |||
| <------------|/ \|<--------- | <------------|/ \|<--------- | |||
| RAI+Data +-----+ Data | RAI/RDI+Data +-----+ Data | |||
| Figure 5: Generation of AIS and RAI | ||||
| A TDM multiplexer, switch or other path-terminating device must | ||||
| respond to an LOS (Loss of Signal), LOF (Loss of Frame) or AIS (Alarm | ||||
| Indication Signal) condition (collectively known as "red alarms") by: | ||||
| - Generating AIS in the "downstream" direction i.e. the same | Figure 8: Generation of AIS and RAI/RDI | |||
| direction in which the LOS was detected. AIS is conveyed by | ||||
| sending a certain pattern in the data stream. | ||||
| - Generating RAI (Remote Alarm Indication, also known as a "Yellow | A TDM multiplexer, SONET ADM, switch or other line terminating | |||
| Alarm") in the "upstream" direction i.e. in the other direction. | equipment (LTE) must respond to an LOS (Loss of Signal), LOF (Loss of | |||
| RAI is conveyed by sending a certain pattern in the framing. Note | Frame) or AIS (Alarm Indication Signal) condition (traditionally | |||
| that RAI does not interfere with or suppress the payload data. | known as "red alarms") by generating AIS in the "downstream" | |||
| direction i.e. the same direction in which the LOS was detected. AIS | ||||
| is conveyed by sending a certain pattern in the data stream. It may | ||||
| also send RAI (or RDI in SONET) in the "upstream" direction i.e. the | ||||
| opposite direction from that where the LOS was detected. See section | ||||
| 9 of [T1.403] for more information on T1 AIS and RAI. See section | ||||
| section 6.2.1 in [GR253] for more information on the SONET AIS-L and | ||||
| RDI-L signals. | ||||
| Bandwidth can be saved by suppressing the AIS signal in the emulated | Bandwidth can be saved by suppressing the AIS signal in the emulated | |||
| stream and sending instead an indication in the control overhead. | stream and sending instead an indication in the control overhead. | |||
| This also applies to a received AIS signal. [MALIS] discusses the | This also applies to a received AIS signal. [MALIS] discusses the | |||
| propagation of AIS using the pointer bits in the TDM control word. | propagation of AIS using the pointer bits in the TDM control word. | |||
| A device emulating TDM circuit must either replicate the AIS | A device emulating TDM circuit must either replicate the AIS | |||
| indication or indicate this condition in the control overhead. | indication or indicate this condition in the control overhead. | |||
| 4.2.7. SONET/SDH STS Unequipped | 4.2.8. SONET/SDH STS Unequipped | |||
| The "STS Unequipped" indication may be treated in a fashion similar | The "STS Unequipped" indication may be treated in a fashion similar | |||
| to that for LOS/AIS. Bandwidth can be saved by suppressing the | to that for LOS/AIS. As discussed in [MALIS], bandwidth can be saved | |||
| payload in the emulated stream and sending instead an indication in | by suppressing the payload in the emulated stream and sending instead | |||
| the control overhead. | an indication in the control overhead. | |||
| 4.3. Encapsulations | 4.3. Encapsulations | |||
| 4.3.1. Criteria | ||||
| Encapsulation options for TDM services may be compared on the | Encapsulation options for TDM services may be compared on the | |||
| following criteria. | following criteria. | |||
| - Timing - TDM services are very sensitive to timing and timing | - Timing - TDM services are very sensitive to timing and timing | |||
| variations ("jitter"). The encapsulation may need to provide | variations ("jitter"). The encapsulation may need to provide | |||
| additional information to help convey timing. | additional information (such as [RTP] timestamps) to help convey | |||
| timing across the PW. | ||||
| - Line Signals - The encapsulation should provide a means to convey | - Line Signals - The encapsulation should provide a means to convey | |||
| signals such as AIS and line conditions such as LOF. | signals such as AIS and line conditions such as LOF. | |||
| - The encapsulation should minimize overhead. | - The encapsulation should minimize overhead. | |||
| 4.3.2. SONET Encapsulation | 4.4. Timing | |||
| 4.3.2.1. SPE | In the recent Ken Burns Jazz television series, it was said of Louis | |||
| Armstrong that he was very economical with his notes, but that the | ||||
| timing of those notes was everything. The timing of the | ||||
| reconstructed bit stream is similarly important. This section | ||||
| describes the various approaches to this problem. A summary is also | ||||
| provided at the end of the section. | ||||
| The format of the SPE (Synchronous Payload Envelope) for SONET is | 4.4.1. Reference Model | |||
| defined in [GR253]. This mapping is used in [MALIS] as the basis for | ||||
| the encapsulation format. The advantages of this approach include: | ||||
| - It is defined for multiples of 50.112 Mpbs. | Consider the example network shown in Figure 9. In this network, CE1 | |||
| and CE2 are connected by a PW provided by PE1, S1, S2 and PE2. | ||||
| - The structures and methods for synchronization are well defined. | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |||
| | PE1 | | PE2 | G | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| | | | | v | ||||
| +---+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ | +--+ +--+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ | +---+ | ||||
| | | | |P| |D| |P| | | | | | | |P| |E| |P| | | | | ||||
| | |<===|h|<:|e|<:|h|<:::| |<::| |<:::|h|<:|n|<=|h|<===| | | ||||
| | | | |y| |c| |y| | | | | | | |y| |c| |y| | | | | ||||
| | C | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | | | | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | C | | ||||
| | E | | | |S1| |S2| | | | E | | ||||
| | 1 | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | | | | | +-+ +-+ +-+ | | 2 | | ||||
| | | | |P| |E| |P| | | | | | | |P| |D| |P| | | | | ||||
| | |===>|h|=>|n|:>|h|:::>| |::>| |:::>|h|:>|e|=>|h|===>| | | ||||
| | | | |y| |c| |y| | | | | | | |y| |c| |y| | | | | ||||
| +---+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ | +--+ +--+ | +-+ +-+ +-+ | +---+ | ||||
| ^ ^ | | ^ ^ ^ | | | ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ | ||||
| | | | |B | | | |<------+------>| |D | | | | | | | ||||
| | A | +--+ +--+-C | | | +--+ +--+-E | F | | ||||
| | +---------------+ +-+ +---------------+ | | ||||
| | |I| | | ||||
| | +-+ | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ | ||||
| - The line overhead is suppressed. | Where: | |||
| "CEn" is the TDM edge device | ||||
| "PEn" is the PE adaptation device | ||||
| "Sn" is a core switch | ||||
| "A" - "I" are clocks | ||||
| "=" is the T1 Bit Stream | ||||
| ":" is the switched connection | ||||
| "Phy" is a physical interface | ||||
| "Enc" is a PWE3 encapsulation device | ||||
| "Dec" is a PWE3 decapsulation device | ||||
| - The SPE can be extracted from the packet and fed into a SONET | Figure 9: Timing Recovery Reference Diagram | |||
| framer. This facilitates interworking with SONET systems, as shown | ||||
| in Figure 4. | ||||
| The disadvantages include: | For this application to work, CE2 needs to be clocked (by clock E) at | |||
| the same frequency as CE1 (which is being clocked by clock A). A | ||||
| jitter correction buffer at PE2 can handle short-term differences | ||||
| between these two clocks, but over time any absolute difference is | ||||
| going to cause this buffer to overflow or underflow. | ||||
| - There is no support for rates below STS-1. | Bits are clocked into an encapsulation function in PE1 according to | |||
| clock B, which is recovered from the incoming data stream. Clocks A | ||||
| and B will have the same frequency. | ||||
| - There is no support for rates other than multiples of 50.112 Mbps. | The bits are packed into frames and clocked out according to clock C. | |||
| Clock C could be related to clock B, but in most cases these clocks | ||||
| are completely independent. | ||||
| 4.3.2.2. Section/Line | The frames arrive at switch S1, and are clocked out according to the | |||
| internal oscillator on the output interface of switch S1. The frames | ||||
| will depart at the same average rate at which they arrived, but the | ||||
| instantaneous rate will be different on each side of S1. Note that | ||||
| there could be short-term variations due to congestion, but S1 can't | ||||
| experience long-term congestion with respect to the frames carrying | ||||
| emulated data, or the service won't work. | ||||
| This is similar to an SPE, but the section and line overhead are | The frames travel on to switch S2, which again forwards them. Note | |||
| preserved. The advantages of this approach include: | that switch S2 introduces yet another clock, which it uses to | |||
| transmit the packets toward PE2. Again the average rate is | ||||
| preserved, but the instantaneous rate will vary. | ||||
| - It is completely transparent. Any compatibility issues go away. | The frames arrive at PE2 and are clocked into the decapsulation | |||
| function when they arrive (using clock D). Note that clock D will | ||||
| have the same average frequency as A and B, but will have short-term | ||||
| variations. The bits are clocked out of the FIFO according to clock | ||||
| E. Clock F at CE2 is recovered from the bit stream and therefore | ||||
| runs at the same frequency as clock E. | ||||
| - The interface equipment is very simple because no framer is | 4.4.2. Recreating the Timing | |||
| required. The output of an optical transceiver can be fed directly | ||||
| into the packet generation function. | ||||
| The disadvantages include: | The big question is: where does clock E in Figure 9 come from? There | |||
| are 5 possibilities, and these are detailed in the following | ||||
| sections. | ||||
| - In SONET, the user data is carried in the SPE and/or VTs, which are | 1) Clock E is derived from an external source such as clock I or B | |||
| path functions. By analogy, an emulation device should act like | (indirectly via A) at CE1 and G (indirectly via H) at CE2. This | |||
| SONET gear that terminates a section or path. Transporting the | method is described in the "External Timing" section below. | |||
| section or path overhead seems to violate the spirit of the SONET | ||||
| path/line/section model. | ||||
| 4.3.2.3. VT | 2) Clock E could be derived from Clock I and the pointers. This | |||
| approach is described in the "SONET Pointer Justification" section | ||||
| below. | ||||
| SONET VT mapping into an SPE is defined for T1, E1, E3 and T3. An | 3) Clock E is derived from the average rate of Clock D. This is the | |||
| example of VT1.5 mapping is shown in Figure 6 below, reproduced from | "Adaptive Timing" scenario described in a subsequent section. | |||
| [GR253]. | ||||
| 1 2 3 * * * 29 30 31 32 * * * 58 59 60 61 * * * 87 | 4) Clock E is derived from a combination of the local oscillator at | |||
| +--+------------------+-+------------------+-+------------------+ | PE2 and received SRTS timestamps. The "Differential (SRTS)" | |||
| 1 |J1| Byte 1 (V1-V4) |R| | | | |R| | | | | | section below describes this approach. | |||
| +--+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 2 |B3|VT | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+1.5| | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 3 |C2| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 4 |G1| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 5 |F2| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--|1-1|2-1| * * *|7-4|-|1-1|2-1| * * *|7-4|-|1-1|2-1| * * *|7-4| | ||||
| 6 |H4| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 7 |Z3| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 8 |Z4| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | | | +-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| 9 |Z5| | | | |R| | | | |R| | | | | | ||||
| +--+---+---+------+---+-+---+---+------+---+-+------------------+ | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| +-- Path Overhead +--------------------+-- Fixed Stuffs | ||||
| Figure 6: SPE Mapping of VT1.5 | 5) Clock E is derived from inband RTP timestamps. This method is | |||
| discussed in the "RTP" section below. | ||||
| The advantages of this approach include: | 4.4.2.1. External Timing | |||
| - This mapping is well defined. | The simplest method for communicating timing from one end of a system | |||
| to the other is an external timing source, such as clock I in Figure | ||||
| 9. This external timing source is normally a T1 or E1, but it could | ||||
| be delivered via SONET or a GPS receiver. Its 8 KHz frame rate is | ||||
| extracted and used to directly clock the reconstructed data streams, | ||||
| or as an input to a phase-locked loop to synthesize the desired | ||||
| clock. The drawback to this method is that a common external clock | ||||
| is not commonly available in a data network or in a multi-carrier | ||||
| network. | ||||
| - Commercial silicon is available to implement this function. | Note that clock I may actually be two separate clocks of a particular | |||
| accuracy or stratum. The difference in frequency will eventually | ||||
| cause the FIFO to slip, but if the clock is of a high enough accuracy | ||||
