draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-07.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-08.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT L. Fang, Ed. INTERNET-DRAFT L. Fang, Ed.
Intended Status: Informational Cisco Intended Status: Informational Cisco
Expires: September 4, 2013 N. Bitar Expires: November 1, 2013 N. Bitar
Verizon Verizon
R. Zhang R. Zhang
Alcatel Lucent Alcatel Lucent
M. Daikoku M. Daikoku
KDDI KDDI
P. Pan P. Pan
Infinera Infinera
March 4, 2013 May 1, 2013
MPLS-TP Applicability; Use Cases and Design MPLS-TP Applicability; Use Cases and Design
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-07.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-08.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document provides the applicability of Multiprotocol Label This document provides the applicability of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) with use case studies and Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) with use case studies and
network design considerations. The use cases include Metro Ethernet network design considerations. The use cases include Metro Ethernet
access and aggregation transport, Mobile backhaul, and packet optical access and aggregation transport, Mobile backhaul, and packet optical
transport. transport.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. MPLS-TP Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. MPLS-TP Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Metro Access and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Metro Access and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Packet Optical Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Packet Optical Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. 2G and 3G Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1. 2G and 3G Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. 4G/LTE Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3.2. 4G/LTE Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Network Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Network Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. The role of MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. The role of MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Provisioning mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Provisioning mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Standards compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Standards compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4. End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. PW Design considerations in MPLS-TP networks . . . . . . . 10 3.5. PW Design considerations in MPLS-TP networks . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Proactive and on-demand MPLS-TP OAM tools . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. Proactive and on-demand MPLS-TP OAM tools . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Interworking considerations . . . . . . 11 3.7. MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Interworking considerations . . . . . . 12
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document provides applicability, use case studies and network This document provides applicability, use case studies and network
design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP). Profile (MPLS-TP).
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
Term Definition Term Definition
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
SS-PW Single-Segment Pseudowire SS-PW Single-Segment Pseudowire
TDM Time Division Multiplexing TDM Time Division Multiplexing
TFS Time and Frequency Synchronization TFS Time and Frequency Synchronization
tLDP Targeted Label Distribution Protocol tLDP Targeted Label Distribution Protocol
VPN Virtual Private Network VPN Virtual Private Network
UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
X2 LTE Standardized interface between eNBs for handover X2 LTE Standardized interface between eNBs for handover
1.2. Background 1.2. Background
In recent years, the urgency for moving from traditional transport Traditional transport technologies include SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM.
technologies, such as SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM, to new packet There is a transition away from these transport technologies to new
technologies has been rising. This is largely due to the fast growing packet transport technologies. In addition to the increasing demand
demand for bandwidth, which has been fueled by the following factors: for bandwidth, packet transport technologies offer the following key
1) The growth of new services. This includes: the tremendous success advantages:
of data services, such as IPTV and IP Video for content downloading,
streaming, and sharing; the rapid growth of mobile services, as a Bandwidth efficiency: Traditional transport technologies support
consequence of the explosion of smart phone applications; the fixed Bandwidth, no packet statistical multiplexing, the bandwidth is
continued growth of business VPNs and residential broadband services. reserved in the transport network regardless it is used by the client
2) Network infrastructure evolution. As many legacy transport devices or not. In contrast, packet technologies support statistical
are approaching end of life, Service Providers transition to new multiplexing. This is the most important motivation for the
packet technologies and evolve their transport network into the next transition from traditional transport technologies to packet
generation packet transport. transport technologies. The proliferation of new distributed
applications which communicate with servers over the network in a
bursty fashion has been driving the adoption of packet transport
techniques, since packet multiplexing of traffic from bursty sources
provides more efficient use of bandwidth than traditional circuit-
based TDM technologies.
Flexible data rate connections: The granularity of data rate
connections of traditional transport technologies is limited to the
rigid PDH or SONET hierarchy (e.g., DS1, DS3, OC3, OC12, etc.).
Packet technologies support flexible data rate connections. The
support of finer data rate granularity is particularly important for
today's wireline and wireless services and applications.
