network architectures
DESCRIPTION
Network Architectures. OARTech Paul Schopis October 13, 2005. Topics. TFN/OARnet background General MPLS Description What problem are we trying to solve anyway? Early Experiments at ITEC TFN implementation. OARnet Background. Founded in 1987 as part of the Ohio Supercomputing Center - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Network Architectures
OARTech
Paul Schopis
October 13, 2005
![Page 2: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Topics
• TFN/OARnet background
• General MPLS Description
• What problem are we trying to solve anyway?
• Early Experiments at ITEC
• TFN implementation
![Page 3: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
OARnet Background
• Founded in 1987 as part of the Ohio Supercomputing Center
• 90+ higher ed member institutions
• Board of Regents funding
• OSTEER advisory council
• Internet2 GigaPOP
![Page 4: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Third Frontier Network
• Phase 1: replace backbone with dark fiber
• Phase 2: connect 17 universities to network with dark fiber or gig circuits
• Phase 3: connect other universities and colleges
• Phase 4: connect other partners
![Page 5: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Dark Fiber Acquisition
• RFP issued during Summer of 2002
• Dark fiber was strongly preferred, but leased services considered
• Vendors who bid dark fiber were required to offer a minimum of a single pair of fiber over their network
![Page 6: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Dark Fiber Acquisition
• Determined that leased lambdas were too expensive and not widely available
• Selected a bid from Spectrum Networks for single pair of fibers– American Electric Power (AEP)– Williams Communications (Wiltel)– American Fiber Systems
![Page 7: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Spectrum
• We had various responses • The providers in the Spectrum offer bid
individually• No price increase for using Spectrum as
integrator • SBC and others reported no bid bit desired to
bid on future last mile – inter-lata issue
![Page 8: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Dark Fiber Acquisition
• $4.6 M for 20 year IRUs
• $342K/yr for maintenance
• 1600+ route miles
• Truewave, SMF-28, LEAF or Terra Light Fiber
• Aerial and buried
![Page 9: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
TFN Financing
• $21M investment• Financing from Ohio State University
– Loan for fiber ($7M)– Short-term financing ($2M)
• Financing from state capital budget ($8.5M) – Equipment– Last mile to 17 institutions
![Page 11: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Community
• We desired to make this a true community owned network
• Committees with schools participating in decisions and recommendations
![Page 12: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Equipment
• Cisco 15454 integrated solution (DWDM)– all of the amps, mux/demux etc. integrated
• Multi Service Transport Platform (MSTP) – ITU G.709 compliant
• Cisco routers (GSR 12000) and switches• Juniper M7i routers
![Page 13: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Last Mile
• RFP issued in Dec 2003 for last-mile connectivity to all higher education and K-12 sites
• OC3, gig circuits and10 gig circuits
• We did make contact with local fiber providers on backbone bid ex. Buckeye Telesys
![Page 14: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
General MPLS Description
![Page 15: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
General MPLS DescriptionPacket have a 20 bit label that routes it along a “Label Switched Path”. Values range from 0 to 1,048,575.
0 through 15 are reserved for special uses.
Some label ranges have special meanings for specific vendors.
![Page 17: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
General MPLS Description•0 IPv4 Explicit Null Label - No label stacking, must POP label
•1 Router Alert Label - delivered to local router for local processing
•2 IPv6 Explicit Null Label - Same rule as IPv4 except forwarded to IPv6 routing instance.
•3 Implicit Null Label - Control protocol (LDP or RSVP) request for down stream router to POP Label
![Page 18: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
General MPLS Description
Choosing the next hop can be thought of as the composition of two functions. The first function partitions the entire set of possible packets into a set of"Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)". The second maps each FEC to a next hop.
In many ways an IP prefix is a FEC
IP routing protocols are the mechanisms to map IP FECs to a next hop.
![Page 19: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
General MPLS Description
What are the advantages of MPLS?
![Page 20: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
General MPLS Description
MPLS forwarding can be done by switches which are capable of doing label lookup and replacement, but are either not capable of analyzing the network layer headers, or are not capable of analyzing the network layer headers at adequate speed.
![Page 21: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
General MPLS Description
Since a packet is assigned to a FEC when it enters the network,the ingress router may use, in determining the assignment, any information it has about the packet, even if that information cannot be gleaned from the network layer header. For example,packets arriving on different ports may be assigned to different FECs. Conventional forwarding, on the other hand,can only consider information which travels with the packet in the packet header.