| then the slips will be very infrequent. For example, a stratum 1 | ||||
| clock is accurate to one part in 10**11 [G.811]. This gives a | ||||
| frequency slip rate of 15.4**-6 bit-slip/sec: | ||||
| - This mapping is fairly efficient. It requires 27 bytes per VT1.5, | slip rate = 1.544 Mbps * 10**-11 | |||
| which is an overhead of about 10%. | = 15.4**-6 bit-slip/sec | |||
| The disadvantages include: | Taking the reciprocal yields 18 hours/bit-slip: | |||
| - This mapping is inefficient for transport of a few circuits. The | bit slip period = 1 / ( 15.4**-6 bit-slip/sec * 3600 s/h) | |||
| whole SPE must be sent, regardless of how many circuits are | = 18 hours/bit-slip. | |||
| provisioned. | ||||
| 4.3.3. ATM AAL1 Encapsulation | A typical multiplexer has a buffer that is two frames deep. Assuming | |||
| that it starts out centered, the expected time for a slip would be | ||||
| almost 5 months: | ||||
| ATM AAL1/2 is the mapping defined in [I.363.1] and [I.363.2]. It is | frame slip period = 18 hours/bit-slip * 193 bits/frame | |||
| used in [ANAVI] as the basis for the encapsulation. The advantages | = 3474 hours | |||
| of this approach include: | = 145 days | |||
| = 4.8 months | ||||
| - ATM AAL1 is defined for T1, E1, E3 and T3. | This slip rate could be higher or lower depending on the bit rate, | |||
| clock accuracy and the depth of the FIFO. | ||||
| - ATM cells are fairly small. This allows for a low capture delay | 4.4.2.2. SONET Pointer Justification | |||
| and low queuing delay. | ||||
| - ATM cells include SRTS timing information. | SONET defines layers of pointers that allow for the multiplexing and | |||
| transmission of asynchronous signals. These pointers convey the | ||||
| timing of the carried signal with respect to the timing of the | ||||
| encapsulating signal. Each SONET ADM must manipulate these pointers | ||||
| to preserve the timing. This method has the advantage of being well- | ||||
| defined and understood. | ||||
| The disadvantages include: | One way to apply this method to a packet-based network would be to | |||
| ensure that all of the links on a given path are synchronous. This | ||||
| would be difficult for Gigabit Ethernet or POS links. | ||||
| - There is no definition for rates higher than T3. This means that a | Another way would be for each router to update the pointers as the | |||
| different encapsulation format would have to be used for STS-1 and | packet traversed the router. This would be compute intensive. | |||
| higher rates. | ||||
| - There are 5 bytes of overhead for each 48 bytes of payload. This | The method defined in [MALIS] requires pointer manipulation only at | |||
| can be overcome by removing the header at one end of the link and | the end points. It does require an external clock as a reference for | |||
| restoring it at the other. | the pointer adjustments. | |||
| - Telcordia asserts that its U.S. Patent No 5,260,978 for Synchronous | 4.4.2.3. Adaptive Timing | |||
| Residual Timestamp (SRTS) Timing Recovery in a Broadband Network | ||||
| may apply to the ATM Adaptation Layer Type 1 (AAL1). | Adaptive timing is used when an external reference is not available. | |||
| [ATMCES] describes adaptive timing as follows: | ||||
| The adaptive technique does not require a network-wide | ||||
| synchronization signal to regenerate the input Service | ||||
| clock at the output IWF. A variety of techniques could be | ||||
| used to implement Adaptive clock recovery. For example, | ||||
| the depth of the reassembly buffer in the output IWF could | ||||
| be monitored: | ||||
| 1. When the buffer depth is too great or tends to increase | ||||
| with time, the frequency of the Service clock could be | ||||
| increased to cause the buffer to drain more quickly. | ||||
| 2. When the buffer contains fewer than the configured | ||||
| number of bits, the Service clock could be slowed to | ||||
| cause the buffer to drain less quickly. Wander may be | ||||
| introduced by the Adaptive clock recovery technique if | ||||
| there is a low-frequency component to the Cell Delay | ||||
| Variation inserted by the ATM network carrying cells | ||||
| from the input to output IWF. | ||||
| Careful design is required to make adaptive timing work | ||||
| well. The instantaneous buffer depth must be filtered to | ||||
| extract the average frequency and to reject the jitter and | ||||
| wander. | ||||
| Adaptive timing is ideal for many network applications where there is | ||||
| no external timing reference available (needed for SRTS), and where | ||||
| the packet rate is decoupled from the line rate (as in a routed | ||||
| network). Adaptive timing may not meet the requirements of [G.823], | ||||
| [G.824] and other similar specifications. | ||||
| 4.4.2.4. Differential (SRTS) | ||||
| [ATMCES] describes the SRTS (Synchronous Residual Time Stamp) method: | ||||
| The SRTS technique measures the Service Interface input | ||||
| clock frequency against a network-wide synchronization | ||||
| signal that must be present in the IWF, and sends | ||||
| difference signals, called Residual Time Stamps, in the | ||||
| AAL1 header to the reassembly IWF. At the output IWF, the | ||||
| differences can be combined with the network-wide | ||||
| synchronization signal to re-create the input Service | ||||
| Interface clock. | ||||
| The requirement for a network-wide signal is reasonable in a Telco or | ||||
| SONET environment, where such clocks are commonly available. It may | ||||
| be problematic in a packet network. | ||||
| Here is the correspondence between the clocks in Figure 9 | ||||
| and.[I.363.1]. | ||||
| Description I.363.1 Figure 9 | ||||
| ------------------------------------------ | ||||
| Service Clock Fs A, B | ||||
| Network Clock Fn C | ||||
| Derived Reference Fnx Based on C | ||||
| 4.4.2.5. RTP | ||||
| [RTP] uses an absolute timestamp to play out the bits at the same | ||||
| rate that they were received and packetized. RTCP (RTP Control | ||||
| Protocol) provides a means to synchronize the transmit and receive | ||||
| clocks. | ||||
| 4.4.2.5.1. RTP Timestamps | ||||
| Section 4 of [RTP] defines a timestamp that is either 32-bits or | ||||
| 64-bits in size: | ||||
| Wallclock time (absolute time) is represented using the | ||||
| timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP), which | ||||
| is in seconds relative to 0h UTC on 1 January 1900 [NTP]. | ||||
| The full resolution NTP timestamp is a 64-bit unsigned | ||||
| fixed-point number with the integer part in the first 32 | ||||
| bits and the fractional part in the last 32 bits. In some | ||||
| fields where a more compact representation is appropriate, | ||||
| only the middle 32 bits are used; that is, the low 16 bits | ||||
| of the integer part and the high 16 bits of the fractional | ||||
| part. The high 16 bits of the integer part must be | ||||
| determined independently. | ||||
| A 32-bit absolute time stamp with a 16-bit fractional part would give | ||||
| a 15 us granularity (= 1/65535), which is too coarse for circuit | ||||
| emulation. This means that the 64-bit timestamp must be used, with a | ||||
| granularity of 23 ns. | ||||
| The transmit timestamps are created according to clocks B and C at | ||||
| PE1 and interpreted according to clocks D and E at PE2. These two | ||||
| oscillators will vary by some amount, even if they are very accurate. | ||||
| This drift means that RTCP, NTP or some other means must be used to | ||||
| synchronize the clocks at each end. | ||||
| 4.4.3. Summary of Timing Recovery Methods | ||||
| All of the previously described methods for timing recovery can be | ||||
| made to work for Layer 1 circuit services. How then can we compare | ||||
| them? Here are some criteria: | ||||
| - Is an external timing source required? This might be a direct | ||||
| timing source as described in "External Timing", or it could be an | ||||
| indirect source as with SRTS. | ||||
| - Must the PE synthesize clocks? Synthesis of clocks generally | ||||
| requires a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) to create one clock from | ||||
| another. | ||||
| - Is the method provably correct? Some methods such as external | ||||
| timing and SRTS can be proven to meet specifications. The | ||||
| performance of others, such as adaptive timing, is more dependent | ||||
| on particular implementations. | ||||
| Figure 10 below shows a summary of the methods for timing recovery. | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| | Method->| Ext. |SONET|SRTS |RTP/|Adap-| | ||||
| |Parameter |Source| Ptr | |RTCP|tive | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |External timing required? | yes | yes | yes | no | no | | ||||
| |Clock synthesis? | no | yes | yes | yes| yes | | ||||
| |Provably correct? | yes | yes | yes | ? | ? | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| Figure 10: Summary of Timing Recovery Methods | ||||
| 5. Layer 2 (Packet/Cell) Applications | 5. Layer 2 (Packet/Cell) Applications | |||
| 5.1. Layer 2 PW Reference Model | 5.1. Layer 2 PW Reference Model | |||
| Figure 7 below shows the reference model for Layer 2 PWs. The layer | Figure 11 below shows the reference model for Layer 2 PWs. The Layer | |||
| 2 emulated protocols/services include ATM VCC, ATM VPC, Frame Relay | 2 emulated protocols/services include ATM VCC, ATM VPC, Frame Relay | |||
| DLCI, IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.3x link, etc. The nodes marked "S" | DLCI, IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.3x link, etc. The nodes marked "S" | |||
| are protocol-specific switches e.g. Frame Relay switches. | are protocol-specific switches e.g. Frame Relay switches. | |||
| Carrier A Carrier B | Carrier A Carrier B | |||
| ____ ___ | ____ ___ | |||
| Layer 2 _/ \___/ \ ___ | Layer 2 _/ \___/ \ ___ | |||
| +-------+ Link / \____ / \__ Layer 2 | +-------+ Link / \____ / \__ Layer 2 | |||
| |Site A |---------/ +---+ \ / \ Link | |Site A |---------/ +---+ \ / \ Link | |||
| | SE#1=|===============|\S/| || +-----+ \ +------+ | | CE#1=|===============|\S/| || +-----+ \ +------+ | |||
| | |--------\ |/ \|===============|\ /| \--|Site C| | | |--------\ |/ \|===============|\ /| \--|Site C| | |||
| +-------+ \ +---+ || | \ / |=====|=SE#3 | | +-------+ \ +---+ || | \ / |=====|=CE#3 | | |||
| / || | S | / | | | / || | S | / | | | |||
| +-------+ / +---+ || | / \ |=====|=SE#4 | | +-------+ / +---+ || | / \ |=====|=CE#4 | | |||
| |Site B |--------\ |\S/|===============|/ \| \--| | | |Site B |--------\ |\S/|===============|/ \| \--| | | |||
| | SE#2=|===============|/ \| || +-----+ _/ +------+ | | CE#2=|===============|/ \| || +-----+ _/ +------+ | |||
| | |---------\ +---+ / \__ / | | |---------\ +---+ / \__ / | |||
| +-------+ \ / \ _/ | +-------+ \ / \ _/ | |||
| \ ___ ___ \ \_/ | \ ___ ___ \ \_/ | |||
| \_/ \___/ \___/ | \_/ \___/ \___/ | |||
| Figure 7: Layer 2 Interconnect Reference Model | Figure 11: Layer 2 Interconnect Reference Model | |||
| Figure 8 below shows the reference model for PW emulation of Layer 2 | Figure 12 below shows the reference model for PW emulation of Layer 2 | |||
| services. | services. | |||
| Carrier A Carrier B | Carrier A Carrier B | |||
| ____ ___ | ____ ___ | |||
| Layer 2 _/ \___/ \ ___ | Layer 2 _/ \___/ \ ___ | |||
| +-------+ Link / \____ / \__ Layer 2 | +-------+ Link /+-+ \____ / \__ Layer 2 | |||
| |Site A |--------/ +-+ +---+ +---+ \ / \ Link | |Site A |--------/ |P| +---+ +---+ \ / \ Link | |||
| | SE#1=|==========|E|=| R | | R | +-+ | | +-----+ \ +------+ | | CE#1=|==========|W|=| R | | R | +-+ | | +-----+ \ +------+ | |||
| | |-------\ | | | |==| |=| |=|==|=|\ /| | |Site C| | | |-------\ |E| | |==| |=| |=|==|=|\ /| | |Site C| | |||
| +-------+ \ +-+ +---+ +---+ | | | | | \ / |=|===|=SE#3 | | +-------+ \ +-+ +---+ +---+ |P| | | | \ / |=|===|=CE#3 | | |||
| / |E| | | | F | | | | | /\ |W| | | | F | | | | | |||
| +-------+ / +-+ +---+ +---+ | | | | | / \ |=|===|=SE#4 | | +-------+ / +-+ +---+ +---+ |E| | | | / \ |=|===|=CE#4 | | |||
| |Site B |-------\ |E|=| R |==| R |=| |=|==|=|/ \| | | | | |Site B |-------\ |P|=| R |==| R |=| |=|==|=|/ \| | | | | |||
| | SE#2=|==========| | | | | | | | | | +-----+ | +------+ | | CE#2=|==========|W| | | | | | | | | +-----+ | +------+ | |||
| | |--------\ +-+ +---+ +---+ +-+ | | | | | |--------\ |E| +---+ +---+ +-+ | | | | |||
| +-------+ \ / \_______/ | +-------+ \+-+ / \_______/ | |||
| \ / | \ / | |||
| \ _ __ / | \ _ __ / | |||
| \_/ \___/ \____/ | \_/ \___/ \____/ | |||
| Figure 8: Layer 2 PW Emulation | Figure 12: Layer 2 PW Emulation | |||
| 5.2. Ethernet | 5.2. Ethernet | |||
| 5.2.1. Reference Model Scope | 5.2.1. Reference Model Scope | |||
| PW transport of Ethernet operates as a point-to-point trunking | PW carriage of Ethernet operates as point-to-point trunking in a non- | |||
| transport in a non-shared medium. The Ethernet interface can operate | shared medium. The Ethernet interface can operate in a half-duplex | |||
| in a half-duplex or full-duplex mode. Control functions such as IEEE | or full-duplex mode. Control functions such as IEEE 802.3 Carrier | |||
| 802.3 Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection | Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD)[802.3] and | |||