QoS support: While traditional transport technology, such as TDM, has
very limited QoS support, packet transport can provide proper QoS
treatment for IPTV, Voice and Video over IP applications.
The root cause for transport moving to packet transport is the shift
of application from TDM to packet. For example, Voice TDM to VoIP;
Video to Video over IP; TDM access lines to Ethernet; TDM VPNs to IP
VPNs and Ethernet VPNs. In addition, network convergence and
technology refreshes demand for common and a flexible infrastructure
that provides multiple services.
As part of MPLS family, MPLS-TP complements existing IP/MPLS As part of MPLS family, MPLS-TP complements existing IP/MPLS
technologies; it closes the gaps in the traditional access and technologies; it closes the gaps in the traditional access and
aggregation transport to enable end-to-end packet technology aggregation transport to enable end-to-end packet technology
solutions in a cost efficient, reliable, and interoperable manner. solutions in a cost efficient, reliable, and interoperable manner.
After several years of industry debate on which packet technology to After several years of industry debate on which packet technology to
use, MPLS-TP has emerged as the next generation transport technology use, MPLS-TP has emerged as the next generation transport technology
of choice for many Service Providers worldwide. of choice for many Service Providers worldwide.
The Unified MPLS strategy - using MPLS from core to aggregation and The Unified MPLS strategy - using MPLS from core to aggregation and
skipping to change at page 10, line 17 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
enterprise customers. enterprise customers.
MPLS-TP is a joint work between IETF and ITU-T. In April 2008, IETF MPLS-TP is a joint work between IETF and ITU-T. In April 2008, IETF
and ITU-T jointly agreed to terminate T-MPLS and progress MPLS-TP as and ITU-T jointly agreed to terminate T-MPLS and progress MPLS-TP as
joint work [RFC5317]. The transport requirements are provided by ITU- joint work [RFC5317]. The transport requirements are provided by ITU-
T, the protocols are developed in IETF. T, the protocols are developed in IETF.
3.4. End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency 3.4. End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency
End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency is highly desirable in order to End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency is highly desirable in order to
enable Service Providers to deploy an end-to-end MPLS solution with a enable Service Providers to deploy an end-to-end MPLS solution. As
combination of IP/MPLS (for example, in the core including service MPLS-TP adds OAM function to the MPLS toolkit, it cannot be expected
edge) and MPLS-TP (for example, in the aggregation/access networks). that a full-function end-to-end LSP with MPLS-TP OAM can be achieved
Using MPLS based OAM in MPLS-TP can help achieve such a goal. when the LSP traverses a legacy MPLS/IP core. Although it may be
possible to select a subset of MPLS-TP OAM that can be gatewayed to
the legacy MPLS/IP OAM, a better solution is achieved by tunneling
the MPLS-TP LSP over the legacy MPLS/IP network. In that mode of
operation, legacy OAM may be run on the tunnel in the core, and the
tunnel end-points may report issues in as much detail as possible to
the MIPs in the MPLS-TP LSP. Note that over time it is expected that
routers in the MPLS/IP core will be upgraded to fully support MPLS-TP
features: once this has occurred, it will be possible to run end-to-
end MPLS-TP LSPs seamlessly across the core.
3.5. PW Design considerations in MPLS-TP networks 3.5. PW Design considerations in MPLS-TP networks
In general, PWs in MPLS-TP work the same as in IP/MPLS networks. Both In general, PWs in MPLS-TP work the same as in IP/MPLS networks. Both
Single-Segment PW (SS-PW) and Multi-Segment PW (MS-PW) are supported. Single-Segment PW (SS-PW) and Multi-Segment PW (MS-PW) are supported.