![Page 22: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
General MPLS Description
A packet that enters the network at a particular router can be labeled differently than the same packet entering the network at a different router, and as a result forwarding decisions that depend on the ingress router can be easily made. This cannot be done with conventional forwarding, since the identity of a packet's ingress router does not travel with the packet.
![Page 23: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
General MPLS Description Sometimes it is desirable to force a packet to follow a particular route which is explicitly chosen at or before the time the packet enters the network, rather than being chosen by the normal dynamic routing algorithm as the packet travels through the network. This may be done as a matter of policy,or to support traffic engineering. In conventional forwarding,this requires the packet to carry an encoding of its route along with it ("source routing"). In MPLS, a label can be used to represent the route, so that the identity of the explicit route need not be carried with the packet.
![Page 24: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
General MPLS Description Some routers analyze a packet's network layer header not merely to choose the packet's next hop, but also to determine a packet's"precedence" or "class of service". They may then apply different discard thresholds or scheduling disciplines to different packets.MPLS allows (but does not require) the precedence or class of service to be fully or partially inferred from the label. In this case, one may say that the label represents the combination of a FEC and a precedence or class of service.
![Page 25: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
What problem are we trying to solve anyway?
![Page 26: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The Problem
• Goal create an Abilene Premium Service• Need to create “Virtual Wire” ( Smells a lot
like a light path)• Need predictable bandwidth • Need to meet DiffServ EF requirements• Need to be able to signal request for
resources• Needed admission control
![Page 27: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The Solution
• DiffServ Code Point• Queuing mechanisms High Priority• Policy on edge to mark and forward via
high priority queue• Admission control for LSP (MPLS
Tunnels) via marked packets that conformed to requirements
![Page 28: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
The Solution
• LSPs anchored to WRED Queues on WAN side
• All CPE side used High Priority • Tested across multiple BGP Domains • Tested QPPB for discovery of QoS
resources
![Page 29: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
The Solution
• Used RSVP to signal request for “sub-pool” reservation, e.g. guaranteed BW
• Resulted in primitives being incorporated into DSTE-MPLS
• Results used to write RFC 3270
![Page 30: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
AS 1
AS 3
AS 2
AS 3
AS 4
![Page 31: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
AS 1
AS 3
AS 2
AS 3
AS 4
![Page 32: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
AS 1
AS 3
AS 2
AS 3
AS 4
![Page 33: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
AS 1
AS 3
AS 2
AS 3
AS 4
![Page 34: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
TFN implementation
![Page 35: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
TFN implementation
• Needed to migrate to new network
• Needed to provide services such as multicast and IPv6
• Needed to solve fish problem
• Executed test plan based on Abilene test plan
![Page 36: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Legacy POP Design
I1
I2
ATMI2
I1
ATM
I1&I2ATM
POP
Campus
![Page 37: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Legacy POP Design
I1
I2
ATMI2
I1
ATM
I1&I2ATM
POP
Campus
BGP for Route diff
![Page 38: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
New OARnet Design Goals
• Reduce Costs
• Reduce Complexity
• Reduce Maintenance Fees
• Deliver Services
![Page 39: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
MPLS Requirements
• CPE device • PE Provider Edge • P Provider Core LSP Switching Router• We can collapse P and PE to one device• Need CPE for Label to IP binding• I1 will be standard routing• I2 will be Label Switched with BGP multihop to find correct
path• Must deliver advanced services to I2 community
– IPv6, Multicast, Jumbo Frames etc.
![Page 40: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
New Architecture
PE/P
CPE
GigE Aggregator
CPE
GigE
POP Campuses
![Page 41: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
New Architecture
PE/P
CPE
GigE Aggregator
CPE
GigE
Campuses
BGP MultihopLDP Exchange with CoreBGP Multihop
LDP Exchange with Core
MPLS for I2 Routes LFIBIP for I1 Routes FIB
Red = LDP tagged
AS3112
AS600
![Page 42: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
New Architecture
PE/P
LR 1
GigE Aggregator
CPE
GigE
CampusesAS3112
AS600
LR 2
![Page 43: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Rate Cap Architecture
PE/P
CPE
GigE Aggregator
CPE
GigE
Campuses
Red = I2 CapBlue = Commodity CapGreen = Intra State Cap
AS3112
AS600
![Page 44: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Some Implementation Issues
• Had to come up with more robust naming convention– Old ALP1, SWALP1
• Required DNS overhaul– Pseudo CILLY code
• CLMBN-R0, CLMBN-E0, CLMBN-O1, CLMBN-OT1
![Page 45: Network Architectures](https://reader038.vdocument.in/reader038/viewer/2022103006/56813ad6550346895da31326/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Questions?