| (CSMA/CD)[802.3] and IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree [802.1D] are not | IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree [802.1D] are not applicable nor within the | |||
| applicable nor within the scope of PWs. However, the PW shall | scope of PWs. However, the PW shall conform to the service | |||
| conform to the service definitions as defined in IEEE 802.1P,Q | definitions as defined in IEEE 802.1P,Q [802.1Q], as required. Also, | |||
| [802.1Q], as required. Also, it shall support all Ethernet framing | it shall support all Ethernet framing i.e. Ethernet Frame and IEEE | |||
| i.e. Ethernet Frame and IEEE 802.3x including IEEE 802.3ac VLAN | 802.3x including IEEE 802.3ac VLAN Tagging [802.3] as well as Jumbo | |||
| Tagging [802.3ac] as well as Jumbo Frame. | Frame. | |||
| 5.2.2. Operational Considerations | 5.2.2. Operational Considerations | |||
| 5.2.2.1. Operational Modes | 5.2.2.1. Operational Modes | |||
| The design of the Ethernet PW must consider the support of the two | The design of the Ethernet PW must consider the support of the two | |||
| operational modes in this framework: | operational modes in this framework. Both modes shall be supported | |||
| for all Ethernet interfaces, i.e. from 10 Mbps to 10,000 Mbps, and | ||||
| Both modes shall be supported for all Ethernet interfaces, i.e. from | the design of the Ethernet PW functions shall be agnostic to the | |||
| 10 Mbps to 10,000 Mbps, and the design of the Ethernet PW functions | Ethernet's link capacity. Both modes shall transparently support the | |||
| shall be agnostic to the Ethernet's link capacity. | address resolution protocols, i.e. ARP, InverseARP, proxy ARP and | |||
| Ethernet-based control protocol (e.g. Generic Attribute Registration | ||||
| Protocol (GARP), GARP VLAN Registration Protocol (GVRP) etc.). | ||||
| Both modes shall support the transparent transport of the address | - Opaque Trunking - In this mode, the ingress PE shall relay all of | |||
| resolution protocols, i.e. ARP, InverseARP, proxy ARP and Ethernet- | the traffic from an Ethernet port into the PW. | |||
| based control protocol (e.g. Generic Attribute Registration Protocol | ||||
| (GARP), GARP VLAN Registration Protocol (GVRP) etc.). | ||||
| - Ethernet Trunking - In this mode, the trunking access pays | - Transparent Trunking - This mode is particularly designed for | |||
| attention only to the MAC header's port information or other MAC | support of Virtual LANs (VLAN). VLAN types include Port-based | |||
| header information e.g. MAC address, protocol type etc. The | VLANs, MAC-Address-Based VLANs, IP-Based VLANs, 802.1Q Tag-based | |||
| processing rules, e.g. classification, filtering, shall be based on | VLANs and 802.10 Security-based VLANs. | |||
| configurable policy. | ||||
| - Virtual LAN (VLAN) Transport - In this mode, a link can carry the | The ingress PE may pay attention to the MAC header and other | |||
| traffic of multiple VLANs through the tagging scheme as specified | relevant VLAN classification information based on the configuration | |||
| in [802.1Q]. The Ethernet PW shall carry multiple VLANs traffic | policy. The Ethernet PW shall carry multiple VLANs traffic and can | |||
| and can extend VLANs across the PWD. Each frame received at the | extend VLANs across the PWD. In the case when 802.1Q Tag-based | |||
| trunking access associated with a particular VLAN indicated by the | VLAN is configured, if the received frame is tagged with a NULL | |||
| given VLAN_ID. If the received frame is tagged with a NULL | ||||
| VLAN_ID, it will be associated with the VLAN equal to the Port's | VLAN_ID, it will be associated with the VLAN equal to the Port's | |||
| default VLAN. At frame transmission, all frames that are sent in | default VLAN. At frame transmission, all frames that are | |||
| this mode shall be tagged except for those assigned for the default | associated with 802.1Q Tag-based VLAN shall be tagged except for | |||
| VLAN. | those assigned for the default VLAN. | |||
| The PWE may provide translation of the VLAN_ID in order to | The PE may provide translation of the VLAN_ID in order to | |||
| facilitate deployment. Note that this does not increase the | facilitate deployment. Note that this does not increase the | |||
| VLAN_ID space, so it has no effect on scalability. | VLAN_ID space, so it has no effect on scalability. | |||
| 5.2.2.2. Quality Of Service Support Considerations | 5.2.2.2. Quality Of Service Support Considerations | |||
| The Ethernet AS shall describe the faithfulness of the PW with | The Ethernet AS shall describe the faithfulness of the PW with | |||
| respect to these attributes described in IEEE 802.1p [802.1Q]. | respect to these attributes described in IEEE 802.1p [802.1Q]. | |||
| - Service Availability - Service availability is measured as ratio | - Service Availability - Service availability is measured as ratio | |||
| between MAC service is unavailable and available. | between times when MAC service is unavailable and when it is | |||
| available. | ||||
| - Frame Loss - The MAC service does not provide guarantees delivery | - Frame Loss - The MAC service does not provide guaranteed delivery | |||
| of service data units. However, the Ethernet PW system should | of service data units. However, the Ethernet PW system should | |||
| consider monitoring frame loss. | consider monitoring frame loss. | |||
| - Frame Misorder - The MAC service does not permit reordering frames | - Frame Misorder - The MAC service does not permit reordering frames | |||
| within the same user-priority for a source and destination address | within the same user-priority for a source and destination address | |||
| pair. | pair. | |||
| - Frame Duplication - The MAC service does not permit duplicating | - Frame Duplication - The MAC service does not permit duplicating | |||
| frames. | frames. | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 25 ¶ | |||
| - Undetected Frame Error Rate - By using the Frame Checksum (FCS) | - Undetected Frame Error Rate - By using the Frame Checksum (FCS) | |||
| calculation for each frame, the undetected frame error rate should | calculation for each frame, the undetected frame error rate should | |||
| be low. | be low. | |||
| - Maximum Service Data Unit Size - The maximum service data unit size | - Maximum Service Data Unit Size - The maximum service data unit size | |||
| is dependent on the access media used. In general, it is the | is dependent on the access media used. In general, it is the | |||
| lowest common denominator of the two adjacent Ethernet interface. | lowest common denominator of the two adjacent Ethernet interface. | |||
| - Priority Tags and Traffic Classes - IEEE 802.1p defines eight | - Priority Tags and Traffic Classes - IEEE 802.1p defines eight | |||
| traffic classes (priority). These are ignored by the PWE. | traffic classes (priority). The PRI bits on the VLAN fields should | |||
| be carried transparently over the PW. COS differentiation on the | ||||
| PW level based on the received 802.1p bits is possible but is out- | ||||
| of-scope. | ||||
| 5.3. Frame Relay | 5.3. Frame Relay | |||
| 5.3.1. Reference Model | 5.3.1. Reference Model | |||
| Frame Relay service offerings often have a different physical format | Frame Relay service offerings often have a different physical format | |||
| and speed at each end of the link. For example, a hub and spoke | and speed at each end of the link. For example, a hub and spoke | |||
| deployment of Frame Relay might provide fractional T1 access at the | deployment of Frame Relay might provide fractional T1 access at the | |||
| spokes and a clear channel T3 to the hub. The Virtual Circuits (VCs) | spokes and a clear channel T3 to the hub. The Virtual Circuits (VCs) | |||
| are aggregated by switches in the Frame Relay network. This is shown | are aggregated by switches in the Frame Relay network. This is shown | |||
| in figure 9 below, where the Frame Relay switches are marked with an | in figure 13 below, where the Frame Relay switches are marked with an | |||
| "F". | "F". | |||
| Wide Area Frame Relay Network | Wide Area Frame Relay Network | |||
| Carrier A Carrier B | Carrier A Carrier B | |||
| ____ ___ | ____ ___ | |||
| Fractional _/ \___/ \ ___ | Fractional _/ \___/ \ ___ | |||
| +------+ T1 / \____ / \__ | +------+ T1 / \____ / \__ | |||
| |Site A|-----------/ +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |Site A|-----------/ +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |||
| |VC #1=|=================|\F/| || +-----+ \ DS3+------+ | |VC #1=|=================|\F/| || +-----+ \ DS3+------+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 24 ¶ | |||
| +------+ \ +---+ || | \ / |======|=VC #1| | +------+ \ +---+ || | \ / |======|=VC #1| | |||
| /\ || | F | / | | | /\ || | F | / | | | |||
| +------+ / +---+ || | / \ |======|=VC #2| | +------+ / +---+ || | / \ |======|=VC #2| | |||
| |Site B|----------\ |\F/|===============|/ \| \---| | | |Site B|----------\ |\F/|===============|/ \| \---| | | |||
| |VC #2=|=================|/ \| || +-----+ _/ +------+ | |VC #2=|=================|/ \| || +-----+ _/ +------+ | |||
| | |-----------\ +---+ / \__ / | | |-----------\ +---+ / \__ / | |||
| +------+ Trans- \ / \ _/ | +------+ Trans- \ / \ _/ | |||
| Atlantic E1 \ ___ ___ \ \_/ | Atlantic E1 \ ___ ___ \ \_/ | |||
| \_/ \___/ \___/ | \_/ \___/ \___/ | |||
| Figure 9: Frame Relay Example Model | Figure 13: Frame Relay Example Model | |||
| Figure 10 shows an emulated network, where Carrier "A" is providing a | Figure 14 shows an emulated network, where Carrier "A" is providing a | |||
| transparent Frame Relay emulation connection to Carrier "B". Here | transparent Frame Relay emulation connection to Carrier "B". | |||
| the emulation is performed by the boxes marked "E", and the resulting | ||||
| packets are carried by the routers marked "R". In this case, the | ||||
| emulated VCs can transparently carry the PVC status signaling (if | ||||
| any) and need not perform any higher layer function. Also, note that | ||||
| the emulation and routing functions could be combined in the same | ||||
| device. | ||||
| Wide Area Frame Relay/Router Network | Wide Area Frame Relay/Router Network | |||
| Carrier A Carrier B | Carrier A Carrier B | |||
| ____ ___ | ____ ___ | |||
| Fractional _/ \___/ \ ___ | Fractional _/ \___/ \ ___ | |||
| +------+ T1 / \____ / \__ | +------+ T1 /+-+ \____ / \__ | |||
| |Site A|------------/ +-+ +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |Site A|------------/ | | +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |||
| |VC #1=|==============|E|=| R | +---+ +-+ || +-----+ \ DS3+------+ | |VC #1=|==============|P|=| R | +---+ +-+ || +-----+ \ DS3+------+ | |||
| | |-----------\ +-+ | |==| |=| |====|\ /| \---| | | | |-----------\ |E| | |==| |=| |====|\ /| \---| | | |||
| +------+ \ +---+ | | | | || | \ / |======|=VC #1| | +------+ \ +-+ +---+ | | | | || | \ / |======|=VC #1| | |||
| / \ | R | |E| || | F | / | | | / \ | R | |P| || | F | / | | | |||
| +------+ / +---+ | | | | || | / \ |======|=VC #2| | +------+ / +-+ +---+ | | |E| || | / \ |======|=VC #2| | |||
| |Site B|----------\ +-+ | R |==| |=| |====|/ \| \---| | | |Site B|----------\ |P| | R |==| |=| |====|/ \| \---| | | |||
| |VC #2=|==============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ || +-----+ / +------+ | |VC #2=|==============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ || +-----+ / +------+ | |||
| | |-----------\ +-+ +---+ / \_ / | | |-----------\ | | +---+ / \_ / | |||
| +------+ Trans- \ / \ _/ | +------+ Trans- \ +-+ / \ _/ | |||
| Atlantic E1 \___ ___ __ \ \__/ | Atlantic E1 \___ ___ __ \ \__/ | |||
| \_/ \___/ \__/ | \_/ \___/ \__/ | |||
| Figure 10: Frame Relay Emulation Example Diagram For Transparent | Figure 14: Frame Relay Emulation Example Diagram For Transparent | |||
| Emulation | Emulation | |||
| Here the emulation is performed by the PEs marked "PE", and the | ||||
| resulting packets are carried by the routers marked "R". In this | ||||
| case, the emulated VCs can transparently carry the PVC status | ||||
| signaling (if any) and need not perform any higher layer function. | ||||
| Also, note that the emulation and routing functions could be combined | ||||
| in the same device. | ||||
| If the Frame Relay switches are to be completely eliminated (as shown | If the Frame Relay switches are to be completely eliminated (as shown | |||
| in figure 11 below), then the emulation service must implement Frame | in figure 15 below), then the emulation service must implement Frame | |||
| Relay PVC status signaling and/or signaling for SVCs. As previously | Relay PVC status signaling and/or connection signaling for SVCs. As | |||
| noted, the emulation and routing functions could be combined in the | previously noted, the PE and routing functions could be combined in | |||
| same device. | the same device. | |||
| Wide Area Frame Relay/Router Network | Wide Area Frame Relay/Router Network | |||
| Carrier A Carrier B | Carrier A Carrier B | |||
| ____ ___ | ____ ___ | |||