For dynamic control plane, Targeted LDP (tLDP) is used. In static For dynamic control plane, Targeted LDP (tLDP) is used. In static
provisioning mode, PW status is a new PW OAM feature for failure provisioning mode, PW status is a new PW OAM feature for failure
notification. In addition, both directions of a PW must be bound to notification. In addition, both directions of a PW must be bound to
the same transport bidirectional LSP. the same transport bidirectional LSP.
skipping to change at page 11, line 50 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
for further study. for further study.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Under the use case of Metro access and aggregation, in the scenario Under the use case of Metro access and aggregation, in the scenario
where some of the access equipment is placed in facilities not owned where some of the access equipment is placed in facilities not owned
by the SP, the static provisioning mode of MPLS-TP is often preferred by the SP, the static provisioning mode of MPLS-TP is often preferred
over the control plane option because it eliminates the possibility over the control plane option because it eliminates the possibility
of a control plane attack which may potentially impact the whole of a control plane attack which may potentially impact the whole
network. This scenario falls into the Security Reference Model 2 as network. This scenario falls into the Security Reference Model 2 as
described in [MPLS-TP Sec FW]. described in [RFC6941].
Similar location issues apply to the mobile use cases, since Similar location issues apply to the mobile use cases, since
equipment is often placed in remote and outdoor environment, which equipment is often placed in remote and outdoor environment, which
can increase the risk of un-authorized access to the equipment. can increase the risk of un-authorized access to the equipment.
In general, NMS access can be a common point of attack in all MPLS-TP In general, NMS access can be a common point of attack in all MPLS-TP
use cases, and attacks to GAL or G-ACh are unique security treats to use cases, and attacks to GAL or G-ACh are unique security treats to
MPLS-TP. The MPLS-TP security considerations are discussed in MPLS-TP MPLS-TP. The MPLS-TP security considerations are discussed in MPLS-TP
Security Framework [MPLS-TP Sec FW]. General security considerations Security Framework [RFC6941]. General security considerations for
for MPLS and GMPLS networks are addressed in Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS networks are addressed in Security Framework for MPLS
MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document contains no new IANA considerations. This document contains no new IANA considerations.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel for his review as Routing The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel for his review as Routing
Area Director, Adrian's detailed comments were of great help for Area Director, Adrian's detailed comments and suggestions were of
improving the quality of this document, and thank Loa Andersson and great help for improving the quality of this document, and thank Loa
Adrian Farrel for their continued support and guidance. The authors Andersson and Adrian Farrel for their continued support and guidance.
would also like to thank Weiqiang Cheng for his helpful input on LTE The authors would also like to thank Weiqiang Cheng for his helpful
Mobile backhaul based on his knowledge and experience in real world input on LTE Mobile backhaul based on his knowledge and experience in
deployment, thank Stewart Bryant for his text contribution on timing, real world deployment, thank Stewart Bryant for his text contribution
thank Andrew Malis for his support and use case discussion, thank on timing, thank Russ Housley for his improvement suggestions, thank
Pablo Frank, Lucy Yong, Huub van Helvoort, Tom Petch, and Curtis Andrew Malis for his support and use case discussion, thank Pablo
Villamizar for their comments and suggestions, thank Joseph Yee and Frank, Lucy Yong, Huub van Helvoort, Tom Petch, Curtis Villamizar,
Miguel Garcia for their APPSDIR and Gen-ART reviews and comments and Paul Doolan for their comments and suggestions, thank Joseph Yee
and Miguel Garcia for their APPSDIR and Gen-ART reviews and comments
respectively. respectively.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
skipping to change at page 13, line 29 skipping to change at page 14, line 13
a Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009. a Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009.
[RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport [RFC6372] Sprecher, N., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372,
September 2011. September 2011.
[RFC6669] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations, [RFC6669] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS- Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS-
Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, July 2012. Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, July 2012.
[MPLS-TP Sec FW] Fang, L. Ed., Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Mansfield, [RFC6941] Fang, L. Ed., Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Mansfield,
S., Ed., and R. Graveman, Ed., "MPLS-TP Security S., Ed., and R. Graveman, Ed., "MPLS-TP Security
Framework," draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-09.txt, Framework," RFC 6941, April 2013.
February 2013.
[1588overmpls], Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and [1588overmpls], Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and
L. Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS L. Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
Networks," draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04.txt, February Networks," draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04.txt, February
2013. 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Luyuan Fang Luyuan Fang
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
49 lines changed or deleted 81 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/