| Fractional _/ \___/ \ _____ | Fractional _/ \___/ \ _____ | |||
| +------+ T1 / \____ / \__ | +------+ T1 /+-+ \____ / \__ | |||
| |Site A|----------/ +-+ +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |Site A|----------/ | | +---+ \ / \ Hub Site | |||
| |VC #1=|============|E|=| R | +---+ +-+ || \ DS3 +------+ | |VC #1=|============|P|=| R | +---+ +-+ || \ DS3 +------+ | |||
| | |---------\ +-+ | |==| |=| | || \----| | | | |---------\ |E| | |==| |=| | || \----| | | |||
| +------+ \ +---+ | | | |====================|=VC #1| | +------+ \ +-+ +---+ | | | |====================|=VC #1| | |||
| /\ | R | |E| || / | | | /\ | R | |P| || / | | | |||
| +------+ / +---+ | | | |====================|=VC #2| | +------+ / +-+ +---+ | | |E|====================|=VC #2| | |||
| |Site B|---------\ +-+ | R |==| |=| | || \----| | | |Site B|---------\ |P| | R |==| |=| | || \----| | | |||
| |VC #2=|============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ || _/ +------+ | |VC #2=|============|E|=| | +---+ +-+ || _/ +------+ | |||
| | |----------\ +-+ +---+ / \__ / | | |----------\ | | +---+ / \__ / | |||
| +------+ Trans- \ / \ _/ | +------+ Trans- \+-+ / \ _/ | |||
| Atlantic E1 \___ ___ _ \ \__/ | Atlantic E1 \___ ___ _ \ \__/ | |||
| \_/ \__/ \___/ | \_/ \__/ \___/ | |||
| Figure 11: Frame Relay Emulation Example Diagram For Non-Transparent | Figure 15: Frame Relay Emulation Example Diagram For Non-Transparent | |||
| Emulation | Emulation | |||
| 5.3.2. Operational Considerations | 5.3.2. Operational Considerations | |||
| Frame Relay provides a connection-oriented circuit-based transport. | Frame Relay provides a connection-oriented circuit-based carriage of | |||
| There are two types of virtual circuits supported in Frame Relay: | variable-sized frames. There are two types of virtual circuits | |||
| Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) and Switched Virtual Circuits | supported in Frame Relay: Permanent Virtual Circuits (PVCs) and | |||
| (SVCs). The following sections describe the considerations to | Switched Virtual Circuits (SVCs). The following sections describe | |||
| support the operation of Frame Relay over the PW. | the considerations to support the operation of Frame Relay over the | |||
| PW. | ||||
| 5.3.2.1. Frame Sequence | 5.3.2.1. Frame Sequence | |||
| The PW must deliver frames in the proper sequence. | The PW must deliver frames in the proper sequence. | |||
| 5.3.2.2. Frame Size | 5.3.2.2. Frame Size | |||
| In general, the maximum frame size for Frame Relay is 1600 bytes per | In general, the maximum frame size for Frame Relay is 1600 bytes per | |||
| [FRF.1.2]. This can be made larger in some implementations. If the | [FRF.1.2]. This can be made larger in some implementations. If the | |||
| MTU of the PW is less than (1600 bytes - size of PW headers), a | MTU of the PW is less than (1600 bytes - size of PW headers), a | |||
| fragmentation and reassembly mechanism may be needed. | fragmentation and reassembly mechanism may be needed. | |||
| 5.3.2.3. End-to-end Transport Characteristics | 5.3.2.3. End-to-End Characteristics | |||
| [FRF.5] and [FRF.13] define a set of traffic parameters to support | [FRF.5] and [FRF.13] define a set of traffic parameters to support | |||
| Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The design of the PW should | Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The design of the PW may be | |||
| preserve these end-to-end transport characteristics. | required to preserve these end-to-end transport characteristics. | |||
| 5.3.2.4. Connection Management and Congestion Control | 5.3.2.4. Connection Management and Congestion Control | |||
| Each Frame Relay header contains some connection management | Each Frame Relay header contains some connection management | |||
| information, including | information, including | |||
| - a command/response (CR) bit | - a command/response (CR) bit | |||
| - a discard eligibility (DE) bit | - a discard eligibility (DE) bit | |||
| - a connection ID (DLCI) | - a connection ID (DLCI) | |||
| - an address extension indicator (EA) | - an address extension indicator (EA) | |||
| - Forward/Backward Congestion Notification (FECN/BECN). | - Forward/Backward Congestion Notification (FECN/BECN). Figure 16 | |||
| shows an example of how BECN and FECN are sent. | ||||
| --Congestion-> | ||||
| +-----+ Data+FECN | ||||
| ------------>|\ /|---------> | ||||
| | \ / | | ||||
| | / \ | | ||||
| <------------|/ \|<--------- | ||||
| BECN+Data +-----+ Data | ||||
| Figure 16: Generation of BECN and FECN | ||||
| All of this information is vital to the integrity of the Frame Relay | All of this information is vital to the integrity of the Frame Relay | |||
| circuit. The Frame Relay PW AS shall define an efficient but | circuit. The Frame Relay PW AS must define a means to preserve such | |||
| optimized approach to transport such information across the PWD. | information across the PWD. | |||
| 5.3.2.5. Link Management Support | 5.3.2.5. Link Management Support | |||
| Frame Delay defines a set of link management functions for PVC Status | Frame Delay defines a set of link management functions for PVC Status | |||
| Management as specified in [T1.617D] and [Q.933A]. Link Management | Management as specified in [T1.617D] and [Q.933A]. Link Management | |||
| runs on a dedicated PVC; therefore, its operation does not impact | runs on a dedicated PVC; therefore, its operation does not impact | |||
| actual user data. The management functions include: | actual user data. The management functions include: | |||
| - a heartbeat exchange that verifies that the link is operational | - a heartbeat exchange that verifies that the link is operational | |||
| - a report regarding the status of one or more individual DLCIs | - a report regarding the status of one or more individual DLCIs | |||
| For some networks, such as the one shown in Figure 11, this link | For some networks, such as the one shown in Figure 15, this link | |||
| management is the only means to verify the end-to-end integrity of | management is the only means to verify the end-to-end integrity of | |||
| the Frame Relay virtual circuit. The PWE may required to emulate | the Frame Relay virtual circuit. The PE may required to emulate such | |||
| such functions. These functions will be transparent to the | functions. These functions will be transparent to the underlying | |||
| underlying network. | network. | |||
| Another important consideration is that there should be some | Another important consideration is that there should be some | |||
| coordination between the PW's link status and the associated Frame | coordination between the PW's link status and the associated Frame | |||
| Relay VCs. For example, it might be necessary to tear down the VCs | Relay VCs. For example, it might be necessary to tear down the VCs | |||
| in the presence of a network fault. | in the presence of a network fault. | |||
| 5.3.2.6. DLCI Association | 5.3.2.6. DLCI Association | |||
| There are two scopes of DLCI addressing that have been defined by | There are two scopes of DLCI addressing that have been defined by | |||
| ANSI and ITU-T: Local and Global DLCIs. | ANSI and ITU-T: Local and Global DLCIs. | |||
| - Local DLCI addressing means that DLCI numbers are only significant | - Local DLCI addressing means that DLCI numbers are only significant | |||
| at one end of a Frame Relay virtual circuit at the local interface. | at one end of a Frame Relay virtual circuit. | |||
| - Global DLCI addressing is an extension to PVC status management | - Global DLCI addressing is an extension to PVC status management | |||
| that allows a DLCI number to have universal significance. A global | that allows a DLCI number to have universal significance. A global | |||
| DLCI identifies the same VC at both ends across the network. | DLCI identifies the same VC at both ends of the network. | |||
| In the case when the DLCI is locally significant, the management of | In the case when the DLCI is locally significant, the management of | |||
| the PWD must provide a mechanism to coordinate the DLCIs at the two | the PWD must provide a mechanism to coordinate the DLCIs at the two | |||
| ends of the PW. The association can be done via signaling or | ends of the PW. The association can be done via signaling or | |||
| configuration. | configuration. | |||
| 5.3.2.7. Multiplexing VCs over PWs | 5.3.2.7. Multiplexing VCs over PWs | |||
| To preserve PW tunnel space and to enhance scalability of PWs, it | To preserve PW tunnel space and to enhance scalability of PWs, it | |||
| would be very valuable to allow one or more VCs to be multiplexed | would be very valuable to allow one or more VCs to be multiplexed | |||
| onto the same PW. One scenario might be to associate an entire Frame | onto the same PW. One scenario might be to associate an entire Frame | |||
| Relay logical interface to a PW. Another possibility is that the | Relay logical interface to a PW. Another possibility is that the | |||
| assignment of VCs to the PW could be done via signaling or | assignment of VCs to the PW could be done via signaling or | |||
| management. | management. In either of these cases, the DLCI for each frame would | |||
| need to be preserved across the PW. | ||||
| If such multiplexing approach is used, the earlier discussion related | If such multiplexing approach is used, the earlier discussion related | |||
| to the packet sequencing, end-to-end transport characteristic, SLA | to the packet sequencing, end-to-end characteristics, SLA | |||
| preservation and link status management, shall be addressed with the | preservation and link status management, shall be addressed with the | |||
| same considerations. | same considerations. | |||
| 5.3.2.8. Signaling Transparency | 5.3.2.8. Signaling Transparency | |||
| Since Frame Relay supports SVCs, the PWE may need to support | Since Frame Relay supports SVCs, the PE may need to support signaling | |||
| signaling interworking at the service access for Frame Relay. | interworking at the PWES. InverseARP frames should be passed on | |||
| InverseARP frames should be passed on without interpretation. In | without interpretation. In either case, these frames shall be | |||
| either case, these frames shall be transparent to the underlying | transparent to the underlying PSN. | |||
| transport. | ||||
| 5.3.2.9. Soft PVC Support | 5.3.2.9. Soft PVC Support | |||
| One type of connection service that is provided by Frame Relay | One type of connection service that is provided by Frame Relay | |||
| networks is called the Soft PVC (SPVC). The SPVC may be considered | networks is called a Soft PVC (SPVC). A SPVC may be considered to be | |||
| as three parts: two peer-to-peer PVCs at each end of the edge, and a | composed of three parts: two peer-to-peer PVCs at each side of the | |||
| SPVC between them. Figure 12 shows the SPVC interconnection example. | core, and a SVC between them. | |||
| Figure 17 shows the SPVC interconnection example. | ||||
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ | |||
| | E |========| C |:::::::| C |:::::::| C |======| E | | | E |========| C |:::::::| C |:::::::| C |======| E | | |||
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ | |||
| Where: | Where: | |||
| "E" is the edge switch | "E" is the edge switch | |||
| "C" is the core switch | "C" is the core switch | |||
| "=" is the permanent connection | "=" is the permanent connection | |||
| ":" is the switched connection | ":" is the switched connection | |||
| Figure 12: Example of an SPVC Over a Frame Relay Network | Figure 17: Example of an SPVC Over a Frame Relay Network | |||
| The creation of the SPVC within the core is triggered by detecting | The creation of the SPVC within the core is triggered by detecting | |||
| the existence of the PVCs at the edges. This detection is done | the existence of the PVCs at the edges. This detection is done | |||
| either by network management or by some proprietary signaling. | either by network management or by some proprietary signaling. | |||
| Now consider the case where the Frame Relay Network is replaced by an | Now consider the case where the core switches are replaced by PEs as | |||
| PW network as shown in the Figure 10. The SPVC connection within the | shown in Figure 14. The SVC connection within the core is replaced | |||
| core is replaced by the PW. The behavior of the ingress and egress | by the PW. The PVCs configuration which are maintained by the | |||
| edges of the IP core should still behave in the same way towards the | ingress and the egress CEs of the PWD should remain the same. The | |||
| edge of the two Frame Relay switches at each end. | ingress and egress PEs shall maintain the SPVC behavior such that it | |||
| is transparent to the CEs. | ||||
| 5.4. ATM | 5.4. ATM | |||
| 5.4.1. Reference Model | 5.4.1. Reference Model | |||
| As far as PWs are concerned, ATM is very similar to Frame Relay. We | As far as PWs are concerned, ATM is very similar to Frame Relay. We | |||
| will use the same reference network (Figure 9) for ATM as we did for | will use the same reference network (Figure 13) for ATM as we did for | |||
| Frame Relay. Of course, the Frame Relay switches would be ATM | Frame Relay. Of course, the Frame Relay switches would be ATM | |||
| switches instead. Likewise, the PWE networks shown in Figures 10 and | switches instead. Likewise, the PE networks shown in Figures 14 and | |||
| 11 are applicable to ATM. | 15 are applicable to ATM. | |||
| 5.4.2. Operational Considerations | 5.4.2. Operational Considerations | |||
| Like Frame Relay, ATM provides connection-oriented circuit-based | Like Frame Relay, ATM provides connection-oriented circuit-based | |||
| transport. There are two types of virtual circuit supported in ATM: | carriage of fixed-size cells. There are two types of virtual circuit | |||
| PVC and SVC. In addition to virtual circuit connections (VCCs), ATM | supported in ATM: PVC and SVC. In addition to virtual circuit | |||
| also supports virtual path connections (VPCs). There are also | connections (VCCs), ATM also supports virtual path connections | |||
| permanent virtual paths (PVPs) and switched virtual paths (SVPs). | (VPCs). There are also permanent virtual paths (PVPs) and switched | |||
| virtual paths (SVPs). | ||||
| ATM transports data in fixed size (53 byte) frames called "cells". | ATM carries data in fixed size (53 byte) frames called "cells". | |||
| Higher layer frames are adapted to these fixed size cells via ATM | Higher layer frames are adapted to these fixed size cells via ATM | |||
| Adaptation Layers (e.g. AAL1, AAL2 and AAL5) and SAR. Different | Adaptation Layers (e.g. AAL1, AAL2 and AAL5) and SAR. Different | |||
| types of AALs have different cell header formats, and the cells may | types of AALs have different cell header formats, and the cells may | |||
| contain signaling information. | contain signaling information. | |||
| The following sections describe the set of considerations for PW | The following sections describe the set of considerations for PW | |||
| support of ATM. | support of ATM. | |||
| 5.4.2.1. Cell Sequence | 5.4.2.1. Cell Sequence | |||
| The PW must deliver frames in the proper sequence. | The PW must deliver cells in the proper sequence. | |||
| 5.4.2.2. End-to-end Transport Characteristics | 5.4.2.2. End-to-end Transport Characteristics | |||
| ITU-T [I.356] and ATM Forum [TM4.0] defines a set of traffic and QoS | The ITU-T [I.356] and the ATM Forum [TM4.0] each define a set of | |||
| parameters. The design of the PW shall be capable of maintaining the | traffic and QoS parameters. The AS for ATM PWs should specify how | |||
| end-to-end transport characteristic for such virtual circuit. | the PW will maintain the end-to-end characteristics for such VCs. | |||
| 5.4.2.3. ATM SLA | 5.4.2.3. ATM SLA | |||
| ITU-T [I.371] defines performance targets for managing ATM traffic | The ITU-T [I.371] defines performance targets for managing ATM | |||
| and congestion control. These target may be used by some service | traffic and congestion control. These targets may be used by some | |||
| providers to define their ATM SLAs. The AS for ATM PWs should | service providers to define their ATM SLAs. The AS for ATM PWs | |||
| specify how SLA transparency will be achieved. | should specify how SLA transparency will be achieved. | |||
| 5.4.2.4. Connection Management and Congestion Control | 5.4.2.4. Connection Management and Congestion Control | |||
| The ATM header contains some connection management and congestion | The ATM header contains some connection management and congestion | |||
| control information, as defined in [I.371]: | control information, as defined in [I.371]: | |||
| - Cell Loss priority (CLP) | - Cell Loss priority (CLP) | |||
| - Connection Identifier (VPI/VCI) | - Connection Identifier (VPI/VCI) | |||
| - Payload Type Identifier (PTI) - distinguishes between an OAM | - Payload Type Identifier (PTI) - distinguishes between an OAM | |||
| (Operations, Administration and Management) cell and a user cell | (Operations, Administration and Management) cell and a user cell | |||
| - Explicit Forward Congestion Indication (EFCI) | - Explicit Forward Congestion Indication (EFCI) | |||
| All of these fields are vital to the integrity of the ATM circuit. | All of this information is vital to the integrity of the ATM circuit. | |||
| The ATM PW AS shall define an efficient but optimized approach to | The ATM PW AS must define a means to preserve such information across | |||
| transport such information across the PWD. | the PWD. | |||
| 5.4.2.5. OAM and Link Management Support | 5.4.2.5. OAM Support | |||
| ATM [I.610] defines a set of OAM functions. Likewise, [ILMI] defines | ATM OAM functions are defined in the ITU-T standard [I.610]. OAM | |||
| a Link Management protocol to manage the ATM link, VCCs and VPCs. | cells are used to provide functions like fault management, | |||
| ILMI Link Management runs on a dedicated PVC; its operation does not | performance management and continuity checks. | |||
| impact actual user data. The management function is designed for a | ||||
| "heartbeat" exchange that verifies that the link is operational. It | ||||
| also provides a means to detect mis-configuration. | ||||
| For some networks, such as the one shown in Figure 11, this link | OAM is implemented differently in VCCs and VPCs. In the case of a | |||
| management is the only means to verify the end-to-end integrity of | VCC, the OAM cell is sent along the same VC as the user cells. For a | |||
| the ATM virtual circuit. The PWE may required to emulate such | VPC, the OAM cell is sent over a dedicated VC within the VPC. OAM | |||
| functions. These functions will be transparent to the underlying | flows are also classified as end-to-end flows (covering the entire | |||
| network. | virtual connection) or as segment flows (covering only parts of the | |||
| virtual connection). | ||||
| OAM is often enabled to support important or real-time intensive | The PE may emulate the end-to-end OAM flows by encapsulating the OAM | |||
| traffic. OAM operation differs between VCCs and VPCs. In the case | cells in a PW-PDU. A PE that supports the OAM function should | |||
| of VCC, the OAM cell is sent along the same VC as the user cells. In | support coordination between the OAM behavior between the PE peers. | |||
| the case of VPC, the OAM cell is sent over a dedicated VC within the | For example, an OAM AIS cell at one end can result in PW signaling | |||
| VPC. | that causes the PW link to go down at the far end. If the PE does | |||
| support OAM, the emulation of the OAM function shall be transparent | ||||
| to the underlying network. | ||||
| OAM emulation shall be limited at the edge of the PW only, and the | 5.4.2.6. ILMI Support | |||
| entire operation shall be transparent within the core. | ||||
| Another important consideration is that there should be some | The Integrated Local Management Interface [ILMI] protocol facilitates | |||
| coordination between the PW's link status and the associated ATM VCs. | network deployment and management in several ways: | |||
| For example, it might be necessary to tear down the ATM VCs in the | ||||
| presence of a network fault. | ||||
| 5.4.2.6. VC Associations | - ILMI allows an ATM node to determine the various features supported | |||
| by its neighbors (such as type of signaling, size of connection | ||||
| space etc). | ||||
| Each ATM connection ID has only local significance in the network. | - ILMI allows for smoother administration of ATM addresses through | |||
| This local significance means that each ATM connection identifier | address registration. | |||
| (VPI and/or VCI) is only significant at local ATM interface, and is | ||||
| independent from the ID at the other end of the network. The | ||||
| management of the PWD must provide a mechanism to coordinate the IDs | ||||
| at the two ends of the PW. The association can be done via signaling | ||||
| or configuration. | ||||
| 5.4.2.7. Multiplexing ATM VCs over PWs | - ILMI facilitates automatic configuration of private interfaces. | |||
| - ILMI supports procedures for detecting loss of connectivity through | ||||
| periodic polling. | ||||
| For some networks, such as the one shown in Figure 15, ILMI is the | ||||
| only means to verify the end-to-end integrity of the ATM virtual | ||||
| circuit. It may be desirable for the PE to emulate such functions. | ||||
| If supported, these functions must be transparent to the underlying | ||||
| network. | ||||
| 5.4.2.7. VC Associations | ||||
| Each ATM connection identifier has local significance only. Local | ||||
| significance means that each ATM connection identifier (VPI and/or | ||||
| VCI) is only significant at a local ATM interface, and is independent | ||||
| from the identifier at the other end of the link. The management of | ||||
| the PWD must provide a mechanism to coordinate the identifiers at the | ||||
| two ends of the PW. The association can be done via signaling or | ||||
| configuration. | ||||
| 5.4.2.8. Multiplexing ATM VCs over PWs | ||||
| See the discussion in the "Multiplexing VCs over PWs" sub-section of | See the discussion in the "Multiplexing VCs over PWs" sub-section of | |||
| the previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | the previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | |||
| 5.4.2.8. ATM Signaling Transparency | 5.4.2.9. ATM Signaling Transparency | |||
| See the discussion in the "Signaling Transparency" sub-section of the | See the discussion in the "Signaling Transparency" sub-section of the | |||
| previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | |||
| 5.4.2.9. Soft PVC Support | 5.4.2.10. Soft PVC Support | |||
| See the discussion and figures in the "Soft PVC Support" sub-section | See the discussion and figures in the "Soft PVC Support" sub-section | |||
| of the previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | of the previous "Frame Relay" section of this document. | |||
| 5.4.2.10. Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) | 5.4.2.11. Segmentation and Reassembly (SAR) | |||
| The bandwidth overhead of the ATM cell is about 10% (= 5 overhead | The bandwidth overhead of the ATM cell is about 10% (= 5 overhead | |||
| bytes out of 53 bytes total). For AAL5 traffic [I.363.5], it may be | bytes out of 53 bytes total). For AAL5 traffic [I.363.5], it may be | |||
| more efficient in terms of bandwidth to transport the re-assembled | more efficient in terms of bandwidth to carry the re-assembled AAL5 | |||
| AAL5 frames instead of the individual ATM cells. This would involve | frames instead of the individual ATM cells. This would involve some | |||
| some cost in terms of a SAR operation at each end of the PW. In some | cost in terms of a SAR operation at each end of the PW. In some | |||
| cases, especially if OAM is required to be supported over the PW, the | cases, especially if OAM is required to be supported over the PW, the | |||
| PW may have no choice but to transport the ATM traffic in cell | PW may have no choice but to transport the ATM traffic in cell | |||
| format. | format. | |||
| Whether the ATM traffic is transported in a frame or cell format, it | Whether the ATM traffic is transported in a frame or cell format, it | |||
| is the responsibility of the PWE to emulate the OAM functions to the | is the responsibility of the PE to emulate the OAM functions to the | |||
| adjacent ATM interface at each end. | adjacent ATM interface at each end. | |||
| 6. Timing | 6. PW Maintenance | |||
| In the recent Ken Burns Jazz television series, it was said of Louis | 6.1. PW-PDU Validation | |||
| Armstrong that he was very economical with his notes, but that the | ||||
| timing of those notes was everything. The timing of the | ||||
| reconstructed bit stream is similarly important. This section | ||||
| describes the various approaches to this problem. A summary is also | ||||
| provided at the end of the section. | ||||
| 6.1. Reference Model | It is a common practice to use a checksum, CRC or FCS to assure end- | |||
| to-end integrity of frames. The PW service-specific mechanisms must | ||||
| define whether the packet's checksum shall be preserved across the | ||||
| PWD or be removed at the ingress PE and then be re-calculated at the | ||||
| egress PE. The former approach saves work, while the later saves | ||||
| bandwidth. | ||||
| Consider the example network shown in Figure 13. | For protocols like ATM and Frame Relay, the checksum is only | |||
| applicable to a single link. This is because the circuit identifiers | ||||
| (e.g. Frame Relay DLCI or ATM VPI/VCI) have only local significance | ||||
| and are changed on each hop or span. If the circuit identifier (and | ||||
| thus checksum) is going to change as a part of the PW emulation, it | ||||
| would be more efficient to strip and re-calculate the checksum. | ||||
| +----------+ +----------+ | Other PDU headers (e.g. UDP in IP) do not change during transit. It | |||
| | PWE1 | | PWE2 | | would make sense to preserve these types of checksums. | |||
| | | | | | ||||
| +--+ | -----+ | +--+ +--+ | -----+ | +--+ | ||||
| |E1|=====>FIFO|:::::>|S1|::>|S2|:::::>FIFO|====>|E2| | ||||
| +--+ | -----+ | +--+ +--+ | -----+ | +--+ | ||||
| | ^ ^ | | ^ ^ | | ||||
| | | | |<-------+------>| | | | | ||||
| | A B | | | C D | | ||||
| +----------+ E +----------+ | ||||
| Where: | The AS for each protocol must describe the validation scheme to be | |||
| "En" is the TDM edge device | used. | |||
| "PWEn" is the PWE adaptation device | ||||
| "Sn" is a core switch | ||||
| "A" - "E" are clocks | ||||
| "=" is the T1 Bit Stream | ||||
| ":" is the switched connection | ||||
| Figure 13: Timing Recovery Reference Diagram | 6.2. PW-PDU Sequencing | |||
| A jitter correction buffer at the receive can handle short-term | One major consideration of PW design is to ensure in-sequence | |||
| differences between these two clocks, but over time any absolute | delivery of packets, if needed. The design of the PW for each | |||
| difference is going to cause this buffer to overflow or underflow. | protocol must consider the support of the PSN for in-order delivery | |||
| as well as the requirements of the particular application. For | ||||
| example, MPLS supports connection-oriented transport with a guarantee | ||||
| of in-order delivery. A sequence number in the PW layer is not | ||||
| needed when used with MPLS. IP is connectionless and does not | ||||
| guarantee in-order delivery. When using IP, a PW sequence number may | ||||
| be needed for some applications (such as TDM). | ||||
| Bits are clocked into a FIFO in PWE1 according to clock A, which is | 6.3. Session Multiplexing | |||
| derived from the clock used at E1. The bits are packed into frames | ||||
| and clocked out according to clock B, which is the same as clock B. | ||||
| Clock B could differ from A, as long as there is an indication of the | ||||
| number of bits contained in the PDU. | ||||
| The frames arrive at switch S1, and are clocked out according to the | One way to facilitate scaling is to increase the number of PWs per | |||
| internal oscillator on the output interface of switch S1. The frames | underlying tunnel. There are two ways to achieve this: | |||
| will depart at the same average rate at which they arrived, but the | ||||
| instantaneous bit rate will be different on each side of S1. Note | ||||
| that there could be short-term variations due to congestion, but S1 | ||||
| can't experience long-term congestion with respect to the frames | ||||
| carrying emulated data, or the service won't work. | ||||
| The frames travel on to switch S2, which again forwards them. Note | - For a service like Relay or ATM, all of the VCs on a given port | |||
| that switch S2 introduces yet another clock, which it uses to | could be lumped together. VCs would not be distinguishable within | |||
| transmit the packets toward PWE2. Again the average rate is | the PWD. | |||
| preserved, but the instantaneous rate will vary. | ||||
| The frames arrive at PWE2 and are clocked into the FIFO when they | - Service SDUs could be distinguished within a PW-PDU by port, | |||
| arrive (using clock C). Note that clock C will have the same average | channel or VC identifiers. This approach would allow for switching | |||
| frequency as B, but will have short-term variations. The bits are | or grooming in the PWD. | |||
| clocked out of the FIFO according to clock D. | ||||
| 6.2. Recreating the Timing | 6.4. Security | |||
| The big question is: where does clock D in Figure 13 come from? | Each AS must specify a means to protect the control of the PWE and | |||
| There are 5 possibilities, and these are detailed in the following | the PE/PW signaling. The security-related protection of the | |||
| sections. | encapsulated content of the PW is outside of scope. | |||
| 1) Clock D is the same as clock A, and is delivered by clock E, which | 6.5. Encapsulation Control | |||
| is an "External Timing" source, as described below. | ||||
| 2) If the switches S1 and S2 were synchronous, and SONET-style | 6.5.1. Scalability | |||
| pointers were used, then Clock D could be derived from Clock C and | ||||
| the pointers. This is described in the "SONET Pointer | ||||
| Justification" section below. | ||||
| 3) Clock D is derived from the average rate of Clock C. This is the | Different service types may be required between CEs, Support of | |||
| "Adaptive Timing" scenario described in a subsequent section. | multiple services implies that a range of PWD label spaces may be | |||
| needed. If the PWD spans a PSN supporting traffic engineering, then | ||||
| the ability to supporting label stacking would be desirable. | ||||
| 4) Clock D is derived from a combination of the local oscillator at | 6.5.2. Service Integration | |||
| PWE2 and received RTP or SRTS timestamps. This is described in | ||||
| the "RTP" and "Differential (SRTS)" sections below. | ||||
| 6.3. External Timing | It may be desirable to design a PW to transport a variety of services | |||
| which have different transport characteristics. To achieve this | ||||
| integration it may be useful to allow the service requirements to be | ||||
| mapped to the tunneling label in such a way that the PWD can apply | ||||
| the appropriate service and transport management to the PW. | ||||
| The simplest method for communicating timing from one end of a system | 6.6. Statistics | |||
| to the other is an external timing source. This external timing | ||||
| source is normally a T1 or E1. Its 8 KHz frame rate is extracted and | ||||
| used to directly clock the reconstructed data streams, or as an input | ||||
| to a phase-locked loop to synthesize the desired clock. The drawback | ||||
| to this method is that a common external clock is not commonly | ||||
| available in a data network or in a multi-carrier network. | ||||
| 6.4. SONET Pointer Justification | The PE can tabulate statistics that help monitor the state of the | |||
| network, and to help with measurement of SLAs. Typical counters | ||||
| include: | ||||
| SONET defines layers of pointers that allow for the multiplexing and | - Counts of PW-PDUs sent and received, with and without errors. | |||
| transmission of asynchronous signals. These pointers convey the | ||||
| timing of the carried signal with respect to the timing of the | ||||
| encapsulating signal. Each SONET ADM must manipulate these pointers | ||||
| to preserve the timing. This method has the advantage of being well- | ||||
| defined and understood. | ||||
| One way to apply this method to a packet-based network would be to | - Counts of PW-PDUs lost (TDM only). | |||
| ensure that all of the links on a given path are synchronous. This | ||||
| would be difficult for Gigabit Ethernet or POS links. Another way | ||||
| would be for each router to update the pointers as the packet | ||||
| traversed the router. This would be compute intensive. A final way | ||||
| to use a pointer-based method would be to limit the path to one | ||||
| physical hop. | ||||
| 6.5. Differential (SRTS) | - Counts of service PDUs sent and received, with and without errors | |||
| (non-TDM). | ||||
| [ATMCES] describes the SRTS (Synchronous Residual Time Stamp) method: | - Service-specific interface counts. | |||
| The SRTS technique measures the Service Interface input | These counters would be contained in a MIB, they should not replicate | |||
| clock frequency against a network-wide synchronization | existing MIB counters. | |||
| signal that must be present in the IWF, and sends | ||||
| difference signals, called Residual Time Stamps, in the | ||||
| AAL1 header to the reassembly IWF. At the output IWF, the | ||||
| differences can be combined with the network-wide | ||||
| synchronization signal to re-create the input Service | ||||
| Interface clock. | ||||
| The requirement for a network-wide signal is reasonable in a Telco or | 6.7. Traceroute | |||
| SONET environment, where such clocks are commonly available. From an | ||||
| equipment implementation standpoint, this method is similar to the | ||||
| SONET pointer method, which also uses adjustments that are relative | ||||
| to a separate clock (the line rate in the case of SONET). The | ||||
| advantage of a SRTS approach is from a deployment standpoint. A | ||||
| reference clock must be available at both ends, but not at any of the | ||||
| intervening routers. | ||||
| 6.6. Adaptive Timing | Tracing functionality is desirable for emulated circuits and | |||
| services, because it allows verification and remediation of the | ||||
| operation and configuration of the forwarding plane. [BONICA] | ||||
| describes the requirements for a generic route tracing application. | ||||
| Applicability of these requirements to PWE3 is an interesting | ||||
| problem, as many of the emulated services have no equivalent | ||||
| function. In general, there is not a way to trace the forwarding | ||||
| plane of an TDM or Frame Relay PVC. ATM does provide an option in | ||||
| the loopback OAM cell to return each intermediate hop (see [I.610]). | ||||
| Adaptive timing is used when an external reference is not available. | There needs to be a mechanism through which upper layers can ask | |||
| [ATMCES] describes adaptive timing as follows: | emulated services to reveal their internal forwarding details. A | |||
| common mechanism for all emulated services over a particular PSN may | ||||
| be possible. For example, if MPLS is the PSN, the path for a VC LSP | ||||
| could be revealed via the signaling from the underlying TE tunnel | ||||
| LSP, or perhaps via the proposed MPLS OAM. However, when we are | ||||
| trying to trace the entire emulated service, starting from the CE | ||||
| (e.g. an ATM VCC), then a uniform approach probably will not work and | ||||
| different approaches would be required for different emulated | ||||
| services. | ||||
| The adaptive technique does not require a network-wide | 6.8. Congestion Considerations | |||
| synchronization signal to regenerate the input Service | ||||
| clock at the output IWF. A variety of techniques could be | ||||
| used to implement Adaptive clock recovery. For example, | ||||
| the depth of the reassembly buffer in the output IWF could | ||||
| be monitored: | ||||
| 1. When the buffer depth is too great or tends to increase | [RFC2914] describes how devices connected to the Internet should | |||
| with time, the frequency of the Service clock could be | handle congestion. The discussion of congestion with respect to PWE3 | |||
| increased to cause the buffer to drain more quickly. | will be broken into two sections: CBR applications and VBR | |||
| applications. | ||||
| 2. When the buffer contains fewer than the configured | 6.8.1. VBR Applications | |||
| number of bits, the Service clock could be slowed to | ||||
| cause the buffer to drain less quickly. Wander may be | ||||
| introduced by the Adaptive clock recovery technique if | ||||
| there is a low-frequency component to the Cell Delay | ||||
| Variation inserted by the ATM network carrying cells | ||||
| from the input to output IWF. | ||||
| Careful design is required to make adaptive timing work | VBR applications include Ethernet, Frame Relay, and ATM (other than | |||
| well. The instantaneous buffer depth must be filtered to | AAL CES). During periods of congestion the PE may be able to take | |||
| extract the average frequency and to reject the jitter and | action to communicate to the CE the need to slow down. | |||
| wander. | ||||
| Adaptive timing is ideal for many network applications where there is | 6.8.1.1. Frame Relay | |||
| no external timing reference available (needed for SRTS), and where | ||||
| the packet rate is decoupled from the line rate (as in a routed | ||||
| network). | ||||
| 6.7. RTP | In the presence of congestion, the PE could perform several actions. | |||
| These are the same actions that a Frame Relay switch might take. If | ||||
| available, a measure of the degree of congestion would be useful. | ||||
| [RTP] uses an absolute timestamp to play out the bits at the same | - While a service provide may define an SLA for a Frame Relay | |||
| rate that they were received and packetized. RTCP (RTP Control | Service, Frame Relay itself does not have a guarantee of delivery. | |||
| Protocol) provides a means to synchronize the transmit and receive | Given this fact, the PE could do nothing in the face of congestion. | |||
| clocks. | The Frame Relay application at the CE would then have to detect | |||
| congestion and act appropriately. | ||||
| 6.7.1. RTP Timestamps | - Frame Relay defines BECN as an indication to a Frame Relay device | |||
| that traffic that it sent is experiencing congestion. See Figure | ||||
| 16 for an example of how BECN is sent. For mild congestion, the PE | ||||
| could send BECN back to the CE. The CE could then reduce the | ||||
| amount of traffic being sent. It is worth nothing that many Frame | ||||
| Relay devices ignore BECN. | ||||
| Section 4 of [RTP] defines a timestamp that is either 32-bits or | - The CE could also send FECN in the direction in which congestion is | |||
| 64-bits in size: | occurring. See Figure 16 for an example of how FECN is sent. | |||
| Wallclock time (absolute time) is represented using the | - During congestion, the PE could discard all frames with DE set | |||
| timestamp format of the Network Time Protocol (NTP), which | ||||
| is in seconds relative to 0h UTC on 1 January 1900 [NTP]. | ||||
| The full resolution NTP timestamp is a 64-bit unsigned | ||||
| fixed-point number with the integer part in the first 32 | ||||
| bits and the fractional part in the last 32 bits. In some | ||||
| fields where a more compact representation is appropriate, | ||||
| only the middle 32 bits are used; that is, the low 16 bits | ||||
| of the integer part and the high 16 bits of the fractional | ||||
| part. The high 16 bits of the integer part must be | ||||
| determined independently. | ||||
| A 32-bit absolute time stamp with a 16-bit fractional part would give | - If the PE was aware of the CIR for the VCs, it could drop any | |||
| a 15 us granularity (= 1/65535), which is too coarse for circuit | traffic in excess of CIR. | |||
| emulation. This means that the 64-bit timestamp must be used, with a | ||||
| granularity of 23 ns. | ||||
| The transmit timestamps are created according to the internal | - For severe congestion the PE could take the interface down. If the | |||
| oscillator at PWE1 and interpreted according to the internal | PE was generating the PVC status signaling then these messages | |||
| oscillator at PWE2. These two oscillators will vary by some amount, | could be used to convey the problem to the CE. This approach is | |||
| even if they are very accurate. The effects of this difference (or | not elegant and may not work well with existing Frame Relay | |||
| drift) is considered in the next section. | applications. | |||
| 6.7.2. Analysis of Clock Drift | 6.8.1.2. ATM | |||
| Since the two oscillators will vary or drift over time, the FIFO at | ATM has a forward notification of congestion (EFCI), but unlike Frame | |||
| PWE2 will eventually overflow or underflow, unless this drift is | Relay there is no backwards notification. This leaves the following | |||
| corrected. Figure 14 below shows why this must happen. | choices of action. These are the same actions that an ATM switch | |||
| might take. | ||||
| TDM Frame Boundaries | | | | | | | | - Do nothing and let the ATM application at the CE handle the | |||
| PWE1 Wallclock 125 250 375 500 625 750 875 | problem. This may work for some applications, but it will make it | |||
| PWE1 Timestamps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | difficult for service providers to guarantee a high QoS on the VC. | |||
| PWE2 Wallclock 125 250 375 500 625 700 825 | - If the PE was aware of the traffic parameters for the VCs, it could | |||
| PWE2 Offset 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 | drop any traffic that was out of profile. | |||
| PWE2 Timestamps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | ||||
| RTCP Update 750 | ||||
| Figure 14: Clock Drift | - For severe congestion the PE could take the interface down. This | |||
| In Figure 14, PWE1 has a clock that is running faster than PWE2. | may be worse than doing nothing. | |||
| Note that this difference is exaggerated in the figure. PWE1 sends | ||||
| out packets according to its clock, with timestamps also derived from | ||||
| its clock. PWE2 uses its clock to decide the appropriate times to | ||||
| remove bits from the FIFO. It is clear that packets will arrive | ||||
| faster than they are being removed, and The FIFO at PWE2 will | ||||
| eventually overflow. | ||||
| 6.7.3. RTCP/NTP as a Solution | 6.8.1.3. Ethernet | |||
| One possible solution is to use NTP [NTP] or RTCP [RTP] to coordinate | A PE providing a PW to an Ethernet CE could react to congestion in | |||
| the clocks at PWE1 and PWE2. This is shown in Figure 14 in the row | one of the following ways. | |||
| marked "RTCP Update" where a value of 750 arrives at PWE2. This lets | ||||
| PWE2 create an appropriate offset to correct its output timing. | ||||
| NTP could also be used to ensure that clocks B and D were very close | - A PE could use Ethernet flow control during congestion by sending a | |||
| in their absolute value. | PAUSE frame as described in Annex 31B of [802.3]. | |||
| 6.8. Summary of Timing Recovery Methods | - A PE could do nothing and let the Ethernet application at the CE | |||
| handle the problem. | ||||
| Figure 15 below shows a summary of the methods for timing recovery. | - For severe congestion the PE could take the interface down. This | |||
| may be worse than doing nothing. | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | 6.8.2. CBR Applications | |||
| | Method->| Ext. |SONET|SRTS |RTP/|Adap-| | ||||
| |Parameter |Source| Ptr | |RTCP|tive | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |External timing required? | yes | no | yes | no | no | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |Per-hop manipulation? | no | yes | no | no | no | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |De-jitter buffer? | yes | yes | yes | yes| yes | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |Clock synthesis? | no | yes | yes | yes| yes | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| |Suitable for circuit timing? | yes | yes | yes | yes| yes | | ||||
| +-----------------------------+------+-----+-----+----+-----+ | ||||
| Figure 15: Summary of Timing Recovery Methods | CBR applications include layer 1 applications such as emulated | |||
| 7. Integrity | TDM/SONET streams, as well as layer 2 applications such as ATM AAL1 | |||
| CES. These applications present a constant load on the network at | ||||
| all times. They cannot slow down; they are either running at full | ||||
| speed, or they are impaired. If congestion causes an excessive | ||||
| number of packets to be lost, the PE could take down the interface | ||||
| and send AIS to the CE. There is probably not much point in doing | ||||
| this if the PE is operating in an unstructured mode, as the framer in | ||||
| the CE will probably declare a LOS condition anyway. A PE operating | ||||
| in a structured (framed) mode would always send a clean frame pattern | ||||
| to the CE, so it might be desirable to send AIS to notify the CE that | ||||
| there are problems with the PW. | ||||
| 7.1. Validation | 7. Packet Switched Networks | |||
| Editor's Note: this section will describe how the transported data is | This section discusses various types of PSNs for providing the PW | |||
| verified. It will also discuss whether the native checksum or CRC | transport. The areas of considerations are: | |||
| should be transported or stripped and regenerated. This section | ||||
| needs more work. | ||||
| 7.2. Sequencing | - Explicit Multi-protocol Encapsulation Identifier | |||
| Editor's Note: this section will discuss preservation of order. This | - Transport Integrity | |||
| section needs more work. | ||||
| 8. Management | - Traffic Engineering Ability | |||
| 8.1. Session Multiplexing | - Session Multiplexing | |||
| One way to facilitate scaling is to increase the number of PWs per | - Flow and Congestion Control | |||
| underlying tunnel. There are two ways to achieve this: | ||||
| - For a service like Relay or ATM, all of the VCs on a given port | - Packet Ordering | |||
| could be lumped together. VCs would not be distinguishable within | ||||
| the PWD. | ||||
| - Service SDUs could be distinguished within a PW-PDU by port, | - Tunnel Maintenance | |||
| channel or VC identifiers. This approach would allow for switching | ||||
| or grooming in the PWD. | ||||
| Editor's Note: This section needs more work. | - Scalability | |||
| 8.2. Signaling | - Overhead | |||
| Editor's Note - this section will describe the signaling used to | - QoS and Traffic Management | |||
| establish and destroy sessions, as well as any variable parameters | ||||
| related to encapsulation or operation. This section needs more work. | ||||
| 8.3. Security | 7.1. IP | |||
| Editor's Note: this section will discuss the security of signaling. | Below is a description of the aspects of the Internet Protocol [IP]. | |||
| Security of the transported data is out of scope. This section needs | ||||
| more work. | ||||
| 8.4. Encapsulation Control | Explicit MP Encap ID No support for a full range of multi-service | |||
| protocols e.g. there is no protocol type | ||||
| assigned for ATM or MPLS. | ||||
| Editor's Note - this section will describe the control of variables | Transport Integrity IP has a checksum over the header but not | |||
| related to encapsulation. This section needs more work. | over the payload. | |||
| 8.5. Statistics | Traffic Engineering The TOS bits may be used as DiffServ code | |||
| points. | ||||
| The PWE can tabulate statistics that help monitor the state of the | Session Multiplexing No support for session multiplexing. | |||
| network. Typical counters include: | ||||
| - Counts of PW-PDUs sent and received, with and without errors. | Packet Order No support for preservation of order. | |||
| - Counts of service PDUs sent and received, with and without errors | Tunnel Maintenance Protocols such as L2TP may be used to | |||
| (non-TDM). | establish tunnels using IP packets. | |||
| - Service-specific interface counts. | Flow/Congestion Control No built-in flow control to manage | |||
| congestion. IP relies on the upper layer | ||||
| protocol, e.g. TCP, to perform the | ||||
| congestion management. | ||||
| Editor's Note: This section needs more work. | Scalability It would be hard to imagine a protocol more | |||
| scalable than IP. | ||||
| 8.6. Administrative Status | Transport Overhead Minimum of 20-byte header. | |||
| Editor's Note: this section will describe the control of | QoS/Traffic Management No built-in QoS and traffic management. | |||
| administrative status. This section needs more work. | However, one can apply DiffServ to select a | |||
| per-hop behavior for a class of traffic. | ||||
| 8.7. Operational Status | 7.2. L2TP | |||
| Editor's Note: this section will describe the monitoring of | Layer 2 Tunneling (L2TP) [L2TP] provides a virtual extension of PPP | |||
| operational status. This section needs more work. | across an IP PSN. | |||
| 9. Transport Protocols | Explicit MP Encap ID Supports any routed protocol, e.g. IP, IPX | |||
| and AppleTalk that is supported by PPP. | ||||
| 9.1. IP | Transport Integrity Support a checksum for the entire | |||
| encapsulated frame. | ||||
| Editor's Note: This section describes any protocol-specific | Traffic Engineering No companion traffic engineering mechanism | |||
| considerations for transport over IP. This section needs more work. | to support L2TP tunnel establishment. | |||
| 9.2. L2TP | Session Multiplexing Supports two levels of session multiplexing | |||
| via the use of the "tunnel-id" and "session- | ||||
| id" fields. | ||||
| Editor's Note: This section describes any protocol-specific | Packet Order By supporting the optional sequence number, | |||
| considerations for transport over L2TP. This section needs more | packet re-ordering can be done at the PWE | |||
| work. | ||||
| 9.3. MPLS | Tunnel Maintenance L2TP uses control messages to establish, | |||
| terminate and monitor the status of the | ||||
| logical PPP sessions. These are independent | ||||
| of the data messages. L2TP also provides an | ||||
| optional keep-alive mechanism to detect non- | ||||
| operational tunnel. | ||||
| Editor's Note: This section describes any protocol-specific | Flow/Congestion Control L2TP defines flow and congestion control | |||
| considerations for transport over MPLS. This section needs more | mechanisms for the control traffic only; no | |||
| work. | control for the data traffic. Even so, the | |||
| PE could apply value-added functions such as | ||||
| admission control, policing and shaping of | ||||
| the L2TP tunnel at the aggregate flows | ||||
| level, e.g. DiffServ-TE. | ||||
| 9.4. Common Infrastructure | Scalability Lack of label stacking ability. | |||
| Editor's Note: This section describes the common framework used over | Transport Overhead Minimum overhead is 44-byte (20-byte IP | |||
| the three transport protocols. This section needs more work. | header + 12-byte UDP header + 8-byte minimum | |||
| L2TP header + 4-byte PPP header) to support | ||||
| L2TP encapsulation | ||||
| 10. Acknowledgments | QoS/Traffic Management No built-in QoS and traffic management. | |||
| However, one can apply IntServ or DiffServ | ||||
| to select the preferred transport behavior | ||||
| for the entire tunnel, i.e. one traffic | ||||
| class per L2TP tunnel. | ||||
| 7.3. MPLS | ||||
| Multi-protocol Label Switching [MPLS] is designed to combine Layer 2 | ||||
| switching and Layer 3 routing technology to provide efficient packet | ||||
| processing and forwarding over a variety of link layer and transport | ||||
| technologies e.g. ATM, Frame Relay and SONET. | ||||
| Explicit MP Encap ID No defined standard to identify the | ||||
| encapsulated multi-protocol PDU. | ||||
| Transport Integrity No checksum support. | ||||
| Traffic Engineering Designed with many signaling, routing and | ||||
| traffic management extensions to support | ||||
| traffic engineering. | ||||
| Session Multiplexing Supports session multiplexing via the MPLS | ||||
| label and the EXP field. | ||||
| Packet Order Connection-oriented transport with | ||||
| guaranteed in-sequence delivery. | ||||
| Tunnel Maintenance MPLS signaling provides the ability to | ||||
| establish, terminate and monitor the status | ||||
| of the LSP. | ||||
| Flow and Congestion Control | ||||
| MPLS-TE assumes external admission control, | ||||
| policy and shaping mechanism to provide flow | ||||
| and congestion control at the aggregate | ||||
| traffic level. | ||||
| Scalability Label stacking facilitates scalability. | ||||
| Transport Overhead Minimum overhead is 4-byte + any MPLS | ||||
| extension to support multi-protocol | ||||
| encapsulation and transport. | ||||
| QoS/Traffic Management MPLS-TE supports QoS and traffic management. | ||||
| 8. Acknowledgments | ||||
| This document was created by the PWE3 Framework design team. | This document was created by the PWE3 Framework design team. | |||
| 11. References | 9. References | |||
| 11.1. IETF RFCs | 9.1. IETF RFCs | |||
| [L2TP] W.M. Townsley, A. Valencia, A. Rubens, G. Singh Pall, G. | [L2TP] W.M. Townsley, A. Valencia, A. Rubens, G. Singh Pall, G. | |||
| Zorn, B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC | Zorn, B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol (L2TP)", RFC | |||
| 2661, August 1999. | 2661, August 1999. | |||
| [RTP] H. Schulzrinne et al, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real- | [RTP] H. Schulzrinne et al, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real- | |||
| Time Applications", RFC1889, January 1996. | Time Applications", RFC1889, January 1996. | |||
| [NTP] D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol Version 3", RFC1305, March | [NTP] D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol Version 3", RFC1305, March | |||
| 1992. | 1992. | |||
| 11.2. IETF Drafts | [MPLS] E. Rosen, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", | |||
| RFC3031, January 2001. | ||||
| [IP] DARPA, "Internet Protocol", RFC791, September 1981. | ||||
| 9.2. IETF Drafts | ||||
| [ANAVI] Anavi et al, "TDM over IP" draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt, work | [ANAVI] Anavi et al, "TDM over IP" draft-anavi-tdmoip-01.txt, work | |||
| in progress, February 2001. | in progress, February 2001. | |||
| [MALIS] Malis et al, "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS | [MALIS] Malis et al, "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service Over MPLS | |||
| (CEM) Encapsulation" (draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-03.txt), | (CEM) Encapsulation" (draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-03.txt), | |||
| work in progress, February 2001. | work in progress, February 2001. | |||
| [XIAO] Xiao et al, "Requirements for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- | [XIAO] Xiao et al, "Requirements for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- | |||
| Edge (PWE3)" (draft-xiao-pwe3-requirements-00.txt), work in | Edge (PWE3)" (draft-pwe3-requirements-01.txt), work in | |||
| progress, July 2001. | ||||
| [MARTINI] Martini et al, "Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS" | ||||
| (draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-06.txt), work in | ||||
| progress, May 2001. | progress, May 2001. | |||
| 11.3. ATM Forum | [BONICA] Bonica et al, "Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels" | |||
| (draft-bonica-tunneltrace-01.txt), work in progress, | ||||
| February 2001. | ||||
| [CALLON] Callon et al, "A Framework for Provider Provisioned Virtual | ||||
| Private Networks" (draft-ietf-ppvpn-framework-00.txt), work | ||||
| in progress, February 2001. | ||||
| 9.3. ATM Forum | ||||
| [ATMCES] ATM Forum, "Circuit Emulation Service Interoperability | [ATMCES] ATM Forum, "Circuit Emulation Service Interoperability | |||
| Specification Version 2.0" (af-vtoa-0078-000), January 1997. | Specification Version 2.0" (af-vtoa-0078-000), January 1997. | |||
| [TM4.0] ATM Forum, "Traffic Management Specification Version 4.0", | [TM4.0] ATM Forum, "Traffic Management Specification Version 4.0", | |||
| (af-tm-0056.000), April, 1996. | (af-tm-0056.000), April, 1996. | |||
| [ILMI] ATM Forum, "Integrated Local Management Interface (ILMI) | [ILMI] ATM Forum, "Integrated Local Management Interface (ILMI) | |||
| Specification Version 4.0", (af-ilmi-0065.000), September, | Specification Version 4.0", (af-ilmi-0065.000), September, | |||
| 1996. | 1996. | |||
| 11.4. Frame Relay Forum | 9.4. Frame Relay Forum | |||
| [FRF.1.2] D. Sinicrope, "PVC User-to-Network Interface (UNI) | [FRF.1.2] D. Sinicrope, "PVC User-to-Network Interface (UNI) | |||
| Implementation Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.1.2, July | Implementation Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.1.2, July | |||
| 2000. | 2000. | |||
| [FRF.5] O'Leary et al, "Frame Relay/ATM PVC Network Interworking | [FRF.5] O'Leary et al, "Frame Relay/ATM PVC Network Interworking | |||
| Implementation Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.5, December | Implementation Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.5, December | |||
| 20, 1994. | 20, 1994. | |||
| [FRF.13] K. Rehbehn, "Service Level Definitions Implementation | [FRF.13] K. Rehbehn, "Service Level Definitions Implementation | |||
| Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.13, August 4, 1998. | Agreement", Frame Relay Forum FRF.13, August 4, 1998. | |||
| 11.5. ITU | 9.5. ITU | |||
| [Q.933A] ITU, "ISDN Signaling Specifications for Frame Mode Switched | [Q.933A] ITU, "ISDN Signaling Specifications for Frame Mode Switched | |||
| and Permanent Virtual Connections Control and Status | and Permanent Virtual Connections Control and Status | |||
| Monitoring" ITU Recommendation Q.933, Annex A, Geneva, 1995. | Monitoring" ITU Recommendation Q.933, Annex A, Geneva, 1995. | |||
| [I.356] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Layer Cell Transfer Performance", ITU | [I.356] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Layer Cell Transfer Performance", ITU | |||
| Recommendation I.356, To Be Published. | Recommendation I.356, To Be Published. | |||
| [I.363.1] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer specification: Type 1 | [I.363.1] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer specification: Type 1 | |||
| AAL", Recommendation I.363.1, August, 1996. | AAL", Recommendation I.363.1, August, 1996. | |||
| skipping to change at page 41, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 45, line 5 ¶ | |||
| [I.363.5] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer specification: Type 5 | [I.363.5] ITU, "B-ISDN ATM Adaptation Layer specification: Type 5 | |||
| AAL", Recommendation I.363.5, August, 1996. | AAL", Recommendation I.363.5, August, 1996. | |||
| [I.371] ITU, "Traffic Control and Congestion Control in B-ISDN" ITU | [I.371] ITU, "Traffic Control and Congestion Control in B-ISDN" ITU | |||
| Recommendation I.371, To Be Published. | Recommendation I.371, To Be Published. | |||
| [I.610] ITU, "B-ISDN Operation and Maintenance Principles and | [I.610] ITU, "B-ISDN Operation and Maintenance Principles and | |||
| Functions", ITU Recommendation I.610, February, 1999. | Functions", ITU Recommendation I.610, February, 1999. | |||
| 11.6. IEEE | [G.811] ITU, "Timing Characteristics of Primary Reference Clocks", | |||
| ITU Recommendation G.811, September 1997. | ||||
| [G.823] "The Control of Jitter and Wander Within Digital Networks | ||||
| Which Are Based on the 2048 kbit/s Hierarchy", ITU | ||||
| Recommendation G.823, March 2000. | ||||
| [G.824] "The Control of Jitter and Wander Within Digital Networks | ||||
| Which Are Based on the 1544 kbit/s Hierarchy", ITU | ||||
| Recommendation G.824, March 2000. | ||||
| 9.6. IEEE | ||||
| [802.1D] IEEE, "ISO/IEC 15802-3:1998,(802.1D, 1998 Edition), | [802.1D] IEEE, "ISO/IEC 15802-3:1998,(802.1D, 1998 Edition), | |||
| Information technology --Telecommunications and information | Information technology --Telecommunications and information | |||
| exchange between systems --IEEE standard for local and | exchange between systems --IEEE standard for local and | |||
| metropolitan area networks --Common specifications--Media | metropolitan area networks --Common specifications--Media | |||
| access control (MAC) Bridges", June, 1998. | access control (MAC) Bridges", June, 1998. | |||
| [802.1Q] ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.1Q, "IEEE Standards for Local and | ||||
| Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area | ||||
| Networks", 1998 . | ||||
| [802.3] IEEE, "ISO/IEC 8802-3: 2000 (E), Information | [802.3] IEEE, "ISO/IEC 8802-3: 2000 (E), Information | |||
| technology--Telecommunications and information exchange | technology--Telecommunications and information exchange | |||
| between systems --Local and metropolitan area networks | between systems --Local and metropolitan area networks | |||
| --Specific requirements --Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple | --Specific requirements --Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple | |||
| Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and | Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and | |||
| Physical Layer Specifications", 2000. | Physical Layer Specifications", 2000. | |||
| [802.1Q] ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.1Q, "IEEE Standards for Local and | 9.7. ANSI | |||
| Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area | ||||
| Networks", 1998 . | ||||
| [802.3ac] IEEE Standard 802.3ac, "Supplement to Carrier Sense Multiple | ||||
| Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD)Access Method & | ||||
| Physical Layer Specification. Frame Extension for Virtual | ||||
| Bridged Local Area Networks (VLAN) Tagging on 802.3 | ||||
| Networks," 1998. | ||||
| 11.7. ANSI | ||||
| [T1.403] ANSI, "Network and Customer Installation Interfaces - DS1 | [T1.403] ANSI, "Network and Customer Installation Interfaces - DS1 | |||
| Electrical Interfaces", T1.403-1999, May 24, 1999. | Electrical Interfaces", T1.403-1999, May 24, 1999. | |||
| [T1.617D] ANSI, "Digital Subscriber System No. 1 DSS1 Signaling | [T1.617D] ANSI, "Digital Subscriber System No. 1 DSS1 Signaling | |||
| Specification for Frame Relay Bearer Service", ANSI | Specification for Frame Relay Bearer Service", ANSI | |||
| T1.617-1991 (R1997), Annex D. | T1.617-1991 (R1997), Annex D. | |||
| 11.8. Telcordia | 9.8. Telcordia | |||
| [GR253] Telcordia, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Transport | [GR253] Telcordia, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Transport | |||
| Systems: Common Generic Criteria" (GR253CORE), Issue 3, | Systems: Common Generic Criteria" (GR253CORE), Issue 3, | |||
| September 2000. | September 2000. | |||
| 12. Security Considerations | 10. Security Considerations | |||
| It may be desirable to define methods for ensuring security during | It may be desirable to define methods for ensuring security during | |||
| exchange of encapsulation control information at an administrative | exchange of encapsulation control information at an administrative | |||
| boundary of the transport network. | boundary of the PSN. | |||
| 13. Authors' Addresses | 11. Authors' Addresses | |||
| Prayson Pate | Prayson Pate | |||
| Overture Networks | Overture Networks | |||
| P. O. Box 14864 | P. O. Box 14864 | |||
| RTP, NC, USA 27709 | RTP, NC, USA 27709 | |||
| Email: prayson.pate@overturenetworks.com | Email: prayson.pate@overturenetworks.com | |||
| XiPeng Xiao | XiPeng Xiao | |||
| Photuris, Inc. | Photuris, Inc. | |||
| 2025 Stierlin Court | 2025 Stierlin Court | |||
| skipping to change at page 43, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 46, line 36 ¶ | |||
| Level 3 Communications, LLC. | Level 3 Communications, LLC. | |||
| 1025 Eldorado Blvd. | 1025 Eldorado Blvd. | |||
| Broomfield, CO, 80021 | Broomfield, CO, 80021 | |||
| e-mail: Craig.White@Level3.com | e-mail: Craig.White@Level3.com | |||
| Kireeti Kompella | Kireeti Kompella | |||
| Juniper Networks, Inc. | Juniper Networks, Inc. | |||
| 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. | 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. | |||
| Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |||
| Email: kireeti@juniper.net | Email: kireeti@juniper.net | |||
| 14. Full Copyright Section | ||||
| Andrew G. Malis | ||||
| Vivace Networks, Inc. | ||||
| 2730 Orchard Parkway | ||||
| San Jose, CA 95134 | ||||
| Email: Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com | ||||
| Thomas K. Johnson | ||||
| Litchfield Communications | ||||
| 76 Westbury Park Rd. | ||||
| Watertown, CT 06795 | ||||
| Email: tom_johnson@litchfieldcomm.com | ||||
| 12. Full Copyright Section | ||||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to | |||
| others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it | |||
| or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published | |||
| and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any | |||
| kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are | |||
| included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this | |||
| document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing | |||
| End of changes. 288 change blocks. | ||||
| 902 lines changed or deleted | 1325 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||